IEA's Flawed Premise - Electrified Transportation is Here, Like It Or Not

The future of oil demand; only one of these is realistic

The End of Oil's Growth: Peak Oil is Behind Us

The conventional wisdom regarding future oil demand, as offered by the International Energy Agency (IEA), is structurally flawed and fundamentally misaligned with market realities. While the IEA’s high-end projections (which shows demand sustained at 113 million barrels per day through 2050) may serve certain political or economic interests, they fail to account for the exponential rate of technological adoption. We here at carswithcords assert that peak global oil demand is already in the rearview mirror, and the accelerating adoption of EVs, including heavy-duty transport, guarantees a trajectory of irreversible decline far steeper than official forecasts suggest.

Institutional Inertia and Flawed Assumptions

The IEA's continued reliance on scenarios that imply sustained or rising oil demand is not a reflection of objective market analysis but rather a symptom of institutional inertia. Large forecasting bodies often face pressures, both internal and external, to avoid radical disruption in their outlooks. Specifically, the IEA is funded by 32 member countries, many of which export oil, which do not want to see projections of oil demand decline.

There are compelling reasons to believe the IEA methodologies are seriously flawed:

• Linear Modeling: High-end models often rely on linear extrapolations of historical growth rather than accounting for S-curve adoption, which characterizes every major technological transition from the internet to smartphones. Globally, EVs have passed the tipping point and are currently exhibiting this rapid, non-linear growth.
• Understated Policy Impact: The Stated Policies Scenario assumes governments will only fulfill their minimum obligations, ignoring the tendency for climate policy and regulation to accelerate once clean technology reaches (or surpasses) price parity.
• Opaque Economic Ties: The IEA forecasting body has a clear history of underestimating renewables growth while overstating fossil fuel resilience. This latest report appears to be no different from previous reports that were far from accurate pronostications.

By failing to model the full impact of the deflationary cost of clean technology, the IEA risks providing a misleading sense of security regarding future oil demand and prices. Essentially, the member nations are paying for reports that tell them what they want to hear, rather than an accurate projection.

The Evidence Confirming That Peak Oil Has Already Occurred 

We are not merely approaching peak oil; there's compelling evidence that suggests the moment of peak demand has already passed; even if minor fluctuations occur year-to-year, the trend is downward. This peak is not due to a shortage of supply, but a structural erosion of demand in the world's most developed markets. As the saying goes, "We didn't leave the Stone Age because we ran out of rocks." Similarly, we must transition away from oil while there are still supplies, or the transition will be devastating.

Key evidence supporting the claim of demand erosion includes:

Evidence Point	Impact on Oil Demand	Implication
China's Peak Fuel Use	China, the world's largest oil importer, has seen internal projections indicating its gasoline and diesel demand will peak this decade, driven by massive (internally supplied) EV adoption.	The largest engine of global oil demand growth is stalling.
OECD Demand Collapse	Oil consumption across advanced economies (OECD nations, including the US and Europe) has been either stagnant or in decline for years, a trend that is accelerating.	The transition is complete in early adopters and is moving to the early majority consumer base.
EV Displacement Rate	According to the IEA's own data, EVs displaced over 1.3 mb/d of oil demand in 2024. This number is not speculation; it is a measurable loss that will be higher in 2025.	Every new EV sale directly removes years of future oil demand.
Electrification of Heavy Transport	As electric semi-trucks begin to deploy, they target the massive diesel consumption of the commercial freight sector, ensuring the demand erosion extends beyond passenger cars.	The second-largest transport segment is now structurally exposed. Fleet managers want to move to vehicles with lower running costs.

The S-Curve of Light-Duty Vehicle Disruption

The passenger car market has decisively entered the exponential growth phase of the Sigmoid-curve, a hockey stick pattern where slow initial uptake gives way to a rapid surge in adoption. EVs are now entering the early majority mainstream, driven by technological improvements, falling battery costs, decades of infrastructure development, and (in most of the world) supportive government policies. This accelerated adoption rate confirms the market has reached a tipping point, backed by accelerated production and battery advancements. This shift is already having a material impact on fuel consumption. In 2024, the IEA itself estimated that the global EV fleet was already displacing over 1.3 million barrels of oil per day (mb/d).

This displacement is set to increase dramatically. In the IEA’s Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS), which only accounts for announced government targets, electric cars alone are expected to displace over 5 mb/d of oil demand globally by 2030. If adoption accelerates further due to price parity and more robust charging infrastructure, that displacement figure could rise even higher. Critically, every barrel of oil displaced by an EV represents a permanent, structural loss of demand for the oil market. This erosion of the largest single source of oil consumption (light-duty transport typically accounts for around a quarter of global oil demand) cannot be easily offset by demand in other sectors.

Electrifying Heavy Transport: The Next Frontier

While passenger cars dominate the current conversation, the next major wave of oil demand destruction is coming from heavy transport, specifically semi trucks. Commercial trucking has long been considered one of the most difficult sectors to decarbonize due to the high energy requirements for long-haul routes and heavy loads. However, rapid advancements in battery technology, supported by major investment in electric truck platforms from manufacturers, are making heavy-duty electrification a commercial reality.

The IEA anticipates that electric trucks and buses could displace nearly 1 mb/d of oil demand by 2030 in the STEPS scenario. If infrastructure investments in cross-continent electric charging corridors are made, this displacement will become far more pronounced. Further battery advancement, such as solid-state cells, will continue to challenge oil’s supremacy in hard-to-abate areas. This dual pressure, from passenger cars and heavy vehicles, compresses the timeline for oil demand erosion.

Scenario Comparison and Residual Demand

To understand the long-term consequences of accelerated electrification, it helps to compare the primary long-term oil demand of the three scenarios published by the IEA. Our market-driven accelerated electrification view pushes the market trajectory toward the low-demand end of the spectrum.

IEA Scenario Name	Primary Policy Assumption	Projected Global Oil Demand 2050 (Approx.)	Peak Year
Current Policies Scenario (CPS)	Only currently enacted policies.	113 million barrels per day	No peak before 2050
Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS)	All government targets and pledges.	Declining after peak	~2030
Net Zero Emissions (NZE)	A pathway to limit warming to 1.5°C.	24 million barrels per day	Already peaked

The name of the final scenario is misleading; even if all transportation were electrified, some oil demand would remain. The primary residual demand will come from petrochemical feedstocks, which are oil-based products used for plastics and other industrial purposes. This feedstock remains the most resilient source of demand; however, its growth is insufficient to offset the decline in transportation fuels. The total size of the petrochemical market cannot absorb the vast volumes of gasoline and diesel being eliminated by electric mobility.

In a scenario defined by technological acceleration, global oil demand is guaranteed to fall dramatically, validating the premise of a rapid transition. The future lies far closer to the IEA's low-end Net Zero Emissions projection with demand reduced to approximately 24 mb/d by 2050, rather than the inflated figures of their other models. To proceed with investment or policy based on the assumption of rising demand is to ignore the clear market signal of an industry already in structural, irreversible decline.

Closing the Cobalt Loop: What Every EV Driver Should Know

The Elephant in the Room: Cobalt

We've covered the plethora of battery benefits many times here on CarWithCords. So let's talk about the elephant in the room, Cobalt.

This shimmering, silvery-blue metal powers many lithium-ion batteries, which keep our EVs humming, our phones buzzing, and our grid-scale storage systems standing strong. Cobalt is not used in all lithium-ion battery types, but the highest energy variants depend on it. Cobalt is necessary for our transition away from fossil fuels because it stabilizes cathodes, prevents overheating, and delivers the high energy density needed for long-range electric cars and reliable storage for renewable energy. Without cobalt, many battery chemistries would underperform. Yet cobalt carries serious baggage: concentrated supply chains, ethical nightmare history, and a mining footprint we'd all rather reduce.

What Cobalt Actually Does

About 75% of refined cobalt now goes straight into batteries, mostly Nickel, Manganese, Cobalt (NMC) and Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA) cathodes. The rest feeds superalloys for jet engines, catalysts for oil refineries, magnets, and even vitamin B12 (yes, really). Over the last decade, battery demand has exploded: global consumption topped 200,000 metric tons in 2024, and demand is climbing.

Where the Stuff Comes From

One country dominates like a video-game final boss: the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) produced roughly three-quarters of the world's mined cobalt in 2024. Indonesia follows with 10-15% from nickel laterite projects, then Russia, Australia, Canada, and a handful of others round out the remainder. Almost none is mined in the US.

Country	Approximate Share (2024–2025)	Notes
DRC	75%	Mostly copper by-product, a mix of industrial and artisanal mines
Indonesia	10-15%	Rapidly rising HPAL projects
Russia	3-4%	Primary Miner: Norilsk Nickel
Australia	1-2%	Miner: Glencore's Murrin Murrin
Canada	2%	Miners: Glencore and Vale operations

The Ethical Nightmare
(and the Groups Trying to Fix It)

Let's not sugar-coat it. A huge chunk of DRC cobalt still comes from artisanal mines where children as young as seven dig with hand tools, earning a pittance while breathing toxic dust and risking their lives. Industrial mines have improved traceability, and some are certified "responsible," but forced evictions, water pollution, and corruption remain rampant. Australian and Canadian cobalt is far cleaner, yet the sheer volume from the DRC means almost every battery has at least a trace of Congolese material unless the manufacturer explicitly sources otherwise.

Thankfully, several multi-stakeholder initiatives are pushing for real change. The Cobalt Institute represents producers and users worldwide, funding projects for safer mining and better data transparency. The Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI) runs the Cobalt Refiner Supply Chain Due Diligence Standard and audits refiners from mine to battery cell. The Fair Cobalt Alliance pools companies like Glencore, Tesla, and NGOs to formalize artisanal sites, build schools, and pay living wages. The Global Battery Alliance (with over 100 members, including automakers, miners, and recyclers) created the "Cobalt Action Partnership" to scale responsible practices across the entire value chain. Progress is slow and uneven, but these groups have helped certify sites, reduce child labor, and give miners actual bargaining power. The uncomfortable truth is that without them, things would be far worse.

Recycling: Finally Getting Serious

Cobalt has enjoyed one of the highest recycling rates of any metal because superalloy scraps were easy money. Battery recycling, however, is newer and trickier. Globally, recycled cobalt supplies ~5% of total demand currently in 2025, but most of that still comes from old jet-engine parts, not (yet) dead EV packs. End-of-life battery recycling is ramping quickly. Note that EV retirement will generally lag EV production volumes by 12 to 15 years, so the recycled content in new batteries is still modest.

In the US, things look much brighter. Thanks to the IRA tax credits that treat North American recycled minerals the same as if they were freshly mined here. Recycled cobalt now makes up roughly 15-20% of the cobalt in US-made battery cells in late 2025. Some suppliers already hit 50-100% recycled cobalt in certain cathode runs for Panasonic and others. The European Union's Battery Regulation mandates a material recovery target of 90% for cobalt (as well as copper, lead, and nickel) from recycled batteries, to be achieved by December 31, 2027.

The Recycling Heroes Actually Doing the Work

The company Redwood Materials (founded by JB Straubel from Tesla) dominates the modern battery recycling scene. Redwood processes enough materials to provide batteries for 250,000-300,000 EV packs per year. They recover greater than 95% of the nickel, cobalt, lithium, and copper, and ship battery-grade material straight back to cell manufacturers, often with higher purity grades than virgin materials. They currently handle ~90% of US lithium-ion recycling volume. Li-Cycle, Ascend Elements, Cirba Solutions, and Retriev Technologies handle the remainder. Redwood is the 800-pound gorilla turning scrap into black mass at scale.

Why This Matters More Than Virtue Signaling

Every metric ton of recycled cobalt means one less metric ton dug by hand in the DRC. It slashes energy use by ~46%, water use by ~40%, and avoids the human-rights horrors entirely. Plus, in the US, it counts as domestic supply under IRA rules, which is why Ford, GM, Toyota, and Panasonic have signed massive offtake deals faster than you can say "closed-loop." This is one part of the IRA that survived shredding by the BBBA.

The recycling numbers will only improve from here. By 2030, recycled content is expected to reach 30-40% in the US as more packs reach end-of-life and additional recycling plants come online. Battery chemistries are also advancing toward lower- or zero-cobalt compositions, with Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP), sodium-ion, and Lithium Manganese Iron Phosphate (LMFP) among the notable types. However, cobalt will remain important for high-performance cells for a long time.

Bottom line: cobalt remains the problematic poster child of the battery world, but industry alliances and recycling are turning a dirty linear supply chain into something that increasingly resembles a circle. This is something crude oil could never do. The US leads the recycling charge, proving batteries can be built more responsibly. The path forward is to keep pushing recycled content, support the initiatives cleaning up mining, and toward a future free from fossil fuels without leaving a trail of exploited kids and ruined landscapes in the wake.

Lead’s Lethal Legacy: Lithium’s Lifesaving Leap - Ending the Global Lead Poisoning Cycle

Zapping the Lead Legacy: Why Lithium-Ion Batteries Deserve the Driver's Seat

The good ol' 12-Volt car starter batteries rank among the most recycled items on the planet. On their recycling journey, billions of lead-acid batteries end up in countries like Nigeria, where environmental controls are almost nonexistent. Lead is a potent neurotoxin. Informal smelters break open batteries, melt the lead in backyard furnaces, and release dust that poisons workers, children, and entire villages. The same recycled lead then flows back into new batteries sold worldwide. This hidden cycle keeps costs low for battery makers and devastation high for communities that never chose to bear our waste.

Picture this: a world where your car battery does not turn recycling yards into toxic sludge pits. Sounds like a decent upgrade, right? Lead-acid batteries have powered vehicles since the 1800s. With 1.6 billion vehicles on the road worldwide in 2025 and billions more lead-acid units in forklifts and golf carts, the sheer volume is staggering. It is time to swap these heavy, poisonous packs for lithium-ion batteries that perform better and do not poison people.

The Toxic Titans Still Ruling the Road

Roughly 3 billion lead-acid batteries are manufactured every year. Nearly every internal-combustion vehicle uses a lead-acid starter battery. Major battery producers include Clarios (supplying one in three cars globally), Exide Technologies, East Penn Manufacturing, GS Yuasa, and EnerSys. Together, they keep a $56 billion industry humming.

The problem is not the battery when it sits neatly under your hood. The problem is when it reaches the end of life. Informal recycling in places like Nigeria, India, and Bangladesh routinely contaminates entire communities. In Ogijo, Nigeria, soil lead levels hit 186 times the safe limit, and 70% of tested residents (many of them children) have blood-lead levels above the WHO lead poisoning threshold. The New York Times and The Examination documented how recycled lead from these operations flows back into new batteries sold around the world. The circle is vicious, profitable, and lethal.

Lithium-Ion: Non-Toxic and Ready to Drop In

Lithium batteries are ready now and outperform lead-acid. Lead-acid operates roughly -15°C to 50°C (suffers in extremes). Lithium batteries reliably work from -20°C to 60°C. Lithium-Ion delivers 3000-6000 full cycles vs lead-acid’s 200-500, so you replace it far less often and enjoy 10 to 15 years of rock-solid service. Drop-in 12V Lithium batteries are plug-and-play ready today.

Lithium-ion batteries contain no lead and no free-flowing sulfuric acid. Modern Li-ion packs are sealed, non-toxic units that pose minimal risk even if cracked open. Recycling them is far cleaner and already reaches 95% material recovery in regulated facilities. And some types of lithium batteries (like lithium iron phosphate) are cobalt-free. (More coming here about Cobalt tomorrow.)

For direct lead-acid replacement, the standout chemistry is lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4, often branded LFP). It offers flat voltage curves that mimics lead-acid, extreme safety (no thermal runaway), and 10 times the lifespan of lead-acid. Weight drops by about 70%, charge time collapses from 10 hours to under 2, and usable capacity jumps because you can safely discharge LFP to 100% instead of the 50% limit typical for lead-acid.

Here is the tale of the tape:

Feature	Lead-Acid	LiFePO4
Contains lead	Yes	No
Toxicity risk	Extreme	Negligible
Weight for 100 Ah	28-32 kg	10-12 kg
Full cycles (100% DOD)	200-500	3000-6000
Charge time (0-100%)	8-16 hours	1-3 hours
Usable capacity	~50%	~98%
Full Accounting Cost per cycle (2025)	$0.14-$0.20	$0.04-$0.06
Recycling pollution	Severe	Low

Major Automakers and Their 12V Starter Battery Choices (in 2025)

Automaker	Current 12V Starter Battery Strategy
Tesla	Fully adopted Li-ion 12V batteries since 2021 across all models; matches main pack life.
Ford	Sticks to AGM lead-acid for 12V starters; aftermarket Li-ion available but not OEM-integrated
GM/Chevrolet	Uses Li-ion 12V in select hybrids/EVs like Corvette E-Ray; lead-acid common elsewhere with no broad shift announced
Toyota	Relies on AGM lead-acid 12V; no OEM Li-ion starter option
Volkswagen	Transitioned to Li-ion 12V in EVs since 2022; gasoline and diesel cars still use lead-acid starter batteries
Hyundai	Integrates Li-ion 12V into EVs and hybrids (e.g., Ioniq, Sonata Hybrid) since 2017; saves weight
Stellantis	No confirmed Li-ion 12V use; exclusively lead-acid starters.
Honda	No confirmed Li-ion 12V use; exclusively lead-acid starters.
Nissan	Uses lead-acid 12V in all vehicles (even the all-electric Leaf).
BMW	Offers Li-ion 12V as option in M models (e.g., M3/M4) since 2014; requires specialized hardware.

Golf Carts Lead The Transition

The golf cart industry is rapidly adopting lithium-ion batteries primarily because the technology directly solves operational deficiencies of lead-acid. Lithium batteries weigh less, dramatically improving cart speed, acceleration, and component wear. Furthermore, lithium requires virtually zero maintenance: this eliminates the need for water checks and corrosion cleaning, and lithium charges four times faster. For commercial fleet operators on golf courses, this translates to drastically reduced labor costs, less downtime, and a lower total cost of ownership over the battery's 5 to 10 year lifespan, making the premium price easily justifiable. In 2015, nearly all golf carts were lead-acid; as of last year, most golf carts made are lithium-powered, and, as our chart shows, the trend will continue. 

The automotive industry's transition to lithium starter batteries is slow due to established supply chains and cost. Lead-acid is cheap, reliable enough, and suited for the high-power, short-burst needs of starting an engine. To automakers, the upfront expense of lithium is hard to justify, even if it works better for consumers and the planet in the long run. However, lithium's superior cycle life, lighter weight, and integration with electric vehicle systems will eventually force the switch. As manufacturing costs drop and vehicle electrification increases demand for high-efficiency components, the total cost of ownership will shift, making lithium the new standard (see chart below).

Time to Retire the Lead Weight

The technology is ready, the price gap is closing (12V 100Ah LFP drop-in batteries now sell for $250-$350 versus $150 for premium AGM lead-acid). The additional cost is more than made up for by the extended life, and the moral case is overwhelming. Every year we delay, another few hundred thousand tons of lead get smeared across villages that never asked for it.

Switching car starter batteries, golf-cart packs, and other lead-acid batteries to LiFePO4 lithium-ion would slash mining demand for new lead, gut the toxic recycling trade, and deliver better performance at lower lifetime cost. Automakers have zero excuses left.

Let us finally build a future free from preventable lead poisoning. The batteries are waiting. All we have to do is plug them in.