Forbes contributors publish independent expert analyses and insights.
What is an "energy transition"? You might think, given its wide use in energy-related discussions, that it has an official definition. In fact, no. Different thinkers, think tanks, agencies, organizations, and more, all have their own specific versions. You then might assume that these overlap, so we can find a useful amalgam. But again, no.
Definitions do not share bread easily with one another. Some are technical and quantitative; some prefer economic or resource factors. Some take the viewpoint of energy producers, while others adopt the consumer perspective. Finally, there are those who deny the very idea has any merit.
In short, we may not really know what is being invoked by this most common of terms. Those who have tried to think deeply about the matter sometimes insist that "energy transition" is not really a singular concept but more like a multifaceted lens to help focus on the ways in which modern society has altered itself from the inside out.
The true challenge of defining this key term seems reflect in the fact that the IPCC -- the organization most responsible for definitive analyses of climate change and its causes -- offers no version of its own, even in its latest, Sixth Assessment Report. Be that as it may, there are several main "theories" that suggest it is, in fact, a term with rich possibilities that are worth contemplating, especially if we are going to continue using it.
Theories About An Energy Transition And What It Means
The concept of "energy transition" as a subject of theoretical thinking is neither new nor recent. It can be found as early as 1911, in the textbook Matter and Energy by the Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddy, a chemist who proposed a changeover from the "Age of Coal" to new sources soon to appear.
A more quantitative "Primary Energy Substitution Model" later appeared in a 1975 paper by the physicist Ceasare Marchetti when he was working at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria. The statistical model yielded a graph of wave-like rises and falls spanning 100+ years, beginning with coal in 1750 and progressing through oil, gas, and nuclear to 2050.
The wave form was predictive and deterministic; it proposed energy systems had their own, fixed internal logic. What makes Marchetti important is that he based his modeling on a Darwinian-economic scheme, with different sources competing against each other in a market -- a view that has carried to the present.
Take, for example, the ideas of Vaclav Smil, widely considered one of the deans of energy analysis. For Smil, a "transition" is defined by market share and time: it is the period between the commercial introduction of a new energy source and its rise to a substantial share -- typically defined as 25% to 50% -- of the overall market. By this metric, transitions are slow, generational drifts. Moving from wood to coal, for example, involved a shift from "prolonged stagnation" to a slow climb of use that required the entire 19th century. A massive inertia of existing infrastructure had to be overcome and replaced.
For the historian E.A. Wrigley, meanwhile, the key energy transition of the past millennium was not about percentages, but about escaping a kind of fundamental material boundary. This was the move from an "Organic Economy," rooted in photosynthesis, to a "Mineral Economy" based on Earth materials. Under Wrigley's definition, the change was a liberation from the annual solar cycle. The pre-industrial world was essentially a sunlight-fed prisoner. Every joule of energy available to a 17th-century society -- whether in the form of wheat for a laborer, hay for a horse, or timber for a hearth -- was limited by the annual cycle of plant photosynthesis and the surface area of available land.
By tapping into coal, humanity gained access to a "vertical frontier," beneath the ground. Energy production and economic growth were no longer chained to the surface of the Earth. The massive resources it held below ground could now be exploited.
Another way of thinking about transitions in energy is favored by economists like Roger Fouquet and Peter Pearson. They argue that focusing solely on sources, whether coal or solar power -- misses the actual mechanism of change. Such change involves multidimensional shifts that include "prime movers" and "energy services". The transition from the horse to the steam engine, or from the steam engine to the electric motor, fundamentally altered the "prime mover" -- the actual technology that converts energy into work.
Fouquet and Pearson see this as critical, because a shift or innovation in the prime mover can be more transformative than a change in the fuel itself. They also cite the example of how the move from an open hearth to a closed stove was a massive efficiency transition that happened within the wood-burning era.
None Of This Ever Really Happened Or Ever Will
Ultimately, these theories tend to converge on a single perception: energy transitions are not events. They are eras or epochs. Whether defined by Smil's market shares, Wrigley's land constraints, or Fouquet's prime movers, they are gradual, structural metamorphoses that unfold over lifetimes. This is because they do not so much replace the past as build a more complex future upon it.
This perception has encouraged other thinkers to be skeptical about the very idea of a "transition." The very word, they maintain, is a misnomer that distorts our understanding of what has actually occurred. Scholars like Jean-Baptiste Fressoz and Richard York, for example, propose that we should instead speak of energy "addition" or even "accumulation." Their definition rests on an idea: a true transition would require the absolute decline of an incumbent energy source; but this isn't what history shows.
When nations have shifted to coal, they did not stop burning wood. In fact, today the world burns more biomass than it did in the 19th century. When society "transitioned" to oil in the 20th century, coal consumption did not vanish; it continued to reach new, staggering heights to provide the steel, cement, and electricity needed for a petroleum-transport world.
Fessoz and York say the historical record reveals that we stack new energy sources on top of the old ones, creating a complex, sedimentary layer of fuel usage and infrastructure. In their view, "transitions" are a statistical illusion since in physical terms the "old" fuels remain as vital and present as ever. Though they do not say so, they could also point to the fact that humanity didn't just begin with wood -- it used sun, wind, and water as well; all of which have remained core elements in the use of energy to the present day.
All Of The Above Including None Of The Above
Needless to say, all of these ideas suggest we might rethink or at least open for debate the energy transition we presumably inhabit in 21 century. This does have a common (though still unofficial) definition-- "the global change from fossil fuel-based systems of production and consumption to renewable energy sources like wind solar hydropower." This is the version that appears in very diverse sources whether financial intelligence firm S&P Global or UN Development Program.
It is problematic however and not very useful. It leaves out nuclear hydrogen artificial photosynthesis and any other non-renewable sources and technologies that either exist or might appear this century. The absence of nuclear—a worldwide source now in a new era of expansion—suggests a political position inhabits the “green transition” idea.
Such ideas are unhelpful for understanding what is really happening in global energy change. A clear-eyed look at the current data unburdened by hopeful or magical forecasts will tend to support the Fressoz-York theory of “addition.” The total volume of fossil fuels now extracted and consumed has yet to plateau or decline also true in power generation. On the global stage newer renewables can easily be viewed as having enlarged the number of energy sources and reduced the rate of growth in existing ones as humanity’s demand for modern energy continues to increase.
An important point made by some of the theories discussed is that innovations do not stop happening in existing source technologies. This very much includes the finding, extracting, and consuming of carbon. The most obvious example has been multistage hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," which unleashed the shale revolution, making huge new resources available. But this wasn't the end of the story. There are many individual technologies that make up the fracking process, from drilling to production, and all of them have been improved by new innovations intended to lower costs and improve recovery. Nothing stands still in the energy domain.
I mention Fressoz and York in this regard, but I don't think they have the last word. To maintain that in the last two centuries there have been no real transitions, no fundamental evolutionary shifts in how humanity has built and powered the world, seems insufficient to the depth of change that has taken place.
One Energy Transition To Rule Them All?
All of the theories reviewed above have their merits. Each captures a core aspect of what has happened since Richard Arkwright opened his first mill at Cromford in 1771, ringing in the Industrial Revolution. This suggests they aren't at odds with one another but might be combined in some way.
One possibility is to view the last 250 years as single era of continual transition. Rather than a story of source competition and dominance, this would portray phases of growth in the number of sources; their evolving applications; infrastructure; environmental impact; and so on. The pre-industrial phase—where wood,sun,wind,and water were used—evolved into a phase where all these,+coal were present;the next where all these plus oil/hydropower were added&began to increase.And so on.
Two points might be helpful to add.First,the introduction of electricity on a commercial scale in late 19 century marked a pivotal moment in history of energy.Though secondary energy “vector,”it became more fundamental to modern existence than any primary fuel—indeed,every new source technology past 80 years—from nuclear solar—aims power generation.
Second,present era marks unique shift.Two major threats—impact climate change global mortality associated air pollution—brought powerful shared reasons humanity whole take direct control energy development.Early 21 century finds itself midst struggle alter world’s energy future,use powers government,corporate policy,scientific research-consumer choice.Efforts reduce even eliminate coal,reduce oil,grow non-carbon sources underway though highly disputed certain continue.This new phenomenon history modern energy.
I offer these ideas less stake claim theoretical landscape than suggest that concept “energy transition” far simple agreed upon.More than ever,it deserves questioning debate.The view that our current era merely one where fossil fuels being replaced solar wind poorly matches more richly complex contested attempt human beings gain control energy systems make modern existence possible.