It’s back to school season, so it’s time for book reports. This one is about one of the most important books I have read in a while—Electrify, by Saul Griffith, an Australian-American who earned his PhD from MIT. This is a book I recommend to everyone. It’s a little nerdy, but also accessible. It describes a constructive and positive solution to the climate emergency—as well as a practical pathway, using available technology, to a better future with energy abundance, cleaner air, more jobs, and many other benefits.
The subtitle of Electrify is “An Optimist’s Playbook for Our Clean Energy Future.” That aptly captures the key points in the book.
The subtitle of Electrify is “An Optimist’s Playbook for Our Clean Energy Future.” That aptly captures the key points in the book.
It is an optimistic vision. That is a welcome perspective in light of all the (understandable) gloom about what’s happening to the Earth’s climate stability.
It is a playbook that offers practical and constructive solutions—ones enabled by technologies that we have today, like electric motors, heat pumps, and solar panels. That playbook is simple and elegant—to electrify our machines and to power them with abundant and cheap electricity from non-carbon sources, especially solar and wind energy.
It is a playbook that offers practical and constructive solutions—ones enabled by technologies that we have today, like electric motors, heat pumps, and solar panels. That playbook is simple and elegant—to electrify our machines and to power them with abundant and cheap electricity from non-carbon sources, especially solar and wind energy. To end the era of fossil fuels by replacing our current energy system with something better. To replace a system that powered our way of life in the 20th century—but one that has imperiled the stability of Earth’s climate and wastes most of the energy we produce—with a 21st century energy system that is far more efficient, cleaner, and better.
And the book is a story about the future—a future that will be not just cleaner, but better in every way that matters. It changes the narrative about combating climate change—telling a story not about sacrifice and deprivation and what we have to lose, but about what we have to gain.
The author, Saul Griffith, is also helping to implement the better future he describes in the book by founding Rewiring America, a non-profit organization that offers people practical information on how to pursue the electrification transition in their own homes and lives. Check it out at rewiringamerica.org.
Electrify contains many profound and thought-provoking insights. You can get the gist of the main messages from reading the first chapter, “A Glimmer of Hope,” along with the summary notes at the beginning of each subsequent chapter. But it is well worth the time to read the book thoroughly and in depth to absorb the many ideas it offers. The richness of the book and its insights is in the details.
The biggest reward for a careful reading of Electrify—and its most important message—is a change in our thinking about energy, the climate challenge, and humanity’s prospects for the future.
The biggest reward for a careful reading of Electrify—and its most important message—is a change in our thinking about energy, the climate challenge, and humanity’s prospects for the future.
Griffith traces the way our thinking about energy was formed during the oil shocks of the 1970s—and illustrates how we are still captive to that mindset, and how it is holding us back. We have been trapped in a mindset of seeking marginal efficiency gains in the consumption of fossil fuels, together with increases in their supply. Instead, what we need to do now is to transform to a 21st century energy system—one that looks at demand and supply as an integrated system.
What that work shows is that we waste most of the energy we produce—primarily because of the inefficiencies of combusting fossil fuels, as well extracting and transporting them. Most of our energy goes up “in smoke” as wasted heat.
The book describes the analytical work that has been done to trace, in detail, the way energy is supplied and consumed throughout the sectors of our economy—residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation. What that work shows is that we waste most of the energy we produce—primarily because of the inefficiencies of combusting fossil fuels, as well extracting and transporting them. Most of our energy goes up “in smoke” as wasted heat. There’s a better way.
The electric technologies of the 21st century—especially electric motors and heat pumps—offer energy efficiency gains with a factor of three improvement. The result: we can power a transformed system with about half the energy we use now, while maintaining our current way of life, with the prospect of sustainable abundance into the future.
The electric technologies of the 21st century—especially electric motors and heat pumps—offer energy efficiency gains with a factor of three improvement. The result: we can power a transformed system with about half the energy we use now, while maintaining our current way of life, with the prospect of sustainable abundance into the future.
The other good news from an electrification effort? It will generate millions of new jobs—good jobs, many in manufacturing, spread throughout the country. And the states that currently serve as centers for fossil fuel production are especially well positioned for the deployment of the massive amounts of additional wind and solar farms during the electrification transition.
Though offering an optimistic vision of the future, Electrify does have a stark message for its readers. We are almost out of time to address the climate emergency and preserve a stable climate.
Though offering an optimistic vision of the future, Electrify does have a stark message for its readers. We are almost out of time to address the climate emergency and preserve a stable climate. Taking account of the current levels of carbon in the atmosphere, and then adding the emissions that will result from existing machines powered by fossil fuels (so-called “committed emissions”), means that we are nearing the carbon levels that will cause unrecoverable consequences. What does that mean? It means that all our current fossil fuel machines need to be replaced with electric ones when they reach the end of their service lives.
Every new car we buy, every new furnace, every new water heater—they all need to be electric. Starting now.
Every new car we buy, every new furnace, every new water heater—they all need to be electric. Starting now.
Here are some other insights offered in Electrify.
We should start thinking about infrastructure in a broader context—with an integrated energy demand-and-supply perspective.
We should start thinking about infrastructure in a broader context—more than the traditional list of big things like roads, bridges, power plants, pipelines, and transmission lines. With an integrated demand-and-supply perspective, the heat pumps, storage batteries, and solar panels in our homes and other buildings become key parts of the energy infrastructure.
We should build a 21st century electric grid that works more like the internet, with all sources of demand and supply linked and sharing energy in an integrated way.
Australia has already achieved a cost of $1 per kilowatt capacity for rooftop solar installations—about a third of the cost in America. They achieved that by streamlining their regulations on things like permitting and inspections, and other drivers of “soft” (non-hardware) costs. A cost of $1 per kilowatt is a true game-changer.
We need to rewrite the rules regulating our energy system to enable a 21st century energy system—and to speed the deployment of new technologies while lowering their costs. As one example of the benefits, Australia has already achieved a cost of $1 per kilowatt capacity for rooftop solar installations—about a third of the cost in America. They achieved that by streamlining their regulations on things like permitting and inspections, and other drivers of “soft” (non-hardware) costs. A cost of $1 per kilowatt is a true game-changer, making the cost to produce electricity locally lower than just the transmission cost of getting it from the utilities.
As we expand the electricity capacity to meet our electrification needs—to about three times today’s capacity—the expanded production of wind and solar will lower those costs still further—probably by half.
Renewable energy sources—solar and wind—are already the lowest-cost sources of new electrical generating capacity. As we expand the electricity capacity to meet our electrification needs—to about three times today’s capacity—the expanded production of wind and solar will lower those costs still further—probably by half.
We can build a reliable electric grid using mostly renewable sources, especially solar and wind. The keys will be a more interconnected grid and creative use of storage systems and demand management.
We can build a reliable electric grid using mostly renewable sources, especially solar and wind. The keys will be a more interconnected grid and creative use of storage systems and demand management. There are lots of ways to store energy—many things can be a “battery” for storing electricity.
As we electrify more things—more vehicles, more furnaces, more water heaters—we will need more electricity, but balancing the grid gets easier as there are more things to average loads among.
Electrify takes a sensible approach to energy issues—often with a different perspective than many environmental groups.
Electrify takes a sensible approach to energy issues—often with a different perspective than many environmental groups. For example, the book describes a pragmatic approach to nuclear power, lauding its virtues, but also describing the challenges that must be overcome if it is going to make a contribution to the 21st century electricity system.
Electrify also emphasizes the need for public-private partnerships to build the new energy system, highlighting the importance of creating financing mechanisms for the large upfront investments that are needed, rather than large amounts of direct government spending. The book also emphasizes that we will need the capabilities and resources of the existing energy companies.
Electrify also emphasizes the need for public-private partnerships to build the new energy system, highlighting the importance of creating financing mechanisms for the large upfront investments that are needed, rather than large amounts of direct government spending. The book also emphasizes that we will need the capabilities and resources of the existing energy companies, arguing that we will need them as allies rather than enemies. It even suggests the heretical notion of a financial buyout of existing fossil fuel assets to promote that objective.
The book also takes a sensible approach to other approaches like hydrogen and biofuels. Noting that the large energy losses in producing those fuels make them a poor alterative to electrification, the book does offer the prospect that they will be needed to meet specialized energy demands for some industrial processes and long-range transportation.
I found only two points of disagreement with the arguments in Electrify. The first is the book’s de-emphasis of efficiency efforts. The second is the book’s skepticism about carbon fees and other mechanisms for promoting the electrification transition.
I found only two points of disagreement with the arguments in Electrify. The first is the book’s de-emphasis of efficiency efforts. The second is the book’s skepticism about carbon fees and other mechanisms for promoting the electrification transition.
On efficiency, Electrify correctly argues that we can’t “efficiency our way to zero carbon.” That is true. But the book does not make a clear distinction between efficiency in the use of fossil fuels, on the one hand, and efficiency in the use of electricity, on the other hand. More efficient use of fossil fuels doesn’t get us to zero carbon. For example, a hybrid vehicle that gets better gas mileage may be better than a standard vehicle that uses more gasoline, but it’s still burning fossil fuels and emitting dangerous pollution over the life of the vehicle. That doesn’t get us to the zero-carbon energy system we need.
But more efficient electric machines are a different story. The book makes the point that the efficiency we really need is electrification—because that’s where we get the big efficiency gains, with electric machines offering a factor of three improvement in energy efficiency. And that is true. But producing and buying more efficient electric machines also helps. By requiring less electricity, they get us to zero carbon faster and easier—and at less cost. They can reduce both individual electricity consumption and also the required increase in total electrical generating capacity. So maximizing the efficiency of things like our electric appliances makes an important contribution to the transition to a new energy system. Programs like the EnergyStar system enable the transition by highlighting the most efficient appliances we can buy.
Efficiency alone is not the solution, but it makes an important contribution.
In short, efficiency along is not the solution, but it makes an important contribution. A nuance perhaps, but an important one.
But the book begs the question: what are the best means to get us to the electrification solution? The book doesn’t really say.
On carbon fees, the book notes in an appendix that they are not actually a solution to the climate emergency. Rather, they are a market mechanism to incentivize the transition away from fossil fuels. Electrification is the actual solution. Again, that is true. But it begs the question: what are the best means to get us to the electrification solution? The book doesn’t really say. But the implication is that the means is the exhortation contained in the book—logical and data-driven arguments for why electrification is the solution. Yes, the book describes steps that will help, such as electrification cost reductions from changes to rules and regulations as well as new mechanisms to finance the upfront costs of the transition. But that still begs the question of what will make the transition happen, especially when so many people and businesses are still traveling on the default fossil fuel path—a default path that has a lot of powerful market inertia and economic interests sustaining it.
The book’s critique of carbon fees also makes a couple of negative claims about that approach that are probably incorrect, or at least highly debatable. It states that it is too late for carbon fees and that their effect is regressive in placing a greater burden on lower-income people.
Economists would say that enactment of a carbon fee, even one that doesn’t ramp up until later years, would have a powerful impact on long-term investment decisions.
But economists would say that enactment of a carbon fee, even one that doesn’t ramp up until later years, would have a powerful impact on long-term investment decisions. For example, what company would pursue plans for the construction of a natural gas power plant now, knowing that the cost of its fuel would escalate significantly in later years because of the carbon fee? Especially when the costs of renewables are steadily declining. Thousands of individual investment decisions throughout the economy and energy system would be impacted in a similar way by a carbon fee enacted today.
The economic impact of a carbon fee on households would depend on how the revenue is used.
The economic impact of a carbon fee on households would depend on how the revenue is used. The leading proposals combine a carbon fee with a dividend system that would return the revenues to households. Studies have shown that a per capita dividend would actually make lower-income households better off when considering the combined effect of the fees they would pay indirectly and the dividends they would receive directly. And that result makes sense because high-income people tend to have larger homes and use more energy.
It is probably better to start with positive financial incentives to pursue electrification, such as the ones in the 2022 Federal Inflation Reduction Act and other state programs offering rebates and tax-incentives. Those can accelerate the momentum for the electrification transition and build the American manufacturing base for the key ingredients.
There are certainly serious questions about the political ability to pass a carbon fee, as evidenced by the current situation. It is probably better to start with positive financial incentives to pursue electrification, such as the ones in the 2022 Federal Inflation Reduction Act and other state programs offering rebates and tax-incentives. Those can accelerate the momentum for the electrification transition and build the American manufacturing base for the key ingredients—the electric vehicles, batteries, heat pumps, solar panels, and wind turbines. By scaling up production, they can also help lower costs over time. It is probably not viable, either practically or politically, to impose a carbon fee before people have access to affordable EVs, heat pumps, and other electric machines. So the first step is to build that foundation. But once those systems reach a critical mass, both in terms of consumer acceptance and manufacturing capability, the political power to enact measures like a carbon fee will grow—in the same way that taxes on cigarettes became politically palatable as non-smokers became a solid majority. At that point, a carbon fee could help accelerate the transition and extend it to the more challenging sectors, such as high-temperature manufacturing and long-range transportation.
——————————————————————————————-
To end this book report on a positive note—appropriate to the book—Electrify offers a call to Americans to regain their optimism about the future and their can-do spirit. Ironically, perhaps it takes an Australian immigrant to remind Americans of our optimistic nature and history.
The book recounts the many serious challenges that Americans have taken on in the past—and triumphed in doing so.
The book recounts the many serious challenges that Americans have taken on in the past—and triumphed in doing so. The industrial mobilization that won World War II, when America became the Arsenal of Democracy. The space race, when America pulled off the miraculous achievement of landing humans on the Moon within a decade—a triumph that in some ways appeared even more miraculous when the 50th anniversary was celebrated a few years ago. The book also recounts other American accomplishments outside the realm of technology, such as financial innovations and social movements for equal rights.
Defeatism about America’s ability to succeed in the necessary transition to a new energy system is infuriating for two reasons.
A defeatist attitude about transitioning away from fossil fuels is factually wrong. As Electrify describes, we have a path to a solution—one that is elegant, available with current technology, and better in every way than the fossil fuel system that served us well in the 20th century but is now obsolete.
First, a defeatist attitude about transitioning away from fossil fuels is factually wrong. As Electrify describes, we have a path to a solution—one that is elegant, available with current technology, and better in every way than the fossil fuel system that served us well in the 20th century but is now obsolete.
Defeatism about the future is fundamentally un-American. We have always been a country unafraid to lead into the future and to take on, and overcome, great challenges in the process. Indeed, the American Dream itself is fundamentally based on a belief that the future will be better.
Second, defeatism about the future is fundamentally un-American. We have always been a country unafraid to lead into the future and to take on, and overcome, great challenges in the process. Indeed, the American Dream itself is fundamentally based on a belief that the future will be better. We have a path to a better future—both a clean energy system that offers abundance and a way to avoid the dystopian future we face if we continue on our current path.
By leading the way, America can put itself in a position to lead the 21st century, as it did in the 20th century.
Electrify also addresses the critique sometimes offered to delay action on climate change: that it will do no good for America to get off fossil fuels if the rest of the world continues to use them. But that is another version of the defeatist attitude. America led the 20th century transition to a petroleum-based energy system. The rest of the world followed, and America prospered as leader in that technology. In the same way, America can and should lead the way to the 21st century energy system. Others will follow because the new system will be better—cleaner and more efficient, with better performance. And by leading the way, America can put itself in a position to lead the 21st century, as it did in the 20th century. Indeed, by building the expertise and the manufacturing base, America, with its wealth of resources and land, can again become the leader in energy technology, with an accompanying renaissance of manufacturing business and jobs. Americans at Bell Labs developed the first practical solar cells in 1954—why aren’t we the leading exporter of solar systems today?
We have nothing to fear in the transition away from fossil fuels, and much to gain. The future is electric—let’s get going!
We have nothing to fear in the transition away from fossil fuels, and much to gain. The future is electric—let’s get going!