In order to understand where we are with our energy resources and consumption patterns today, it's worth taking a look back at how human energy use has changed over time. Most of us have trouble imagining a day without interior lighting in our homes or Internet connectivity, so imagining early humans and their most primitive of energy resources is somewhat challenging.

The Industrial Revolution and Energy Use

It really wasn't until the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s that human's ability to harness energy on a (relatively) large, efficient scale took place and truly revolutionized our ways of life and ability to perform work. Prior to that, early people relied primarily on caloric energy from the food they consumed to give the energy they needed to perform their basic tasks for survival. With the discovery of fire and the ability to burn biomass (wood, animal dung, charcoal), humans then had an important source of heat.

With the domestication of animals, humans were able to transition from a more nomadic way of life as a hunter/gatherer into a more agrarian society. Harnessing animal energy allowed early humans to grow more food more efficiently and stay in one place. It comes as no surprise that the ability to produce more food easily translated into sustained population growth. Early society was taking a different shape, thanks in large part to human's ability to utilize these energy opportunities.

Figure 1.2: US Energy Consumption Graph

Credit: EIA Energy Information Administration, 2020.

As the graph above illustrates, wood remained the dominant fuel source until it was surpassed by coal powering the Industrial Revolution in the late 1880s. Throughout wood's reign as the world's primary fuel source, overall energy consumption grew steadily, but remained quite low compared to the levels that would develop in the wake of the Industrial Revolution. Coal was our primary energy source until around the late 1940s when it was overtaken by oil, which remains out main energy source.

This explosion in energy consumption changed human history in almost every way. The ability to mass produce goods and a focus on a consumption-based economy were huge paradigm shifts from previous subsistence societies. The migration of people from rural areas to cities for work led to issues associated with poor sanitation and working conditions. But many of the modern conveniences on which we've become reliant were born out of this era.

Vaclav Smil defines an energy transition as, "the time that elapses between the introduction of a new primary energy source (coal, oil, nuclear electricity, wind captured by large turbines) and its rise to claiming a substantial share of the overall market" (2010).

If we explore historical energy transitions, we will see that they all have one thing in common - they tend to be slow, spanning decades or more. Let's look at some examples (also from Smil's Energy Myths and Realities):

• For millennia, people relied on biomass fuels to meet their energy needs. Coal did not overtake biomass as the primary fuel source until the late 1880s.
• Oil was first commercially produced in the 1860s; however, it did not reach 10% of the market share until 50 years later. It took another 30 years to raise that from 10% to 25%.
• Natural gas, first available in 1900, did not reach 20% of the total energy market until 1970. Its share in 2008 was just half of what had been anticipated in the 1970s.

What's happening with these energy transitions that are causing them to take so long to develop? Infrastructure is a big consideration. Think about the global infrastructure that exists to extract, process, transport, and utilize our current mix of fossil fuels. Even if we assume a utopian scenario of the discovery of a new energy resource that is plentiful, clean, easily accessible, and cheap, that doesn't change the reality of our past investments. And the physical infrastructure is only part of the equation. There's also a global workforce of individuals whose livelihoods are based on the development of these resources.

In addition, people are creatures of habit, and a reluctance to accept change can be a significant challenge to overcome in the quest to grow the market share of a new energy resource. One easy example is that of hybrid cars - many people are uneasy about purchasing an alternative fuel vehicle because they fear the unknown. What if something happens to the battery? The technology is still too new. Our own reluctance to accept new risks influences the marketplace. Many people are willing to accept less efficiency for more predictability.

Finally, another consideration of the timing of transition is dealing with the aspects of reliability, security, accessibility, and sustainability of energy. In short, reliability is the need for baseflow and 24/7 provision; security is that our supply is secure and safe; accessibility is that most people can get to it; and sustainability is that the source is clean and safe. In some cases, these considerations can be competing, and the need to reconcile inconsistencies can take time. A good example is renewable energy. One reason that conversion to all renewables is slow is that there is not enough capacity to ensure the 24/7 baseload supply needed for society to function.

A New Transition is Afoot

And now we find ourselves in the midst of the next big energy transition as we look to move beyond the hydrocarbons that have propelled our society for two centuries now in favor of lower-carbon, more environmentally sustainable alternatives. The transition to a low carbon economy is one borne more out of necessity from the perspective of addressing climate change than it is a response to dwindling supplies of fossil-fuel-based energy supply. However, that concern also factors into the decision. And like the energy transitions of the past, this one is playing out over an extended time frame, though the more rapid deployment of technology over time (generally speaking) may expedite this journey a bit. And while we can't perfectly predict how the transition will unfold, corporations and governments the world over are trying to understand the likely scenarios and plan for them.

This graphic below is really nicely done because it lays out peaks in various resource use as well as the overall peak in our global demand for energy along with the ramping up of renewable capabilities. DNV GL offers a projection of the next 10 years Their Energy Transition Outlook (spoiler: there is progress, but we are not transitioning fast enough to carbon neutrality), if you are so inclined. This is of course one think tank's best guess at what the transition will look like as they seek to prepare their partners for the changes ahead. Can you find examples of other models of what our transition to a sustainable energy future might look like? Feel free to share them in our HAVE A QUESTION discussion board!

Download the high resolution PDF of Fig. 1.3 of this graph so you can actually see it. 

It would be difficult to discuss the history of human energy use without at least a brief discussion of the Industrial Revolution. And, in a class where we're focusing on energy not just for energy's sake, but also incorporating the climate impacts of our energy use, it's absolutely critical.

And while we tend to think of the Industrial Revolution in a historical context, because it occurred so long ago in the western world (starting in England, and spreading readily to other European countries and the colonies now known as the US), it's important to remember - especially in the context of energy policy - that much of the world is still striving to achieve industrialization. Industrialization serves as a major sticking point for international climate policy negotiations, with lesser industrialized countries lamenting the fact that the western world enjoyed unmitigated development with cheap, dirty fuel sources and had no climate considerations burdening their desire to grow and evolve. The western world, however, recognizes the implications of continued growth in carbon-intensive fuel sources to support a higher quality of life around the world and (from the luxury of their industrialized societies) calls for cleaner, more expensive energy alternatives moving forward.

The Industrial Revolution marks a turning point in how we viewed energy, consumption, and our environment. Prior to this, the manufacturing process was small and on a highly localized scale. Skilled laborers worked in small groups to create complex goods. The Industrial Revolution saw increased farm production and efficiency, allowing more people to abandon subsistence farming for livelihoods in industrial centers. Fewer farmers feeding more people allows society to advance and branch out in all areas, with individuals able to devote time to livelihoods in manufacturing, textiles, services, and other areas.

And while it's termed a 'revolution,' these changes still took time. Remember our discussions about energy transitions and how they are slow-moving events? The Industrial Revolution was no exception to that. The primary difference here is that the Industrial Revolution marks a time in history when we had a fundamental shift in how we did things, and this transcends just a system of factories. Agricultural practices, economic policies, and societal norms were all upended to make way for more efficient ways of doing business and a rapid pursuit of a higher quality of life. On a rudimentary level, we can think about the Industrial Revolution as being similar to the advent of e-mail. E-mail fundamentally changed how businesses operate - and seemingly helped make them more efficient. 

However, even as revolutionary as some of our recent technological advancements have been, few things will ever be quite the spot-on history that the Industrial Revolution has been. Lumped under this heading is a series of events that cascaded into the very real quality of life improvements for people of the times, and people today. Modern-day conveniences like washing machines and sewing machines (just to name a few) owe their roots to the Industrial Revolution.

For many people, living the reality of the Industrial Revolution's changes on the ground, it wasn't all good. Poor working conditions, child labor, crowded living conditions with little sanitation, and extreme air pollution are but a few of the consequences of the growth and advancement during this time. And lest we forget that industrialization in the West would not have been possible without the social implications of slavery, colonialism (historical colonialism as well as neocolonialism that arguably exists today), and resource exploitation. And this phenomenon is not only historical. A bevy of research has found that airborne pollution - largely from manufactururing and energy generation associated with industrialization - causes major health impacts. One recent study found that pollution reduces the averages Chinese citizens' life by almost 3 years. There are negative impacts from things like mining rare earth metals, toxic electronic waste pollution, land grabs to secure raw materials, and more - all resulting as a consequence of the current energy transition and global industrialization. These impacts can be disproportionately visited upon marginalized populations domestically and globally. It's important to keep these side effects in mind as we think about radical shifts in energy sources. While our goal to be more efficient and provide more people with a better quality of life isn't all that different from the goals of large-scale industrialization, we must be mindful of the unintended consequences and externalities of our actions.

In 1976, Amory Lovins wrote about 'hard' and 'soft' energy paths (which you'll be reading all about in this week's assigned reading) and how the path the nation chooses would dictate the energy future that would follow. Now, more than three decades later, we can recall the energy futures Lovins predicted based on policy choices in the 1970s and understand the implications of energy policy of that time.

Characteristics of hard energy paths:

• centralized high technologies
• increasing supplies of energy (especially electricity)

Projected U.S. Gross Primary Energy Use under the ‘Hard Path’ (1975–2025), showing heavy reliance on coal, oil and gas, and nuclear power as demand steadily increases.

Click here for a text description of the An Illistrative, Schematic Future for US Gross Primary Energy Use- The Hard Path

This graph depicts Amory Lovins' description of a hard energy path, reliant on centralized fossil fuels. While nuclear fuel is projected to play a much bigger role post-2000, the reliance on coal and natural gas still leads us down a heavily carbonized path. What this graph wasn't able to predict at the time of its conception was the boom in natural gas production, both domestically and globally, with unconventional plays in shale formations creating a surge in its market share, snuffing out coal to a large extent.

Credit: Amory Lovins

Characteristics of soft energy paths:

• emphasis on energy efficiency
• development of renewable energy sources - matching in scale and quality to the end use need

Projected U.S. Gross Primary Energy Use under the ‘Soft Path’ (1975–2025), highlighting a transition away from coal and oil toward efficiency and renewable ‘soft technologies.’

Click here for a text description of the An Illistrative, Schematic Future for US Gross Primary Energy Use- The Soft Path

This graph depicts Amory Lovins' concept of a soft energy path, emphasizing energy efficiency and increased use of renewable sources. This illustration of the soft energy path not only demonstrates a downward trend over time in overall emissions, but more importantly, a relatively rapid decline in reliance on traditional centralized fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal, in favor of what Lovins described as soft technologies, including decentralized renewable energy like residential rooftop solar.

Credit: Amory Lovins

Summary

In this lesson, we've taken a brief look at human energy use throughout history. By understanding how people have harnessed energy resources in the past, we can more fully appreciate the nuances of our energy challenges moving forward. We've learned that energy transitions of any kind take time, money, and support in order to be successful - and often take more of each of these things than initially estimated or anticipated. Understanding these patterns of transition has critical importance for effective and realistic energy policy development. Establishing achievable timetables for measured success requires an understanding and appreciation of the pace with which new energy resources can realistically be expected to have any real impact commercially.

One fact that will be critical for us to remember as we continue on in the course is that we're always writing history - so be thinking about what students taking a graduate-level energy policy course will be learning about in 30 years. Or 50. What will be the history we write? Will it be one of the rapid adoption of more sustainable and renewable energy technologies with more distributed infrastructure? Will it be one of the continued reliance on traditional fossil fuels with little widespread adoption of newer sources? These are tricky questions to answer, given the likelihood of currently unpredictable events that will shape our energy outlook and policy. Unforeseen technological advancement, new scientific discovery highlighting major benefits or detriments of any particular energy resource, and the real wild card of societal behaviors and preferences make it difficult to foresee what's coming. Thirty years ago, it would have been nothing short of science fiction to imagine an iPhone, or how a hybrid car coaches the driver to drive it with maximum efficiency - spitting out nearly continuous MPG data and suggestions for improvement. Only fifteen or so years ago, the thought that electricity from renewable energy would be as cost-effective as coal or natural gas (aka grid parity) was almost laughable. Now properly-stied onshore wind and utility-scale solar are cheaper on a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) basis - without subsidies.

This course is designed to approach issues of energy policy in a two-pronged (somewhat conflicting) manner.

• Dream Big. I want you to think outside the box, imagine radical shifts in thinking and governance, and develop idealistic and utopian views of our future. What future do you want to see, and how can we get there?
• Stay Grounded. I also want you to recognize all of the constraints and conflicts tugging at the very core of energy policy - current and future. Our social, cultural, economic, and political circumstances are real and likely here to stay.

It is our hope that if we take a little bit of each of these approaches, we can all learn something about the energy policies governing our world and what exactly we need to do to improve them. Without the ability to dream big, we get stuck in the status quo, and our policies don't change and evolve with the times. But, if we don't stay grounded to some extent, we risk losing the ability to affect real change in the social constructs in which we must operate. Finding this delicate balance will be our goal.

This lesson was also about tradeoffs.

• There is no magic energy source. As we continue to refine existing technologies and develop new ones, we may be improving upon the social and environmental consequences of our energy consumption, but we cannot yet eliminate that from the equation. We value non-renewable energy resources for their abundance and relatively cheap costs ("cheap" ignoring externalities, of course), but are becoming increasingly discontented with their environmental pollution and social impacts, particularly with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. We value the lower emission rates of renewable resources, but find the costs, lack of social acceptance, and new environmental consequences to be barriers to widespread adoption. With this foundation, let's take a look at how policies can help alleviate some of these challenges to renewable resource adoption!
• The path we've chosen might be a bumpy road. In your review of the Amory Lovins article, you learned that even several decades ago, people were questioning our energy choices and the consequences we'd be faced with depending on what we value most in energy in this country. While his concepts of hard and soft energy paths might seem a little extreme on either end of the spectrum, he illustrates the point that we cannot (yet) have it all. Cheap, centralized energy is dirty. Energy efficiency and conservation are hard to incentivize with cheap energy. If nothing else, walk away from that article with the understanding that the decision to hop from one path to another is a complicated and daunting proposition, and one which requires strong policy decisions.

Reminder - Complete all of the Lesson tasks!

You have reached the end of this lesson! Double-check the Lesson Requirements in Canvas to make sure you have completed all of the tasks listed there.