Iron Law of Technology: Technology becomes useful when its future promise becomes current practice.

Published early technical research results tend to shift focus to “the next shiny object”, that is “whatever captures attention without necessarily solving the underlying problem. It’s the thing that feels exciting, novel, or urgent enough to derail focus.”.  (HT¨CoPilot)

Solar, wind and Lithium-ion batteries have been “the next shiny objects” of climate change policy for decades, made even shinier by government preferences, incentives and subsidies. However, they are not “solving the underlying problem”. Rather, they are ultimately dependent on three additional “shiny objects", intermediate and long-duration storage and grid-forming inverters.

The classic example of technology for which future promise has not become current practice is nuclear fusion, which has been “promised” to be “10 years in the future” for the past 50 years. It has the potential of “solving the underlying problem”, but cannot be a component of responsible energy planning until it becomes a demonstrated, certified and reproducible product. It is shining illustration of the fact that technological breakthroughs cannot be scheduled.

Nuclear fission is an interesting example of a “next shiny object” which made significant progress in “solving the underlying problem”, then lost much of its shine as the result of three “accidents” and the loss of political will. Nuclear fission is currently experiencing significant growth in the developing nations and is on the threshold of a renaissance in the United States.

One of “the next shiny objects” of the current energy transition is Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources (DEFRs). There is currently no detailed engineering description of a DEFR, though the most likely candidates for this role appear to be Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), nuclear fission generators in the capacity range from 20 – 350 MW. Numerous potential manufacturers are pursuing numerous SMR design approaches. Some are moving toward demonstration projects, but it is far too early in the process to know which approaches might be technically and economically successful. It is also far too early to include SMRs in energy plans, even if those plans ultimately depend on their market success.

Another of “the next shiny objects” of the current energy transition is “Green Hydrogen”, that is, Hydrogen produced by electrolysis powered by renewable generation. “Green Hydrogen” is viewed as a potential long-duration energy storage approach, and also as a replacement for fossil fuels in residential, commercial, industrial and institutional combustion applications including vehicle fuels. 

This “shiny object” faces significant technical and economic challenges. Significant production of “Green Hydrogen” would require large quantities of clean water, which is in limited supply. Therefore, production would require coastal locations and desalination plants. Electrolysis operates most efficiently as a continuous process, but “Green Hydrogen” production would be powered by solar and wind, which are intermittent. The Hydrogen would then need to be compressed and transported inland, probably by pipeline. However, Hydrogen embrittles steel pipe and is also prone to leakage. The Hydrogen would then need to be stored, probably in caverns until needed. These challenges have been met separately at limited scale, but not as a system at the scale required for national long-duration storage or fuel replacement.