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.

Pinned to my door, my way of approaching the Energy Transition

I have on the door of my office the approach I am taking to build out my understanding and pace myself in what I can absorb, translate and offer views upon on the Energy Transition.

My site www.innovating4energy.website is where I outline and see my value contribution in applying the “multiplier effect” to any discovery and validation of the Energy Transition. The value proposition is in accelerating the clients/readers’ understanding of where the potential growth and impact points with the objective of triggering a new business opportunity for it to occur.

What we offer is exploring the Energy Landscape in understanding, so this can then be translated into fresh, exciting Energy Value Positioning Offerings.

We extract points of value to drive innovative change to your business offering.

The services provided https://innovating4energy.website

I draw it up heavily influenced by the work I am undertaking in the Energy Transition. It adapts some of the energy jargon as a fun way to look at this

On my door, I have this:

• • • I increasingly go off the GRID (less time on the Internet)
    • I keep investing and building the STORAGE (my research work is my value proposition base)
    • I look constantly for Renewable Energy SOURCES (forming new contacts, networks, and relationships)
    • I keep motivated and keep transitioning with ENERGY (nothing stays still, knowledge is always evolving)
    • I look to constantly seek out sources of DEMAND (looking for work-to-be-done)
    • I have a core to focus on my PRIMARY demand (innovation, energy, and ecosystem advisory work)
    • I look toward being close to the EDGE (in research, topics, and discussions)

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.

We offer a mix of understanding, forecasting and access to comprehensive knowledge and research resources.

• Offering the intelligence to accelerate your energy journey and solutions

The innovation energy transition journey roadmap outlined

Providing a given value in the proposition

• The aim is to support the individual, teams, and organisations in their innovation and transition activity around the energy transition they intend or are already undertaking in relevant insights and knowledge.
• The outcome is to advance further the client’s comprehension, based on a different external perspective, that has a valuable place in any assessment of the Energy Transition and future pathway.
• The value for the client, so often time and resource-starved, is that they can rapidly understand the latest thinking relevant to their focus areas, in thoughts, and insights around innovation, ecosystem building, or how the energy transition impacts them, to identify new growth options or impact points of new value, or consider radically different stances in business positioning in the future.
• Adding new insights and knowledge contributes to building significantly new innovation and transformation understanding and competencies, resulting in clients achieving deeper appreciation, further positive momentum and sustaining results, from these energy transformation activities.

Two focal points and one reality!

1. We are constantly building our library of energy knowledge to support your requirements.

2. Our position is to operate at the front end of the Energy System- where the true energy is generated and we make it renewable and sustainable!

• Partnering in any energy journey needs extensive network and collaboration thinking

How often do you stare at the wall or door?

The post Pinned to my door, my way of approaching the Energy Transition 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.

Visual Source: Seaborg Technologies

Let’s discuss Nuclear in different ways than the present discussion has gone. Nuclear has been not given the debate it deserves. That needs changing in my view.

This is largely from the use of salt! Well, actually, small modular reactors offer a Nuclear future as part of our clean energy requirements.

I wrote a piece recently, “the Elephant that should be in the Energy Debate,” and it is largely because of the technology, safety and reality of what Nuclear offers in new approaches and designs that make it have a real place to be at the Energy Transition table.

Firstly what is a molten salt reactor (MSR)?

It is a class of nuclear fission reactors where the primary coolant and/or the fuel is a molten salt mixture. There are several different designs, all looking to bring small modular reactors (SMR) to market.

MSR has significant advantages over traditional nuclear reactors.

First, the MSR typically operates at or close to atmospheric pressure, rather than 75 to 150 times the atmospheric pressure used for LWRs, thereby reducing the containment structures’ needs and eliminating hydrogen as a source of explosion risk.

Equally, the MSR does not produce dangerous and radioactive fission gases under pressure; these are naturally absorbed into the molten salt. This smaller reactor and these differences provide a key benefit of removing the risks of contaminating large land areas.

The MSR can also operate at higher operating temperatures providing higher electricity-generation efficiency, allowing for a greater coupling benefit of having grid-storage facilities, potentially more economical hydrogen products, and some potential for process-heat opportunities.

So why are these not the future for any debate on Nuclear?

Let’s continue with the good news. The combination of offering a low-pressure system and a high boiling point greatly limits the chance of a containment explosion. The MSR doesn’t require massive cooling in dedicated water ponds or rivers; they can be placed anywhere and air-cooled.

Visual Source: Seaborg Technologies

If the core were to overheat, the biggest and best safety feature is that a gravity-enabled passive shutdown system would send the heated, radiated salt into an underground containment chamber or drain tanks by simply gravity and turning off the reactor.

These MSRs still face several challenges. Relevant design challenges include the corrosivity of hot salts and the changing chemical composition of the salt as it is transmuted by reactor radiation.

There are quite naturally different bodies of concern about Nuclear in general. Its need for the future is in new evolving modular solutions. There is a long list of advantages and disadvantages to working through, but I leave these out of this post.

There are different approaches to molten salt reactors, all being investigated or tested at present. I have used to illustrate MSRs the visuals supplied by Seaborg Technologies to provide a clearer example of Molten Salt Reactors; they offer one concept of a few.

Also, Thorium-based energy is being significantly invested in still not well tested and does have some scenario’s still to be worked through in design, process and final operation.

Fusion power is in the future, a future rapidly coming into view without a doubt. It does have as much potential (or even more) to halt carbon emissions as other solutions more readily discussed. But as climate issues increase, we need to consider MSR and ones that seem to be ahead at present, the liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs)

I read up on Seaborg Technologies based in Denmark that their CMSR (compact molten salt reactor) is in design and further hypothesis validation. I have taken their excellent visuals to help describe and present Molten Salt reactors.

Without a doubt, Seaborg Technologies are motivated by the challenges of the need to address eliminating carbon dioxide and adding electricity through this solution.

Visual Source: Seaborg Technologies

The CMSR works with both fossil fuels and renewable energy sources. In either case, it generates a large amount of low-carbon energy. Another attractive feature is a novel liquid salt used as a neutron moderator: it acts as a catalyst to improve the efficiency of the fission chain reaction, reducing the size and cost of generating energy. Moreover, this moderator is not degraded by neutron irradiation – a challenge that has stalled previous attempts at commercializing the technology.

Liquid salt can be reprocessed, separating uranium and plutonium from fuel for reuse to produce waste that only needs 300 years of storage in nuclear cemeteries. So far, long-lived nuclear waste may need up to 300,000 years of storage.

The University of Idaho is looking for Nuclear Batteries.

Also, the US University of Idaho has announced they have verified a new process to speed up the development of the world’s first Molten Salt Nuclear Battery (MsNB). They claim this is a monumental step in the molten salt reactor design process. They envisage military bases, hospitals, and communities can gain reliable, secure, continuous energy from an MsNB as a small, distributed energy source, bringing autonomy to the users from reliance on more decentralised grids and energy supply.

The MsNB testing device uses ohmic heating to heat liquid via an electric current evenly. It acts as a reactor surrogate, mimicking the internal heat generation within a reactor through fission or splitting an atom’s nucleus. In the MsNB, the heat released during the ohmic heating testing process causes the molten salt fuel within the battery to rise in a central cylinder. Once at the top, the fuel moves to a heat exchanger, where it is cooled and falls back down the space between the inner and outer cylinders. This natural circulation eliminates the need for valves and pumps, improving the reliability and simplicity of the reactor design.

Presently, the University of Idaho is looking for a grant to validate and compete for an MsNB design up to manufacturing by a partner, Premier Technology.

Natrium Reactors, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett

In my recent post, “The Elephant that should be in more in the Energy Debate- Nuclear.”

I picked up on a recent announcement that Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are coming together to build a nuclear Natrium reactor in Wyoming at a decommissioned coal plant. This is an advanced nuclear reactor that is suggested as safer, performs better and costs less than the traditional plants.

The project is based around a 345 MW sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage system that will have storage technology to deliver a system’s output to 500 MW of power for more than five-and-a-half hours when needed, which is equivalent to the energy required to power around 400,000 homes and will be able to integrate with renewable resources and could lead to faster, more cost-effective decarbonization of electricity generation.

What we see is that Small scale nuclear reactors are starting to be developed around the world.

We know Nuclear in its current power plant form is continuing to suffer heavy losses as renewables come online or are mostly scheduled to close. Globally, nuclear energy supplies 11% of electricity; it had come down from 17.6% back in 1996.

The cost of the building design, safety and maintenance of these traditionally designed Nuclear reactors are expensive and not flexible in their operation or management. If we move towards smaller modular, safer designs, Nuclear has the chance to become more competitive and attractive.

Are small modular reactors a new way forward for nuclear power?

There is a growing argument besides settling on a design for MSR they can be mass-manufactured at specialised facilities, transported more easily, and installed in remote locations where conventional power is not so feasible. They are compact and are a sound distributed energy solution. They cost significantly less than traditional large-scale reactors due to containment, leakage and environmental concerns. This becomes a way forward for many developing countries in the world.

Image and Concepts from Seaborg Technologies

Systems in design are integral, meaning the fuel, steam, and generator will be in one vessel, and the core’s own heat can drive the coolant flow, eliminating many pumps and moving parts that can fail. Each reactor will be self-contained.

Rolls-Royce in the UK are in a consortium for their Small Modular Reactor (SMR), but this is around a decade away from concept to scale.

If MSR’s can show cost and safety concerns are being addressed and can settle on limited standardised designs, mass manufacturing can give scale and cost reductions. Perhaps no different than solar& wind rapidly reduced costs, and now hydrogen is chasing that route, can MSR join them?

What is known is some of the big players in energy have attempted SMR solutions, including Westinghouse, giving up in 2014, and then Babcock and Wilcox folded theirs in 2017. In Russia, state-funded MSR had construction costs run over estimates four times this small-scale nuclear pathway has had and is having obstacles to moving from a hypothesis to reality. ( sources BBC future articles)

I think we need to get used to Nuclear being in the Energy Mix

At present, I am left with a great question raised in an article I was reading for this post, “How many renewables does it take to replace a nuclear plant.”

Visual Source: Seaborg Technologies

I think we will see an innovative combination of an advanced sodium fast reactor with energy storage, sited on utility sites, disused land, and old coal mines to give power security and jobs.

These energy combinations can allow the reactor to operate at a high capacity while simultaneously capturing and storing electricity and plugging into support the increased use of hydrogen, working alongside renewables.

The future design of energy systems will be modular, not based on one fuel or power generation but 8utilizing multiple options to be optimal in energy delivery and best pricing, and solution mix to customers.

We do need all the carbon-free power we can lay our hands upon.

We need carbon-free power, true zero, not clean power credits or fossil fuel and CCUS capture, giving us in the future carbon headaches or nothing but wind farms and solar farms stretching out over land and sea.

We need as many options for viable, alternative clean fuel, and that seems to be including Nuclear in my mind, sitting alongside green Hydrogen from Electrolysis, as equally primary sources of our clean energy needs, competing with Renewables, the current green flavours of this decade.

One last visual supplied by Seaborg Technologies needs some time to study

Visual Source: Seaborg Technologies

The 2030 decade is going to be Nuclear and Hydrogen time

As we face Nuclear closures worldwide, we need to evaluate and hopefully achieve a next-generation Nuclear solution, which seems to be based on small modular reactors based on the Molten Salt design.

We are rapidly gaining a real understanding of the need for a phenomenal range of clean energy solutions to displace Gas, oil, and coal totally. In my opinion, we must include another clean energy source, Nuclear.

We need to rapidly find solutions to phase out old Nuclear Plants and not extend them even further. We need to determine a new Nuclear policy that establishes small modular reactor designs. The approach through the molten salt reactors shows real promise to accelerate as that safer Nuclear option.

It is interesting; in the past Salt was always prized as a commodity. Now it is part of a clean energy solution.

*Sources for initial descriptions: Wikipedia/ Molten salt reactors and for Thorium-based energy

*Thanks to Seaborg Technologies, they got me really interested and excited about the landscape of tomorrow and how Nuclear has a real fit as and when the present technologies become commercialised in or by the 2030s.

*If there are any errors in descriptions or understanding, they are mine. In this research and investigation, I do not claim a depth of knowledge. This is only a “snapshot” to raise awareness and interest.

The post Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors- so what’s there not to like? first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Nuclear should “sit” in the Energy Transition debate is a tough one to call. The public sentiment, in general, would be against a ramping up of Nuclear after the two significant disasters etched onto our minds and stand out of Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima Daichi in 2011, and the human and environmental impact.

The impact of nuclear accidents has been debated since the first nuclear reactors were constructed in 1954. It has been a key factor in public concern about nuclear facilities ever since. Human error does happen. According to the IAEA, I was surprised by the high levels of accidents in the USA.

So why discuss an energy source that is highly contentious to argue it still has a future within the energy mix? Several reasons, many include Nuclear is still seen as a real need to deliver clean energy.

China and Russia are growing their bilateral nuclear energy cooperations significantly. Four new nuclear-generating units, two in Jiangsu Province and two in Northeast China’s Liaoning, are occurring with construction taking place within this year. With the increasing trade restrictions placed on China by the USA, China’s growing concern for energy security has risen.

The nuclear technology is reliant on Russian-developed third-generation VVER- 1200 nuclear technology. In passing China’s stringent technical reviews, this indicates that the third-generation technology and designs are far safer, and the accidents like Chernobyl or Fukushima seemingly can’t happen.

There are even views this third-generation is more prudent in safety design than Western companies are offering. So nuclear in China and Russia is alive and well for future nuclear energy power generation.

What about the West?

The new U:S Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told lawmakers that she is open to offering federal subsidies to prop up struggling nuclear plants and stated, “I think this is a moment to consider—and perhaps it is in the American Jobs Plan or somewhere—to make sure that we keep the current fleet active” ‘We’re not going to be able to achieve our climate goals if our nuclear power plants shut down,’ Granholm said. ‘We have to find ways to keep them operating”

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are coming together to build a nuclear Natrium reactor in Wyoming at a decommissioned coal plant. This is an advanced nuclear reactor that is suggested as safer, performs better and costs less than the traditional plants.

The project is based around a 345 MW sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage system that will have storage technology to deliver a system’s output to 500 MW of power for more than five-and-a-half hours when needed, which is equivalent to the energy required to power around 400,000 homes and will be able to integrate with renewable resources and could lead to faster, more cost-effective decarbonization of electricity generation.

According to Chris Levesque, president and CEO of TerraPower, together with PacifiCorp states the Natrium technology was designed to solve a challenge utilities face as they work to enhance grid reliability and stability while meeting decarbonisation and emissions-reduction goals.

• I will be doing a separate post on the growing interest in Small or Compact Molten Salt Reactors (CMSR)

Then we have Europe.

The UK imports about 7pc of its energy from the continent, but that trend is set to be reversed as countries such as Germany shut down their coal and nuclear power plants. The UK continues to see Nuclear Power Generation as part of its essential energy mix as it accelerates the increased electrification of energy.

The real interest is the current tug of war between Germany’s current view of no nuclear and Frances high dependence on Nuclear and the EU policy that is locked into where Nuclear sits.

Germany plans to close all of its nuclear plants by next year. With a current view that Nuclear power remains very unpopular in Germany ever since radioactivity from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster when radioactive dust did drift across the country, it has been a top political and public concern.

If nuclear is off the German energy list then there is a rea concern for many that Germany,s growing energy needs will become more vulnerable and dependent on imports of energy or fuel sources. Energy security might shift the sentiment.

France is fascinating for the future Nuclear debate.

France, on the other hand, is highly dependent on Nuclear Energy. In 2020 nuclear represented 78% of electricity production in France. The share of renewables in total energy consumption in France stands only at 19% and significantly trailing behind EU renewable goals.

The argument is where does Nuclear fit in the future energy mix? It is not a renewable, but it is clean energy, and decarbonization is the end goal or is it?

France has had low-carbon electricity due to its building a Nuclear generation fleet in the 1980s and 1990’s. The issue is the operating life of this fleet, assuming 60 years, so by the Paris Agreement date of 2050, all of this power generation source will be decommissioned. So what will France do?

France has two options being considered.

Either replace the retiring reactors with new ones or replace the energy loss with renewables to reach a 100% renewable energy source power system.

The massive scaling up of renewables, wind and solar power adds significant pressure on France as the EU continues to ramp up its renewable share of total energy.

France needs to influence current EU decisions or fall in line and switch from ageing Nuclear plants into a Renewable strategy.

Do the maths or at least consider the consequences.

The arguments within France are certainly building. Let the elephant in or keep it shut out of future energy considerations. Look towards new Nuclear generation reactors.

The debate has switched to what is needed for hydrogen production, predicted to make it a viable alternative to fossil fuels. A recent report suggested that to make hydrogen by electrolysis for France alone would require the equivalent of four nuclear power stations dedicated solely to electricity production.

The suggestion is to produce low-carbon hydrogen on a global scale; 400 1GW nuclear reactors would be needed, according to a recent report published by the French parliamentary office evaluating the scientific and technological choices for the future of Energy in France.

The Electrolyser and Green Hydrogen becomes highly relevant for Nuclear

With the EU pushing to install only 6 GW of electrolyzers for the production of one million tonnes of hydrogen from renewables by 2024 and then 40 GW for ten million tonnes by 2030, the calculations for having this “pure” renewables then at least 150,000 wind turbines or solar panels covering an area of about 800,000 hectares.

There is a suggestion to get hydrogen to the supply of 70 million tonnes worldwide the commissioning of one million new wind turbines or 56 hectares of photovoltaic panels is perhaps needed.

So are we going to have a wind turbine “parked” on each piece of spare land surrounding our cities? So should Nuclear be considered? It has many advantages for alignment to Hydrogen.

Design studies for any energy solution need clear criteria. I like the French studies as they seek to identify the conditions and energy requirements. The “stress test” for energy solutions is around four sets of strict conditions to deliver a technically (not politically) secure integration when considering renewables replacing the existing French Nuclear dependence. Political comes later, wrongly so, Science and known technology solutions should lead and then finally decide.

The consideration are around 1) power system strength including system stability, 2) System adequacy to cope with load at all times, 3) operational reserves in forecasting methods and procurement, and 4) grid development efforts (and realities) at both transmission and distribution levels.

The French have stated their three pillars of energy efficiency, stronger use of biomass and a more significant role for (decarbonised) electricity as a final fuel to go from 25% to 50% of final energy needs by 2050.

Interestingly the SNBC (Stratégie nationalé bas-carbone) seems to have dismissed fossil fuel associated with carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) or the massive use of biomass or biogas for electricity generation due to availability of material source or cost into electricity.

So the French see renewables and nuclear power as their two options. They want to rebalance their electricity mix and not depend on one technology and one generation of nuclear reactors. It is becoming a fascinating energy debate to watch how it evolves.

Will the pushing of new Nuclear programs gather pace?

Will they be socially desirable or appealing as the public debates on how much any energy transition will cost and are they financially sustainable is still at a very early stage

The recent IEA report, Net-Zero by 2050: A roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, which I wrote about here, “A decade pivotal to a clean energy future” and here ” Accelerating Clean Energy Innovation“, have left the place of Nuclear “hedged” as my view.

The faith in technologies for much of the energy transition is still very uncertain; many commercially unproven, not well field-or-stressed tested, they lack robust scale options, or not proven on ongoing reliability or eventual cost This certainly leaves the door open for the Nuclear Elephant to walk into the Future Energy Mix room. Will it?

Just consider the enormous strain on rare earth minerals or heat-intensive material (iron, steel etc.) that wind, solar, and storage batteries will require. This potential mineral shortage and a higher intensity of mining will become scorching political areas of global tension.

• I plan a post on the issues surrounding raw material supply and possible shortages soon.

Nuclear is a low-carbon technology with the lowest mineral intensity and smallest land footprint. Nuclear needs to be in that room when all the aspects of securing what is needed for energy to undertake the transition is considered.

Perhaps Nuclear will form an equivalent French Foreign Legion ( Légion étrangère) to battle and carve out a place at this energy table?

The debate is moving on. Nuclear, nuclear innovation and small modular reactors and other advanced reactors offer the potential for solving electricity, heat and hydrogen needs in the future.

Can we continue to leave it out of the debate? I don’t think so.

• I will be doing a separate post on Small or Compact Molten Salt Reactors (CMSR). This makes the Nuclear Elephant nimble.

The post The Elephant that should be more in the Energy Debate first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Explicit Milestones within this report are staggering in implications

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released its most comprehensive report “Net Zero by 2050: a roadmap for the Global Energy Sector” on 18th May 2021.

The roadmap outlined underscores how pivotal this current decade is to ever reach net-zero by mid-century. In my opinion, it is the next three to five years that will determine this. If we fail to drive down emissions into a really sharp decline through a global political will we are in serious trouble.

It is only through strong and credible energy policies and significant investment into clean energy solutions we will get onto any pathway. If we fail to recognize the overwhelming needs to change we can say goodbye to 2050 as a net-zero target, then that will have colossal economic and climatic consequences.

The report by IEA lays out a viable pathway to building a global energy sector with net-zero emissions in 2050, but as they state this is a (really) narrow window and requires an unprecedented transformation in how energy is produced, transmitted and consumed.

They suggest “to have a fighting chance” to limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5 °C,   requires nothing short of a total transformation of the energy systems.

Milestones that are defined, clear and time-related.

The report sets out clear milestones- more than 400 in total, spanning all sectors and technologies. for what is needed to happen and, more importantly, when, to transform the global economy from one dominated by fossil fuels into one powered predominantly by renewable energy, such as solar and wind.

This “viable” pathway requires vast amounts of investments, innovation, skilful policy design and implementation, technology deployment, infrastructure building, international cooperation at a scale not imagined or seen to date and major efforts across multiple areas associated with such an energy transformation.

The roadmap outlines over 200 plus pages within the report is global in scope.

It does not attempt to tackle country or regional designs, those each have specific circumstances, history and their specific stages of designing a roadmap that works for them to get towards this 2050 net-zero goal.

There are no one-size-fits-all, as each country is at different economic development in its challenges, energy dependencies and ability to undertake such a radical transition.

Where this report goes beyond what we have had in the past is its specific milestones (major ones shown here) that are dramatic and staggering in how necessary these are to offer a “viable” roadmap.

There are staggering changes ahead of us.

There is no scope for new fossil fuel developments anywhere in the world to get on the right and only trajectory of achieving the net-zero goal by 2050.  Again, no scope!! Just think, no scope and what that means in Asia, in China, India, Japan, Australia or in the USA, rich in coal, oil and gas.

The world has known for many years  (in the 1980s, at least) the need to address climate change. The ability to turn observation and scientific evidence into getting the global community deadly serious about eliminating carbon emissions is only just getting serious. The 2015 Paris Agreement offered the foundations of global consensus and still, we are not on that track firmly enough.

Can we in less than 5 to 10 years turn this into that decisive moment?

I have serious doubts, I mean serious ones, but we must try. The IEA modelling made some sweeping assumptions, courtesy of IEEFA:

The new IEA modelling assumes:

• Clean energy investment trebles to US$5 trillion p.a. by 2030, accelerating global economic growth in the process;
• Energy efficiency needs to deliver a 4% annual improvement globally by 2030;
• Global installs of variable renewable energy (VRE) need to quadruple from 2020 levels to 1,020 gigawatts (GW) annually through to 2030;
• EVs need to rise from 5% of global new car sales to 60% by 2030, with new internal combustion engine (ICE) car sales ceasing entirely by 2035;
• Global battery production for EVs needs to increase fortyfold to 6,600GWh annually;
• Global investment in grid transmission and distribution needs to treble to US$820bn annually; and
• Methane emissions globally from fossil fuel supplies must reduce by 75% by 2030, assisted by independent satellite tracking and incumbent players’ belated efforts as transparency increases.

Critically, the IEA has stopped buying the fossil fuel industry smokescreens of offsets and unfeasible technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) when talking about the global energy sector’s efforts over this coming decade, suggesting it will play only an immaterial role.

This acknowledgement of only factoring in commercially proven and likely technologies should clear up one of the major issues of placing investments behind unproven technology to deliver this decade.

Future technology, beyond 2030 becomes a different horizon.

Yet to get to that we need immense momentum in the next ten or so years that drive down emissions and stop fossil fuel investments.

Beyond 2030 new technology needs to be coming on stream for breakthroughs in what we have today in the areas of advanced batteries, hydrogen, bioenergy, CCUS air capture and storage and the IEA suggest RD&D investments need to treble to US$90bn annually to get these solutions future-ready.

The future of 2050 in this reports prediction

Two-thirds of total energy globally will come from renewable energy by 2050- that is wind, solar, hydro, bioenergy and geothermal. The one that needs really addressing in this decade is Nuclear as a viable option but that has “perception” and acceptance by not just climate activists but the populous at large. and that is not a very easy one but its solution might be vital to have within the new energy mix.

In the foreword to this report, Dr Fatih Birol, the Executive Director of the IEA he states:

“The world has a huge challenge ahead of it to move net-zero by 2050 from a narrow possibility to practical reality. Global carbon dioxide emissions are already rebounding sharply as economies recover from last year’s pandemic‐induced shock. It is past time for governments to act, and act decisively to accelerate the clean energy transformation”

The near-tern determines any hope for achieving the net-zero goals by 2050.

It is this near-term to even get onto a net-zero pathway it requires the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation for the next round of technology breakthroughs.

Am I optimistic, does this roadmap give me encouragement?

This report on a roadmap towards Net-Zero by 2050, is a must-read by anyone who wants to begin to understand their future.

Does the scenario spelt out in clear requirements what is needed, yes but…….

The “but” is if we can’t achieve a significant new set of global agreements, pledges and commitments at the November COP26 meeting in Glasgow, UK then what is deemed as a narrow window will close and 2050 will be a nightmare of climatic consequences because of the lack of decisive action and agreements needed now.

Decisions need to be made as to the impact are “collective ones”. The stance is these have to be fair, equitable and inclusive and here is where the politics kick in. and our political leadership needs to step up.

As the IEEFA states in their view of this report “IEA’s roadmap shows the global energy landscape is set to change profoundly, and at an unprecedented pace, as world leaders – governments, GSFI and corporates move to align with net-zero emissions by 2050 and a 1.5°C limit.

We live in exciting times. Get ready for exponential change in the global energy landscape!”

We need to move beyond hope and talk, otherwise, we lose the 2050 goal and then what happens?

The post A decade pivotal to a clean energy future. first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Credit Muhammad Muzamil, Unsplash

As we look across innovation for our energy transition solutions, let’s think a little more about social innovation. What is energy poverty? Why is this important to turn our innovative abilities towards resolving?

Energy poverty has no universal definition. Each country is at different levels of understanding. Here in Europe, I read a white paper by Schneider Electric, released in 2018, entitled “Overcoming poverty in Europe.”

There is no official definition of “energy poverty”, but to start somewhere, it can be described as the struggle to afford the ever-increasing cost of heating or lighting in homes or being able to cook food or heat water as a result of low income or bills that are too high. Energy poverty leads to suffering from the cold in winter and from the heat in summer.

This white paper suggests 40 plus million Europeans cannot adequately heat their homes and or in arrears on their energy bills. Over 16% of European households have abnormally high energy expenditure compared to income, and the overall numbers of Europeans there is 11% suffer from energy poverty.

It is estimated that between 50 to 125 million Europeans are affected, especially the elderly, single-parent families, unemployed or low-income households, and disabled people with chronic sickness.

These are shocking statistics just for Europe alone.

What are the same numbers in the USA or across the world in developing countries where so many do not have access to electricity and rely on wood or charcoal to cook or even heat their homes?

Thinking differently

Innovation is about change; it improves what we have or where we are, and what we face. It is always easy to think of energy improvements, technology acquisition, but what about those that fall out of the net?

Arguably you can raise the minimum wage level, lift income, and contain energy costs. But do these really get into the granularity of the solution needed to address energy poverty?

Where innovation can really kick in is resolving household energy efficiency. We all know of homes with leaking roofs, damp walls, floor or foundations or rot in window frames or infestation causing real deterioration of health, the environment, and conditions that so many people are facing.

What can be done in finding inventive solutions that can make a real difference? Not providing grants but linking improvement in homes with energy incentives. As so many of these homes are deemed “wasteful of energy, how can we change the low energy rating performance into a positive one in energy measurements?

Of course, energy cannot be solved by technology alone.

We need to think differently. Social innovation looks for appreciating and finding a deeper, shared and common understanding of how “others” live is realistically in this connected world, a problem we all need to address in imaginative new ways.

We need to think of society’s social fabric, apply social innovation, and find technology and business-related ideas that bring those suffering from energy poverty into our collective ecosystems. This can be through combining technology concepts addressing these specific energy poverty issues, supporting solutions in multiple ways, finding imaginative, innovative solutions, and bringing in philanthropy that is not just giving away but seeing “greater” return, lifting people out of this energy poverty,

The combination of health improvement by raising the conditions people find themselves makes for a more productive environment. The cost of mental disorders, poor health, stress, anxiety, and depression eventually cost society.

Social devaluation and low self-esteem ways down not just the person caught in this but the rising costs and burdens for the state, the local community, and public services. Imagine the cost of healthcare as a direct consequence of energy poverty.

What If?

What if we could find new innovative initiatives that create jobs, engage communities, and find new, exciting and pioneering business models that become thriving in micro-generating income, utilization and different payment models, based not just on money but a level of barter?

We can, of course, offer those “sweeping” regulation solutions that somehow lift some but seem not to get to the many that the funding was originally designed to help. We need to be pro-active, not reactive in what we do.

“After the event has occurred” is perhaps good to justify “payback”, but it is not what and where we should go, we need to find self-lifting solutions, self-organizing but within structures that reduce the cost of thousands of similar start-ups.

We need innovative solutions because they are universal and can be ramped up, applied, and offered improved solutions.

So, as we think about more innovation in the energy system, let’s not forget those in energy poverty and where communities, policies and energy providers can find imaginative solutions that stop the burden of debt recovery, (ever-rising) social costs and fragmented approaches.

The post Mobilizing Innovation around Energy Poverty first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

The missing value of distinctive innovation needs greater appreciation in the Energy Transition

I think we miss something and it is a great big pity.

Distinctive innovation is actually not just the middle ground, the passing through point towards breakthrough or disruptive, but it is the inspirational point for all of us to rally around far more than we do.

 Pushing for that extra effort takes something good to something even better; it gives it a certain distinctiveness. Inspiration within the innovation process is essential; it is a great motivating point to achieve far more in our identity with something distinctive than just incremental. Whatever we work upon in innovation, we should seek something distinctive as an outcome.

I don’t regard the latest flavoured yoghurt or improvements to our computer processor power speed or a few more pixels on our I-phone as anything more than incremental. Good to have as they keep pushing our experiences and add more value, but this is incremental value. This is to keep pushing up the awareness curve to extract longer value from the brand or product. I’m looking at something that makes it stand out, to be distinctive.

Examples Solar or Wind Turbines

These were new technology, groundbreaking solutions. They have opened up the energy future for renewables as they use sustainable energy sources; they harness the sun for solar and the wind for turbines. The ability to scale these has been a significant pathway of learning. I deem this, once we are past the invention and initial innovation as the true breakthroughs, we went into really distinctive phases of advancement. We harnessed the power of technology, engineering and design understanding

Mobiles moving from a simple mobile to our smartphones

The amazing breakthrough of smartphones became constant distinctive advancements of design, technology and again engineering. To shrink the capabilities to do what a smartphone can provide has been stunning.

There are six innovation areas of electrification, hydrogen, biochemistry and synthetic chemistry, material efficiency and circularity, new materials, and carbon capture and carbon use that need to have innovative solutions. Working on the innovations within these six critical areas does have a real chance of fully decarbonizing these harder-to abate sectors of the world’s economy.

For me, the sector in the report (Chapter 8) that discusses the innovation agenda was the place I automatically went.  The two crucial slides from the Mission Impossible Report for innovation were highlighted in the chapter, discussing bring critical technologies to commercial-scale deployment, addressing engineering complexities, and driving down costs.

Exhibit 8.1 presents a summary of critical domains where incremental performance and cost improvement of existing technologies is essential to facilitate commercial-scale deployment. It provides a roadmap to explore identified innovation solutions.

from the Mission Impossible Report by the Energy Transmission Commission (page145)

Exhibit 8.2 presents a summary of key areas where innovations are further away from the market and require significant development, demonstration, and piloting over the next 15 years to bring them to market readiness by the 2030s or 2040s. Again, the innovative concepts are known; it is the validation and scaling-up that needs time.

from the Mission Impossible Report by the Energy Transmission Commission (page146)

The Energy Transmission Commission rightly points out we will be discovering other innovation alternatives in the years ahead.

The state: “Unforeseeable technological breakthroughs will significantly change the optimal pathway to decarbonization over the next fifty years.”

 The driver of the real change must come from a very forceful public policy set of decisions that reach net-zero carbon emissions from the harder-to-abate sectors non-negotiable.

The post Where does distinctive innovation fit in the Energy Transition? first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.