James Pethokoukis
Politics and policy from inside Washington
$10 trillion for clean energy? Maybe a bit overambitious
Email 
Print
Working for the International Energy Agency must be hoot. Where else can you recommend a $10 trillion investment and kinda-sorta be taken seriously? From the WSJ:
The IEA, energy adviser to the world’s richest nations, urges more-aggressive reductions in carbon emissions than what many nations are currently planning. In the report, to be released Tuesday, the IEA calls for investment — in clean-energy initiatives such as solar power, new nuclear plants and other measures — of $500 billion a year over the next 20 years.
That is 37% more investment than what the IEA estimated was necessary just a year ago. Some analysts put the current level of investment in clean energy at around $100 billion a year.
And this is my favorite line in the story:
The IEA’s projections, though sometimes seen as overly ambitious, are generally regarded as relevant guideposts for the energy industry.
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
-
Author Profile
-
This is not really a huge deal compared to the size of the energy problem.
Large numbers should always be considered in context.
Let’s see, OECD primary energy consumption is ~5.5 bill tonnes oil equivalent per year. (http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/balan cetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=28) This corresponds to about 40.4 billion barrels of oil. So $500 billion per year is $12.37/bbl oil-equivalent used in OECD per year.
Or, 29 cents/gallon-oil-equivalent. That seems quite reasonable.
This is not really a huge deal compared to the size of the energy problem.
Large numbers should always be considered in context.
Let’s see, OECD primary energy consumption is ~5.5 bill tonnes oil equivalent per year. (http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/balan cetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=28) This corresponds to about 40.4 billion barrels of oil-equivalent. So $500 billion per year is $12.37/bbl oil-equivalent used in OECD per year.
Or, 29 cents/gallon-oil-equivalent. That seems quite reasonable.