This has been a hard year for me in my Energy engagements. What really triggered me to go even deeper into my energy shell was this year was the outcomes of the CoP28 followed by CoP29. I wrote a piece “dealing with the raw emotions of the CoP28 event“- it really did “push my buttons”. So much advice and pursuit of making the Energy transition changes seem to be tackled (and defended) from such narrow country or specific energy perspectives you can be in real danger of losing your engagement.

Here we are already one year further and having some really disappointing outcomes from CoP29. One quote I picked up upon “There is no deal to come out of Baku that will not leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth,” said Avinash Persaud, special advisor on climate at the Inter-American Development Bank.

This CoP29 continued to highlight the recurring impasses that had Saudi Arabia, India, Russia and China all pursing different blocking tactics and China still claiming it is a developing nation. How can some 20,000 delegates from nearly 200 countries gathered find unanimity? At this CoP29 the emerging anger at addressing real climate problems does not auger well for future CoPs. Something has to radically change, although there were some limited progress made in finance help for the flow of capital from developed countries to low- and middle-income countries to support emissions reductions and climate change adaptation.

We need real global commitment to really accelerating renewable energy, doubling down on energy efficiency and a clear commitment to transition away from fossil fuels. Yet we know how a new Trump presidency looking to ensure national security and leverage all its fossil fuel assets, arguable to the maximum.

Energy and Climate are in growing disunity

The world still faces disunity in climate policies, thoughtful transition approaches in its energy approaches. We are heading for polarization that does give low confidence for the future. Some argue that during the two weeks of fractious and at times openly hostile United Nations climate talks at CoP29 in Azerbaijan, we are learning more about where countries have drawn their red lines on climate cooperation and how can you achieve universal consensus?

Really is 1.5 degrees Celsius realistic?

The battle to keep global warming within 1.5 degrees Celsius has become a “fig leaf” that still keeps a rallying cry for climate action for nearly a decade but we have blown past that. Does a 1.5 make any sense now? Recently a report claiming the planet is almost certain to blow past the target why are we still clinging to a goal that no longer makes sense?  At COP28 last year, Bill Gates said realistically even 2C isn’t that likely anymore, and the world should just be sure to stay below 3C. Sadly for the world’s most at-risk nations, abandoning the 1.5C goal is not an option and why CoP29 was such a disappointment in finding the funding to attempt to hold the line or perish. After decades of pollution responsible for more extreme weather that now threatens their very existence. Can we afford to keep The 1.5C goal as a diplomatic and largely symbolic one. We need to get realistic but will we soon?

As nations around the world slow their transitions to emission-free energy and constrain their ambition in setting new carbon-reducing targets, which are due in February 2025 as redefined goals and realities on these recent CoP meetings where will this leave us? All three pillars of the energy transition – affordability, security and sustainability – are very precarious as governments the world over struggle to keep them in balance with domestic demands and finding all the funding demands to make a slew of transitions we need.

Climate breakdown is real

The rise in the estimated consistent hits to the world’s economies as a result of the shocks from flooding, droughts, temperature rises, and mitigating and adapting to extreme weather adds the huge increase in the risk from physical shocks to the economy. Will these new “constants” be the recognition point for a new global consensus?

We have yet to recognize the costs ahead of us when we start accounting for all the visible and invisible impacts we will have of climate tipping points, sea temperature rises, migration and conflict as a result of global heating, human health impacts or biodiversity loss.

What will happen with these Climate tipping points, such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, and the deforestation of the Amazon, both are critical thresholds that, if crossed, will lead to huge, accelerating and sometimes irreversible changes in the climate system. How will we account for that when it becomes irreversible? some predictions are a massive one-third hit from physical damage on GDP to 33% of any global growth. Add in a shift to trade wars, tariffs, more wars etc, we seem to be in for some really tough times ahead, especially from extreme heat (acceleration)

Are we going to shift funding to preventable climate-related catastrophe management?

We need to turn more to energy and climate policymakers. We need more consistency of purpose. There as as many or more forces of change today than ever. How can we balance security and affordability? How can we build for sustainability and drive for efficiency when so much of our economics are based on fossil fuels? We have such an inherently complex set of challenges, one “wrong” move has impact or so many unintended consequences. We have unrealistic targets today and those are driving policies being made that have far-reaching impact which can span environment, social, economic and political spheres.

The struggles are real, the lobbyists for one group try to influence decisions and this is one of the biggest “blights” on CoP meetings today. A staggering 480 lobbyists working on carbon capture and storage (CCS) have been granted access to the UN climate summit, over 1,700 coal, oil and gas lobbyists granted access to Cop29. Yet is was estimated the 10 most climate-vulnerable nations have only a combined 1,033 delegates at the negotiations. Something needs to change here? The lobbyists look to achieve “incremental change” at the best. Why is this allowed?

The other “beef” I have is “Net Zero”

Net Zero is banded about as the our saviour. This is where it gets really hard (for me) So what is Net Zero? We should consider Net Zero as ‘net zero impact’ on our whole ecosystem (not just emissions, but all forms of pollution, waste and related harms on climate, nature and the biosphere as a whole)

In our current political environment, Net Zero is reached when any greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced to zero in total (against 1990 levels). This anchors the phrase Net Zero to ‘climate‘, for now.

Tomorrow, today, yesterday — ‘net’ means balancing the future and the past

In considering Net Zero impact we should be ensuring that not only our current impacts are non-negative, but also address the historical impact of our actions. Our material sustainability is contingent on ensuring that the net sum of the harms and benefits we create don’t cause compound negatives: we need to ‘spend’ less than we make so that we don’t bankrupt the ecosystem which we rely upon to prosper.

Just think about this. It bends my mind.

Hundreds of companies have pledged to reach “net zero” by the middle of the century, meaning that they’ll try to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to zero, and any remaining will be offset by planting trees, sucking carbon from the atmosphere, or other ways to capture CO2. So we get into the merky waters of carbon capture, storage, credits or offsets. If ever this stops me believing in an energy transition, it is this “Net Zero” that gets as close as you can get. For me it is only  real and meaningful reductions in emissions seen, verified and accounted for not all this experimental “hog wash” of carbon capture and storage. (CCS or CCUS).

Is there a light at the end of the tunnel or (multiple) trains rushing towards us?

Of course there are more that make me despair but what will change this and when. Is it going to be the sum of so many catastrophes, the vanishing of whole nations as they see their islands slip under rapidly rising water, the dramatic change in seasons, that are so unpredictable our crops and harvests fail or the areas we grow them become unsustainable and this forces dramatic agricultural upheavals. Is it going to be this “unstoppable” move to renewables some claim is occurring? Is it going to be a clear distinction of policy separated from narrow commercial interest. Is it going to be social unrest. Investor uncertainty, growing bankruptcies and market volatility.

The complex interplay

We do have to recognize it is such a complex interplay between regulations, market dynamics, technology development and geopolitics but we do need a consistent purpose, pace and direction and that still is not to be seen. We need greater integration, alignment and collaborations but we seem to be going in the wrong direction on that, at present.

The thinking about adaptive frameworks, integrated approaches where we attempt to cover entire value chains to understand, (scope1,2,&3 being transparent) and we need to recognize rapid progress over the next 10 to 15- years is essential.

How do we achieve the most radical transition this world needs to sustain humans but to bring a balance back into our planet?

Should the United Nations undergo the most radical transformation or will that be blocked by radicals on the right and left? We do need international alignment and co-operations and major agreements on methane, plastics, carbon emissions, finance to bring us to advancing common goals

Have we the time, the will and the ability to achieve this Energy and Climate Transition? It has been a hard year indeed for me. Does my writing about it help? I doubt it as there are so many excellent reports written be experts that seem to just come and go.

After-thought: After I posted this I was reflecting on where progress really needs progressing. Bloomberg offered a Climate Policy Factbook : CoP29 edition to give three major policy areas that need significant progress to be made in the coming year, before and during CoP30 in Brazil. The first is addressing fossil-fuel support, it is rising not falling and this is suffering from a global consensus for making headway on subsidy reforms. The second area lies in carbon pricing policies where generous concessions and even free emission allowances and how they support green incentives. The third area relates to climate-risk, where a number of countries lack rules requiring firms and financial institutions to assess, report and mitigate their exposure to climate-related risks. The need for harmonization, stringency and resolving a fragmented approach to these three policy areas would significantly help move us along

Yet as Bloomberg point out climate plans are due to be bolder and proposed for CoP30 in Brazil. How more ambitious plans can be proposed when budgetary constraints, cost-of-living crisis, still strong wishes for energy independence (national security) and the approaches to using and extracting the domestic natural resources is mixed into a potentially volatile political period after recent election outcomes (Argentina, USA, UK) or pending ones (Germany, France for example).

Any radically new answers I want to hear

I wish I had answers as the human species is threatened but perhaps it is the evolutionary process kicking in as we seemingly don’t want to agree we are being threatened.

It is all rather depressing to be honest.

The post Energy transitions seem impossible first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

We are about to have the CoP28 event in the UAE from 30 November 2023 to 12 December 2023, which is crucial for the energy transition. I feel this is an actual watershed event. Those representatives attending must push for substantial agreements on what needs to be done to reduce carbonization and other polluting gases, seek ways to provide clean air and a more equitable share and conserve resources, or we will forever say goodbye to achieving anything like the 1.5 C degree.

Many experts predict that our planet is presently heading for warming to 3C. If we continue this trajectory, we will enter many unknowns in how the planet reacts and responds. If we have climate extremes, the cost of human life, upheaval and damage will continue to confront us.

This is why I think the energy transition is one of the most essential areas of necessary focus, as it is one of the most complex changes from fossil-burning fuels to clean renewables powered by solar, wind and hydro.

Here, I want to provide a view summarising the Energy Ecosystem, offering some strategic steps of underlying approaches to change and where I attempt to fit into contributions supporting solutions.

Changing the Energy Ecosystem:

Changing the energy ecosystem refers to a comprehensive and strategic effort to fundamentally transform how energy is generated, distributed, utilized, and managed within a region or globally. This transformation involves a departure from traditional, often fossil-fuel-based energy systems towards more sustainable, efficient, and environmentally responsible alternatives. It encompasses various facets of the energy sector, including:

1. Energy Sources: Shifting from carbon-intensive energy sources (such as coal and oil) to cleaner and renewable sources (such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal).
2. Energy Efficiency: Enhancing the efficiency of energy production, transmission, and consumption to reduce waste and minimize environmental impact.
3. Infrastructure: Upgrading and modernizing energy infrastructure to accommodate new technologies, grid enhancements, and decentralized energy generation.
4. Policy and Regulation: Implementing supportive policies, regulations, and incentives to encourage sustainable energy practices and discourage harmful ones.
5. Innovation: Embracing innovation and technological advancements to create more sustainable, cost-effective, and reliable energy solutions.

Why Changing the Energy Ecosystem Is Important:

1. Environmental Sustainability: The current energy ecosystem heavily relies on fossil fuels, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Changing the ecosystem is vital to mitigate environmental damage, reduce pollution, and limit global warming.
2. Resource Conservation: Transitioning to renewable energy sources helps conserve finite fossil fuel resources and reduce dependence on geopolitically unstable regions for energy supplies.
3. Energy Security: A diversified and decentralized energy ecosystem enhances energy security, reducing vulnerability to supply disruptions and geopolitical tensions.
4. Economic Opportunities: The energy transition offers substantial economic opportunities, from the growth of clean energy industries to job creation in renewable energy and technology sectors.
5. Health Benefits: Cleaner energy sources improve air quality and reduce pollution-related health issues, benefiting public health.
6. Technological Advancements: Innovation in energy technologies can lead to breakthroughs with broader applications, driving progress in various sectors of the economy.
7. Global Responsibility: As a global issue, addressing the energy ecosystem is a matter of international responsibility. It involves nations cooperating to combat climate change and reduce their carbon footprints.

Changing the Energy Ecosystem by building an approach to change that builds innovation and ingenuity through experimentation and pilots, looking for leapfrog opportunities through rapid learning and knowledge sharing.

A strategic approach to transforming the energy ecosystem. Let’s break this down by focal points, step by step:

1. Changing the Energy Ecosystem: This signifies the overarching goal of making significant and positive changes to how energy is produced, distributed, and consumed. It often implies a shift towards cleaner, more sustainable, and more efficient energy sources and practices.
2. Building Out an Approach: This suggests developing a structured and systematic plan or strategy to transform the energy ecosystem. This approach should be well-thought-out and comprehensive and provide clear roadmaps for the essential broad inclusion solutions required.
3. Change Through Innovation and Ingenuity: To bring about meaningful change, the approach emphasizes the importance of creativity, originality, and novel solutions. This implies that following established practices may not be sufficient, and new ideas and inventions are necessary.
4. Experimentation and Pilots: This highlights the need to try out new technologies, processes, or concepts on a smaller scale before implementing them on a larger, more significant scale. Pilots and experiments allow for learning from mistakes and refining strategies.
5. Leapfrog Opportunities: This indicates the desire to skip over intermediate stages of development and adopt more advanced, efficient, or sustainable technologies or practices. Leapfrogging often involves embracing cutting-edge solutions instead of gradually evolving existing systems.
6. Rapid Learning: In this context, rapid learning means quickly acquiring knowledge and insights from experimentation and experiences. It’s about being agile and adaptable in response to new information and challenges.
7. Knowledge Sharing: To accelerate progress, the approach involves sharing the knowledge and insights gained with relevant stakeholders, such as organizations, governments, and the public. This helps spread best practices and avoid duplicative efforts.

To achieve a sustainable energy transition, there must be consistency in advocating for a systematic, innovative, and flexible approach to transforming the energy ecosystem. Its central emphasis is the importance of learning from experimentation, seeking advanced solutions, and sharing knowledge to make rapid progress towards a more sustainable and efficient energy future in highly collaborative and open ways.

In summary, we must recognize that changing the energy ecosystem is essential to address pressing environmental, economic, and societal challenges. It is not merely about upgrading energy infrastructure but fundamentally shifting our approach to renewables in energy production and consumption to create a more sustainable and resilient future for all. This understanding underscores the endeavour’s importance in the broader context of sustainability and global well-being, enabling the planet to stabilize and slowly recover.

Building out our Value Proposition:

“To focus and support wherever we can, the revolutionizing of the energy landscape, through supporting concept knowledge, insights and ideas to inform and support, to deliver cutting-edge innovation and unwavering ingenuity- both are needed in abundance. The work undertaken needs to build and deliver sustainable, efficient, and forward-thinking solutions that empower individuals, organizations, and communities to thrive in a cleaner, smarter energy future”.

Key Pillars of the Value Proposition:

1. Innovative Solutions: We search and encourage pioneering groundbreaking technologies, strategies, and practices that redefine the energy sector to trigger new thinking or build out existing understanding, hopefully in new, novel ways. Our focal point is the pursuit of innovation that pushes creation and discovery to create solutions that transcend existing boundaries or limits. We look to support those wishing to operate at the forefront of change and push the known edges.
2. Ingenuity in Action: We look towards challenges and view obstacles as opportunities. The search for understanding combines creativity, expertise, and a passion for problem-solving to craft unique and effective knowledge solutions tailored to the evolving needs of the energy ecosystem that trigger and support the advancement of others, better equipped to find breakthroughs in their business.
3. Sustainability at the Core: Critically, the work undertaken must support sustainable energy practices that reduce environmental impact, promote responsible resource management, and protect the planet for future generations.
4. Customized Approaches: We understand that every energy challenge is unique in context and content. Our approach needs to be highly adaptable and customizable, allowing us to address our partners’ and clients’ specific needs and goals, whether they are businesses, governments, or communities. The narrative and how it is built are vitally important to each piece of work.
5. Continuous Learning: We believe that innovation thrives on knowledge. We foster a culture of constant learning, regularly integrating new insights and technologies into our insights, knowledge and solution work to ensure that our clients benefit from the latest advancements. Learning is highly reciprocal and scalable; it is all about liberating creative energy and achieving higher engagement.
6. Collaboration: We know that transformation requires a united effort. We actively collaborate with searching for the latest insights and knowledge, connecting with industry leaders, research institutions, and local communities to co-create solutions that deliver sustainable impact.
7. Judgement-based results: Innovation collaboration can be judged based on its contribution, impact, scalability, sustainability, growth potential and the creation of mutual benefit and value for all parties involved.

Our positioning is anchored in the belief that together, we can create a future where energy transformation is necessary and offers us all a remarkable opportunity for a more sustaining future.

By focusing on innovation, collaboration, and seeking clear resolutions, we pave the way for a sustainable and prosperous energy ecosystem that benefits you. We are your partners in progress to achieve your vision and market fit for contributing to a cleaner, more efficient, and sustainable energy future based on renewables by taking our “Innovating Pillars” approach and working through the “Impact Steps“.

We adopt a “Research and Deploy” approach, providing a structured framework for acquiring knowledge, generating insights, and deploying innovations effectively in your energy transition strategy. We believe the outside view or opinion is essential when embarking on a “Reforming and Disruption” within the changes undertaken within the Energy System.

We advocate for a systematic, innovative, and flexible approach to transforming the energy ecosystem.

The post Why I think the energy transition as one of the most important areas of necessary focus first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

As all the delegates of CoP28 pack their things and head off to Dubai, will there be any real, lasting consensus on how we can manage our world where achieving rapid decarbonization is the priority?

There are so many conflicting opinions, vested interests and “evidence” but can CoP28 achieve that with the right partnerships and immediate political, corporate, and financial action, we can live in a world beyond coal, oil, and gas — one that is safer, cleaner, healthier, and more affordable for all and forge a roadmap to get there that enables all to recognize their part.

COP 28 will take place from 30 November until 12 December 2023. Pre-sessionals will take place from 24 to 29 November. There have been countless meetings leading up to the period (Pre-CoP sessions) trying to forge consensus and make clear progress on many areas of essential importance.

These CoP meetings are so often widely misunderstood, and chaotic to many present, and to the rest of the world looking in, trying to understand the process, the compromises and results that result in some of the most intense days of negotiations determining all our futures.

Let me draw from a few pointers made on the CoP process and what is needed

More than 70,000 delegates are expected to attend COP28, including the member states (or Parties) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Business leaders, young people, climate scientists, Indigenous Peoples, journalists, and various other experts and stakeholders are also among the participants.

At its heart, the COP is a political process where critical decisions are made about our Global shared future. A series of “building blocks” are agreed on topics to gather the meeting around to change our present habits and mindsets:

The WWF expects the following essentials outcomes required from COP28:

• A successful Global Stocktake which paves the way for stronger NDCs to correct course to 1.5C.
• A decision to phase out fossil fuels no later than 2050.
• Full operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund, with pledged funds.
• A decision on a comprehensive framework for the Global Goal on Adaptation.
• Scaling up finance by developed countries to beyond $100 billion per annum.
• Alignment of all private and public financial flows with climate objectives. 

The WWF regards that COP28 must be the moment where the world rallies to meet the climate challenge and delivers for people and nature. These are essential to achieve, can they?

The Building up to the CoP28 is a prelude to the hard work to come

Already there has been many pre-meetings. One critical one was a recent Pre-CoP meeting where delegates from more than 80 countries, including more than 60 ministers, participated over two days in some frank and lively exchanges on many of the issues needing consensus and deepening discussions on issues that will be key for the success of COP28.

Also present were the essential observers who continue to represent the often quiet or less able voices to be represented at these critical events that build commitment and momentum to any CoP meeting.

With such complexity in opinions, in positions that struggle to find consensus at any meeting. there is this critical need is somehow to enable a transparent, open and inclusive process always, so as negotiated positions. These positions are hard-fought, but as they are so intense, respect to foster a level of trust and progressive consensus-building on all positions seems, often stressful, exhausting work; adapting, accepting and recognizing compromise needs to be always needed.

As so often recognized, time will be the most valuable commodity at the actual COP28.

Organizing, forging connections from day one and recognising levels of flexibility across all the periods is determined by the work put into the first week. These the intense negotiations that need time, space so the more pressing matters have “bubbled” up to the surface for the all important political resolutions as the focus of week two.

The effectiveness of this first week is really determined by the abilities and capabilities of the Heads of Delegations to streamline and facilitate so a more effective decision-making period comes from the second week. Within this first week, the Global Stocktake needs to take center stage.

At this CoP28 the Global Stocktake (GST) is central

The Global Stocktake gives the reporting block to synthesize the key pillars of the Paris
Agreement. It has as its aims to connect mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation holistically and, like the Paris Agreement, strives to set the highest bar for ambition, recognises the different starting points of every party and finds the means, desires and ambitions to ensure equity for all.

In short, implementation of the Paris Agreement is lacking across all areas and not where it should be.

The Paris Agreement is praised for inspiring near-universal climate action and playing a central role in catalyzing cooperative action so the world can address the climate crisis.

But there is a well-known big mitigation gap, with the current trajectory of global emissions not being consistent with limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5°C, while adaptation to climate change is not at the levels needed.

The stocktake calls for a systems transformation, which follows a whole-society and whole-economy approach that mainstreams climate resilience and development aligned with low greenhouse gas emissions. Such efforts must be maintained over decades, supporting sustainable development and the eradication of poverty.

The stocktake also points to a growing gap between developing countries’ needs and the support they provided and mobilized for them. It calls for the unlocking and redeployment of trillions of dollars towards climate action and climate-resilient development.

The Global Stocktake resets the ambitions if accepted

The global stocktake is a critical turning point when it comes to efforts to address climate change

The first-ever global stocktake is set to conclude at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) at the end of this year. The global stocktake is a process for countries and stakeholders to see where they’re collectively making progress towards meeting the goals of the Paris Climate Change Agreement – and where they’re not.

We know we are not on track to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The window for meaningful change is closing, and the time to act is now. Governments will take a decision on the global stocktake at COP28, which can be leveraged to accelerate ambition in their next round of climate action plans due in 2025.

To understand the success of the CoP28 lies around this recognition of the Global Stocktake so as to forge a better, more cohesive and collaborative path forward.

This frame offers the essential moment to take a long, hard look at the state of our planet and chart a better course for the future. It enables countries and other stakeholders to see where they’re collectively making progress toward meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement – and where they’re not.

It’s like taking inventory. It means looking at everything related to where the world stands on climate action and support, identifying the gaps, and working together to agree on solutions pathways (to 2030 and beyond).

It is the Global Stocktake and how this is recognized as the present global position will pre-determine all that takes place within this CoP28 and how, if we can, move forward- stumbling or striding towards.

It’s not the stocktake itself that is the game-changer – it’s the global response, the response by countries as Parties to the Paris Agreement, that will make the difference in the form of higher ambition and accelerated action.

To achieve a united response and clarity of essential actions and urgency will be a real achievement of CoP28

* Main source of reference for this post

https://unfccc.int/cop28

The post Please Reenergize, Revitalize, Reconnect and Reimagine at CoP28. first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

We are in numerous world crises; the erratic weather patterns are causing droughts, floods, and high extremes of heat or sudden cold; less productive land and the oceans of the world are heating up, and that has progressively a dire consequence on our food chain.

We are still caught up in this fruitless debate of shall we / shant we switch away from fossil fuels, especially while we are (seemingly) in an energy crisis. We need to radically switch away from fossil fuel now period!!

We have worse to come. All these crises are heading us towards a world that will become increasingly difficult to live in as humans, to produce enough food or uninhabitable for many animals or species we have around us that increasingly are facing extinction. Then what about nature itself? I find it very hard that humans seem to ignore so much and just seem to want to carry on as usual. We as humans have induced climate change, we have less than twenty to thirty years to attempt to reverse it.

I would argue we need to have a revolution!

I wrote about this call for a revolution before. Revolutions are never easy, often messy, but once you embark, it is very hard to go back; it is the vision that drives the revolutionary zeal. In this case, clean air to breathe, a different economic logic, and a new way to appreciate natural resources, as we grow even more reliant on them, give us a sustainable future based on wind, sun, and water.

We need a new economic logic, one that can still offer us a market-driven or consumption-conscious one, one that can harness not harm.  An energy transition becomes a socially-driven one, compelling the existing market structures to change, harnessing, and balancing nature with all that needs to co-exist on this planet.

Immediate measures need to be far more reflecting our entering a real climate crisis

Recently, I read about immediate measures we should focus on in the energy crisis. IRENA, the intergovernmental organization mandated to facilitate renewable energy, in a recent report, “World Energy Transitions Outlook 2023“, looking at what is needed for a 1.5-degree pathway outlined EIGHT points to give structure and focus towards resolving the need to change our energy thinking.

These eight: Ambitions, Institutions, Physical Infrastructure, Jobs & Skills, Finance, the Power Sector, End-Use sectors of buildings, industry and transport, and finally, Cross-sector and Cross-Cutting policies, are suggested as needing to be tackled together, not in isolated initiatives.

Although IRENA suggested these were short-term measures, they triggered a level of thinking – we need a more radical dose of system change.

Stopping carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions is at the heart of our multiple crises. Regretfully the transitions we will need to undertake will not be orderly as we are in this crisis time. We only eventually get the world back on some form of stable footing for it to have any chance it can possibly return to one, in balance with what nature needs- clean water and air, free from carbon and pollutants, not being destroyed by human interference.

We, as humans, have brought this planet to a crisis point, and if we want to be in its future, we need to reverse all of the destructive forces coming into play as eventual consequences, plus we need future years to regenerate and replenish and bring back a balance in the planet’s ecosystem.

We need a very profound outlook on changing how we think today

What IRENA suggested as the eight parts were, for me, a need to “begin” to become more radical, more demanding, recognizing we are not in a “gentle” pathway to any energy transition but a rather grave, unpredictable one that DEMANDS a very different set of thinking on what does need to change.

Taking up as an organizing point for managing the Energy Transition, within ten to twenty years, needs the following that I imagine rapidly need to be as radical in change to adjust to the world we are only beginning to see.

I offer here some very rudimentary thinking at present

I am reacting to a suggested structure, triggering some more radical thoughts, and rough in their thinking but taking this need for undertaking a more aggressive revolutionary path..

Ambition. Our ambition needs to dramatically increase in renewable energy replacing fossil fuels. Our climate goal of keeping under 1.5 degrees by 2050 is long gone. We are on a path today of 2.5 degrees and it is time we own up to this and those consequences need to be dealt with in preparation for more droughts, famine, fires, floods, and natural disasters. Growth Nation Product as a measure of wealth needs to be abandoned. It needs to be a measure in our ability to respond, provide security and still generate “economic” affordability. My harness not harm

Institutions: Turning our present institutions into ones fit and able and fully mandated to deliver the energy transition so that we have a 2reasonable” chance to manage the real transitions we will be going through in the next ten, twenty, and thirty years. The measures in each country will be less financial-driven but resource regeneration driven, as the health and future wealth indicators.

Physical Infrastructure. Everything around us will undertake some level of physical change. To enable this change to be future positive we will need to replace existing policies and practices to manage the environment rapidly. be more responsive, optimizing solutions that provide social impact. Public acceptance and awareness need to understand the more radical approach we need in our infrastructural changes to limit natural loss, protect and prepare for the different impacts of a rapidly warming world. We need to “push through” changes that accelerate renewable solutions’ time-to-market application.

Jobs and Skills. We are at a point of vocational change, massive in upheaval and learning. Technology will take over much of what we currently do; we will need to build a reliance on artificial intelligence to allow human ingenuity to be released into being mobilized and ready to return to physical work but intelligent physical work. Human ingenuity has a real need to rise up, built on being adaptable and flexible.

Finance. One concept caught my eye in what IRENA suggested in their short-term report measures. That was “finance to crowd in private capital”. I take this to mean as we manage increasing risks from climate change we need to rethink financing so we direct our investments to where those clever ideas often lie, often they come from the “crowd”. We reduce the accepted narrow investor-centric appraisals into ones that take environmental and social risks to being central to judging returns on taking the increased risk. Risk needs to be risk responsive and how this is managed.

Power Sector. The levels of renewables we install, its primary position in use as our primary energy source needs to drive public acceptance and energy provider investment as the only investment decision in our future. We need to give priority to encouraging self-consumption or community-led commitments that build social community stock, energy security, and energy centers that are more adaptive to local needs. We finally make those adjustments to taxing fossil fuel at all its consumption or production and distribution points, regardless of pleas from vested interest. We MUST break the fossil fuel lobby and its lock. Financial institutions that invest in fossil related get heavily penalised in future financial markets, determined by Central Banks and coordinated by the World Bank. Clean energy from generation to consumption must be the sole driving point for future investment; no bridges or interim unless they have clear tax penalties. Also if they pass their helpful period for bridging towards renewables, measured on availability and deployments required, assessed by independent authorities, the tax position rises substantially to divest completely. .

End-use sectors of buildings, industry and transport. Here we need to slay the “hard to abate” dragon. Energy efficiency as a primary measure needs to be based on achieving readiness for new fuels, electrification, changing building standards, and driving behavior change on use. This acceleration of alternative financial incentives needs to be available and driven by scaling into long-term effectiveness to drive down costs. How can we encourage the industry sectors to de-risk, adapt, and adjust to rapid change not stay as rigid and fixed, reliant on a stable condition? Investment decisions need different pay-back criteria whereas renewable electrification gives more attractive returns. Transport needs alternatives to “needing our car “into community access where sharing and economic considerations dominate our travel decisions as private travel just becomes inhibitive in cost and social stigma.

Cross-sector and cross-cutting policies. I found in the original suggestions by IRENA much I could identify as changes needed are so reliant on this need to become highly collaborative. The development of collaborative bodies for managing and overseeing renewable energies (hydrogen, wind generation, solar, biomass) become significant institutions of worth and public recognition for their role in decarbonization. The application and enforcement of the circular economy need to extract and minimize the use of materials used. Energy transition technology needs to become cross-collaborative to speed up known and to be-found solutions. We need to find collaborations not just across different industry sectors but by applying real ecosystem thinking and design to bring concepts and solutions that require energy providers, climate assessments, sustainability, innovation development and governance across governments, institutions, the public and private sectors, financiers and communities of individuals. We need to rapidly accelerate our understanding of the differences in managing, sharing and learning to collaborate across sectors and to apply those cross-cutting policies that need identifying and implementing.

We need to recognize we are going to be faced with some stark choices in the future

Planning for mitigation, and having a more realistic understanding of the climate crisis unfolding needs to be told, and the decisions to put in place the changes required are essential. We must stop pussy footing around, to avoid making a decision or expressing an opinion because we are uncertain or frightened about doing so. This is the time to recognize climate impact can be devastating for our existence.

“Crisis” is often recognized in the immediate only. Sadly each day, each disaster we read about or experience is part of the building toward a real global crisis that we as humans will need to face. In the near term, five to ten years only we are facing so many tipping points that there is no turning back.

We, as humans, will not be able to influence we will only be held captive, struggling to survive on a planet that will become unrecognizable in what we have known.

Are we capable of such radical change?

These are simply opening thoughts triggered by my growing frustration and concern about what we will be facing in the next ten to twenty years. We need to be more radical in taking hold of the energy transition and making this “central” to international policy, oversight, and delivery.

What we do need is to be radical; we face nothing but a world beginning to operate more and more in crisis. Our task in our lifetime is to stop the emissions of carbon and other harmful greenhouse gases. Those just being born or yet to come need to remake the world and bring back a balance in nature where we recognize our mutual dependences within a healthy ecosystem.

The post Accelerating the Energy Transition into a Revolution. first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

I was reading a (typical) consulting article from BCG entitled.”Shifting the Direct Air Capture Paradigm” giving a “classic”, somewhat optimistic view of how we can bring the costs down of Direct Air Capture.

The authors start with, “Even though it is still nascent, DAC could play a critical role in delivering on net zero.”

Sorry, convince me.

They outline that “the cost of DAC (the end-to-end cost of CO2 removal including final storage) will need to fall from $600 to $1,000 per ton of CO2 today to below $200 per ton and ideally closer to $100 per ton by 2050, and preferably earlier.”

Is this where I get my magic wand out, wave it a few times, and this scenario will happen?

The classic comment is then made “This cost reduction would dramatically accelerate demand, encouraging private developers to build more capacity and making the technology affordable for the world”-

Well, then that’s the end of the story. Come on!

I find these articles not greatly helpful in addressing the hardened reality of this.

Let me stick with the article, as it lets me shake my head a few times and plea a little more.

BCG asks: “the question is whether it is reasonable to project significant cost reductions—of 75% or more—to deliver a climate solution supported by market demand. We (BCG) have examined this question deeply using BCG’s proprietary DAC cost model and our detailed analysis of seven DAC developers.”

Well that’s ok, we can all relax; they (BCG) have a cost model of existing developers.

They go on to say. “However, it will be a challenge, particularly given the timeframe involved. Solar installation costs have declined by over 90% over the past 40 years. We must deliver a similar reduction in DAC costs to achieve scale in the gigatons but in just over half the time.”

Then the final clincher for me was “A massive step up in investments, government support, collaboration models, and broader industry engagement will be required.”

Well case closed, we have the answer- let’s go massive……….yet we get to the Energy Dilemma for all emerging technologies, be this DAC, Hydrogen, Storage, flexible and modern Grids, Heat Pumps etc., etc.

As BCG correctly put this here for DAC, replace this list in my mind for any other new Technology options trying to move from emerging, nascent, experimental into proven technologies that can scale. This is our current Energy Dilemma

BCG nicely summaries this:

Business As Usual Is Not an Option

While we believe affordable DAC is feasible, a business-as-usual approach will not get us there within the time that we have. We need to be realistic and understand the forces that are holding DAC back. Here are some of the main ones:

• The technology’s high costs mean that few customers (normally large companies) are willing to sign on to early-stage DAC projects at the scale required. At the same time, suppliers of key components aren’t investing sufficient resources in development.
• Policy support is still nascent despite recent incentives, such as the $180 tax credit for every ton of permanently stored CO₂ announced in last year’s US Inflation Reduction Act.
• Companies are carrying out development within walled gardens to protect their intellectual property rather than adopting the more collaborative approach that will be needed to drive greater learning and standardization and that will enable players to move at the rapid speed required.
• Net zero accounting standards limit companies’ ability to count CO₂ removed using permanent CDR technologies such as DAC against their scope three targets, discouraging investment.
• Capital costs are high because investors and lenders are reluctant to put money into the technology without greater certainty around future demand.

Due to these negative forces, investment in DAC is a small percentage of the amount needed to drive the technology down the cost curve.

Here is the MOST IMPORTANT message for the Energy Transition– it is not “usual.”

Until we can crack these substantive sets of investment barriers across nearly all emerging Energy technologies, we get suggestions like the one BCG offers.

When will the day come when all the Consulting Companies recognize writing these articles shows a level of prowess but gives the communities they advise the justification not to make these investments or commitments- “Let’s leave this to others. It is far too risky.”

I appreciate the reminder of the difficulties from articles like these, and thousands do similar jobs of confirming all the barriers and restrictions and providing the “list” of why not to do something. Articles or reports they “just stand tall for a momentary minute” written for existing or potential customers? Often they are simply fueling the case for INACTION.

I wish consultants would finally lead in powerful, influencing ways not play to the existing.

Consulting Companies are a powerful, influencing force, they can advise, change, shape and influence so much, but they have to decide on a collective substantial leading position far more as they have the “ears” of government, Industry, Investors, Fund providers etc.

I would like to believe we can get beyond Articles such as this”Shifting the Direct Air Capture Paradigm” that briefly confirm the difficulties and offer a limited “call to action” to wrap up the article. Does it do true justice to this issue or show true expertise?

Energy Transitions need comprehensive road maps, incredible coordination and cross-collaborations and as BCG rightly say, “Business As Usual Is Not an Option.”

Then please apply the same to the Consulting industry- tackle complex challenges with better resolve. Business as Usual should NOT be your option as the Energy Transition is so unusual, imperative and necessary and “upends” all of what we have. or previously relied upon.

The post Low-cost DAC is challenging, but no more so than any other revolutionary technology – OH PLEASE! first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

The UK’s lead climate negotiator, the minister Alok Sharma, delivered a very telling speech at Cop27 revealing what some countries had tried to push through to an agreement.

Sharma was the president of the Glasgow Cop in 2021, and he was clearly frustrated with the events of the last two weeks in Egypt. and especially the final text outcome adopted at the Cop 27 meeting.

I personally was disappointed by the Cop26 held in Glasgow and chaired by Alok Sharma and the stunning last-minute intervention by India (along with China) where the phasing out changed to phasing down of coal.

Twelve months on and we seem to be making extremely slow or no progress on fossil fuels in any Global agreement of phasing down or out.

Alok Sharma, the UK’s Cop26 president, was visibly angry at the close of the CoP27 conference in Egypt. “Those of us who came to Egypt to keep 1.5C alive, and to respect what every single one of us agreed to in Glasgow, have had to fight relentlessly to hold the line. We have had to battle to build on one of the key achievements of Glasgow, the call on parties to revisit and strengthen their [national plans on emissions].”

He punctuated his speech with his hand thudding into his speech notes.

He opened by stating “We joined with many parties to propose a number of measures that would have contributed to [raising ambition].

Then he pointed out:

Peaking of greenhouse gas emission in 2025 “Not in this text.”

Emissions peaking before 2025, as science tells us, are necessary. Not in this text.

Clear follow-through on the phase-down of coal. Not in this text.

Clear commitments to phase out all fossil fuels. Not in this text.

And the energy text weakened in the final minutes to endorse “low-emissions energy”, which can be interpreted as a reference to gas or even oil with carbon capture.”

Sharma said in Glasgow “that the pulse of 1.5 degrees was weak. Unfortunately, it remains on life support.”

Sharma said he would not be in the UK’s chair position at next year’s Cop meeting but added:

“I promise you if we do not step up soon and rise above the minute-to-midnight battles to hold the line we will all be found wanting. Each of us will have to explain that to our citizens, to the world’s most vulnerable countries and communities, and ultimately to the children and grandchildren to whom many of us now go home.”

At Cop 27 a proposal from India to stipulate the phasing down of all fossil fuels was also mauled by oil-producing countries at the talks and watered down to a phasing down of coal, which reflected precisely the commitment made in Glasgow. So no progress on phasing out of fossil fuel was made or even adding text to phase down gas and oil alongside coal.

The spectre of Gas rules at present; securing winter supplies and energy security as reality kicks in.

The final text of Cop27 contained a provision to boost “low-emissions energy”. That could mean many things, from wind and solar farms to nuclear reactors and coal-fired power stations fitted with carbon capture and storage. It could also be interpreted to mean gas, which has lower emissions than coal but is still a major fossil fuel. Many countries at Cop27, particularly those from Africa with large reserves to exploit, came to Sharm el-Sheikh hoping to strike lucrative gas deals.

Loss and damage

At the recent Cop 27 the one bright spot was a shift in the highly contentious and long-running battles on “Loss and Damage” and the need to reimburse countries suffering most from climate change.

Global warming has been caused by industrial nations and they should therefore reimburse countries who are suffering most from climate change.

Although this was recognized the total funding required for adaptation is at least $2.5 trillion by 2030, and solutions and compensation are still orders of magnitude out.

Developing countries celebrated this Cop 27 outcome as crucial climate talks ended with a “historic” deal on their most cherished climate goal: a global fund for “loss and damage”, providing financial assistance to poor nations stricken by climate disaster.

Looking towards Cop 28 in November 2023

That fight is likely to get harder as COP28 heads to the United Arab Emirates, an oil and gas giant. Holding any line on phasing out fossil fuel will be exceptionally hard to achieve at this meeting.

Where does that leave the world?

Somehow at Cop 28 what we needed is an agreement to a rapid, equitable phase-out of all fossil fuels.”

My optimism is not high COP28 really does need a major advance against climate change; we have lost precious time in Cop 26 & 27. The clear imprint of fossil fuel influence needs counterbalancing or the momentum for clean energy renewables reduces. We burst through the goal of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, the threshold of scientifically recommended safety.

In the end, the responsibility will lie with everyone, as Meena Raman of Third World Network, an adviser to developing countries, points out. “Since the EU and Alok Sharma are disappointed that fossil fuel phase-out is not in the text, we would like them to take leadership and revise their NDCs [nationally determined contributions] and put into plans their fossil fuel phase-out urgently and stop the expansion of fossil fuels including oil and gas. [It’s] not enough to play to the gallery but act if they want to save the planet and not hide behind 2050 net zero targets, which will bust the remaining carbon budget for 1.5C.”

The climate fight is entering a critical point. What gives, yields or collapses?

We seem to have lost 1.5C as achievable. Reality is indicating we have blown this. The world looks towards Net Zero but those fighting for keeping fossil fuels included are seeking the miracle solution that would allow fossil fuels to exist in a net zero world.

Too little, too late; we are in real danger, as one commentator remarked, “our foot is still on the fossil fuel accelerator”.

Our world is in a climate mess.

Will the message given by the UN secretary-general to more than 110 world leaders at the Cop27 UN climate summit in Egypt be listened to change course now, or face “collective suicide”.

Let’s see what the next twelve months deliver that might change the present positions and we, as humans living on this one planet, achieve a path that does get the World back on track for recovering its equilibrium, fit for us to still live in. Or are we going to shift into a much higher gear for limiting the mitigation where we can, in a rear guard action as we lost our opportunity in this decade of disagreements and man-made crises to contain the carbon build-up and alter our behaviours arriving at a point where we are creating a highly unstable and unpredictable climate?

To quote the Worldwildlife.org:

“The climate crisis is increasingly distressing. Fortunately, there are many things we can do to ensure our future is as prosperous as possible. These actions fall into one of two broad categories: climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation. These terms go hand-in-hand while navigating through the climate crisis, but they mean very different things. 

Climate change mitigation means avoiding and reducing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to prevent the planet from warming to more extreme temperatures. Climate change adaptation means altering our behaviour, systems, and—in some cases—ways of life to protect our families, our economies, and the environment in which we live from the impacts of climate change. The more we reduce emissions right now, the easier it will be to adapt to the changes we can no longer avoid.

Mitigation actions will take decades to affect rising temperatures, so we must adapt now to the change that is already upon us—and will continue to affect us in the foreseeable future.”

The post Not in this Text; disappointment at CoP 27 first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Accelerating the Energy Transition
https://innovating4energy.com

Over the next twenty to thirty years, the Energy System will undergo a massive transition to achieve that eventual 2050 net-zero target of decarbonizing the energy system fully, resulting in a clean, climate-resilient energy transformation.

I have been looking in a short mini-series at the need to structure the Energy System in a very systematic and consistent evaluation as we undertake the changes from a fossil-reliant ecosystem into a clean, renewable one, with the overriding obligation to address climate change.

In this third and final post of this series, I focus on 1. Innovation & Ingenuity, 2. Experimentation & Rapid Pilots, and 3. Leapfrog Opportunities and discuss a value proposal.

Within my first post, “Changing the Energy Ecosystem“, I began to lay out the need to change the energy dynamics by redirecting them away from the existing systems and structures and where I looked at the triggering points of this: 1. Changing the Energy System, followed by considering new 2. Value Propositions (scenario, synthesise, combinations, synopsis, sketches) and then evaluating the 3. Dealing with the different disruption and dislocation points, and 4. the need for rapid learning and knowledge sharing.

In my second post, “Building out the new Energy Ecosystem “, I  continued to build out the new Energy Ecosystem. This post focused on triggering thinking for reforming the Business Models within any energy system change and then looked at the necessary resolutions in the impact or implications any new business model will have.

Moving from proven to nascent solutions needs an innovation mindset

So why am I focusing on these? 1. Innovation & Ingenuity specifically, and then on the essentials of building real competencies in 2. Experimentation & Rapid Pilots, and then taking a future building capability with 3. Leapfrog Opportunities.

As I mentioned in the previous post, we need to dismantle the existing energy ecosystem; we are building the new one inside; that is the really hard part; it is full of variability and novelty.

We are replacing proven solutions with nascent ones, perhaps individually demonstrated but not fully connected up in an integrated, designed energy system showing validation and long-term return or resilience.

This is why within this post, my emphasis is on innovation generation, experimentation and the need to look beyond the known and sometimes leap into the unknown. We need an equal emphasis on start-up-driven innovation and rapidly establishing technology-driven solutions.

I have not focused here on the multiple energy solutions available.

They can cover additional concepts like blockchain, big data, microgrids, storage for providing and handling energy or the enormous potential of digital smart “everything” or cover electrolyzers, grid transmission solutions, power generation, electric charging, wind, solar, hydro etc., etc.

The list of innovative solutions seems endless, but this becomes a central point here. If you do not establish a real core innovation capability and set of competencies and capacities to innovate, you run the risk of not optimizing or capitalizing on all the solutions offered today or emerging in the next ten or more years.

Hence why, in any changing Energy Ecosystem, Innovation becomes a central tenet.

Innovation is the energy transition key enabler.

Innovation is the engine that powers the ongoing transformation of the
global energy system. Decision-makers need to identify the optimal combination of solutions, which needs a dedicated team of innovators exploring and exploiting options and validating them systematically.

Innovation needs to build the capability to understand the enabling technologies, investigate fit and innovative business models, and constantly determine different market designs and system operations.

We must recognize today that any energy innovation challenge we face extends to sectors that have not significantly changed for many decades and that do not yet have commercially available low-carbon options.

Technology innovation is the key, but we must make quicker progress through faster innovation.

Energy technology refers to the combination of hardware, techniques, skills, methods and processes used in the production of energy and the provision of energy services, i.e. the way we go about producing, transforming, storing, transporting and using energy.

 We require a rapid evolution of the technology mix, particularly in some emerging economies that are just starting out on their decarbonisation journeys. The under-appreciation of these urgent challenges in today’s energy debate is a real concern and why I believe we need to recognize the current Energy Ecosystem is not fit for future purposes.

We need to recognize there are no single or simple solutions to putting the world on a sustainable path to net-zero emissions; it will come from a radical re-assessment of what the future energy ecosystem needs.

I do not want to take this urgency further here; that’s for future posts with a growing recognition that today’s energy transition is falling behind in its goals to achieve net zero by 2050. We do need to speed up and innovate.

So let me return to this third part of my structure to drive an Energy Ecosystem change.

Again I have used mindmaps to reduce content and allow an individual understanding of each idea and what it triggers. This offers the individual a suggested prescriptive framework and course of possible activation, but I stress again, as previously, “the devil is in your details and circumstances“.

Innovation & Inqenuity

The triggers to build out Innovation Capabilities for the Energy Ecosystem

Experimentation and Pilots

The capacity and competencies for experimenting and exploring pilots and prototypes become essential to learning and building an innovation capability.

Experimentation and Pilot building capabilities for the Energy Ecosystem

Leapfrog Opportunities

The need to change our energy systems in thirty years is a really short period. It needs to adopt a greater “leapfrogging” approach to technology, business model options, market design and system operations.

To accelerate the Energy Ecosystem, you must leapfrog as much as possible.

Through my focus on innovating for energy, I have placed my point of value on supporting the building out of a structured system that takes the energy ecosystem and builds the essential aspects needed for any energy transition into it.

MY Value Proposal

This dedicated website outlining services, thinking, and structures that can help you formulate a pathway of change in energy perspectives and solutions.

Any Energy Transition needs all its parts to become fully connected.  We provide the knowledge and understanding to help connect the parts that lead to fresh business opportunities and growth.

• Our value is in helping to translate the understanding and the decisions needed to provide that critical different perspective and positioned to operate at the front end of the Energy System.

There is a growing urgency in the innovation scope, pace and direction of changes needed. Any change in the energy system needs to have depth and greater knowledge, perspective and activism for delivering innovation intent and helps the positioning in building out your understanding of the Energy journey and our wish to support you along this transition pathway.

The vital “infusion” of innovation in thinking, approaching and building this into the front end of energy provides a greater discovery structure and process that can greatly facilitate the changes, with more informed knowledge, insights and validation of a path to travel.

Contact me if you would like to explore where innovation fits within your energy transition.

The post Accelerating the new Energy Ecosystem first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Building out the new Energy Ecosystem

I firmly believe the Energy System needs a very systematic and consistent evaluation as we undertake the changes from a fossil-reliant ecosystem into a clean, renewable one, with the overriding obligation to address climate change.

As you consider a change of this magnitude, you recognize how complicated this becomes, and the deeper your thinking becomes, hence why I like thinking through this with the use of mind maps.

I would argue we need a consistent framework to keep working through all the changes that will be undertaken in the next twenty to thirty years to achieve that eventual 2050 net-zero target of decarbonizing the energy system fully;  resulting in a clean, climate-resilient energy transformation.

Within my first post, “Changing the Energy Ecosystem“, I began to lay out the need to change the energy dynamics by redirecting them away from the existing systems and structures.

This is my second post, which continues to build out the new Energy Ecosystem.

This post focuses on the two points of Reforming Business models and the needed Resolutions to take this different thinking forward, then I will take out in the third post, Innovation & Ingenuity, Experimentation & Rapid Pilots,  and Leapfrog Opportunities.

Reforming Business Models and Needed Resolutions required.

So this post focuses on reforming the Business Models within any energy system change and then looking at the necessary resolutions in the impact or implications any new business model will have.

Putting the scale of this Energy Transition into context.

Again, these are my first attempts to systematically redirect or reorder the Energy System. I have viewed the Energy System as an Ecosystem one as it needs to account for a whole system approach. I find so much of today is made up of piecemeal evaluations or activities, lacking that comprehensive view or systematic evaluation before the change is undertaken.

Any evaluation of Energy System change requires an initial view of the six dimensions that will impact or trigger any seismic change. These are 1. Environmental. 2. Economic, 3. Technical, 4. Institutional, 5. Political and 6. Social.  I have left this analysis out in these posts, but these drive the macro case for making the Energy Transition change.

The sheer size of estimated investment in changing the energy system is presently suggested as between $110 trillion to $140 trillion by 2050. For all those involved, their investments in transforming what they have as assets today, how to transition or retire them, and what and where they need to invest in the future in renewable energy sources is a daunting task, full of risk and uncertainties.

A consistent and sustaining evaluation pathway for the Energy System

Changing the energy system must have a systematic redirection, built on an evaluation format that stays sustaining and constant for a pathway that will be lasting twenty-eight years to achieve that eventual 2050 net-zero target of decarbonizing the energy system fully, resulting in a clean, climate-resilient energy transformation.

Building the new from within the existing, we have no other choice.

As we dismantle the existing energy ecosystem, we are building the new one inside; that is the really hard part; it is full of variability and novelty. We only have one planet; we need energy constantly and always on. We are transforming one built out from our reliance on fossil fuel being progressively dismantled to one built on renewables in such a short time span is monumental.

We are replacing proven solutions with nascent ones, perhaps individually demonstrated but not fully connected up in an integrated, designed energy system showing validation and long-term return or resilience.

We do need to get our heads around this to manage what is orderly chaos, thinking through the “known-unknown-unknowable” in our present and future projected world and dealing with all the constraints.

This is why I refer to The Cynefin framework from Dave Snowden through Cognitive Edge. The positioning of Cognitive Edge is “making sense of complexity in order to act.” That trying to make sense of all the constraints involved in changing the Energy systems.

Building upon my opening post

So building from my opening post of “Changing the Energy Ecosystem” where I looked at the triggering points of this: 1. Changing the Energy System, followed by considering new 2. Value Propositions (scenario, synthesise, combinations, synopsis, sketches) and then evaluating the 3. Dealing with the different disruption and dislocation points, and 4. the need for rapid learning and knowledge sharing. We now need to go one step deeper.

I have taken a mind mapping approach to reduce content and allow an individual understanding of each idea and what it triggers. This offers the individual a suggested prescriptive framework and course of possible activation, but “the devil is in your details and circumstances“.

Going one stage further- Reforming Business Models and the Resolutions needed

Reforming the Business Models- opening thoughts

Reforming Business Models is absolutely essential in any Energy Transition.

Resolutions needed- initial areas of focus.

Resolution Needs to address in the Energy Transition.

Rebuilding our Energy Ecosystems

How can we unplug from a fossil-dependent energy system into a clean, reliable and renewable one that is sustaining and net-zero for greenhouse gas emissions?

It is the emerging scope of Business Models and Resolutions needed to be found that “informs” the application explored in the next post of 1. Innovation & Ingenuity, 2. Experimentation & pilots, and 3. those Leapfrog opportunities

What needs to be explored, exploited, built out, and deployed based on the business models and the resolutions considered to existing and future needs as outlined briefly in this post and the first post to shape the future of energy in predictable and systematic ways?

The post Building out the new Energy Ecosystem first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

We have a very unhealthy world.

When I set up this posting site https://innovating4energy.com in December 2019, I stated within the site identity the tagline “a transition in all of our lives.” Little did I know how our lives would change at that time and continually do so in a very unhealthy geopolitical environment where collaboration is rapidly deteriorating to solve our rapidly warming planet.

I have found working in this energy transition space to be extremely hard, if not at times overwhelming. It is so complex, challenging and caught between the extremes of needed change and no change. You wonder what will happen, not just in the year 2050 as that year we need to have achieved bringing our world to a net-zero in carbon.

Just how we will be capable of transitioning to a net zero energy system by 2050, ensuring stable and affordable energy supplies, providing universal energy access, and enabling robust economic growth is seemingly getting harder to grasp than it was a year ago or even when I started this posting site.

A 2050 goal beyond us all

Understanding and even believing this net-zero goal by 2050  is beyond me, but perhaps this goal is beyond us all.

All I know, in my gut, is that something really radical has to change dramatically. I know, we know, that we are approaching a decisive moment for international efforts to tackle the climate crisis –one of the greatest challenges of our times. Actually, we are reminded of this every day.

Yet we seem to be at a point where energy sources have become weaponized, rapidly altering the pace of change and the complexity of managing any energy transition in these immediate years. Essential materials are in limited supply and limited hands for resourcing. Scaling has been hampered by global supply chain issues; normally reliant profit sources have become unpredictable and markets more volatile.

I was so disappointed by CoP 26; it deeply affected me to question the resolve, understanding, and beliefs of all involved, caught in a very bad position. I just kept asking, “how has this happened?” All we saw  was “raw” politics”, intensive lobbying and levels of hype and spin, leaving the conference outcome as “grabbing on straws of hope.” That alone is not enough.

I keep asking myself can this continue? We see the effects of climate impact every minute of every day, we see entrenched positions.

I believe there is a real need to “step back” and reconsider where we are. Many of the alternative solutions to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels within any energy transition have been identified at different points of validation or scaling.

We need to make sense of this current global disorder to begin to act in a very different world. I wanted to go back to one of my favourite frameworks, the Cynefin framework, for partly thinking through the “known-unknown-unknowable” in our present world.

We are seemingly more in the “unknown or unknowable” at present, perhaps in a world of disorder, in our understanding and actions to manage the energy transition. This post explains the framework:  “focusing on moving from disorder in today’s world.”

So the Cynifin framework really helps us make sense of our present world. Where it was, where it is at present and where it needs to return to or actually be reframed as a world that needs different order and thinking.

Yet we do need a new order, a new shaping of the eventual ecosystem for the design, transition and laying down, in an orderly fashion, the new energy system.

I come back, we need to change the Energy Ecosystem

I find Mind Maps as a great tool to think, record and review my thoughts. Within a recent evaluation of my positioning in contributing to the energy transition.

These are a (real) work-in-progress to regain my footing and find the contribution points.

I have, at this time, left them as mind map segments and have not attempted to explain them, letting the map do the talking or describing.

Initial thoughts on Changing the Energy Ecosystem

Changing the Energy Ecosystem- opening thoughts

The build towards new Value Propositions

The building toward new Energy Value Propositions

Dealing with Disruption and Rapid Learning Approaches

Dealing with Energy Disruption and Applying Rapid Learning

In my next post related to thinking about building a new Energy Ecosystem, I will focus on 1. Reforming Business Models, 2. Finding resolutions, 3. Innovation & Ingenuity, 4. Experimentation & Rapid Pilots, 5. Leapfrog Opportunities.

The pressing Energy need

I return to the need, in my opinion, the burning need, to recast Energy into a new Energy Ecosystem. We need to get the narrative and positioning right and have this as our evolutionary perspective.

The post Changing the Energy Ecosystem first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Two really important points have troubled me in the past months and given growing challenges and issues relating to the energy transition.

The failure of CoP26 lingers very heavily and now as we are caught up in the Russian- Ukrainian war we are seeing so many reverses on pledges made in Glasgow or simply waiting to see where this crisis will take us all.

It seems to be that the lack of positives is presently being defeated with all the negatives I have been recently reading about in disruption, energy risks and the growing energy crisis. A level of panic is setting in. It does seem we are losing real momentum on reducing carbon emissions as we fall back on fossil fuel supplies.

At the UN’s Cop26 climate summit in November 2021, after a quarter-century of annual negotiations that as yet have failed to deliver a fall in global emissions, countries around the world finally included the word “coal” in their concluding decision. That is now back on the agenda, with old coal mines even being reopened.

Even this belated mention of the dirtiest fossil fuel was fraught, leaving a “deeply sorry” Cop president, Alok Sharma, fighting back tears on the podium after India announced a last-minute softening of the need to “phase out coal” to “phase down coal”.

The really shocking failure at CoP26 was this.

But there was no mention of oil and gas in the Cop26 final deal, despite these being responsible for almost 60% of fossil fuel emissions.

Since then Energy has gone into shock from the Russian war

The stories of the bonanza in extra cash flooding into the big oil companies, the opening up or extending of oil field options and the recent reveal through work undertaken by the Guardian about the carbon bombs set to trigger catastrophic climate breakdown is making us believe how great a danger the plans of oil and gas companies pose to the climate as they retake their leadership role.

Research shared exclusively with the Guardian has identified the Cabo Delgado development as one of 195 carbon bombs, which – unless stopped – will drive catastrophic climate breakdown around the world. These are very distressing reading.

The term carbon bomb has been widely used in climate circles for the past decade to describe large fossil fuel projects or other big sources of carbon.

The new research sets a specific definition: projects capable of pumping at least 1bn tonnes of CO2 emissions over their lifetimes.

According to the article, it is chilling what is possibly planned

Details of the projects being planned are not easily accessible but an investigation published in the Guardian shows:

• The fossil fuel industry’s short-term expansion plans involve the start of oil and gas projects that will produce greenhouse gases equivalent to a decade of CO2 emissions from China, the world’s biggest polluter.
• The fossil fuel industry’s short-term expansion plans involve the start of oil and gas projects that will produce greenhouse gases equivalent to a decade of CO2 emissions from China, the world’s biggest polluter.
• These plans include 195 carbon bombs, and gigantic oil and gas projects that would each result in at least a billion tonnes of CO2 emissions over their lifetimes, in total equivalent to about 18 years of current global CO2 emissions. About 60% of these have already started pumping.
• The dozen biggest oil companies are on track to spend $103m a day for the rest of the decade exploiting new fields of oil and gas that cannot be burned if global heating is to be limited to well under 2C.
• The Middle East and Russia often attract the most attention in relation to future oil and gas production but the US, Canada and Australia are among the countries with the biggest expansion plans and the highest number of carbon bombs. The US, Canada and Australia also give some of the world’s biggest subsidies for fossil fuels per capita.
• The dozen biggest oil companies are on track to spend every day for the rest of the decade $103m

If the projects go ahead, they will blow the world’s rapidly shrinking cap on emissions that must be kept to enable a livable future – known as the carbon budget.

A further study led by Kjell Kühne from the University of Leeds in the UK and published in the journal Energy Policy, found that just a few months after many of the world’s politicians positioned themselves as climate leaders during the Cop26 conference in Glasgow, they were giving the green light to a massive global expansion of oil and gas production that scientists warn would push civilization to the brink.

In this report by Kühne it is suggested there are 425 fossil fuel projects with >1 Gt CO₂ potential emissions globally. This is staggering.

What really disappointed me, and alarms me even more, was the final comments in this piece from the Guardian on the carbon bombs.

“The world is in a race against time,” said Guterres, the UN Secretary_general. “It is time to end fossil fuel subsidies and stop the expansion of oil and gas exploration.”

Reflecting on the war in Ukraine, he said: “Countries could become so consumed by the immediate fossil fuel supply gap that they neglect or knee-cap policies to cut fossil fuel use. This is madness. Addiction to fossil fuels is mutually assured destruction.”

The Guardian article closed with this “Will the world’s governments act to close the book on the oil companies’ giant climate gamble? Will richer countries, historically most responsible for emissions, support a just transition for developing countries on the frontline of the escalating crisis?

They go on with “Would strong, immediate action lead to a financial crash, as billions of dollars are wiped off the value of some of the world’s biggest companies? Or will more steady but concerted action wean us off fossil fuels rapidly, close the oil companies’ cash machine and lead us into a clean energy future with a liveable climate? Only time will tell. But, unlike oil and gas, time is in very short supply.

Guterres said: “Fossil fuel interests are now cynically using the war in Ukraine to lock in a high-carbon future.”

He commented “The 1.5-degree goal is on life support. It is in intensive care. And we must tell it like it is”

This brings me to the second area that has been troubling me and picking up on this point “we must tell it like it is“

The truth is we are not telling it like it is, the truth is being drowned out or lost in a sea of data, reports or alternative positions that are simply a struggle to comprehend and find the “path of truth”.

A stark report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s leading authority on climate science. “[This report] is a code red for humanity,” Guterres said. The IPCC states carbon emissions must fall by half by 2030 to preserve the chance of a liveable future, yet they show no sign of declining.

Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.

The big question for me is where do you start “telling it like it is?” If the CoP and UN seem powerless to stop the reliance on fossil fuels who can?

This climate hypocrisy starts in making sure we address historic injustices over emissions, including the carbon footprint of the wealthy, whose lifestyles have contributed most to global warming.

Climate change is predominantly impacting those who’ve done the least to contribute to carbon pollution and who have the least resources to deal with it because they are living below the poverty line.

Then there are warnings of carbon inequality. Politicians need to level with voters on what the transition to net-zero will mean for the way we live. They are avoiding this at present.

There’s potential for a public and political backlash over issues of unfairness, which could damage trust and ultimately the wider transition to net-zero (removing as many emissions as we produce).

Everywhere you look we have a high impact potential all lives will be affected by an entire economic, and societal shift and transition that we need to make.

We are going to see even more the global south will bear the biggest brunt of economic impacts from rising temperatures, with those on lower incomes more vulnerable to the likes of floods, drought and extreme heat.

The constant storms, floods, and heatwaves are coming faster than ever it seems, causing loss of livelihoods, suffering, disruption and devastation, were our Scientists working on the various IPPC reports being far too cautious and the concerns they mentioned for the future are actually now in the present?

The drive towards net zero could mean higher prices for food and energy, which will have a greater impact on the poor. Measures presently designed to encourage cleaner, greener living might exacerbate existing socio-economic divisions and derail the drive towards a net-zero world.

So how can we tell it like it is?

Everywhere I look, I read stories and reports of a really troubling future
Alok Sharma, the UK cabinet minister who presided over Cop26, summed up the agreement soon after as one that was “on life support”. He wrote in the Guardian: “The 1.5C limit lives. We brought it back from the brink. But its pulse remains weak.”

We are seeing that Putin has shown he is prepared to weaponize that dominance for his own ends, whatever the consequences on food, raw materials and especially on fossil fuels.

Do I share this (simplistic view) from Fatih Birol?
There are three clear answers to this energy crisis, according to Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, and one of the world’s foremost energy economists: countries must seek to replace Russian fossil fuels in the short term by squeezing more out of their current supplies.

Urgent measures, such as turning down thermostats, imposing speed limits on cars and installing home insulation, must be taken to cut down on demand. And renewable energy must be ramped up fast by removing barriers such as planning problems and grid connections.

“I believe we have the chance to make this a historic turning point, towards a cleaner and more secure energy system,” said Birol. “This is the first time I have seen such momentum behind the change in the energy sector.”

My position today

I do not buy this optimism at all. Since CoP26 I have become such a pessimist it has stopped me in so many ways, I have lessened my time on research, reading reports, and writing (optimistic) articles and generally feel I have been in a “deep funk” over the current Energy Transition.

Can i get back to an optimist? I want too

I want to offer real value and understanding of the positives behind the energy transition. I want to tell better stories of progress, I want to build the narratives and business cases to shift our present.

My task is to push past all the negativity and often heartbreaking stories caused by bad management, greedy companies, and weak governments all not doing enough for a growing problem that dwarfs Corvid, Putin’s War and the present economic uncertainties where inflation is back, creating havoc and uncertainty and further disruption.

Transitioning to a different Energy system is monumental. We are allowing it to slip away and if so, our future as humans able to function on this planet.

We need the good stories, the successes, the pointers towards promise and breakthroughs. I want to tell them, not constantly get drowned out by a climate and fossil fuel crisis.

I hope we get through this present time, it is a time of great danger and peril.

The post Unlocking your challenges and issues first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.