Origins and Evolution of Energy Transition
The global discourse on energy transitions has taken center stage at major climate conferences like COP29, being held in Azerbaijan from November 11th to 22nd. The phrase "energy transition" dominates these discussions, reflecting an evolved approach to combating climate change. Once seen as a matter of adapting to inevitable environmental consequences, the modern notion of an energy transition envisions a proactive strategy to halt global warming. However, this concept, as argued by French academic Jean-Baptiste Fressoz in a newly translated book, has been diluted to near meaninglessness. The historical and contemporary realities of energy systems challenge the oversimplified narratives surrounding energy transitions, as well as their implications for future policies.
The term "energy transition" was first introduced in 1967 by physicist Harrison Brown. Brown envisioned it as a managed shift from the use of finite fossil fuels to a sustainable energy landscape driven by nuclear power. This vision mirrored the demographic transition model, which explains population stabilization through wealth and health advancements. Yet, within a decade, the term’s meaning shifted. By the late 1970s, then-President Jimmy Carter used "energy transition" to describe a progression from wood to coal, and then to oil and gas—a reinterpretation popularized by Cesare Marchetti, an Italian physicist. Marchetti viewed energy transitions as gradual and inevitable outcomes of technological innovation, rather than as deliberate responses to resource scarcity.
This interpretation, which resonates with current climate discourse, overlooks the messiness of historical energy shifts. At the time of Carter’s address, coal use in the United States was not declining; in fact, coal consumption rivaled natural gas and was increasing. This historical inaccuracy underscores a key critique: energy transitions are rarely clean breaks. More often, they result in additive or transformative changes rather than outright replacements.
In With The New and Out With Old: It’s Not That Easy
Fressoz’s analysis challenges the popular focus on technological innovation in energy histories, emphasizing instead what energy sources were in widespread use. For instance, the so-called "coal age" was still heavily reliant on wood as late as 1900. Similarly, while fossil fuels are credited with ushering in modern industrial societies, their infrastructure has often relied on older materials. In early 20th-century Britain, wood was used extensively in coal mining operations, while the oil industry’s initial infrastructure consisted of wooden derricks and tanks.
Even today, fossil fuel infrastructures intertwine with traditional materials. Steel production—a cornerstone of modern infrastructure—relies on coal-fired furnaces, making coal indispensable to industries like oil. Paradoxically, companies such as Vallourec, which supply steel tubing to the oil sector, use vast quantities of wood to produce charcoal for steelmaking. This irony highlights the persistent dependence on legacy materials and processes in supposedly modernized systems.
Fressoz warns that the current framing of energy transitions risks promoting complacency. By treating historical shifts as straightforward replacements, policymakers may underestimate the scale of systemic change required to reduce fossil fuel dependency. Subsidizing renewable energy, while necessary, is insufficient on its own. A complete phase-out of fossil fuels entails significant structural adjustments akin to an amputation rather than a gradual evolution.
The interconnectedness of global energy systems further complicates these transitions. For example, megacities like Lagos, Kinshasa, Dakar, and Dar es Salaam consume more wood today than entire European countries did a century ago. This persistent reliance on traditional energy sources in developing regions challenges the notion of universal progress toward modern energy systems.
The Challenge of Coal Dependency
Coal remains a significant hurdle in global efforts to combat climate change. As the dirtiest fossil fuel, coal accounts for a third of global energy consumption. Shutting down coal plants could yield substantial climate benefits, given their outsized contribution to global carbon dioxide emissions. Since the first coal-powered generator was deployed in London in 1882, coal use has expanded exponentially. Today, over 7,000 coal plants worldwide generate a combined capacity of 2,470 gigawatts, producing around 12 billion tonnes of CO2 annually.
The cumulative emissions from coal—800 billion tonnes since 1882—are the largest single contributor to the 1.2°C increase in global temperatures since pre-industrial times. Yet, transitioning away from coal poses enormous economic and political challenges. Current estimates suggest that compensating investors for their losses in shuttering coal plants would cost $5.7 trillion, equivalent to three years’ worth of global clean energy investments.
Weighing Costs and Benefits
Despite the high upfront costs, early action to phase out coal offers greater long-term benefits. By avoiding emissions now, the atmospheric warming potential of CO2 is significantly reduced, delivering greater returns on investment compared to delayed efforts. For instance, every dollar spent on coal plant closures today is estimated to be 30% more effective in mitigating warming than if spent a decade later.
The cost-efficiency of such efforts also compares favorably with other carbon reduction strategies. For example, the estimated cost per tonne of CO2 avoided through early coal plant closures is $34, far lower than typical carbon offsets ($85 per tonne) or carbon capture and storage technologies (over $600 per tonne).
The Political and Practical Barriers: A Conclusion on Transition
However, the practicalities of eliminating coal use globally are daunting. The financial compensation required would involve transferring billions of dollars to entities in countries like China, where ownership structures may be opaque. Furthermore, the sheer scale of coal infrastructure worldwide makes an overnight transition unrealistic.
Nonetheless, the urgency of addressing climate change demands bold thinking and calculated solutions. The compounded benefits of reduced emissions underscore the importance of decisive action. By acknowledging the historical complexities of energy transitions, policymakers can better grasp the monumental task of restructuring global energy systems to achieve climate goals.
The history of energy transitions reveals a pattern of coexistence rather than replacement, challenging simplistic narratives of progress. Fossil fuels have entrenched themselves deeply within industrial systems, making their removal a formidable task. To address climate change effectively, policymakers must adopt a nuanced understanding of energy systems, recognizing the scale and interconnectedness of global material flows. While the challenges are immense, so too are the potential rewards of building a sustainable energy future. Early and decisive action, though costly, offers the most efficient pathway to mitigating the long-term impacts of climate change.
Comments