ENERGY, MINERALS, AND MATERIALS
‘Energy and Materials Realism’ and Its Discontents
Michelle Michot Foss Fellow in Energy, Minerals, and Materials | CES Lead, Energy, Minerals, and Materials
Setting the Scene By mid-2024 a rich array of federal incentives had been put into place for a green energy rush.1 Anticipation remained high in spite of fully evident (and mounting, as November elections neared) economic and government risks and uncertainties. A year and national election later, a change in government has disrupted conventional wisdom on many fronts. The uncorked genie’s bottle is testing the paradigm formed during 12 years of Obama and Biden administrations and hardened by the 26th United Nations Climate Change conference (COP26) and notions of “net zero.”2 “Energy realism” is the new normal. It is a “philosophy,” a search for a more practical roadmap and not just for the United States.3 Energy realism and “all of the above,” a common fallback, are not necessarily the same thing.4 The latter choice of phrasing provides diplomatic cover for alternative energy technologies like wind, solar, carbon capture, and hydrogen seen as useful for reputational management or economic development. Schisms unleashed with energy realism involve long-time competitive tensions like the long-running reliability battles among coal, natural gas, wind, and solar, and end use appliance battles between natural gas and electricity. To have a chance at durability, energy realism must be grounded in policy and regulatory action items over a very short timeframe — in fact, before midterms in 2026. It all makes for a messy context when it comes to energy drivers for minerals and materials.
Energy Insights 2025
79