7 ms·

Total World Consumption (2017 projection) : 96.92 million barrels per day (up from 92.58 million barrels in 2014) EIA outlook: http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/

by izend 10y ago

Total World Consumption (2017 projection) : 96.92 million barrels per day (up from 92.58 million barrels in 2014) EIA outlook: http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/world.cfm http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/world.cfm Oil will be in demand for a long time. The demand might peak but headlines like this seem to indicate oil isn't needed anymore. Most people do not realize that 6-7 million barrels of oil per day must be found year over year to replenish the depletion of old oil wells. This requirement will drive exploration and investment.

melling 10y ago
Yeah, it's crazy that people think oil is going away. We're 7 billion people on our way to 9 billion, with another billion in the next 15 years. That fossil free future that we dream about isn't getting any closer. Those big solar plants, etc that we read about are a rounding error.
- moomin 10y ago
  You're right. The price going down has, I think, more to do with the effect of fracking in the US. It's getting to the point that the US could be an exporter if it changed its laws. The effect of petro-states will be much the same, though.
  - ARothfusz 10y ago
    We are an oil exporter. We did change the laws. http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/06/investing/us-oil-exports-increase/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/06/investing/us-oil-exports-inc...
    - moomin 10y ago
      I missed that. Thanks for the correction.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - pragone 10y ago
    The US, like everyone else in the world, will always be an oil exporter and an oil importer. The grades of oil differ throughout the world, and are used in different industries.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    More to do with the Saudis pumping more.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      It lacks 2015 and 2016, but the huge ramp up in US production (which fracking has contributed to) has clearly been a big factor: http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/index.cfm?view=production http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/index.cfm?view=product...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- wcummings 10y ago
  This could change faster than you think, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot more solar in 50 years. Solar is now getting to the point it can compete w/ fossil fuels on price, w/o subsidies.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    12-16 years till solar is the dominant form of power generation at its current growth rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics There isn't anything to indicate that growth curve will slow; the manufacturing capacity is already in place, and more continues to be added. There are power purchase agreements at 2 cents/kWh, and I would not be surprised if you see prices below 1 cent/kwh in the next five years. http://www.pv-tech.org/news/43695 http://www.pv-tech.org/news/43695 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/solar-developers-undercut-coal-with-another-record-set-in-dubai https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/solar-dev...
    - coredog64 10y ago
      Can't make fertilizer or plastic out of solar energy.
      - msandford 10y ago
        > Can't make fertilizer or plastic out of solar energy. No, but if you're willing to spend a lot of energy you can pull CO2 out of the air and use it as a feedstock to make various fuels or plastics. Right now I think you'd have to burn 10 gallons of oil to make a single gallon so that's not efficient at all. But if you literally had more solar than you knew what to do with (like Germany does on occasion) you could use that energy to make liquid fuels or plastics. It's at least a decade and probably several decades off. But this is an economic problem, not a technical one.
        labster 10y ago
        In California and other deserts, excess solar can be directed to desalination plants. Our water and energy shortages are essentially the same issue; solving one goes a long way to solving the other.
- tachyonbeam 10y ago
  China installed 20GW of solar in the first half of 2016. They are moving fast.
  - melling 10y ago
    What does 20GW means? If they install 40GW for the next 10 years, is that enough? That's about 1 nuclear power plant: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=104&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=104&t=3
- dx034 10y ago
  Added population will be mostly in poor areas where power consumption is very low. Energy demand will likely be driven by US, China and India in the next decade(s), the process there is important and very positive. Have a look at Gansu Wind Farm in China. [1] They build so many wind turbines there that they had to restrict production until they've finished the corresponding amount of high-voltage cables connecting it to major cities on the coast . Many of these connections have a higher capacity than any other existing in Europe/America. [2] The potential for wind farms in this regions are huge. It's basically a large, windy desert. With enough cables, you can easily power major cities with it. You can even use it for baseload by combining them with batteries or pump storage. The reason that China still adds coal is largely one of politics, similar to Trump's promises in the US. Coal adds jobs close to the cities. They've already built too many plants for demand, many will probably only run for a few years (hard to find sources on that, there are no numbers so everyone is just speculating how many there are). But there are enough resources and potential to power the world's largest energy consumer mostly by renewables. And the picture is not that different for the US, where wind power in some regions is competitive without subsidies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gansu_Wind_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gansu_Wind_Farm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects#Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects#Asia
  - melling 10y ago
    India and China have 1/3 of the world population. The US is less than 5% so it doesn't matter, except we use 20% of the oil. China is already the largest car market and India is rising. China gets over 70% of its electricity from coal. That's great that China is developing solar and wind. Hopefully, it breaks into the double digits in 10 years. We have a long way to go, and we're on a clock.
    - _coldfire 10y ago
      >The US is less than 5% so it doesn't matter The US is the 2nd largest Greenhouse gas emitter on the planet. It matters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
throwaway5752 10y ago
And plastics.
- handedness 10y ago
  Notice how food storage boxes changed considerably in the last few years? It's because they're derived from shale byproducts that are essentially free, if not cost-negative. There's an irony in that we have an overabundance of natural gas due to shale, but oil itself is becoming far less important to the plastics industry than ever before. Related viewing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyfVTBI4dgA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyfVTBI4dgA
  - tim333 10y ago
    I think plastics have been produced mostly from natural gas rather than oil for many years. Ethane & methane are an easier starting point for making polyethylene et al than the varied hydrocarbons in oil.
dx034 10y ago
For a major shift we don't need to see 0 consumption. If consumption for electricity production and transportation is lowered significantly, this would lower demand enough to allow production on low-cost, traditional wells. We could have oil at <$30 and still get at least half the output we get today. This would mean that at least half the countries that are currently producing would be out of business. That includes all production in North America (with some low volume exceptions) and Europe, many African countries and South American countries like Venezuela. A shift in production like this would have major effects. For the order in many emerging countries and the state of the economy and labour markets in developed markets. That the EIA doesn't include a potential collapse of a big US industry sector in their forecast is somehow clear, still doesn't mean that it won't happen. I don't think that they forecasted the decline of coal as drastically as it happened. Oil could be similar, just much bigger.
- narrowrail 10y ago
  What I'm seeing all over this thread is comments being made that don't comport with my knowledge of the energy industry. >I don't think that they forecasted the decline of coal as drastically as it happened Coal is starting to come back in the US right now because natural gas prices are starting to rise. For the first time, as of this month, the US is a net exporter of natural gas. Natural gas production increased 70% '05-'14, which caused it to become cheaper than coal. As the US increases exports, the price will make coal more competitive. US power generation facilities often have both NG and coal based turbines allowing them to switch between the two depending on cost. Be careful forecasting the future of energy from short periods of data; the entire energy industry is cyclical going back to when my grandfather was drilling for oil in the 1920s (he went broke).

by izend 10y ago

melling 10y ago

Yeah, it's crazy that people think oil is going away. We're 7 billion people on our way to 9 billion, with another billion in the next 15 years. That fossil free future that we dream about isn't getting any closer. Those big solar plants, etc that we read about are a rounding error.

moomin 10y ago
You're right. The price going down has, I think, more to do with the effect of fracking in the US. It's getting to the point that the US could be an exporter if it changed its laws. The effect of petro-states will be much the same, though.
- ARothfusz 10y ago
  We are an oil exporter. We did change the laws. http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/06/investing/us-oil-exports-increase/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/06/investing/us-oil-exports-inc...
  - moomin 10y ago
    I missed that. Thanks for the correction.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- pragone 10y ago
  The US, like everyone else in the world, will always be an oil exporter and an oil importer. The grades of oil differ throughout the world, and are used in different industries.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  More to do with the Saudis pumping more.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    It lacks 2015 and 2016, but the huge ramp up in US production (which fracking has contributed to) has clearly been a big factor: http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/index.cfm?view=production http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/index.cfm?view=product...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wcummings 10y ago
This could change faster than you think, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot more solar in 50 years. Solar is now getting to the point it can compete w/ fossil fuels on price, w/o subsidies.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  12-16 years till solar is the dominant form of power generation at its current growth rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics There isn't anything to indicate that growth curve will slow; the manufacturing capacity is already in place, and more continues to be added. There are power purchase agreements at 2 cents/kWh, and I would not be surprised if you see prices below 1 cent/kwh in the next five years. http://www.pv-tech.org/news/43695 http://www.pv-tech.org/news/43695 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/solar-developers-undercut-coal-with-another-record-set-in-dubai https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/solar-dev...
  - coredog64 10y ago
    Can't make fertilizer or plastic out of solar energy.
    - msandford 10y ago
      > Can't make fertilizer or plastic out of solar energy. No, but if you're willing to spend a lot of energy you can pull CO2 out of the air and use it as a feedstock to make various fuels or plastics. Right now I think you'd have to burn 10 gallons of oil to make a single gallon so that's not efficient at all. But if you literally had more solar than you knew what to do with (like Germany does on occasion) you could use that energy to make liquid fuels or plastics. It's at least a decade and probably several decades off. But this is an economic problem, not a technical one.
      - labster 10y ago
        In California and other deserts, excess solar can be directed to desalination plants. Our water and energy shortages are essentially the same issue; solving one goes a long way to solving the other.
tachyonbeam 10y ago
China installed 20GW of solar in the first half of 2016. They are moving fast.
- melling 10y ago
  What does 20GW means? If they install 40GW for the next 10 years, is that enough? That's about 1 nuclear power plant: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=104&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=104&t=3
dx034 10y ago
Added population will be mostly in poor areas where power consumption is very low. Energy demand will likely be driven by US, China and India in the next decade(s), the process there is important and very positive. Have a look at Gansu Wind Farm in China. [1] They build so many wind turbines there that they had to restrict production until they've finished the corresponding amount of high-voltage cables connecting it to major cities on the coast . Many of these connections have a higher capacity than any other existing in Europe/America. [2] The potential for wind farms in this regions are huge. It's basically a large, windy desert. With enough cables, you can easily power major cities with it. You can even use it for baseload by combining them with batteries or pump storage. The reason that China still adds coal is largely one of politics, similar to Trump's promises in the US. Coal adds jobs close to the cities. They've already built too many plants for demand, many will probably only run for a few years (hard to find sources on that, there are no numbers so everyone is just speculating how many there are). But there are enough resources and potential to power the world's largest energy consumer mostly by renewables. And the picture is not that different for the US, where wind power in some regions is competitive without subsidies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gansu_Wind_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gansu_Wind_Farm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects#Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects#Asia
- melling 10y ago
  India and China have 1/3 of the world population. The US is less than 5% so it doesn't matter, except we use 20% of the oil. China is already the largest car market and India is rising. China gets over 70% of its electricity from coal. That's great that China is developing solar and wind. Hopefully, it breaks into the double digits in 10 years. We have a long way to go, and we're on a clock.
  - _coldfire 10y ago
    >The US is less than 5% so it doesn't matter The US is the 2nd largest Greenhouse gas emitter on the planet. It matters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

throwaway5752 10y ago

And plastics.

handedness 10y ago
Notice how food storage boxes changed considerably in the last few years? It's because they're derived from shale byproducts that are essentially free, if not cost-negative. There's an irony in that we have an overabundance of natural gas due to shale, but oil itself is becoming far less important to the plastics industry than ever before. Related viewing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyfVTBI4dgA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyfVTBI4dgA
- tim333 10y ago
  I think plastics have been produced mostly from natural gas rather than oil for many years. Ethane & methane are an easier starting point for making polyethylene et al than the varied hydrocarbons in oil.

dx034 10y ago

For a major shift we don't need to see 0 consumption. If consumption for electricity production and transportation is lowered significantly, this would lower demand enough to allow production on low-cost, traditional wells. We could have oil at <$30 and still get at least half the output we get today. This would mean that at least half the countries that are currently producing would be out of business. That includes all production in North America (with some low volume exceptions) and Europe, many African countries and South American countries like Venezuela. A shift in production like this would have major effects. For the order in many emerging countries and the state of the economy and labour markets in developed markets. That the EIA doesn't include a potential collapse of a big US industry sector in their forecast is somehow clear, still doesn't mean that it won't happen. I don't think that they forecasted the decline of coal as drastically as it happened. Oil could be similar, just much bigger.

narrowrail 10y ago
What I'm seeing all over this thread is comments being made that don't comport with my knowledge of the energy industry. >I don't think that they forecasted the decline of coal as drastically as it happened Coal is starting to come back in the US right now because natural gas prices are starting to rise. For the first time, as of this month, the US is a net exporter of natural gas. Natural gas production increased 70% '05-'14, which caused it to become cheaper than coal. As the US increases exports, the price will make coal more competitive. US power generation facilities often have both NG and coal based turbines allowing them to switch between the two depending on cost. Be careful forecasting the future of energy from short periods of data; the entire energy industry is cyclical going back to when my grandfather was drilling for oil in the 1920s (he went broke).