Energy in the 21st Century

So much has already been written on the subject of”energy needs”, and as humanity continues to advance in this century, the pace of interest is accelerating. Anybody with a reputation in the field has expressed views, and as the debate intensifies the risk of overflow of information is clear. In full conscience of the risk of adding to this, the aim of this article is to set out a “vision of hope” for the energy challenge addressed to the informed reader. To stand only a slim chance of success this vision must face the issue on a global perspective keeping appropriate balance between short and long term. The challenge is of direct concern to the whole planet and one should accept that more and more people will become directly involved, many with growing power of influence. No attempt is made to touch upon the transition planning, as this would affect clarity and the importance of such a vision as a reference. An exception is only made in dealing with CO² storage.

Some undeniable background facts should help create a framework:

The easiest to start with, is demography. Unless major unpredictable and catastrophic events occur, we can be sure that by the middle of this century the population of the Globe will be around ten billion; an increase of more than 60%. More importantly the per capita wealth will have marked a more spectacular growth, a factor compounded with the increase in numbers. And such wealth will inevitably increase the expectations for standards of living accordingly. One does not need detailed statistics to realise that the consequent growth in demand for energy will consign many of today’s hotly debated topics about CO² emissions, its sources and the resulting damage to the environment to a subservient role. The key is to have a higher-level vision.

It is surprising that in the current debate, short and long-term challenges of energy needs are often confused, creating an obscure horizon and thus providing little hope for a clear vision for the interested non-expert population. Reacting to evidence of damage already done momentum is building up for a multitude of localized actions. It is as if the scientific community and political leaders intend to deal with what they assume to be highly complex issues on their own, leaving the citizens of the planet in the dark. There is evidence of feeble co-ordination and more importantly, ineffective or non-existent global governance institutions to deal with the challenge. This should be placed in the context of spectacular growth in the knowledge density within the population of the planet. If there are relevant communications strategies, they look very poorly conducted indeed. We are all together on a burning platform and need desperately a global consensus. Civil society has shown a way but most of its members have no global reach and some have highjacked narrow niches becoming a part of the problem and not the solution.

The public seems to gradually develop doubts about society’s adequacy of scientific knowledge on major phenomena such as climate change and renewable energy sources. It is unhappily opting for precaution, introducing severe regulatory constraints with a greater chance of wasting natural resources. Clearly major and urgent research effort is required.

Compounded with this lack of knowledge, we testify to an increasing politicisation of science with potentially disastrous consequences. History, even recently, abound with such disasters. This does not only come from the academic community or governments. Civil society is also a player. A movement that started with ideals and has contributed very positively in improvements in quality of life has gradually shown occasions of politicised science in order to pursue agendas often alienated from these initial ideals.

Two additional factors make the situation worse. The first is the perception that energy supply is and will be controlled by a small minority of powerful corporations and nations. There is ample evidence to tempt an observer to agree. Public media abound with news on incidents suggesting important financial, national and sometimes social interests at play. The world at large is unlikely to accept this situation. Consequently the current model of social capitalism is bound to be under increasing pressure as sociopolitical currents from the developing parts of the globe manifest their influence.


The second factor is the long planning horizon necessary to introduce energy supply structural changes. From classical fossil fuel to nuclear energy, production plants require many years of design, planning and construction before coming into operation. Similar changes in the distribution are likely to have profound consequences for the ways societies function today. It is thus reasonable to set a vision for the “energy needs” challenge in the middle of this century.

To begin with setting out such a “vision of hope”, one may want to separate the production of usable energy, and its distribution and modes of consumption. This separation provides flexibility in establishing policies and strategies. It is proposed that the output energy will be either in the form of electricity for immediate consumption or hydrogen/oxygen for storage and consumption. Consequently, dealing with inputs to produce energy becomes independent of developments of storage and distribution networks that will evolve according to social needs.

A vision to meet the “energy challenge” by the middle of this century becomes clearer. Its foundation is CO² free energy production and use. There is no doubt about the difficulties involved, the complexities in the details of its design, demands for scientific and political leadership and the gigantic amount of resources required early in the transition. Neither is it suggested that this is the only vision.

In production there are a number of familiar longer-term sustainable technologies, all of them requiring much more research to improve their efficient use. They include hydro, photovoltaic and mirror thermal solar, fission and fusion nuclear, geothermal, wind, wave motion and other more exotic technologies such as space panels. These technologies are in fact non-CO² polluting and practically non-exhaustible. They would be used for the production of electricity. If appropriate, pure or hybrid hydrogen production as means of energy storage would be attached. Although in the case of solar energy production, small on-site individual units might eventually evolve, the large-scale highly efficient production units would be the ones handling electricity generation for the general demand. They would also be fully integrated on a global network in order to cover geographical peaks in demand. The storage of hydrogen would also evolve in to a very important flexibility instrument to tackle the weaknesses of sources such as solar and wind generators.

Most of these technologies face formidable but different obstacles.

Silicon based solar panels as produced and marketed today are space demanding and inefficient. Continuous silicon films and other materials with similar physical properties but higher efficiencies are likely to appear as research in this area intensifies, but initial installation investments require important subsidies, far in excess of the current timid support by governments.

As comparative risks are better assessed nuclear fission and fusion technologies are slowly progressing again and are very promising despite the entrenched positions of interest groups. The pressure from these groups has resulted in such polarisation that only serious political capital can lower the barriers that have frozen these technologies and starved their research.

Many of the other CO² free technologies are likely to make moderate contribution on a global scale however environmentally attractive they sound. Hydro is a distinct exception with well researched technologies, as it would continue to be a reliable and important contributor.

Finally plants converting electrical or direct solar energy to hydrogen/oxygen would achieve large-scale storage of energy, as buffer.


Fossil fuels still hold serious promise, particularly in the transition to the target date, set as the middle of the century. This is assuming that CO² underground storage and further processing technologies continue to be fully developed. Furthermore, setting aside investment to convert CO² back to carbon and oxygen might not be as unrealistic as it sounds as it opens opportunities for hybrid hydrogen production, storage and use.

An important point in meeting the challenge of “energy needs” is to focus production on only two usable forms of energy: electricity, and its derivative means of storage, pure or hybrid hydrogen. Successfully focusing in these two forms of energy would simplify production and distribution, introduce enormous economies of scale and exploit the fact that today large parts of the globe have an embryonic infrastructure and in many cases offer regions most convenient for the implantation of large energy production centres driven by CO²-free technologies. This would offer the opportunity to these areas to leapfrog directly to the final stage of the transition, meet their needs and provide excess supplies to energy deficient areas. Existing non-electricity forms of energy distribution and storage would gradually be withdrawn with only remnants for special circumstances participating in the final scheme. The only area that need hydrocarbons and reserves must be kept for their long term operations is the chemical industry, including the broad pharmaceuticals sector.

The integration of large production units via a network, mentioned above, would also be the backbone of the distribution system. From it, regional distribution networks to the consumer will be developed. Existing infrastructure will be expanded to new parts of the planet and upgraded with new technologies.

Consumers of energy should be seen in two groups. Entities directly linked to the electricity grid and others non-directly linked that would need to store energy, as they would operate disconnected from the grid. Battery storage urban use electric vehicles are included in the direct users.

Given the efficiencies of direct use of electricity, the scheme would provide for some basic principles. In transportation for example, all medium and long-range continental traffic should be made on land, chiefly by rail. Technological advances in this sector would almost certainly meet the challenge of offering satisfactory solutions. Development of appropriate infrastructure however will demand significant resources and time to come to fruition. Some of the existing road infrastructure, converted accordingly, could be used to lessen the burden.

Linked to this foundation, short-distance mobility would be ensured by electric vehicles with appropriate characteristics to meet the task without undue vain excesses. Urban and sub-urban public transport would be the main instrument for mobility for the public with small and economic private vehicles filling the gap. Of course such changes would require long-term comprehensive education campaigns coupled with appropriate fiscal policies to effect dramatic change of public attitudes to mobility, freedom of movement and the role of modern communications.

All other directly linked consumers such as buildings, roads and industrial plants would be using electric energy as well. More research would be required in the transition to ensure that every possible opportunity would be exploited for on site production of electric energy thus lessening the burden to the grid.

The non-directly linked consumers would be mainly vehicles with long-range mobility. They would require one extra stage of energy conversion, as they will be using hydrogen as fuel and modified power plants to operate. The storage of hydrogen on a retail scale is not a simple technical challenge; thus the importance to develop such infrastructure mostly for long-term professional transport. Such vehicles, e.g. ships and planes, would be used for intercontinental and perhaps interplanetary transport.

To start moving towards the proposed vision one has to be aware of implicit realities of today’s world. On the one hand, modern communications have made our planet look more like it really is i.e. a small planet or as we sometimes call it, a village. On the other, one is overwhelmed with the variety of histories, cultures, and socio-political and economic systems. The phenomenon of globalisation, driven only by economic forces is building tremendous strains on social and political dimensions. Lack of effective global institutions somehow suggests that humanity has put the cart ahead of the horse. And yet the opportunity to develop a clear global balanced vision built on multi- local and regional trends and move towards it by the middle of the century is unique, non-recurrent and compelling.


Today the developed western world still holds important leads but realises that the rest of the planet is catching up. Sociopolitical systems alien to western type democracies compete. Growth potential and numbers clearly favour the rest of the planet. Historical memory breeds mutual distrust and sometimes resentment. Both parts see that unless they deal soon with global issues, like the longer-term energy challenge and establish an agreed clear vision, there are bound to be major conflicts with catastrophes on an unimaginable scale.

Thinkers of world affairs push in that direction. They can see a new equilibrium soon where distribution of wealth within societies will not be very dissimilar across the continents and as a consequence demand for energy during the transition would differ dramatically. Poorer regions will demand much more. Here lies an opportunity. If the international community manages to satisfy these needs with technologies of the future, demands on the environment and the consequences in changing this climate of distrust and resentment can be important.

It follows that in moving towards a vision, there is an urgent need for effective global institutions structured for this century, as this is a key. Existing international organisations were designed and to a certain extent have managed to deal with the challenges of the second part of the previous century. There is ample evidence that unless significantly overhauled, these organisations will be unable to deal with the world of the upcoming fifty years. The institutions themselves have recognised this and drive changes but unless large nations, in existing and future forums like G8+, sit around the table, give guidance, provide implementation plans and unreservedly support them very little will change.

Finally, in looking at the transition towards the proposed vision, one can make an important observation. Any re-directing must seriously take into account margins of elasticity of the global system to absorb it. Abrupt changes could be catastrophic. Starting the transition at the earliest is imperative. Furthermore, a comprehensive global communications campaign driven by a credible international institution should run in parallel. The messages must be target audience specific and simple. Risks relevant to planning steps should be made clear. We live in the 21st century and transparency is crucial.

In conclusion, a common requirement for any “vision of hope” is the utilization of the time span covering the next fifty years, coupled with a calculated risk-taking political and scientific leadership on a global scale. The author regrets the pessimistic tenor of this article. It is however questionable whether current global institutions, market forces of modern capitalist and non-capitalist systems and the entrenched positions of major energy suppliers will be the most effective environment for such a challenge. Existing global and regional forums of political leaders must mobilize to avert catastrophe.