Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

In Texas, ex-oil and gas workers champion geothermal energy as a replacement for fossil-fueled power plants

News Feed
Tuesday, March 26, 2024

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. This is the second of a three-part series on emerging energy sources and Texas' role in developing them. Part one, on hydrogen fuel, published on Monday; part three, on small nuclear reactors, will publish on Wednesday. STARR COUNTY — In 2009, on a plot of shrub-covered cattle land about 45 miles northwest of McAllen, Shell buried and abandoned a well it drilled to look for gas. The well turned out to be a dry hole. Vegetation grew back over the site. In 2021, a Houston-based energy company run by former Shell employees came looking for it. This company wasn’t drilling for oil or gas, though. Its engineers were looking for a place to experiment with their technology for producing geothermal energy, created by Earth’s underground heat. A startup called Sage Geosystems leased the site. The company installed a wellhead and brought in a diesel-powered pump. They used fluid to create cracks in the rock deep below the surface, a technique similar to fracking for oil and gas. One day last March, the crew pumped 20,000 barrels of water into the 2-mile-deep well. Hours later, an operator opened the well from a control room. Pipes above ground shook as the pressurized water gushed back up. The water spun small turbines, generating electricity. The pressurized water, which was pumped underground and later released to the surface through the well on the right, at the Starr County demonstration on March 22, 2023. Credit: Verónica Gabriela Cárdenas for The Texas Tribune Left: Water spins a turbine at the Starr County demonstration site. Right: An operator controls the flow in and out of the well. Credit: Verónica Gabriela Cárdenas for The Texas Tribune Sage and other companies believe geothermal power is key to replacing polluting coal- and gas-fired power plants. Even though solar and wind are proven clean energy sources, they only produce electricity when the sun shines or the wind blows. Geothermal power could provide continuous, emissions-free energy. “Geothermal heat doesn’t have those variable conditions,” University of Texas at Austin clean energy expert Michael Webber said. “If you hit a hot spot below ground — might be thousands of feet down — the heat won’t matter based on whether it’s cloudy or whether it’s summer.” Texas has become an early hot spot for geothermal energy exploration. At least three companies are based in Houston, and scores of former oil industry workers and executives are taking their knowledge of geology, drilling and extraction to a new energy source. “We’ve punched over a million holes in the ground in Texas since Spindletop,” said former Texas oil and gas regulator Barry Smitherman, who has become a geothermal advocate. “So we have a lot of knowledge, and we have a lot of history and skill set.” Hveragerði, a city in Iceland, where 85% of the country's energy is sustainable, either hydroelectric or geothermal. Credit: Raul Moreno/SOPA Images/via REUTERS Heat constantly radiates out from the center of Earth as radioactive elements break down. That energy warms water that bubbles up to or escapes as steam at the surface. Humans have taken advantage of that phenomenon — an early form of geothermal power — for heating, bathing and cooking since ancient times. For more than 100 years, engineers have used that underground hot water or steam to generate electricity. Geothermal power in 2015 fueled 27% of the electricity in Iceland, which sits on one of the world’s most active volcanic zones. In 2022, it generated about 5% of the electricity in California. The United States is the top geothermal electricity producer in the world. Still, the total amount of geothermal electricity produced in America is tiny compared with other sources. It accounted for about 4 gigawatts last year, according to a federal analysis, or enough to power about 800,000 Texas homes. Businesses such as Sage and government researchers say there’s a lot more geothermal power to be had by pumping fluid through hot rock where there is no natural water. With technological advances, a government analysis predicts geothermal power in the U.S. could grow to 90 gigawatts by 2050. That would have been enough to power the entire Texas grid during last summer’s highest-demand day. Companies are racing to develop their technology and techniques to harness this energy source. They vary in how deep they want to drill (from around 7,000 feet, which oil and gas equipment can handle, to 66,000 feet, which it cannot), how they heat the water (in the well or in the rock) and how they bring the heated water back up (in the same well that sent it down or with a second one). Like oil wildcatters, the geothermal industry must figure out the best places to drill. They’ll face the same concerns about triggering earthquakes that have dogged oil and gas fracking operations and previous geothermal efforts. In 2006, a pilot geothermal plant in Switzerland caused a magnitude 3.4 earthquake that damaged buildings and led to the plant’s closure. In 2017, a magnitude 5.5 earthquake linked to a pilot geothermal project in South Korea injured dozens. Companies should follow existing best practices informed by research to monitor seismicity and adjust or pause operations as needed, said William Ellsworth, an emeritus professor at Stanford University. States could also mandate these protocols. “You have to pay attention to what you’re doing,” Ellsworth said. And perhaps most importantly, the geothermal businesses will have to show they can compete with the cost of other power sources, with help from the federal government in the form of Inflation Reduction Act tax credits. The more the technology is deployed, the more the costs might come down, Rice University Associate Professor Daniel Cohan said. Getting the price where the federal government hopes for it to be cost-competitive is “feasible,” Cohan said, “but there’s no guarantee that the industry will get there.” The federal Department of Energy said this month that $20 billion to $25 billion needed to be invested by 2030 to move toward widespread use. “We’re all doing something a little bit different,” Sage CEO Cindy Taff said. “One of us is going to have a breakthrough that really commercializes this stuff.” The daughter of a geophysicist who worked for Mobil, Taff studied mechanical engineering and built a 36-year career at Shell. She worked her way up from production engineer to vice president, managing a team with an annual budget of around $1 billion. Taff explains how Sage Geosystems uses its Starr County well to store energy. Credit: Verónica Gabriela Cárdenas for The Texas Tribune With freckles and curly hair that falls past her shoulders, Taff said she knew the world wanted to pivot to new energy sources. Her daughter, concerned about climate change, urged her mother to get away from the “dark side” of oil and gas. When former colleagues from Shell told Taff they were co-founding Sage and invited her to join them, she got excited. Taff saw that Sage was a nimble company with people she considered some of the smartest in the industry. The geothermal business had a lot of growing to do, like the early days of wind or solar. Her work could have a large impact. “It was exciting to be working with people that I knew had a sense of urgency and made a difference,” Taff said. “And then, it was exciting to be working for yourself in a way that you can push the agenda.” So, in 2020, Taff took the leap. Her daughter joined the company too. Building interest in geothermal  In 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spilled 11 million gallons of oil off the coast of Alaska, killing some 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters and 300 harbor seals. In Augusta, Georgia, 10-year-old Jamie Beard was riveted by the news coverage. “I understood things enough to know that that was not something we wanted,” Beard said. That experience pushed Beard into environmental activism, starting the next day, when she took a Kleenex box decorated like the ocean to raise money for coral reefs. She painted murals about environmental rights. In college, at Appalachian State University, she organized an Earth Day festival and tied herself to trees on a West Virginia mountaintop to protest workers scraping them away to mine for coal. Years before Jamie Beard helped launch Sage Geosystems, she was a student at Appalachian State University teaching others how to use solar ovens. Credit: Courtesy of Jamie Beard Beard went on to study environmental law at Boston University. She represented corporations, telling herself she could make change best from the inside. That proved incorrect. She joined a startup working on technology that could be applied to geothermal drilling. That’s when her life changed. Beard read an interview about the huge potential for geothermal power to provide electricity around the world. The interview was with Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Jefferson Tester, who led a team that published a 372-page assessment of the resource for the federal government in 2006. “The technology needed to advance … but it wasn’t like it had to invent a whole new area because it’s so compatible with what we do with hydrocarbon extraction,” Tester said in an interview with the Texas Tribune. “They drill holes in the ground and they pull fluids out of the ground, whether they’re gas or liquids, and they sell it. Well, that’s what you do for geothermal too.” Beard read the report over and over. This is my career, Beard thought. The history of modern geothermal power went back a century: The world’s first full-scale geothermal power plant started operating in 1913 in Italy. In 1960, Pacific Gas and Electric built the first commercial geothermal power plant in the United States at a spot in Northern California known as “The Geysers.” In the 1970s, the federal Department of Energy started researching pulling power from what was referred to as hot, dry rock. The country that decade suffered through Arab countries’ embargo on exporting oil to America, causing oil prices to skyrocket. Still, the technology didn’t get far enough for the concept to take off. The Larderello geothermal power plant, which is the world's oldest, was built in Tuscany, Italy. Credit: Enel Green Power Engineers built geothermal power plants where they could find existing water resources relatively easily, maybe marked by hot springs or fumaroles, which are holes where hot gases and vapors escape from underground, said Lauren Boyd, director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s geothermal technologies office. But building new plants got riskier as prime locations got harder to find. Beard saw opportunity. She knew the oil and gas industry could develop technology quickly. The U.S. ushered in the “shale revolution” as companies drilled horizontally and cracked open rock with hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, to extract giant amounts of oil and gas. That technology could be used for geothermal. Beard, 45, is the type of person who speaks with an energy that rubs off on you. Her hair is cut into an angular bob; she wears artsy glasses. She made giving a TED talk look easy. Armed with a $1 million Department of Energy grant, Beard moved to the University of Texas at Austin around 2019 to convince people that now was the time to start a geothermal company. She argued that oil and gas experts did not have to be only the villains in the climate change story; they could also be the people who help alleviate it. Jamie Beard speaks at a SXSW panel titled "Geothermal and the Promise of Clean Energy Abundance" on March 9 in Austin. Credit: Courtesy of Jamie Beard “Oil and gas people are a gigantic brain trust,” Beard said. “They are a huge asset.” Beard had a young son. She learned he inherited a rare genetic condition that gave him a life expectancy of 10 or so years. A journalist from Wired who profiled Beard described a woman facing an existential choice: She could let the doom of his fate swallow her, or focus on changing the world. Beard started by reaching out to industry veterans whom she suspected were retired, golfing and bored. Maybe their grandchildren were after them for being part of the fossil fuel industry that contributes to climate change. Beard said she spent months talking with people like Lance Cook, who retired from Shell as a vice president. Beard said the reaction she usually got was “it’ll never work,” followed by a phone call a few weeks later that the person was still thinking about it. But Cook decided to jump in, and he became the chief technology officer for a new company named for Beard’s son, Sage. Chris Anderson, the leader of TED, known for its conferences with TED talks by experts on various topics, invested $16 million through his climate investment fund. Drilling firm Nabors invested $9 million more. Early successes  Beard wasn’t the only person who saw the potential of leveraging expertise from the oil and gas industry to develop geothermal in Texas. Tim Latimer grew up in a city of about 1,000 residents in Central Texas, where he remembers being fascinated by the Discovery Channel show “Build It Bigger” about constructing large projects that impact many lives, such as bridges, tunnels and dams. Latimer studied mechanical engineering at the University of Tulsa. He wanted a job back in Texas to be near family and friends, so when he graduated in 2012 he went to work on drilling sites while the shale revolution was taking off. Latimer considered whether he should be working in fossil fuels in a world confronting climate change. But working on rapidly developing technology alongside smart people excited him. Moving into wind or solar didn’t feel right after years studying drilling. Fervo CEO Tim Latimer at the Fervo Energy office in Houston on March 22. Credit: Mark Felix for the The Texas Tribune Then came the lightbulb moment. He found the same 2006 geothermal report that inspired Beard. He realized that what he was doing, which included drilling into high-temperature rock in South Texas, presented what he called a “huge opportunity for tech transfer” into geothermal. Latimer thought the idea was so obvious he could join a geothermal company already doing it. He found none. What if this could change how the world gets energy and no one tried it? he wondered. Like other startup founders, he’s articulate and dreams big. At a conference where some wore suits, he wore sneakers, a button-down and jeans. Latimer went to Stanford University Graduate School of Business and met a classmate getting a PhD in geothermal research. Together they started Fervo Energy. They headquartered the business in Houston. Their first Houston-based hire had 15 years of experience working for oil and gas companies Hess and BP. Fervo now employs 80 people, about 60% of whom came from oil and gas work. Fervo’s approach is basically to drill vertically, then use fracking technology to create horizontal cracks in the earth. That way, operators can send water down the well, where it can flow through the small cracks in the rock to heat before coming back up another nearby well. Two California energy providers have signed contracts to buy power from Fervo. Google also has a financial agreement with them. Oil and gas company Devon Energy Corporation invested $10 million. Last summer, Fervo ran a 30-day test in 375-degree rock in Nevada. They deemed it a success, and now the company is building a project nearby in Utah, next to where the Department of Energy has sponsored a geothermal field lab. They expect the project will put power mostly onto the California grid in 2026. Drilling deeper Back in Houston, in a beige set of warehouses on the south side of town, another company led by former oil and gas experts is taking a third approach. Henry Phan left a 19-year career in product development at Schlumberger, where his work included designing drilling equipment that could steer sideways, to join a former colleague who launched Quaise Energy. The company focuses on using millimeter waves — which are higher frequency microwaves like the ones used to heat food — to create wells by vaporizing rock. Henry Phan, vice president of engineering for Quaise Energy, stands with a wave guide that the company uses to direct waves from the surface into the hole they are creating, in Houston on Feb. 15, 2024. Credit: Joseph Bui for The Texas Tribune First: Employees of Quaise Energy stand next to a repurposed drilling rig that will hold a wave guide. Last: Vaporized basalt rock from testing at Quaise Energy in Houston. Credit: Joseph Bui for The Texas Tribune Oil and gas equipment begins to fail when temperatures below ground reach around 400 degrees. Drill bits wear down quickly against harder rock and electronics are pushed past their limits. Using millimeter waves would allow operators to “drill” deeper than oil and gas equipment can go — which means reaching hotter rock that could produce more power. The idea interested Phan, and he thought the physics made sense. Plus, he would work on cutting-edge technology that he thought could be a “big step change for humanity.” Quaise had a lot less bureaucracy than at the giant Schlumberger, where money going into product development seemed to be diminishing. In 2020, he signed on as Quaise’s vice president of engineering. He brought more former colleagues with him. Quaise aims to be able to drill into 300 to 500 degree rock by 2026, produce steam that can generate electricity by 2028 and go commercial after that. Their investors include Nabors, climate investors Prelude Ventures and billionaire Vinod Khosla. In early experiments with the technology, they used millimeter waves to “drill” through an eight-foot cylinder of basalt rock, plus samples of 1- to 2-inch-thick basalt. The examples sit on display in their office. “It’s cool to work on a new product,” Phan said, “but the fact that it can make an impact to … our life and our children’s life and their generation and their kids is monumental. So it’s rewarding from the point of view that we’re working on something that is so impactful if we can make this thing work.” Disclosure: Google, Rice University and the University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. We can’t wait to welcome you to downtown Austin Sept. 5-7 for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival! Join us at Texas’ breakout politics and policy event as we dig into the 2024 elections, state and national politics, the state of democracy, and so much more. When tickets go on sale this spring, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

Texas has become an early hot spot for geothermal energy exploration as scores of former oil industry workers and executives are taking their knowledge to a new energy source.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.


This is the second of a three-part series on emerging energy sources and Texas' role in developing them. Part one, on hydrogen fuel, published on Monday; part three, on small nuclear reactors, will publish on Wednesday.

STARR COUNTY — In 2009, on a plot of shrub-covered cattle land about 45 miles northwest of McAllen, Shell buried and abandoned a well it drilled to look for gas. The well turned out to be a dry hole. Vegetation grew back over the site.

In 2021, a Houston-based energy company run by former Shell employees came looking for it.

This company wasn’t drilling for oil or gas, though. Its engineers were looking for a place to experiment with their technology for producing geothermal energy, created by Earth’s underground heat.

A startup called Sage Geosystems leased the site. The company installed a wellhead and brought in a diesel-powered pump. They used fluid to create cracks in the rock deep below the surface, a technique similar to fracking for oil and gas.

One day last March, the crew pumped 20,000 barrels of water into the 2-mile-deep well. Hours later, an operator opened the well from a control room. Pipes above ground shook as the pressurized water gushed back up. The water spun small turbines, generating electricity.

The pressurized water, which was pumped underground and later released to the surface through the well on the right, at the Starr County demonstration on March 22, 2023. Credit: Verónica Gabriela Cárdenas for The Texas Tribune
Left: Water spins a turbine at the Starr County demonstration site. Right: An operator controls the flow in and out of the well. Credit: Verónica Gabriela Cárdenas for The Texas Tribune

Sage and other companies believe geothermal power is key to replacing polluting coal- and gas-fired power plants. Even though solar and wind are proven clean energy sources, they only produce electricity when the sun shines or the wind blows. Geothermal power could provide continuous, emissions-free energy.

“Geothermal heat doesn’t have those variable conditions,” University of Texas at Austin clean energy expert Michael Webber said. “If you hit a hot spot below ground — might be thousands of feet down — the heat won’t matter based on whether it’s cloudy or whether it’s summer.”

Texas has become an early hot spot for geothermal energy exploration. At least three companies are based in Houston, and scores of former oil industry workers and executives are taking their knowledge of geology, drilling and extraction to a new energy source.

“We’ve punched over a million holes in the ground in Texas since Spindletop,” said former Texas oil and gas regulator Barry Smitherman, who has become a geothermal advocate. “So we have a lot of knowledge, and we have a lot of history and skill set.”

Hveragerði, a city in Iceland, where 85% of the country's energy is sustainable, either hydroelectric or geothermal. Credit: Raul Moreno/SOPA Images/via REUTERS

Heat constantly radiates out from the center of Earth as radioactive elements break down. That energy warms water that bubbles up to or escapes as steam at the surface. Humans have taken advantage of that phenomenon — an early form of geothermal power — for heating, bathing and cooking since ancient times.

For more than 100 years, engineers have used that underground hot water or steam to generate electricity. Geothermal power in 2015 fueled 27% of the electricity in Iceland, which sits on one of the world’s most active volcanic zones. In 2022, it generated about 5% of the electricity in California. The United States is the top geothermal electricity producer in the world.

Still, the total amount of geothermal electricity produced in America is tiny compared with other sources. It accounted for about 4 gigawatts last year, according to a federal analysis, or enough to power about 800,000 Texas homes.

Businesses such as Sage and government researchers say there’s a lot more geothermal power to be had by pumping fluid through hot rock where there is no natural water. With technological advances, a government analysis predicts geothermal power in the U.S. could grow to 90 gigawatts by 2050. That would have been enough to power the entire Texas grid during last summer’s highest-demand day.

Companies are racing to develop their technology and techniques to harness this energy source. They vary in how deep they want to drill (from around 7,000 feet, which oil and gas equipment can handle, to 66,000 feet, which it cannot), how they heat the water (in the well or in the rock) and how they bring the heated water back up (in the same well that sent it down or with a second one).

Like oil wildcatters, the geothermal industry must figure out the best places to drill. They’ll face the same concerns about triggering earthquakes that have dogged oil and gas fracking operations and previous geothermal efforts. In 2006, a pilot geothermal plant in Switzerland caused a magnitude 3.4 earthquake that damaged buildings and led to the plant’s closure. In 2017, a magnitude 5.5 earthquake linked to a pilot geothermal project in South Korea injured dozens.

Companies should follow existing best practices informed by research to monitor seismicity and adjust or pause operations as needed, said William Ellsworth, an emeritus professor at Stanford University. States could also mandate these protocols. “You have to pay attention to what you’re doing,” Ellsworth said.

And perhaps most importantly, the geothermal businesses will have to show they can compete with the cost of other power sources, with help from the federal government in the form of Inflation Reduction Act tax credits.

The more the technology is deployed, the more the costs might come down, Rice University Associate Professor Daniel Cohan said. Getting the price where the federal government hopes for it to be cost-competitive is “feasible,” Cohan said, “but there’s no guarantee that the industry will get there.”

The federal Department of Energy said this month that $20 billion to $25 billion needed to be invested by 2030 to move toward widespread use.

“We’re all doing something a little bit different,” Sage CEO Cindy Taff said. “One of us is going to have a breakthrough that really commercializes this stuff.”

The daughter of a geophysicist who worked for Mobil, Taff studied mechanical engineering and built a 36-year career at Shell. She worked her way up from production engineer to vice president, managing a team with an annual budget of around $1 billion.

Taff explains how Sage Geosystems uses its Starr County well to store energy. Credit: Verónica Gabriela Cárdenas for The Texas Tribune

With freckles and curly hair that falls past her shoulders, Taff said she knew the world wanted to pivot to new energy sources. Her daughter, concerned about climate change, urged her mother to get away from the “dark side” of oil and gas.

When former colleagues from Shell told Taff they were co-founding Sage and invited her to join them, she got excited.

Taff saw that Sage was a nimble company with people she considered some of the smartest in the industry. The geothermal business had a lot of growing to do, like the early days of wind or solar. Her work could have a large impact.

“It was exciting to be working with people that I knew had a sense of urgency and made a difference,” Taff said. “And then, it was exciting to be working for yourself in a way that you can push the agenda.”

So, in 2020, Taff took the leap. Her daughter joined the company too.

Building interest in geothermal 

In 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spilled 11 million gallons of oil off the coast of Alaska, killing some 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters and 300 harbor seals. In Augusta, Georgia, 10-year-old Jamie Beard was riveted by the news coverage.

“I understood things enough to know that that was not something we wanted,” Beard said.

That experience pushed Beard into environmental activism, starting the next day, when she took a Kleenex box decorated like the ocean to raise money for coral reefs. She painted murals about environmental rights. In college, at Appalachian State University, she organized an Earth Day festival and tied herself to trees on a West Virginia mountaintop to protest workers scraping them away to mine for coal.

Years before Jamie Beard helped launch Sage Geosystems, she was a student at Appalachian State University teaching others how to use solar ovens. Credit: Courtesy of Jamie Beard

Beard went on to study environmental law at Boston University. She represented corporations, telling herself she could make change best from the inside. That proved incorrect. She joined a startup working on technology that could be applied to geothermal drilling.

That’s when her life changed.

Beard read an interview about the huge potential for geothermal power to provide electricity around the world. The interview was with Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Jefferson Tester, who led a team that published a 372-page assessment of the resource for the federal government in 2006.

“The technology needed to advance … but it wasn’t like it had to invent a whole new area because it’s so compatible with what we do with hydrocarbon extraction,” Tester said in an interview with the Texas Tribune. “They drill holes in the ground and they pull fluids out of the ground, whether they’re gas or liquids, and they sell it. Well, that’s what you do for geothermal too.”

Beard read the report over and over.

This is my career, Beard thought.

The history of modern geothermal power went back a century: The world’s first full-scale geothermal power plant started operating in 1913 in Italy. In 1960, Pacific Gas and Electric built the first commercial geothermal power plant in the United States at a spot in Northern California known as “The Geysers.”

In the 1970s, the federal Department of Energy started researching pulling power from what was referred to as hot, dry rock. The country that decade suffered through Arab countries’ embargo on exporting oil to America, causing oil prices to skyrocket. Still, the technology didn’t get far enough for the concept to take off.

The Larderello geothermal power plant, which is the world's oldest, was built in Tuscany, Italy. Credit: Enel Green Power

Engineers built geothermal power plants where they could find existing water resources relatively easily, maybe marked by hot springs or fumaroles, which are holes where hot gases and vapors escape from underground, said Lauren Boyd, director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s geothermal technologies office. But building new plants got riskier as prime locations got harder to find.

Beard saw opportunity. She knew the oil and gas industry could develop technology quickly. The U.S. ushered in the “shale revolution” as companies drilled horizontally and cracked open rock with hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, to extract giant amounts of oil and gas. That technology could be used for geothermal.

Beard, 45, is the type of person who speaks with an energy that rubs off on you. Her hair is cut into an angular bob; she wears artsy glasses. She made giving a TED talk look easy.

Armed with a $1 million Department of Energy grant, Beard moved to the University of Texas at Austin around 2019 to convince people that now was the time to start a geothermal company. She argued that oil and gas experts did not have to be only the villains in the climate change story; they could also be the people who help alleviate it.

Jamie Beard speaks at a SXSW panel titled "Geothermal and the Promise of Clean Energy Abundance" on March 9 in Austin. Credit: Courtesy of Jamie Beard

“Oil and gas people are a gigantic brain trust,” Beard said. “They are a huge asset.”

Beard had a young son. She learned he inherited a rare genetic condition that gave him a life expectancy of 10 or so years. A journalist from Wired who profiled Beard described a woman facing an existential choice: She could let the doom of his fate swallow her, or focus on changing the world.

Beard started by reaching out to industry veterans whom she suspected were retired, golfing and bored. Maybe their grandchildren were after them for being part of the fossil fuel industry that contributes to climate change.

Beard said she spent months talking with people like Lance Cook, who retired from Shell as a vice president. Beard said the reaction she usually got was “it’ll never work,” followed by a phone call a few weeks later that the person was still thinking about it. But Cook decided to jump in, and he became the chief technology officer for a new company named for Beard’s son, Sage.

Chris Anderson, the leader of TED, known for its conferences with TED talks by experts on various topics, invested $16 million through his climate investment fund. Drilling firm Nabors invested $9 million more.

Early successes 

Beard wasn’t the only person who saw the potential of leveraging expertise from the oil and gas industry to develop geothermal in Texas.

Tim Latimer grew up in a city of about 1,000 residents in Central Texas, where he remembers being fascinated by the Discovery Channel show “Build It Bigger” about constructing large projects that impact many lives, such as bridges, tunnels and dams.

Latimer studied mechanical engineering at the University of Tulsa. He wanted a job back in Texas to be near family and friends, so when he graduated in 2012 he went to work on drilling sites while the shale revolution was taking off.

Latimer considered whether he should be working in fossil fuels in a world confronting climate change. But working on rapidly developing technology alongside smart people excited him. Moving into wind or solar didn’t feel right after years studying drilling.

Fervo CEO Tim Latimer at the Fervo Energy office in Houston on March 22. Credit: Mark Felix for the The Texas Tribune

Then came the lightbulb moment. He found the same 2006 geothermal report that inspired Beard. He realized that what he was doing, which included drilling into high-temperature rock in South Texas, presented what he called a “huge opportunity for tech transfer” into geothermal.

Latimer thought the idea was so obvious he could join a geothermal company already doing it. He found none. What if this could change how the world gets energy and no one tried it? he wondered. Like other startup founders, he’s articulate and dreams big. At a conference where some wore suits, he wore sneakers, a button-down and jeans.

Latimer went to Stanford University Graduate School of Business and met a classmate getting a PhD in geothermal research. Together they started Fervo Energy. They headquartered the business in Houston. Their first Houston-based hire had 15 years of experience working for oil and gas companies Hess and BP. Fervo now employs 80 people, about 60% of whom came from oil and gas work.

Fervo’s approach is basically to drill vertically, then use fracking technology to create horizontal cracks in the earth. That way, operators can send water down the well, where it can flow through the small cracks in the rock to heat before coming back up another nearby well.

Two California energy providers have signed contracts to buy power from Fervo. Google also has a financial agreement with them. Oil and gas company Devon Energy Corporation invested $10 million.

Last summer, Fervo ran a 30-day test in 375-degree rock in Nevada. They deemed it a success, and now the company is building a project nearby in Utah, next to where the Department of Energy has sponsored a geothermal field lab. They expect the project will put power mostly onto the California grid in 2026.

Drilling deeper

Back in Houston, in a beige set of warehouses on the south side of town, another company led by former oil and gas experts is taking a third approach.

Henry Phan left a 19-year career in product development at Schlumberger, where his work included designing drilling equipment that could steer sideways, to join a former colleague who launched Quaise Energy. The company focuses on using millimeter waves — which are higher frequency microwaves like the ones used to heat food — to create wells by vaporizing rock.

Henry Phan, vice president of engineering for Quaise Energy, stands with a wave guide that the company uses to direct waves from the surface into the hole they are creating, in Houston on Feb. 15, 2024. Credit: Joseph Bui for The Texas Tribune
First: Employees of Quaise Energy stand next to a repurposed drilling rig that will hold a wave guide. Last: Vaporized basalt rock from testing at Quaise Energy in Houston. Credit: Joseph Bui for The Texas Tribune

Oil and gas equipment begins to fail when temperatures below ground reach around 400 degrees. Drill bits wear down quickly against harder rock and electronics are pushed past their limits. Using millimeter waves would allow operators to “drill” deeper than oil and gas equipment can go — which means reaching hotter rock that could produce more power.

The idea interested Phan, and he thought the physics made sense. Plus, he would work on cutting-edge technology that he thought could be a “big step change for humanity.” Quaise had a lot less bureaucracy than at the giant Schlumberger, where money going into product development seemed to be diminishing. In 2020, he signed on as Quaise’s vice president of engineering. He brought more former colleagues with him.

Quaise aims to be able to drill into 300 to 500 degree rock by 2026, produce steam that can generate electricity by 2028 and go commercial after that. Their investors include Nabors, climate investors Prelude Ventures and billionaire Vinod Khosla.

In early experiments with the technology, they used millimeter waves to “drill” through an eight-foot cylinder of basalt rock, plus samples of 1- to 2-inch-thick basalt. The examples sit on display in their office.

“It’s cool to work on a new product,” Phan said, “but the fact that it can make an impact to … our life and our children’s life and their generation and their kids is monumental. So it’s rewarding from the point of view that we’re working on something that is so impactful if we can make this thing work.”

Disclosure: Google, Rice University and the University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.


We can’t wait to welcome you to downtown Austin Sept. 5-7 for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival! Join us at Texas’ breakout politics and policy event as we dig into the 2024 elections, state and national politics, the state of democracy, and so much more. When tickets go on sale this spring, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

FirstEnergy seeks looser reliability rules as outages grow more common

Extreme weather is making the grid more prone to outages — and now FirstEnergy’s three Ohio utilities want more leeway on their reliability requirements. Put simply, FirstEnergy is asking the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to let Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., Ohio Edison, and Toledo Edison take longer to…

Extreme weather is making the grid more prone to outages — and now FirstEnergy’s three Ohio utilities want more leeway on their reliability requirements. Put simply, FirstEnergy is asking the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to let Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., Ohio Edison, and Toledo Edison take longer to restore power when the lights go out. The latter two utilities would also be allowed slightly more frequent outages per customer each year. Comments regarding the request are due to the utilities commission on Dec. 8, less than three weeks after regulators approved higher electricity rates for hundreds of thousands of northeast Ohio utility customers. An administrative trial, known as an evidentiary hearing, is currently set to start Jan. 21. Consumer and environmental advocates say it’s unfair to make customers shoulder the burden of lower-quality service, as they have already been paying for substantial grid-hardening upgrades. “Relaxing reliability standards can jeopardize the health and safety of Ohio consumers,” said Maureen Willis, head of the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, which is the state’s legal representative for utility customers. ​“It also shifts the costs of more frequent and longer outages onto Ohioans who already paid millions of dollars to utilities to enhance and develop their distribution systems.” The United States has seen a rise in blackouts linked to severe weather, a 2024 analysis by Climate Central found, with about twice as many such events happening from 2014 through 2023 compared to the 10 years from 2000 through 2009. The duration of the longest blackouts has also grown. As of mid-2025, the average length of 12.8 hours represents a jump of almost 60% from 2022, J.D. Power reported in October. Ohio regulators have approved less stringent reliability standards before, notably for AES Ohio and Duke Energy Ohio, where obligations from those or other orders required investments and other actions to improve reliability. Some utilities elsewhere in the country have also sought leeway on reliability expectations. In April, for example, two New York utilities asked to exclude some outages related to tree disease and other factors from their performance metrics, which would in effect relax their standards. Other utilities haven’t necessarily pursued lower targets, but have nonetheless noted vulnerabilities to climate change or experienced more major events that don’t count toward requirements. FirstEnergy’s case is particularly notable because the company has slow-rolled clean energy and energy efficiency, two tools that advocates say can cost-effectively bolster grid reliability and guard against weather-related outages. There is also a certain irony to the request: FirstEnergy’s embrace of fossil fuels at the expense of clean energy and efficiency measures has let its subsidiaries’ operations and others continue to emit high levels of planet-warming carbon dioxide. Now, the company appears to nod toward climate-change-driven weather variability as justification for relaxed reliability standards. FirstEnergy filed its application to the Public Utilities Commission last December, while its recently decided rate case and other cases linked to its House Bill 6 corruption scandal were pending. FirstEnergy argues that specific reliability standards for each of its utilities should start with an average of the preceding five years’ performance. From there, FirstEnergy says the state should tack on extra allowances for longer or more frequent outages to ​“account for annual variability in factors outside the Companies’ control, in particular, weather impacts that can vary significantly on a year-to-year basis.” “Honestly, I don’t know of a viable hypothesis for this increasing variability outside of climate change,” said Victoria Petryshyn, an associate professor of environmental studies at the University of Southern California, who grew up in Ohio. In summer, systems are burdened by constant air conditioning use during periods of extreme heat and humidity. In winter, frigid air masses resulting from disruptions to the jet stream can boost demand for heat and ​“cause extra strain on the grid if natural-gas lines freeze,” Petryshyn said.

Trump order to keep Michigan power plant open costs taxpayers $113m

Critics say JH Campbell coal-fired plant in western Michigan is expensive and emits high levels of toxic pollutionTrump administration orders to keep an ageing, unneeded Michigan coal-fired power plant online has cost ratepayers from across the US midwest about $113m so far, according to estimates from the plant’s operator and regulators.Still, the US energy department last week ordered the plant to remain open for another 90 days. Continue reading...

Trump administration orders to keep an ageing, unneeded Michigan coal-fired power plant online has cost ratepayers from across the US midwest about $113m so far, according to estimates from the plant’s operator and regulators.Still, the US energy department last week ordered the plant to remain open for another 90 days.The Trump administration in May ordered utility giant Consumers Energy to keep the 63-year-old JH Campbell coal plant in western Michigan, about 100 miles north-east of Chicago, online just as it was being retired.The order has drawn outrage from consumer advocates and environmental groups who say the plant is expensive and emits high levels of toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas.The costs will be spread among households across the northern and central regional Miso grid, which stretches from eastern Montana to Michigan, and includes nine other states“The costs of unnecessarily running this jalopy coal plant just continue to mount,” said Michael Lenoff, an attorney with Earthjustice, which is suing over the order.Gary Rochow, Consumers Energy’s CEO, told investors in a 30 October earnings call that the Trump administration in its order stated that ratepayers should shoulder the costs, and detailed how the company should pass on the costs.“That order from the energy department has laid out a clear path to cost recovery,” Rochow said.The utility has said in regulatory filings that the order is costing customers about $615,000 per day. The order has been in place for around six months.Michigan attorney general Dana Nessel filed a motion for a stay in federal court, alleging the administration’s latest order is “arbitrary and illegal”.The coal plant is one of two in Michigan that the Trump administration has moved to keep open under the president’s controversial national energy emergency executive order, which is being challenged in court by multiple lawsuits.The other plant is not scheduled to close for two years. The two factories emit about 45% of the state’s greenhouse gas pollution.Trump has also used his emergency energy order to keep gas plants near Baltimore and Philadelphia online.Consumers Energy said it did not ask for Campbell to remain open. The Trump administration did not consult local regulators, a spokesperson for the Michigan public service commission (MPSC), which regulates utilities and manages the state’s grid, told the Guardian in May.“The unnecessary recent order … will increase the cost of power for homes and businesses in Michigan and across the midwest,” the chair of the MPSC, Dan Scripps, said in a statement at the time.The latest figures proved Scripps correct.In May, an energy department spokesperson insisted in a statement that retiring the coal plants “would jeopardize the reliability of our grid systems”.But regulatory data from Miso and the MPSC over the last six months shows that statement was wrong.The Miso grid had excess power far above what Campbell provided during peak demand this summer. And the plant often was not operating at full capacity, likely because its power was not needed, advocates say. But the plant still costs ratepayers even when not operating at capacity.The energy department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the data showing it was not necessary to keep the plant open.Campbell and Michigan’s other coal plant that the Trump administration is aiming to keep online release high levels of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter into the air. Meanwhile, their coal ash ponds leach arsenic, lead, lithium, radium and sulfate into local drinking water and the Great Lakes.Consumers Energy had since 2021 been planning for the Campbell’s closure as required by the state’s energy plan. The company said the plant’s closure would save ratepayers in the state about $600m by 2040.

Mark Carney reaches deal with Alberta for oil pipeline opposed by First Nations

Prime minister says deal ‘sets the state for an industrial transformation’, but project is likely to face wide oppositionMark Carney has agreed an energy deal with Alberta centred on plans for a new heavy oil pipeline reaching from the province’s oil sands to the Pacific coast, a politically volatile project that is expected to face stiff opposition.“It’s a great day for Alberta and a great day for Canada,” the prime minister said on Thursday as he met the Alberta premier, Danielle Smith. He said the agreement “sets the state for an industrial transformation” and involved not just a pipeline, but nuclear power and datacentres. “This is Canada working,” he said. Continue reading...

Mark Carney has agreed an energy deal with Alberta centred on plans for a new heavy oil pipeline reaching from the province’s oil sands to the Pacific coast – a politically volatile project that is expected to face stiff opposition.“It’s a great day for Alberta and a great day for Canada,” the prime minister said on Thursday as he met the beaming Alberta premier, Danielle Smith. He said the agreement “sets the state for an industrial transformation” and involved not just a pipeline, but also nuclear power and datacentres. “This is Canada working,” he said.The agreement was praised by Smith for its potential to “unleash” investment in Alberta.Carney and Smith made the announcement after weeks of negotiations, which mark a dramatic shift in relations between the federal government and Alberta.. The two have sparred in recent years amid accusations from Alberta that Ottawa is harming its economic potential by restricting carbon emissions.The premise of the agreement is to increase oil and gas exports while attempting to meet the federal government’s climate targets. Carney’s government will exempt a possible pipeline project from the existing coastal oil tanker moratorium and emissions cap. In exchange, Alberta must raise its industrial carbon pricing and investing in a multi-billion-dollar carbon capture project.Critically, however, no company has expressed an interest in backing the project, which would probably face stiff opposition from the province of British Columbia and among First Nations communities on the Pacific coast.The move also reflects a political shift by Carney, who, before entering politics, developed credentials as an economist guiding capital markets towards a net zero future. Now, he must sell a plan that appears at odds with those values.The agreement has already prompted grumbles from lawmakers within Carney’s Liberal party. The cabinet minister Gregor Robertson, for example, argued against the controversial Trans Mountain pipeline expansion when he was mayor of Vancouver, calling the project environmentally irresponsible. Carney must also convince the former environment minister Steven Guilbeault, a longtime environmental activist who now serves as minister of Canadian identity and culture.Talks between Alberta and the federal government notably excluded neighbouring British Columbia, whose leader has voiced strong opposition to a new pipeline passing through his province. The BC premier, David Eby, has said he opposes a pipeline and also the prospect of allowing tanker traffic through the narrow, tempestuous waters of the north coast. Instead, his government offered to expand the capacity of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline.But Alberta’s government is adamant it wants a new pipeline, not just expanded capacity, and has repeatedly pledged to submit a proposal by spring.Before passing a bill in June that gave his government the power to override environmental regulations and fast-track projects in the national interest, Carney said any new pipeline would have to have the support of First Nations whose territory is unceded to provincial or federal governments.Even before Carney and Smith made their announcement, however, First Nations said any new pipeline was effectively dead on arrival.“We are here to remind the Alberta government, the federal government, and any potential private proponent that we will never allow oil tankers on our coast, and that this pipeline project will never happen,” said Marilyn Slett, president of the Coastal First Nations (CFN), a group that represents eight First Nations along the coast.Slett, the elected chief of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, has previously warned about the risks of an oil spill in a sparsely populated region with little rapid-response infrastructure. She saw the effects first-hand in 2016, when 100,000 litres of diesel spilled near her community. Slett warned that no deal could “override our inherent and constitutional Rights and Title, or deter our deep interconnection of mutual respect for the ocean”.

The long, fun list of things we could do with unlimited clean energy

What could you do with energy that’s cheap, clean, and near unlimited? You could live in a home built to your precise needs that stays cozy and cool all year long. You could swim in a heated pool filled with ultra-pure recycled water. You could grill a steak grown in a factory, from cell on […]

What we could do with cleaner energy is more than you can imagine. | Lucy Jones for Vox; Getty Images What could you do with energy that’s cheap, clean, and near unlimited? You could live in a home built to your precise needs that stays cozy and cool all year long. You could swim in a heated pool filled with ultra-pure recycled water. You could grill a steak grown in a factory, from cell on up, marbled, textured, and flavored to perfection. You could visit a nature preserve on land reclaimed from mines and farms, teeming with once-endangered animal life. You could get whisked comfortably and quietly anywhere by robots, whether down the street or the other side of the world. You could plan every weekend outing for the next month, counting on reliable, far-reaching weather forecasts. And all of your garbage would break down into its constituent elements, destined to be reassembled into new shoes, cars, and refrigerators. Key Takeaways Harnessing energy has been a key driver of increasing prosperity — life expectancy, wealth, productivity. But availability, cost, and environmental impacts have long been major constraints on the energy we can use. Now, a new generation of clean energy is providing vastly more power and rapidly scaling up. With ample cheap power, we can solve some of our most pressing problems and begin to think of new applications. Abundant clean energy can enable vastly more food, water, travel, and industry while undoing greenhouse gas emissions. However, more energy cannot simply get around major social concerns like inequity, job losses, and regulatory hurdles. This is all speculation, but the pace of improvement in clean energy and the scale of its deployment put these ideas within the realm of possibility. Energy shapes the limits of what a society can build, sustain, and imagine, and the more of it we have at our disposal, the further we can push those boundaries. What we would decide to do with vastly more energy has huge implications for our politics, our economy, our environment, and our prosperity.  This year, the world is poised to spend $2.2 trillion on clean energy — power from the wind, the sun, the water, and splitting atoms. It also includes upgrades to the power grid, new forms of energy storage, and increased efficiency.  This investment has mostly been trumpeted as a way to help limit climate change. Humanity’s collective deployment of clean energy and increasing efficiency so far has already helped take some of the worst-case scenarios off the table.   However, climate change is a low political priority now. A more compelling case for clean energy is that it’s often the best way to get cheap energy, and to get a lot of it. The deployment of wind and solar power around the world continues to defy expectations, while the growth trajectory of energy storage is following close behind. This suite of technologies is taking off around the world — not because of a carbon tax or even environmental concerns, but because clean energy is simply better at meeting the needs of a moment when energy appetites are growing.  Suppose we alter the framing and approach solving climate change not as a task merely of curbing emissions, but of increasing access and lowering costs of better ways to power the world even further. It’s an approach that leads with prosperity and quality of life, while creating a more stable climate in the process.  If we make it a priority to get more clean energy, that raises the interesting — and fun — question of what we should do with it. After all, we’re not collecting energy for the sake of energy but to do stuff.  Cheap, clean, plentiful energy doesn’t just help people save money on their power bills; it unlocks new industries, makes thorny political problems moot, and helps repair the planet. These use cases are important motivations for why the transition to clean energy needs to happen and how it can bring about a better world for all of us. It’s why we’re doing this at all.  What abundant clean energy can unlock We can exchange heat and electrons for just about anything on Earth. How much energy a person uses is an effective proxy for how well off they are — how much food they can eat, how comfortable they are at home, how educated they are. We can see this play out in the cost and quality of lighting, which, in the UK alone, dropped 99.9 percent since 1700, tracing how economies grew as people shifted from campfires, to kerosene lamps, to LED bulbs, and beyond.  Energy by the numbers The global energy landscape is changing rapidly. Fossil fuels are still the dominant ways we heat, power, and get around the world, but renewable energy capacity is rocketing upward.  Total global energy consumption is about 186,000 terawatt-hours per year, or about 58 times the total output of every nuclear power plant on Earth right now. The top three sources of energy are oil, coal, and natural gas, meeting 76 percent of the world’s energy needs. The world emitted a record 53.4 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2024. Energy consumption accounted for 37.8 gigatonnes of CO2, about 70 percent of the total.   Burning fossil fuels for energy accounts for 75.7 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, followed by 11.7 percent from agriculture, 6.5 percent from industry, 3.4 percent from waste, and 2.7 percent from changes in land use. About 21 percent of the world’s energy consumption goes toward producing electricity. Wind, solar, and hydropower accounted for 92 percent of new electricity capacity added worldwide in 2024. The world will need anywhere from double to triple the amount of electricity by 2050, depending on the economic growth trajectory. “Energy is prosperity,” said Eric Toone, chief technology officer at Breakthrough Energy, a high-tech clean energy funding firm founded by Bill Gates in 2015. “Energy is the capacity to do work. Energy is the capacity to build things, to make things, to move things.” The potential of near-unlimited energy has been tantalizing researchers for decades, since the last big energy revolution, the dawn of the nuclear age.  “It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age,” said Lewis Strauss, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, in 1954. “This is the forecast for an age of peace.” Nuclear power didn’t make this dream come true. It did provide huge amounts of electricity, but its construction and operating costs rose as other energy sources got cheaper. Meanwhile, environmental activists and some policymakers shifted their energy strategy to conservation rather than expanding the pool of power. Yet, the prospect of producing energy in such vast quantities that its cost is a minor concern is still one that lures scientists, engineers, and investors. And the recent technology trends do give some observers hope that this dream is within reach. “Long-term, I think there’s good reason to think that at least lots of places in the world will have much less expensive and more stable energy, especially once they’ve made the investment in the next generation infrastructure,” said Daniel Vermeer, a researcher at Duke University studying the future of energy. “And I think that’s going to happen in a lot of places.” How much more energy? “I think we’re looking at double the electricity production,” Vermeer said. So, in the best tradition of economic thought experiments, let’s assume a can opener. What do we open first?  Transform our food system If we vastly increase our energy supply from current levels, food and water are where we can get the most bang for the British Thermal Unit (BTU). “It’s so fundamental to human prosperity,” Vermeer said. “It’s also where people will see benefits the fastest.” First, we can get a lot more out of our existing farms We already spend a huge amount of our energy to produce food, and agriculture accounts for one-third of humanity’s greenhouse gas output. The fertilizer used to grow crops alone accounts for 5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than aviation and shipping combined — and most fertilizers rely on natural gas as a feedstock. If we had the power and materials to produce more zero-emissions fertilizer, farmers could extract greater yields from the same amount of land. And decarbonizing the supply chain with electric tractors and trucks to bring food to markets would further increase efficiency. Getting the most out of our existing farms will be essential to feeding the world’s growing population. Otherwise, expanding farms will continue to devour forests and wildlands.   Your tastiest fruit will grow closer to you The next generation of farming techniques could create similar yields on even smaller plots of land, allowing food to be produced year round, nearer to major population centers or even within them. One approach is vertical farming, where crops are grown vertically in controlled indoor environments instead of horizontally across fields. Many vertical farming techniques are already being used today. But with more cheap energy to run pumps, lights, and fans, we can scale this up further.  We can sip from the seas Water is essential to all life as we know it, and we haven’t been doing a great job of judiciously using it. In recent years, some major cities have been teetering on the brink of running out of water. And with average temperatures rising, many regions are poised to see more severe droughts.  However, two-thirds of the world is covered in water, and widespread desalination would allow the world to tap into that vast, currently undrinkable supply. The main techniques for desalination are distillation and reverse osmosis, and right now, both require a lot of energy. But, if there’s a lot of cheap power on tap, then desalination could be a primary source of water for some communities, allowing freshwater rivers and aquifers to recharge. It would also resolve many of the political conflicts around water.  Our meals can give us perfect nourishment Unlimited energy could allow us to bioengineer our food sources from individual nutrients to maximize nourishment. Precision fermentation, or electro-food, is an emerging technology that uses specially designed microorganisms like yeast or bacteria to make proteins, fats, or nutrients like those found in animal products. Instead of raising cows or chickens, you could “brew” milk, eggs, or meat ingredients in fermentation tanks — just like the process of making beer. Cheap, clean electricity can power these breweries as they use captured carbon and hydrogen as ingredients. Companies are already selling animal-free dairy and egg proteins made this way. As renewable power becomes abundant, precision fermentation could scale up, feeding growing populations with a fraction of the land, water, and emissions of traditional agriculture Imagine grilling the perfect burger Now, let’s take precision fermentation even further. Cultivating cells into whole steaks is starting to become possible, but it’s an expensive and involved process. If this could truly get off the ground, it would have huge knock-on benefits for the environment. Raising livestock right now draws a huge toll in terms of land use, energy and water consumption, and waste production, not to mention the immense ethical problems embedded in raising and killing animals for food. If we can turn energy into meat that replaces conventional livestock, that would solve so many environmental issues all at once. But, convincing people to eat it remains a barrier. Already, there are seven states that have banned lab-grown meat. “Laboratory agriculture and producing things without animals is possible from a technical perspective, but we have to get a lot more sophisticated about how people make those decisions,” Toone said.  Can AI play a positive role here? Whether or not you’re bullish on AI, it’s clear that more of our jobs and lives hinge on access to computing power and storage. Right now, data centers are a big part of the story of growing electricity demand, and speculation about their future energy needs is already starting to drive up electricity prices for ordinary people.  But with fewer energy constraints, more computing tools could become available to more people, and these resources can then be used to resolve some of our biggest energy and environmental challenges. It may also be a necessary investment for the US to retain a competitive edge. “I, for one, have become completely convinced that it’s necessary to win at AI for national security,” said Neil Chatterjee, a former commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “How do we generate the power to win the AI race while keeping electricity affordable and not backsliding? There’s no simple solution, but I’m confident we can get there.” How can we mitigate their worst effects?  Utilities can require tech firms to pay a deposit to for their future power needs so they don’t over-inflate their needs. Data centers can also face mandates to bring their own generation and energy storage, which could also support the broader grid.  Operators of these facilities can shift energy-intensive tasks to low-demand periods, though this flexibility may be limited. Their size incentivizes efficient electricity use, and computing will likely grow more energy-efficient over time as the technology improves.  AI can further accelerate the clean-energy transition by streamlining permitting applications for wind and solar projects, improving materials design, enhancing weather forecasting, and strengthening models of energy demand. More energy will help us clean up our mess With food and water sorted, we can then start to chip away at the root cause of climate change: the rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels that are heating up the planet. Halting climate change thus means stopping these emissions entirely. And in the increasingly likely scenario where we overshoot our goal of limiting global average temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, it also means deliberately pulling carbon back out from the environment. It’s not enough to simply produce more energy; the world needs negative greenhouse gas emissions. We can begin to undo climate change on a planetary scale Humanity currently spews more than 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. So, to move the needle, we need to think about carbon management solutions that can work on this scale.  There are a few ways to do this. One is capturing carbon dioxide at the source. At conventional coal and natural gas-fired power plants, carbon capture systems currently impose a large parasitic load, around a quarter of the generator’s power output. That makes it hard to build a business case for carbon capture at fossil fuel power plants. But other industrial processes, like steel production, also emit carbon dioxide, and point-source capture can decarbonize this and other processes that don’t currently have an easy zero-emissions alternative.  We can also capture carbon dioxide straight from the air. There are already companies developing machines that can filter carbon from the atmosphere. Some businesses are also working on ways to pull carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater. The challenge is that it requires a lot of energy to move the amount of air and water needed to draw out significant amounts of carbon, which in turn raises the cost.  “Two things have to happen: One is that we have to continue to work to bring down the cost of air capture,” Toone said. Currently, it costs around $500 per ton to pull carbon dioxide out of the air. The goal is to get it down to $100 per ton or less. “Then societies have to become affluent enough that they’re willing to do it and recognize the dangers caused by climate change,” Toone added. Another approach is enhanced weathering, which speeds up natural processes where rocks like limestone react with carbon dioxide in rainwater, forming a chemical bond that permanently locks it away. If you don’t lock away carbon dioxide, you can put it to work. It’s an important raw ingredient for chemicals and materials. You can use it to make fuels reconstituted from the air, polymers, enzymes, concrete, as well as make your drinks bubbly. This has the potential to become a trillion-dollar industry. All of our waste could be renewed Waste is a mounting problem, and many synthetic materials like plastics have no natural mechanisms that break them down, making them a problem that can last for generations. Recycling plastic materials has largely failed to live up to the promise, and the bulk of plastic waste ends up in landfills. To meaningfully reuse and reconstitute polymers, the process needs to be competitive with producing virgin materials, which means the energy you use for recycling has to be dirt cheap. When we get there, we may be able to close the loop, making, unmaking, and remaking everything we need with minimal extraction from the Earth.  We can travel the world and only leave behind a tiny footprint The next place to look is transportation. Cheap fossil fuels have shrunk the world, allowing people to cross continents and oceans in hours rather than months. How we get around is now the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Four-wheeled vehicles already have a glide path to zero emissions with electrification. The tougher challenges are going to be electrifying or decarbonizing bigger vehicles like ships and airplanes.  Cleanly cruise the high seas Container ships are the gargantuan worker ants of the global economy, transporting just about every tangible good around the world. Right now, most container ships burn some of the cheapest and dirtiest fuels imaginable, but with abundant clean energy, they could draw on cleaner sources of power. These ships may be too big to run on batteries, but with much cheaper, clean electricity, shipping companies can generate hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, or synthetic versions of conventional fuels, moving cargo without the carbon footprint.  Take to the skies Climate-friendly flying is still trying to get off the ground. Right now, there aren’t any batteries that come anywhere close to the energy density of fossil fuels. Some airlines are deploying electric aircraft on shorter routes. However, without a breakthrough, long-haul flights will need to run on synthetic zero-emissions fuels, which demand vast quantities of low-cost energy. Or, they’ll need a mechanism like direct air capture to offset their emissions.  The really far-out ideas With even more energy, we can begin thinking about commercializing promising innovations that exist only in labs or are still on the drawing board. Many of these ideas sound far-fetched, but abundant clean energy moves them into the realm of possibility.  Materials built molecule-first Imagine designing stuff the way you’d build a playlist: starting from tiny pieces and crafting exactly what you need. Shoes that bounce just right. Home insulation that actually understands seasons. Skin grafts that heal without scars. We already 3D print things, but scaling it is pricey and slow. Smarter, custom materials could make industrial printing faster, cleaner, and way less wasteful. Space that’s closer — and cleaner Getting to orbit still takes a ton of energy, and today’s rocket fuels leave a pretty heavy carbon footprint. Pulling carbon dioxide out of the air could help offset launches, and cleaner electricity can make low-carbon fuels from the start. The result: space access that’s not just cheaper, but easier on the planet. Solar power that never sleeps Above the atmosphere, sunlight doesn’t quit. Space-based solar collectors could soak up that uninterrupted energy and beam it back to Earth via microwaves. No clouds, no sunsets — just steady power when we need it. Become a spacefaring civilization And instead of dragging every nut and bolt off Earth, we could mine asteroids for the raw materials already floating out there. That opens the door to building more in space — moon bases, deep-space missions, the whole sci-fi starter kit — without the crushing cost of launching every ounce from Earth. An immense surge of clean energy will have unintended consequences, too Even if we could realize all of the exciting potential of this clean energy-powered future, some new problems could emerge if we’re not careful. First, there will be a big dislocation in the job market. There are almost 2 million people in the US working in coal, oil, and gas sectors — mining, building, transporting, and combusting these fuels. They will need new jobs or a soft landing pad that will help them move or retire. “We’re potentially seeing huge shifts in governance and unionization around the world,” said Adam Cowart, who is on the faculty of foresight at the University of Houston. Additionally, “abundant” does not necessarily mean “equal” when it comes to energy. In the year 2025, there are still 685 million people in the world who don’t have access to electricity, and there’s no guarantee that increasing the global supply of energy will benefit them without concerted policies to match. Having more energy could also end up indulging people’s worst impulses. Already, we’ve seen across much of the world that as fuels and electricity get cheaper, people end up driving bigger cars over longer distances, running their thermostats less efficiently, and eating more meat. Valerie Thomas, professor of industrial engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, noted that our recent history shows that we have not used the energy we already have in a judicious way. “If we look back in history just a little bit, what do we do? We use it up on things maybe we don’t even understand, like bigger houses with more air conditioning, or we would commute even longer distances,” Thomas said. It will take concerted effort to make sure new energy doesn’t just go to frivolous uses. And in her work looking at some of the poorest populations in the world, Thomas said she found that the key limits to prosperity are often things like local corruption, a lack of prenatal care, not enough vaccines, political instability, and bad economic policies. “What tends to be the barrier to the good life? I don’t think it’s energy,” Thomas said. That said, the world’s poorest stand to gain the most from the transition to clean energy, not just for having more useful power in their lives but breathing in less pollution and having more economic autonomy.  The post-energy abundance world is not one where every problem is solved, but it’s one with greater prosperity, improved human welfare, and generally a more stable climate. It will raise its own challenges, so there’s no scenario where we can take it for granted.  The fossil fuel era, and much of human history, was governed by constraints. The age of clean energy is poised to be one that’s more limited by imagination and choices, and the remaining solutions will be much more fun to implement.  This series was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Vox had full discretion over the content of this reporting.

Small but mighty grid batteries take root in Virginia amid energy crunch

Two new battery projects on Virginia’s remote eastern peninsula could signal a growing trend in the clean-energy transition: midsize energy-storage units that are bigger than the home batteries typically paired with rooftop solar, but cheaper and quicker to build than massive utility-scale projects. The 10-megawatt,…

Two new battery projects on Virginia’s remote eastern peninsula could signal a growing trend in the clean-energy transition: midsize energy-storage units that are bigger than the home batteries typically paired with rooftop solar, but cheaper and quicker to build than massive utility-scale projects. The 10-megawatt, four-hour batteries, one each in the tiny towns of Exmore and Tasley, represent this ​“missing middle,” said Chris Cucci, chief strategy officer for Climate First Bank, which provided $32 million in financing for the two units. Batteries are a critical technology in the shift to renewable energy because they can store wind and solar electrons and discharge them when the sun isn’t shining or breezes die down. When it comes to energy storage, ​“we need volume, but we also need speed to market,” Cucci said. ​“The big projects do move the needle, but they can take a few years to come online.” And in rural Virginia, batteries paired with enormous solar arrays — which can span 100-plus acres — face increasing headwinds, in part over the concern that they’re displacing farmland. The Exmore and Tasley systems, by contrast, took about a year to permit, broke ground in April, and came online this fall, Cucci said. Sited at two substations 10 miles apart, the batteries occupy about 1 acre each. Beyond being relatively simple to get up and running, the systems could help ease energy burdens on customers of A&N Electric Cooperative, the nonprofit utility that owns the substations where the batteries are sited, said Harold Patterson, CEO of project developer Patterson Enterprises. Wait times to link to the larger regional grid, operated by PJM Interconnection, are up to two years. So for now, the batteries will draw power only from the electric co-op, Patterson said. Once they connect to PJM, the batteries will charge when system-wide electricity consumption is down and spot prices are low. Then, the batteries’ owner, Doxa Development, will sell power back when demand is at its peak, creating revenue that will help lower bills for co-op consumers. “That’s the final step to try to drive down power prices” for residents of Virginia’s Eastern Shore, Patterson said. ​“Get it online and increase supply in the wholesale marketplace.” Moving away from gas Though the batteries aren’t paired with a specific solar project, they are likely to lap up excess solar electrons on the PJM grid. And since they’ll be discharged during hours of heavy demand, they could help avert the revving up of gas-fired ​“peaker plants.” “Peaker plants are smaller power plants that are in closer proximity to the populations they serve, and [they] are traditionally very dirty,” Cucci said. ​“They’re also economically inefficient to run. Battery storage is cleaner, more efficient, and easier to deploy.” Gas peaker plants are wasteful partly because of all the energy required to drill and transport the fuel that fires them, said Nate Benforado, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, a nonprofit legal advocacy group. “Then you get [the fuel] to your power plant, and you have to burn it,” Benforado said. ​“And guess what? You only capture a relatively small portion of the potential energy in those carbon molecules.” Single-cycle peaker plants, the most common type, can go from zero to full power in minutes, much like a jet engine. Their efficiency ranges between 33% and 43%.  “Burning fossil fuels is not an efficient way to generate energy,” Benforado said.  “Leaning into batteries is the way we have to go. They’re efficient on the power side but also on the price side.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.