Fossil Fuels To Dominate Global Energy Use Past 2050, McKinsey Says (reuters.com) 104
Oil, gas and coal will continue to dominate the world's energy mix well beyond 2050, as soaring electricity demand outpaces the shift to renewables, according to a new McKinsey report. From a report: McKinsey expects fossil fuels to account for about 41-55% of global energy consumption in 2050, down from today's 64% but higher than previous projections. U.S. data-center-related power demand is expected to grow nearly 25% a year until 2030, while demand from data centers globally would average 17% growth per year between 2022 and 2030, especially in OECD countries. Alternative fuels are not likely to achieve broad adoption before 2040 unless mandated, but renewables do have the potential to provide 61-67% of the 2050 global power mix, McKinsey said.
McKinsey clowns give results they were paid for (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does anyone listen to these consulting firm shills?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. All fossil fuel electricity generating plants are stranded assets. It is now less expensive to build out a brand new solar + battery plant than it is to simply continue operating an *existing* fossil fuel based plant. Solar is now even cheaper than wind turbine + battery.
China is bringing 5GW of solar online per week. That's 2.5 Hoover dams (at its peak) per week. China now generates twice us much electricity as the US of A.
Re: (Score:2)
FERC: Solar + wind made up 91% of new US power generating capacity in H1 2025 [electrek.co]
Science, Engineering, and Economics will control (Score:2)
FERC: Solar + wind made up 91% of new US power generating capacity in H1 2025
You make a very common mistake. You conflate the percentage or renewables used in power generation with total use. Power generation is only one use. There are many more industries demanding power, and consumer use as well. Then you double down on the mistake by referring to "new" power generation.
Renewables are the future. But exaggerating their growth, exaggerating their capabilities, ignoring their externalities, will not make them appear any faster. Renewables will arrive at a rate determined by scien
Its in the consumers hands, not the politicians. (Score:2)
LOL. So politics can't change the economics. What rock have you been living under?
Actually I'm standing up straight and watching the show unfold. How is the upcoming California mandate for EV only looking? It's looking like a publicity stunt. Sales not on track for that. Consumer behavior and preferences not on track for that. A different governor on the due date will feel zero need to pay a political prices for a predecessor's PR stunt and virtue signaling. The future governor will extend the deadline, or morph the EV mandate into a tax on ICE, etc.
What won't happen is the PR stunts
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have worked in the electric utility industry, how about you?
Then you should be qualified to offer a rebuttal that is not an appeal to authority fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't owe you an education.
In other words, you are intellectually unable to offer a sound rebuttal. Hence your failed appeal to authority fallacy. And your myopic picture on your job and missing the bigger picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much this, yes.
Nope. I just realize that you having a particular job offers zero information. You statements was an appeal to authority fallacy. Either you can rebuttal with facts and figures from your experience, or you are the one talking nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
thanks for proving the point
The facts and figure are on my side, people falsely conflate the percentage of renewables used in power generation with overall renewables use.
Re: (Score:2)
You make a very common mistake. You conflate the percentage or renewables used in power generation with total use. Power generation is only one use. There are many more industries demanding power, and consumer use as well. Then you double down on the mistake by referring to "new" power generation.
I have worked in the electric utility industry, how about you?
OK, you have explained the reason for your myopic focus on one industry, yours. Care to address my actual point: "Renewables will arrive at a rate determined by science, engineering, and economics. And this is what McKinsey is trying to tell us.".
Re: (Score:2)
you forgot politics
Nope. Politics doesn't control EV sales. Its a consumer decision, and except for a few privileged early adopters politics is rather irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
you already admitted it isn't in your other posts
Not really. Politics is a trivial influence. Hence the big slowdown when the market tried to move on from the early adopters. Science, engineering, and economics will decide when everyone goes EV. Not politics.
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. Politics is a trivial influence. Hence the big slowdown when the market tried to move on from the early adopters. Science, engineering, and economics will decide when everyone goes EV. Not politics.
you already admitted you were wrong in your other posts (and admitted it here again). No point in you setting up new strawmen now.
Nope. You simply misunderstand.
Re: (Score:2)
politics doesn't affect outcomes, consumers just decided they they don't want to end up in prison and obey the laws
Not the case here. For example when the California EV mandate day arrives, that future governor will not want the mess created by the public not being sufficiently willing to go EV yet. That future governor will not be inclined to pay the political price for going against the populace over a previous governors PR stunt. The future governor will just push the date and have a long list of reasons to do so.
Politicians will be political, they won't punish the voters they need for someone else's PR student.
Re: (Score:2)
sure, everyone buys the banned things because they dont' care about laws
Wrong. The politics concedes to economics, consumer demand, and the ban doesn't happen. The new governor not wanting to take the heat for some previous governor's PR stunt.
Re: (Score:2)
Generic - McKinsey and strategy consulting (Score:3)
It should be apparent now that, even if you agree with the consulting firm's strategy report, that the consulting firms need a horse race, a competition, an old vs new struggle and the usual conflicts to position themselves, their experts as the expert advisors.
And McKinsey made lots of money helping to shape how Purdue Pharma marketed and sell addictive opiates oxycotin.
https://www.justice.gov/archiv... [justice.gov]
McKinsey paid a $650 million fine to the US Government for their hand in the opiod addition problem.
Re: McKinsey clowns give results they were paid fo (Score:1)
Actually, the "bestets" arrangement is to use floating solar pannels and offshore wind turbines on the reservoir of a hydroelectric damm.
The hydro will provide the smoothing needed for renewables.
Failing that, the second best option is to colo the wind and solar with a combined cycle natural gas plant. After all, even if we stoped all gasoline and diesel burning, we still need oil for chemicals and plastic, and we still need helium for cool science stuff (like MRI) and both bring natural gas as a by-product
Re: McKinsey clowns give results they were paid fo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: McKinsey clowns give results they were paid f (Score:2)
By that same logic AI kicks ass, that's why all big companies are installing it everywhere.
And full EVs kick ass, that's why the chinese and norwegians are buying them like crazy
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't sound like the result Big Oil would want in the report - only in reality. The report saying this will drive politicians to make efforts to increase renewables deployment, and lower data center electricity usage. What Big Oil would want is for the report to say "don't worry, you don't need to do anything, fossil fuels will be dead in 10 years anyway."
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone as involved in LLM stuff as I am can see the future, which doesn't involve the crazy energy consumption being advertised in TFA. The people building infrastructure need to sell as many shovels as they
Oil soaked $ or sun baked $ are all the same (Score:2)
\This doesn't sound like the result Big Oil ...
There is no Big Oil. Not since the 1970s. They transitioned to Big Energy many decades ago. They have been doing renewables R&D for many decades. They have been involved in renewables for many decades. They will dominate renewable in the future. Why don't you see them doing more today? Because there is still big money to be made from fossil fuels. The day that renewables offer big money they will be there too.
Fossil Fuels, Renewables, Big [insert label here] doesn't care, they only care about the inc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You bought the whole greenwashing schtick, huh?
Not all. That's not what I am referring to. They have done genuine R&D, they are doing genuine test deployments, they just aren't doing anything large scale yet. There is still money to be made in fossil fuels, so that is there focus. When renewables become more profitable they will do more. Until that day arrives, they're just getting their tech ready for that day.
Re: (Score:2)
To repeat: greenwashing
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of flashy pilot programs for decades, right, and nothing to show for it. To repeat: greenwashing
Nope. You misunderstand. It R&D, its testing, when there is big money to be made they will have plenty to show. Until then, they focus on petroleum. They don't give a shit if they make money from fossil fuels or solar. They are in it for the money, and the money is still in fossil fuels. When that changes, their long timer R&D and testing will help them earn plenty.
Re: (Score:2)
They are in it for the money. politics tells us where the money goes. That's why all sides keep crying about it.
Big energy is not crying about oil, they are not crying about renewables. They are positioned to make big money off of either.
With respect to buying EVs, consumers decide where the money goes. And they overwhelming go with economics, not politics. Politically based decisions are a luxury for some of the early adopters.
Re: (Score:1)
so you're admitting now politics affects it. golf clap
Not really. Politics is a trivial influence. Hence the big slowdown when the market tried to move on from the early adopters. Science, engineering, and economics will decide when everyone goes EV. Not politics.
Re: (Score:1)
so you're just providing more examples of where you were wrong. politics has been and still is affecting it, just like you keep admitting.
Wrong. You erroneous conflate a trivial influence with actual control.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does anyone listen to these consulting firm shills?
Probably because they are often right? Don't get me wrong I too love to live in the ideal world, but you don't even need to look at strained energy grids to see coal power dominating against all logic even from a purely political position. Just look at the story a few days ago from Australia.
The human race is collectively too fucking dumb to solve our own problems. It seems even consultants recognise that now.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.economist.com/busi... [economist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
People have viewpoints like this the world over, if you want to choose a team to support do so, but the reality is the world is far more complex than picking a side that says things you like to hear. Despite everything we are still trending *upwards* in coal consumption per annum. We are still trending *upwards* in fuel consumption per annum. We can't even talk how coal won't dominate in 40 years when we haven't even yet seen a decline in its growth.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese government is all-in on renewables, but they have stopgap coal projects to tide them over as consumption rises even faster. As seen in the USA, that won't go on forever if trends hold: we've already passed Peak Oil and electricity consumption has platea
Re: (Score:2)
Slow news day as usual. (Score:1)
To what single-digit IQ audience is that not instantly obvious so why is it defiling Slashdot?
Those whose fortunes depend on... (Score:2)
...fossil fuel will NEVER allow the fortunes to be lost.
Prepare for some really awful political and economic trouble.
Re: (Score:1)
...fossil fuel will NEVER allow the fortunes to be lost.
Prepare for some really awful political and economic trouble.
As much as they may fight and lobby for government support I don't expect this to last for long.
The government needs energy too. While politicians can be influenced to buy the more expensive energy to keep the lights on in government buildings there will be other politicians that will point to lower cost options.
Can the fossil fuel industry pay politicians enough money to maintain their dominance indefinitely? I doubt it. Renewable energy has their own lobbying to keep out nuclear fission from competing
Re: (Score:2)
Especially with China's Coal First policy (Score:1, Troll)
Fossil Fuels To Dominate Global Energy Use Past 2050, McKinsey Says
Especially with China's:
- Lowest cost energy first policy, a coal first policy.
- Renewable supplementing not displacing coal.
- The Paris Accord allowing China to increase its pollution until 2030.
- The CCP warning it may not respect that 2030 deadline.
Note that some folks will conflate the use of coal in electricity production with the overall use of coal. I am referring to total coal usage across all industries. With respect to the percentage used in electricity production, the percentage is smaller
McKinsey oversimplified 4 quadrant (Score:2)
AI is not a bubble but a success; Full EV transition success: WE ARE SCREWED! NOT ENOUGH ELECTRICITY! EVERYBODY PANIC!
AI is a bubble that bursts; Full EV transition fails:
WE ARE SCREWED! SURPLUS INFRA GALORE. ALL THAT CAPEX WILL GO INTO OUR BILLS!
AI Bubble busts; Full EV transitions successfull:
KWOOL; enough grid electricity for all at fair prices.
AI is a success; Full EV trabsition a failure:
KWOOL; enough grid electricity for all at fair prices.
Re: (Score:1)
So about a 50% chance we are screwed, eh.
Re: (Score:2)
So about a 50% chance we are screwed, eh.
Yes, and about 50% chance we are kwool. In reality, remember this is a typical oversimplifies McKinsey stuff. there are more scenarios, for instance.
AI Platoes and EVs platoes, so we keep the current status quo.
there are many more scenarios, dependeding of your vision of the world (shades of gray, colour), and the number of dimensions you can handle (2, 3, 3+time, four, n-dimension manifold).
It is the folks at McKinsey that are stuck to 4 quadrants.
Re: (Score:2)
All of Tech Uses 2% of US Energy (Score:1)
Time for an end of the world party if accurate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If that is true we are all dead, that is going to lead to catastrophic climate change which will blow every last tipping point and lead to complete climate collapse, [...] It better be wrong or its time to have an end of the world party.
It's probably wrong, as we will likely have a nuclear war before then, and we can have a party at ground zero instead.
Re: (Score:2)
It sucks, eh? LOL
What else can you do but laugh in the face of certain destruction? You can see it coming, but you can't do anything about it. You could reduce or entirely eliminate your own footprint and it wouldn't matter in the slightest compared to the industrial output and the imposed need for personal transportation.
It sucks, eh? LOL
Corporate decision making (Score:4, Insightful)
The trouble with climate change is that its effects don't occur in the current quarter.
Still believe nuclear energy is a bad idea? (Score:1)
Germany closed their nuclear power plants and then started to knock over windmills and historic churches to get to the coal beneath them. What did everyone expect to happen? Germany wasn't building enough wind and solar generating capacity to keep up with demand. They were buying a bunch of natural gas from Russia to keep the lights on. When buying that natural gas became problematic then Germany had to restart idled coal power plants, mine more coal, and ask allies like Canada and USA to ship them LNG.
Re: (Score:2)
No, nuclear power plants make excellent targets in wartime — that really helps all the other countries in the coming global climate wars. Just spread them out nicely and show them off proudly, please.
market forces (Score:2)
McKinsey doesn't have a fucking clue.
As demand for coal drops the oversupply will cause a price drop, mines will shut.
Coal fired power stations will fail, be too expensive to maintain or operate and be shut down.
Solar, wind and batteries will continue to get cheaper,
undercutting coal fired causing more shutdowns.
Electric vehicles will prove to be much cheaper and more reliable
and backup the home electricity supply.
Transport will get cheaper, power bills will drop to near $zero.
All the dinosaurs will die and
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed! Perhaps power bills will be a little above $zero, but the combination of solar, batteries, and long-distance transmission is already cheaper than fossil fuels in many circumstances. And this trio is only going to get cheaper and better. I don't foresee a bright future for grid power coming from either fossil fuels or nuclear, unless insane laws prop them up.
Re: (Score:2)
Add that ICE vehicles just work and for most situations are better than EVs.
Found the non-EV owner. No way in hell would I buy an ICE vehicle if I lived in a house (which most people do). It's better in every way, even the cheapo Leafs I've had for years.
Its a no brainer depending on region you live in (Score:1)
Add that ICE vehicles just work and for most situations are better than EVs.
Found the non-EV owner. No way in hell would I buy an ICE vehicle if I lived in a house (which most people do). It's better in every way, even the cheapo Leafs I've had for years.
In my part of the country, the weather and terrain is tailor made for EVs. However in other parts of the country, ICE has an advantage.
My next car will be an EV, but if I lived in a different part of the country my pros and cons would be completely different. Here the pros win. Elsewhere, the cons win, for now. In 10 years the issues and problems will be complete different.
A friend who is pro EV, who had multiple EVs over many years, bought an ICE after moving. It made more sense for his new locale.
Re: (Score:1)
My ICE vehicle takes 4 minutes to "charge" and will go 530 miles. Your overpriced toy can't.
This isn't a debate on ICEV vs. BEV as there is the option of PHEV.
Consider a married couple I know that have a PHEV that can get an extra 100 miles of range from burning gasoline. I don't recall the range they got on all electric power but I'll assume at least 150 miles. That means for them to visit family 250 miles away they'd need to make one stop for fuel on these trips while making their commutes around their neighborhood on all electric power. They'd make a 4 minute stop to get 250 miles, assuming
Re: No brainer. People will stick with what works (Score:2)
I believe that if the BEV is to become popular in the USA then it will be because it is seen as a secondary vehicle for local commutes while their primary vehicle is for the trips needing 500+ miles with a 5 minute stop at a filling station.
I see that as backwards; the primary would be an EV for everyday commutes and something else for the longer road trips. This what my wife and I do, except both cars are EVs, and if that won't work, we rent an ICEV for a few days. I've taken one of them on a multi thousa
Re: (Score:2)
Add that ICE vehicles just work and for most situations are better than EVs.
Found the non-EV owner. No way in hell would I buy an ICE vehicle if I lived in a house (which most people do). It's better in every way, even the cheapo Leafs I've had for years.
In my area, regular gas costs $2.77/gallon. At 25 mpg that's about 11 cents/mile.
Electricity is costing me $.31/kwh. The EPA rates a tesla Y long range AWD at 3.5 miles/kwh, so about 9 cents/mile.
EV's also pay an annual fee currently at $260/year.
So for 10,000 miles of driving in a year the energy cost for an ICE is $1,108, and the energy cost for this EV is $1,145
And electricity is expected to go up, and gas seems to be going down
Re: (Score:3)
In my area, regular gas costs $2.77/gallon. At 25 mpg that's about 11 cents/mile. Electricity is costing me $.31/kwh. The EPA rates a tesla Y long range AWD at 3.5 miles/kwh, so about 9 cents/mile.
And electricity is expected to go up, and gas seems to be going down
Your electricity costs are about the same as mine. My petrol costs however are between $6.50 and $8.10 per gallon.
I have solar power that is curtailed quite a lot during the day, as we can only export 5kW to the grid. I'll be getting a home battery in the next few months to take advantage of that curtailment to reduce our electricity charges, and an EV also seems a no brainer at our costs - especially when the majority of our usage is short trips around the city.
Re: (Score:1)
... and an EV also seems a no brainer at our costs - especially when the majority of our usage is short trips around the city.
Surveys of BEV owners show they predominately own more than one vehicle, and the other vehicle(s) will be hydrocarbon burners.
I expect that if the BEV is to be popular in the USA then it will be because people producing BEVs will embrace the idea that the BEV is for a secondary vehicle. That is they stop trying to get more and more range and trying to reduce charging times. Instead they should expect a BEV to be driven locally and charged overnight where and when the driver sleeps at night.
How often do p
Re: (Score:3)
Re: No brainer. People will stick with what works (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ok but I keep asking this: if a person has one of these EVs for short trips and then an occasion comes up to go on a long trip then what do they do?
I thought I was clear on that, they'd drive their other vehicle. 37% of households have 2 vehicles, 22% have 3 or more:
https://www.forbes.com/advisor... [forbes.com]
I'd expect anyone looking to buy a short range BEV to have plans on how to drive beyond the range of that BEV. This gets to your next point.
We need far better transportation for distances further than one of these EVs can go but closer than you would take a flight. Renting isn't an option because that involves planning far in advance and it's extremely expensive. Like a two week rental could easily eat up your EV savings for a year.
Renting is an option. At least that's what I've been told for years by people defending BEV ownership. I'll repeat the point that I'm proposing short range BEVs as a secondary vehicle. It's meant for situations lik
Re: No brainer. People will stick with what works (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just went on a roadtrip with my EV across the country. Had absolutely no problems charging along the way. Plus, charging stops seemed to correspond to how often I'd normally stop to use the bathroom and stretch, so it only added a nominal amount of time to the trip.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Energy is not the big cost savings. You think you're the only one who can do arithmetic? It's not all about cost, either. EVs are just way better to drive and gas stations suck. 5 minutes/gas stop X 52 weeks = too much goddamn time at a gas station. It goes on and on, but you're going to keep thinking your guessing beats my knowing.
Lighten up, Francis. No need to get your panties in a twist because I pointed out that the purported energy savings are not real for some people. As for any other costs, EV insurance costs more for a reason. You can claim "but but but routine maintenance costs!" but that means nothing to me since I do my own maintenance and repairs and it costs me very little. As for the driving experience, I liked the new Y for the most part but decided to pass for now. Someday I will want the self driving though.
Why a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is tiresome to have so many virgins explain sex to us.
Somebody has to
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on where you are, energy can be the big cost savings. I pay less than $0.10 per kWh, so typically it costs me around $15 to charge my car per month.
Re: (Score:1)
Electricity will get more expensive as datacenters suck up available power. Add that ICE vehicles just work and for most situations are better than EVs.
This will only change when way more power is brought online, batteries get far better and AI chips become more power efficient.
G.M. Takes $1.6 Billion Loss After Electric Vehicle Subsidy Goes Away.
The article linked in the parent post is a good read. In there is a mention on how people are liking PHEVs because they offer all electric commuting without the inconvenience of long stops at a charger when on long trips. Well, it wasn't spelled out that way exactly but that's what I took from it.
For most Americans they have a commute under 50 miles. So, if we can get PHEVs with an all electric range of 50 miles then that's a lot of people not burning gasoline to get to work/school/shopping/church/whatev