BP Energy Outlook Says Electric Cars Won’t Deaden Global Fuel Demand


BP Gas Station

According to BP, electric cars will play a minor role in reducing carbon emissions, and the global demand for fuel will continue to grow significantly over the next ~20 years.

British multinational oil and gas company, BP, just published its annual 2017 BP Energy Outlook. It projects a 30% increase in global energy demand over the next ~20 years. According to BP, while carbon emissions growth is declining, it’s not primarily due to EVs, and the fuel demand will grow, regardless of electric cars.

Tesla Supercharging Station

Despite of the continued growth of electric cars, BP’s Outlook shows that 75% of total global energy needs by 2035, will be satisfied by gas, oil, and coal.

This may seem substantial, but compared to the anticipated global gross domestic product increase of 3.4% per year, the energy increase of about 1.3% is considered low. The publication is proof that growing technology related to energy efficiency, along with global environmental awareness, is making a significant impact.

Regardless of all of this, BP’s Outlook shows that 75% of total global energy needs by 2035, will be satisfied by gas, oil, and coal (in 2015, fossil fuels accounted for 86%). Half of the new growth will be covered by non-fossil fuels. While this is somewhat disconcerting, it shows promise that, as energy needs continue to increase, non-fossil fuels will keep getting a larger piece of the pie.

According to BP Outlook:

“The global car fleet doubles from 0.9 billion cars in 2015 to 1.8 billion by 2035.”

However, the percentage of those vehicles that are projected to be EVs is small (~5.5%). In 2015, there were 1.2 million electric cars around the globe. The publication shows 100 million by 2035. BP estimates that about one quarter of these will be PHEVs, with the remaining 75% will be BEVs. However, BP’s group chief economist, Spencer Dale admitted:

“The impact of electric cars, together with other aspects of the mobility revolution, such as self-driving cars, car sharing and ride pooling, is one of the key uncertainties surrounding the long-term outlook for oil.”

With all of this being said, ironically, the Outlook also predicts that worldwide carbon emissions will grow at a rate of 1/3 less than that of the last 20 years, due to energy efficiency and changes in the fuel mix. Unfortunately, even at this reduced rate, carbon emissions will grow about 13% from that of today, by 2035.

The Outlook shows that even with 100 million EVs on the road by 2035, nearly all of the decrease in carbon emissions would be attributed to increased fuel efficiency, rather than those EVs. The EVs would account for about 1/10 of the carbon emissions reduction, compared to that of the traditional fuels burning cleaner.

Source: Green Car Congress

Categories: General


Leave a Reply

92 Comments on "BP Energy Outlook Says Electric Cars Won’t Deaden Global Fuel Demand"

newest oldest most voted

I think this model assumes a 20yh century regulatory environment. American coal companies learned the hard way that the landscape is shifting under their feet as they bet the house on overseas demand and demand from developing nations. We will soon see countries banning gas burners completely, and it will happen in a flash. Trump is the last stand for Victorian-age technology.

From an emissions standpoint, this is a disheartening report. It doesn’t bode well for climate change (with apologies to those who do not believe in that being caused by humans).

It shows we need to do much more with EV proliferation and general emissions reductions, but it seems like the opposite may happen over the next several years, at least on the American side.

Yeah, these reports are just wild guesses.

Maybe it will proceed along this path for a little bit if EV prices don’t drop. But feedback from climate may cause big changes in government regulations.

I’m guessing that we see a blue-water arctic pole in the next 5 to 10 years and that may have a profound affect on how seriously we take climate change. Or not.

I think people are also getting tired of sending money off to tyrants such as Russia/Putin, mid-East Islamists, and African dictators for oil.

Please don’t apologize to human-caused climate change deniers who, in the U.S. at least, are attempting to block progress on solving this very serious problem thus endangering all of us and our descendants. If they refuse to educate themselves and continue placing their conservative ideologies above science, they should be pushed aside and ignored.

WIsh that was possible. Doesnt look like it for the next four years though

That is no reason to apologize to them. We just had a weird quirk of history wherein a con man snuck an electoral college victory due to complacency and a distorted election system.

People are very angry and pushing back HARD. That may be the unintentional way that Trump actually makes America great again.

The Trump insanity is hard to keep up with . . . fake murder statistics, fake bowling green massacre, whining about Nordstrom for dumping his daughter’s clothing line, etc. He’s just getting people more activated.

Well, thanks for the small fig leaf CC, as the now relabeled ‘Climate Change’ is pretty innocuous since the Climate is always changing, but not so much Global Warming anymore (california just cancelled 10-15% of their draught seeing as they just got a 22 year record snow pack – but then even that is a complexity that can’t be discussed here any longer). One thing I’ve noticed as an Oil Industry layman: Very rarely someone from that industry will comment here, and either mention radiation or abiotic processes to the extreme catcalls of dozens of ‘GO AWAY!’, “HOW Astonishingly Silly”, or other great brain comments – so I decided to do a little looking myself. To go against the fossil fuel religion is a risky business, but then, its well known that the Frozen Methane on TITAN could supply the earth’s current consumption of the product for at least 1000 years, and I would ask, how many dead plants and Dinosaurs were up there? And then, interestingly, apparently the Soviet Union (and now the Russian Federation) has never signed off on the concept of Fossil Fuels (amazingly, to date there is not a single proof that methane nor crude oil… Read more »

Abiotic oil theory? *eyeroll*

No wonder you believe in chemtrails.

Let me count:
1) CC is a hoax
2) Global warming renamed climate change theory
3) Abiotic oil theory
4) Oil men pushed peak oil theory.

4 goofy conspiracy theories in 1 post! Well done, you get a gold star for your tin foil hat.

Good one spec!

It’s more likely that Bill is just repeating these wild-assed fake theories from Breitbart or the Daily Stormeroutine or some other Koch-Heads funded alt-right propaganda sites.

The response I made was to ClarksonCote since occassionally I see him for lunch – and it brings up an interesting talking point. I don’t care what the loud mouths think.

The more educated here can tolerate an alternative view, while not necessarily agreeing with it.

Hey Bill… Years ago I had heard some reports that emptied oil wells were revisited and found to be full again, and there were some theories that oil is not so much from fossils but other processes, at least some of the time.

I never found the data to read up on this. Have you found anything in this regard? For all I know it could’ve been something made up by Big Oil, or it could be 100% legitimate.

I guess this is likely some of the reference to abiotic oil.

I’m not entirely against the theory, but obviously I’m in need of more research on the topic, hence my question above.

Years ago I had an uncle, his name was Jed. Well one day he was out shootin’ for some food, and up from the ground came a bubblin’ crude. I think Jed gathered up his kin, Granny, Eli Mae and Jethro, moved somewhere…

The thing is, going against the most accepted theory is not always crazy. The earth used to be flat, then at the center of our solar system. Question those notions and you were the insane one.

I think whenever we’re talking about processes that potentially take billions of years, there’s some room for error, is there not? It’s like trying to take the EV adoption rate from December 2010 and project that out 10,000 years.

There’s certainly room for both theories, and I don’t think a non-fossil source has ever been disproved.

As an aside, I hadn’t seen “RationalWiki” before the link was posted above. Reading it, it is one of the most biased sources of information I’ve read. There’s much more logical unbiased sources to support the commonly accepted theory of where oil comes from. 🙂

There’s certainly room for both theories, and I don’t think a non-fossil source has ever been disproved.

TWO Logical Fallacies In one short sentence. Well done!

Its the fossil source that has never been proven, therefore, it should bear the larger burden of proof.

Pushi says CH4 is formed by ‘Simple Abiotic Processes’ yet it is impossible for something more complex supposedly, such as C3H8, to form by anything other than ‘Scientific Biological Processes’.

I’d like him to remotely justify either statement.

If he can prove the CH4 part, then basically he is proving my point, since I claim the C3H8 part is not that far away.

Occassionally there is at least a trace of methane where someone finds oil. Like just a whiff enough to run part of a country.

“4 goofy conspiracy theories in 1 post! Well done, you get a gold star for your tin foil hat.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

The astounding thing is that Bill doesn’t seem to realize how posts like this make it hard to take anything he says seriously… even including the problems he’s reported with his Tesla Roadster.

When someone is divorced from reality to this great extent, how can we have even the slightest assurance he didn’t just imagine those problems he keeps talking about?

Well Pushi, no offense, and I’m going to say this is in the kindest way possible, but you are just mentally short-changed and no sense of humor, as most other ‘Low Information Liberals’ are, as Rush would say.

You insult me all the time too, and why this is different is that you are in an entirely different league of person as compared to someone like ClarksonCote.

I can at least respect him, although we might occassionally disagree, you however, are not bright enough to be of a stature to critique me. If you read CC’s response to me, he is *NOT* dismissing what I say out of hand as the idiots do. When is Calexit happening, anyway?

In answer to CC, I reaffirm that I am a layman here. It is the occassional nugget of info that was given by oil industry people RIGHT HERE that got me thinking about it. They all don’t stay around here to be insulted by idiots who haven’t the slightest imagination of the business, nor willing to learn.

It’s all a viscous cycle.

Bill Howland said:

“…apparently the Soviet Union (and now the Russian Federation) has never signed off on the concept of Fossil Fuels… Russians are far more likely to find it at Abiotic sources (60% success rate)…”

Bill, it’s really too bad that you have chosen once again to detail your belief in various nutter tinfoil-hat theories, when you could have raised a real issue regarding the subjects you’ve raised here: That global warming is opening up Siberia for mineral exploration and exploitation.

Russia may have vast untapped oil fields, and of course it will ignore any effect on the climate, and exploit them. At least, that’s going to happen so long as Russia languishes under the rule of an ogliarchy.

Of course, Bill, I’m talking about petroleum, which comes from fossil sources. And not your imaginary, wishful-thinking “abiotic” oil. Nature creates simple abiotic hydrocarbons, such as the methane found on gas giants Jupiter and Saturn, but never complex ones such as petroleum except as a result of biological processes.

And that, Bill, is an actual fact and actual science, not an “alternative fact” or pseudoscience. In the real world, unlike the world in which you choose to live, it’s possible to distinguish between the two.

Prove your point then. If you can’t, then you’re just another clown, as I often must say.

Its obvious Mr. Cole sold his business at the opportune time.

Any huge amount from the typical commentariat would just lower the purchase price – Good Luck to you Jay on your future endeavors.

Reality is that which continues to exist even after you stop believing in it.

Hard to prove that statement, since it’s a purely philosophical one. 🙂

The classic response of the ‘ad-hominem’ deadhead. S’pose that makes me an ‘ad-hom’ user, except in my case the evidence is strongly in favour…

What he said.

I would also like to add that even if oil would be abiotic (and it’s not) it would still be a problem. It doesn’t matter where it comes from, the problem is that burning oil (abiotic or not) constantly adds greenhouse gases to our atmosphere, so oil being abiotic would not be a solution to anything.

Oil driller “Rockman” points that one out all the time. He points out that if oil is actually abiotic (despite no evidence supporting the claim), it makes absolutely no difference because the rate at which it creates oil is apparently just as slow as the biotic oil theory (which is the correct one)

How tragic that USA has so many “Bill Howlands”; is there a direct correlation
to the numbers of Creationists?

ClarksonCote besides being an electrical engineer, is also a Devout Catholic.

You want to claim you are so much smarter than he is?

To go against the fossil fuel religion is a risky business, but then, its well known that the Frozen Methane on TITAN could supply the earth’s current consumption of the product for at least 1000 years, and I would ask, how many dead plants and Dinosaurs were up there?

Titan? Hm….. relevance is the question puzzling me.

China recently canceled plans to build 104 coal plants some have already started construction.
China also has many MW’s a wind energy that is built but needs he transmission lines completed so it can connect to the grid.
India is expanding solar rapidly.
I think BP’s statement is for shareholders not to bail on fossil fuel stocks.

Another (Euro) industrial point of view

“I think BP’s statement is for shareholders not to bail on fossil fuel stocks”

That’s for sure part of the reason they wrote this. Nevertheless it is very difficult for me to write how wrong they are. As some wrote above it will much depend on the regulatory environment. I expect major European cities to ban all pure ICE by 2025-2030 for example. Overall things are moving very s l o w l y.

It may not “deaden” but it could flatten the curve a bit.

We need to come up with a different name for ‘pure ICE’.

Absolute ICE? (Vodka)

+1 🙂


But it is a reality check. If one does the math, the percentage of cars sold each year right now is struggling to hit 1%. When do we hit 10%? The lifecycle of the cars already on the road is 10-15 yrs.

Unless EVs hit the 50 to 75% of cars sold every year, the majority of cars will be ICE types.

Now, ask about 2050, and that may be another story. We might even have fusion reactors by then. (yes, I know, dream on – but it should happen someday).

EV sales are continuing to grow but certainly not as fast as we would like.

However, I think we could eventually see a tipping point. There are 3 big things that need to be addressed:
1) Longer range EV prices need to come down. Bolt and Model 3 are getting close.
2) People are stupid. Some 60% of people don’t even know EVs exist. And of those that do, they are filled with serious misperceptions about EVs (think they are slow, think a Prius is an EV, think range is super short, think they cost just as much as gas cars to fuel, etc.)
3) Home-charging for apartments needs to grow bigly.

Another (Euro) industrial point of view

People are not stupid at all they just lack the offer. I eagerly read EV news for the last 4 years. Do I own an EV ? No. Just no offer that suits me despite interest. I drive a Skoda Octavia combi. It cost around $25K new. usually goes around 550 miles on one full tank (sips so little fuel I forget about it altogether), I need maintenance only each 20K miles approx. I like the range (do often travel). Boot is approx. 40K cubic inches. It is hugely well “screwed together” (no rattle after 140K miles), good quality materials inside (much better than what I could see inside the Bolts according to videos). The only EV/PHEV that approaches this car is the Passat GTE and it costs twice as much. Why would I make a move ?

Another (Euro) industrial point of view

…cargo space of the car I refer to above is about 1.5 bigger than the Bolt just to give a comparison.

So how much do you spend yearly on gas, oil change, smog check and service?

Another (Euro) industrial point of view

I have not made all calculation but one year depreciation of nearest competitive (PH)EV pays my depreciation + allows me to drive a long long time. Expensive cars makes huge first year depreciation, ICE or EV, same thing. We do not have the Volt over here. Boot would too small anyway but that’s this car would be the missing link for people like me here providing it would be sold below $35K approx.

Don’t take it so personally. I didn’t say you were stupid. But George Carlin points out, half the people out there are below average intelligence. A lot of people really don’t know about EVs and what little many do know is just plain wrong.

You could’t hold a candle next to George Carlin.

Bill, please stop proving how peculiar your mind is!

Hey, I’ve commented here enough that people know whether I’m talking above my pay grade or not… If I am a layman on a subject I clearly state it as I did here.

You have yet to prove you know what you are talking about on any subject whatsoever.

I’m not here to burn George Carlin. 😉

You are spot on. EV’s are at the moment not a replacement for ICE as they cannot perform to the same level as an ICE. Price, range and utility have to improve. The Bolt has improved the price and range, but utility is still lacking. Model X has improvement on range and utility, but price is hugely lacking.

Unfortunately, it is hard to revert once you have something. At the moment we have ICE that is cheap, can travel a pretty good distance, can hold a lot of passengers and items, can be filled up quickly, and can tow without problems. One of my cars is a cheap AUD$13k model which can do all this.

At the moment we are asking the average person to pay more, travel less, fill up over a long period of time (ie: road trip) and no towing. That’s a lot of things we take for granted that we have to give up. How does that make sense to the average person? It doesn’t.

Hey Spec, there’s a thread on “Peak Oil and Plug-in Vehicles” over at peakoilbarrel. You might find it interesting. Quite a few familiar names from the old gang over at TOD!

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

I was introduced to Tony Seba by a comment on this here very web site. In his book “Clean Disruption” and his youtube video presentations, he points out that solar and EVs are growing exponentially. Both have been doubling about every two years so here’s how it works, based on a two year doubling time: 2016 – 1%, 2018 – 2%, 2020 – 4%, 2022 – 8%, 2024 – 16%, 2026 – 32%, 2028 – 64%. So to answer your question, we should hit 10% before 2024 and 100% by 2030.

Of course, nobody knows exactly how the future is going to play out, not even me! 😉

The BP report has a total of 1.2 million EVs in 2015, but we know the number is 2.5 million as of the end of 2016. All the oil companies are producing numbers that are based on a) total fiction b) annual growth rates in excess of 100%. Either way you look at it, this is not good news for their bottom line.

Now consider the overlooked fact that the 115000 electric buses produced in China last year probably offset all of Russia’s recent petroleum cuts, and you can see the effect of a completely under-appreciated impact on global oil demand (buses operate 8-16 hours a day and get maybe 4 mpg)

Not all of Russia’s cuts but a decent chunk, mostly because Russia cut by more than expected, or possibly ran out of steam or option 3 its spat with Belarus left it with spare production and no immediate customer. In the US busses have a 3.26 mpg. Garbage trucks ( I presume 8,5 tons ) have a 2,5 mpg. The other important but overlooked market here is garbage trucks. Even if we factor in Chinese style ( not for BYD so much but the other brands ) misreporting you still have an under-reported segment, heavy and utility municipal vehicles. Where if the market is 5-10 k per year it might look small but it’s significant. If a garbage truck runs 100 kms a day at that rate, it’s a barrel of diesel every day… Similarly for busses doing 150-220 kms a day on the average equal close to 2 barrels of diesel. It’s not a perfect conversion and China does tend to make numbers up to make them look prettier ( but again 50 k EV busses would mean they lied and doubled it and 50 k is still half of the total world production for the love of all… Read more »

totally agree with you.
by 2025 at the current sales growth ev and ev-bus, all these vehicles will “save” for one day:
ev buses (cumulative 13 million in 2025) – 125miles average daily mileage = 4000000 barrels oil
other ev (cumulative 99.25 million in 2025) – 32miles average daily mileage = 9400000 barels oil
Total is 13.4 million barels oil per day.
Every day, all over the world in 2016 consumed 96 million barels oil per day.
OPEC agreed to cut production by 1.5 million barels oil a day to level the price.
Besides solar energy gradually replaces electricity needs displacing coal and fuel oil thermal power plants at existing rates in developed countries, solar energy by 2025, completely replace coal-fired power plants and partly replace oil-fired thermal power plants.

Yes, Tony Seba projects a CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of 40% putting EVs at 100% by 2030, roughly equivalent to doubling every 2 years. Tesla has a higher CAGR of 58% so if every EV manufacturer was the same, EVs would be 100% by 2026 🙂

Bill Gates is credited with saying we tend to overestimate the rate of change at 2 years and underestimate at 10.

At the risk of overestimating. We will see 1million evs added this year then 2million in 2018.

And at the risk of underestimating i see 60% of new vehicles being evs in 10 years.

Sorry BP should have kept your solar business. Talk about offloading it at the wrong time.

Went from 0 – 1% in 5 years more electric charging stations now plus more companies building electric charging stations. Next 5 years maybe 1 – 5%,

Tesla alone wants to reach 1 million cars per year by 2020. Nissan, GM, BYD are all serious EV players now, and most OEM’s have announced electrification plans by 2020. I’ll bet we’re at 10% by 2020.

That will be very bad for oil prices. EV’s will have to compete on their own merits, not just being cheaper to run than gasoline cars.

But just look at the specs of Model 3. That’s the best car you buy for the price for any drive train.

“When do we hit 10%? The lifecycle of the cars already on the road is 10-15 yrs.”

Sadly, yes. One can argue with the exact figures which BP quotes, but in general that forecast is correct. The end of Big Oil won’t happen quickly, even when the EV revolution hits its stride. Even when almost all new passenger cars are EVs, most of the cars on the roads will be gasmobiles for several or many years.

And even when most passenger cars on the roads are EVs, there will almost certainly still be many larger vehicles, trucks and buses and boats and ships and trains and planes, which will still be burning fossil fuels.

Sadly, Big Oil companies will remain some of the most profitable companies in the world for quite a few years to come. 🙁

But let us not despair; let us not give up the fight against Big Oil. To quote Helen Keller:

“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.”

Up the EV revolution!

BP are delusional, or more likely engage in wishful thinking. Renewables and storage drops in price faster than anyone projected. The EV market is expanding at an amazing rate. Not a chance that this teport is anywhere near the truth.

EV growth is definitely underestimated here. But sure, actual decline in fuel use is many years away, this is why action is important now. There is so much inertia. An ICE purchased now will still be emitting CO2 in 2030.

In theory yes but there are additional factors to take into consideration. If electrified cars get a significant market share the sales of gasoline with start to decline sharply and for many gas stations it will simply not be profitable anymore to carry the product. That means that in the future it will require more and more effort to get gasoline which in turn will motivate people to go full EV instead. Everyone wants to lower their gasoline bill but in doing so they will also accelerate the downfall of gasoline.
So an ICE car purchased today may be perfectly functional in 2030 but it will likely not be a desirable to drive and may be prematurely scrapped because of that.

I have only heard of one or two companies making a rear axle bolt on EV drive for front wheel drive cars, and don’t even know if they are still alive!

However, if a product could come along, swap out the existing rear dead axle, and make it live, as an EV drive, with 20 to 40 miles range, people could keep their old cars and still move into the EV movement!

EV conversions will never be more than a cottage industry, and never common. It’s too difficult and expensive to convert a gasmobile into an EV, and what you wind up with is usually at best an awkward compromise.

That is one of several reasons why it’s not realistic to believe there will ever be a sudden collapse of demand for petroleum. The best we can hope for is a gradual deflation.

However Hybrids and PHEV could see Battery updates that could convert them to EV’s


Well, that’s what they publish to keep investors happy. Would be interesting to see their internal projections. Royal Dutch Shell last year published that Oil Peak Demand could take place as early as in 5 years. Just applying 50% y/y growth throughout 2025 (starting with 800’000 global plugin sales in 2016)adds up to 90 Mio+ by 2025. So 100 Mio EVs by 2035 (even when considering attrition) is IMO yuuugely unlikely.


Correction: Not 90Mio+ by 2025 but 100Mio+ by 2028

Shell is planning on installing electric charging stations at each all of it’s gas stations. 25,000 stations in the world

Not surprising to see very modest growth in renewable energy use and EV penetration from this publication. It is after all produced by an oil company and I wouldn’t really expect to see them projecting their own demise!

As Tony Seba always says, “It’s usually the “experts” and “insiders” who dismiss
disruptive opportunities”

This report has very modest estimate for EV market penetration, but not for renewable energy. If you read into the numbers carefully, they actually predict that non-fossil energy production will more than double in 20 years. That’s not an easy task to accomplish.

Hello? Let’s take a look at solar PV growth. Capcity has been doubling about every two years. The US is expected to install 14 GW of PV for 2016 up from 9 GW in 2015, taking cumulative capacity up to 41 GW more than twice the 18 GW capacity at the end of 2014. China installed 34 GW for 2016 up from 15 GW in 2015 for a cumulative capacity of more than 77 GW again more than double the 28 GW they had at the end of 2014.

So after doubling every two years for over a decade, you think it will need 20 years to double again? If renewables continue to grow exponentially at anything close to the rate of the last decade, they will have grown one hundredfold in less than twenty years! US PV capacity has grown about one hundredfold over the past ten years so, I find most projections from the status quo (BP, EIA, IEA) for renewables extremly modest, such as doubling in 20 years.

Yes, solar is growing rapidly, but nuclear and hydro are still by far biggest non-fossil energy sources. It takes way more than ten fold increase in solar capacity to double non-fossil energy production.

Nuclear power installation rate is low, and there are lot of power plants that need to be decommissioned before 2035. Hydro power is growing, but resources are limited.

I’m afraid this report is quite realistic on non-fossil energy production.

Wind and more so solar are not just growing rapidly, they are growing exponentially and it really takes some thinking to get the full implications of exponential growth. Look up “Arithmetic, Population and Energy”, a presentation by the late: Dr. Albert A. Bartlett Professor Emeritus Department of Physics University of Colorado, Boulder. It might change your mind a bit.

To illustrate, over the ten years from 2005 to 2015, the percentage of US electricity that is generated by solar grew from 0.0136% to 0.945% an increase by a factor of 69. During the same period wind went from 0.439% to 4.67%, more than ten times as much. If they were to continue growing at the same rate, by 2025 solar would be at 65% and wind at 47%, not possible for obvious reasons.

Never underestimate exponential growth!

Exponential growth is easier when numbers are still low. It get’s harder and tends to change to linear growth when market share is higher (middle part of the s-curve).

I sure hope that solar and wind keep growing, and electric transportation is a key to enable the continuous growth of renewables.

We disagree on the point at which growth will go linear. I believe that, in the US wind can double again over the next six years and that solar will continue exponential growth for at least another six years. That would result in a doubling of the contribution of renewables from currently just over 15% to over 30% by 2025, less than ten years. That would increase the non fossil contribution from 34%
currently, to over 48% assuming no reduction in contribution from nuclear.

If wind doubled once over the subsequent ten years and solar doubled twice over the same period, that would take the contribution of renewables to 70% without any contribution from nuclear!

The data I’m using is from the US EIA’s Electric Power Monthly so this is only for the US. I believe countries that have to import fuel will transition even faster now that electricity from solar cost less than that from imported fuels in many places worldwide. The island I live on is a prime example.

“If you read into the numbers carefully, they actually predict that non-fossil energy production will more than double in 20 years.”

Yes, and that will have a great effect on the demand for natural gas, as more and more renewable electricity sources come online. We can hope that the market for natural gas will markedly decline over the next 20 years or so.

Unfortunately, this will have very little impact on demand for petroleum. Worldwide, only about 2% of power plants burn oil.

BP has a dog in the hunt so I am not putting much stock into what they have to say.
Boilerplate for shareholders.

As soon as PEVs become the same purchase price as gas cars then they will start to dominate.

We already know that EVs are already cheaper then the equivalent ICE in TCO but too many sheeple can’t or don’t do the math.

BP/Exxon/Chevron, and their shills here like zzzz, sven, etc. will continue to try and FUD and manipulate but the economics will win out as they always do.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

“We already know that EVs are already cheaper then the equivalent ICE in TCO but too many sheeple can’t or don’t do the math.”

The problem many many people have when jumping to an EV is that many already have a fairly efficient car. If they have either a Cruze or Civic, the small savings is hard to justify when their trips are no more than 40 miles a day.

Now there were some that did buy an EV but they jumped from an SUV/Truck to an EV and they kept the truck/SUV. Now they got the biggest bang for the buck. That’s where it made the biggest sense/savings.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

This sounds more like Stockholder fluff n stuff.

BP tries to keep their spirit up; they are in full denial:) Once mass-market EVs compare favorably to similar-priced ICE cars with respect to (charging) convenience, trim and performance, nobody in their right mind will buy an ICE. Looking at the stated timelines of major car companies such as the VW group, this time point will be 2020. After that, oil will fall steeply.

Trump is a fossil fuel president and oil prices will rise due to oil production disruptions in middle east that will benefit domestic oil producers. Higher oil price will fund drill baby drill in the USA and Canadian tar sands. I hope higher fuel prices push ICE drivers to EV nirvana.

Obviously BP is doing stockholder advertising, nonetheless we will have to live with ICE cars for longer than we would like to. We (the EV enthusiastic people) live in our very own bubble. People outside this bubble are seen as stupid and ignorant. Those inside the big oil bubble tend to classify us with the same attributes. The truth is most likely just in the middle. Let me add one more aspect to this discussion: Once we reach the point where EV adoption reaches the point where it influences oil demand in a noticeable way this influence will lead to falling prices, which in turn will move the needle back to fossil fuel. Sad but true. All that bragging about 0-60 seconds is as boring as useful. EV just have to be better than ice to win the market. The train is rolling. The combined effect of different technological developments will be the bigger than we think. EV+storage+solar+smartgrid+other will make ice look stupid. We just have to be patient. Costs are declining for motors, electronics, batteries and the whole system. The “tipping point” most likely will not be as sharp as we all wish it to be, nor will the… Read more »

Like most people here I think that BP is wrong. But let’s not forget one thing. In their calculations here most people calculate when sales reach 100% with plug. But that is not the same year when the whole car population, including the ICEs still on the road, becomes 100%.

In fact 100% cars with plug on the roads comes 15 years after 100% plug sales.

And if not all plug-ins are BEVs, BP is still selling petrol then.

I think they are 10 years off. Electric cars can easily be 5% of the fleet by 2025.

2 articles that point the other way:
“EVs are predicted to account for approximately 35% of the road transport market by 2035”

“China’s capital of Beijing is planning to further cut coal consumption by 30% this year”

BP is certainly inclined to paint a rosy picture for the future since the present and recent past has been none to pleasant.

I wonder if anyone, at BP, predicted they would have spent $61 billion, so far, to repay for an epic accident which was imminently foreseeable. I guess their crystal ball was cloudy that day.

Whistling past the graveyard!

Yeah, you guys keep telling yourselves that…

Your history of foretelling the future has been soon on hasn’t it.

In December 2014 when oil was >$100/bbl, Shell, BP, etc., were seeing great times ahead for ever and ever. Then the Saudis pulled their bone-headed stunt to put frackers out of business by opening the supply to maximum. That didn’t work out. Oil stocks tanked. And alternative energy is growing despite cheap oil.

I think a lot of people want to stop using oil. They’re tired of the price roller-coaster they’ve been riding for 40 years. And see pictures of the Beijing sky and think that could be us if we don’t change,

I don’t understand why BP and other oil companies are not just buying electric companies? Then they have the best of both markets and diversified as well. It’s all just energy at the end of the day, and that’s their business, isn’t it?

Maybe they are doing that already but these reports don’t indicate it.

Not enough emphasis is placed on the value of EV’s in terms of health risk. Emissions Reduction should be Emissions Removal, it’s the only way for truly clean air, as many cities are realising and pushing for. Just like we see in the tobacco industry, that will be a big driver for social change as well.

Who is BP?