Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power

The Whole World Is Going To Use a Lot More Electricity, IEA Says (bloomberg.com) 74

Posted by msmash from the much-bigger-bills dept.
Electricity demand is set to increase sharply in the coming years as people around the world use more power to run air conditioners, industry and a growing fleet of data centers. From a report: Over the next three years, global electricity consumption is set to rise by an "unprecedented" 3,500 terawatt hours, according to a report by the International Energy Agency. That's an addition each year of more than Japan's annual electricity consumption.

The roughly 4% annual growth in that period is the fastest such rate in years, underscoring the growing importance of electricity to the world's overall energy needs. "The acceleration of global electricity demand highlights the significant changes taking place in energy systems around the world and the approach of a new Age of Electricity," Keisuke Sadamori, IEA's director of energy markets and security, said in a statement. "But it also presents evolving challenges for governments in ensuring secure, affordable and sustainable electricity supply."

The Whole World Is Going To Use a Lot More Electricity, IEA Says More | Reply

The Whole World Is Going To Use a Lot More Electricity, IEA Says

Comments Filter:
  • We don't have enough fossil fuel capacity (nor capacity for co2 in to be absorbed in the atmosphere) to move to the next level of electricity use, if we want the entire world population to be electrified and using communications networks, we need to harvest the power of natural renewables. Since we can't build Dyson spheres yet, its time to harvest the sun's energy that we get for free using our existing technology and then invest in new tech.
    • Yes, there are no other options.

    • Re:We need renewables (Score:5, Insightful)

      by smoot123 ( 1027084 ) on Friday February 14, 2025 @04:45PM (#65167227)

      We don't have enough fossil fuel capacity (nor capacity for co2 in to be absorbed in the atmosphere) to move to the next level of electricity use, if we want the entire world population to be electrified and using communications networks, we need to harvest the power of natural renewables. Since we can't build Dyson spheres yet, its time to harvest the sun's energy that we get for free using our existing technology and then invest in new tech.

      Couple of thoughts.

      Not enough fossil fuels? I don't know. We been increasing our proven reserves of natural gas for decades now. I don't know there's any reason to expect that to change assuming technology keeps getting better and new areas for drilling keep opening up.

      Atmospheric CO2? Probably right. We could do a lot about that if we aggressively converted coal plants to natural gas but for various reasons, we (as a planet) don't focus on that. But point taken, that's a big issue.

      Free solar energy? Only if you ignore the costs of manufacturing panels and batteries, building a vastly expanded distribution grid, and ongoing maintenance. None of those are cheap.

      • assuming technology keeps getting better and new areas for drilling keep opening up.

        Isn't that assumption too big to make, though? The largest, easy to access reserves have already been located and dug up, so there only remain small pockets or hard-to-reach places. It doesn't look promising for the mid-to-long term, as there's no guarantee that this can provide a sustainable business.

        • It doesn't look promising for the mid-to-long term

          50 years ago we had 50 years of proven reserves. Today we still have 50 years of proven reserves (and a further 100 years of "unproven" reserves). 50 years from now we will likely still have 50 years of proven reserves and some number of unproven reserves that may or may not be the same as today.

          https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]

          • Propaganda much? The oil being there in a known location of the underground does not warrant calling it a 'reserve' if it's at an unreachable location.
            And even if it's reachable or becomes reachable with future magic technology yet to be researched, that doesn't answer the question of whether it will be economically or environmentally viable to extract it.

            • Propaganda much? The oil being there in a known location of the underground does not warrant calling it a 'reserve' if it's at an unreachable location. And even if it's reachable or becomes reachable with future magic technology yet to be researched, that doesn't answer the question of whether it will be economically or environmentally viable to extract it.

              Maybe look up what proven reserves [google.com] means first.

              Proven reserves are the estimated amount of fossil fuels, like oil and gas, that can be recovered under current economic and technological conditions

              Because that's exactly what it means.

            • Propaganda much?

              Wishful thinking much? There is no impending shortage of fossil fuels.

              Provable reserves are "ready to go". Unprovable reserves may or may not be ready to go, they simply have not checked yet. No need to get more than 50 years ahead, but they do keep that consistent buffer on an ongoing basis. Even economical development can take decades so they need to know where the next projects are going to be well ahead of time.

              Sometimes new plays get jumped on much faster if the economics are right. Guyana is

      • > Not enough fossil fuels? I don't know. We been increasing our proven reserves of natural gas for decades now. I don't know there's any reason to expect that to change assuming technology keeps getting better and new areas for drilling keep opening up.

        This is a physically finite planet. There is no known mechanism that generates fossil fuels anywhere near the rate we are using them. The ecological toll for more advanced extraction is severe and long lasting. It is very clearly not sustainable.

        > We co

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        None of those are cheap.

        They are cheaper than fossil fuels, and nuclear.

        Which is good news because developing nations where most of the new demand will come from are going to adopt the cheapest option. They may well not bother with a well connected grid like we have, instead just deploying generation and storage to mini/micro grids. Aside from being cheaper, it is also more resilient when infrastructure quality and maintenance isn't great.

    • I don't understand how anyone can seriously call solar power "free", it's just as "free" as mining for coal or uranium. Sure, there's no real restriction on sunlight since it shines everywhere on Earth, but to collect that sunlight into something useful requires mining the Earth for the materials to build mechanisms for collection, conversion, and perhaps also storage, of that energy. Those mechanisms aren't "free", at least not any more free than the mechanisms needed to collect and convert energy from u

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dryeo ( 100693 )

        it's free fuel, unlike coal or uranium where as is likely to happen soon, the supply can be cut of. Most of America's uranium comes from Canada and Trump is trying to break that supply chain, though I guess Trump figures Russia will step up and he obviously considers Russia more reliable then Canada.

    • Yeah that's realistic

  • "The acceleration of global electricity demand highlights the significant changes taking place in energy systems around the world and the approach of a new Age of Electricity..."

    It does? Acceleration of electricity consumption is only that, no "significant changes" other than demand are needed. What it really highlights is that the world is not taking climate change seriously.

    • Re:does it though? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Friday February 14, 2025 @04:06PM (#65167151)
      Heat pumps replace natural gas consumption with electricity consumption.

      So the world taking climate change seriously will increase electricity demand.
      • Add electric cars to the list.

      • Heat pumps replace natural gas consumption with electricity consumption.

        So the world taking climate change seriously will increase electricity demand.

        If the demand for electricity was driven by adoption of heat pumps over fossil fuel heat then we could conclude that the rise in electricity demand was driven by concern over global warming. Another conclusion we could draw is concern of future supplies of fuel from Ukraine and Russia, or shipment of fuel through the Panama Canal, Suez Canal, and other choke points in international shipping that are experiencing issues right now.

        What's driving much of this demand, according to the fine article, is increasi

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        What is usually missed in these articles is that demand will shift as well. Overnight is current a period of low demand, but as people get things like heat pumps and EVs that will change. Both of those things can store energy, so it makes sense to consume electricity when it is cheapest, be that overnight, when wind is high, or during the way when a lot of solar is available.

  • https://database.earth/populat... [database.earth] nuff said.

  • It’s a good thing the cost of solar and batteries has come down dramatically and seems to drop more every year. The only way the planet will survive is if the additional energy generation is all renewable. I think the most recent bid for a major Chinese utility company’s battery storage system came in at $68/kWh, which is just crazy low compared to 10 years ago when it was $300+. Even in the rest of the world utilities are seeing $125/kWh.

    And outside the US where tariffs aren’t a thing,

    • 50 MW for a typical data center times 15 hours for a winter night is 750 MW-hr.

      A Tesla Maxpower holds 3.9 MW-hr, so that data center needs 192 of them. They weigh 42 tons each, so about 8080 tons, roughly the same as an Arleigh Burke class destroyer.

      Now you have nine hours to recharge the battery bank for the next night and supply the 50 MW the data center needs. How many solar panels that takes depends on whether they are fixed mounts or on trackers, and most importantly, how cloudy is it? Heavy cloud cove

      • Depending on how hot your area gets in the summer, solar panels lose efficiency when it gets too hot. I want to say the ideal conditions are clear skies and 65F or so. Which isn't far off from where the Southwest USA daytime temps are in winter.

        Otherwise, 100% agree with where you are going with your post. Solar has it's place but it will never do everything. Add in some wind, hydro and nuclear and maybe even an emergency oil plant (I'm not a power plant person, but don't things spin up pretty fast compared

  • This appears to be the same article without a paywall:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/mone... [msn.com]

    A couple interesting points I found in the article. First point:

    The IEA said 85 percent of the global increase in power demand will come from the developing economies of the world where the biggest single driver of new demand will be the rapid spread of air conditioning.

    This is interesting because so far I've been seeing much written on how heat pumps, electric vehicles, and data centers (specifically those geared towards AI and crypto-currencies) driving demand for more electrical production. This is instead saying it is people seeking air conditioning, and I'd interpret that as in indication of people gaining in wealth t

  • Increased electricity demand is just one reason the scientific community has been so vocal in their support for new nuclear energy. Climate change, air pollution, environmentally footprint and poverty are other reasons. Get out of the way you antinuclear scumbags.

  • I've made this point before and I'll make it again.

    Green energy people really focus on replacing our existing power and transportation energy needs. This makes perfect sense as just converting our existing fossil fuel infrastructure to green energy is an enormous project. What I and others think they miss is we don't want to just maintain parity, we want to dramatically increase the amount of energy available to humanity.

    Just ask the millions suffering from lung disease because they cook and heat their home

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Just ask the millions suffering from lung disease because they cook and heat their homes with indoor charcoal stoves.

      Some outfit designed, built and distributed much cleaner stoves to Africa (I think). The result was that households just used both old and new stoves.

      And when some jihadists attack a village, it's all the people can do to pick up a few pots and pans, maybe a grate and run. When they get to a new location, they start over piling up stones and building a new open cooking fire. They need stability first. Electricity is a long way down the wish list.

      • Some outfit designed, built and distributed much cleaner stoves to Africa (I think). The result was that households just used both old and new stoves.

        I recall the same. It makes sense to continue to use what works even if something better comes along, there's all kinds of examples of this elsewhere.

        And when some jihadists attack a village, it's all the people can do to pick up a few pots and pans, maybe a grate and run. When they get to a new location, they start over piling up stones and building a new open cooking fire. They need stability first. Electricity is a long way down the wish list.

        Even if there is stability and electricity there will likely be people using their old stoves that burn wood, coal, kerosene, or whatever until they gain trust in the electricity being there. I've talked to people from India, and seen some news and documentaries on energy in India, and it's common to see kerosene stoves in use even in large cities. Kerosene

    • Honestly, the people you describe would be well served with a few KwH battery and a handful of solar panels to top them off every day. That would be plenty for cooking and LED lighting. Obviously gonna need a lot more if you want to do laundry or cooling/heating.

      But as you point out, there would be immediate benefits with just a 3 KwH battery and enough panels to top it off if used to power indoor electric stoves.

  • Check... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 )

    ... as people around the world use more power to run air conditioners, industry and a growing fleet of data centers

    Air conditioners? Check.

    Industry? Check.

    A growing fleet of data centers? Why?

    Yes, I know we need data centres. But I'd really like somebody to explain to me in simple terms how vastly increasing their number is going to make any significant contribution to the happiness, health, comfort, or prosperity of the average citizen of Earth.

    Even ignoring their Global Warming aspect, I consider these energy-wasters to be dystopian because their primary "contributions" are AI, crypto mining, social media addiction,

  • That will make 99.9938% of all datacenters useless.

Slashdot Top Deals

How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz

Close