Help Support EV News Report
EV News Report is not a non-profit

You are browsing the archive for IEA Archives – EV News Report.

Avatar of EV News

by EV News

Policy uncertainty threatens to slow renewable energy momentum

August 28, 2014 in Environment, EV News, Greentech, IEA, Solar, Wind

By International Energy Agency (IEA)

IEA forecast sees renewable power as a cost-competitive option in an increasing number of cases, but facing growing risks to deployment over the medium term

The expansion of renewable energy will slow over the next five years unless policy uncertainty is diminished, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said today in its third annual Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report.

According to the report, power generation from renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydro grew strongly in 2013, reaching almost 22% of global generation, and was on par with electricity from gas, whose generation remained relatively stable. Global renewable generation is seen rising by 45% and making up nearly 26% of global electricity generation by 2020. Yet annual growth in new renewable power is seen slowing and stabilising after 2014, putting renewables at risk of falling short of the absolute generation levels needed to meet global climate change objectives.

Courtesy of EIA

Courtesy of EIA

Non-OECD markets, spurred by diversification needs in many countries and increasing air quality concerns in China, in particular, comprise almost 70% of the growth. Renewables are seen as the largest new source of non-OECD generation through 2020. Yet they meet only 35% of fast-growing electricity needs there, illustrating the still-large role of fossil fuels and the potential for further renewable growth. Renewables account for 80% of new power generation in the OECD, but with more limited upside due to sluggish demand and growing policy risks in key markets.

“Renewables are a necessary part of energy security. However, just when they are becoming a cost-competitive option in an increasing number of cases, policy and regulatory uncertainty is rising in some key markets. This stems from concerns about the costs of deploying renewables,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven.

“Governments must distinguish more clearly between the past, present and future, as costs are falling over time,” she added. “Many renewables no longer need high incentive levels. Rather, given their capital-intensive nature, renewables require a market context that assures a reasonable and predictable return for investors. This calls for a serious reflection on market design needed to achieve a more sustainable world energy mix.”

The report noted that policy and market risks threaten to slow deployment momentum. For example, in many non-OECD markets including China, constraints include non-economic barriers, an absence of needed grid integration measures, and the cost and availability of financing. In the European Union (EU), uncertainties remain over the precise nature of the post-2020 renewable policy framework and the build-out of a pan-European grid to facilitate the integration of variable renewables.

For the first time, the annual report provides a renewable power investment outlook. Through 2020, investment in new renewable power capacity is seen averaging over USD 230 billion annually. That is lower than the around USD 250 billion invested in 2013. The decline is due to expectations that both unit investment costs for some technologies will fall and that global capacity growth will slow. With decreasing costs, competitive opportunities are expanding for some renewables under some country-specific conditions and policy frameworks. For example, in Brazil, with good resources and financing conditions, onshore wind has continued to outbid new-build natural gas plants in auctions. In northern Chile, high wholesale electricity prices and high irradiation levels have opened a new unsubsidised solar market.

The roles of biofuels for transport and renewable heat are also increasing, though at slower rates than renewable electricity. Uncertainty over policy support for biofuels is rising in the EU and the United States, slowing expectations for production growth and threatening the development of the advanced biofuels industry at a time when the first commercial plants are just coming online.

The annual report highlights the potential energy security implications of energy use for heat, which accounts for more than half of world final energy consumption and is dominated by fossil fuels. But the contribution of renewables to meet heating and cooling needs remains underdeveloped, with more limited policy frameworks compared with the electricity and transport sectors. Although modern renewable energy sources are expected to grow by almost 25% to 2020, their share in energy use for heat rises to only 9%, up from 8% in 2013.

To download the executive summary of Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report, please click here.

To download Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven’s presentation at the launch of the report, please click here.

To download a fact sheet related to the report, please click here.

This article is a repost, credit: IEA.

Avatar of EV News

by EV News

The Peak Oil Crisis: When?

August 26, 2014 in EIA, EV News, IEA, Oil

Tom Whipple Photo courtesy of Post Carbon Institute

Tom Whipple
Photo courtesy of Post Carbon Institute

By Tom Whipple, Post Carbon Institute

For those following the world oil production situation, it has been clear for some time that the only factor keeping global crude output from moving lower is the continuing increase in U.S. shale oil production, mostly from Texas and North Dakota. Needless to say, once the fabled “peak” comes oil and gasoline prices are certain to move higher, triggering a series of economic events most of which will not be good for the global economy.

Thus the key question is just how many more months or years production of U.S. shale oil (more accurately call light tight oil) will continue to grow. Many have answers to this question ranging from the “next year or so” on out the middle or end of the next decade. Some forecasts as to time remaining until the “peak” arrives are politically tinged. No politician, business manager, or even investor wants to hear that serious economic problems affecting their lives may be only a few years away. Fortunately for these folks, there are many forecasters available to spin stories about how “technology” will enable US shale oil production to continue on into the dim future of the 2020’s which most of us really can’t comprehend or plan for.

Usually missing from optimistic estimates for future U.S. shale oil production is any discussion of just how fast production from fracked wells declines. Most fracked wells are adequate or at least economic producers for three years or so, after which their production is so small that they need to be replaced or reworked to keep a meaningful amount of production going. As shale oil production grows larger and larger, more and more wells will have to be drilled and fracked just to keep production level. At some point there will be a cross over between new wells coming on stream and old wells going out of production, so output will start to slip. The EIA recently noted that for North Dakota to increase its oil production by 20,000 barrels a day (b/d) next month, it must bring 94,000 b/d of new production online. At Texas’s Eagle Ford basin, it will take 152,000 b/d of new production next month to increase net production by 31,000 b/d.

There is no doubt that the shale oil drilling industry has made many significant technological advances in recent years. Multiple wells are now being drilled from a single drilling pad foregoing the need to move drilling rigs and setting up all the expensive infrastructure needed to frack shale wells. For a while shale oil drillers were drilling and fracking longer wells, which reduced the cost per barrel. Now we hear that drillers are increasing production per well by pumping more fracking materials down each well, and some are saying this will be enough to offset any decline in prices.

Currently US shale oil production is about 3 million b/d and in June output increased by about 100,000 b/d. About half of US shale oil production comes from North Dakota, where winter conditions are so harsh that production has been falling during the winter months.

The two major forecasting agencies, Washington’s EIA and Paris’ IEA, are both more pessimistic than is generally known for they both foresee US shale oil production leveling off as soon as 2016. The reason for this is that drillers will simply run out of new places to drill and frack new wells. While new techniques of extracting more oil from a well are possible, there is need to look closely at the costs of these techniques vs. the potential payoff.

The shale oil situation in Texas is somewhat different than in North Dakota, for there you have much better weather and two separate shale oil deposits. The recent growth in Texas’s shale oil production has been much smoother than in storm-prone North Dakota and has been increasing at about 44,000 b/d each month. So faras can be seen from the outside of the industry, production in both states will continue to grow for at least another year or two but then we will be at 2016.

The government has never gotten around to publishing the assumptions that go into the forecast that U.S. shale oil production will stop growing circa 2016. The biggest difference between EIA/IEA and independent analysts is the government forecasters do not see a precipitous drop in shale oil production following the peak. Instead they see a period of flat production followed by a gentle decline stretching well into the next decade. Such a gentle end to the shale oil “bubble” can only assuage fears of a calamity. This projection on a gentle end to U.S. shale oil is at variance with outside forecasters who note that shale oil wells are pretty well gone in three years and simply do not see where the oil to maintain production levels will be coming from for another 10 or 15 years after the peak.

Independent analyses of U.S. shale oil generally come to the same conclusion that production will peak in the 2016-2017 timeframe, but as noted above see a much faster decline than does the government.

There are however, other factors that could become the primary cause of world oil production peaking in the next few years. The first is the turmoil in the Middle East. A lot of oil production in the region has dropped off line in recent years for political reasons and Iraqi production is endangered. The spread of militant Islam could eventually threaten other major producers in the region as could the Arab-Israeli standoff.

A more recent development having serious long-term implications for the oil industry is the growing disparity between the cost of producing a new barrel of oil from the Canadian oil sands or deep below the ocean and the selling price of that oil. A recent study points out that many planned oil production projects are simply not economical at today’s oil prices, which have been relatively stable for the past five years as costs continued to soar. Oil companies are already cutting back on new drilling projects which will have little impact on current production, but will be very significant five years or so from now.

This article is a repost (8-25-14), credit: Post Carbon Institute.
Avatar of EV News

by EV News

Summer demand taxes Saudi power sector, but kingdom is working on solutions

August 7, 2014 in EV News, Greentech, IEA, Oil, Solar

By International Energy Agency (IEA)

The hot sun that drives the seasonal surge also provides a renewable remedy

Courtesy of EIA

Courtesy of EIA

Saudi Arabia abounds, of course, in energy resources, but a new source of demand is cutting into its oil output: domestic consumption, already high, is growing fast and threatens to crimp exports. Electricity use is increasing at about 7.5% annually, helping raise overall energy demand nationwide such that total needs by 2028 could reach 8.3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. As a number of prominent Saudi officials have pointed out, at that point an average of 3 million barrels per day (mb/d) of crude oil might have to be diverted to the power sector, potentially cutting export revenue significantly and taxing world markets that the kingdom sees as its responsibility to keep well-supplied.

Gas provides around 43% of Saudi electricity, with fuel oil and diesel providing the rest. In recent years more and more crude oil has been diverted to the power sector, oil that might otherwise be sold internationally to boost national earnings. Since 2011, more than 500 000 barrels a day (500 kb/d) are burned for power generation, with peak demand in summer now seen topping 900 kb/d.

Demand is already running up against the kingdom’s installed power generation capacity, which Middle East Economic Survey listed at 58.4 gigawatts (GW) as of 2013. It is also a challenge to provide enough fuel, with demand growth in electricity already having outpaced the capacity of the gas and fuel oil sectors to supply the power stations.

Heat and sunshine increase demand – and also supply

In 2011, Saudi Arabia’s electricity demand was 210 terawatt hours, or about 7 420 kWh per capita, comparable to Mexico’s total consumption but more than three times as high on a per capita basis. A significant factor is the climate: by far the greatest share of energy demand is in the building sector, at up to 80% of total power demand – 70% of which is for air conditioning. This adds to the seasonality of demand, with summer peak demand nearly twice the winter average.

NREL's Steve Wilcox at the K.A.CARE site training Saudi industry and academic personnel in solar measurements. Credit: Mike Dooraghir Courtesy of NREL

NREL’s Steve Wilcox at the K.A.CARE site training Saudi industry and academic personnel in solar measurements.
Credit: Mike Dooraghir
Courtesy of NREL

While the short-term remedy to meeting the surging demand is increased gas output, Saudi Arabia intends to benefit long term from one aspect of the climate that boosts energy consumption: by tapping into solar power. The kingdom enjoys twice the direct normal irradiance that is available in the sunniest part of Germany, according to calculations by the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Saudi Arabia aims to have 41 GW of solar power by 2032, 60% of it generated at concentrated solar power plants and the rest from solar photovoltaics such as rooftop panels, at a cost of USD 109 billion. The first gigawatt of solar power, to be installed by 2020, should save at least 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day, based on a combined-cycle gas turbine unit’s output when operating at average summer conditions. In addition, wind power is to provide 9 GW for electricity generation and desalination, while the kingdom also has an ambitious target of 17.6 GW of nuclear capacity by 2032.

But solar power systems present challenges in hot dusty conditions: dust impairs operations, and efficiency falls at temperatures above 30 degrees Celsius. A number of research establishments in the Gulf region are working on ways to tackle these problems.

Regional and broader sharing of power

Finally, the region offers opportunities to bolster the power system. The northern Gulf grid connection that links Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar is designed to allow the sharing of power on an emergency basis, but can already enable the participants to reduce the spinning reserve that they need to maintain to ensure the stability of their grids.

The kingdom has plans with Egypt to set up a grid connection to take advantage of differences in each national system’s daily demand peaks; the connection could operate at a level as high as 3 GW.

An even more ambitious plan under consideration is to share power on a seasonal basis with the Turkish and European grids to take advantage of the very large spare capacity the Saudi system has in the winter months. Such a system could supply as much as 10 GW to help meet European peak winter demand, while sending back power in the summer to cool the Gulf as demand peaks there.

This article is a repost (8-6-14), credit: IEA.

Avatar of EV News

by EV News

IEA Says the Party’s Over, By Richard Heinberg, Post Carbon Institute

June 5, 2014 in EV News, IEA, Oil, Politics

Richard Heinberg Photo courtesy of Post Carbon Institute

Richard Heinberg
Photo courtesy of Post Carbon Institute

The International Energy Agency has just released a new special report called “World Energy Investment Outlook” that should send policy makers screaming and running for the exits—if they are willing to read between the lines and view the report in the context of current financial and geopolitical trends. This is how the press agency UPI begins its summary:

It will require $48 trillion in investments through 2035 to meet the world’s growing energy needs, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday from Paris. IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said in a statement the reliability and sustainability of future energy supplies depends on a high level of investment. “But this won’t materialize unless there are credible policy frameworks in place as well as stable access to long-term sources of finance,” she said. “Neither of these conditions should be taken for granted.”

Here’s a bit of context missing from the IEA report: the oil industry is actually cutting back on upstream investment. Why? Global oil prices—which, at the current $90 to $110 per barrel range, are at historically high levels—are nevertheless too low to justify tackling ever-more challenging geology. The industry needs an oil price of at least $120 per barrel to fund exploration in the Arctic and in some ultra-deepwater plays. And let us not forget: current interest rates are ultra-low (thanks to the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing), so marshalling investment capital should be about as easy now as it is ever likely to get. If QE ends and if interest rates rise, the ability of industry and governments to dramatically increase investment in future energy production capacity will wane.

Other items from the report should be equally capable of inducing policy maker freak-out:

The shale bubble’s-a-poppin’. In 2012, the IEA forecast that oil extraction rates from US shale formations (primarily the Bakken in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford in Texas) would continue growing for many years, with America overtaking Saudia Arabia in rate of oil production by 2020 and becoming a net oil exporter by 2030. In its new report, the IEA says US tight oil production will start to decline around 2020. One might almost think the IEA folks have been reading Post Carbon Institute’s analysis of tight oil and shale gas prospects! www.shalebubble.org This is a welcome dose of realism, though the IEA is probably still erring on the side of optimism: our own reading of the data suggests the decline will start sooner and will probably be steep.

Help us, OPEC—you’re our only hope! Here’s how the Wall Street Journal frames its story about the report: “A top energy watchdog said the world will need more Middle Eastern oil in the next decade, as the current U.S. boom wanes. But the International Energy Agency warned that Persian Gulf producers may still fail to fill the gap, risking higher oil prices.” Let’s see, how is OPEC doing these days? Iraq, Syria, and Libya are in turmoil. Iran is languishing under US trade sanctions. OPEC’s petroleum reserves are still ludicrously over-stated. And while the Saudis have made up for declines in old oilfields by bringing new ones on line, they’ve run out of new fields to develop. So it looks as if that risk of higher oil prices is quite a strong one.

A “what-me-worry?” price forecast. Despite all these dire developments, the IEA offers no change from its 2013 oil price forecast (that is, a gradual increase in world petroleum prices to $128 per barrel by 2035). The new report says the oil industry will need to increase its upstream investment over the forecast period by $2 trillion above the IEA’s previous investment forecast. From where is the oil industry supposed to derive that $2 trillion if not from significantly higher prices—higher over the short run, perhaps, than the IEA’s long-range 2035 forecast price of $128 per barrel, and ascending higher still? This price forecast is obviously unreliable, but that’s nothing new. The IEA has been issuing wildly inaccurate price forecasts for the past decade. In fact, if the massive increase in energy investment advised by the IEA is to occur, both electricity and oil are about to become significantly less affordable. For a global economy tightly tied to consumer behavior and markets, and one that is already stagnant or contracting, energy constraints mean one thing and one thing only: hard times.

What about renewables? The IEA forecasts that only 15 percent of the needed $48 trillion will go to renewable energy. All the rest is required just to patch up our current oil-coal-gas energy system so that it doesn’t run into the ditch for lack of fuel. But how much investment would be required if climate change were to be seriously addressed? Most estimates look only at electricity (that is, they gloss over the pivotal and problematic transportation sector) and ignore the question of energy returned on energy invested. Even when we artificially simplify the problem this way, $7.2 trillion spread out over twenty years simply doesn’t cut it. One researcher estimates that investments will have to ramp up to $1.5 to $2.5 trillion per year. In effect, the IEA is telling us that we don’t have what it takes to sustain our current energy regime, and we’re not likely to invest enough to switch to a different one.

If you look at the trends cited and ignore misleading explicit price forecasts, the IEA’s implicit message is clear: continued oil price stability looks problematic. And with fossil fuel prices high and volatile, governments will likely find it even more difficult to devote increasingly scarce investment capital toward the development of renewable energy capacity.

As you read this report, imagine yourself in the shoes of a high-level policy maker. Wouldn’t you want to start thinking about early retirement?

This article is a repost, credit: Post Carbon Institute.