EIA projections are garbage and have been for years, go look at their own old projections if you want to verify this.

World coal consumption peaked in 2013, not sure why you believe it is coming back in 2050?!

Most of the new global energy production brought online is renewables, and has been for the last 4 years...The renewable fraction is also increasing. Not sure why you believe fossil fuel use will increase for the next 3 decades?!

> EIA projections are garbage and have been for years, go look at their own old projections if you want to verify this.

Okay.

> World coal consumption peaked in 2013, not sure why you believe it is coming back in 2050?!

Because more than half the world's population has yet to industrialize.

> Most of the new global energy production brought online is renewables, and has been for the last 4 years..

Okay.

> Not sure why you believe fossil fuel use will increase for the next 3 decades?!

Firstly, because they are increasing. Secondly, more than half the world's population has yet to industrialize. Thirdly, tons of investment in natural gas.

Fossil fuel use is increasing in the US. Do you really think it'll slow in poor developing countries in south asia, south east asia and africa? I believe fossil fuel use will increase for the same reason EIA and every other major energy agency believes it will increase. Reality.

> Because more than half the world's population has yet to industrialize.

This was true when the projections were that renewables would be more expensive than fossil fuels, but “developed” countries would invest in CO2 reduction “for the greater good”.

However, as per the article, renewables (including batteries) are going to become significantly cheaper than fossil fuels.

Any reason to believe countries “looking to industrialize” will opt for the more expensive fossil fuel option?

> Any reason to believe countries “looking to industrialize” will opt for the more expensive fossil fuel option?

Sure, it isn't cheaper or more economical. You are not going to industrialize with rooftop solar panels. Or wind farms which only produce electricity when its windy. For the same reason batteries or gas is cheaper than jet fuel but you can't power a plane on double a batteries.

There are major geopolitical "wars" happening right now over gas/oil pipelines.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-29/nord-stre...

If "renewables" were cheaper or going to be cheaper, why would europe, russia, US, middle east, etc waste their time?

Or fight horrific wars over pipelines.

https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-...

Here is the US oil production. Notice that huge spike the last 10 years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Crude_Oil_Production_a...

Here is US gas production. Notice the huge spike the last 10 years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Natural_Gas_Production...

The "renewables" are cheap and going to save the world are for naive children who don't know how the world works. The kind of naive people who think veganism is good for the environment/animals or that we can solve our landfill issues by flying garbage into the sun. Or the naive people who think renewables are actually good for the environment.

Renewable energy production is going to rise for sure, but much of that will be hydroelectric power via dams. Those cause their share of environmental problems.

If wealthy developed nations are opting for "more expensive fossil fuel", even to the point of going through costly wars, what do you think poor undeveloped countries are going to do? It's not rocket science.

The ony solution to our fossil fuel problem is a revolutionary breakthrough like fusion. That's it. Until then the world is going to burn fossil fuel for many more decades at the very least.

I hope they (EIA) are off the mark. If the predictions from the EIA a will materialize, we’re going to have a huge carbon problem.

However, I think there also are reasons to believe things will be better:

1) the EIA forecasts linear growth of renewables, while its been behaving exponentially over the last 5-10 years. That gives me hope they’ve underestimated the long term growth rate. (It would be interesting to compare their older predictions vs actual)

2) nearly all of the energy consumption growth is non-OECD and will require newly built generation. If cost of renewables continues to drop, it might just be economic sense that pushes renewables over coal

3) at least on the EU side, fossil fuels are increasingly getting a negative connotation. On top of the financial comparison, I expect this could dampen new fossil growth as well.

> I hope they (EIA) are off the mark. If the predictions from the EIA a will materialize, we’re going to have a huge carbon problem.

The only way EIA will be off the mark is if we get something like fusion. Currently the major geopolitical issue is natural gas pipelines. Major nations wouldn't be fighting over gas pipelines if people believed fossil fuels were over.

> 1) the EIA forecasts linear growth of renewables, while its been behaving exponentially over the last 5-10 years.

And it still amounts to nothing. Solar/winds accounts for 1% of energy. And that's after 10 years of subsidies in the biggest economies around the world.

> 2) nearly all of the energy consumption growth is non-OECD and will require newly built generation. If cost of renewables continues to drop, it might just be economic sense that pushes renewables over coal

That will be all fossil fuels. The developing nations aren't going industrialize on solar/wind. Even developed nations can't do that.

> 3) at least on the EU side, fossil fuels are increasingly getting a negative connotation. On top of the financial comparison, I expect this could dampen new fossil growth as well.

Right... One of the biggest per capita producer of oil is norway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ...

The 2nd largest oil company in the world is a anglo-dutch company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell

And of course europe just invaded and took over libya for their oil. The EU is trying to take over venezuela for their oil. Etc.

The EU is one of the biggest direct consumers of fossil fuels ( and the largest consumer directly+indirectly ).

Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere. That's just physical reality. It's physics. Sure renewables may slow the rate of growth, but growing more slowly is still growing.

The only thing that will cause a decline in fossil fuels is economic collapse or a genuine scientific breakthrough like fusion energy.

> The only way EIA will be off the mark is if we get something like fusion. Currently the major geopolitical issue is natural gas pipelines. Major nations wouldn't be fighting over gas pipelines if people believed fossil fuels were over.

I'll point out that the EIA has been off the mark wrt renewables in the past. For example: in 2010 [1], the EIA predicted renewables to grow by 30 Quadrillion BTUs in the next 20 years (2010-2030), that took only 8 years instead of 20. In their latest report they had to update that to a growth of 120 Quadrillion BTOs over the same timespan (2010-2030) (i.e. they were off by a factor of 4x).

As a thought experiment: The world doubled renewables in the last 10 years. If we maintain that CAGR until 2050, that would mean growth from ±100 Quadrillion BTU in 2020 to 200 in 2030, 400 in 2040 and 800 in 2050. If the totals from the EIA in 2050 are correct (±900 Qd BTU), then that would cover almost 90% of primary energy consumption globally.

Note: I realise this is oversimplified. We'd run into dampening factors (e.g. intermittency of solar/wind) far before we reach 90%. Nonetheless, based on the current growth I'm happy to argue that the EIA is underestimating growth potential of renewables.

> Right... One of the biggest per capita producer of oil is norway. > The 2nd largest oil company in the world is a anglo-dutch company.

The present doesn't have to describe the future:

- Shell is still huge company. Yet, had you invested in Shell 5 years ago, your stocks would be 33% lower today (-47% for Exxon). Had you invested in some of the established renewable energy players e.g. Orsted, Vesta, or Iberdrola, you'd be up between 75 and 350%.

- Same in the US: Nextera (US Wind and Solar player) is currently valued higher than BP, Total or Shell. ($147 bln), and doubled market cap in the last 5 years.

The Dutch version of the FT ran an article yesterday on how investors are increasingly wary of investing in fossil fuels, and moving more into renewables. They made the comparison to how it suddenly became undesirable to invest in e.g. Tobacco. [2]

[1]: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/riley2/docs/EIA...

[2]: https://fd.nl/ondernemen/1366175/beleggers-draaien-van-fossi...