Skip to main content

World Energy Outlook 2007 Report

The International Energy Agency released its World Energy Outlook 2007 report last week (purchase required). According to the web page:

The annual World Energy Outlook is the leading source for medium to long-term energy market projections and analysis and has achieved widespread international recognition. It is the flagship publication of the International Energy Agency.
Last Friday I attended IEA’s Executive Director’s and Chief Economist’s presentation on the Outlook here in DC. Needless to say, their assessment of global energy to 2030 kept me tuned in as each point made was intriguing and sobering.

Below are some highlights.

The report analyzed three energy scenarios for the world’s demands: a reference, an alternative policy, and a 450 stabilization case.

The reference scenario is what happens if the world continues down its current path of energy consumption without any “new energy-policy interventions.” By not changing our current trajectory, we can expect a 55% increase in energy demands and a 57% increase in CO2 emissions between 2005 and 2030. China and India will demand nearly half of this energy increase. Not only that, 84% of the overall increase in energy will be fueled by fossil-fuels.

These increases may not sound like much, but according to IPCC calculations, the increase in CO2 emissions is projected to raise global temperatures by about 6 degrees Celsius. As well, $22 trillion is the amount required globally to invest and develop the world’s growing energy infrastructure. If governments do not change any policies under this scenario, nuclear capacity is projected to increase from 368 GW worldwide today to only 415 GW by 2030.

The alternative policy scenario “analyzes the impact on global energy markets of a package of additional measures to address energy-security and climate-change concerns.” If the proposed policies were to transpire, energy demands are projected to increase 38% and CO2 emissions increase 27% by 2030. Under this scenario, the IPCC projects temperatures would only rise by about 3 degrees Celsius by 2030. Nuclear capacity is projected to increase to 525 GW by 2030.

A new scenario, 450 stabilization case, was developed to address what needs to happen in order to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (2005 CO2 concentration levels were at 379 ppm). At 450 ppm, temperatures are projected to increase by less than 3 degrees Celsius. In order to achieve this level, the report projects:

energy-related CO2 emissions would need to peak in 2012 at around 30 Gt and then decline to 23 Gt in 2030 – 19 Gt less than in the Reference Scenario and 11 Gt less than in the Alternative Policy Scenario.
How would this be achieved?
Emissions savings come from improved efficiency in fossil-fuel use in industry, buildings and transport; switching to nuclear power and renewables; and the widespread deployment of CO2 capture and storage in power generation and industry.
Nuclear capacity under this projection would more than double from its current capacity to 833 GW by 2030. Even if this increase were to happen, nuclear would account for only 16% of the necessary reductions in CO2 emissions worldwide. This should speak to the monstrous challenge the world faces in curbing CO2 emissions. Improved fossil-fuel efficiency would account for 27% of the reductions; end-use energy efficiency would provide 13%; biofuels for transportation, 4%; renewables for power, 19%; and CO2 capture and storage, 21%.

India and China

The report spent much of its writing on the energy demands India and China will require in the coming years. The IEA projects that by 2010, China will pass the U.S. "to become the world's largest energy consumer."

The next 10 years are critical for these two countries due to the fact they are ramping up their energy infrastructure to meet their economic demands. Once their power plants are built, the two countries will have little incentive to retire them any time soon. Therefore, it is important to influence them to build emission-free sources of energy like nuclear.


Joffan said…
David, did you see any change from the previous reports on forecasts of nuclear power use? I've noticed that the EIA forecasts for future nuclear have been revised upwards in the previous few issues of their yearly outlook - is this also true of the IEA?

I'm slowly and reluctantly coming the conclusion that sequestration is a technology whose development must be aggresively accelerated, to make any dent in the continuing rise of atmospheric CO2.

Popular posts from this blog

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Why Ex-Im Bank Board Nominations Will Turn the Page on a Dysfunctional Chapter in Washington

In our present era of political discord, could Washington agree to support an agency that creates thousands of American jobs by enabling U.S. companies of all sizes to compete in foreign markets? What if that agency generated nearly billions of dollars more in revenue than the cost of its operations and returned that money – $7 billion over the past two decades – to U.S. taxpayers? In fact, that agency, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), was reauthorized by a large majority of Congress in 2015. To be sure, the matter was not without controversy. A bipartisan House coalition resorted to a rarely-used parliamentary maneuver in order to force a vote. But when Congress voted, Ex-Im Bank won a supermajority in the House and a large majority in the Senate. For almost two years, however, Ex-Im Bank has been unable to function fully because a single Senate committee chairman prevented the confirmation of nominees to its Board of Directors. Without a quorum

NEI Praises Connecticut Action in Support of Nuclear Energy

Earlier this week, Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed SB-1501 into law, legislation that puts nuclear energy on an equal footing with other non-emitting sources of energy in the state’s electricity marketplace. “Gov. Malloy and the state legislature deserve praise for their decision to support Dominion’s Millstone Power Station and the 1,500 Connecticut residents who work there," said NEI President and CEO Maria Korsnick. "By opening the door to Millstone having equal access to auctions open to other non-emitting sources of electricity, the state will help preserve $1.5 billion in economic activity, grid resiliency and reliability, and clean air that all residents of the state can enjoy," Korsnick said. Millstone Power Station Korsnick continued, "Connecticut is the third state to re-balance its electricity marketplace, joining New York and Illinois, which took their own legislative paths to preserving nuclear power plants in 2016. Now attention should