• Physics 18, 158
To aid society’s transition to clean energy, physicists need to engage with economics and sociology.
Adapting to and attempting to slow climate change is a central problem facing our society. This challenge is, at the fundamental level, that of balancing energy flows. Unsurprisingly, therefore, many physicists are actively working on it. Climatologists, many of whom hold a physics degree, have been crucial to demonstrating humanity’s responsibility for climate change and to forecasting what’s to come. However, the role of physicists is not limited to describing catastrophic scenarios. It extends to planning and executing the transition of our energy system away from fossil fuels and toward carbon-neutral sources. As physicists, we bring essential skills to this problem. But for our community to provide relevant contributions and engage effectively in interdisciplinary collaborations, we need to train physicists in the language and concepts of social fields.
The energy transformation is underway in many countries. It affects how energy is produced, transported, and used and combines mature technologies with new ones. It also requires us to rethink how energy is managed. For example, while oil and gas are relatively easy to store, this is not the case for electricity. Changing the energy system, however, is not merely a technological problem. It involves the creation of new industries, the destruction or restructuring of others, and the introduction of new habits. In other words, the energy transition is as much a social transition as a technological one.
While my background is in condensed-matter and statistical physics, I have long been interested in the popularization of science. Twenty years ago, I wrote a book for the general public describing the fundamental role energy plays in our society, with a focus on oil and gas resources. This publication attracted media attention in 2008 as oil prices were exploding above $100 per barrel. In response, I broadened my interests to the then-new concept of the energy transition. This issue quickly became a major research topic for me. But back then little relevant training was available in this interdisciplinary field, offering a new opportunity for physicists to adapt their skills to new challenges.
The technological aspect of the climate challenge is exciting for physicists. It requires thinking quantitatively, processing uncertain data, and assessing rapidly evolving technologies. I find that my training—which takes the approach of adapting models to fit observations—makes my views more grounded in reality than those of some economists or sociologists, whose approach may involve analyzing what they see through predetermined frameworks. Understanding orders of magnitudes is also a useful skill that physicists possess. It’s essential because proposed technological solutions often cannot be scaled up and will ultimately have marginal impact.
As physicists we are accustomed to complex modeling, so we can easily get accustomed to the relatively simple technoeconomic models used in the field. Yet, as I rapidly found out in my journey outside of physics, our training might have important gaps when it comes to working on some aspects of the energy transition.
One important issue is that there may be technological solutions that, from a theoretical perspective, look like optimal ones. However, in practice, there are many elements and model limitations that make those solutions unviable. Indeed, technoeconomic models often have strong limitations. For example, standard economic theory is largely unable to incorporate innovation and deep social transformation. Like many physics theories, it mostly describes an equilibrium state and can capture changes at the margins of such a state. But while quasiequilibrium conditions are commonplace in physics, real-life economics most often exists far from equilibrium, as our society is always evolving with strong feedback loops that theory ignores. Understanding these modeling limitations is essential if we want to use available tools to explore the intricate relationships that link large-scale economic transformations to technology and social structures.
Furthermore, social and economic transformations are not fixed by the deterministic rules that govern physics but may be steered and manipulated. This means that, building on limited models and data, analyses must explore the consequences and possibilities opened by possible futures—a concept foreign to physics training. I argue that, to avoid physicists being perceived as naive, it is essential to foster relationships with political scientists, engineers, economists, and other experts. This requires long-term commitments to learning the language and concepts of these disciplines. As my experience has taught me, physicists must be prepared to change their worldview and approach, without losing sight of the fundamental scientific knowledge and problem-solving tools that makes them uniquely valuable.
What should academic and research institutions do to help expand physicists’ training and encourage their involvement in the energy transformation? First, they should publicize the role of physicists working in these fields through topical seminars, colloquiums, and journal issues. Second, offer cross-disciplinary internships or courses jointly taught with nonphysics departments. Finally, work on flexible PhD programs that allow physicists and other natural scientists to focus on these issues without having to relinquish their training. Physicists have a unique capacity to navigate reality’s complexity, and society would greatly benefit from their increased involvement.
1 Comment
https://shorturl.fm/OjrKX