Growth in World Energy in 2018 Was Double the Recent Average Growth

World Energy consumption increased 2.3% in 2018 with 70% of the increase coming from China, the USA and India. The growth was double the average increase from 2010-2017. Global Electricity demand increased by 4% to 23000 Terawatt hours. Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew 1.7% in 2018 to reach a historic high of 33.1 billion tons of CO2. Nuclear power generated 2724 TWh in 2018 which was up 3.3% year-on-year. Nuclear was 10% of electricity generation, down from 17% in 2000, according to the IEA. Half of that was due to new plants entering service in China. 45% of the new energy was natural gas. 25% of the new energy was renewable solar, wind and hydro. 18% of the new energy was oil 9% of the new energy was coal 7% of the new energy nuclear

SOURCES- IEA (International Energy Association

Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

12 thoughts on “Growth in World Energy in 2018 Was Double the Recent Average Growth”

  1. “…45% of the new energy was natural gas. 25% of the new energy was renewable solar, wind and hydro. 18% of the new energy was oil 9% of the new energy was coal 7% of the new energy nuclear…”

    Your total comes to 104% rather than 100%. A rounding error or just bad math?

    If a global climate catastrophe resulting from human CO2 emissions will supposedly end life on our planet unless we take drastic action to significantly reduce these CO2 emissions within the next few years, then the risk/benefit trade for nuclear power is obviously a no-brainer.

  2. The grid is repaired and upgraded all the time

    Yes, but only to handle existing demand or slight variations of it.

    As more renewable energy enters the market it will be done in a way that reflects that

    No, it won’t.

    But renewable energy and EVs are going to continue getting cheaper and with a wise planning will make up for it.

    Keep smoking that alternative reality pipe. Especially on the ‘wise planning’ part.

  3. The grid is repaired and upgraded all the time. As more renewable energy enters the market it will be done in a way that reflects that. Sure there will be extra cost to it. But renewable energy and EVs are going to continue getting cheaper and with a wise planning will make up for it.

  4. If only we could send coal trains to China … and the UK. They are going to need bigger boats.

  5. yeah. of course they can be. But for the US, the upgrades will cost a lot.

    Upgrading the grid in South Korea is easier than doing so in the US for the same reasons why it was easier to go full fiber in South Korea for internet but not in the US.

    And this involves increased production of power, which won’t happen fast enough.

    Then there is the question of ‘who will pay for it?’. It should be the EV drivers, because they are ‘driving’ (all pun intended) all of this. But that will be reflected in the charges they pay for recharging and increased vehicle registration fees, which could reach high enough levels as to make them uncompetitive with ICE cars.

    Because existing non-EV owners will raise hell and push back if this is foisted upon them. Esp non-transportation electricity consumers.

    https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/12/americas-power-grid-isnt-ready-electric-cars/577507/

  6. I should have been more quantitatively specific. My definition (and somewhat wrongly, I admit, but I persist in using it) for “municipal” is parried against the region I live in: the San Francisco Bay Area. 

    For all intents, I consider the whole thing one giant municipality, or if you take the conventional names for the parts of the Bay Area literally, then the North Bay, East Bay, South Bay, and Peninsula consist of for large municipalities. Given our power demand in aggregate, having anywhere from 1 to 2 gigawatt-class nuclear power plants for the Bay Area seems like a good idea. 

    In a way, this is what the California Energy Commission was attempting to do, when installing the Diablo Canyon and other coastal nuclear power plants. Large enough to attach to the north-south interstate high-tension TIE transmission line, large enough to supply a significant amount of the power of the big city mega-municipality regions. Like the Bay Area, like Los Angeles, like the Sacramento-central valley. Now we’re putting them out of business. 

    Seems really wrong minded to me. 

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

  7. There is a good argument for a moderate increase in nucleaer energy, but Nope, with all respect no need to mess with multiple of thousands municipal level small current technology nuclear generators spread around the country. too much risk.

  8. Hahahahahah. When Trump unshackled the coal industry from Obama’s regulatory jihad against it, US coal exports in 2017 alone skyrocketed 169% to the UK and 200% to France. Then there is the increasing exports India and China as well. Yes, we can’t build LNG terminals fast enough either. But you know why US nat gas is sooo damn cheap? Because it is produced from shale oil extraction. Fracking, specifically.

  9. once transportation electrification will take root in the coming two decades

    Not in the US. US grid was not built to handle the upcoming rise of EVs and it was ESPECIALLY not built to handle any meaningful increase in home solar net power put into it. Most home solar power is burned off at the local neighborhood transformer as heat and the utility eats the cost in paying the homeowner for his/her ”electricity’.

  10. LOL

    If you note from the graphs, the thing that is growing is gas, coal and oil. And yes, renewable too.  But the petrochemical energy sources remain the dominant growth factor overall.  

    I don’t doubt that doubling the amount of solar PV and wind-turbine power will substantially cut into (in America) natural gas growth, (in India) coal, and with the increased number of electric cars, oil consumption. 

    Indeed: I would think it possible to predict with near-certainty that world OIL consumption will peak within the next 10 years, never to return to its high-consumption past. Electric vehicles will do that.  

    But it also puts pressure on the production of far greater quantities of electricity from all sources. I see the next 2 decades as a uniquely opportune era for the expansion of both conventional nuclear power, AND for the implementation of high return renewable energy schemes. They really do fit “hand-in-glove”. 

    While there would be possible micro-nuclear plays that’d work, I continue to think that municipal-scale nuclear is the most important future energy source. Uprating existing plants with novel shaped fuel is one gambit, but simply rubber-stamp duplication-and-expansion seems even better. There are NO compelling reasons to reinvent nuclear. 

    Lastly, perhaps it is time for the US to embrace fuel-rod reprocessing.  

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

  11. I think that we can easily double on renewables in the next decade and solve the problem. The rest for the time being with natural gas and some nuclear in countries that can handle it safely. Oil will steady and fall once transportation electrification will take root in the coming two decades. We will gradually do more of the less variable renewables to help switch from natural gas like off shore wind, Solar thermal, small Hydro power, biomass and geothermal. Later we will add to that static air electricity, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, salinity gradients between salt and fresh water, tidal and wave energy. Molten salt will replace the current nuclear energy and its share will likely increase.

Comments are closed.