China to reach Peak Coal this decade! "Energy Darwinism": Major new Citi report
"Even in China, we believe that coal demand is likely to peak this decade as its generation mix starts to shift"
Energy Darwinism: Fossil fuels and utilities at risk
By Giles Parkinson on 2 October 2013
A major new report from investment banking giant Citi has highlighted the dramatic changes sweeping the world’s energy industry, and is being used as a clarion call to review the estimated $37 trillion that will be invested in energy infrastructure and projects over the coming two decades.
In a study titled “Energy Darwinism – the evolution of the energy industry“ - Citi says the global energy mix is shifting more rapidly than is widely appreciated, and this has major implications for generators, utilities, and consumers, and for exporters of fossil fuels such as Australia.
<snip>
As Citi notes: “Thus is not a ‘tomorrow’ story. We are already seeing utilities altering investment plans, even in the shale-driven U.S., with examples of utilities switching plans for peak-shaving gas plants, and installing solar farms in their stead,” it says.
“The same is true for other fuels, for example the reluctance on the part of utilities to build new nuclear in the UK, or the avoidance of coal in some markets due to uncertainty over pricing, likely utilisation rates and or pollution.
“Even in China, we believe that coal demand is likely to peak this decade as its generation mix starts to shift,” it says. It notes India’s coal demand will grow much slow than expected, and nuclear – and the capital costs involved – make it unsuitable for markets with such uncertainty.
<snip>
Perhaps the key graph in the report is this one below. It doesn’t mean much at first glance, but Citi says it is critical for understanding the factors at play.
<snip>
= new reply since forum marked as read
In this case I used Citi's own numbers for the energy mix, that were OK when they seemed to support solar winning the race. Hell, they even went all the way out to 2100, which is stupid. So, I used Citi's numbers and a very modest expectation of energy growth.
I estimated of a rise in CO2 emissions of 20% by 2040. The IEA expects to see an 18% growth in emissions by 2035, which comes out to about 24% by 2040.
That supposes an emissions growth rate of 0.8% pa, which we know is extremely low compared to the current growth rate of about 2.8%, averaged over the last decade.
I used an estimate of 1.5% pa growth in primary energy consumption to 2040. IEA assumes 1.45% in their 2012 WEO. The previous 10-year trailing average was 2.6% pa.
So my numbers are right in line with those of the IEA, which was also one of the primary source for Citi's data (I hadn't looked at the 2012 WEO before now, so this is an interesting cross-check). Given that I'm in line with the estimates made by the Citi paper in the OP, I can only conclude that your dudgeon is caused by the conclusion I came to: that global CO2 emissions will almost certainly keep rising for at least the next 27 years, enough to put us over 450ppmv.
The growth of renewable energy may very well imperil fossil fuel companies here and there. That's a good thing, but it doesn't look like it will be enough to stop world CO2 levels from rising dangerously, which is the point of the whole exercise. 450 ppm (along with the recent uprating of methane's GWP by the IPCC, from 21 to 34) will result in us blowing right by 2 degrees C, and into "dangerous warming" territory without a backward glance.
The core issue is the carbon budget. If we blow that, we're cooked - literally. According to the IPCC, if we pass 880 GtC cumulative, we will probably go over 2C. A growth of 0.8% pa (less than a third of the current growth rate) puts us over that budget by the year 2037. If we hope to stay under 2C it will take a lot more than the adoption of renewables at the rates estimated by Citi and the IEA.
So pat yourself on the back if you wish, but keep your eye on the carbon.
http://theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/283921/22-years-till-we-blow-2-c-carbon-budget
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2012/factsheets.pdf
And woo hoo to you too! 
Your claim:
Using Citi's waterfall graph for energy proportions, and assuming a a conservative growth rate of 1.5% pa in primary energy use, it looks to me as though CO2 emissions would be around 20% higher in 2040 than they are today."
Now suddenly you have a litany of unsupported BS where you "used Citi's numbers" even though you have no access to the actual numbers that Citi has included in the report. I think it's a safe assumption that you are not on the mailing list for Citigroup's investor reports so when you now say in your last post "I used Citi's own numbers for the energy mix" what you really mean is the same thing you wrote originally: all you really have are numbers you've made up from a graph that is clearly designed to illustrate a historical point, not to provide any sort of accurate data for forecasts.
That makes the output every bit as much woowoo as anything produced by the climate denier industry.
The economic fundamentals it describes fits will with China's ongoing efforts to reduce their carbon emissions and their stated intention to tighten up on particulate air pollution.
Note the decoupling of CO2 emissions from GDP in the US and EU.
The movement by China has been steady.
