The administration’s goals of energy dominance and energy affordability are easy to support. Our leaders intend to provide the people with cheap energy and good jobs, for which they favor coal, oil and natural gas over solar and other renewables. (“Drill Baby Drill!”) Energy strategy, national security, and environmental policies are all implicitly linked. The new administration has shifted direction on energy strategy at the expense of the environment, skeptical that renewables will help meet our energy needs. They view fossil fuels as secure and affordable, and the transition to net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emission by 2050 a “harmful and dangerous” strategy.
Even without any concern for climate change, market forces are now enough to drive corporations and societies to expand the use of alternatives to hydrocarbons. Interesting and lucrative breakthroughs are happening in the sectors of energy production and storage. As an American Patriot, I would love for American scientists and engineers to be the ones leading the global pivot to nuclear fusion, a long-term goal as recently stated by our new Energy Secretary. As Secretary of Energy Chris Wright stated at CERAWeek 2025, “Energy is the enabler of everything that we do. Everything. Energy is not A sector of the economy; it is the sector that enables every other sector. Energy is life.” The next question then would be how to secure our energy supply. Secretary Wright recognizes that nuclear power, both fission and fusion, will be the production methods of the future. He even claims that an American fusion plant could be running during this administration. How can we meet our needs in this transition?
For our friends and allies in Germany, solar combined with batteries is now more cost effective than gas powered power plants. Advances in recent years have made solar panels one of the cheapest and most versatile sources of electricity. Recent advances in battery technology are addressing the intermittency of variable renewable energy like wind and solar, while nuclear expansion is a focal point for advanced economies. We’re seeing an inflection point in global energy generation, where for many nations, coal and oil are no longer the cheapest options. Natural gas will be necessary for a time, but it will be a component in a diverse energy landscape. It’s clear that while renewables expand, we will still use some hydrocarbons.
The IEA’s World Energy Outlook estimates fossil fuel use will peak globally by 2030. In 2024, solar and wind generated more electricity than coal in both America and the EU. The green technology revolution is happening, and it’s the most capitalized and advanced economies that are investing in clean technologies. They’re the future of the global economy, and purely from a technological dominance and competitiveness perspective, we as a nation need to maintain the edge on advanced research. The future of energy production, storage and transmission are central to the future of our national security and economic stability.
As the energy think tank Ember observes, building new infrastructure for fossil fuels is like renting. The fuel costs will be continuous and higher than maintenance on clean energy infrastructure. Clean energy in a productive investment like buying a house, one big purchase, a pay off point, and then pure return on investment. In this instance, the investment can be recovered in a year.
Expanding into renewables doesn’t mean the immediate abandonment of all fossil fuels. Strategic petroleum reserves will continue to be important, and other hydrocarbons have specific uses that can’t be immediately replaced. Yet, this reasonable premise is different from the idea that we can’t, or shouldn’t, further diversify into economically viable renewables. We realists can agree that we want to keep using natural gas and other fossil fuels for where it’s necessary, but for cost considerations and energy security, we don’t need to make them the first choice at every turn. Nor should we cease research into future potential alternatives.
Innovation will continue to be key in developing technologies and answering some questions, but to say that there’s no hope for green technology is false. As we continue to work toward this inevitability, why can’t we regain the status of global innovators, responsible for the upcoming breakthroughs in efficient power grids, batteries, direct ocean capture, or any of the other societally beneficial and lucrative technologies that will be produced, refined, and globally expanded over the next few decades?