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

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

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

I would argue we need to have a revolution!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I offer here some very rudimentary thinking at present

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we capable of such radical change?

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, convince me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BCG nicely summaries this:

Business As Usual Is Not an Option

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

When you consider that is a lot of cross-over, duplication of efforts on how the companies design, develop, and deliver new concepts as they stay within their own walls and R&D expertise,

Why can’t they throw open common challenges in finding solutions through contests, research investigations, accelerator programs, and open innovation platforms, looking for commonality and synergies?

Often the reluctance, besides the risk of giving something up, opening up to less internal work you need to explore the mechanisms for collaboration, we begin to think of ecosystem collaborations. The use of a common platform could provide helpful, knowledgeable, and higher levels of neutrality and overcome often needless arguments about who takes the lead and is the orchestrator. In Energy, the solution resolution to reduce current challenges in costs, fuel alternatives, and reducing the carbon footprint all need urgent addressing.

Besides finding the appropriate platform, however, I equally acknowledge that there are natural boundaries that any collaboration must overcome, such as competing priorities, intellectual property rights, organizational structures and cultures, regulatory and legal barriers, communication and coordination issues, and funding and resources. I wrote a series around cross-collaboration recently, here is the link to the first post.

All obstacles can be overcome and are “doable”. If you believe in the “need” to succeed at the energy transition as quickly as we can, then you have to be willing to open up your thinking to far greater collaborations. Complexities and challenges need collectively breaking down to find new solutions.

I also suggest that the opportunities lie in a number of “higher level” needs of common understanding and focus that are essential to transformation. These include Smart Grid development, Energy Storage, Grid Modernization and automation, and Electricity of transport. Cybersecurity and Data collaborations

Good cross- collaborations examples are where competition is transcended by energy solution needs that have common standards, potential and urgent need to scale, and can be offered in other geographical areas that need creative and modern solutions.

Also, we need to learn to be more effective in our collaborative approaches with multiple stakeholders, and policy regulators that having this level of greater collaboration would command serious attention and respect and lead, in many cases to industry solutions in more economical ways that over time speed up the Energy Transition.

The post How can we encourage more Collaborative Solutions in the Energy Transition? first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.