The Pursuit of Better Energy

By: 2025 Virtual PT/MT Fellow

The pursuit of clean energy should not come at the expense of broadly bettering our energy mix. Energy projects should instead be assessed on a holistic basis, with careful study of the environmental impact of the project alongside a litany of other lifecycle considerations.

What even is clean energy?

The words “clean energy” almost universally conjures an image of wind turbines and solar panels. For some, it also conjures images of nuclear power plants. And for others, images of massive hydroelectric dams, reshaping the course of rivers in the American Southwest.

All are clean, in their own, distinct rights. No emissions for every electron generated on a given day. No waste product from electricity generation. No disturbance to the natural landscape, but for a few more clouds.

Yet all are a continuation of a remarkably flawed industry, where nothing is truly “clean.”

Resource extraction and minerals refinement to produce equipment and fuels. Ethical practices in the supply chain. Geopolitical risk. Accident risk. End-of-life waste. Spent fuel. Land use.

Too often, the debate between and around the proliferation of clean energy focuses on these negatives. They are important, no doubt, and individuals, corporations, and governments alike should manage these costs effectively. The greater focus, however, should be on being better than the past.

By nearly all metrics, energy generation today is cleaner than in the past — even coal is remarkably more energy efficient when compared with oxen or heaps of wood.

We need more!

The reality of today’s urbanizing world (with, of course, increasing AI-driven energy demand and electrification of various other loads, like heating and transportation) is that we need ever more electricity. We face an electricity shortage in practically every dimension — generation, transmission, distribution. We face shortages in the inputs necessary for each of these dimensions — labor, minerals, manufacturing capacity, (permitted) land, and more. All this is before we even begin to consider — and debate — whether a project is “clean.”

Of course, some of this need for more will be mitigated through improvements in efficiency. Programs like Energy Star have had outsize impact on the management of demand growth by doing more with less.

But — the fundamental problem still exists: a need for more.

What should we build?

In such a world, the key question should not be whether an energy source is clean or not, but rather if an individual project’s merits outweigh its pitfalls. Such an approach allows us to focus on solving the true problem at hand: satiating the world’s thirst for more electricity.

Marginal carbon emissions expected at time of generation are certainly a criterion worthy of measurement, as are total lifecycle emissions of a project. But other critical considerations should also be evaluated. Consider, for example, large-scale solar farms and hydroelectric dams projects. Their impact on land-use and local communities should all be weighed. Nuclear power alternatively brings low land-use requirements but comes with massive end-of-life & spent-fuel challenges. Supply chain considerations, including prevalence of forced labor in the solar and battery manufacturing industries, need to be contemplated. Raw material extraction and refining — including critical minerals sourcing — for both capital equipment buildout and to supply fuels necessary for electricity generation should be assessed.

On the benefits side, assessment should likewise be undertaken at a local, regional, national, and transnational level. For example, local assessments might determine that employment uplift and tax revenues generated by a project outweigh challenges faced multiple layers away in the supply chain. Likewise, a local-only assessment might undervalue broader geopolitical benefits associated with the supply chain and risk profile of different technologies (for example, China has a chokehold on critical minerals processing, vs. the US has an excess of natural gas capacity).

Ultimately, like with so many other challenges, diversity is the key to solutioning. Demand signals should be used to drive technical investment in all kinds of generation types. The goal is more capacity buildout of “better” generation technologies. As an example, fossil-fuel investment is often derided as locking in a higher emissions framework for decades to come. Instead, it should be seen as a vehicle to drive investment in generation efficiency improvements and carbon capture technology industrialization. Solar generation curves complement wind generation patterns; both need batteries to levelize and help condition power. All three have significant headroom for performance improvement; all three also need drastic improvements in end-of-life disposition.

Analysis paralysis?

Yet, at the same time, it becomes critical to not get lost in the analysis.

This necessitates an expeditious comparative assessment, in which new energy projects’ costs are weighed against (1) the consequences of not serving the increasing demand, and (2) the best alternative to the project proposed. Such an analysis should then be overlaid against a qualitative judgement on the net benefits of a project’s merits.

The bottom line

Broadly speaking, as long as the current paradigm of extreme demand growth continues, a market driven bias will exist towards action. This hunger for electricity should be used to develop wholistically better energy projects.