How is energy produced?

ENERGY 101

Energy sources are often categorized as renewable or not, but perhaps a more accurate classification focuses on the type of reaction that converts energy into useful matter. Photo by simpson33/Getty Images

Many think of the Energy Industry as a dichotomy–old vs. new, renewable vs. nonrenewable, good vs. bad. But like most things, energy comes from an array of sources, and each kind has its own unique benefits and challenges. Understanding the multi-faceted identity of currently available energy sources creates an environment in which new ideas for cleaner and more sustainable energy sourcing can proliferate.

At a high level, energy can be broadly categorized by the process of extracting and converting it into a useful form.

Energy Produced from Chemical Reaction

Energy derived from coal, crude oil, natural gas, and biomass is primarily produced as a result of bonds breaking during a chemical reaction. When heated, burned, or fermented, organic matter releases energy, which is converted into mechanical or electrical energy.

These sources can be stored, distributed, and shared relatively easily and do not have to be converted immediately for power consumption. However, the resulting chemical reaction produces environmentally harmful waste products.

Though the processes to extract these organic sources of energy have been refined for many years to achieve reliable and cheap energy, they can be risky and are perceived as invasive to mother nature.

According to the 2022 bp Statistical Review of World Energy, approximately 50% of the world’s energy consumption comes from petroleum and natural gas; another 25% from coal. Though there was a small decline in demand for oil from 2019 to 2021, the overall demand for fossil fuels remained unchanged during the same time frame, mostly due to the increase in natural gas and coal consumption.

Energy Produced from Mechanical Reaction

Energy captured from the earth’s heat or the movement of wind and water results from the mechanical processes enabled by the turning of turbines in source-rich environments. These turbines spin to produce electricity inside a generator.

Solar energy does not require the use of a generator but produces electricity due to the release of electrons from the semiconducting materials found on a solar panel. The electricity produced by geothermal, wind, solar, and hydropower is then converted from direct current to alternating current electricity.

Electricity is most useful for immediate consumption, as storage requires the use of batteries–a process that turns electrical energy into chemical energy that can then be accessed in much the same way that coal, crude oil, natural gas, and biomass produce energy.

Energy Produced from a Combination of Reactions

Hydrogen energy comes from a unique blend of both electrical and chemical energy processes. Despite hydrogen being the most abundant element on earth, it is rarely found on its own, requiring a two-step process to extract and convert energy into a usable form. Hydrogen is primarily produced as a by-product of fossil fuels, with its own set of emissions challenges related to separating the hydrogen from the hydrocarbons.

Many use electrolysis to separate hydrogen from other elements before performing a chemical reaction to create electrical energy inside of a contained fuel cell. The electrolysis process is certainly a more environmentally-friendly solution, but there are still great risks with hydrogen energy–it is highly flammable, and its general energy output is less than that of other electricity-generating methods.

Energy Produced from Nuclear Reaction

Finally, energy originating from the splitting of an atom’s nucleus, mostly through nuclear fission, is yet another way to produce energy. A large volume of heat is released when an atom is bombarded by neutrons in a nuclear power plant, which is then converted to electrical energy.

This process also produces a particularly sensitive by-product known as radiation, and with it, radioactive waste. The proper handling of radiation and radioactive waste is of utmost concern, as its effects can be incredibly damaging to the environment surrounding a nuclear power plant.

Nuclear fission produces minimal carbon, so nuclear energy is oft considered environmentally safe–as long as strict protocols are followed to ensure proper storage and disposal of radiation and radioactive waste.

Nuclear to Mechanical to Chemical?

Interestingly enough, the Earth’s heat comes from the decay of radioactive materials in the Earth’s core, loosely linking nuclear power production back to geothermal energy production.

It’s also clear the conversion of energy into electricity is the cleanest option for the environment, yet adequate infrastructure remains limited in supply and accessibility. If not consumed immediately as electricity, energy is thus converted into a chemical form for the convenience of storage and distribution it provides.

Perhaps the expertise and talent of Houstonians serving the flourishing academic and industrial sectors of energy development will soon resolve many of our current energy challenges by exploring further the circular dynamic of the energy environment. Be sure to check out our Events Page to find the networking event that best serves your interest in the Energy Transition.


------

Lindsey Ferrell is a contributing writer to EnergyCapitalHTX and founder of Guerrella & Co.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

SLB partners with renewables company to develop next-gen geothermal systems

geothermal partnership

Houston-based energy technology company SLB and renewable energy company Ormat Technologies have teamed up to fast-track the development and commercialization of advanced geothermal technology.

Their initiative focuses on enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). These systems represent “the next generation of geothermal technology, meant to unlock geothermal energy in regions beyond where conventional geothermal resources exist,” the companies said in a news release.

After co-developing EGS technology, the companies will test it at an existing Ormat facility. Following the pilot project, SLB and Nevada-based Ormat will pursue large-scale EGS commercialization for utilities, data center operators and other customers. Ormat owns, operates, designs, makes and sells geothermal and recovered energy generation (REG) power plants.

“There is an urgent need to meet the growing demand for energy driven by AI and other factors. This requires accelerating the path to clean and reliable energy,” Gavin Rennick, president of new energy at SLB, said in a news release.

Traditional geothermal systems rely on natural hot water or steam reservoirs underground, limiting the use of geothermal technology. EGS projects are designed to create thermal reservoirs in naturally hot rock through which water can circulate, transferring the energy back to the surface for power generation and enabling broader availability of geothermal energy.

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates next-generation geothermal, such as EGS, could provide 90 gigawatts of electricity by 2050.

Baker Hughes to provide equipment for massive low-carbon ammonia plant

coming soon

Houston-based energy technology company Baker Hughes has been tapped to supply equipment for what will be the world’s largest low-carbon ammonia plant.

French technology and engineering company Technip Energies will buy a steam turbine generator and compression equipment from Baker Hughes for Blue Point Number One, a $4 billion low-carbon ammonia plant being developed in Louisiana by a joint venture comprising CF Industries, JERA and Mitsui & Co. Technip was awarded a contract worth at least $1.1 billion to provide services for the Blue Point project.

CF, a producer of ammonia and nitrogen, owns a 40 percent stake in the joint venture, with JERA, Japan’s largest power generator, at 35 percent and Mitsui, a Japanese industrial conglomerate, at 25 percent.

The Blue Point Number One project, to be located at CF’s Blue Point ammonia production facility, will be capable of producing about 1.4 million metric tons of low-carbon ammonia per year and permanently storing up to 2.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Construction of the ammonia-making facility is expected to start in 2026, with production of low-carbon ammonia set to get underway in 2029.

“Ammonia, as a lower-carbon energy source, is poised to play a pivotal role in enabling and accelerating global sustainable energy development,” Alessandro Bresciani, senior vice president of energy equipment at Baker Hughes, said in a news release.

Earlier this year, British engineering and industrial gas company Linde signed a long-term contract to supply industrial gases for Blue Point Number One. Linde Engineering Americas is based in Houston.

Houston expert asks: Is the Texas grid ready for the future?

Guets Column

Texas has spent the past five years racing to strengthen its electric grid after Winter Storm Uri exposed just how vulnerable it was. Billions have gone into new transmission lines, grid hardening, and a surge of renewables and batteries. Those moves have made a difference, we haven’t seen another systemwide blackout like Uri, but the question now isn’t what’s been done, it’s whether Texas can keep up with what’s coming.

Massive data centers, electric vehicles, and industrial projects are driving electricity demand to unprecedented levels. NERC recently boosted its 10-year load forecast for Texas by more than 60%. McKinsey projects that U.S. electricity demand will rise roughly 40% by 2030 and double by 2050, with data centers alone accounting for as much as 11-12% of total U.S. electricity demand by 2030, up from about 4% today. Texas, already the top destination for new data centers, will feel that surge at a greater scale.

While the challenges ahead are massive and there will undoubtedly be bumps in the road (some probably big), we have an engaged Texas legislature, capable regulatory bodies, active non-profits, pragmatic industry groups, and the best energy minds in the world working together to make a market-based system work. I am optimistic Texas will find a way.

Why Texas Faces a Unique Grid Challenge

About 90% of Texas is served by a single, independent grid operated by ERCOT, rather than being connected to the two large interstate grids that cover the rest of the country. This structure allows ERCOT to avoid federal oversight of its market design, although it still must comply with FERC reliability standards. The trade-off is limited access to power from neighboring states during emergencies, leaving Texas to rely almost entirely on in-state generation and reserves when extreme weather hits.

ERCOT’s market design is also different. It’s an “energy-only” market, meaning generators are paid for electricity sold, not for keeping capacity available. While that lowers prices in normal times, it also makes it harder to finance backup, dispatchable generation like natural gas and batteries needed when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining.

The Risks Mounting

In Texas, solar and wind power supply a significant percentage of electricity to the grid. As Julie Cohn, a nonresident scholar at the Baker Institute, explains, these inverter‑based resources “connect through power electronics, which means they don’t provide the same physical signals to the grid that traditional generators do.” The Odessa incidents, where solar farms tripped offline during minor grid disturbances, showed how fragile parts of this evolving grid can be. “Fortunately, it didn’t result in customer outages, and it was a clear signal that Texas has the opportunity to lead in solving this challenge.”

Extreme weather adds more pressure while the grid is trying to adapt to a surge in use. CES research manager Miaomiao Rimmer notes: “Hurricane frequencies haven't increased, but infrastructure and population in their paths have expanded dramatically. The same hurricane that hit 70 years ago would cause far more damage today because there’s simply more in harm’s way.”

Medlock: “Texas has made significant strides in the last 5 years, but there’s more work to be done.”

Ken Medlock, Senior Director of the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute, argues that Texas’s problem isn’t a lack of solutions; it’s how quickly those solutions are implemented. He stresses that during the January 2024 cold snap, natural gas kept the grid stable, proving that “any system configuration with sufficient, dispatchable generation capacity would have kept the lights on.” Yet ERCOT load has exceeded dispatchable capacity with growing frequency since 2018, raising the stakes for future reliability.

Ken notes: “ERCOT has a substantial portfolio of options, including investment in dispatchable generation, storage near industrial users, transmission expansion, and siting generation closer to load centers. But allowing structural risks to reliability that can be avoided at a reasonable cost is unacceptable. Appropriate market design and sufficient regulatory oversight are critical.” He emphasizes that reliability must be explicitly priced into ERCOT’s market so backup resources can be built and maintained profitably. These resources, whether natural gas, nuclear, or batteries, cannot remain afterthoughts if Texas wants a stable grid.

Building a More Reliable Grid

For Texas to keep pace with rising demand and withstand severe weather, it must act decisively on multiple fronts, strengthening its grid while building for long-term growth.

  • Coordinated Planning: Align regulators, utilities, and market players to plan decades ahead, not just for next summer.
  • Balancing Clean and Reliable Power: Match renewable growth with flexible, dispatchable generation that can deliver power on demand.
  • Fixing Local Weak Spots: Harden distribution networks, where most outages occur, rather than focusing only on large-scale generation.
  • Market Reform and Technology Investment: Price reliability fairly and support R&D to make renewables strengthen, not destabilize, the grid.

In Conclusion

While Texas has undeniably improved its grid since Winter Storm Uri, surging electricity demand and intensifying weather mean the work is far from over. Unlike other states, ERCOT can’t rely on its neighbors for backup power, and its market structure makes new dispatchable resources harder to build. Decisive leadership, investment, and reforms will be needed to ensure Texas can keep the lights on.

It probably won’t be a smooth journey, but my sense is that Texas will solve these problems and do something spectacular. It will deliver more power with fewer emissions, faster than skeptics believe, and surprise us all.

-----------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.