Click for larger graphic

Source: Economist

 

 

According to the World Energy Outlook (published by the International Energy Agency) global energy demand rise by a third by 2035.

While rich countries will not see much demand increases, annual growth rates of 2-3% are expected in South-East Asia, India, Brazil and the Middle East. China will account for 40% of the growth until 2025. After then India will overtake it to become the single biggest source of increasing demand.

Oil will remain the largest single source of energy, though total energy consumption will decline from 31% to 27% by 2035. Coal’s share will fall, natural gas will rise. Total increase in demand for gas will outstrip both oil and coal combined.

Category: Markets

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

6 Responses to “World Energy Demand”

  1. ch says:

    So if non-OECD nations are already >50% of energy demand use (and though the chart doesn’t show it, oil demand) & will be 2/3 of energy demand by 2035, why do most American economists & investors continue to expect that oil will be priced in dollars?

    If you were non-OECD nations, & using dollars to buy your oil helped you fund things like the US military which is being used to threaten your biggest oil supplier (Iran) & your interests in Syria, wouldn’t you begin to try to move away from using dollars to pay for your oil?

    And suddenly, the record amounts of gold being purchased by non-OECD nations makes perfect sense…”But there’s not enough gold in the world to price oil in gold” come the protests…”not at anything near current gold prices.”

    And do you think the Arab nations would prefer to 0% yielding UST’s (which have massively depreciated v. critical food imports) or 0% yielding physical gold bullion (which has massively appreciated v. critical food imports) in return for their oil?

    It seems Tall Paul Volcker understood what they’d prefer: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-11/what-confidential-1974-memo-paul-volcker-reveals-about-americas-true-views-gold-rese

    “For this purpose, it would be useful if the oil producers would invest some of their excess revenues in gold purchases from deficit EC countries at close to a market price. This would be an attractive proposal for European countries, and for the U.S., in that it would not involve future interest burdens and would avoid immediate problems arising from increased Arab ownership of European and American industry. (The Arabs could both sell the gold and use the proceeds for direct investment, so that the industry ownership problem would not be completely solved.) From the Arab point of view such an asset would have the advantages of being protected from exchange-rate changes and inflation, and subject to absolute national control.”

    • Frwip says:

      On this precise question :

      Why do most American economists & investors continue to expect that oil will be priced in dollars?

      The answer is easy. Because the dollar is the only currency whose repo man is called the US Department of Defense, the very same way the British Pound was the currency of trade during the 19th century because it had a repo man called the Royal Navy, the repo men at each time being a reflection of the economic and political dominance of each country, the currency of choice being a (slight) unfair advantage to nurture and maintain said dominance.

      So until another country emerges that can conjure another credible repo man, the dollar it will be. And then, it will be whatever the currency of this country will happen to be.

      The rest will be left unaddressed except to point at this quote.

      … such an asset would have the advantages of being protected from exchange-rate changes and inflation, and subject to absolute national control.

      Yes, certainly, of course, just as the perusal of any long term gold price chart would demonstrate that gold is a perfect store of unvarying value…

      • Angryman1 says:

        Yup, doesn’t matter what they prefer. The US will just do something called “gentrification”.

      • ch says:

        You have cause & effect backwards.

        Domination of global trade & a strong currency led to the world using the dollar as its reserve currency which then led to the massive US military, which has preserved that dollar status in most current US adult lifetimes, but the US military did not cause USD reserve status.

        US military strategists are on record being very nervous about what happens to the defense budget when the US cannot print its own dollars to pay for the budget anymore (Rickards, Luce, etc.) And if you don’t believe them, watch what the military does – “crackpot” programs for biodiesel & the Navy’s “Green Fleet” initiatives are not boondoggles for ag voters. They are the result of the realization that trade dictates reserve currency status & reserve currency status dictates cheap oil & big military.

      • ch says:

        For 200+ years, the biggest trade partner of Brazil has become the next global reserve currency (b/c of Brazil’s natural resource position.)

        Britain maintained that position for well over a century until 1933, when they were surpassed by the US. China surpassed the US as Brazil’s biggest trade partner in 2010.

        The yuan will not be the next reserve currency/reserve asset…but I suspect that the currency they are amassing in record amounts in the past 4 years will have a major role in that new reserve currency/asset (gold.)

      • ch says:

        In response to this comment:

        “Yes, certainly, of course, just as the perusal of any long term gold price chart would demonstrate that gold is a perfect store of unvarying value…”

        You clearly have not looked at oil priced in gold, have you? Since 1971, oil prices have risen from around $2/barrel to $100/barrel, but in 1971, an oz of gold got you just over 17 barrels of oil & in 2013, that same ounce of gold got you anywhere from 12-18 barrels of oil…

        More recently, in 2003, every $1,000 Treasury bond the Chinese held bought them 50 barrels of oil; only 10 years later, that bond buys them 9 barrels. Gold? 12-13 barrels then & 12-13 barrels now.

        So yes, if you look at things from a non-dollar perspective, gold has been a much better store of value.

        Lastly, since the US went off the gold standard, gold has creamed the value of all other major asset classes in the US (Source: The Economist) – it was at $35 in 1971, the S&P 500 was at 100. Today, amidst a “crash”, gold is at $1300 & the S&P is at all-time highs of…1790.