Energy Transition

Why the Energy Transition Will Take Longer Than Expected by Marek Majtan

“There is no question in my mind that things are different now,” he adds. “However, a factor that is frequently overlooked is how much additional energy is required to substitute in comparison to earlier transitions.”

When coal began to be burned at a greater rate than biomass in the late 1800s, the total amount of energy that was used on a worldwide scale was around 500 million tons of oil equivalent. If we wanted to replace half of the world’s use of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources in 2010, it would require almost 4.5 billion tons of oil equivalent. Additionally, renewables often have an EROI that is much lower than that of coal and oil (although the gap is shrinking). This indicates that in order to generate the same quantity of energy, much more power plants and fuel producing facilities will be required.

Marek Majtan explained it by performing great analyses as he finds himself immersed in the energy transition. It is not only possible but also desirable to move toward a more decentralized energy infrastructure that is powered by renewable sources of energy. These alternative energy sources have the backing of even the established energy companies.

However, a significant number of those same oil, coal, and gas corporations have made investments in infrastructure that won’t start paying off for decades. To believe that they would give up their assets completely is a ridiculous notion.

According to Smil, as a result of these considerations, the shift to renewable energy sources will be slow and methodical rather than rapid and revolutionary. After all, non-hydro renewable energy sources still only account for around 2.5% of the world’s total demand for power. Since the beginning of commercial production, it took the natural gas business fifty years to achieve ten percent of the global energy mix, but it only took the nuclear sector twenty-seven years to accomplish the same feat.

“The integration of renewable energy sources should undoubtedly be a priority for us. The greater the number, the better. According to Smil, “but let’s be realistic, this is a multi-decade approach, and it cannot be accomplished in one or even two decades.” This debate has the potential to be either invigorating or disheartening, depending on how you choose to interpret it. In my opinion, it satisfies the criteria for both.

It should come as no surprise that we urgently need widespread adoption of energy sources that are both cleaner and more renewable. But despite the fact that lofty objectives such as “100% renewable by 2020” are admirable, they do not do the magnitude of the undertaking nearly enough credit.

Having said that, there aren’t very many occurrences of this magnitude that simply “happen.” To get renewable energy production up to scale will need an unbelievable amount of drive. And remember that setting the bar high, even if it is unachievable at times, is an essential step in the process of developing the necessary momentum.