Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

IEA Believes 20% Energy Savings Possible by 2035

By - Source: IEA | B 25 comments

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has released its latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) right on the heels of reporting that North America is on its way to become energy self-sufficient within 25 years.

The report outlines a "transformational shift" in the global energy landscape, expansion of energy availability to satisfy demand, and subdued expectations about achievable energy savings.

According to the IEA, energy savings will be just important in energy supply as traditional supply. By 2035, energy savings can amount to about 20 percent of the energy consumption in 2010, the organization said. "In other words, energy efficiency is just as important as unconstrained energy supply, and increased action on efficiency can serve as a unifying energy policy that brings multiple benefits," the organization stated.

Among the data published are the following forecasts:

- The U.S. will be a net exporter of natural gas by 2020 and will be almost self-sufficient in energy by 2035
- Almost 90 percent of oil resources provided by the Middle east will go to Asia by 2035
- Global oil demand will be more than 99 million barrels per day by 2035, up from 1.7 million barrels per day in 2010
- The oil price will hit $215 (nominal) per barrel in 2035
- Iraq will be surpassing Russia as the world's second largest oil exporter in 2035, and account for 45 percent of the growth in global oil production
- Demand for natural gas will grow by 50 percent to 5 trillion cubic meters in 2035, and global coal demand will increase by 21 percent with a focus on China and India
- Renewable energies will be the world’s second-largest source of power generation by 2015 and close in on coal as the primary source by 2035
- $4.8 trillion in subsidies for renewables will be required until 2035
- 15 percent of the world's available water is tied up in energy production; by 2035 that amount will increase by 85 percent due to the usage in greater power production and biofuels

"Our analysis shows that in the absence of a concerted policy push, two-thirds of the economically viable potential to improve energy efficiency will remain unrealized through to 2035," said Fatih Birol, IEA Chief Economist and the WEO’s lead author. "Action to improve energy efficiency could delay the complete ‘lock-in’ of the allowable emissions of carbon dioxide under a 2oC trajectory, which is currently set to happen in 2017, until 2022, buying time to secure a much-needed global climate agreement. It would also bring substantial energy security and economic benefits, including cutting fuel bills by 20% on average."

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Display 25 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 12 Hide
    edogawa , January 27, 2013 9:08 PM
    "Global oil demand will be more than 99 million barrels per day by 2035, up from 1.7 million barrels per day in 2010."

    My god, that's a lot of oil each day.
  • 12 Hide
    Cazalan , January 27, 2013 9:20 PM
    http://omrpublic.iea.org/

    This site says we're already consuming 90 million barrels per day in 2013.

Other Comments
  • 12 Hide
    edogawa , January 27, 2013 9:08 PM
    "Global oil demand will be more than 99 million barrels per day by 2035, up from 1.7 million barrels per day in 2010."

    My god, that's a lot of oil each day.
  • 12 Hide
    Cazalan , January 27, 2013 9:20 PM
    http://omrpublic.iea.org/

    This site says we're already consuming 90 million barrels per day in 2013.

  • 2 Hide
    A Bad Day , January 27, 2013 9:20 PM
    Seems a bit optimistic. When there were news that US Congress was toying with the idea of restricting the sales of "energy-inefficient" bulbs (aka incandescent bulbs), there was a massive increase in sales of the bulbs because people were hoarding them in fears of the sale of the bulbs being banned.
  • 2 Hide
    Cazalan , January 27, 2013 9:21 PM
    And no mention of geothermal which is nearly limitless supply, but costly.
  • 2 Hide
    A Bad Day , January 27, 2013 9:24 PM
    EDIT: If you also check the comment sections of the online news article, you'll notice an usually large amount of anti-LED/Fluorescent light bulbs.

    Also, when my dad purchased a house, the contractor used only incandescent bulbs to save construction costs. Then when a few of the bulbs burnt out, my dad bought more incandescent bulbs because the fluorescent and LED bulbs were "too expensive".
  • 1 Hide
    A Bad Day , January 27, 2013 9:27 PM
    CazalanAnd no mention of geothermal which is nearly limitless supply, but costly.


    We humans are quite susceptible to "false economy". Look up Chainsaw Al; that's the nickname of a former CEO of Sunbeam who initially boosted profits of the struggling company in the late 1990's, then drove it into the ground.
  • 3 Hide
    CKKwan , January 27, 2013 9:44 PM
    Where is the fusion technology (ITER) that promissed in 2025?
  • 3 Hide
    Anonymous , January 27, 2013 9:48 PM
    And yet they don't mention Canada since were starting tons of new Energy things. Oh well sometimes I forget we don't exist.
  • -8 Hide
    mikenygmail , January 27, 2013 9:53 PM
    "15 percent of the world's available water is tied up in energy production; by 2035 that amount will increase by 85 percent due to the usage in greater power production and biofuels"

    85 + 15 = 100% of the world's available water will be tied up in energy production?
    Exactly what is meant by "world's available water?"
  • 7 Hide
    mikenygmail , January 27, 2013 9:54 PM
    goodman854And yet they don't mention Canada since were starting tons of new Energy things. Oh well sometimes I forget we don't exist.


    Well your typing is already fading away, so be careful what you wish for...
  • 3 Hide
    A Bad Day , January 27, 2013 9:57 PM
    CKKwanWhere is the fusion technology (ITER) that promissed in 2025?


    Unless if it benefits the fossil fuel corporations, it's probably going to get starved of government funding.
  • 2 Hide
    twisted politiks , January 27, 2013 10:30 PM
    mikenygmail"15 percent of the world's available water is tied up in energy production; by 2035 that amount will increase by 85 percent due to the usage in greater power production and biofuels"85 + 15 = 100% of the world's available water will be tied up in energy production?Exactly what is meant by "world's available water?"


    They are talking about an 85% increase of the already 15% being used. As a simplification, if we were using 15% of 100 gallons, that would be 15 gallons. This means in 2035 they would be using 15 *.85 = 12.75. Adding 15 gallons with the new 12.75 gallons would mean we would be using 27.75 gallons per day, up from 15 gallons per day.
  • 0 Hide
    Fulgurant , January 27, 2013 11:16 PM
    A Bad DaySeems a bit optimistic. When there were news that US Congress was toying with the idea of restricting the sales of "energy-inefficient" bulbs (aka incandescent bulbs), there was a massive increase in sales of the bulbs because people were hoarding them in fears of the sale of the bulbs being banned.


    Yeah. I like how on the one hand she talks about a 20% savings for the consumer, and on the other hand the report (as quoted by the Tom's piece) cites $4.8 trillion in subsidies for renewable energies. Color me skeptical that any over-arching increase in energy efficiency will translate into a commensurate cost savings to the consumer.

    I'm also interested in the prediction that renewables will be the second-largest source of energy in the world by 2015, which is just around the corner. Seems like a pointless observation; if you're comparing a whole litany of energy sources and grouping them together arbitrarily under a vague umbrella term (renewables), then is it really fair or accurate to compare them other, singular energy sources?
  • 3 Hide
    IndignantSkeptic , January 27, 2013 11:28 PM
    What?! so we still won't be using solar power instead by then?
  • 2 Hide
    A Bad Day , January 28, 2013 12:41 AM
    IndignantSkepticWhat?! so we still won't be using solar power instead by then?


    Remember the solar company that crashed and burned, with the huge federal aid? That one mismanaged company screwed over the entire solar industry.
  • 3 Hide
    merikafyeah , January 28, 2013 5:32 AM
    Molten-salt thorium reactors are the closest thing to a cost-efficient end-all solution we have.
    The US has one of the largest rare-earth deposits in the world, but we don't utilize it because some idiots don't realize what to do with the byproduct of refining rare-earth minerals. Turns out that "byproduct" can be used as fuel for thorium reactors. Rare-earth industry + thorium reactors will indisputably solve our energy problem and most of our economic problems as well since more jobs will be created on two separate industries, and we'll also be able to export a valuable resource for once instead of importing all the oil from southwest Asia ("middle east" for the euro-centric).

    1. Cheap, clean energy, and more of it than we've ever had before.
    2. HUGE untapped rare-earth industry in the US greatly boosts economy, and neutralizes China's rare-earth monopoly "overnight".
    3. More jobs, bringing U.S. back into export and manufacturing.
    4. NO RISK OF DEVASTATING MELTDOWN, like Fukushima/Chernobyl.

    There is literally no downside to this. So why haven't we done this? Where are all the thorium reactors?
    We had one for several years but shut it down even though it worked perfectly. The military wants nuclear solutions that produces weapons-grade material as a byproduct, but the byproduct of thorium reactors CANNOT be used to make nuclear weapons, and so the idea was pushed to the wayside. That's the only reason the U.S. is spiraling the drain, downing millions of barrels of foreign oil. Ignorance and stupidity.

    Please support the thorium future, and the future of humanity:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyqYP6f66Mw
    (Title is misleading. It's really the thorium SOLUTION, not problem. The only "problem" is that it's not being used enough.)

    Also short version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

    And for the few remaining naysayers and fence-sitters, a short documentary to bring it all home:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ9Ll5EX1jc

    People seem to believe that the universe is forever keeping clean energy just beyond our reach,
    when the only thing holding us back is ourselves.

    If you're in the U.S. the easiest way to help is to spread the word, and sign this petition:
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-destruction-our-u-233-more-nasa-space-exploration-new-cancer-treatments-thorium-energy/vYMLG81W

    We need 23,658 more signatures by Feb 12, 2013 to reach the goal of 25,000, so don't wait, act now and tell all your friends.
    Extra urgency notice: This petition was created before the Jan 15 threshold increase went into effect. If this petition doesn't go through, any subsequent petition about thorium will require at least 100,000 signatures to receive a response!!!
  • 1 Hide
    balev , January 28, 2013 7:14 AM
    Quote:
    - Iraq will be surpassing Russia as the world's second largest oil exporter in 2035, and account for 45 percent of the growth in global oil production


    And what was the reason the US "went to war" with Iraq again?
  • 0 Hide
    JAYDEEJOHN , January 28, 2013 10:40 AM
    To supply the rest of the world with free, non corrupt by political means oil.
    We wont be using this
  • 0 Hide
    obiown77 , January 28, 2013 12:05 PM
    This is bullsh1t, there are more than a couple "near free energy technologies" already in existence, but the energy tycoons surpress it.
  • 0 Hide
    freggo , January 28, 2013 12:21 PM
    "growth in global oil production"

    We need to stop talking about 'production'.
    We do not produce oil, we just pump what is there out of the ground.

    Calling it 'production' gives subconsciously the false idea to people that we can simply make more at will forever.
Display more comments