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

Houston energy expert asks: Who pays when AI outruns the power grid?

Guets Column

For most of the past 20 years, U.S. electricity policy relied on predictable trends in demand. Electricity use, in most regions, increased gradually, forecasts were stable, and utilities adjusted the system in small steps. Power plants, transmission lines, and substations were generally added to reflect shifts in load, rather than growth, and costs were recovered through modest adjustments to customer bills.

Growth in AI data centers has disrupted this model. A single facility can add as much electricity demand as a small town. That demand comes all at once, runs continuously, and has little tolerance for outages. If electricity service drops even briefly, computation stops, and services shut down. Ironically, data centers need reliable service, a point that their emergence is driving concern around for the rest of the grid.

What the numbers say

The International Energy Agency projects global electricity consumption from data centers to double by 2030, reaching roughly 945 TWh, nearly 3 percent of global electricity demand, with consumption growing about 15 percent per year this decade. McKinsey projects that U.S. data center demand alone could grow 20–25 percent per year, with global capacity demand more than tripling by 2030.

After years of roughly 0.5 percent annual demand growth, many forecasts now place total U.S. electricity demand growth closer to 2–3 percent per year through the mid-2030s, with much higher growth in specific regions. In Texas, some forecasters are saying electricity demand could double over the next five years, a staggering 10 percent per year growth rate. What sounds incremental on paper translates into a major challenge on the ground. Meeting this pace of growth is estimated to require $250–$300 billion per year in grid investment, about double what the system has been absorbing.

Where the system starts to strain

The strain appears first in the interconnection queue. It shows up as long waits, backlogs, and delays for connecting new loads and new generation.

Before new generators or large load customers can be connected, a study is required to assess their impact on the grid, whether it can physically handle the added load, and whether upgrades are required. With AI-driven data centers, utilities face far more connection requests than they can realistically support. In ERCOT, large-load interconnection requests exceed 200 gigawatts, most tied to data centers. That amount exceeds historical norms, and it is several times larger than what can be practically studied or built in the near term.

To be clear, public utility commissions are required to study these requests because they must manage system capabilities to ensure minimal disruption. This means engineers spend time evaluating projects that may never be built, while other more commercially viable projects may wait longer for approvals. This extends timelines and makes infrastructure planning less reliable.

Why policymakers are rethinking the rules

Utilities and their regulators must decide how much generation, transmission, and substation capacity to build years before it comes online. Those decisions are based on expected demand at the time projects are approved. When it comes to data centers, by the time infrastructure is completed, they may end up deploying newer, more efficient chips that use less power than originally assumed. This can result in grid infrastructure built for a higher load than what actually materializes, leaving excess capacity that still must be paid for through system-wide rates.

That’s the central dilemma. If utilities build too little capacity, the system operates with less reserve margin. During periods of grid stress, operators have fewer options, increasing the likelihood of curtailments or outages. However, if utilities build too much, customers may be asked to pay for infrastructure that is not fully used.

In response, policymakers are adjusting the rules. In some regions, regulators are moving toward bring-your-own-power approaches that require large data centers to supply or fund part of the capacity needed to serve them or reduce demand during system stress. At the federal level, permitting reforms tied to datacenter infrastructure increasingly treat electricity as a strategic economic input.

As Ken Medlock, senior director at the Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES), explains:

“Many of the planned data centers are now also adding behind-the-meter options to their development plans because they do not anticipate being able to manage their needs solely from the grid, and they certainly cannot do so with only intermittent power sources.”

Behind-the-meter (BTM) refers to power that a consumer controls on its side of the utility meter, such as on-site gas generation or a dedicated power plant. These resources allow data centers to keep operating during grid-related service. Most facilities remain connected to the grid, but the backup BTM generation serves as insurance for operating their core business.

This shifts responsibility. Utilities traditionally manage reliability across all customers by maintaining an operating reserve margin, or spare capacity. Increasingly, large-load customers manage part of their own electricity reliability needs, which changes how infrastructure is planned and how risk is distributed.

Bottom line

AI-driven load growth is arriving faster and in more concentrated places than the power system was built to accommodate. Utilities and regulators are being forced to make decisions sooner than planned about where to build, how fast to build, and which customers get priority when capacity is limited. The effects extend beyond data centers, showing up in system costs, reliability margins, competition for grid access, and pressure on communities and industries that depend on affordable and dependable power. The issue is not whether electricity can be generated, but how the costs and risks of rapid demand growth are distributed as the system tries to keep up. How regulators balance these decisions will determine who pays as AI demand outruns the power grid.

-----------

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.

Texas solar set to overtake coal for first time in 2026, EIA forecasts

solar on the rise

Solar power promises to shine even brighter in Texas this year.

A new forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates that for the first time, annual power generation from utility-scale solar will surpass annual power generation from coal across the territory covered by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).

Solar generation is expected to reach 78 billion kilowatt-hours in 2026 in the ERCOT grid, compared with 60 billion kilowatt-hours for coal, the EIA forecast says. The ERCOT grid supplies power to about 90 percent of Texas, including the Houston area.

“Utility-scale solar generation has been increasing steadily in ERCOT as solar capacity additions help meet rapid electricity demand growth,” the forecast says.

Although natural gas remains the dominant source of electricity generation in ERCOT, accounting for an average 44 percent of electricity generation from 2021 to 2025, solar’s share of the generation mix rose from four percent to 12 percent. During the same period, coal’s share dropped from 19 percent to 13 percent.

EIA predicts about 40 percent of U.S. solar capacity, or 14 billion kilowatt-hours, added in 2026 will come from Texas.

Although EIA expects annual solar generation to exceed annual coal generation in 2026, solar surpassed coal in ERCOT on a monthly basis for the first time in March 2025, when solar generation totaled 4.33 billion kilowatt-hours and coal’s totaled 4.16 billion kilowatt-hours. Solar generation continued to exceed that of coal until August of that year.

“In 2026, we estimate that solar exceeded coal for the first time in March, and we forecast generation from solar installations in ERCOT will continue to exceed that from coal until December, when coal generation exceeds solar,” says EIA. “We expect solar generation to exceed that of coal for every month in 2027 except January and December.”

For 2027, EIA forecasts annual solar generation of 99 billion kilowatt-hours in the ERCOT grid, compared with 66 billion kilowatt-hours of annual coal generation.

In April, ERCOT projected almost 368 billion kilowatt-hours of demand in ERCOT’s territory by 2032. ERCOT’s all-time peak demand hit 85.5 billion kilowatt-hours in August 2023.

“Texas is experiencing exceptional growth and development, which is reshaping how large load demand is identified, verified, and incorporated into long-term planning,” ERCOT President and CEO Pablo Vegas said. “As a result of a changing landscape, we believe this forecast to be higher than expected … load growth.”

Houston startup raises $12M to commercialize quantum energy chip technology

seed funding

Houston-based Casimir has emerged from stealth with a $12 million seed round to commercialize its quantum energy chip.

The round was led by Austin-based Scout Ventures. Lavrock Ventures, Cottonwood Technology, Capital Factory, American Deep Tech, and Tim Draper of Draper Associates also participated in the round. The oversubscribed round exceeded the company’s original $8 million target, according to a news release.

Casimir’s semiconductor chips can generate power from quantum vacuum fields without the need for batteries or charging. The company plans to commercialize its first-generation MicroSparc chip by 2028.

The MicroSparc chip measures 5 millimeters by 5 millimeters and is designed to produce 1.5 volts at 25 microamps, comparable to a small rechargeable battery, without degradation and no replacement cycle.

“Casimir represents exactly the kind of breakthrough dual-use technology Scout Ventures was built to back,” Brad Harrison, founder and managing partner at Scout Ventures, said in the release. “This is based on 100 years of science and we’re finally approaching a commercial product … We’re proud to lead this round and support Casimir’s journey from applied science to deployed technology.”

Casimir says it aims to scale its technology across the ”full power spectrum,” including large-scale energy systems that can power homes, commercial infrastructures and electric vehicles.

Casimir's scientific work has been supported by DARPA-funded nanofabrication research and its technology was incubated at the Limitless Space Institute (LSI). LSI is a nonprofit that works to innovate interstellar travel and was founded by Kam Ghaffarian. Technology investor and serial entrepreneur Ghaffarian has been behind companies like X-energy, Intuitive Machines, Axiom Space and Quantum Space.

Harold “Sonny” White, founder and CEO of Casimir, believes the technology can power devices for years without replacements.

“Millions of devices will operate for years without a battery ever needing to be replaced or recharged because we have engineered a customized Casimir cavity into hardware capable of producing persistent electrical power,” White added in the release. “I spent nearly two decades at NASA studying how we power humanity’s future. That work led me to the Casimir effect and the quantum vacuum, where new tools have allowed us to build on a century of scientific knowledge and bring abundant power to the world.”

---

This article originally appeared on our sister site, InnovationMap.com.