Fossil Fuels To Dominate Global Energy Use Past 2050, McKinsey Says (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0179808668
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/10/16/1748214/fossil-fuels-to-dominate-global-energy-use-past-2050-mckinsey-says
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/fossil-fuels-dominate-global-energy-use-past-2050-mckinsey-says-2025-10-16/
> McKinsey expects fossil fuels to account for about 41-55% of global energy consumption in 2050, down from today's 64% but higher than previous projections. U.S. data-center-related power demand is expected to grow nearly 25% a year until 2030, while demand from data centers globally would average 17% growth per year between 2022 and 2030, especially in OECD countries. Alternative fuels are not likely to achieve broad adoption before 2040 unless mandated, but renewables do have the potential to provide 61-67% of the 2050 global power mix, McKinsey said.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/fossil-fuels-dominate-global-energy-use-past-2050-mckinsey-says-2025-10-16/
Re: (Score:2)
> Add that ICE vehicles just work and for most situations are better than EVs.
Found the non-EV owner. No way in hell would I buy an ICE vehicle if I lived in a house (which most people do). It's better in every way, even the cheapo Leafs I've had for years.
Its a no brainer depending on region you live in (Score:2)
>> Add that ICE vehicles just work and for most situations are better than EVs.
> Found the non-EV owner. No way in hell would I buy an ICE vehicle if I lived in a house (which most people do). It's better in every way, even the cheapo Leafs I've had for years.
In my part of the country, the weather and terrain is tailor made for EVs. However in other parts of the country, ICE has an advantage.
My next car will be an EV, but if I lived in a different part of the country my pros and cons would be completely different. Here the pros win. Elsewhere, the cons win, for now. In 10 years the issues and problems will be complete different.
A friend who is pro EV, who had multiple EVs over many years, bought an ICE after moving. It made more sense for his new locale.
Slow news day as usual. (Score:2)
To what single-digit IQ audience is that not instantly obvious so why is it defiling Slashdot?
Those whose fortunes depend on... (Score:2)
...fossil fuel will NEVER allow the fortunes to be lost.
Prepare for some really awful political and economic trouble.
Especially with China's Coal First policy (Score:2)
> Fossil Fuels To Dominate Global Energy Use Past 2050, McKinsey Says
Especially with China's:
- Lowest cost energy first policy, a coal first policy.
- Renewable supplementing not displacing coal.
- The Paris Accord allowing China to increase its pollution until 2030.
- The CCP warning it may not respect that 2030 deadline.
Note that some folks will conflate the use of coal in electricity production with the overall use of coal. I am referring to total coal usage across all industries. With respect to the percentage used in electricity production, the percentage is smaller
McKinsey oversimplified 4 quadrant (Score:2)
AI is not a bubble but a success; Full EV transition success: WE ARE SCREWED! NOT ENOUGH ELECTRICITY! EVERYBODY PANIC!
AI is a bubble that bursts; Full EV transition fails:
WE ARE SCREWED! SURPLUS INFRA GALORE. ALL THAT CAPEX WILL GO INTO OUR BILLS!
AI Bubble busts; Full EV transitions successfull:
KWOOL; enough grid electricity for all at fair prices.
AI is a success; Full EV trabsition a failure:
KWOOL; enough grid electricity for all at fair prices.
Re: (Score:1)
So about a 50% chance we are screwed, eh.
All of Tech Uses 2% of US Energy (Score:1)
All of Tech consumes less than 2% of US energy. Transportation sector uses 30% of the US energy.
Time for an end of the world party if accurate (Score:2)
If that is true we are all dead, that is going to lead to catastrophic climate change which will blow every last tipping point and lead to complete climate collapse, our habitat including the animals we depend on is all going to disappear. That would lock us in for 6C+ of rises and likely 4C+ by 2050, it will be devastating. It better be wrong or its time to have an end of the world party.
McKinsey clowns give results they were paid for (Score:5, Insightful)
This report brought to you by Big Oil.
Why does anyone listen to these consulting firm shills?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. All fossil fuel electricity generating plants are stranded assets. It is now less expensive to build out a brand new solar + battery plant than it is to simply continue operating an *existing* fossil fuel based plant. Solar is now even cheaper than wind turbine + battery.
China is bringing 5GW of solar online per week. That's 2.5 Hoover dams (at its peak) per week. China now generates twice us much electricity as the US of A.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes indeed:
[1]FERC: Solar + wind made up 91% of new US power generating capacity in H1 2025 [electrek.co]
[1] https://electrek.co/2025/09/03/ferc-solar-wind-91-percent-new-us-power-generating-capacity-h1-2025/
Science, Engineering, and Economics will control (Score:2)
> FERC: Solar + wind made up 91% of new US power generating capacity in H1 2025
You make a very common mistake. You conflate the percentage or renewables used in power generation with total use. Power generation is only one use. There are many more industries demanding power, and consumer use as well. Then you double down on the mistake by referring to "new" power generation.
Renewables are the future. But exaggerating their growth, exaggerating their capabilities, ignoring their externalities, will not make them appear any faster. Renewables will arrive at a rate determined by scien
Re: McKinsey clowns give results they were paid fo (Score:2)
Actually, the "bestets" arrangement is to use floating solar pannels and offshore wind turbines on the reservoir of a hydroelectric damm.
The hydro will provide the smoothing needed for renewables.
Failing that, the second best option is to colo the wind and solar with a combined cycle natural gas plant. After all, even if we stoped all gasoline and diesel burning, we still need oil for chemicals and plastic, and we still need helium for cool science stuff (like MRI) and both bring natural gas as a by-product
Re: (Score:3)
Grid sized batteries are kicking ass, which is why they are being installed at a furious rate by hardnosed people who give zero shit about "green" stuff.
Re: McKinsey clowns give results they were paid f (Score:2)
By that same logic AI kicks ass, that's why all big companies are installing it everywhere.
And full EVs kick ass, that's why the chinese and norwegians are buying them like crazy
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't sound like the result Big Oil would want in the report - only in reality. The report saying this will drive politicians to make efforts to increase renewables deployment, and lower data center electricity usage. What Big Oil would want is for the report to say "don't worry, you don't need to do anything, fossil fuels will be dead in 10 years anyway."
Re: (Score:2)
Big Oil wants everyone to think demand will keep going up and that they are our only saviors. The AI scamvolution (it's both) is going to fall short of projections in the short to medium term the same way the dotcom boom did, with the same implications for massively overbuilt infrastructure projects.
Anyone as involved in LLM stuff as I am can see the future, which doesn't involve the crazy energy consumption being advertised in TFA. The people building infrastructure need to sell as many shovels as they
Oil soaked $ or sun baked $ are all the same (Score:2)
> \This doesn't sound like the result Big Oil ...
There is no Big Oil. Not since the 1970s. They transitioned to Big Energy many decades ago. They have been doing renewables R&D for many decades. They have been involved in renewables for many decades. They will dominate renewable in the future. Why don't you see them doing more today? Because there is still big money to be made from fossil fuels. The day that renewables offer big money they will be there too.
Fossil Fuels, Renewables, Big [insert label here] doesn't care, they only care about the inc