• About
  • Partners
  • Subscribe
  • Advertise
  • Syndicate
  • Opportunities
  • Publications
  • Contact
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Green Futures RSS Feed
Join our Newsletter
All GreenFutures
  • All
  • Business
  • Design
  • Ecosystems
  • Energy
  • Food
  • Society
  • Special Editions
  • Forum for the Future

Are we on the cusp of a third industrial revolution?

19th January, 2012 by Martin Wright | 8 comments

Jeremy Rifkin shares his compelling vision of a bright new energy economy with Green Futures’ Editor in Chief, Martin Wright.

Jeremy RifkinImagine the internet, only for energy.

Imagine that, as well as tens of millions of personal computers all linked together, exchanging information this way and that, you had tens of millions of personal power stations, pumping electricity to and fro.

Imagine if, working together, they made fossil fuels redundant, resolved all our fears about energy security, and kickstarted a new era of peer-to-peer power sharing. Oh, and made a decisive impact on climate change, too…

Then you’re imagining the sort of future laid out by Jeremy Rifkin, maverick economist and adviser to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and a clutch of EU leaders.

I meet Rifkin for coffee in London’s Langham hotel, during a flying visit to promote his new book. He’s affable, relaxed – but speaks with the air of a man who is used to being listened to. And it’s hardly surprising, because the vision he paints is a pretty compelling one. In it, the Facebook generation seizes the initiative, tearing up conventional thinking about where energy comes from and how it’s delivered. They apply all their nous in sharing information and building seamless networks to create a new, resilient energy economy in its place, powered entirely by renewables – solar, wind, water and tidal, biomass and more besides. This will be nothing short of a new industrial revolution, says Rifkin, and its impacts will be as dramatic and sweeping as any that have gone before.

“Great economic revolutions happen”, he says, “when new energy regimes emerge that facilitate more complex civilisations and more energy flow. In turn, they require communication revolutions to manage them. And when communication and energy revolutions come together, historically, they change the economic footprint.”

It happened in the 19th century, he argues, when steam power helped bring printing costs down, enabling the spread of the written word as never before, while railways unified nations and continents. It meant we could “introduce public [ie state] schools, and create a literate workforce to manage steam and coal power. We couldn’t have done it with an illiterate work-force; it needed that communications revolution.”

Then in the 20th century, electricity and oil combined to trigger a mass-consuming, car driving society, managed and marketed by radio, TV, the telephone… 

Now, says Rifkin, we’re on the cusp of revolution number three – one that will sweep away our existing energy infrastructure. It will replace the “elitist, centralised, top-down” model of fossil fuel plants with an ‘energy internet’, where individual power suppliers and consumers seamlessly swap and trade electricity, as and how they need it, across a Europe-wide smart grid. Essentially, energy will move as information increasingly does now – to and from millions of sources and consumers.

Fighting talk – so how do we get there?

Entrepreneurs will play their part, says Rifkin: they will gatecrash the energy sector with the same élan that saw the internet start-ups rip apart the complacency of the old computing and music industry giants. But, unlike some cornucopian optimists, he doesn’t believe the free market alone will whisk us into a resilient future: good old-fashioned dirigisme has a role, too.

Rifkin’s revolution rests on five key ‘pillars’. First, a commitment from governments to drive renewable energy (as expressed in the EU’s 20% by 2020 target). Second, a massive expansion in distributed energy, with every building transformed into a renewable-power plant. Third, finding a solution to the problem of storing energy – with Rifkin favouring hydrogen as the most practical storage medium. Fourth, creating a smart grid, and fifth, using electric vehicles as a two-way power source come storage ‘tank’.

So far, how revolutionary? If much of that sounds familiar, it’s hardly surprising. Rifkin shares a lot of common ground with the new wave of green optimists who enthuse over the potential of a growing convergence of IT and energy [see 'Getting creative with data']. And it has to be said, a future in which cheaper, more efficient renewables power an all-electric car fleet, and combine with smart grids to transform energy networks is hardly a novel idea.

So where will the juice actually come from?

“Everywhere!”, he replies – then adds an interesting qualification. “My first inclination was, we’ll go to the Mediterranean for the sun; the Irish have the wind, the Norwegians have the hydro, and so on… So, we’ll concentrate it, put it in a high voltage line and ship it. Then, I realised we were using 20th century thinking! If renewables are distributed and found everywhere, why are we only collecting them in [a few places]?”

So, no glittering arrays of concentrated Saharan sun? No vast swathes of North Sea turbines? What about all that Icelandic geothermal…?

“Look, concentrated solar, wind, geothermal parks are all right”, responds Rifkin. “But they’re transitional: they’re essential to get us started, but they are a tiny part of this revolution and you cannot run the world on [them]. It can’t be done.”

Instead, he wants us to zoom in on “the number one cause of energy use, the number one cause of climate change: buildings. We have 191 million buildings in the EU. That’s our [energy] infrastructure: homes, offices and factories. The goal is to convert every single building so everyone has their own green micro power plant. So you get solar off your roof, wind off your walls, geothermal heat [from] under your ground, energy from your garbage anaerobically digested, ocean tides if you’re on the coast etc, etc.”

Once you’ve got the power, though, you have to store it. As Rifkin puts it: “The sun isn’t always shining, the wind isn’t always blowing; they are intermittent energies. So I’m in favour of every kind of storage: pumped, flow batteries, fly wheels, capacitors – but I’m putting most of the emphasis on hydrogen. Why? Because it’s the basic element of the universe, it’s the lightest element, it’s modular. You can put it in a home or a big utility. So, when the sun hits the roof of your factory or home, you generate electricity. When you have a bit of electricity you don’t need, you put it in water like in high school chemistry [to produce hydrogen]. When you need [power] you just convert it back. It’s a tiny thermodynamic loss compared to bringing [power produced by] oil, gas, coal and nuclear to us.”

Solar PV arrayElectric vehicles play their part too. They act as mini storage facilities in their own right, taking electricity from the grid to run, and feeding it back when not needed.

“Now, here’s the key”, Rifkin concludes. “These five pillars together are an infrastructure. They are a mega-technology platform, they are a nervous system for a completely new economic era – they are power to the people. Distributive capitalism, if you will.”

It’s persuasive, heady stuff. It has certainly persuaded many EU leaders. Rifkin is that rare American: an unashamed Europhile. He’s kept the faith even as gloom has descended over the continent, recently remarking that, if the Eurozone splits up, “we’re into a dark age.”

One of his recent books bore the subtitle ‘How Europe’s vision of the future is quietly eclipsing the American dream’. And the compliment has been returned. The European Parliament endorsed the principles of the ‘Third Industrial Revolution’, and many see Rifkin’s fingerprints all over the EU’s ambitious energy and climate targets. He’s served as adviser to successive holders of the Presidency, whose names he drops with an easy familiarity: “When Romano Prodi was there, I told him we had to get this moving, so we put in €2 billion for R&D. Then, under Manuel Barroso, we put in €8 billion as a public/private roll out. When Chancellor Merkel came in, I said: ‘You’ve got to let Germany lead.’ She put in €500 million…” Some credit Rifkin with playing a key role in influencing the German decision to abandon nuclear power.

His confidence in EU institutions as a springboard for progress might ring a little hollow to European ears just now, but some leading businesses are also on board, with IBM, Cisco, Philips, Bouygues and Acciona all in conversation with Rifkin. And beyond the EU, Rifkin is advising the UN’s Industrial Development Organisation, and starting work with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce, too.

Rifkin’s influence is hardly surprising, because his confidence is infectious. Yet when he pauses for breath, you can’t help but find yourself wondering if it’s all a touch Panglossian. Are we really going to be able to create this best of all possible energy economies? Are millions of micro power plants going to provide all the heavy lifting we need for industries such as steel, paper and cement? After all, it’s one thing to see a surge of potential for distributed power; quite another to imagine the whole of our fossil-fuelled infrastructure crumbling in the face of the energy equivalent of a bunch of geeks in their garages. With the EU ( – the EU!) as nursemaid…

Rifkin brushes off such scepticism with a practised hand. “That old way of thinking doesn’t address the fact that these [distributed renewable] energies are found everywhere [and] the technology is going to get cheaper and cheaper. It’s following the same curve as mobile phones and desktop computers from the late 70s to 2010. They became so cheap they gave them away: now you buy the service, not the product. The same is happening on this curve right now: we’re just in the early adoption stages. Solar, wind, geothermal, heat pumps, bio-converters – they are all going to get cheaper and cheaper. And once the technology becomes cheap, the sun is free, the wind is free, the heat underground is free, and your garbage is free. When millions and millions of players are collecting even a little bit of surplus, it just overwhelms any kind of energy you can imagine from these little centralised nuclear and coal-fired power plants. It’s just like desktop computers: when you connect millions of them they wipe out anything you can get from the centralised super computer.”

The fossil fuel giants are roughly where the music business was a decade or so ago, he argues. “When millions of kids started file sharing, [the music companies] first thought it was a pain in the ass, and then they thought it was a joke, then they tried to legislate, then they put in encryptions, then they collapsed.” But as important as the obvious potential is the fact that we simply don’t have a choice, Rifkin believes. Unless we seize this moment to crack our dependency on the fossil stuff, we’re going to be trapped on a vicious rollercoaster ride.

“When fuel costs rise, all the other prices across the supply chain go through the roof, because everything’s made out of fossil fuels: fertilisers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, construction materials, synthetic fibres, power, transport, heat and light. So, when oil went over $80/barrel in 2007, everything else went up. At $100 a barrel, the speculators came in to gain the market. At $120/barrel we had food riots in 22 countries because [the prices of] wheat, rice, barley and rye were doubling or trebling. We had one billion people in harm’s way, according to the UN. At $147/barrel, it shut down. Prices were so prohibitive, consumers stopped buying. That was the economic earthquake. The collapse of the financial market 60 days later was an aftershock.”

He insists there’s no way out for oil. “Every time we try to re-grow the global economy at the same rate we were growing before July 2008, all the [fuel] prices shoot up, all the other prices for everything else go up, purchasing power goes down and we collapse. And this is exactly what’s happening right now. In 2009, oil was at $30 a barrel because the economy had stopped around the world. As soon as we started replenishing inventories in 2010, oil goes up, all the other prices are going up, purchasing power is going down and the economy is collapsing again. These are four-year intervals. Every time we try to restart the engine and start replenishing inventories, prices rise, and at around $125-150/barrel, the engine shuts down. I don’t think you can get through this four year cycle of growth and collapse. It’s very dangerous, it’s an endgame. And if there is a way to get through this wall, somebody needs to tell me what it is.” 

Petro-optimists, of course, will point to shale gas, tar sands and the recent mega discoveries of oil off Latin America, which have shaken some of the more simplistic claims of the ‘peakists’. For Rifkin, they merely exacerbate problems: “They’re dirty, they emit CO2 [and in the case of shale gas] there are huge issues of water contamination”.

And what about nuclear? Rifkin is dismissive. “I don’t even spend time on nuclear energy; it’s a waste of my time.” But wait a minute, what about the arguments put forward by a growing number of environmentalists such as Mark Lynas or George Monbiot, who’ve come to see it as the least worst option in a warming world?

Facebook of Energy“Look, nuclear was dead in the water after Chernobyl”, responds Rifkin. “Its only come-back strategy was: ‘We could be the saviour on climate change.’ Well, we’ve got 400 nuclear power plants in the world. They’re old, they’re going to be decommissioned, and they only make up 6% of the energy mix. Our climate scientists tell us that, for them to have a minimum impact on climate change, which would be the whole reason for them coming back, they’d have to be 20% of the mix. That means we’d have to have 2,000 nuclear power plants. We’d have to replace the existing 400, and build [some] 1,500 more: that means three power plants every 30 days for the next half a century at a cost of trillions of dollars. Can we really afford that?

“Second, we still can’t get rid of the nuclear waste. We’re 60 years in, and we don’t have an answer. Third, we face [serious] uranium deficits by 2035, just with the existing 400 plants. We could recycle uranium to plutonium, but do we really want plutonium all over the world in an age of uncertainty?

“Finally, we don’t have enough water. That’s the big one. Over 40% of all the fresh water in France is used to cool nuclear reactors. When it goes back it’s heated and it’s dehydrating ecosystems for agriculture.” (During the 2003 European drought, water shortages forced many of France’s nuclear reactors to shut down or operate below capacity.)

But you don’t have to use fresh water… “Yes, you could build salt water plants but then you have the possibility of more violent weather conditions.” So when you put it together I would be shocked if from the business point of view we replaced half of the 400 plants we have now, and that would get us to 2% [of our] energy.”

And nuclear fusion? “Fusion is one of those pipe dreams. It’s always sometime in the future.”

“But the real point”, says Rifkin, “is that all of this – nuclear, shale gas, whatever – is centralised thinking. It’s the old guard. The real question is: How do you regrow any economy in the world based on an industrial revolution that is over? Answer: You can’t do it.”

Then he turns the question on me: “Where do you want to be in 20 years from now? Do you want to be in the sunset of a dying 20th century infrastructure, or in the sunrise technologies of an emerging third industrial revolution?” Its great strength, he argues, its resilience, lies in the fact that the future of power is lateral. “If you’re of an older generation, like us, you think of power as top-down, but the kids think of it as side-by-side.”

We've talked for over an hour, well past the cut off time laid down by his publisher. At 65, Rifkin’s impressively energetic. He claims to be tired after his flight, but it hardly shows, and he politely waves away the hovering PR with a smile, “It’s OK, we’re enjoying ourselves…”

Then he winds up the interview with a characteristically optimistic flourish. “Try to imagine, in 2050, you’ll have had three generations growing up on lateral power and the internet. Are they going to allow themselves to be surrounded by these centralised 20th century ideas? Come on, the kids are going to wipe this out!” 

Martin Wright is Editor in Chief, Green Futures.


The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power Is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World is published by Palgrave Macmillan.

Essential Rifkin
• Born: Denver, Colorado, 1945
• Prize-winning economics student, underwent a political awakening in 1966, on seeing “my frat friends beating the living daylights” out of Vietnam war protestors.
• Became peace activist and environmentalist. Staged ‘Boston Oil Party’ in 1973, on 200th anniversary of Boston Tea Party, dumping empty oil barrels in the harbour.
• Launched Foundation for Economic Trends, which works on a range of economic, environmental and climate change issues.
• Variously described as “a social and ethical prophet” (New York Times) and “the most dangerous man in science” (Time Magazine).
• Advisor to European Parliament and several EU presidents and heads of state, including Angela Merkel (Germany). Principles of the ‘Third Industrial Revolution’ adopted by the Parliament, influences EU energy and climate policy.
• Books include Entropy: A New World View (1980); The Hydrogen Economy (2002); and The European Dream: How Europe’s Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream (2004).

Featured in

No.83 - January 2012
Add your comment »

Comments

Mark Rigby (not verified), 12 December 2012 - 19:02
  • reply

I had the 4kW PV solar fitted last year and by studying my generation and my usage I have now developed a simple way (just need 2 little smarts teaks and I'm there) of becoming self sufffient for 65-70% of the year but still use the grid for back up and peak demand. If a small addition like a micro wind generator can be added or another generation method can be included, I can easily reduce my dependancy on the grid. This has all been built on simple technology that exists today and can be implemented on every building. My aim is to reduce my dependancy of the grid slowly and allow both to run their coarse until one of them isn't needed anymore. Guess which one that will be. My belief is the same as Rifkin's that a localised energy store is the solution. It has for me. In ther long term the costs I have incurred will save me thousands and release me from the spiralling energy costs.

I think he is bang on the money.

Korey Huszar (not verified), 18 August 2012 - 20:53
  • reply

Solar power is such an excellent method of creating energy. I read somewhere that the sun produces enough energy in 45 minutes to power the whole worlds energy supply for 1 year. I hope more people find out about the incredible benefits of renewable energy and are motivated to change over while we still have time. I'm hoping to change our house over soon too(and will be so happy to know my electricity use isn't polluting the Planet. Korey Huszar

Angela (not verified), 17 March 2012 - 02:36
  • reply

It is typically more exivnspee for you to designate "green" power. It is a method to subsidize the building of more wind power, but in reality wind power is not any more "green" than nuclear power. The intermittent nature of wind power makes it necessary to have some sort of "backup" power, usually gas, wind uses much more concrete and steel than nuclear power for the same amount of megawatts. Wind power actually has a larger "footprint" than nuclear power, it takes more land to produce the same amount of power. We need to explore all the methods of producing power while minimizing the effect on the environment, this is one way of donating to that cause and voting with your $$.

Nadejda (not verified), 15 March 2012 - 06:24
  • reply

Very much dependent on the sipeifcc engineering of the wind turbine. You are losing energy to friction, so the mechanics of the device are very important. All of that is not a consideration for fossil fuels becase the earth has done most of the conversion already by using gravity (i.e., pressure), which is basically infinitely available. If you are thinking not in terms of energy cost, but financail cost, then you really need to think about the supply chain. A single high-effeicncy wind turbine might cost $5MM to build, but there is operational cost, land cost, distribution and storage costs. All of that is baked into the end user price of a gallon of processed fossil fuels. I don't know the sipeifcc numbers, but I do know that none of the wind farms would be profitable without the government subsidies that they are getting ATM.That chart of 1996 California date someone posted showing that wind is the lowest cost seems highly suspect to me at a minimum it is looking at regulatory compliance costs for things like nuclear and fossil feuls, not just the cost of generating and delivering the energy. That is the problem with data "sound bites", they are a little to easy to quote without thinking about them.

Simon Rack (not verified), 9 February 2012 - 15:56
  • reply

The overall picture is very compelling, but (as I posted as comment to JP's article), the (energy) storage question remains the big unknown.

I do think Rifkin is essentially wrong about Hydrogen though, at least for small-scale users. The energy density is feeble compared to other chemical storage means, which has ineluctable practical consequences for things such as vehicles and small generator-sets. Cycle-efficiency isn't great either.

I do agree with him that the built environment is a big area, ripe for big improvements. And given that the bulk of the energy demand is for heating, we can do a lot with short term (days/weeks) thermal storage, at very high conversion efficiencies. Energy needs for cooling/conditioning and for lighting are being reduced drastically, at least in places where architects know what they're doing and where legislation enables, encourages or obliges them to do it.

We will see an increasing electrification of transported energy, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that; the infrastructure is more or less there already. But of course, we can reasonably hope that the need to transport energy will decrease as generation becomes increasingly delocalised.

What is less clear is how newer business models will actually displace the current players. Indeed, I see EDF, Suez, Nuon, Luminus... you name it... all pretending to play this new game.

There's a tremendous first mover advantage here, and the current suppliers are best-placed to make (or to appear to make) them. Indeed, they arguably have made a bunch of first moves, and are now ready to make the next ones.

Does anyone remember the phrase "unbundling the local loop"? I think there are some parallels here, and, as with telecomms., it will require legislation to even establish, never mind level, a playing field where small initiatives can take hold. Some of this has happened, but primarily in relation to uni-directional power flow. The distribution-level grid is increasingly being asked to do something it was never designed for.

Also, people are naturally rather conservative about their choice of energy supplier. It might take some painful episodes of blackouts, shortages and price-gouging before Mr. and Mrs. Everybody decide that they'd be better off signing up with the neighbourhood nerdocracy. And then they'll have to figure out how to get out of that 20yr. solar panel contract...

Sushma Jain (not verified), 3 February 2012 - 12:40
  • reply

There is know doubt that we need multiple energy options to overcome the monopoly of fossil fuel business. This will not only allow us to same some fossil fuel for the future generation but will also create a competition in the energy business.
Green Energy Jobs

Louisa Radice (not verified), 30 January 2012 - 11:34
  • reply

The next industrial revolution? Amory Lovins et al were talking about this over 15 years ago.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Natural-Capitalism-Industrial-Revolution-Anniver...

TT Bolton (not verified), 24 January 2012 - 01:46
  • reply

We like the article and understand the comment within it "you can’t help but find yourself wondering if it’s all a touch Panglossian"

Lets assume the energy plan adds up in the way David MacKay explains (1) if so Rifkin is worthy of Panglossian praises and we can move onto encouraging the stone age Panglossians from Rifkins' pillar one (a commitment from governments). This will be an interesting but necessary part of human evolution.

"I call myself a Possibilian: I'm open to ideas that we don't have any way of testing right now."

1. http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c2/page_22.shtml

Boyd
Transition Town Bolton
http://www.transitionlinks.org

Add your comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
Please type in the letters and numbers that you see. This is to establish that you are in fact a human being. Case sensitive.
C
p
k
X
C
f
j
r
Enter the code without spaces and pay attention to upper/lower case.

GF88 subscribe

Apex Award Winner for Publication Excellence

Article filter

Advert for GF smartphone app, GF inspire

Advertise block

Bristol BIG Green Week, 15 - 23 June

GF88 subscribe

Advertise block

GF88 publications

Green Futures not only provides us with highly useful information, it’s also great fun to read.

Tim Haines, Director, Development of International Business
  • About
  • Partners
  • Subscribe
  • Advertise
  • Syndicate
  • Opportunities
  • Publications
  • Contact

Recent Back Issues

No.88 - April 2013
Cover image of issue 88
No.87 - January 2013
Front cover of issue 87
No.86 - October 2012
No.85 - July 2012
Front cover

Recent Special Editions

India: Innovation Nation
Futuristas
Water Works
Beyond the Finish
Front cover of Beyond the Finish Edition

Most Read Articles

Enzyme turns polluted air into fuel
Thursday, 11 November 2010 by Anonymous | 43,592 views
We have to remap our minds, says Hollender
Wednesday, 01 August 2012 by Anna Simpson | 43,419 views
Making Density Desirable
Wednesday, 21 May 2003 by admin | 22,080 views
Jonathon Porritt: Why do we play down the horror of climate change?
Thursday, 11 October 2012 by Jonathon Porritt | 21,171 views
From the Editor
Monday, 21 August 2006 by admin | 20,112 views
The world's first city for robots
Wednesday, 08 August 2012 by Anonymous | 16,495 views
Will supply rule the food chain?
Tuesday, 19 April 2011 by Anonymous | 14,084 views
The power of the sun in a nuclear state
Monday, 14 December 2009 by Anonymous | 14,026 views
Are we on the cusp of a third industrial revolution?
Thursday, 19 January 2012 by Martin Wright | 13,852 views
Solving the energy storage conundrum
Thursday, 04 October 2012 by Anonymous | 13,472 views
Offsets spark clean change
Wednesday, 22 December 2010 by Martin Wright | 13,041 views
Electric motor racing comes of age
Monday, 23 April 2012 by Anonymous | 12,400 views

Published by Forum for the Future

Contact Green Futures

Overseas House, 19 - 23 Ironmonger Row,
London, EC1V 3QN.

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7324 3660
post@greenfutures.org.uk

 Sign up to our newsletter

© 2011 Forum for the Future | Terms of Use | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Site Map | Login | Logout

Site built by : New Digital Partnership

The Forum for the Future is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Overseas House, 19-23 Ironmonger Row, London, EC1V 3QN, UK. Registered charity no. GB 162 3473 19. Company no. 2959712. VAT registration no.162347319