The Pakistan Economy Watch (PEW) on Monday said global energy demand is to grow 28 percent by 2035 while natural gas will be major fuel source within two decades. By 2035, the world will need to produce over 32 percent more energy as compare to 2015 to satisfy the thirst of the world.
Historically, coal and oil have been the dominant fuel sources in the global energy mix but global warming and environmental issue are changing situation in favour of natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel, said Dr. Murtaza Mughal, President PEW.
Natural gas is the logical leading fuel source for the future which will have one-third of the market in two decades, says BP Energy Outlook 2035.
Dr. Murtaza Mughal said that roughly 70 percent of natural gas is exported through pipelines with the remaining 30 percent is shipped as LNG however some experts are of the view that LNG trade to overtake pipeline trade in a decade.
According to Goldman Sachs, global energy demand from 2000 to 2015 grew at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 2.3 percent and natural gas grew at 2.6 percent, over that same period, LNG has grown by 6.3 pc while current level in LNG trade stands at 250 million tonnes per annum worth more than $120 billion.
LNG is anticipated to grow at a 4.1 percent CAGR through 2035, significantly faster than the energy market as a whole at 1.4 percent. The current LNG market is being limited by supply constraints and global liquefaction capacity stands at 300 MTPA while 2035 annual traded volume could be as high as 550 MTPA.
At the end of 2013, the global LNG fleet stood at 357 vessels, with another 108 conventional carriers already in order books apart from several larger Q-Flex and Q-Max sized carriers.
Davy on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 9:43 am
The Pakistan Economy Watch (PEW) on Monday said global energy demand is to grow 28 percent by 2035 while natural gas will be major fuel source within two decades. By 2035, the world will need to produce over 32 percent more energy as compare to 2015 to satisfy the thirst of the world.
How to Use Excel Goal Seek
Create a spreadsheet in Excel that has your data.
Click the cell you want to change. …
From the Data tab, select the What if Analysis… …
Select Goal seek.. …
In the Goal Seek dialog, enter the new “what if” amount in the To value text box. …
We also need to tell Excel which cell to change. …
Click OK.
They cannot be serious? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to word it as follows?
The Pakistan Economy Watch (PEW) on Monday said global energy demand would grow 28 percent by 2035 if we were not at limits of growth. Natural gas will be major fuel source within two decades but natural gas is not a replacement for oil hence a further headwind to an already unstable economy. By 2035, the world will need to produce over 32 percent more energy as compare to 2015 to satisfy population growth. This is unlikely all things considering. We are facing unprecedented shortages of vital resources. We can adjust to some of this and try mitigate the worst effects but most of it we will just have to live with.
rockman on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 9:52 am
And once again the confusion over the definition of demand. Simply it’s the amount of any commodity consumers can AFFORD to buy…not what they want to acquire. Global demand will be a function of what consumers are capable of buying. And that will be a funcion of prices and global economic vitality. Neither of which the EIA or anyone else can predict in the future…just as they were unable to predict the current conditions even a few years ago.
Westexasfanclub on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 9:58 am
While we on this forum are discussing the complexity of replacing oil with gas, if not to say the illusion, others discuss and forecast an enormous growth in energy supply by natural gas until 2035. They definitely must know something we don’t have any access to. The hollow earth theory must be true, there must exist some kind of parallel world!
Boat on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 10:59 am
The only reason coal is headed out is because of regulations on pollution. If the same thing happens to Oil and nat gas the predictions could be wrong. Solar and Wind are close in affordability and a carbon tax would make them the cheapest and create an entire new energy paradigm.
In the US raising money for solar is driven by using bonds as the money supply. As wild as the markets are Solar bonds will increasingly become more attractive.
penury on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 11:01 am
When all you have is hopes and dreams anything is possible.
MrNoItAll on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 11:23 am
I love the 2035 predictions based on current trends. I find them amusing, in a tragic kind of way. Just knowing that people think things will keep going pretty much as they are and have been all the way to 2035 is enough to give me a slightly twisted case of the chuckles.
Hey Boat — How are they going to make all those solar panels and install them and build out the infrastructure without burning megatons of coal and oil, the exact thing you’re talking about throwing a carbon tax on? Do you even try to think these things through before you post?
MSN Fanboy on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 12:51 pm
MRNOITALL: Don’t be nasty, Boats just trying to take Planters place.
Thats why he keeps talking about abstract and unrelated stuff in his other posts.
Fat Lady on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 1:04 pm
Naomi Klein has the transition answer. http://takvera.blogspot.com/2015/09/when-youre-in-hole-stop-digging-naomi.html
apneaman on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 2:57 pm
Melting Ice Isn’t Opening Arctic to Oil Bonanza
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/world/europe/melting-ice-isnt-opening-arctic-to-oil-bonanza.html?_r=0
apneaman on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 3:01 pm
Apparently, Naomi Klein shitting out a kid and jetting all over the planet for years and years when your supposed to be the great communicator for overshoot is alright. It’s the rest of y’all that need to tighten your belts.
onlooker on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 3:06 pm
Yep, alot like Al Gore the poster boy for GW and the Green movement yet living the luxurious life. What can you expect from a politician.
Fat Lady on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 3:14 pm
I hear ya apeaman, my sarcasm was not lost. I see Klein as a propagandist with a message of hope. Like McKibben, Klein tells us all of this future transition that is starting now because the cost of solar panels has dropped and more technology, if we can get the evil FF industry shut down. No more FF? Never will there be a false front of clean energy.
James Tipper on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 4:08 pm
@apneaman
Lol at the Naomi Klein comment, very accurate. I’d take someone like Gail Tverberg over hopium spewing Klein any day of the week.
BobInget on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 5:03 pm
Naomi Klein calls for a three day work week.
Sound nuts?
How about a four day week?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-20/uniqlo-to-try-out-four-day-workweek
http://www.times-herald.com/local/20150902C-Grantville-council-front-12-inches-2pix
http://www.shape.com/lifestyle/mind-and-body/why-three-day-weekends-should-be-new-norm
Boat on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 6:05 pm
Bob, just like the immigration problem there needs to be less people. Working less and still surviving only allows more people. If were running out of water and the ocean is rising/ displacing hundreds of millions of people. Why would you want to promote policies that encourage higher populations.
Boat on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 6:14 pm
MrNo,
Hey Boat — How are they going to make all those solar panels and install them and build out the infrastructure without burning megatons of coal and oil, the exact thing you’re talking about throwing a carbon tax on? Do you even try to think these things through before you post?
So what is smarter, burning FF to create energy that lasts 20-30 years or burn it running something that lasts milliseconds. This has been the problem with another tired o’l doomer argument. They can’t see the attraction of net cleaner energy. I won’t even get into healthcare costs and how distributed energy cuts down on power loss etc.
apneaman on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 7:47 pm
Bob, I’m all for less work for everyone. We all would be better off going for some nice long leisurely walks and start contemplating again.
Fat Lady on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 8:23 pm
“So what is smarter, burning FF to create energy that lasts 20-30 years or burn it running something that lasts milliseconds.” Good point Boat, however, the same net effect happens, you are dumping fossil fuel carbon into the atmosphere initially and getting back about the same amount of net energy over the life time of the device. There are no green energy devices producing the next generation green energy devices with net energy output for every day use. The point is green energy (if there is such a thing)will never allow the complexity of our current living standard.
GregT on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 8:48 pm
“So what is smarter, burning FF to create energy that lasts 20-30 years or burn it running something that lasts milliseconds.”
For starters Boat, the energy required to build out an entire array of solar cells necessary to run our societies would last a bit longer than milliseconds. Probably more like many decades.
Secondly, building out that infrastructure is by no means even the beginning of the energy required. Everything from storage, to the grid, to the gadgets needed to utilize that energy must also be considered. A solar panel sitting out in your backyard is useless without batteries, charging systems, inverters, wire, and all of the things that you run that electricity with. All of which require energy and resources, and many of those resources are also finite in nature.
“This has been the problem with another tired o’l doomer argument. They can’t see the attraction of net cleaner energy.”
If you’d actually been paying attention Boat, you would know that the “doomer” argument all along has been to install stand alone electric power generation on your own home. Which is exactly what many of us here have already done. You, on the other hand, as the cornie, have in all likelihood done nothing of the sort. You believe that “somebody will think of something’ for you. We do not. We are making plans for our own futures, while you watch television and float in your pool. (another complete waste of energy)
As usual, your arguments are not only simplistic, they do not reflect reality. You are not being truthful Boat. With yourself, or anybody else.
Makati1 on Mon, 7th Sep 2015 9:57 pm
Rockman, some on here have not made the financial/economic connection with the resource/energy depletion facts. All of my 70+ years were spent deciding if I could afford what I wanted, AFTER I paid for what I NEEDED.
That is more true today than ever. Oil could be at $5/bbl and fewer and fewer will be able to afford it in the future, therefore, shrinking the demand. When the wells shut down for the last time, tens, maybe hundreds, of billions of barrels will still be in the ground, never to see light of day.
Or so I understand the situation.
rockman on Tue, 8th Sep 2015 6:28 am
The problem with the burning ff for energy vs using ff to build out the alts argument is that it’s not an either or situation. The economies still have to spend $trillions for ff during such a transition while they also have to make $trillions in alt investments. That has always been the very weak point of folks arguing that all we need do is transfer ff monies to alt investments. It can’t be done over a short period of time. Maybe if the process had started slowly 40 or 50 years ago. But that didn’t happen. And it’s not very likely IMHO that we have such a time span to start now.
Kenz300 on Tue, 8th Sep 2015 2:59 pm
The transition away from fossil fuels to safer, cleaner and cheaper alternative energy sources is a must if we are to deal with Climate Change.
The Year Humans Got Serious About Climate Change — NYMag
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/sunniest-climate-change-story-ever-read.html
Kenz300 on Wed, 9th Sep 2015 8:21 am
Electric vehicles and bicycles are the future…..
The Above Ground Oil Field: or, why $65 and $94 oil are inflection points for renewable fuels : Biofuels Digest
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2015/09/07/the-above-ground-oil-field-or-why-65-and-94-oil-are-inflection-points-for-renewable-fuels/
Davy on Wed, 9th Sep 2015 8:46 am
Bullshit Kenz, EV is not part of your wonderful fake green future. Bicycles are a part of our future I hope.
GregT on Wed, 9th Sep 2015 12:21 pm
Kenz300,
After all these years, you still continue to copy and paste the same old nonsense.
Your posts have become nothing more than mildly irritating background noise.