Article
The Truth and Myths About Fossil Fuels
March 2024
Sovereignty
Energy
Sovereignty
Energy
Article
The Truth and Myths About Fossil Fuels
Subscribe to our contents
When it comes to energy and climate, we are confronted with a wide range of common misconceptions that often elicit conflicting responses.
With this FAQ focused on fossil fuels, Carbone 4 aims to shed light on the debate and separate fact from fiction by offering a scientific, data-driven analysis of each common misconception.
To learn everything there is to know about energy and climate, check out the other FAQs available
Fossil fuels accounted for more than 80% of global primary energy consumption in 2021[1]. Such dependence raises the question of how much it still seems possible to extract.
Before answering this question, let’s review the key distinction between two important concepts: Fossil fuel flows and stocks. Flows correspond to the annual production volume, while reserves represent the total “available” volume underground. To put it simply[2], inventory can be divided into two categories: resources and reserves. In the first case, this refers to the volumes contained in the Earth's subsurface, whereas in the second case, it refers to what is recoverable under current technical and economic conditions.
Even though there are various uncertainties involved in estimating reserves[4], let's estimate an order of magnitude using data from BP's 2021 statistical yearbook[3]. Proven fossil fuel reserves are estimated at approximately 9 million TWh for coal, 3 million TWh for oil, and 2 million TWh for natural gas. At the current rate of consumption[5] For each energy source, the proven reserves would then be sufficient to meet the needs of the extractive economy for 139 years for coal, 54 years for oil, and 49 years for natural gas. Let’s keep in mind that more than 60% of these resources are concentrated in five countries, with that figure rising to 75% for coal.
In light of the climate crisis, Fossil fuels are not becoming scarce. If we were to burn all those reserves proven, we would most likely see a temperature increase of more than +6°C compared to 1850[6], which is well above the 2°C limit set by the Paris Agreement.
Renewable energy is not new. In fact, before the 19th century, the global energy mix was nearly 100% renewable: water and windmills, human and animal muscle power, sailboats, etc. The only exception may have been biomass, the exploitation of which beyond its rate of regeneration has led to unsustainable patterns of deforestation.
Starting in the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution was accompanied by increasing use, particularly of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and then natural gas) as well as other energy sources (hydroelectricity and nuclear power in the 20th century). Historically, each of these energy sources has been added to the existing ones, without ever replacing them on a global scale. In other words, from a production standpoint, every energy revolution has been accompanied by an increase in energy demand driven by the development and/or widespread adoption of new uses.
Renewable energy is no exception to the rule : even as they continue to grow in capacity (+18 EJ, or +34%, between 2015 and 2021), That doesn't mean fossil fuel use is decreasing, though. Worse still, they have grown at a faster rate than renewables (+27 EJ, or +6%, between 2015 and 2021). The world has never consumed as much fossil fuel as it does today : Their share has remained at around 80% of primary energy consumption for decades.
While it is desirable for our societies to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible, it is unrealistic to believe that they will be automatically replaced by rapidly expanding renewable energy sources. This is all the more true given that the production potential of renewable energy remains limited (due to the availability of metals, usable land, etc.) and cannot cover all current fossil fuel uses. If we want to see a genuine shift from fossil fuels to renewables, it seems essential to provide a framework for the energy transition, by combining:
Achieving the oil peak[7]is an event that has been the subject of much discussion since the 1950s. At that time, Marion King Hubbert, an American geophysicist, presented his work to the American Petroleum Institute. He modeled the U.S. oil production curve and predicted a peak in production in the 1970s, which was indeed observed. However, this model is based on the amount of oil that is technically recoverable at a given date, “the reserves”. However, various factors make their difficult to estimate on a global scale :
Oil in Other Forms : Hubbert’s findings concerned so-called “conventional” U.S. oil (found in reservoir rock, where it accumulates after being formed in source rock). However, some unconventional oils are now being produced, including shale oil (which saw very strong growth in the United States between 2010 and 2019), oil sands (found in Canada), and extra-heavy crude. In the case of shale oil, for example, Calculating reserves is much more complicated because the oil is trapped in a diffuse and irregular manner within source rock covering a vast area, unlike a reservoir that is easier to characterize.
For all these reasons, it remains uncertain how to estimate the reserves and the associated peak production.
To date, Global annual production peaked in 2018 after a slow increase of 2% per year since 1990 [8]. Production then stabilized in 2019 before falling in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2022, it is returning to a level close to that of 2018. Looking ahead, according to Rystad or the IEA[9], this production could continue to rise, reaching peak oil in the 2030s or 2040s, but the various international institutions do not agree on the exact timing. Furthermore, the health, geopolitical, and climate-related uncertainties we have recently experienced—and which we will face even more acutely in the future—necessarily make this estimate more uncertain.
Ultimately, regardless of the exact date, Europe has been consuming less and less oil for more than 10 years[10]. Perhaps it's time to proactively plan our transition away from fossil fuels rather than simply endure it.
Illustrative: global fossil liquid fuel production scenario, by fuel category
The decline in oil consumption in Europe is already a reality, even though we don't have a climate policy, and it is on the horizon for the globe in any case.
In fact, The critical issue is not the date when production peaks, but the rate of the subsequent decline. Will we see a sudden and volatile decline, or a planned one?
On the one hand, the risk of a shortage will not result from a geological shortage of oil, but primarily for climatic, geopolitical, and economic reasons. France—and Europe more broadly—is suffering from its excessive oil consumption:
On the other hand, Planning for the decarbonization of our economy helps reduce demand for oil, potentially faster than the decline in supply, especially if all available policy tools are deployed (energy efficiency, effectiveness, and low-carbon energy). Let's take a closer look at the road transportation which consume about half of the world's oil. Travel by bike or train instead, drive slower in a smaller car, or switch to electric vehicles are all ways to reduce our dependence. As for this last measure, the ball is already rolling. The ban on the sale of new internal-combustion-engine cars in Europe has been set for 2035[13], Sales of electric cars are skyrocketing. In 2022, they accounted for 13% of sales in France, compared with just 2% in 2019[14].
In all of these possible scenarios, No one can predict the impact on oil prices, but one thing is certain amid all this uncertainty: consuming less oil will make France and Europe more resilient in terms of climate, geopolitics, and the economy.
The European Union (EU) imports most of the fossil fuels it consumes.
Let's start with the oil, the primary energy source for transportation[15] and the most widely consumed in the EU. Its supply in Europe is met by about 90% from imports, which came primarily from Russia in 2022. In addition, the EU produces some oil in Italy, Romania, Denmark, and Germany[16].
For the fossil gas; the EU is also 90% dependent on imports in 2022[17], with domestic production concentrated mainly in the Netherlands and Romania[18]. Before the war in Ukraine, 44% of the EU's gas imports came from Russia (via pipeline or as liquefied natural gas (LNG) transported by ship), with the other main supplier countries being Norway and Algeria (via pipeline and as LNG) as well as the United States and Qatar (exclusively as LNG). Sometime in 2022, The share of Russian gas fell to 15%, while of the Norway and some United States. This is not insignificant for the climate, as the upstream emissions (extraction and transportation) from U.S. LNG are higher than those from gas transported via pipeline[19].
And finally, the Coal accounted for about 30% of EU imports in 2022. Even though energy independence is greater than for the other two fossil fuels, we must put this into perspective, since this energy accounts for less than 20% of all fossil fuels consumed in Europe. It is used primarily for electricity generation in a few countries such as Poland, Greece, Germany, and the Czech Republic, and more broadly across industry (particularly the steel industry). As with fossil gas, the European sanctions following the war in Ukraine have helped reduce Russia's share of coal imports fell from 50% in 2021 to 20% in 2022. The decline was offset by increased imports from the United States, Australia, Colombia, and South Africa. It should be noted that domestic coal production[20], totaling 300 Mt in 2022, is primarily located in Germany with 110 Mt of lignite and in Poland with 55 Mt of coal[21].
Coal is a fossil fuel in solid form which requires less processing than petroleum or fossil gas before it can be used. Its solid state also allows it to be easy to store but harder to transport; coal is therefore used primarily in the region where it is mined, and often to generate electricity.
Since coal is a fossil fuel the one that emits the most greenhouse gases for the same amount of energy supplied, Prospective decarbonization scenarios drastically reduce its production : a 70% reduction globally between 2010 and 2050 under the IEA’s 1.7°C scenario[22] For illustrative purposes.
And yet, the current trend is very different. In 2020, Global coal production did not decline but increased by 4% compared with 2010.
China is often cited as the main driver of this growth, and indeed, its coal consumption continues to rise today[23] unlike OECD countries. Nevertheless, this increase is partly used to produce countless consumer goods destined for OECD countries. In other words, The French consume coal indirectly through all "Made in China" products. This is reflected in households' carbon footprint[24].
In addition, Among OECD countries, the situation varies greatly when it comes to domestic consumption. For example, France consumes very little of it because it has depleted its main mines, while Poland still has nearly half of its reserves in its energy mix[25].
What about tomorrow? In 2022, globally, 45 GW of coal-fired power plant capacity came online, while only 25 GW was shut down. While meeting the Paris Agreement’s goals would require halting the construction of new power plants and even shutting down some existing ones before the end of their economic life, 350 GW of new capacity is still planned worldwide as of early 2023, with 70% of these projects located in China[26]. So, unfortunately for the climate, coal is far from being a thing of the past.
Fossil gas would enable our societies to transition from oil and coal to low-carbon energy sources.
First of all, This “transition” is not yet a reality, since fossil gas has been used on a massive scale for 50 years and does not serve as a substitute for oil and coal consumption ; their consumption is rising, as is that of natural gas. Between 1971 and 2019, consumption of fossil gas increased by 180%, oil by 100%, and coal by 50%[27].
In addition, Fossil gas is certainly less carbon-intensive than oil and coal, but it remains very carbon-intensive compared to low-carbon alternatives. For electricity generation, the use of fossil gas is at least 10 to 40 times more carbon-intensive than solar, wind, or nuclear power. For heat generation, it produces 5 to 20 times more emissions than heat pumps, biogas, or solar thermal energy.
Notes : Solar thermal on large installations; electric heating using ADEME's emission factor for electricity used for heating in 2022. Sources: ADEME, Publication "Chaleur renouvelable: la grande oubliée de la stratégie énergétique française?", Calculs Carbone4
To meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, and thus preserve a habitable planet, The consumption of all fossil fuels must decline very rapidly. With regard to fossil gas in Europe, this reduction must be in the range of 50% to 65% by 2030[28]. Beyond the climate, let's remember that The use of fossil fuels keeps us dependent to exporting countries, whereas the energy transition (energy efficiency, effectiveness, low-carbon energy) implies the opposite, by strengthening our independence.
----------
1.
BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2022
2.
https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/questions-et-reponses-energies/quelle-est-la-difference-entre-les-ressources-et-les-reserves-dhydrocarbures
4.
See the common misconception: "The exact date of the geological peak oil is known."
3.
BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2021
5.
BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2022; ~50,000 TWh for oil (185 EJ); ~40,000 TWh for natural gas (145 EJ); ~45,000 TWh for coal (160 EJ).
6.
Novethic - If we burn all fossil fuels, global warming could reach 11°; https://reporterre.net/Bruler-tous-les-combustibles-fossiles-entrainerait-un-rechauffement-planetaire
7.
Refers to the point at which oil production peaks before gradually and permanently declining.
8.
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/crude-oil/world-production-statistics.html
9.
According to both Rystad and the International Energy Agency (which analyze reserves in greater detail than is possible based solely on declarations), “proven plus probable” reserves are estimated to be around 2,000 billion barrels.
10.
Eurostat, Final Energy Consumption by Product, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ten00123__custom_8486437/default/line?lang=fr
11.
See the common misconception “Is there still time to stay on track to limit global warming to 1.5°C?”
12.
See the common misconception “Fossil fuels are becoming scarce.”
13.
Although there are a few exceptions, the direction is clear for the European auto market.
14.
Source: RSVERO.
15.
https://www.carbone4.com/article-russie-sobriete
16.
Supply, Processing, and Consumption of Oil and Petroleum Products, 2021 Data, Eurostat.
17.
Natural Gas Supply Statistics, Eurostat.
18.
Gas Supply, Processing, and Consumption, 2021 Data, Eurostat.
19.
Carbon 4, Natural Gas Imports: Not All Varieties Are Created Equal; https://www.carbone4.com/analyse-gnl-strategie-long-terme
20.
Bituminous coal and lignite.
21.
Supply, processing, and consumption of solid fossil fuels, monthly data. 2022 data, Eurostat.
22.
International Energy Agency.
23.
https://energyandcleanair.org/record-rise-in-chinas-coal-production-and-imports/
24.
https://www.myco2.fr/
25.
https://www.iea.org/countries/poland
26.
https://globalenergymonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Boom-Bust-Coal-2023.pdf; the GWs in the "Projects" section pertain to notices, permit applications, and permits granted.
27.
IEA, World Total Final Consumption by Source.
28.
Agora Energiwende, Breaking Free from Fossil Gas
.jpg%3Fv%3D2026-06-30T09%253A31%253A20.056Z&w=3840&q=75)
