Renewables: why the energy transition may be faster than you expect
- The cost of renewable technologies could fall faster than many influential models suggest, according to new research
- Lower prices should accelerate adoption, leading to a steep drop in carbon emissions
- The market doesn’t yet appreciate the long-term implications for energy transition stocks
All investment strategies have the potential for profit and loss, your or your clients’ capital may be at risk.
The globe’s growing demand for energy and concerns over climate change are driving the need for renewables and related low-emission technologies. At Baillie Gifford, we’re on the lookout for companies that can gain a competitive edge and generate strong returns by leading the way.
Existing holdings across our clients’ portfolios include makers of wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicle batteries and hydrogen electrolysers, such as Vestas, LONGi, Northvolt and Nel. They also comprise suppliers of aluminium, nickel, lithium and other raw materials, including Rio Tinto, PT Vale Indonesia and Albemarle. And while we believe renewables have superior long-term growth prospects to fossil fuels, hydrocarbon companies can still play a critical role. For example, Reliance is reinvesting its oil refining profits into developing cutting-edge hydrogen fuel cells and solar panels.
As long-term growth investors, we’re excited about these companies’ potential and intend to explore further opportunities for years to come.
We believe many of the factors that led ‘cleantech’ innovators to underperform financially in the early 2000s are now behind us. But we’re aware that three concerns need to be addressed:
- Renewable electricity sources need to demonstrate that they can scale to meet different types of energy demand.
- Companies need to spend significant sums on physical infrastructure, requiring investors to support firms that are capital intensive.
- Governments and companies need to have confidence in the advantages of a fast energy transition to overcome caution and inertia.
We can’t yet know exactly how the energy and climate transition will unfold over the next five, 10, let alone 50 years. But we should expect the unexpected. We should be open to scenario analysis that challenges incremental thinking and explores the complexities of the deep systems changes that likely lie ahead.
A recent study from Oxford University’s Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET Oxford) provides one such opportunity. It challenges consensus forecasts, suggesting they don’t properly account for the implications of long-term exponential growth.
The work is well-founded and calls to mind how progress in computing and the internet caught many by surprise. Moreover, the researchers involved are highly credible, including Prof J Doyne Farmer, a complex systems scientist whose work we sponsor and who recently joined us to discuss the findings.
The academics ask why other studies repeatedly underestimated the deployment of renewable energy technologies and overestimated their costs. They conclude that models relied on by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among others, are unduly pessimistic about future trends in renewables and carbon emissions. Moreover, the researchers propose that a rapid shift to renewable technologies could save society trillions of dollars.
The feedback flywheel
The authors base their approach on Wright’s Law. You can read more about it below. But the key insight is that a ‘learning curve’ applies to wind turbines, solar panels and other renewable technologies: for each cumulative doubling in production, the cost of manufacturing each unit falls by a constant percentage.
That gives rise to a virtuous feedback cycle: resulting price drops stimulate demand, leading to efficiency gains, allowing manufacturers to cut prices further, and so on. And because the price cuts are exponential, the loop speeds up as it goes.
The feedback loop of cost cuts and rising demand
Source: Baillie Gifford Research inspired by Our World In Data
One consequence is that deployments of successful technologies tend to follow an S-curve. Early growth seems slow as the exponential effect takes time to build. Then a period of ‘hypergrowth’ takes hold.
The bigger the market size, the longer hypergrowth endures before demand eventually tapers off as the market gets saturated.
The S-curve model of technological deployment
However, fossil fuels don’t benefit from the same effect. While engineers have continually improved extraction processes, the need to work in ever-more extreme environments as resources become harder to find cancels out the savings. In addition, for 50 years the actions of the OPEC cartel have added social and political complexities to the market prices of these energy commodities. As a result, oil, gas and coal prices are roughly the same as they were 140 years ago, once you adjust for inflation.
The key message here is that renewable energy is a technology, while fossil energy is a commodity. Technologies can access learning curves and persistent cost deflation. Commodities, it seems, cannot.
Theodore Wright was involved in the design of military, civilian and racing aircraft when he developed his formula.
He was determined to tease out the relationship between the cost of manufacturing a plane and the number of units produced. In 1936, after 14 years of study, he published his findings. They detailed a ‘curve relationship’: for every doubling of the quantity of aircraft made, production costs (ie labour, materials, factory overheads) fell by a constant percentage. In effect, the more planes workers made, the more they learned.
Wright deduced the ‘learning rate’ for the aircraft he studied resulted in a 10–17 per cent cost drop each time the number built doubled. The rate varied as the cost of raw and purchased materials took on greater importance as production increased. Follow-up studies by others observed the relationship applied to other technologies, from semiconductors to electric car batteries, albeit with different learning rates.
Wright went on to head the US’s efforts to increase plane production during World War Two. But his ‘law’ may be his most enduring legacy. About four decades after his death, researchers at MIT and the Santa Fe Institute found it to be more accurate than five rival progress-predicting formulas.
INET Oxford’s paper suggests the IEA and others underestimate renewables’ falling costs because their ‘deterministic methods’ struggle to incorporate how technologies sometimes advance in a slightly volatile manner. By contrast, INET Oxford’s work takes a ‘probabilistic’ approach. When back-tested, it seems to better deal with the ‘bumpiness’ encountered.
Just as importantly, Farmer and his colleagues claim that these earlier studies applied excessive ‘ad hoc’ constraints. Their forecasts imposed floors on the amount that renewable prices could drop and limited expected deployment rates, despite this running contrary to an increasing catalogue of lived experience. This effectively puts the brakes on the two key driving forces of the feedback loop described earlier.
The study argues that artificially blocking off plausible future pathways led the other predictions astray. Take solar panel systems, for example. The paper analysed more than 2,900 investment cost projections for the technology between 2010 and 2020:
- The mean annual expected cost saving was 2.6 per cent
- None of the projections was more than 6 per cent
- But the actual yearly saving turned out to be 15 per cent
Over 10 years of compounding, that’s the difference between about a 20 per cent cost saving and an 80 per cent cost collapse. The discrepancy helps explain why it’s been a surprise that new solar and onshore wind projects are now estimated to be at least 40 per cent below the equivalent cost of new-build coal and gas-fired power facilities.
The new methodology retrospectively models past saving more accurately. And it gives more optimistic projections of renewables’ use in the future.
A more optimistic model of solar power use
The INET Oxford study’s cost-led fast transition model anticipates that solar power use could outpace the International Energy Agency’s most optimistic, policy-led predictions. Farmer and his colleagues took steps to temper its outlook to help it stand up to scrutiny. But extrapolating onwards from the observable trend points to the possibility of even greater use of solar.
The rapid uptake envisaged has the dual benefit of creating potentially significant returns for investors and large savings for society in general. The sums involved are huge.
The paper suggests that a fast transition to renewables would save the world about $12tn by 2050 compared to maintaining the status quo. That’s even after allowing for the requirement of a more complex electricity grid, which it estimates would cost an additional $140bn a year to run. Given that fossil fuels are a limited resource, there’s a good chance that the longer we remain reliant on them at scale, the more likely their prices will rise. So even the $12tn figure may be an underestimate.
The study also indicates energy system emissions would fall off a cliff during the 2030s under its fast transition model after declining by only about 10 per cent during the 2020s. This reflects the slow-then-sudden nature of exponential change. And it highlights why we shouldn’t necessarily despair if emission reductions remain relatively subdued in the near term.
There isn’t a pre-determined successful emissions pathway to a fully decarbonised 2050. We have some very effective technologies ready for mass installation, and we should expect continual innovation. So while climate science suggests that we should all work towards the fastest reduction possible, a slow start doesn’t rule out rapid acceleration to come.
Comparing energy system emissions under different models
The INET Oxford study suggests emissions could remain pretty constant this decade before falling steeply in the 2030s. By 2050, it indicates they could nearly match the IEA’s deterministic and policy-led ‘net zero 2050 scenario model’, which is constructed on the basis of sequential reductions from today forward. Note the temperature range indicated for INET Oxford’s ‘fast transition’ reflects uncertainty regarding the pace of non-energy emission reductions.
As described above, the forces driving renewables may be stronger than generally recognised, creating the potential for us to produce substantial returns for our clients.
We believe that if we used a top-down method to construct portfolios based on a fixed view of technology and its pace of adoption, we’d blind ourselves to the potential of individual companies and regions. Instead, we favour a bottom-up approach that lets us focus on finding transformative businesses that can deliver long-term growth.
We’re mindful that Farmer’s paper provides us with scenarios, not forecasts. But they appear to have some interestingly robust foundations compared to ‘consensus models’. Some further ramifications follow:
- There are exceptional companies to invest in that we believe will accelerate the energy transition over the medium to long term. They may work in different niches and be at different stages of their lifecycle today, but all offer the potential for significant long-term returns. Examples include the electric car maker NIO and the iron ore miner FMG, which is investing in the switch from coal and natural gas to solar and hydrogen.
- Greater use of renewables could provide a world with abundant, low-cost energy. That should support developing countries and will make some business models profitable for the first time. Some could even aid efforts to ultimately reverse global warming. For example, Climeworks is pioneering a way to use low-cost electricity to remove carbon dioxide from the air and store it underground.
- Another consequence of a faster-than-expected transition is that electricity grids will have to deal with lots more complexity sooner than anticipated. That creates an opportunity for providers of the software and hardware to manage it. We have found such potential in companies as diverse as the electric cable manufacturer Nexans and the internet services provider Cloudflare.
- Just as exponential growth can bring about rapid changes in our use of renewables, so might it cause a tipping point in public policy. We’ve seen in the past how change often occurs via massive dislocations rather than small increments – the formation of the UK’s publicly funded National Health Service is one example. Likewise, the acceleration of extreme weather and climate damages could spur lawmakers to take sudden action against carbon-intensive activities via taxes and other regulations. Unprepared companies could experience significant value destruction.
There’s much to consider. Baillie Gifford’s advantage is that we aim to invest in companies for 5 to 10 years or longer. This period gives the exponential effects described above time to deliver meaningful change. By taking this patient approach, we can support transformative companies to drive forward the energy transition in the hope of delivering strong returns for our clients.
Lessons from the lily pond
To better understand the implications of exponential change for emissions, we can call on a famous analogy used in schools to convey the concept.
A patch of lily pads in a pond doubles in size every month. By the end of the year, they cover the entire stretch of water. How many months did it take for them to cover the final half of the pond?
The answer is not six months, as many kids guess, but one. In fact, after half a year, the impact on the frog’s home would barely be noticeable: they would cover less than two per cent of the pond. But the trend’s future implications would be profound.
The same effect comes to play even if the expansion rate is slower. Suppose a slightly more complex scenario:
A 500m2 pond covered in 1m2 of lilies growing by 20 per cent each month.
The lesson: just because growth may seem to get off to a slow start doesn’t mean that exponential forces won’t eventually dominate.
The views expressed should not be considered as advice or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold a particular investment. They reflect opinion and should not be taken as statements of fact nor should any reliance be placed on them when making investment decisions.
This communication was produced and approved in March 2023 and has not been updated subsequently. It represents views held at the time of writing and may not reflect current thinking.
This communication contains information on investments which does not constitute independent research. Accordingly, it is not subject to the protections afforded to independent research, but is classified as advertising under Art 68 of the Financial Services Act (‘FinSA’) and Baillie Gifford and its staff may have dealt in the investments concerned.
All information is sourced from Baillie Gifford & Co and is current unless otherwise stated.
The images used in this communication are for illustrative purposes only.
Baillie Gifford & Co and Baillie Gifford & Co Limited are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Baillie Gifford & Co Limited is an Authorised Corporate Director of OEICs.
Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited provides investment management and advisory services to non-UK Professional/Institutional clients only. Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited is wholly owned by Baillie Gifford & Co. Baillie Gifford & Co and Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited are authorised and regulated by the FCA in the UK.
Persons resident or domiciled outside the UK should consult with their professional advisers as to whether they require any governmental or other consents in order to enable them to invest, and with their tax advisers for advice relevant to their own particular circumstances.
This communication is suitable for use of financial intermediaries. Financial intermediaries are solely responsible for any further distribution and Baillie Gifford takes no responsibility for the reliance on this document by any other person who did not receive this document directly from Baillie Gifford.
Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited provides investment management and advisory services to European (excluding UK) clients. It was incorporated in Ireland in May 2018. Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited is authorised by the Central Bank of Ireland as an AIFM under the AIFM Regulations and as a UCITS management company under the UCITS Regulation. Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited is also authorised in accordance with Regulation 7 of the AIFM Regulations, to provide management of portfolios of investments, including Individual Portfolio Management (‘IPM’) and Non-Core Services. Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited has been appointed as UCITS management company to the following UCITS umbrella company; Baillie Gifford Worldwide Funds plc. Through passporting it has established Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited (Frankfurt Branch) to market its investment management and advisory services and distribute Baillie Gifford Worldwide Funds plc in Germany. Similarly, it has established Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited (Amsterdam Branch) to market its investment management and advisory services and distribute Baillie Gifford Worldwide Funds plc in The Netherlands. Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited also has a representative office in Zurich, Switzerland pursuant to Art. 58 of the Federal Act on Financial Institutions (‘FinIA’). The representative office is authorised by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). The representative office does not constitute a branch and therefore does not have authority to commit Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited. Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited, which is wholly owned by Baillie Gifford & Co. Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited and Baillie Gifford & Co are authorised and regulated in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority.
Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Shanghai) Limited 柏基投资管理(上海)有限公司(‘BGIMS’) is wholly owned by Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited and may provide investment research to the Baillie Gifford Group pursuant to applicable laws. BGIMS is incorporated in Shanghai in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) as a wholly foreign-owned limited liability company with a unified social credit code of 91310000MA1FL6KQ30. BGIMS is a registered Private Fund Manager with the Asset Management Association of China (‘AMAC’) and manages private security investment fund in the PRC, with a registration code of P1071226.
Baillie Gifford Overseas Investment Fund Management (Shanghai) Limited 柏基海外投资基金管理(上海)有限公司(‘BGQS’) is a wholly owned subsidiary of BGIMS incorporated in Shanghai as a limited liability company with its unified social credit code of 91310000MA1FL7JFXQ. BGQS is a registered Private Fund Manager with AMAC with a registration code of P1071708. BGQS has been approved by Shanghai Municipal Financial Regulatory Bureau for the Qualified Domestic Limited Partners (QDLP) Pilot Program, under which it may raise funds from PRC investors for making overseas investments.
Baillie Gifford Asia (Hong Kong) Limited 柏基亞洲(香港)有限公司 is wholly owned by Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited and holds a Type 1 and a Type 2 license from the Securities & Futures Commission of Hong Kong to market and distribute Baillie Gifford’s range of collective investment schemes to professional investors in Hong Kong. Baillie Gifford Asia (Hong Kong) Limited 柏基亞洲(香港)有限公司 can be contacted at Suites 2713–2715, Two International Finance Centre, 8 Finance Street, Central, Hong Kong. Telephone +852 3756 5700.
Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited is licensed with the Financial Services Commission in South Korea as a cross border Discretionary Investment Manager and Non-discretionary Investment Adviser.
Mitsubishi UFJ Baillie Gifford Asset Management Limited (‘MUBGAM’) is a joint venture company between Mitsubishi UFJ Trust & Banking Corporation and Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited. MUBGAM is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited (ARBN 118 567 178) is registered as a foreign company under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and holds Foreign Australian Financial Services Licence No 528911. This material is provided to you on the basis that you are a ‘wholesale client’ within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Corporations Act’). Please advise Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited immediately if you are not a wholesale client. In no circumstances may this material be made available to a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act.
This material contains general information only. It does not take into account any person’s objectives, financial situation or needs.
Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited is registered as a Foreign Financial Services Provider with the Financial Sector Conduct Authority in South Africa.
Baillie Gifford International LLC is wholly owned by Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited; it was formed in Delaware in 2005 and is registered with the SEC. It is the legal entity through which Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited provides client service and marketing functions in North America. Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited is registered with the SEC in the United States of America.
The Manager is not resident in Canada, its head office and principal place of business is in Edinburgh, Scotland. Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited is regulated in Canada as a portfolio manager and exempt market dealer with the Ontario Securities Commission (‘OSC’). Its portfolio manager licence is currently passported into Alberta, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland & Labrador whereas the exempt market dealer licence is passported across all Canadian provinces and territories. Baillie Gifford International LLC is regulated by the OSC as an exempt market and its licence is passported across all Canadian provinces and territories. Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited (‘BGE’) relies on the International Investment Fund Manager Exemption in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Baillie Gifford Overseas is not licensed under Israel’s Regulation of Investment Advising, Investment Marketing and Portfolio Management Law, 5755–1995 (the Advice Law) and does not carry insurance pursuant to the Advice Law. This material is only intended for those categories of Israeli residents who are qualified clients listed on the First Addendum to the Advice Law.