Next steps in the energy transition—a high-impact forum

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

The Paris Climate Agreement from December 2015 set a clear pathway for reducing global greenhouse-gas emissions to reach carbon neutrality around the middle of this century [1]. Energy production through fossil fuels constitutes around two-thirds of the emissions subject to be reduced and fossil fuels stand for ca 80% of all energy produced [2]. Energy is thus a central area for climate change mitigation, but unfortunately, the global emissions have not yet shown a declining trajectory toward the goals set emphasizing the urgency of measures to mitigate the climate crisis. The aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic with an economic upswing and the Russian invasion in Ukraine in year 2022 also raised new concerns on possible adverse effects on the emissions. The effects of increasing geopolitical tension cause uncertainty, e.g. through new trade barriers and fragmentation, which could have a negative impact on the deployment of clean energy technologies. Furthermore, China, Europe and the United States are increasingly competing on acquiring access to the critical minerals needed for different clean energy technologies, causing additional geopolitical tensions. Actually, the global fight for critical minerals is becoming costly and damaging with potential negative effects on the mitigation efforts [3]. On the positive side, increased uptake of new renewable energy technologies and political declarations of committing to reduce emissions, provide new hope for the future [4]. And the massive renewable energy investments were a key factor in successfully combating the much-feared energy crisis in Europe during the winter 2022/2023 due to the Russia–Ukraine war [5], reinforcing the confidence that expanding new energy technologies is the right path to take. However, moving on this path is not necessarily easy. Experiences to date show that energy transitions are highly complex and contain uncertainties and unknown positive or negative factors, which may emerge later (such as the present geopolitical issues). The transitions involve profound political and social dimensions which go beyond the traditional techno-economic or neo-classical economic thinking [6]. Thus, accelerating the transitions needs to be viewed more broadly than before, incorporating knowledge from several sectors and disciplines, covering emerging technologies, energy infrastructures, destabilizing and shifting energy systems, as well as markets, public policy, the economy and a range of cultural and social aspects. The war in Ukraine and its consequences also signal for more strongly linking energy security and climate change mitigation and adaptation together. To investigate the different facets of energy transitions and possible new directions in associated research, Oxford Open Energy journal issued a Special Collection (SC) of papers under the theme ‘Next Steps in the Energy Transition—A High-Impact Forum’ in summer 2022. The scope of the SC was intentionally defined broad enough to capture the latest stand of research and beyond, which could provide stronger scientific insight into the problems involved and solutions to accelerate the energy transitions. A strong multi-disciplinary approach was favored here. The Special Collection was launched through a webinar on 25 May 2022—‘The Energy Transition in the Current Crisis: Opportunity or Reversion?’ Close to 100 registrations were received. Three internationally well-known scientists first shared their views on ‘burning issues’ followed by an interactive online panel serving up a broad interdisciplinary conversation with references to the energy crisis resulting from the Russian war in Ukraine. In the webinar, Professor Patrick Bond from the University of the Western Cape, South Africa talked about ‘Energy justice and inequality issues’. Professor Bond covered burning issues related to natural gas in the South Africa, which is the largest greenhouse-gas emitter in Africa due mainly to coal-fired power plants. The electricity shortage sparked increased commercial interests—especially from TotalEnergies and Shell—in local fossil fuel extraction. South Africa may have 10 billion barrel-equivalents of natural gas deep offshore, which raises the question of whether gas would be a transitional fuel, or instead a stranded asset once global regulation of methane is tightened. On the other hand, eco-social mobilization against gas originating from civil society—on the beaches, at petrol stations and in six courtroom cases—stopped most of the seismic blasting exploration. The challenge is to fuse this movement with poor people’s movements for more free basic electricity (beyond 50 kWh/household/month at present), universal renewable energy and climate justice. Climate change is already responsible for extreme weather effects in the region, such as a ‘Rain Bomb’ in April 2022 with 500 fatalities. South Africa’s major contribution to emissions is raising the potential need for stronger penalties, such as Europe’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism tariff or related form of climate sanctions, so as to compel the state and corporations to cut the fossil-fuel habit. While local professional debates on energy and climate change are robust, the most important factor will be social mobilizations that can one day rise to the level that transformative actions require. Research Professor Paula Kivimaa from the Finnish Environment Institute, Finland, highlighted on ‘Security and Low-Carbon energy policies’. She told that prior to the attack of Russia on Ukraine rather little attention had been paid to what security implications the unfolding energy transitions have both via the expansion of renewable energy technologies and the phase out of fossil fuels. While the energy geopolitics literature had begun to explore this, the topic was not a part of sustainability transition or low-carbon energy transition research communities at the time. Professor Marie Münster from Technical University of Denmark, Denmark, discussed the ‘Natural gas dependency with Denmark as case study’ emphasizing the high reliance of many European countries on natural gas constituting a quarter of European Union (EU) energy consumption of which 80% is imported and 40% came from Russia (source: Eurostat). Denmark has also imported 80% of its natural gas demand, but the country has steadily decreased its reliance on natural gas. Hence, natural gas stands just for 15% of the energy consumed and furthermore 20% of the gas demand has been met by biomethane, ensuring a comparably high security of supply (source: Danish Energy Agency Statistics). She also compared the plans by the IEA [7], EU [8] and Denmark [9] for mitigating the negative effects of the Ukrainian war on the gas the security of supply. The plans all addressed measures over the full value chain from supply to demand including measures addressing the high energy prices. Many of the measures would assist the green transition based on energy savings and more renewables. The overview highlighted various possibilities on measures that could contribute to a green transition—and the need to avoid potential long term fossil lock-in effects during an energy crisis. In the panel discussion Chaired by Professor Lena Neij from Lund University, Sweden and Professor Peter D. Lund, Aalto University, Finland, the participants were asked to reflect on some of the topical questions below: How will the current war in Ukraine affect the energy transition: toward the Paris Agreement or away from it? What kind of geopolitical effects in energy could result from the crisis in Ukraine? How can the short-term actions in response to energy supply issues from the war in Ukraine be aligned with the long-term Paris Agreement goals to cut emissions? Who are the winners and losers in the present energy crisis? The key messages from the discussions underlined the uncertainty in the energy transition and in meeting the Paris Agreement. Many questions were raised, highlighting the need for research in several fields and for supporting a vibrant discussion on the topic engaging researchers from several disciplines. Energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy security were highlighted as key areas in the transformation process supported by research on innovative policy making and social innovation. The webinar was accompanied by a Call for Papers regarding the Special Collection on the ‘Next Steps in the Energy Transition—A High-Impact Forum’. The Guest-Editors chose 10 highly relevant papers for the SC as a selection comprising both invited papers and some otherwise submitted to the year 2022 issue of Oxford Open Energy. This set of papers covered both fundamental and applied themes on the energy transitions, policy and social issues, implications, technologies and implementation, among others. Next, a short resume of the key findings of the ten papers is given: In his opinion paper, ‘Perspectives on the pervasive energy-systems transformations’, Nakicenovic [10] emphasized the need for a fundamental energy-systems transformation that will bring multiple co-benefits for health, climate and other challenges facing humanity and especially those without access to affordable and clean energy services. Zero-carbon electricity and electrification of energy end use were perceived central to achieving higher efficiencies, decarbonization and net-zero emissions. But at the same time, one should not forget the transition is about people, societies and about values and behaviors. A key question will be whether humanity will have the political will to collectively achieve the energy-systems transformation toward a sustainable future and net-zero emissions in merely three decades. In their research article, ‘Faster, broader, and deeper! Suggested directions for research on net-zero transitions’, Andersen et al. [11] discussed how the net-zero challenge presents transition scholarship with four enhanced research challenges that merit more attention: (1) the speed, (2) breadth and (3) depth of transitions as well as (4) tensions and interactions between these. Attention needs to be paid to both new technology and new social practices and ways of living the variety of systems and sectors, the interactions between them, and the social tensions that can emerge in the face of rapid change. In their research paper, ‘Implementing the EU Climate Law via the “Fit for 55” package’, Schalke et al. [12] brought forward the importance of the legal framework needed for the implementation of greenhouse gas reduction objective using the EU Climate Laws as a case. The analysis showed that the European Commission still generally pursues a climate legislation characterized by a mix of instruments and policies being both price-based and regulatory. Thus, even though the major proposed change in the EU framework—introduction of a second separate emissions trading system—would strengthen the role of carbon pricing, the Commission still relies on a mix of instruments without defining a leading instrument. In their research paper, ‘Fit for social innovation? Policy reflections for EU energy and climate policy making’, Rogge et al. [13] noted that EU’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 55% by 2030 requires an accelerated transformation of our systems of both production and consumption, and as such transformations are socio-technical change processes this will require a combination of technological and social innovation. They highlighted the importance of social innovation as part of energy transitions—a perspective that has only recently began to emerge. Such social innovation is diverse, ranging from renewable energy cooperatives to participatory incubation and experimentation, and crowdfunding as well as local electricity exchange. The authors proposed 12 practical action points on how to better consider social innovation in energy and climate policy making. In their research article, ‘Phases of fossil fuel decline: diagnostic framework for policy sequencing and feasible transition pathways in resource dependent regions’, Nacke et al. [14] discussed the phasing out of fossil fuels which will require destabilizing incumbent regimes while protecting vulnerable groups negatively affected by fossil fuel decline. Via a conceptual literature review, they argued that the sequencing of destabilization and just transition policies in a suitable manner need to address three policy problems: phasing out fossil fuels, transforming affected industries and ensuring socio-economic recovery in fossil resource-dependent regions. Each phase includes risks, e.g. in the first phase lock-in or persistence of status quo. The authors illustrate a diagnostic tool for the phases of coal decline. The authors proposed three phases of decline—lock-in, destabilization and decay and phase out—which they illustrated in three geographical contexts. In their research article, ‘The 1.5°C climate and energy scenarios: impacts on economic growth’, Ekins et al. [15] explored the various impacts on economic growth in the scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to limit the average global temperature increase to 1.5°C. They found that the impacts are generally small and that in no case is ‘degrowth’ required, although the requirements for the rate and nature of technological developments are challenging. Kivimaa [16] discussed the coordination challenge of public policies between different administrative sectors—more specifically low-carbon energy and national security and defence policies—in her research article ‘Policy and political (in)coherence, security and Nordic–Baltic energy transitions’. Policy coordination was noted to be difficult because administrative sectors have long traditions, their own worldviews, and specific objectives they seek to advance which are difficult to align. The paper focused on the complications of achieving coherence between energy and security policies in the Nordic–Baltic European region. The analysis was based on qualitative research interviews in three countries: Estonia, Finland and Norway. The analysis showed that the countries have significant differences and interesting features for horizontal policy coherence connected to the European energy transition. For example, in Finland and Norway prior to 2022, political incoherence also led to incoherence between policy domains and in policy mixes addressing zero-carbon energy transitions and national security. In conclusion she noted that the geopolitical landscape and the European energy crisis have created a heightened need to address coherence between security policies and energy transition policies to recognize and address systemic risks in a transforming world. In their paper, ‘Community engagement and sustainability: two cases of implementation of mini-grids in Lesotho’, Tsoeu-Ntokoane et al. [17] dealt with key governance issues of implementing clean energy in emerging economies using Lesotho communities as case. Centralized energy governance seemed less effective in solving conflicts compared to decentralized ones. Poor communication and lack of will to respond to community needs caused dissatisfaction and misunderstanding toward centralized energy. Decentralized energy projects were more likely to be sustainable because of community participation and engagement. Doering et al. [18] dealt with key factors affecting the viability of emissions-free power systems through evaluating the impact of multi-scale hydroclimatic variability on the reliability of a zero-emissions power system using New York State as a case. They analyzed covariation between renewable energy generation and energy demand, and quantified resource gaps across spatiotemporal scales. They concluded that the covariability between load and wind can lead to major short-term resource gaps, which is exacerbated by transmission constraints. Also, long-duration hydropower droughts increase the likelihood of co-occurring renewable resource deficits and extended periods (weeks to months) of energy shortage. Grünewald et al. [19] discussed integration of energy storage with renewables and the key metrics and market signals that are needed to guide the energy transition toward clean solutions. Once storage has displaced fossil-fuel power it will be more difficult to show the carbon benefit of storage. Other metrics than carbon alone may therefore be necessary. There is a need to better understand the placement of storage in the energy system and grids. The Online Webinar and Special Collection gave good insights into the concrete issues across different disciplines we are dealing with in the energy transition, while not a comprehensive one—leaving scope for further research. One conclusion from these is that the energy transition and its many layers need to be dealt as a whole when seeking for solutions. In this respect, possibilities exist to limit global warming while ensuring a high level of security of supply, which is key to keep focus on, also in the light of a gas crisis. What is evident is that increased empirical and conceptual research is needed on the processes via which energy transition accelerates—namely the processes of decline and decay of old energy systems and the processes by which new energy technologies become part of the mainstream. Such research should also explore in depth the short-, medium- and long-term implications and complexity of such processes to social innovation, social justice, security and the economy. In parallel, the webinar indicated a need for open discussions engaging researchers from various disciplines to jointly elaborate on various aspects on the required energy transition. Looking on how the next steps in energy transition may have evolved over the last year or so, many weak signals at that time have been strengthened evolving into new main themes to be monitored. These include, for instance, the following: Importance to link together energy security aspects more strongly with climate change mitigation and adaptation measures; New and changing facets of geopolitics that can affect clean energy deployment globally; Increasing global fragmentation that could also influence the pace of the energy transition; The impact of global economy and inflation; Increasing intensity of extreme weather events globally that may influence climate policies; New technological advancements in clean energy that could become disruptive (digitalization/artificial intelligence, new materials leading to breakthroughs, etc.); The nature and role of social innovation in complementing technological innovation; The lack of climate solidarity, e.g. overlooking the capital shortage to invest in clean energy solutions in the less-developed world; More focus on social dimension of climate-friendly transformation. The Guest-Editors of this Special Collection hope that its contents will further stimulate the dialogue on the energy transition advancing our understanding of its challenges which could lead to more effective solutions and accelerate their deployment. Oxford Open Energy will continue to offer a for such a dialogue in the The authors Oxford University for the in the webinar in May 2022 and with the in and Professor from the University of and and Professor Patrick Bond from University of the Western Cape, South Africa are also for their was Peter D.