Global demand for crude oil is going to continue on an upward trajectory until at least 2032, Wood Mackenzie has warned in a new report that says the world is way off track in meeting its Paris Agreement goals. The drivers: transport and petrochemicals.

The report will not come as a surprise to those following energy development closely over the past five years or so, as efforts to put the world—or at least parts of it—on the path to an energy system whose emissions of carbon dioxide are equal to the emissions it absorbs and stores first intensified and then slowed down. Meanwhile, despite trillions of dollars being spent on that transition, oil, coal, and natural gas continue to satisfy around 80% of the world’s primary energy needs.

“Fossil fuels are widely available, cost-competitive and deeply embedded in the energy system,” Wood Mackenzie said in its report. This might be a little puzzling in the context of frequently repeated claims that wind and solar power generation is no cheaper than generation from hydrocarbons and that over the long term, electric cars are cheaper than internal combustion engine vehicles.

It is worth remembering, however, that the cost of both power generation and vehicles can be calculated in different ways, yielding different results. For wind and solar, for instance, the preferred cost calculation is based on a metric dubbed levelized cost of energy, LCOE ignores a lot of the costs associated with electricity generated by wind or solar installations by excluding, among others, the cost of backup generation capacity that kicks in when the wind dies down or the suns sets—and that cost of backup capacity keeps going higher because hydrocarbon generators are penalized by being made to pay for their carbon emissions.

This is, put simply, why the transition has slowed down recently and the ultimate net-zero target remains far from sight. This is also why oil, gas, and coal remain cost-competitive even with all the carbon levies that transition-enthusiastic governments are throwing at the energy industry. Wood Mackenzie remains hopeful, however, outlining several scenarios for the future. The only ones ending with a net-zero energy system, however, require a massive increase in the money spent on decarbonizing the global economy.

Global investment needs to rise to $4.3 trillion per year over the period to 2060, Wood Makenzie said in its report, adding the money would go towards funding projects in the power generation, grid, upstream, critical minerals, and “new technologies” fields. “Achievable, but only with a global alignment for scaling investment that is currently lacking,” the consultancy warned.

Theoretically, a lot of things may look achievable from where Wood Mackenzie stands. In practice, it has been a major challenge to get governments from different parts of the world to agree on a transition at all. And even after they agreed, many are pursuing energy security rather than a transition, as evidenced by the fact that it is not just oil and gas demand growing: coal demand is growing as well, even though there are lower-emission alternatives to what is widely known as the dirtiest hydrocarbon of all. In fact, coal demand hit an all-time high last year, despite years of decarbonization efforts, the massive surge in wind and solar installations and the record sales of electric cars—and it might break this record this year.

Because of this real-life context, Wood Mackenzie described a base-case scenario that has hydrocarbons continue to cover the bulk of global energy demand over the observable future, with wind and solar only going towards covering additional, new demand. Yet in fairness, they cannot cover all the incremental demand as evidenced by the rush to build new baseload generation and extend the life of existing power plants as demand for electricity from data centers soars. In other words, oil, gas, and coal demand growth may remain a fixture of the global energy system for even longer than 2032.

Some authors in the energy space have called this scenario an energy addition instead of an energy transition. Alternative sources of energy have their place in the broader system but they cannot replace hydrocarbons because of their shortcomings that are difficult to overcome. In the case of wind and solar, this is, of course, weather dependence and the output variability this dependence causes. There is also the matter of actual cost, which is considerably higher than the cost of generating electricity from coal and natural gas when all costs are taken into account, including the cost of battery storage that is touted as the ultimate solution to the weather-dependence and variability problem.

In short, the energy transition is not happening as planned because it could not happen as planned unless countries spend most of their money singularly on transition-related activities. By the way, the European Union has been trying to do just that in the past three years—and failing so far. The only thing that transition advocates have to show for their effort is energy cost inflation and less reliable electricity supply—except in China where wind and solar are solidly backed up with massive coal capacity.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com