Why is the DOE a year late on their International Energy Outlook?

Regular readers will know that I eagerly await the publication of the U.S. Department of Energy’s  Energy Information Administration’s bi-annual report titled ‘International Energy Outlook.’

They’re almost a year late. They were supposed to publish in Spring of 2015 and the EIA website now says it will be in February 2016. One of their staff told me a couple of months ago that it would be January because they were having some problems with their model.

The reason it’s important to me is that I used their figures for my baseline projection of energy consumption going forward. As my figures are much higher than theirs–heck, my figures are much higher than everybody’s–I pore over energy consumption projections avidly. A handful of them come out every year, such as BP and the International Energy Agency, but I like the DOE’s, even if I don’t agree with their totals.

For non-regular readers, I spent over a year analyzing global energy consumption trends at my other blog (3000 Quads) and came to the conclusion that we would consume almost twice as much in 2030 as we did in 2010 and an incredible six times as much by 2075. That’s what happens when developing countries develop.

Where the EIA estimated that the developing world would increase their consumption by 2.4% per year, I estimate that the developing world will increase consumption by 4.19% per year. That explains all the difference between their totals and mine.

Which is why I’m getting itchy to see their reported consumption for the last couple of years.

C’mon, February!


4 responses to “Why is the DOE a year late on their International Energy Outlook?

  1. They are late, I bet, because they are reworking the data and dumping off inconvenient facts in their work product to reflect the President’s climate agenda. My guess is that the reliability and usefulness of their analysis will be compromised.

    • hunter, don’t let the guys on the other side of the fence get inside your head. You’re not making sens here. Why would Obama let them do three editions of International Energy Outlook and then just before he leaves office stop them from doing the fourth?

      As for reworking the data, to show what? More energy consumption or less? More emissions or less? A good politician could make a good story out of either.

      The problem with the EIA model is that they bought a package from an Oxford think tank that has assumptions about the economy, trade and development that were developed about a decade ago and are not proving to be too accurate. They had to make a big adjustment to their 2010 figures and smaller adjustments ever since.

      As for Obama, you’re blowing him up to mythic proportions.He’s just a politician. And a good one.

      Wouldn’t it stretch your definition of coincidence to see Clinton,Gore and Obama as three of the worst humans that ever walked the planet and then, horrors, to find that they all became president? I mean what were the odds?

      • Well–two of them. And the third won the popular vote.

      • Hi, thanks for the feedback. I did not mean to come across so sturm and drang. No, Gore, Clinton(s) and even Obama are not the worst people in the world. Not even close. Unlike a lot of people I know, I don’t think of Obama as a total failure.
        The corrosive impacts of the climate obsession are not due to evilllll. It is just a failing belief system that adherents are afraid to let go of.
        And Mr. Obama ad his pals are clinging to their climate apocalypse as tightly as anyone in fly over country is supposed to cling to their guns and bibles.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s