Connect with us

Economy

Welcome to the Era of Energy Realism

Published

8 minute read

The Honest Broker Roger Pielke Jr.

Every year for the past 15 years, JP Morgan publishes an outstanding annual energy report by Michael Cembalest. Last week JP Morgan published its 2025 edition and today I share five important figures from the many in the report, which I highly recommend.

Cembalest’s top line:

[A]fter $9 trillion globally over the last decade spent on wind, solar, electric vehicles, energy storage, electrified heat and power grids, the renewable transition is still a linear one; the renewable share of final energy consumption is slowly advancing at 0.3%–0.6% per year.

You can see that in the figure below — my graph using data from the 2024 EI Statistical Review of World Energy — which shows the proportion of global energy consumption from all carbon-free sources. Since 2012, that proportion has increased from about 14% to a bit over 18%. Exactly as Cembaest observes — that increase has been linear. At that rate of change the world would hit 100% carbon-free sometime after 2200.

Let’s take a look at some of the figures I found most interesting in the JP Morgan Report.

Solar Reality Check

“. . . when you boil it all down, solar power accounts for ~2% of global final energy consumption, a figure we expect to reach 4.5% by 2027. Even if these solar trends continue into the 2030’s, human prosperity will be inextricably linked to affordable natural gas and other fossil fuels for many years.

Human prosperity, in places where it thrives, relies heavily on steel, cement, ammonia/fertilizer, plastics, glass, chemicals and other industrial products which are energy- intensive to produce. . . these products currently rely on fossil fuels for 80%-85% of their energy.

And remember, prosperity itself is energy-intensive: among the tightest relationships in economics is the connection between a country’s per capita GDP and its per capita energy consumption.”

I remain very bullish on solar, but it won’t displace much fossil fuels anytime soon.

Electrify Everything is Proceeding Slowly

“Remember this key aspect of the energy transition: until an energy use is electrified, it’s hard to decarbonize it using green grid electrons. And while grid decarbonization is continuing at a steady pace, the US has made little progress increasing the electricity share of final energy consumption for the reasons discussed in last year’s “Electravision” piece. One major obstacle: transmission line growth is stuck in a rut, way below DoE targets for 2030 and 2035. Another obstacle: shortages of transformer equipment, whose delivery times have extended from 4-6 weeks in 2019 to 2-3 years. . . “

The panel on the rgiht above indicates that the U.S. was never going to meet the emissions reduction targets of the Biden Administration — which has been clear for several years now.

“The US is not unique with respect to the slow pace of electrification, although a few countries are making faster progress. Over the last decade China made the largest advance, bringing it in line with the OECD.

Part of the challenge may simply be the long useful lives of existing industrial plants, furnaces, boilers and vehicles. In other words, electrification might accelerate as their useful lives are exhausted. But the high cost of electricity compared to natural gas (particularly in places without a carbon tax) is another impediment to electrification that is not easy to solve since this ratio reflects relative total costs of production and distribution.”

(In order to coerce users, a carbon tax is necessary)

Energy Dependence and Independence

“The US has achieved US energy independence for the first time in 40 years while Europe and China compete for global energy resources. China’s imports are similar to Europe in energy terms but half as much as a share of domestic energy consumption. Energy intensive manufacturing has shifted to the developing world since the mid 1990’s. China is negotiating with Russia and Turkmenistan regarding future gas pipeline projects. China has the benefit of time: China gas imports are projected to reach 250 bcm by 2030 vs 170 bcm in 2023, almost all of which can be met by already contracted supplies. What was Taiwan thinking by shutting down nuclear power which has fallen from 50% to 5% of generation? Taiwan is now one of the most energy dependent countries in the world, resulting in rising economic costs if China were to impose a blockade.”

The Trump administration’s trade war with Canada risks upending North America’s energy dominance. What can they be thinking?

Fossil Fuels Falling and Rising

“Fossil fuel shares of final energy are falling faster in China, Japan and Europe than in the US. Growth in fossil fuel consumption is slowing but no clear sign of a peak on a global basis. Hydraulically fractured oil and gas account for 60%+ of US primary energy consumption. Global LNG export capacity is set to expand by one third by 2030. Coal consumption is roughly flat in final energy terms as rising EM consumption offsets falling OECD consumption.”

US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright spoke at an energy conference in Houston, and his remarks have been transcribed by Robert Bryce. Here is an excerpt:

Let’s do a quick survey of energy access today. Roughly one billion people live lives remotely recognizable to us in this room. We wear fancy clothes, mostly made out of hydrocarbons. We travel in motorized transport. The extra lucky of us fly across the world to attend conferences. We heat our homes in winter, cool them in summer, store myriad foods in our freezers and refrigerators, and have light, communications and entertainment at the flip of a switch.

Pretty awesome.

This lifestyle requires an average of 13 barrels of oil per person per year. What about the other seven billion people? They want what we have. The other seven billion people, on average, consume only three barrels of oil per person per year versus our 13. Africans average less than one barrel.

We need more energy. Lots more energy. That much should be obvious.

Read Wright’s speech alongside Cembalest’s energy analysis — We are at long last in an era of energy realism.

The Honest Broker

THB is reader supported.

Please consider a subscription or an upgrade to support work like that you just read.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author

Carbon Tax

Don’t be fooled – He’s Still Carbon Tax Carney

Published on

CAE Logo Dan McTeague

Carney and the Trudeaupians in his cabinet haven’t had some kind of massive conversion. They’ve not done any soul searching. There’s no repentance here for having made our lives harder and more expensive. They remain ideologically opposed to Affordable Energy.

Over the next several days you will see headline after headline proclaiming that the Carbon Tax is old news, because Mark Carney has repealed it. ‘Promises made, promises kept!’ will be the line spouted by our bought-and-paid-for media, desperate to prevent Pierre Poilievre from winning the election.

Of course, this will be the same media who has spent the past few years declaring that Canadians love, are positively infatuated with, Carbon Taxation. So forgive me for scoffing at their sudden about-face, clapping like trained seals when Justin Trudeau’s newly anointed heir waives his pen and proclaims to the electorate that the Carbon Tax is dead.

The thing is, it’s not. It’s still there. And it will still be there as long as Mark Carney is running the show.

And of course it will. Mark Carney is an environmentalist fanatic and lifelong Apostle of Carbon Taxation. Just listen carefully to everything he’s said since he threw his hat in the ring to take over as PM. He’s said that the Carbon Tax “served a purpose up until now,” but that it’s become “too divisive.” He was careful to always pledge to repeal the Consumer Carbon Tax, rather than the entire thing. And in the end he didn’t even do that, just zeroed it out for the time being.

Carney and the Trudeaupians in his cabinet haven’t had some kind of massive conversion. They’ve not done any soul searching. There’s no repentance here for having made our lives harder and more expensive. They remain ideologically opposed to Affordable Energy.

The fact is, the only reason they’re changing anything is because we noticed.

They’re determined that that won’t happen again. The Carbon Tax will live on, but as hidden as it can possibly be, buried under every euphemism and with every accounting trick they can think of.

Trust me, we at CAE would be taking a victory lap if the Carbon Tax were really dead. We did as much as anyone – and more than most! – to wake Canadians up to what it was doing to our quality of life, our ability to gas up our cars, heat our homes, and afford our groceries. When the day comes that this beast is actually slain, we will have quite the celebration.

But that day is not today.

What happened, instead, was that an elitist Green ideologue shuffled the deck chairs on the Titanic in the hopes that the working people of Canada would miss the Net-Zero iceberg bearing down on us.

Don’t be fooled!

Continue Reading

Agriculture

It’s time to end supply management

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Ending Canada’s dairy supply management system would lower costs, boost exports, and create greater economic opportunities.

The Trump administration’s trade warfare is not all bad. Aside from spurring overdue interprovincial trade barrier elimination and the removal of obstacles to energy corridors, it has also spotlighted Canada’s dairy supply management system.

The existing marketing board structure is a major hindrance to Canada’s efforts to increase non-U.S. trade and improve its dismal productivity growth rate—crucial to reviving stagnant living standards. Ending it would lower consumer costs, make dairy farming more dynamic, innovative and export-oriented, and create opportunities for overseas trade deals.

Politicians sold supply management to Canadians to ensure affordable milk and dairy products for consumers without costing taxpayers anything—while avoiding unsightly dumping surplus milk or sudden price spikes. While the government has not paid dairy farmers directly, consumers have paid more at the supermarket than their U.S. neighbours for decades.

An October 2023 C.D. Howe Institute analysis showed that, over five years, the Canadian price for four litres of partly skimmed milk generally exceeded the U.S. price (converted to Canadian dollars) by more than a dollar, sometimes significantly more, and rarely less.

A 2014 study conducted by the University of Manitoba, published in 2015, found that lower-income households bore an extra burden of 2.3 per cent of their income above the estimated cost for free-market-determined dairy and poultry products (i.e., vs. non-supply management), amounting to $339 in 2014 dollars ($435 in current dollars). Higher-income households paid an additional 0.5 per cent of their income, or $554 annually in 2014 dollars ($712 today).

One of the pillars of the current system is production control, enforced by production quotas for every dairy farm. These quotas only gradually rise annually, despite abundant production capacity. As a result, millions of litres of milk are dumped in some years, according to a 2022 article by the Montreal Economic Institute.

Beyond production control, minimum price enforcement further entrenches inefficiency. Prices are set based on estimated production costs rather than market forces, keeping consumer costs high and limiting competition.

Import restrictions are the final pillar. They ensure foreign producers do not undercut domestic ones. Jaime Castaneda, executive vice-president of the U.S. National Milk Producers Federation, complained that the official 2.86 per cent non-tariffed Canadian import limit was not reached due to non-tariff barriers. Canadian tariffs of over 250 per cent apply to imports exceeding quotas from the European Union, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA, or USMCA).

Dairy import protection obstructs efforts to reach more trade deals. Defending this system forces Canada to extend protection to foreign partners’ favoured industries. Affected sectors include several where Canada is competitive, such as machinery and devices, chemicals and plastics, and pharmaceuticals and medical products. This impedes efforts to increase non-U.S. exports of goods and services. Diverse and growing overseas exports are essential to reducing vulnerability to hostile U.S. trade policy.

It may require paying dairy farmers several billion dollars to transition from supply management—though this cartel-determined “market” value is dubious, as the current inflation-adjusted book value is much lower—but the cost to consumers and the economy is greater. New Zealand successfully evolved from a similar import-protected dairy industry into a vast global exporter. Canada must transform to excel. The current system limits Canada’s freedom to find greener pastures.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X