Dave Waters, Paetoro Consulting UK Ltd

I’m concluding that when it comes to problem solving, many of us fall into several broad camps, and that it’s all to do with how we perceive big holes.

Some of us in Camp 1, when faced with a big hole take the stance: That has to be filled in, however long it takes.

Some of us in Camp 2, when faced with a big hole take the stance: That’s a very big hole, let’s re-route around it.

There is another subset in Camp 3, that are too busy looking at their smartphone and just fall in. 

Finally, there is a subset in Camp 4, that say: It’s a hole, we’re doomed. Doomed I say. 

It strikes me we are all looking at the same, one, very big energy hole. That hole represents the gap between what we can do renewably now, and the total of what we are currently using.

Not rocket science. If we’ve heard it said once over the past few years, we’ve heard it a thousand times. 

For Camp 1, the most urgent thing is the presence of a very threatening very real, hole. They use whatever device they can to try and fill it, even if that involves running to and fro with a teaspoon full of sand to fill the hole. They will keep at it for as long as it takes. And you know what, although it’s just a teaspoon, and it’s a very big hole, eventually they will figure out ways of conveying the filler much faster, so even though it looks silly to start with, to camps 2-4 - why not let them make a start? They’ll get better, or if they don’t manage it, well then eventually they’ll “get-it” and join one of the other camps when they’ve exhausted their own attempts. 

For Camp 2, any sense of trying to attack this hole directly looks futile, and they are totally focussed only on what the previous hole-filling Camp 1 is [not] achieving now, and not what they might achieve in the future. They are the “out of the box” crew looking to try some new and untested path.  It will take a lot of planning, and lot of thought, not be particularly fast, and for all we know their new path might lead though a crocodile infested swamp. But you know, they might just manage it and find a route that means we don’t have to worry so much about the big hole. Or if they don’t manage it, well then again, eventually they’ll “get-it” and join one of the other camps when they’ve exhausted their own attempts.

For Camp 3, it’s all about waiting until they’ve fully digested all the information, and they will be distracted by nothing, never mind how big the hole ahead is. The saving grace is that the hole actually has a few ledges on the way down, and the hope is once they’ve fallen in and bounced down a few ledges, they’ll accept a rope from the others, climb up, and choose one of the other camps.  Still checking out their smart phones, but at least stopping to do so and looking where they are going.

For Camp 4, the end-of-the-world-is-nigh-ers, well actually, they may be right, and if nothing else they serve a purpose of ensuring there is no Camp 5 – namely those who know nothing about the hole. But if Camp 1 or Camp 2 manage to get to the other side of the hole, or to fill it in, they’ll happily hop on board the bus to follow and forget they were ever worried about it. 

So, do we want to try and change who people are? Do we want to try and force people into being one camp or the other? Good luck with that. Never been done really. Changing the diversity in human nature a far more difficult task than a big hole. 

We are only capable of really changing when we perceive the need for it ourselves. So, call me naive, but I say let each camp get on with it. Whichever camp proves right in the end, the less energy that we expend arguing about which camp is right, and the more time we spend addressing the issue of the rather big hole, the better.

So, all right, it’s not quite that simple. Real money is being spent on all those things, and so the argument goes, it could be spent on better things. But let’s get a sense of perspective here. When the world spends about 2 trillion dollars each year on military expenditure, currently rising about 3.5% per year, frankly we can afford a few false trails on an energy front. Currently the IEA estimates global governments spend about $30 billion on energy R&D and that private corporations spend about $95 billion. From a "global" taxpayer perspective, that means government energy R&D spend is about 1.5% of annual military spend. We may have an eeny-weeny priorities issue here.

It will be frustrating letting the other camps do their thing, when we are always so totally convinced our own camp is right, but the best course of action is surely just to crack on and do it. Actions speak louder than words. Slamming the ball through the hoop or the goal says a lot more a whole lot louder than the pre-game pep talk. "Time will tell in the end" may sound like a lazy cliché, but it is inevitably also true. Human progress is rarely methodical. It’s not quite random either, but somewhere in-between. Let it be a bit erratic. 

For my part, as someone starting out in my career as an oil and gas industry geoscientist, I know the transition away from hydrocarbon combustion is going to take time – and that means in all likelihood that there will be real environmental costs and impacts we will have to deal with as a consequence of the delay. There is a temptation in this circumstance to become the Camp 3. Is the hole really that big? Sensing the scale of the shift required, a temptation to hold off doing too much until we are sure. Keep staring at that smartphone... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Similarly, it’s possible to view the solely renewable energy crew as Camp 1 – as looking silly trying to fill such a big hole with a teaspoon of sand. To be fair that’s an exaggeration, but when only about 11% of global primary energy is renewably supplied and fully 7% (i.e. 63% of that 11%) is the big hydro projects of which there are fewer to be found in the future (biggest and best have already happened), then it’s not that far off. Wind and solar hit about 4% now.

For all those pointing at the recently trumpeted achievement of 40% of electricity generation in the EU being renewably sourced in Q1 & Q2 of 2020, more than fossil fuels for the first time, well that’s great, but do recall that this is just electrical power generation. It’s not, in other words, the full total energy consumption, which also includes all the non-electrical uses of energy like most vehicles and aviation, much heating, and those industries using heat that is not supplied by power. With that taken into account, in 2019 the EU’s renewable portion was just under 19%. Not stellar, but to be fair, more than a teaspoon of sand too. Recall though, that EU is probably the most advanced of all the big world powers on this front, so globally the story is worse.

But this is missing that point that Camp 1 are just getting started, and who knows where it will lead. That rate of filling the hole might seem pathetic now, but it is accelerating, and all sorts of new options for filling it faster are emerging. It might only be 4% now, but remember it was zippedy-doo-dah not so long ago. Will it accelerate enough to make a real difference? We don’t know yet, but there is very little to lose by trying. Or to put it another way there is a hell of a lot more to lose by continuing to spend such stupid amounts of money on new technologies to kill each other.

Then there is good old Camp 2. These are the “third-way” crowd. Amidst the black and white of the situation, they are looking to the purple, and good on them I say. We think of things like fusion, or whatever - things that to use that much overused phrase, really do totally "change the paradigm". They carve their new route. Camp 1 and Camp 3 and Camp 4 are busily shouting that Camp 2's new route is totally unproven and is spending vast amounts of cash and might get nowhere. They’d be right, but there is a chance they might get somewhere, and anyway letting them have a go makes a lot more sense than continuing to spend such vastly bigger stupid amounts of money on new technologies to kill each other.

If you find yourself in the Camp 4 “we’re doomed” group. Well ultimately of course, you are right. Assuming we don’t subvert the second law of thermodynamics as we cruise inevitably to a cold-dark ever increasing entropic soup, doom on some timescale is inevitable, whatever that timescale may be. However, if that’s the case, there is nothing to lose by letting Camps 1,2 and 3 at least have a go at prolonging things for just a little bit longer on the universal time scale. After all, life may be short, and at times seemingly bewildering and banal, but it does have its moments.

So, I say, yes there is a hole. Yes, it is going to take time to fix it, if indeed it can ever be fixed. Yes, even in the best case scenarios it is probably going to take quite a lot of dosh to fix it, and whenever it comes to spending that thing so dear to everybody’s heart – money – there will be squabbles and quibbles, arm-wrestles and fist-fights in car-parks, and shouting matches galore. But let’s not spend too much time-wasting on those quarrels folks when currently we are so stupid as to be letting our dear leaders spend about 65 times that amount annually on military spend. If we do fry under climate change, at least we will be able to extinguish each other with superlative accuracy first as we do so.

That, it seems to me at least, is way more stupid than spending something on a false energy trail or two. In that context, just let each camp get on with it. Challenge – of course – we all have to justify our actions - but block, no. That way, whichever one is right, they will get there quicker. Yeah, sure I get it, it does matter when it is taxpayer’s money at stake. It is fair to make the point that private investors can risk their capital however they like, but when it comes to spending public money there is an obligation to get it right. But I’d suggest a public that regularly buys a lottery ticket every week, can understand better than we give them credit for, that not every route wins. I suspect they would rather we try a few ways to grapple with the hole, including some false trails, than sit watching it get bigger. If we insist on waiting to see who is going to win the argument before we do anything - well, we might as well just aim the bow for the iceberg. 

I can’t offer – none of us can – any assurances that solutions will be found, or that money won’t be wasted on what with time will look like daft ideas. There are worse things though than daft ideas, and military budgets of $2 trillion when we are all facing quite a big hole, is one of them. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting we ditch defence budgets. Defence is important too, especially the welfare of those who risk their lives to defend us. There are some very nasty things to defend against out there. However, there is something a bit grotesquely “Little Shop of Horrors” and “Feed me Seymour” about military spend on that scale.  If we are going to choose to get uptight about misplaced taxpayer spending on ridiculous false trails, I would humbly suggest that is a more fertile ground for endeavour than energy R&D.

KeyFacts Energy Industry Directory: Paetoro Consulting