Recently, I attended a workshop on energy transition, which revisited the recurring concern about the need for a paradigm shift—moving from consumption-driven production management to production-driven consumption management, supplemented by flexible services to ensure grid stability.

There is no doubt: we must change our mindset, habits, and perception of what needs to be done. Change management is always complex, as the majority often asks, “What’s in it for me?” While this is a legitimate question, it cannot be the sole focus; we need to look beyond immediate personal benefits. Week after week, the news reports natural catastrophes—storms, hurricanes, floods, droughts—occurring with increasing frequency and intensity.

These facts are undeniable. As the saying goes, « There is none so blind as those who will not see. » Climate change is already tangible, impacting our lives more frequently and severely. Yet, many believe they are—or will remain—unaffected, there is a societal problem. Until now, insurance companies and state disaster funds have helped absorb the financial shocks for affected individuals and businesses. However, these resources are finite. Insurance premiums will rise—or companies may face bankruptcy—and governments will need additional revenue, likely through increased taxes, to replenish disaster funds. The pace and magnitude of these increases will escalate alongside the growing frequency and severity of disasters. This is already a concern for all of us.

Another issue is that many decision-makers seem to believe the problem can be resolved solely through economic incentives—or, more accurately, penalties. This approach is flawed. Consider the example of electricity pricing: during periods of surplus production, the price of electricity dives, sometimes becoming negative. In such cases, consumers are effectively paid to offtake electricity.

Does this solve the problem? Certainly not. Instead, it creates opportunities for a new business model where entities install massive electricity-consuming devices that serve no practical purpose other than profiting from negative pricing. Where there is a business case, business will follow. Meanwhile, electricity producers, whose installations involved investments from others, are penalized for their output, and energy is wasted.

Some might argue that surplus electricity could be stored in batteries for later use during periods of scarcity. While theoretically possible, batteries have limited storage capacity and become prohibitively expensive at scale. Furthermore, a simple energy-consuming device is far cheaper than a battery, making it a more attractive business proposition.

This so-called ‘solution’ offers no societal advantage and is funded by all grid users. Therefore, economic incentives alone are not sufficient. The problem must be addressed holistically, balancing short-term (hourly or daily), mid-term (seasonal), and societal costs (e.g., grid expenses). Otherwise, we risk accelerating toward unmanageable grid costs and energy scarcity.

To address these challenges effectively, we must:

1. Reduce consumption to the lowest possible levels – a goal far more achievable than many assume.
2. Avoid unnecessary consumption – prioritize repairing over replacing, which also boosts local employment.
3. Promote shared usage – sharing devices, books, cars, etc., instead of owning seldom-used items.
4. Flatten consumption patterns – leverage well-designed thermal storage, batteries, and combined heat and power (CHP) systems at both individual and business levels.
5. Develop an optimized grid and production park based on reliable projections

The order of these actions is not critical; all are essential. By adopting this multifaceted approach, we can make meaningful progress toward a sustainable energy future.