Almost on cue, following oil's $12 rise in two days to $134, the International Energy Agency said the world needs to invest an additional $45 trillion in the decades ahead to vastly expand both nuclear power and wind power capacity to meet global energy needs. Strictly speaking, the IEA's call to action was rooted in reducing the world's greenhouse gas emissions and achieving what it argues will be "a clean, clever, energy future" and not to move away from oil or fossil fuels solely on cost grounds. (pdf)
Still, the report's 2050 ETP Baseline scenario projects that CO2 emissions will rise by 130% and oil demand will rise by 70% - - the latter total being equal to five times Saudi Arabia's current oil production. If the IEA's oil projection is correct, that would suggest additional large increases in the price of oil in the decades ahead - - on top of oil's more than 400% price rise since 2001.
The IEA said, assuming a 3.3% global growth rate during 2010-2050, governments and the private sector would need to invest $45 trillion - - or about three times the annual gross domestic product of the United States - - in energy. During those decades, it recommends building at least 32 new nuclear plants and 17,000 wind turbine units annually; and carbon-capturing 35 coal plants and 20 gas-powered plants annually.
Rising global energy demand
Economist Glen Langan, who underscored that he had not had a chance to review the IEA's report, due to travel, told BloggingStocks Friday a 70% increase in global oil demand is inconsistent with the goal of 3% global GDP growth. "An oil consumption increase of that size would price oil out of the range of practical use," Langan said. "We've seen how much the price of oil has risen with the addition of the Asian economies, so one can only imagine what price it would trade at with a 70% increase in demand from current levels. It's kind of hard to wrap your mind around it."
Nevertheless, Langan noted that the report points to "the undeniable reality" of large increases in global energy needs in the coming decades, due to globalization, over a relatively short time. That necessitates an increase in the use of nuclear power, along with wind/solar and other technologies, he said.
"Short-term, there's no way we can meet electric power needs and begin to stem the rise in world temperatures without nuclear power, unless there's some magical way to reduce global electricity demand by about 50%, which is not going to occur," Langan said. "Thirty, forty years down the road, other technologies may appear to displace nuclear, but short-term there's a large electric power gap that nuclear power has to fill."











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-06-2008 @ 8:17PM
william lindblad said...
If there ever was a piece of opportunistic b.s., this is it. Crying for "more nukes" is about as asinine as you can get - unless there is some vested interest on the part of the promoters. I have some simple reasons against this power source and they are not fear or safety related. They cost too damn much to build and have a finite lifespan. They are expensive to
maintain and require frequent shutdowns. What to do with the spent fuel rods STILL is a question and that applies to the ones that currently exist. Wind and water are cheaper solutions.
6-07-2008 @ 6:58AM
Dan Barnett said...
Why has Solar Power been lost in the shuffle?
6-07-2008 @ 8:26AM
speculator said...
We need to move away as soon as possible. But, economics will dictate how quickly the world moves away. Oil closed up almost $10 yesterday. Rising oil is going to cause adeep recession.
www.theinvestingspeculator.com