BP yearly energy report

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

BP just released its annual Statistical Review of World Energy. The latest report contains world, regional, and country level energy production and consumption information, through 2021.

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/c…

There is a lot of information here, with some new pages added that were not in previous versions. Below is my first glance summary of some of the broad issues.

2021 was basically a rebound year after the widespread pandemic related economic disruptions of 2020. Energy use in general rebounded in 2021, but in many cases remained below the pre-pandemic levels of 2019. The one big exception to this trend was China. China set new record highs in consumption of the big three fossil fuels, oil, natural gas, and coal.

Overall, total world Primary Energy consumption set a new record in 2021 at 595.15 exajoules (EJ). As mentioned above, China’s jump in energy consumption was a big part of setting this record.

CO2:
World CO2 emissions from energy were not quite a record in 2021, and were slightly below the emissions released in 2018 and 2019.

Oil:
Total oil consumption rebounded in much of the west, but was generally still slightly below pre-pandemic levels. China’s oil consumption set an all-time high in 2021.

Natural gas:
Overall natural gas production and consumption were at all-time highs in 2021. Production of gas in the US was at an all-time high, even though domestic consumption was not quite a record.

Coal:
Coal consumption was at all-time highs in China and India. Below are the top three coal consumers for 2021, measured in exajoules.
China: 86.17 EJ
India: 20.09
US: 10.57

The US is now a distant third in coal consumption, while China and India continue increasing their demand for the dirtiest of fossil fuels.

That is all for now. More later, once I digest these numbers a little more…

  • Pete
16 Likes
2

The US is now a distant third in coal consumption, while China and India continue increasing their demand for the dirtiest of fossil fuels.

On a per capita basis, many developed countries, including Australia, Germany, Japan and US consume much more coal than India.

India’s per capita coal consumption in cubic ft is 730 and USA’s is 2263. This despite US having much higher oil and gas production than India. A poor developing country can ill afford to reduce the lowest cost energy source and pay massive costs to import oil.

https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-count…

2 Likes
3

On a per capita basis, many developed countries, including Australia, Germany, Japan and US consume much more coal than India.

I was looking at it from a climate change perspective. The atmosphere doesn’t care about per-capita emissions. The atmosphere only responds to the amount of CO2 currently floating around.

Here is one way to look at it. One of the new additions to the BP report is a page showing the CO2-equivalent emissions for the combined greenhouse gases emitted from energy + process emissions + methane + gas flaring. Total world emissions for 2021 were 38.976 billion metric tonnes. The page also breaks it down for the countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD is essentially the richer, developed and industrial countries. Non-OECD are therefore the poorer, but developing nations.

On page 14 of the document, we see in 2021, OECD countries emitted 12.174 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent. That same year, non-OECD countries emitted 26.802 billion tonnes! The developing world emits over twice as much CO2 on an absolute basis as the developed world. That kinda points to where the real problems lie, and what needs to be corrected the most.

The US certainly emits its share of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. At 5.2 billion tonnes, we are #2 behind China at 12.0 billion tonnes. But it should also be recognized that China emits over twice as much CO2 (equivalent) as the US on an absolute basis.

Another way to look at it…
In 2011, the US emitted 3.0 times as much CO2-equivalent as India.
In 2021, the US only emitted 1.85 times as much CO2-eq as India.
India is catching up. At the current rate, its only a matter of time until they pass the US.

  • Pete
2 Likes
4

On a per capita basis, many developed countries, including Australia, Germany, Japan and US consume much more coal than India.

=========================================

Agree. And the following countries also exceed India on a per capita basis:

Canada
China
Israel
Turkey
Russia
Ukraine

5

" The atmosphere doesn’t care about per-capita emissions. The atmosphere only responds to the amount of CO2 currently floating around."

Exactly. It’s the nominal totals that matter.
Climate is impacted by how much damage is caused by supporting the global population.

I don’t understand why the activists aren’t calling for population limits and controls. That would seem to me to be more effective.

3 Likes
6

Exactly. It’s the nominal totals that matter.
Climate is impacted by how much damage is caused by supporting the global population.

I don’t understand why the activists aren’t calling for population limits and controls. That would seem to me to be more effective.

A lot of activists are calling for that. But there are two big problems. First is that how to do actually limit population growth? There might be cultural resistance to that. Or in China’s case they don’t want to limit population growth due to coming demographic problems.

Now, there are ways proven effective to reduce fertility rates. One is to provide family planning services. Simply explain how contraception works and provide said contraception at little or no cost. Another way is to provide sixth grade education for girls. The bang for the buck for both of those is off the charts. But the problem is that the rich countries need to pay for it. Foreign aid is not popular with many members of Congress especially if the discussion includes family planning, so there won’t be a lot that happens in those areas that isn’t already being done.

The other big problem is that the issue really does come down to per capita CO2. It was noted up thread that coal consumption (which we can use for a rough proxy for CO2) per capita is lower in China and India, but the total consumption is much higher. The reason is simple: The US is a much richer nation, so we consume lots more stuff, which is reflected in the amount of energy we consume.

Pro-fossil fuel lobbies point to China/India and say since they are the biggest emitters solving the problem lies them and we shouldn’t act until they do. But what China/India etc. say is industrialization lifts their people out of poverty, so they aren’t willing to shoulder the most of the costs just so people in the west can remain rich. And for the record, it is incorrect that China and India are doing nothing. China is by far the world’s largest producer of wind energy and India is in the top 4.

The thing that might save us is lowering costs for renewables. Solar PV and battery costs have dropped by about 90% in the last decade, and wind was something like 60-70%, IIRC. Basically, the cost reduction driver is simply the more you build, the cheaper it gets. If those trends continue for about 10 more years then renewables will be as cheap or cheaper than carbon sources almost everywhere. We’ll see if there is the political will to continue on that path.

2 Likes
7

Education (particularly of girls/women) is very important for reducing fertility impact on climate. Especially if it is accompanied by access to cheap/free birth control methods.

But the per capita equation is still there. The impact of the US cutting emissions by 10% has little impact compared to cutting the India/China by 5% (made up percentages). Of course, the richer nations consume more per capita (that’s how we define rich), just like richer people consume more per capita than poor people.

Cost reduction of renewables might help, but I hold little hope there is political will to enforce usage until they are actually significantly lower than fossil-fueled.

There’s always war, famine and pestilence to help limit population growth.

Covid-19, war in Ukraine, food shortages - seems like we’re on our way…

1 Like
8

There’s always war, famine and pestilence to help limit population growth.

Covid-19, war in Ukraine, food shortages - seems like we’re on our way…

=================================================

History show that all of these items you have listed have not slowed down population growth in the last 200 years. World population has grown exponentially in the last 200 years.

IMO human viability on earth will suffer more and more with climate change, pollution, desertification, famine, pestilence and war around from 2050 onward if major change are not undertaken.

The USA has taken two major steps backward recently with outlawing abortion and outlawing regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. These steps are not going to decrease population and greenhouse gas emissions.

I am very disappointed in the USA with fossil fuels, religion and guns dominating our economy and culture. I am now getting EU passports for my extended family so that we have the option to go and live in Europe where sanity still rules.

Jaak

9

The USA has taken two major steps backward recently with outlawing abortion…

The USA has NOT outlawed abortion, abortion legislation was handed back to the state legislatures.

and outlawing regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

The USA has NOT outlawed regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, it has stopped federal agencies from legislating giving that power back to the Congress.

The Captain

11 Likes
10

History show that all of these items you have listed have not slowed down population growth in the last 200 years.

The world population growth rate peaked in 1962-63 and has been slowing over half a century now.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=Am…

DB2

11

History show that all of these items you have listed have not slowed down population growth in the last 200 years.

The world population growth rate peaked in 1962-63 and has been slowing over half a century now.</>

History shows that the relationship between prosperity and a lower birth rate was recognised at least as far back as the late 18th century. David Ricardo pointed it out,citing data going back as far as the glory days of the Roman Empire. And he made a sufficienty convincing case that his investment-management client, famous doomsayer Thomas Malthus, devoted the rest of his career to the economics of abundance.

That far back, contraceptives were probably not a significant factor. But education may have been.

1 Like
12

The USA has NOT outlawed abortion, abortion legislation was handed back to the state legislatures.

The USA has NOT outlawed regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, it has stopped federal agencies from legislating giving that power back to the Congress.

Technically, you are correct. But on a practical basis, abortion was outlawed and GHG emissions regulations were repealed.

A number of states either had old laws still in the books or had passed recent legislation outlawing abortion. So the USSC decision does indeed have the immediate effect of outlawing abortion in 20 or so states as of the decision’s formal publication.

Ditto for the EPA regulations. The affected regulations are immediately outlawed. Yes, Congress can put them back if they wish. But Congress could also have passed legislation overriding the regulations. That Congress did not take such action is an indication that Congress approved of them.

In business, you usually want decisions made at the lowest reasonable level. You don’t want the President of the company deciding which pencils to buy for the office staff or which customer returns to accept. General parameters are given, and people further down the organization chart are given authority to make decisions within those parameters.

The same thing goes on in government. Congress frequently writes laws giving authority to the Executive branch to write regulations appropriate for administering the law. If that process is disrupted too much, Congress will get bogged down in the gory details of administering laws and could easily lose sight of bigger picture issues that need to be addressed.

—Peter

1 Like
13

Technically, you are correct.

Thank you!

The Captain

1 Like
14

Ditto for the EPA regulations. The affected regulations are immediately outlawed.

Except, in this case the regulations in dispute had never been put into effect and would never be put into effect because the deadlines specified in them were now in the past. I.e., they should never have been litigated because there was no standing.

Nevertheless, you can be sure that this finding will stimulate many similar cases.

1 Like