… but that doesn’t mean that we are doomed.
There is no Energy Messiah! … but that doesn’t mean that we are doomed.

In the ongoing debate about the energy transition, it’s tempting to look for a single, all-encompassing solution. Whether it’s hydrogen, wind, solar, nuclear, or advanced battery storage, many advocates and policymakers are drawn to the simplicity of a one-size-fits-all answer. While understandable, this mindset oversimplifies an inherently complex problem, which could also be potentially dangerous. 

The truth is that there is no such thing as a silver bullet in the energy industry. In reality, the path to net zero is not a matter of choosing one technology over another but instead blending multiple solutions to meet modern society's growing and varied demands. The future of energy lies in a diverse mix of technologies that can collectively meet the world’s growing and dynamic needs.

The 1970s were when the global energy crisis, spurred by the oil embargo, first signaled the vulnerabilities of our fossil fuel dependence. Since then, the way we produce and consume energy has changed dramatically. Nuclear power, once hailed as the future, saw a decline due to high-profile accidents like Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl. Renewable energy began gaining ground significantly as the costs of solar panels and wind turbines plummeted in the early 21st century. Today, many argue that hydrogen, an abundant and versatile fuel, will be the key to decarbonizing energy systems.

 

Hydrogen: The prince who was promised

Hydrogen has long been touted as the next big thing in clean energy. It promises a fuel that produces only water as a byproduct when burned or used in fuel cells, making it seem like the ideal replacement for oil and gas. Many see it as the long-awaited energy savior, especially as nations pledge to reduce carbon emissions drastically by mid-century. But hydrogen has challenges, and those who place too much faith in it overlook real-world practicalities.

Its production, for example, isn’t as clean as it might seem. Most of today’s hydrogen is produced through steam methane reforming, which emits significant amounts of carbon dioxide. Green hydrogen, produced by splitting water molecules via electrolysis using renewable energy, is cleaner but remains prohibitively expensive. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), less than 1% of hydrogen today is produced through this cleaner method. Scaling up green hydrogen production will require vast amounts of renewable electricity, which in turn demands a massive expansion of wind and solar infrastructure - no small feat when grids in many countries are already struggling with the current loads. And if renewables do not produce it, it will be by yet again burning natural gas, which directly contradicts climate goals.

Another challenge lies in hydrogen storage and transportation. Hydrogen is the smallest and lightest molecule, making it prone to leaks and challenging to transport using existing infrastructure. Converting hydrogen into liquid form for more accessible transport requires significant energy, undermining some efficiency benefits. The energy losses in converting hydrogen into a usable form and transporting it over long distances pose severe limitations to its scalability.

Take Germany, a country often praised for its clean energy efforts. The German government has aggressively pursued hydrogen as a pillar of its energy transition strategy. However, despite the fanfare, progress has been slow. The country’s plans for hydrogen infrastructure have run into challenges, not least of which is cost. Green hydrogen production is still expensive compared to traditional energy sources, and the infrastructure required to support its widespread use - such as pipelines, storage facilities, and refueling stations - is still in its infancy. Many of the hydrogen projects that have been announced are still years away from becoming fully operational.

This doesn’t mean hydrogen has no place in the energy transition. It will likely be used in sectors that are hard to electrify, such as heavy industry and long-distance shipping. However, the belief that hydrogen alone can decarbonize the energy system overlooks the complexities of energy demand and the sheer scale of infrastructure required to make it viable globally. Hydrogen will not be considered the water but the champagne of the energy transition.

 

New heights in energy demand

The demand side of the energy equation is where the complexity of the future grid becomes starkly apparent. The way we consume energy is undergoing a profound transformation, with electric vehicles (EVs) and the electrification of heating systems adding new, unpredictable spikes in consumption. Imagine a future where millions of EVs are plugged in simultaneously at 6 PM after work, each drawing significant power. Or think of a cold winter evening when electric heaters nationwide kick in all at once. And this is where the myth of any one energy source “saving the day” falls apart.

Let’s take a look at California. In August 2020, the state experienced rolling blackouts during an extreme heatwave despite having significant renewable energy capacity. While plentiful during the day, solar power dropped off in the evening just as demand surged. The grid lacked sufficient storage and backup capacity to meet the evening demand. A diversified energy system that balances solar and wind with other sources like natural gas, hydroelectric power, and eventually, hydrogen could have better handled the fluctuating demand. This highlights a valid point: flexibility and resilience are the key characteristics of a future-proof energy system, which a single technology will not provide.

 

Baseload power

This is why, for all the attention on renewables, we must remember the importance of baseload power. This energy supply runs consistently to meet the minimum electricity demand at any given time. Historically, coal, gas, and nuclear power plants have provided this constant energy flow. But as we shift away from fossil fuels, what will replace these reliable workhorses?

Nuclear power, despite its controversies, offers an attractive solution here. Unlike wind and solar, it produces no direct carbon emissions and can operate continuously. The problem, however, is that nuclear plants are expensive and slow to build. For instance, Hinkley Point C in the UK is a prime example of both nuclear power's promise and pitfalls. Once completed, it will supply about 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, providing a stable, carbon-free energy source. Yet, the project has faced significant delays and cost overruns, leading some to question whether nuclear is worth the investment. Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, a 1,600 MW nuclear power station, started regular production in 2023. Go-live was planned in 2010; construction began in 2005.

But nuclear, like hydrogen, cannot be the sole answer either. While nuclear provides baseload power, the grid still requires flexibility to ramp up during peak demand periods and accommodate the variable nature of renewables. This is where energy storage, such as batteries and pumped hydro, comes into play, storing excess renewable energy when supply exceeds demand and discharging it when needed. Interconnected grids spanning countries and continents also help balance supply and demand across larger geographic areas, ensuring that energy generated in one place can be used where needed most.

 

An energy mosaic

The future of energy lies in embracing a mosaic of solutions, each playing its part in a flexible and adaptive system. Wind, solar, and other renewables will continue to grow in importance, especially as technological advancements make them more efficient and cost-effective. Hydrogen will have a role to play in industries and sectors where electrification is impractical. Nuclear will likely remain a crucial baseload power source, even if its role varies by country. Energy storage systems will become increasingly important as we move toward a future where energy is generated and consumed in less predictable patterns. Also, there will be no way around sophisticated demand-side management solutions that align energy use with availability.

Texas, historically known for its oil and gas industry, is now a leader in wind energy, with vast stretches of the state covered in wind turbines (with close to 700,000 square kilometers, Texas is almost twice as big as Germany). Yet the state continues to rely on natural gas and is exploring hydrogen production. The Texas energy grid, despite significant infrastructure challenges, demonstrates the power of diversity - fossil fuels, renewables, and potentially hydrogen working together to meet demand.

In the end, the idea that a single energy source can “save” us is overly simplistic and dangerous. It risks diverting attention and resources from building a diverse, flexible, resilient energy system. The future of energy will not be defined by one solution but by many, working in harmony to meet the evolving needs of a rapidly changing world. This is the only realistic path to a sustainable energy future - one where no single savior exists but rather a rich mix of complementary technologies that keep the lights on and the planet cool.