Category Archives: Energy Ecosystem

Energy Dependence, Vulnerability and Risks

Posted on by

We are presently seeing the vulnerability of the European markets to supply dependence and especially risks of reliance upon Gas from Russia. So how much is Europe dependent on Russian gas?
The EU is so dependent on it, and because it has committed to limiting its greenhouse gas emissions. The EU imported 155 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Russia in 2021, almost half (45%) of its gas imports and nearly 40% of the total amount used, according to the IEA.

There is currently a real scramble to change the dependencies due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the implications to Europe, and this growing recognition that Europe is faced with a real energy crisis for the next decade.

The current “talking up” of replacing oil, coal and gas with renewables of wind, solar, green hydrogen solutions (PEM Electrolyzers), new grid infrastructure and battery storage means potentially some very volatile and disruptive energy management problems in the short to medium term.

Over now for the next 10 years replacing existing energy generating solutions, dependent on oil, coal and gas with ones based on renewable solutions needs to be even more central to energy management.

But we also need to be recognizing the next crisis following this present one, that is rapidly coming towards us is the dependences on essential minerals and who controls these and that is China.

Continue reading →

A reply to McKinsey and its Net-zero transition report by the MD of One Earth

Posted on by

I have been providing extracts from the recent McKinsey report in two posts recently,

My first post was  explaining their scenario limitations with the message “we hope that this scenario-based analysis will help decision-makers refine their understanding of the nature and the magnitude of the changes the net-zero transition would entail and the scale of response needed to manage it.”

Then the second post was to re-produce and show their summary of costs and outcomes.

I did not make any personal comments in these two posts, I found the report difficult to comprehend and have been hoping someone far more qualified could provide a view to add or to challenge this report view

I personally found the costs absolutely staggering. I find the disruption frightening. So, we face significant electricity price increases and uncertainties of continuity of supply, very limited job gains over job destructions, whole industries and supply chains wiped out, steel and cement price increases of 30 to 45%, investment inequality even more.

The way McKinsey has phrased this does need deeper clarity. The point is they highlight the effect of the additional $3.5 trillion, their view of the additional amounts we need to spend on achieving Net-zero, not the predicted total spend of $9.2 trillion needed each year. To put this increase in comparative terms, the $3.5 trillion is approximately equivalent, in 2020, to half of global corporate profits, one-quarter of total tax revenue, and 7 per cent of household spending. YIKES! That is of a magnitude that is way beyond me to comprehend. For Real?

Seriously, do any of the energy experts here in Energy Central contributors recognize this as the future conversation in the boardrooms or public institutions? Now if we have a disorderly transition it gets worse.

I felt this report needs understanding, hence my staying to the report faithfully. I made an appeal of “I can’t get my head around this”- can anyone offer insights to counter this was a reply I made on comments provided to where I had equally posted this on the energy-central site.

Energy Central is a membership-based Professional Network serving the global electric power industry

Today I was reading a reply to this McKinsey report by Karl Burkart, Managing Director One Earth, formerly DiCaprio Foundation Dir. Science & Technology.

I reproduce this here as it challenges the work of McKinsey significantly and gives me a better framing of my concerns and shock. Continue reading →

At present the net-zero equation remains unsolved- part two outcomes and costs

Posted on by

January 2022 Copyright c McKinsey & Company

The second part of my summary or part-reproduction of the McKinsey report “The Net-zero transition: what it will cost, what it can bring”

In a very extensive report, “the Net-zero transition in what it will cost and what it can bring” running to 224 pages, is produced by McKinsey Global Institute in collaboration with McKinsey Sustainability and McKinsey’s Global Energy & Materials and Advanced Industries Practices and published in January 2022.

Within this report, McKinsey outlines the Net-zero transition in one scenario-based analysis, that provides sobering but terrific value to thinking through all that is required in the net-zero transition being attempted.

I have taken here, in this second post, significant parts of their summary, their “in brief,” to amplify this work and show their summary of costs and outcomes. The first post is here. On both, I have not added any views, thoughts or comments. The only change I made was replacing “we” when referring to themselves in this report with McKinsey. Continue reading →

At present the net-zero equation remains unsolved- part one scenario limitations

Posted on by

January 2022 Copyright c McKinsey & Company

In a very extensive report, “the Net-zero transition in what it will cost and what it can bring,” running to 224 pages.

This report is produced by McKinsey Global Institute in collaboration with McKinsey Sustainability and McKinsey’s Global Energy & Materials and Advanced Industries Practices and published in January 2022.

McKinsey outlines the Net-zero transition in one scenario-based analysis that provides sobering but terrific value to thinking through all that is required in the net-zero transition being attempted.

I have taken here in this post parts of their preface, executive summary and in a second post their “in brief” to amplify this work and provide the outcomes. I have not added any views, thoughts, or comments. The only change I made was replacing “we” when referring to themselves in this report with “McKinsey”. Continue reading →

The Global Energy Innovation System is NOT Thriving

Posted on by

The Global Energy Innovation System is NOT Thriving

In a very sobering report from Hoyu Chong of Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) published on 10th January 2022, it is highlighted how the global energy innovation system is in poor health.

In this report, it is pointed out there are weaknesses across most indicators and the need is to rectify these by most nations.

The key takeaways: Continue reading →

My energy wish list as we move towards 2022

Posted on by

visual source dreamstime.com

Many of us have wish lists or resolutions as we get towards the end of one year and think about what we want out of next year.

So I decided to do a top of the mind wish list for the Energy Transition

Now we all can add to this but here are my nineteen wishes for kicking off 2022 in a focused way for the Energy Transition we all need to gather momentum, in really serious ways. Can you improve on this wish list?

Some of the ideas or thoughts are in the links provided. Happy holiday reading! Continue reading →

Not seeing the wood for the burning trees at COP26.

Posted on by

We have just finished the most critical COP  meeting in Glasgow. It was the eleventh hour. For two weeks, nearly two hundred countries entered into discussions, finally agreeing on the “Glasgow Climate Pact” to keep the 1.5 degrees C target alive and finalize the outstanding elements of the Paris Agreement.

The President of the proceedings, COP26 President Alok Sharma, commented, “its pulse is weak, and it will only survive if we keep our promises and translate commitments into rapid action.”

“Keep 1.5 alive” has been a rallying cry for diplomats and activists alike at the COP26 negotiations. The phrase refers to the goal of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

1.5 degrees Celsius is seen as the threshold beyond which the effects of climate change become increasingly dangerous to people and ecosystems. But scientists warn that time is running out for humanity to take the transformative steps to achieve the 1.5 goals. And according to multiple estimates, the deal negotiated in Glasgow does not bend the curve enough to get there. Continue reading →

Getting concerned for Hydrogen

Posted on by

Image: IRENA

Since I launched this dedicated posting site www.innovating4energy.com, in December 2019, specifically around innovating in energy, I have written 80 plus posts. Each post was undoubtedly a fundamental learning point for me as I attempted to dive deeper into the topic.

Within this, Hydrogen has been one of the main contributors. Including this post, I have written about different aspects of Hydrogen over ten posts, but most were during 2020.

Posts (with links) have covered Hotter Shades of Hydrogen, Tensions and Bottlenecks and Concerns, Show me the Electrolyzer, Hydrogen is the Big Ticket Needing a Landscape View,

Also, Has Hydrogen got the necessary gas, Massive Doses of Hydrogen Reality, Hydrogens Promise, Believing in Hydrogen and how Plug Power is the Apple of Hydrogen?

Then I suddenly “went off the boil” on Hydrogen. I felt a sense of hijack from the Oil & Gas Majors and the Equipment Suppliers, all pushing hard the interim solutions blending different gases for offering blue Hydrogen as the necessary bridge, over the next ten years or so.

I felt a sense of “lock into” as the investment to purchase gas generating assets and infrastructure can run for thirty or more years. That’s not interim or intermediate and is likely to stay blue as CCUS will get added on at the later stage as the logical option to complete a ROI on this “interim” decision

Continue reading →

My multipliers for innovation at the Front End of Energy

Posted on by

Following my last post, “Putting innovation into energy, sparking transformation“, I want to outline why I am focusing increasingly on this front end of the energy transition (FEE) within my innovation work.

For me, it is the ability to apply the “multiplier effect” to any discovery and validation that accelerates the understanding of where the potential growth and impact points of a new business opportunity can occur.

Today, we are all trying to piece together the Energy Transition.

The claim is that there are solutions abound to move us towards the Energy Transition we all need of clean, reliable, energy built upon renewables, but I honestly don’t share that current optimism; we actuaölly have an awfully long way to go in discovery, application and adoption. Continue reading →

Putting innovation into energy, sparking transformation

Posted on by

I see the front end of energy as the critical feeding-in point for the energy transition. So what does this mean exactly?

The front end of energy for me is the point of discovery and validation. It is the place I feel I can make the best contribution within the energy transition. The discovery is where the stimulus and catalyst point to take an idea to commercialization.

This capturing, evolving, exploiting and exploring needs a clear management process and understanding of how to undertake this. This needs a focused innovation specialist or a systematic approach to building those innovating capabilities and capacities.

I believe there is a real gap for many organizations involved in the Energy industry; often in the recognition, they lack a real lasting, robust innovation capability, capacity and competency, as the sustaining way to help accelerate the Energy Transition journey. Continue reading →