Nick Rosen

Richard Black’s new book, The Future of Energy, is impeccably researched, well-timed. and entertainingly written for such a dense subject.

It is also focused on the wrong future.

Black is a highly respected, former BBC environmental science journalist – he left the Corporation over a decade ago because his face didn’t fit in the febrile world of accusation and counter- accusation from climate deniers, and determined greenwashing from the large corporations which had begun muscling in on the funding for environmental tech.

Black’s general approach is in line with the UK government thinking. Their planned Great British energy invesmtnet vehcile will soon be dispensing its modest budget (£8.5 billion) to assist clean energy startups of all sorts – but mainly big ones. Black thinks Coal Oil and Gas are Bad. Clean Energy is Good. Which is perfectly true as far as it goes. But despite his talk about the Rockefeller oil dynasty and the distrust of government that comes through in every chapter – Black still opts for the easy life – adopting the general consensus in the climate industry that the present system will be much like the past but cleaner and better – that we can keep living largely the same way and dong much the same things, but somehow clean energy delivered by large companies will solve our climate problems for us.

This is not the conclusion I wanted to hear, and its all the more strange because a short chunk of the book does pay lip service to off-grid energy. Pages 43-46 of the 200 page book has Black telling us:
“For me, one of the biggest attractions of the clean energy system is the power it confers on people and businesses to make their own decisions. By opting in, people can choose to rid themselves of the daily dependence on coal for the fire, petrol for the car and gas for the boiler…”
He goes on

“With P2P trading, electricity is used close to where it is generated, reducing the need for big transmission cables, substations and other grid paraphernalia.“
The centralised grid, which like most commentators Black wants to see cleaned up “decarbonised strengthened and extended – is more part of the problem than it is part of the solution.

Black’s argument is very much in the mainstream of current thought – he is going with the flow But he would do well to remember that when he argues against Oil, Gas and Coal – he is doing the nuclear industry’s job for them – jsut imageine all those energy industry bosses salivating tat the thought of the extra bonuses they will get when oil is finally stopped. True, Black criticises Just Stop Oil for their performance politics – but he makes the same mistake as JSO – not realising that the culprit is not Big Oil = it is Big Energy that got …

To say that the United States electrical grid is outdated would be an understatement. Built largely during the first half of the 20th century, the grid has struggled to keep up with the explosion of electrical demand and technological advancements. It’s a patchwork system, plagued by inefficiencies, that was not designed for the diverse energy needs of the 21st century.

The electrical grid’s limitations aren’t just a theoretical problem; they have real-world implications. Extreme weather events, which are increasing in frequency due to climate change, pose significant risks. The recent Texas energy crisis, where a winter storm left millions without power, is a glaring example. Natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires also highlight how easily large sections of the grid can be knocked out, leaving communities without essential services for days or even weeks.

The centralized nature of the U.S. grid further compounds these issues. The existing structure often creates monopolistic scenarios where a single provider controls a regional grid, limiting competition and innovation. This affects not just pricing but also the motivation to transition to cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy. The end result is an inertia that is hard to overcome.

Off-Grid: A Viable Alternative

One promising way to address these myriad issues is through the adoption of off-grid energy solutions. Off-grid systems, often based on renewable energy sources like solar and wind, are modular by design, meaning they can be scaled up or down as needed. This provides a unique flexibility that the traditional grid simply cannot offer.

Local Energy Production

One of the most significant advantages of going off-grid is the potential for local energy production. Communities can produce their own electricity, thereby reducing the distance that electricity has to travel. This not only minimizes transmission losses but also reduces the vulnerability to centralized grid failures.

Decentralization and Competition

By encouraging off-grid solutions, we move towards a more decentralized energy model. This fosters competition and allows communities to tailor their energy systems to their specific needs, whether that be cost-efficiency, sustainability, or resilience.

Environmental Benefits

Incorporating off-grid energy solutions like solar panels and wind turbines can also significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By shifting away from fossil fuel-based electricity, off-grid systems offer an environmentally friendly alternative that aligns with global sustainability goals.

Legislative Reform: The Case for a New Category of “Local Energy Producer”

Given the clear advantages of off-grid systems, there’s an urgent need for legislative action. One such change could be modeled on the UK’s Electricity Act of 1989. A new category, “Local Energy Producer,” should be introduced, granting off-grid solutions a formal standing within the regulatory framework. This could involve tax incentives, grants, or subsidized loans to encourage local communities to invest in off-grid energy solutions.

The limitations and vulnerabilities of the U.S. electrical grid are not insurmountable problems; they are challenges that present an opportunity for transformative change. Off-grid energy is not …