In this first post of a mini-series of three, I want to introduce a radical concept that envisions the energy transition as a living, evolving entity that bridges technology and nature, sparking profound shifts in how communities generate, consume, and perceive energy.
It challenges established norms and prompts a complete reimagining of our relationship with energy and the environment. It focuses on the community in a decentralized way for its energy.
My underlying thinking is through ecosystem thinking and design, triggering innovation engagement and activation strategies to promote innovation and change the energy transition dynamics within a community setting, offering decentralized community energy.
It comprises the following parts to consider shifting our thinking away from the presently accepted, more highly centralised thinking on energy provision into community enablement. It is conceptualized upon the following thoughts:
For me, the Energy Transition is a complex, multi-headed beast that always provides more challenge rather than less.
We seem to be faced with Hydra. The Hydra was Hercules’s second labour. He attempted to cut off the heads of the beast, but every time one was cut off, two more would grow back in its place. Another challenge in killing the Hydra was that its’ breath was poisonous to all who crossed its path.
The weakness of the Hydra was that only one of its heads was immortal. In the energy transition world, I worry that this one immortal head might be fossil fuel, challenging to slay.
I don’t slay beasts; I try to shape the behaviours of clients. Renewables feature front and centre. Getting engagement is hard work; adopting different thinking and application solutions is even more challenging. The level of engagement determines the ability to allow a different way to permeate and take hold. You need many tools, ideas, visuals, promoters, discussions, etc.
Finding the time for clients to get into these types of immersion is not easy; it has to be really “mixed” up. Do I have this “cocktail” right? Frankly, no, but tackling. Individuals or teams need to find their reactive points. They need to want to open up to change. I love the word “catalyst.” if it gains the type of reaction you are looking for, you are the agent that provokes or speeds action or change.
The energy industry has many problems transitioning from fossil reliance to renewables.
Any energy transition is a massive shift in the energy supply.
As our energy consumption continues rising, we face several global challenges. The primary sources of our energy production will need to change as carbon emissions and warming greenhouse gases continue to amass in the planet’s atmosphere, creating a more unstable world we live in today. Traditionally, we have been heavily dependent on mainly three types of fossil fuels in use for energy generation: coal, oil and natural gas are all non-renewable sources, depleting the planet’s resources.
The continued burning of fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation is giving levels of carbon intensity that need to be dramatically reversed as this continues to put pressure on rising temperatures and a warming planet. We have this real need for an effective energy transition built on electricity supplied by renewables. Renewableenergy sources offer cleaner alternatives based on solar, wind power, hydroelectric energy, biomass from plants, hydrogen and fuel cells and geothermal power.
We need to build different energy solutions to resolve the current grid difficulties of accommodating variable power sources like wind and solar energy, the fastest-growing renewable power sources. As these resources begin to supply increasing percentages of power to the grid, integrating them into grid operations will become increasingly difficult.
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 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?
Is the needed path to the Collaborative Energy Transition ApproachthroughGrand Challenges?
I have to admit that I am sceptical of individual energy organizations’ pledges to move toward a carbon-neutral future. They argue that there is a limited amount of time to make this transition, yet it is broadly recognized that individual organizations cannot achieve this alone. Are energy organizations open enough to alternative suggestions for overcoming the resource and knowledge constraints working alone can bring? Are they exploring alternative thinking enough, such as organised collective challenges? We need to bridge the gap through collaborations at multiple firm levels.
I believe there is a weakness in the energy ecosystem that deprives it of more significant collective action and innovation to achieve a more accelerated pathway to the energy transition. My argument is that while many energy companies are working on solutions within the energy transition, they often work in isolation and struggle to get out of their “self-made” islands of knowledge.
I suggest that applying ecosystem thinking and platform solutions could bring together many organizations to work in broader, more ambitious innovation ecosystems of collaborations or even work through grand challenge-designed approaches.
I often wonder about the rigor of assessments and the lack of a common approach when evaluating or assessing the contributions of new concepts or innovation solutions in any Energy Transition and the broader impacts these can have. So does this 18S framework provide this?
So what makes up the 18S framework to assess any change and innovation in the Energy transition?
I feel this framework can apply to any energy transition and provides a common point of evaluation with consistency in each part of the 18S to evaluate for efficiencies, affordability, reliability, accessibility, availability, dependability, abundance, and effectiveness.
The elements and dimensions of this 18S can determine what we need to work through and understand to gain a more “holistic” overview, especially coming from any changes and new innovative solutions.
I struggle increasingly with individual energy organizations’ pledges of moving their solutions towards a carbon-neutral future. The mixture of reports, initiatives, and viewpoints all move towards the transformation of the energy system but they all admit or fail to address TWO crucial aspects.
Firstly the limited time we have to make such a transition in their offerings of new and different imaginative ways to change the current dynamics within our energy systems. Secondly how each organization alone cannot achieve it with limited or no alternative suggestions to how to overcome this “constraint”. Well, this post is about one alternative well worth considering.
One area of potential to bridge is the collaborations at the multiple firm levels. There is a weakness that deprives the ecosystem of a greater “collective action and innovation” to achieve a more accelerated pathway to the Energy Transition.
The Energy Transition has a rich network of complimentary ecosystems all keeping the energy transition change moving at a ‘certain’ level of momentum but is it good enough, I don’t think so.
The sheer number of Energy companies working on solutions within the Energy Transition is vast, varied and geographically spread. Each is struggling to get out of their (self-made) islands of knowledge to grow their business value through mostly individual innovation solutions.
We then have an Ecosystem of Governments and intergovernmental organizations providing policy suggestions and directions, offering sources of analysis, central data collection and interpretation along with proving reference and exchange points and forums. Then you have general and highly specialised Consulting firms, and investing institutions that are all constantly providing insights and supporting solutions.
We need to find new ways of collaborating and that means applying ecosystem thinking and platform solutions. Let me suggest one as an opener to this thinking.
There are so many risks in the near to mid-term to derail the Energy Transition. I feel it is really hard to stay focused and not become distracted by the anti-energy transition groups. I am a firm believer in having a navigable strategic and tactical pathway to keep you on a given track along the route you have chosen to get to a given goal. Clearly, as we progress, we learn and adjustments are made but you have to map out a fairly solid (looking) pathway to keep on track.
I wrote about the concept of exploring energy fitness landscapes. The article “My initial thinking behind Energy Fitness Landscapes“, written in 2021, uses Hydrogen as an example, with a follow-up one year later. Here I am looking at the Energy Transition from an evolving technology innovation perspective. In other words, what “forces” can be identified or promoted that can transform the existing energy system through the pursuit of new inventions, innovations, or technological advancement? I took hydrogen as an example.
A risk of the energy transition is we give higher emphasis on the depth of knowledge in one area, get distracted often and fail to pull this together, to map it into the bigger picture of the practical, broader-based one. We do need a clear pathway.
One of the largest News Agencies recently asked me about the Energy Transition. These were some really tough open-ended questions: “What are the industry challenges and solutions,” “the key trends and developments“, What are the Challenges I face,” then “What critical solutions are there to the challenges” and finally “What value and guidance would you offer.”
The energy transition is a vast, complex area to view. I took a deep breath and thought about how I would break this down over a discussion of only 45 minutes. I decided to break it down into bite-size chunks such as Key Challenges, Worries, Big Ticket issues, My working issues, and finally, How the energy industry needs to get organized.
On reflection, I realized how many more points I could have raised or explained. Still, the structure of my breaking this down allows for some further thinking and additions that help me build this out, as many struggles with absorbing this energy transition, and I can build on my initial reactions here. Well, that is in my plans going forward.
