IEA World Energy Outlook

The International Energy Agency has made a new comprehensive forecast of world energy from now until 2030.

The conclusions are:

Current energy trends are patently unsustainable —socially, environmentally, economically
– Oil will remain the leading energy source but…
> The era of cheap oil is over, although price volatility will remain
> Oilfield decline is the key determinant of investment needs
> The oil market is undergoing major and lasting structural change, with national companies in the ascendancy
– To avoid “abrupt and irreversible” climate change we need a major decarbonisation of the world’s energy system
> Copenhagen must deliver a credible post‐2012 climate regime
> Limiting temperature rise to 2°C will require significant emission reductions in all regions & technological breakthroughs
> Mitigating climate change will substantially improve energy security
– The present economic worries do not excuse back‐tracking or delays in taking action to address energy challenges

IEA report press release.

trends call for energy-supply investment of $26.3 trillion to 2030, or over $1 trillion/year. Yet the credit squeeze could delay spending, potentially setting up a supply-crunch that could choke economic recovery.

The findings of an unprecedented field-by-field analysis of the historical production trends of 800 oilfields indicate that decline rates are likely to rise significantly in the long term, from an average of 6.7% today to 8.6% in 2030. “Despite all the attention that is given to demand growth, decline rates are actually a far more important determinant of investment needs. Even if oil demand was to remain flat to 2030, 45 mb/d of gross capacity – roughly four times the current capacity of Saudi Arabia – would need to be built by 2030 just to offset the effect of oilfield decline”, Mr. Tanaka added.

6 page fact sheet

Key graphs 1.6 Megabytes

13 page executive summary pdf

0 thoughts on “IEA World Energy Outlook”

  1. there are treatments (surgical and different lens and lens strategies) for presbyopia I am not sure if dynamic focus would be superior to these current and near term options.

    Monovision with contact lenses

    With monovision, you wear one contact lens with one power to correct distance vision and the other contact lens with one power to correct near vision. The distance vision lens is usually worn in your dominant eye.

    The downside of monovision is that each eye works more or less alone rather than “binocularly,” meaning in concert with each other. The result:

    You may have to adjust your head position more often to see clearly. You also may lose some depth perception.

    One way eyecare professionals deal with presbyopia is by producing monovision. Normally, both your eyes work together equally when you look at an object, to produce what’s called binocular vision. However, you probably have a dominant eye that your brain tends to favor for “sighting” (most right-handed people are right-eye dominant, for example). Contact lens fitters often take advantage of this “one-eye dominance” to produce monovision (think of it as the opposite of binocular vision) with the contacts: they fit one eye for distance vision (typically the dominant eye) and one for near vision.

    Currently in FDA clinical trials, the ACI 7000 (AcuFocus and Bausch & Lomb) is a corneal inlay inserted just below your eye’s surface to provide vision correction. This device corrects presbyopia by using principles similar to the aperture or opening through which light enters a camera — the smaller the aperture, the greater the range of what you see in focus.

    Different zones in a multifocal artificial lens correct vision at near, intermediate, and far ranges. In an investigational procedure known as multifocal or presby LASIK, zones are established in a similar way on the eye’s clear front surface (cornea) to correct presbyopia. Multifocal LASIK, also called presby LASIK, is an investigational procedure, which is not FDA-approved

  2. If they can make this, why can’t they make contact lenses with dynamic focusing in order to deal with this presbyopia crap? It seems to me that this would be a much simpler and more popular option.

  3. I have the same problem with this as Tom Craver above. The display pixels are not in the focal plane (i.e. the retina) of the eye so you would not see whatever the pixels themselves were displaying. But you could use the pixels (if there were enough of them) to make a computer generated hologram that would create whatever you wanted in the focal plane. Maybe that’s what is going on, but that’s not the way it was described.

  4. This is pointless. The entry would be much more fruitful if it recalled that 3D systems induce stress headaches and other problems. I’m trying to remember exactly what all the problems are but not having much luck. Whatever, in order for any such system to be anything more than vapourware, you have to show that it doesn’t fall afoul of all the problems that killed previous systems. And you can’t do that by ignoring those problems.

  5. Why wouldn’t the display appear very much out of focus, just as much as anything you hold up very close to your eye? Maybe if it were generating tiny laser beams that target small groups of receptors on the retina…


Leave a Comment