The energy transition and our energy addiction

Since it was signed in 2016, the Paris Agreement has become woven into the fabric of nearly every conversation about climate change, writes Karen Bomber, CCO at ABB Energy Industries.

As the world’s foremost, legally-binding climate commitment, almost everything we do in energy is influenced by its main requirement: limiting global surface temperature increase to less than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, while aiming to keep it to 1.5 °C.

The Agreement is why so many ESG plans stipulate 2030 and 2050 targets; we must make progress now to be prepared for later. It also guides the structure of national decarbonisation policies and is one of the main yardsticks by which we measure the impact of energy transition initiatives. These are ambitious targets and hugely important to the future of the world.

But it is important to remember that our path to action is not straightforward, so we need to use every tool in our belt if we’re going to make the progress we need to meet these milestones.

There is no single route to a low carbon future

While the Paris Agreement enables a collective understanding of the destination we need to reach globally, a significant part of the work to reach climate goals is learning how to view the challenge through a wider lens to start identifying and mapping multiple routes that will get us there.

The reasons for this are familiar. The costs associated with decarbonisation and the energy transition are a significant hurdle for any business, industry, or country to overcome and require an ambitious mix of capital investment and policy incentives.

The technologies essential for achieving a low carbon future are currently in the development phase, presenting an exciting opportunity for innovation.

While it’s still being determined which solutions will provide the most significant net benefits, this uncertainty opens the door for exploration and advancement in various promising technologies. And, we must be conscious of how our approach to decarbonisation, much like climate change itself, can disrupt communities and societies in ways that need to be carefully managed.

All that said, one part of this calculation that is often overlooked is the reality of our relationship with energy.

Thinking about my own experience, I’ve gone through life seeing the world around me getting remarkably more efficient, from LED lighting that delivers more illumination using less power, to more aerodynamic vehicles that go further using less fuel.

Have you read?
The vital role of R&D in the energy transition
How space data is aiding tracking of steel sector decarbonisation

And yet, I’m certain that my own personal energy needs have not always fallen as a result. The benefit of modern convenience means I rely on more devices, more computational power, more appliances in the home and more machines out in the world as part of my day-to-day lifestyle – and all of that results in more energy consumption.

Even as someone who is energy conscious, I can’t claim that my personal footprint reduction is keeping up with those hard-won technological improvements. And my experience certainly isn’t unique.

We’re also seeing the same story play out at a macro level. The broad efficiency gains in technology aren’t translating into lower electricity demand in high-income areas like the US and the EU where demand has largely stayed level. In fact, our energy demand just continues to expand to fully utilize our energy supply.

Making progress amid an energy addiction

Our collective inability to reduce usage is what I refer to as our energy addiction. People should and naturally will adopt useful energy-dependent technologies as they emerge, but we need to acknowledge the fundamental pattern of global demand growth. It adds a real challenge to meeting decarbonisation targets by putting the world in a situation where emissions must be reduced while the bar of usage constantly rises.

Taken in isolation, we might look at net zero targets and be tempted to think only in terms of turning off the taps on the traditional energy infrastructure we have now. But doing so would disrupt supply; there are simply not enough low-carbon options currently available that would work in the context of our energy addiction. It’s also critical not to limit the availability of energy to communities who lack access; any move to decarbonise should not put at risk delivering reliable, affordable and secure energy to all.

There is no obvious ceiling on our energy demands, and so much of the demand growth to come will be for reasons worth celebrating – extending availability to millions who today are without access to a modern energy system. Given the rapid, ongoing evolution of energy requirements, our energy transition strategies must be flexible, diverse and responsive.

Rather than a static focus on only emissions reduction, change needs to happen in a more dynamic way that can adapt to the complex, evolving reality of our energy ecosystem. 

For some people, that will mean letting go of the idea that there are any definitive or universal answers.

Stay open and move forward

When I speak to energy leaders across industry, there’s a growing awareness of the ultimate responsibilities we have when it comes to climate goals. At the same time, an underlying question always emerges and re-centers the conversation to focus not on what a business or an industry will look like in 2030, 2050, or 2070  – it’s about what is possible and achievable today, and what we need to do to make it happen.

Often these conversations are anchored in new, renewable energy infrastructure, like solar and wind power, which tend to be put in the spotlight. It’s important to recognize that if we can optimize and adapt long-standing energy infrastructure in ways that help meet growing demand while reducing emissions intensity, we should. It needs to be an AND not an OR equation.

For some operators, that will mean converting existing plants to serve low carbon industries, as we are starting to see advancements in alternative fuels and green hydrogen. Or, it might mean introducing carbon capture storage (CCS) into existing processes to ensure that production of vital resources like concrete can keep flowing in a more sustainable way.

It could mean electrifying key thermal industrial processes to dial down fossil fuel usage. And, for almost all energy-intensive areas, it will mean modernizing and digitalizing management in ways that generate better insights into where we can improve efficiency using technology like digital twins.

The inspiring thing about these energy transition possibilities is that they remove the decision-making paralysis that can come when you try to work back from 2050. They let us make net additions to the energy ecosystem while reducing emissions. 

We are making progress on reducing emissions. Part of this progress is accepting that not every initiative will create zero-emissions operations but will get us closer to our collective goal. There is so much we can be doing if we focus on progress over perfection and keep up with the realities of growing energy needs.

Ultimately, exploring a diverse range of solutions will lead to faster, more sustainable progress towards a decarbonised economy.