Restructuring research for the energy transition

1. Introduction

The energy transition is testing the limits of scientific research to find solutions to today's pressing problems. The obstacles affect not only our ability to perform goal-oriented research but also to interlink knowledge and develop novel ideas to combat problems stemming from our energy generation regime (such as global warming, pollution and loss of biodiversity). Many of the tools we need to begin the transition to a new energy system exist at adequate levels of technological readiness. Yet, implementation of a fossil-free energy infrastructure is not proceeding at a rate that will meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. The structure of scientific research—that is, the mechanisms of identifying and delivering knowledge relevant not to assessing, but to alleviating humans’ impact on the Earth system—is inadequate and needs to expand to include new elements. The redress of this fault is not a normative declaration of new policy but, rather, an effective presentation of the information necessary for technological solutions, for public decision-making, or to counter blatantly false narratives.

The new structure of science will blur the line between basic and applied research while incorporating engineering, economics and the social sciences. Also urgent is the strengthening of public acceptance and political support for climate justice on a global scale and clean energy technology on a local level (Editorial Board, 2016; Gupta, 2021). The current state of knowledge allows for progress towards clean energy through 2035. Progress between 2035 and 2050 is still an open question and depends on the extent of the structural changes that are achieved.

The shift will require us to relinquish the notion of the centrality of specialization. The quote attributed to the American philosopher Nicholas Murray Butler—‘An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing’—is surely an exaggeration but reminds us of the limits of silo-thinking. Granted, the task of one individual coping with today's increasing amount of available information is also a challenge and will have to be met with new strategies, perhaps in conjunction with wider social changes.

Generally, widening research perspectives means revamping the Pipeline view popularized by Vannevar Bush in the post-WWII era. Since Bush's time, it has been demonstrated that a web of development from science to technology is a more accurate description than a linear trajectory. Yet, the linear notion lives on, and basic research remains isolated at the beginning of the innovation process, where it is celebrated as ‘directionless’. In Germany, this design is even represented in the arrangement of its research institutes. ¹ But today's basic research can also have immediate application, in both technical and social spheres, which gives it identifiable usefulness and direction. In 1945, Bush (1945: xxvi) declared that ‘there is a perverse law governing research: under the pressure for immediate results, and unless deliberate policies are set up to guard against this, applied research invariably drives out pure’. But is it necessary to protect basic research? We would indeed be well served not to forget that certain forms of research are higher risk and less immediately justifiable than other forms, as is basic research compared to applied. But important to keep in mind are the benefits of and approaches to different kinds of research (basic, applied, interdisciplinary). We do not need to go to great lengths to categorize or separate them. Or are we afraid that without strict delineation we will no longer be able to differentiate between them?

The change outlined above is already in motion. The following examples show how research can better respond to the challenges of the energy transition.

2. Recycling carbon

The energy transition consists of two main parts: electrification (decarbonization) and the defossilization of everything that cannot be electrified. The latter currently includes long-distance air traffic and marine shipping as well as sectors that rely directly on carbon chemistry, such as the commodity chemicals and steel industries. Defossilized processes will account for up to 20% of future energy use; they are a central building block of sustainability (Deerberg et al., 2022). Within a circular economy, the commodity chemicals industry and industrial manufacturing can be linked to form a closed carbon cycle. The symbiosis is often expressed through the combined production of steel + methanol, in which steel is made using the hydrogen-based direct reduction of iron (DRI). DRI will decarbonize the steel industry to the extent possible, and residual emissions can be captured to manufacture methanol, an alternative fuel, with renewable resources.

In Germany, research on the transition to non-fossil steel is the purview of the federally financed project Carbon2Chem. ² Consideration of the partners ³ involved, ranging from research to private industry and government organizations, exposes the broad technical expertise and financial means needed to tackle the defossilization of industry. Within this network, basic research has already found immediate application (Laudenschleger et al., 2020). The standard catalyst for methanol synthesis from hydrogen and carbon monoxide—the Cu/ZnO/Al₂O₃ catalyst—was studied to determine the electronic state of the active site: a zinc atom in a metallic copper cluster. The catalyst has been used for 50 years but only recently have new experimental techniques shown the charge on the zinc atom to be positive. The results help us understand the basics of material stability and are, even without application to synthetic fuel production, of fundamental interest for solid state physics.

While research within the context of Carbon2Chem has brought technological solutions for a closed carbon cycle within reach, implementation still suffers from a glaring deficiency: the technologies are virtually unknown outside expert circles. This is a problem, because the restructuring of one steel mill to produce ‘green’ steel would cost several billion euros (Bender et al., 2018). And the taxpayer will be asked to foot the bill.

To overcome the hurdle, the outreach and museum exhibition project WissKomm Energiewende ⁴ was created to accompany Carbon2Chem. The communications project engages and informs the public about the role of complex technologies for carbon recycling in the energy transition; it also informs the public about their own prominent role in decision-making and their ability to influence the course of the energy transition. The partners in WissKomm Energiewende are even more diverse than in Carbon2Chem, covering basic and applied research, private industry and government organizations, along with statisticians, museum partners, curators and science communication experts.

The practical implementation of carbon recycling in industry is an integrated task, dependent on scientists and engineers working in coordination with partners outside the ‘traditional’ scientific landscape. Within this cooperation, it is difficult to label individuals and place them in the usual categories. All members perform research for the energy transition but with increasing attention to other parts of the ‘research web’ (Johnson, 2022). ⁵ Group discussions regularly break disciplinary boundaries, while the complexities of carbon chemistry and the development of successful science communication strategies pose constant challenges.

3. The history of science and knowledge

The science communication efforts just addressed are based on current research and existing technologies for the energy transition. They are aimed at members of the public engaged in critical decision-making or at moving people to become more politically or socially active. Another kind of fundamental research—on the historical development of science, technology and knowledge—can be used to engage with a different segment of society, increasingly prevalent today in (but not limited to) populist movements. The viewpoints in these circles cast doubt on the expertise of scientists and engineers. The experts, the narrative goes, have neither sufficient evidence to prove that climate change is caused by humans nor the aptitude to solve the problem they themselves invented.

Historical research shows, however, that the challenges in solving the climate and energy crises are of a wholly different nature. The energy transition is not a technological transition. It is a social and logistical one. Over decades if not centuries, scientists have developed a deep understanding of the technological solutions at the heart of the energy transition: solar cells, wind turbines and fuel cells. Even artificial intelligence, key to stabilizing the electric grid, is more at the centre of a cultural debate than a technological one. The challenge, rather, is to combine all the technological pieces into a functioning energy system. The pieces must work together (logistics), and we must complement the energy system by adapting our habits and lifestyles to remain within planetary boundaries (social change). Future advances—in particular in catalysis and carbon capture—will be needed, but they are not necessary to begin the transition to clean energy.

There are many examples in the historical literature that demonstrate our command of physics, chemistry and engineering and how the science behind the energy transition is no longer in question. Drawing again on the production of steel + methanol, we are not only capable of manipulating the carbon atom to make methanol out of emissions from the steel industry; we also have documentation of the scientific progress during the nineteenth century that led to that ability (Johnson, 2024; Klein, 2003). That is, we not only have the knowledge itself, we also know how we generated the knowledge in the first place. Similar arguments can be made for solar cells or other industrial processes, such as ammonia synthesis (Johnson, 2022).

The assertion that we are embarking on a transformation of the world's energy system without sufficient awareness of the technological challenges or solutions is not borne out by history. Logistical and social challenges do still require more effective solutions, but these are ongoing fields of study and there is no reason functioning strategies cannot be found within current research structures. One example of progress is the growing understanding of why public acceptance for the energy transition is lacking.

For a truly favourable result, hesitation within the history community itself towards the application of historical studies to the present (usable pasts) must also be overcome (Högselius, 2021). Specialization and strict demarcation are again limiting progress, but the reluctance will hopefully recede in the face of a severe threat like climate change.

4. The way forward

What does the energy research of tomorrow look like? Specialization and silo-thinking will remain to some extent but with diminishing returns. Researchers will be encouraged to expand their expertise and incorporate interdisciplinary pursuits, public engagement or policy advising.

The cultures in research organizations will change. The divide between basic and applied research and engineering, the refusal to disseminate research results beyond academic outlets, and the expectation that researchers conform to the methods and traditions of the institutes where they work—all these things are standing in the way of a successful energy transition. The compartmentalization of today's institutes separates people and disciplines from one another. Research institutes (should they exist in the future) will be flexible and adapt to the strengths of individual researchers as the current hierarchy softens into a lateral network.

Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary endeavours will also be properly valued. In today's energy research world, a young researcher would be crazy to risk a career in science to do something groundbreaking (thankfully, some are). But the risk associated with interdisciplinary work only exists because of the current structures and reward systems of research. In future, science policy should aim to reduce the risk of interdisciplinary research to enable more forward thinking.

5. Conclusion

Lip service has been paid to all of this. The problem has been diagnosed, and effective solutions have been put forward. But no one is willing to give up part of a research budget or a high-profile publication to make the changes reality. Until we show the promise of a new scientific order, no serious attempts will be made. The dynamic recalls a social challenge in the energy transition called NIMBYism: ‘Not in My Back Yard’. I support the energy transition but don’t build that wind turbine near me. The problem exists in research as well: I support changes in the structures of research, but I won’t take the risk myself. NACMOC: ‘Not at the Cost of My Own Career’. But by not reforming scientific research, we risk much more than our jobs.