“Until the climate was actually killing them, people had a tendency to deny it could happen.” Absolutely adore science fiction! New and unusual worlds and classical plots, viewed through the prism of new technologies. But also science fiction often demonstrates the dangers of technological development and shows how a man could change the world around him. The world of “The Ministry for the Future” by Kim Stanley Robinson, is a world in which we might have to live soon. It is a world of extreme heat, droughts, torrential, city-sinking rains, and huge masses of climate refugees.  “The Ministry” is an eco-political thriller, showing what a fight against climate change might look like. When humanity decides to deal with something, it first creates a bureaucracy - in the book, it is the Ministry for the Future. As the story goes, the Ministry was created as part of the UN, with an aim to represent the interests of future generations today. This is how the Ministry’s staff finds itself almost the sole organization, ready to fight climate change for the whole world.  The Ministry develops, supports, and publicizes a lot of different initiatives. Carbon-negative agriculture, natural habitat corridors, geo-engineering, basic income, world-citizen passports for climate refugees, the “2000 Watt society”, air travel by airships, etc.  The main plot of the book revolves around two main measures of combating climate change. The first one is economic. If you want someone to do something for you - pay them. If you want people and companies to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases - pay them.  In the Ministry initiative, a cryptocurrency called “carboni”, is introduced, backed by all major central banks, and it is used to pay corporations and individuals to stop burning fossil fuels and for carbon sequestration projects. This so-called “quantitative carbon easing” attacks the principal problem of climate change - that it is profitable to burn fossil fuels. By changing the game, making it profitable NOT to burn fossil fuels, it turns capitalism onto itself, creating a system, that leads to a healthier climate in all respects.  The second measure is much more sinister. It said that you can get much more with a gun and a kind word, rather than with just a kind word. In the story, a terrorist group by the name “Children of Kali” starts a worldwide war of terror against corporations, burning fossil fuels and politicians, supporting them. The actions of the eco-terrorists provoke a backlash, hitting the Ministry for the Future, which is suspected of sponsoring the “Children of Kali” and making their job as dangerous as that of any oil executive. “The Ministry” is an insightful and thrilling account of the complexity of bringing people together to tackle planet-wide problems.  It is thought-provoking as well as entertaining book, that is a must-read for anyone, looking to learn about climate change and what can be done to reverse it. So pick it up for your hot summer read, you won’t regret it.

Honestly, I have not expected much from this book. Biodiversity or ocean acidification are not really my cup of tea. At least, they weren’t until now. The book is a real page-turner. It reads like an eco-thriller. I’ve read it faster than the science-fiction “The Ministry For The Future” by Kim Stanley Robinson.  “The Sixth Extinction”  is a compelling and sobering exploration of the current state of our planet's biodiversity. Kolbert takes readers on a journey through time, science, and history to shed light on the ongoing mass extinction event, laying bare the undeniable fact that we are the primary culprits behind this catastrophe. I am writing a review of this book for two reasons. First, I outline the main takeaways for me and keep them handy for my work. Second, I want to show, why it is an essential read for anyone concerned about the future of our planet. What are mass extinctions? Before we delve into the book's core arguments, it's crucial to understand what mass extinction is. Curiously enough, Ms. Kolbert points out that “ Extinction may be the first scientific idea that kids today have to grapple with ”. When playing with plastic dinosaurs, our kids soon understand and can explain to us that these are very big creatures, that lived long ago and have all died. The concept of mass extinctions first emerged in France in the 18th century and the idea that a catastrophe might have caused it was floated in the 19th century - “ The word “catastrophist” was coined in 1832 by William Whewell, one of the first presidents of the Geological Society of London, who also bequeathed to English “anode,” “cathode,” “ion,” and “scientist.”   In the 20th century, the term “mass extinction” was finally articulated by the American paleontologist David M. Raup only in the 1960s.  Mass extinction is defined as an event in which a significant portion of Earth's species is wiped out in a geologically short period of time, leading to a profound shift in the planet's biodiversity. The five previous mass extinctions in Earth's history have left a lasting mark on the planet's biodiversity and habitat. Let's briefly examine them.  The first mass extinction, known as the Ordovician-Silurian extinction, occurred around 440 million years ago and was driven by glaciation and cooling temperatures, leading to the loss of many marine species and their habitats. The second major event, the Late Devonian extinction roughly 360 million years ago, was attributed to a combination of factors, including sea-level changes and the spread of anoxic conditions in oceans, which severely affected marine life and their habitats. The third mass extinction, the Permian-Triassic extinction, often referred to as the "Great Dying," took place around 250 million years ago. It was the most catastrophic, resulting in the loss of over 95% of marine species and nearly 70% of terrestrial species. This event was primarily driven by volcanic activity, which led to extreme climate changes and habitat destruction. Ocean acidification also played a major role in this catastrophic event.  The fourth mass extinction, the Triassic-Jurassic extinction, approximately 200 million years ago, saw the loss of many marine and terrestrial species. It was linked to volcanic activity and changes in sea levels, disrupting habitats on a global scale. The fifth mass extinction, the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction, took place around 66 million years ago and is perhaps the most famous due to the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs. This event was triggered by the impact of a massive asteroid, which caused catastrophic fires and a "nuclear winter" effect, drastically altering habitats worldwide. The story of the scientific discovery of this event reads like a techno-thriller.  In each of these mass extinctions, the loss of habitat played a pivotal role. Environmental changes, driven by natural phenomena, drastically altered ecosystems. The speed of the change denied the organisms any chance to evolve to match new habitats. The speed I am talking about is measured in hundreds of thousands of years. This was not enough time for the organisms to evolve and adapt to new conditions, so they just, well, went extinct. The Earth's habitats were transformed, and it took millions of years for new ones to emerge.  Why We Are in the Middle of a Mass Extinction Event? Ms. Kolbert presents a compelling case for the ongoing mass extinction event by diving deep into several cases of animal and insect extinctions. She discusses the dramatic decline in populations of various species, ranging from frogs to bats, and cites research that indicates we are in the midst of a major biodiversity crisis: “ It is estimated that one-third of all reef-building corals, a third of all freshwater mollusks, a third of sharks and rays, a quarter of all mammals, a fifth of all reptiles, and a sixth of all birds are headed toward oblivion. ” Plants are not immune to this crisis either. Kolbert's book shows how we are losing plant species at an unprecedented rate, and this often goes unnoticed. These extinctions can disrupt ecosystems and have cascading effects on other species, including humans. Why This Extinction is Anthropogenic? Kolbert's central argument is that the 6th extinction is primarily anthropogenic, meaning it is caused by human activities. She presents a compelling case by examining how we have altered the planet's ecosystems through deforestation, pollution, overfishing, and greenhouse gas emissions. Her position is clear: we are the driving force behind this crisis. The ways in which humans drive other species extinct are numerous. Starting with the straightforward mass killing of great auks, to a less proven disappearance of the American mastodon, which was strangely coincidental with the spread of modern humans, to less well-known cases like deforestation of Easter Island, which was not caused by humans, but by rats, that humans brought with them.  Ever more subtle are the effects of pumping CO2 and other GHG gases into the atmosphere. About a third of all emissions are absorbed by the oceans, but gases dissolved in the oceans are then again released into the atmosphere. When the two are in balance, everything is fine, but as more and more GHG gases are pumped into the atmosphere, more get into the oceans and they start to change.    “Ocean acidification is sometimes referred to as global warming’s “equally evil twin”. There is a mind-blowing chapter in the book, that describes in vivid detail how a more acidic ocean makes it difficult for creatures with shells or exoskeletons to build them. Acidification also leads to changes in the amount of light, that passes through water, and this in turn may lead growth of toxic algae.  In "The 6th Extinction," Elizabeth Kolbert provides a meticulously researched and thought-provoking account of the mass extinction event unfolding before our eyes. Her narrative skillfully weaves together science, history, and storytelling to make a compelling case that we are the architects of this crisis. This book serves as a crucial wake-up call, urging us to recognize our role in the ongoing extinction event and take immediate action to safeguard the future of our planet and all the species that call it home. It's a must-read for anyone concerned about the environment and the fate of life on Earth.

“Most people would never ignore the advice of 97 doctors in favor of three.” A friend of mine landed in Istanbul last week, escaping +50C in Dubai. There wasn’t much relief here for him, as temperatures hit an all-time high of 49,5 degrees. Despite weather irregularities becoming more frequent, I still have to prove time and time again that a) climate change is real and b) it is man-made. Now I think that I’ll just give people one book, that takes about an hour to read, and that clearly explains “What we know about climate change”, as its title goes. Or in case someone can’t be bothered - just give them the link to this article, where I’ll sum up the keynotes from it. Mr. Emanuel first lays down the basics of climate change physics. The key to climate change is in the air. Literally. Pure air, that is a molecule of atoms of oxygen and nitrogen, barely interacts with solar radiation beaming down on Earth and with Earth’s radiation, beaming to outer space. If we had just pure air, the average surface temperature of Earth would be about -18C (0F), but in fact, it is about 15,5C (60F). What heats Earth up, are the molecules of water, carbon dioxide, and methane (there are of course others, but these three are responsible for the bulk of the heating). All of them absorb and emit radiation (i.e. heat) much better than pure air. These gases in the air create what is known as the greenhouse effect - they absorb heat and radiate it back down to Earth as well as to outer space. It wouldn’t matter much if CO2 and methane would disappear from the air as fast as water (which only stays for about 2 weeks). Now a molecule of CO2 can stay in the air for over 100 years, and after that, 20% of CO2 may remain in the air for up to 1000 years. Methane stays up a bit less,  but it catches heat 80 times better than CO2 in the first 20 years and 40 times better in the next 100 years. What’s important, is that it doesn’t take many GHGs (greenhouse gases) in the air to cause the planet's surface to warm up. Water vapors never make up more than 3% of air. CO2 is currently at 421 molecules per 1 million molecules of air (called parts per million - ppm). At the time of writing the book, it was 395 ppm. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution - 280 ppm. A 6% increase in a few years, and a 50% increase in the last three hundred years. So, the GHGs get into the air, stay there, and heat up the planet. That sorts out the physics of it. Now, this growth, which was especially rapid in the last 30 years, cannot be explained by any natural phenomena. No volcanic eruptions, no shiftings of the Earth's axis, nothing can explain this growth. That leaves human action as the only plausible cause of global warming. And this is the consensus of 97% of all climate scientists on the planet. Would you follow the advice of 97 doctors for your health, or just the 3 who happen to have a different opinion? Well, that was exactly what a lot of people have been doing for the last 50 years. We’ve seen that before. Public campaigns supporting cigarette smoking have delayed public response for 30 years, despite the existence of clear scientific evidence linking smoking to cancer. Global health costs of coal mining are estimated the range from $65 to $185 billion, bringing it close to global health costs of fighting lung cancer just in the US ($190Bn in 2015). Health costs alone should have been enough to make people and policymakers wonder. However, the risks of climate change are much greater. Despite all that we know about climate change, it is hard to predict its exact consequences. The system for absorbing and releasing heat in the air is chaotic. Mr. Emanuel points out that the problem of climate change is a problem of global risk management. He singles out four risks. The first is floods. Three feet (91cm) rise in sea level will displace 100 million people and affect 11 out of 15 largest cities on earth. If you think that will not happen fast, then rest in comfort knowing that sea levels have already risen by four inches (10 cm) in the last 60 years. Hurricanes are second. In the North Atlantic, their power output doubled since the 1970s. The authors’ own research shows that hurricanes respond to warming earth faster than originally expected. The third is drought. Droughts could become more frequent and hit fertile areas, resulting in failed harvests and food shortages. As these are likely to happen in the Middle East, it could lead to political unrest and another refugee crisis. The fourth and final risk is ocean acidification. While it doesn’t sound as apocalyptic as the previous three, it is a serious matter for two reasons. First, higher levels of acidification make it difficult for a wide variety of marine organisms to form calcium carbonate shells (more on that in another book that I’ve recently read, with a slightly spirited title “The 6th Extinction”). Many of these creatures form a base in the food chain, and we run risks of additional extinctions and troubles with food from the sea. Second, higher acidity means that the ocean is less capable of absorbing CO2, meaning that more of it stays in the atmosphere and causes further warming. If I would be asked, what books could I recommend on the subject of climate change, Kerry Emanuel’s “What we know about climate change” would top the list. You can read it in under an hour, but it will set you up with all the necessary knowledge about climate change science, evidence of human-caused warming, and highlights of key risks.   While the book is thin on what should be done, I hope that the next book that I am about to read - “How to avoid the climate disaster” by Bill Gates, will shed some light on it.

Marv from Sin City movie famously quipped “all modern cars are like electric shavers - they lack soul”. I’d say the same for the most modern electric cars. They are just booooring 🥱 But rise of the electric cars makes it easier for small startups to retrofit classic cars to electric, build a classic car from scratch, or even come up with their own design of a car.  Sadly this is unlikely to become mainstream. First, it is expensive. Currently, the cheapest conversion will cost you around $20000, on top of the cost of your classic vehicle. Built-up from scratch one will cost anywhere from $150000 to $500000. Second, car corporations are just dull. They won’t make anything that won’t please a largest possible audience.  Cheaper batteries will help to spread  such customization. Alternatively, a built-to-order business model could do that. Make a universal platform and snap any car body you like on top. Do you think this is scaleable?

In my journey of working with startups and advising investors, I've developed a keen eye for technologies poised to make a significant impact in the near future, especially within the next 5-10 years. Currently, I'm delving into research on electric vehicle (EV) innovations for a client, and it's clear that the conversation around EVs predominantly centers on batteries. However, my exploration has led me to question: are there other technologies within the EV sector with high-scaling potential? Autonomous Vehicles: Beyond the Hype One of the most talked-about areas in EV innovation is autonomous vehicles. Despite the considerable hype, the journey towards widespread adoption of fully autonomous vehicles has been slow, with tangible results still on the horizon. The challenges are multifaceted, encompassing technological hurdles and regulatory constraints. The likelihood of seeing autonomous vehicles dominate our roads by the end of this decade remains slim, barring any extraordinary breakthroughs or sudden shifts in regulatory landscapes. A Strategic Pivot: Niche Applications with High Scaling Potential However, there's a strategic opportunity to leverage this technology in environments with controlled variables and fewer edge cases than the unpredictable nature of busy roads. Consider the potential within factories and warehouses: these settings, characterized by predetermined routes and a controlled environment, present an ideal scenario for the deployment of AI-driven vehicles. Whether these vehicles are purchased as electric or retrofitted, the isolated nature of such applications and the relentless drive to reduce costs in competitive markets could catalyze early adoption. The B2B Sector: A Hotbed for Autonomous EV Scaling The B2B sector, already familiar with the use of autonomous robots, stands as a fertile ground for massive scaling of autonomous EV technologies. The push for efficiency and cost reduction in these controlled environments could lead to significant advancements and adoption rates, setting the stage for broader applications in the future. As we navigate the evolving landscape of EV innovations, it's crucial to look beyond the immediate and obvious solutions. By focusing on niche applications with fewer complexities, we can ride the wave of autonomous vehicle technology, unlocking new possibilities and driving early adoption in sectors ripe for innovation. I'm eager to hear your thoughts on the potential of autonomous vehicles in controlled environments and other underexplored areas within the EV sector. Let's discuss how these innovations could shape the future of transportation and logistics. #EVInnovations #AutonomousVehicles #TechTrends #StartupAdvising #InvestmentOpportunities

Tonight I tuned into a fascinating BNEF webinar titled "Energy Transition Investment Trends in 2024," which offered a sneak peek into the key findings of an upcoming report. Interestingly, the discussion largely revolved around the energy transition achievements of 2023, and several points particularly resonated with me. 1. Global Investments on the Rise It's encouraging to see global investments in the energy transition surge by 17% to $1.8 trillion. While we're still trailing the investment levels required to meet the Net-Zero Scenario goals, the momentum is undeniable. It's heartening to note that we now possess the capacity to significantly produce batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines, to hope for a sustainable future. 2. Batteries Investment Soars The investment in batteries has impressively jumped by 76%. This leap is attributed to decreasing costs, the growing trend of co-locating with solar projects, and rising residential demand. However, there's an anticipation of battery manufacturing overcapacity by 2030. Re-shoring manufacturing will create interesting market dynamics. 3. CCS Investments Double The third point that caught my attention was the doubling of investments in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to $11 billion. Despite my skepticism about CCS's scalability in the short term, but optimism in the long term, this significant investment indicates a stronger commitment to this technology than I had anticipated. It's a development worth watching closely. 4. Hydrogen Investments Triple Lastly, investments in hydrogen have tripled, matching the total for CCS. Most of these investments have been channeled towards electrolyzers. Given the rapid pace of investment, and my recent work on hydrogen market, I anticipate a market correction in the near future.  The webinar underscored the dynamic nature of the energy transition sector and the varying pace of development across different technologies. As we look forward to the detailed report, it's clear that the journey towards a sustainable energy future is both complex and exhilarating. I'm keen to hear your thoughts on these developments. Do you think these investment trends will sustain in the long run? How do you see the role of technologies like CCS and hydrogen evolving? Let's discuss the future of our energy landscape. #EnergyTransition #InvestmentTrends #BNEF #SustainableEnergy #CCS #HydrogenEnergy

My first encounter with hydrogen was when in 2017, me and my team prepared an offer to the government of Russia to build a multimegawatt wind farm backed by a seasonal hydrogen storage in the Taman peninsula. The region suffered from electricity shortages in the summers when air-conditioning and industry demand peaked. Even then, the total cost of the project, expressed in CAPEX per MWh was lower, than for equivalent gas-fired CHP. Sure enough, the Ministry of Energy went with the CHP, costing almost twice our wind plus hydrogen.   IEA projects that power generation will be the main source of demand for hydrogen by 2030 and will only be overtaken by demand from aviation and marine fuel by 2050. With my recent client and a team of hydrogen experts, working in this industry for the last 15 years, we have explored the opportunities for hydrogen applications in the power industry, which I’d like to share here. Mind you, these are my conclusions, that do not necessarily match with those of my team or my client.   How do you generate power using hydrogen? First, you can generate power via fuel cells. The capacity of fuel cells is currently limited, with the average being 100 kW. This makes them problematic to use in large-scale grid applications. Second, you can mix hydrogen with natural gas, or mix coal or gas with ammonia, burn them, and generate electricity on the gas turbines. This seems to be the preferred way to generate electricity with hydrogen on a multimegawatt scale. Technologies to do that are still being developed and tested, but it is fair to say that by the end of this decade, all major gas turbine manufacturers will have a couple of hydrogen-ready turbines in their sales catalogs. Source: IEA, 2023   What mystifies me, is why you need hydrogen-based power generation in the first place. To mix hydrogen with natural gas or ammonia with coal, you first must make “green” hydrogen. And how do you make it? Right, via electrolysis with electricity generated from hydro, wind, or sun. So, to make electricity with hydrogen you first have to 1) make electricity from sun/wind/hydro; 2) use electrolysis to make hydrogen; 3) store and transport hydrogen; 4) burn hydrogen with fossil fuels; 5) capture any leftover GHGs.   Just to drive it home: you build enormous infrastructure to make, store and transport hydrogen. You spend time and money to design and build special turbines, capable of running on pure hydrogen or hydrogen mix. You build systems to capture and store GHG emissions. And when you fire up that hydrogen power plant, you lose up to 82% of energy [1]  in the process. For what? To make some clean kWh? Really? Well, go back to step 1, and there you have it!   According to the “Hydrogen ladder” by M. Liebreich, generating power with non-stored hydrogen is ultimately uncompetitive. What a surprise! Now hydrogen can have different uses in the power sector, not only directly burning it in the power plant.  Short-duration grid balancing has slightly better chances of becoming adopted, but there we have lots of alternative solutions in the form of lithium-ion or redux-flow batteries or other battery chemistries like zinc-air or tried and tested hydro storage.   Best-case scenario, according to the “Hydrogen Ladder” – is using hydrogen for long-duration storage of excess renewable energy and subsequent power generation. The IEA in their recent “Renewables 2023” report show, that from 2023 to 2028 there will be about 4 terawatts of renewable generation capacity added worldwide (depending on the scenario). By 2030 renewables will account for half of all electricity generated. That would certainly mean that in some cases there will be an oversupply of clean energy, that could be stored in hydrogen and used when there is a shortage of energy.     Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hydrogen-ladder-version-50-michael-liebreich/ Changes made - red underlines by me.   This brings me back to my Taman project, and investment decisions in cleantech in general. Hydrogen in power generation is overcomplicated, and overcomplicated projects carry much higher execution risk than simpler projects. Try building a wind farm. You will have enough risk management work on your hands, so you would not want the additional headache of building the hydrogen chain up to and including a power station.   In this energy transition, we must make smart choices on how to spend time and money in a way to make the most impact in the shortest time possible. The path to the decarbonization of the power sector has been clear now for several years – deploy more renewables, as fast as possible. Where battery storage will be needed, lithium-ion or redox-flow batteries will take of it most of the time. Simple and efficient. Hydrogen will have better uses elsewhere. [1]   https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/hydrogen-technology-faces-efficiency-disadvantage-in-power-storage-race-65162028

This book took me a while to get through. I’ve made two attempts, after failing the first time. Well, it was worth the effort. Before taking up the book I’ve encountered multiple references for the works of Professor Vaclav Smil, from journalists to Bill Gates (in his book, not in person). The title of the book drew me as it hinted that it would be more of a history book, rather than a book about physics or economics. There is nothing wrong with the former two, it is just that history I enjoy a little more.   When I was done reading, I realized that the book was about energy transitions. Although Prof. Smil has written a separate book dedicated to energy transitions, I’ve found myself thinking a lot about how he describes the advances of civilization through the process of discovery and improvement in technology of harvesting different sources of energy. The book slowly and meticulously describes how humanity went from one source of energy to another, all the time working to get more useful energy from the resources available.   Prof. Smil shows how energy could be used to measure almost everything that we do and debunks a lot of common myths on the way.  He starts by examining how our bodies produce and use energy. “ A slowly running 70 kg man will produce 800 W; the power of an accomplished marathoner running the race (32.195 km) in 2.5 hours will average about 1,300 W “. This is a reasonable starting point, given that during much of human history, we relied mostly on our muscles and animal muscles to move things around.   The shift from foraging and hunting to agriculture can be thought of as energy transition zero. This is when humans started to use more energy-rich crops. “Compared to foraging, early farming usually required higher human energy inputs—but it could support higher population densities and provide a more reliable food supply.” This enabled us to settle and feed many more people, than simple hunting and foraging ever would: “a single mill would have produced enough flour in a 10-hour shift to feed 2,500–3,000 people, a fair-sized medieval town.”   Energy surplus gave rise to the first civilizations such as Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations – they could use excess energy from agriculture to get more people to build pyramids, zikkurats, invent writing, and first muscle-powered machines. Still, during our agricultural period, we could only get better power output by using water as a prime mover (like for watermills) and wind, for windmills and sailing.    I used to think that using the energy of coal and oil was the first time in human history that humanity has severely damaged the environment to satisfy its energy needs. Smil debunked this myth, by showing just how severe the impact on the environment of using the oldest fossil fuel – wood: “The harvesting of wood for fuel (as well as for construction and shipbuilding) led to widespread deforestation, and the cumulative effect reached worrisome levels in previously heavily wooded regions. At the beginning of the eighteenth century about 85% of Massachusetts was covered by forests, but by 1870 only about 30% of the state was covered by trees”.                                                                                                                     To us, it is clear now that such deforestation could not be sustainable, and a change in the primary energy source was in order. Around the same time, coal started to get some sizable share in the total energy production. The first coal-fired steam engines appeared as early as the 18th century, but only by the end of the 19th century, they became efficient enough to be widespread. Still, an average steam engine in the year 1900 wasted about 92% of coal.     It is widely believed that much of the 19th century was dominated by coal, and much of the 20th century was dominated by oil. Smil points out that both impressions are far from reality. In fact, in the 19th century, wood was at its peak as the primary energy source. And wood was still used in significant amounts up to the middle of the 20th century, as in China. In Russia, for example, wood was used to provide more than 20% of all primary energy in 1913.   Coal overtook wood in the first half of the 20th century as the primary energy source, and only recently made way for oil. It took coal two centuries to become dominant, and it took oil just one century to do the same (see picture)   Source: Smil, Energy and Civilization   We are just getting over our oil phase, aren’t yet done with gas, and have ditched nuclear.  As Smil notes “Established sources and prime movers can be surprisingly persistent, and new supplies or techniques may become dominant only after long periods of gradual diffusion. A combination of functionality, accessibility, and cost explains most of this inertia.” As for nuclear, he calls it “successful failure”.   We are now in the middle of the next energy transition – a transition away from fossil fuels and to renewable energy. Use of fossil fuels created “the most worrisome challenge … the widespread environmental degradation.” As I’ve mentioned earlier, this is not the first time in history that we are facing environmental problems due to the way we get energy. This time, however, we are experiencing negative effects on a much larger scale. This is the primary driving force behind the current energy transition, and this sets it apart from the previous ones. All previous energy transitions lead to more energy being produced and consumed. This one is focused on using less and cleaner energy.   Now, using less energy to achieve the same or even greater results is a hallmark of ingenuity and efficiency: “…forced to compete globally, multinational companies strive to lower the energy intensity of their production, diffusing new techniques and fostering higher energy conversion efficiencies worldwide” . This quest for energy efficiency, along with a push for the decarbonization of energy will characterize the current energy transition.   The key question is when will this transition happen? Will it happen fast enough to stop the climate from deteriorating beyond any hope of recovery? Professor Smil is not optimistic about timelines. Energy transitions, defined as the time needed for a new energy source to take a large share in total supplied energy usually take two or three generations, or anywhere from 50 to 75 years. Smil thinks that only two technologies are capable of accelerating this energy transition – the swift scaling of nuclear power, and the availability of inexpensive energy storage, to store energy from solar and wind.   What about other multitude of sources and technologies? Hydrogen, nuclear fusion, wave energy, etc.? Professor Smil doesn’t go into details here, as this book is about history, not about the future. However, he urges us to “merely note the coexistence of two contradictory expectations concerning the energy basis of modern society: chronic conservatism (lack of imagination?) regarding the power of technical innovation, set against repeatedly exaggerated claims made on behalf of new energy sources.”   I have chosen to focus on energy transition in this review as it resonated with my work. However, the book is much more than that.  It is a book about physics, history, and innovation. And surprisingly, it is also about why energy is not central to our civilization.  Professor Smil refuses to fully equate energy use with civilization advances: “Very similar per capita energy use (for example, that of Russia and New Zealand) can produce fundamentally different outcomes, while highly disparate energy consumption rates have resulted in surprisingly similar levels of physical quality of life: South Korea and Israel have nearly identical human development index while the Korean per capita energy use is about 80% higher”.   It is refreshing to see towards the end of this book as Smil turns around and points, that it is possible to use watts to measure almost everything we do but not all. And what we cannot measure this way, may be the most important. The effect of culture, music, art, and literature cannot be explained in Watts: “No energetic considerations can explain the presence of Gluck, Haydn, and Mozart in the same room in Joseph II’s Vienna of the 1780s”. It also cannot explain sudden changes in societies: “An indisputable fact is that many instances of sociopolitical collapse came about without any persuasive evidence of weakened energy bases.”   Professor Smil wrote 47 books on energy and environment. I’ve read just one, but it got me hooked. I recommend it even if you are not working in the energy industry or it is not your field of study. At the very least you will have a massive collection of interesting facts that will liven up any cocktail party.  And at the most – it will give you the tools and motivation to carry on whatever it is that you are doing in the energy field.

Let's delve into a topic that's gaining traction in the energy sector: the burgeoning role of hydrogen. It's akin to a modern-day gold rush, with projections of over $320B in investments by 2030. The anticipated leap in clean hydrogen production from less than 1 million tons today to around 70 million tons annually signifies an astounding CAGR of over 100% for green hydrogen in the next six years.   Green Hydrogen's Role in Decarbonization   Green hydrogen is widely regarded as a key solution for sectors traditionally challenging to decarbonize, such as chemicals and steel manufacturing. Currently, these industries consume over 90 million tons of hydrogen annually, predominantly produced from fossil fuels, contributing significantly to global emissions.   The Steel Industry's Hydrogen Demand   Steel production is a major player here, but it currently uses less than 10% of the world's hydrogen. Traditional methods of steel and iron manufacturing involve heating iron ore with coking coal. Every ton of steel generates 1,5-3 tons of CO2, which contributes to about 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Enter the alternative: electric arc furnaces running on hydrogen, cutting out the need for fossil fuels.   Analyzing the Numbers   According to estimates by the IEA and AFRY, decarbonizing steel production with hydrogen would require about 97.5 million tons of hydrogen per year. This translates to a need for approximately 1.4 TW of renewable energy capacity. With the current pace of renewable energy capacity addition (around 350 GW in 2022), we'd need four years to get there. But let's be real, most of the next five-six years renewable capacity additions will not go towards making green steel.   Economic and Regulatory Challenges   Right now, the steel industry isn't exactly jumping on the green hydrogen bandwagon. Why? Cost and lack of regulatory push. Green hydrogen is pricey compared to the grey stuff and using it now would hike steel prices by a whopping 50%.     At COP28 in Dubai last December, steel execs were pretty clear: they'd switch to green hydrogen if there was a carbon price on their products. The European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a step in that direction, but will it be enough to drive widespread adoption of green hydrogen in steel? I'm not so sure.   The Alternative: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)   A more elegant and less expensive solution would be to outfit existing smelting plants with carbon capture and storage technology. This would require far less investment but will lead to the same results. According to IEA estimates , the cost of carbon capture and storage in the steel industry varies in the range of $40-100 per ton. This looks like a good much for an expected CBAM CO2 price of $80-120/ton.   Looking at this from a Greentech investor or startup perspective, I'd be eyeing CCS startups and projects, not hydrogen. Sure, about 40 projects are planning to use green hydrogen, but only 6 with CCS (according to the Green Steel Tracker ). My money's on CCS for the long haul.     Inviting Your Insights   I'm curious to hear your perspectives. Do you believe hydrogen is the future for steel decarbonization, or does CCS offer a more viable path? Let's discuss the implications for our environment and the economic landscape.   #GreenHydrogen #CCSTechnology #SteelIndustry #SustainableInvesting #COP28 #EnvironmentalImpact

Today I’m gonna tell about a developing case from my current practice on building a so-called «platform» in electric vehicle manufacturing. The success of many modern businesses, such as Google, iOS, AirB&B, is associated with the creation of "platforms" - technologies that allow a wide range of developers quickly and easily build a final product on it. This is easily done in the IT sector - you create a convenient platform once and then it starts working for itself. For example, Apple does not have to make any extra effort to allow one more programmer to develop another application on the iOS platform. Each next user of the platform is essentially a pure margin for your business. Not surprisingly, many seek to apply the "platform" model to their industry. Here's the idea - make an electric car "platform" and sell it to anyone who wants to make their own electric car. The platform will consist of a chassis, a battery, and an electric motor. The buyer of the platform invents his own electric car on its basis: individual body design, interior according to his budget, and, «voila!», the new electric car is ready for the end-user! Today you can order an individual electric car made for you. Its “platform” will most likely be Tesla Model 3 or Model S. However, Tesla itself does not sell «platform», it sells electric cars. Different companies at different times have tried and are trying to create an electric transport platform - Trexa, Nio, Arrival, and even the Russian military manufacturer «Almaz-Antey». But so far no one has succeeded. I recently came across a similar EV platform project and we had a dispute: what should be the business model? Should we make a full line of electric vehicles or should we focus on the platform? After some debate, it seems that first, you need to answer one most important question - is there anyone who wants to buy a platform, and not a ready-made electric car? A finished electric car may have many buyers, while a platform is likely to have a limited number of buyers. Large automakers have their own developments, and would rather buy not a platform, but its developer, and not for the sake of technology, but to fight off competition. Perhaps the platform would be bought by niche electric vehicle manufacturers, but are there many of them out there? Will they be able to generate enough demand to make the production of the platform pay off? Judging by the fact that no announced platform has yet become commercially successful, there is not enough demand yet. But perhaps the market has not yet been offered a reliable and inexpensive platform. Creating such a platform for electric vehicles involves designing a completely new way of manufacturing a car, one that does not require large investments in the construction of huge factories and where manufacturing steps are streamlined. The real question is then whether the necessary technologies for the production of electric vehicle components have matured enough. From what we see, such technologies already exist, and it is possible to combine them into a new production chain to create just such a reliable and inexpensive platform.