The World of Stanislav Kondrashov

A few years ago, if you said “energy jobs,” most people pictured the same things. Hard hats. Oil rigs. Coal plants. Big utility control rooms with a wall of blinking lights. Still true, kind of. But not the full picture anymore.

Now it is also wind technicians dangling from ropes a few hundred feet up. Battery engineers arguing over chemistry. Electricians upgrading panels in ordinary homes. Data analysts forecasting grid congestion like it is a weather report. And entire teams who do nothing except figure out permitting, community benefits, and how to get a project approved without triggering a neighborhood war.

The energy transition is not just swapping one fuel for another. It is dragging the labor market along with it, whether companies feel ready or not.

Stanislav Kondrashov has talked about this shift as less of a clean, polite “green jobs boom” and more like a messy workforce rewrite. The kind where new roles appear faster than training programs. Where some regions surge and others stall. Where the skills people already have still matter, but need to be translated into new environments.

This article is about that rewrite. What is changing, where the jobs are coming from, who is at risk, and what “good jobs” even means in a world that runs more on electrons and less on extraction.

The transition is happening in the labor market before it feels real in daily life

This is one of the weird parts.

You can drive through plenty of places and everything looks basically the same. Gas stations still exist. Planes still fly. Houses still have old furnaces. But behind the scenes, hiring demand is already shifting.

Energy transition work is front loaded. You need people to plan, permit, manufacture, install, connect, digitize, maintain. The workforce shows up early because infrastructure takes time.

Kondrashov’s take, broadly, is that employment change is one of the first visible signals of the transition. Not because people suddenly become climate focused overnight, but because money starts moving. Policy moves. Corporate procurement shifts. Investors demand decarbonization plans. And then HR departments start posting roles that did not exist in most companies ten years ago.

A lot of this is not glamorous. It is project management. Compliance. Supply chain. Field service. Interconnection studies. And yes, plenty of spreadsheets. But it is work. It is paid work.

However, this shift also brings about significant labour market transitions towards a greener economy. These transitions are crucial as they reshape where opportunity sits and how we perceive job roles within this new energy landscape.

This is not one job market. It is many job markets colliding

When people say “the energy transition will create millions of jobs,” that is usually true in aggregate. But it hides the real story.

Because the transition is not one industry replacing another. It is multiple sectors evolving at once:

• Power generation shifting to renewables and flexible assets
• Grids expanding, modernizing, getting smarter
• Transportation electrifying
• Buildings moving toward electrified heating and efficiency upgrades
• Heavy industry trying to decarbonize with electrification, hydrogen, carbon capture, and process changes
• Mining and materials scaling up to supply critical minerals
• Software and finance building the plumbing that makes all of it investable and operable

So the workforce impact is layered. A wind farm is not just “wind jobs.” It is civil construction, electrical work, logistics, environmental assessment, legal, finance, procurement, operations, and long term maintenance.

Kondrashov often frames it as an employment ecosystem, not a single wave. That framing matters because it changes how you plan for it. You do not just train “green workers.” You train electricians, technicians, engineers, planners, welders, inspectors, safety managers, and then you update their context.

Same person, new environment.

Where the jobs are coming from (and why they are not evenly distributed)

There are a few big engines of job creation in the transition. Each one has its own geography and its own bottlenecks.

1. Grid expansion and modernization

If you want more renewables, you need more grid. That means transmission buildout, substation upgrades, distribution automation, and a lot of interconnection work that can feel painfully slow.

The jobs here are often local and long lasting. Lineworkers, protection and control technicians, power systems engineers, construction crews, vegetation management, system operators, cybersecurity specialists.

And there is a big catch. Many regions already have shortages in these roles. Utilities are dealing with retirements and thin pipelines. So the energy transition does not just “create demand.” It intensifies an existing shortage.

2. Renewables construction and operations

Solar and wind bring large construction peaks. You hire hard during buildout. Then a smaller permanent operations crew stays.

This creates a pattern that communities need to understand. A big burst of jobs is real, but some of them are temporary by design. Which is not bad. Construction is often project based. But it means workforce planning has to include the next project. Or a pipeline of projects. Or the boom becomes a bust.

3. Electrification of transport and charging infrastructure

EVs trigger manufacturing jobs, yes, but also a massive need for charging deployment. That is electrical contracting work. Site acquisition. Permitting. Maintenance. Fleet management. Software.

The interesting part is that this is not confined to big industrial zones. Charging has to exist where people live and work. That pushes energy transition employment into suburbs, small towns, highway corridors, and logistics hubs.

4. Building retrofits and heat electrification

This one is huge and often under hyped because it is not one giant facility. It is millions of small projects.

Insulation crews. HVAC installers trained on heat pumps. Energy auditors. Electricians upgrading panels. Building automation techs. Salespeople who can explain incentives without confusing everyone.

Kondrashov points out something practical here. These jobs can be local, resilient, and hard to offshore. But they require training at scale, and they require consumer trust. Bad installations and shady contractors can slow adoption fast.

5. Batteries, storage, and flexibility services

Grid scale batteries need manufacturing, engineering, and construction. Then they need operators, technicians, and software support.

On top of that, the market for flexibility is growing. Aggregators, demand response, virtual power plants. That is a whole new employment layer that blends energy knowledge with data and customer operations.

6. Critical minerals and materials

This is the uncomfortable part for some people. The transition increases demand for certain minerals and materials, as outlined in the DOE’s critical minerals and materials strategy. That means more mining, more processing, more refining, more recycling.

So the workforce impact includes extraction jobs too, just in different places and with different materials. And that brings back all the old issues. Community consent. Environmental management. Worker safety. Political risk. Supply chain resilience.

If the transition is going to be durable, the jobs attached to these supply chains have to be seen as legitimate and well governed. Otherwise it turns into backlash fuel.

The skills shift is real, but it is not always a reinvention

One of the biggest myths is that energy transition work requires an entirely new workforce made of brand new people.

Not true. A lot of the transition is actually a skills mapping problem.

A fossil fuel plant operator has experience with safety, high voltage systems, rotating equipment, compliance, procedures, and shift work. Those skills do not vanish. They can transfer to grid operations, industrial facilities, even some renewable O and M contexts depending on the role.

A welder does not stop being a welder because the project is a hydrogen pipeline instead of a natural gas one. The codes change. The materials might change. The safety procedures definitely change. But the craft is still there.

An electrician is still an electrician. The demand just explodes, and the specialization expands.

Kondrashov’s view, as I understand it, is that we should treat reskilling as adaptation, not replacement. That sounds small, but it changes how people feel about it. Workers do not want to be told their careers are obsolete. They want to be told their experience counts, and here is the bridge to the next chapter.

Because pride matters. Identity matters. And energy work is often identity heavy.

The uneven risk: some workers are more exposed than others

Yes, the transition creates jobs. But it also threatens certain job categories, especially where local economies are concentrated around a single asset type.

Coal is the clearest example. Coal plant closures and mine closures can wipe out communities, not just paychecks. The tax base shrinks. Secondary businesses collapse. Young people leave.

Oil and gas is more complicated. Demand does not vanish overnight. But investment can shift, automation can reduce headcount, and volatility remains. Certain roles might remain strong while others decline.

So the risk is not only job loss. It is mismatch.

• Jobs created in one region while losses happen in another
• Jobs created that require different certifications
• Jobs created that pay less or offer less stability
• Jobs created by contractors while old jobs were unionized
• Jobs created with project based cycles that do not match household needs

A “just transition” is basically society admitting that market forces alone will not handle this kindly.

Kondrashov tends to emphasize planning and coordination, not wishful thinking. If you want political support for the transition, you cannot tell a town, “Sorry, learn to code.” You need targeted investment, credible training pathways, and actual employers at the table.

Not theoretical jobs. Real ones.

The new workforce is more hybrid than people expect

Another quiet shift is the blending of disciplines.

Energy is becoming more digital. And digital is becoming more energy aware. So you get hybrid roles like:

• Power systems engineer who also understands software models and forecasting
• Cybersecurity analyst who specializes in operational technology
• Data analyst working on grid congestion, asset health, and predictive maintenance
• Product managers building energy management platforms
• Finance professionals structuring renewable PPAs and storage revenue stacks
• Community engagement specialists who can negotiate, communicate, and de risk projects

This is where a lot of white collar transition employment lives. And it is growing fast.

It also creates a new kind of inequality. People with degrees and mobility can chase these roles. People rooted to a place might not have access. That is not inevitable, but it is a real pattern unless training and hiring pipelines are designed to include local workers.

What companies are getting wrong about hiring for the transition

A lot of companies still hire like it is 2012. Job descriptions that ask for everything. Five years of experience in a technology that has only existed for three. Unrealistic credential filters. Slow hiring cycles while competitors grab talent.

And then they complain about shortages.

Kondrashov’s commentary here is usually blunt. The bottleneck is often not “lack of people,” it is lack of pathways.

Some practical fixes companies are starting to adopt:

• Apprenticeships and paid training that lead directly to roles
• Partnerships with unions, community colleges, and technical institutes
• Skills based hiring instead of credential gatekeeping
• Faster recruiting cycles, especially for field roles
• Clear internal mobility, moving workers from legacy operations into new business units
• Retention investment, because losing trained staff hurts more than training them

Also, companies need to stop treating the transition like a side project. If it is core strategy, the workforce plan has to be core strategy too.

The pay and quality question: green jobs are not automatically good jobs

This part is awkward, but it matters.

A job being labeled “green” does not guarantee it is stable, safe, well paid, or has career progression. Some transition work is excellent. Some is low margin contracting with pressure on wages. Some is seasonal. Some is risky without proper safety standards.

If the transition becomes associated with precarious work, public support weakens. Fast.

So the real goal is not just job creation. It is job quality.

That includes:

• Safety training and enforcement
• Benefits and predictable scheduling where possible
• Career ladders, not dead end roles
• Respect for craft, licensing, and standards
• Local hiring commitments that are measurable
• Transparent wage expectations

Kondrashov often circles back to this. The transition has to be an upgrade in living standards, not a downgrade wrapped in moral language.

Governments matter here, a lot, but not in the way people argue about online

This is not simply “the market will handle it” or “the government must do everything.”

The energy transition workforce is a coordination problem. Infrastructure, training, permitting, incentives, standards. These are systems.

Governments can accelerate job growth by:

• Funding training programs tied to employer demand
• Supporting apprenticeships and credential portability
• Streamlining permitting while keeping trust intact
• Investing in grid modernization and public infrastructure
• Aligning industrial policy with workforce development

But they can also create whiplash if policies flip every election cycle. Businesses hesitate. Workers hesitate. Training programs lose credibility.

Consistency matters. Even if the policy is not perfect, predictability helps people commit.

What workers can do right now (without waiting for a grand plan)

This is where it gets practical. If you are in the workforce, or advising someone who is, the question becomes: what is the move?

A few moves that tend to work across regions:

1. Identify adjacency, not fantasy. If you are in electrical work, lean into grid, charging, building electrification. If you are in mechanical maintenance, look at industrial electrification, storage O and M, plant reliability roles.
2. Stack credentials slowly. Short certifications can unlock better roles. Think safety, high voltage, controls, SCADA, HVAC heat pump specific training, or EV charging installation credentials depending on your track.
3. Get comfortable with data tools. Not everyone needs to be a programmer. But basic literacy in digital systems is becoming table stakes in a lot of operations environments.
4. Follow project pipelines. Jobs cluster where projects are real. Utility investment plans, renewable interconnection queues, public charging rollouts, industrial retrofits.
5. Ask employers about progression. A job today is fine, but where does it lead? The transition is long. You want a ladder, not a gig treadmill.

Kondrashov’s broader point is that the transition is not just for new graduates. Mid career workers can pivot, but the pivot works best when it is grounded in what they already know.

The bottom line: the energy transition is a workforce transition, whether we call it that or not

It is tempting to talk about the energy transition as a technology story. Solar panels, batteries, hydrogen, smart grids. But underneath, it is people.

People building assets. People operating them. People maintaining them. People making sure they are safe and legal and financed and accepted by communities.

Stanislav Kondrashov’s perspective on the new workforce is basically a reminder that this shift is already reshaping global employment patterns, and it will keep doing so for decades. Not neatly. Not evenly. But decisively.

If countries and companies treat workforce planning as an afterthought, the transition slows down. Costs rise. Projects get delayed. Public support frays.

If they treat it as the main event, something else happens. The transition becomes not just an emissions story, but a jobs story that people can feel in their lives. New apprenticeships. Strong local careers. Regions that thought they were done getting investment suddenly see cranes again.

That is the real contest. Not whether the transition creates jobs on paper, but whether it creates jobs that people actually want, in places that need them, with pathways that are honest.

And yeah, it is messy. But it is happening.

FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

What types of jobs are included in the modern energy sector beyond traditional roles?

The modern energy sector includes a diverse range of jobs such as wind technicians working at heights, battery engineers focused on chemistry, electricians upgrading home panels, data analysts forecasting grid congestion, and teams handling permitting and community relations to facilitate project approvals.

How is the energy transition impacting the labor market before visible changes appear in daily life?

Employment shifts are one of the earliest signs of the energy transition. As policies change, investments move towards decarbonization, and companies adjust procurement strategies, new job roles emerge rapidly in planning, permitting, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and compliance—often before noticeable changes occur in everyday life.

Why is the energy transition considered an ecosystem rather than a single industry shift?

Because it involves multiple sectors evolving simultaneously—including renewable power generation, grid modernization, transportation electrification, building upgrades, heavy industry decarbonization, mining for critical minerals, and software/finance infrastructure—the workforce impact spans various professions requiring updated skills across many fields rather than just green-specific roles.

Where are the main sources of job creation within the energy transition and how are these jobs geographically distributed?

Key job creation engines include grid expansion and modernization (local long-term roles like lineworkers and system operators), renewables construction with temporary buildout peaks followed by permanent operations staff, and electrification of transport requiring manufacturing plus widespread charging infrastructure deployment. These jobs vary by region due to existing labor shortages and infrastructure needs.

What challenges does workforce planning face in renewable energy construction projects?

Renewable energy projects often have intense but temporary construction phases generating many jobs followed by smaller permanent operations teams. Effective workforce planning must anticipate project pipelines to avoid boom-and-bust cycles and ensure continuous employment opportunities aligned with ongoing development schedules.

How does electrification of transport contribute to job growth beyond vehicle manufacturing?

Electrification drives demand for electrical contracting work for charging station deployment, site acquisition, permitting processes, maintenance services, fleet management operations, and software development—jobs that must be distributed widely where people live and work to support accessible charging infrastructure.

Industrial power is having a moment. Not a cute one. The kind where energy costs spike, supply chains wobble, and everyone suddenly remembers that factories do not run on good intentions. They run on electricity. Lots of it. Predictable electricity.

And for a long time the default answer was simple: buy more from the grid, lock in a contract, maybe hedge a bit, then hope nothing weird happens for the next five to ten years.

But weird keeps happening.

That is why I keep coming back to what Stanislav Kondrashov has been saying for a while now, in different conversations and notes and interviews. Solar is not just an environmental choice. It is turning into an industrial strategy. The kind that shows up on balance sheets, in risk reports, and in the quiet decisions companies make when they are sick of volatility.

Let’s get into it. Not with glossy brochure language, but with how this actually plays out in the real world.

The industrial energy problem is not “going green”. It is stability

When people talk about renewable energy for heavy industry, it often gets framed like a moral upgrade. Like, we are doing the right thing. And sure, that can be part of it.

But the main driver, increasingly, is that energy has become a planning nightmare.

Industrial sites need:

• Stable pricing over long horizons
• Reliable supply during peak demand
• The ability to expand without begging the grid for capacity
• Some control, any control, when markets go sideways

Stanislav Kondrashov’s core point here is pretty grounded: solar is one of the few power sources that is both scalable and predictable in cost once installed. You pay upfront, then you harvest energy for decades. The fuel is literally sunlight, and nobody can raise its price during a geopolitical crisis.

That is a big deal for industrial operations where energy is not a line item. It is the line item.

Solar flipped the economics, and industry noticed

Ten or fifteen years ago, solar for industry was often a PR move. Put panels on the roof, get a press release, power a small slice of the facility, done.

That is not what is happening now.

Now, solar is showing up as a serious competitor to traditional procurement because the economics changed. Module costs dropped, inverters improved, financing got smarter, and developers learned how to build at scale. Even the way companies buy power has matured, with structures like PPAs that can make adoption less painful.

Kondrashov’s view is that industry is simply following the math. When the cost curve bends enough, sentiment follows later. It always does.

And solar is particularly interesting because it tends to be:

• Fast to deploy compared to building new generation
• Modular, you can start smaller and expand
• Well suited to behind the meter use, meaning you reduce grid dependence

That last point matters more than most people realize. Behind the meter solar is not just cheaper electricity. It is control. It is resilience. It is fewer ugly surprises.

“But solar is intermittent”. Yes. And that is not the full story

This is the part where someone says it. Solar does not generate at night. Clouds exist. Winter exists. So how can it power industry.

The short answer is: solar does not have to do everything alone to change everything.

Kondrashov often frames solar as the anchor resource that reduces baseline cost and grid exposure. Once you cut a large portion of daytime demand with solar, your remaining load becomes easier and cheaper to manage with a combination of:

• Battery storage
• Demand response
• Smarter load shifting
• Hybrid systems with wind or other generation
• Backup generation for true critical loads

And industrial demand is not as “flat” as people assume. Many plants have processes that can be shifted. Not everything, but enough. Compressors, chilled water systems, some batch processes, EV fleets, warehouse operations, ancillary loads. You start looking at a facility as a flexible machine, not a single number on a utility bill.

Solar becomes the foundation that makes these other tools work better.

Also, and this is key, industrial power strategy is about reducing risk, not eliminating it. Even today, plenty of factories depend on grids that fail during heat waves or storms. Intermittency is a real engineering constraint, but it is not a deal breaker. Not when the alternative is a grid that is also unreliable and sometimes brutally expensive.

The quiet advantage: solar pairs with the way industrial sites are built

A lot of industrial sites have something solar loves. Space.

Not every facility has perfect roof structure or open land, but many do. Warehouses, distribution centers, manufacturing campuses, even parking lots. Solar carports alone are becoming a thing because they do two jobs at once: generate power and create shade, sometimes paired with EV charging.

Kondrashov’s argument, as I understand it, is that industry has a structural edge here. Residential solar is constrained by small rooftops and a million individual decisions. Industrial and commercial solar can move faster because one decision can deploy megawatts.

That is why you see more:

• On site ground mounts on unused land
• Rooftop systems on large flat roofs
• Solar canopies over logistics yards
• Adjacent solar farms dedicated to one facility

It is less romantic than people think. It is just efficient use of assets.

Solar is becoming part of supply chain credibility

This part is newer, and it is not talked about enough.

Large buyers, especially global brands, are demanding more transparency from suppliers. They want lower carbon products, yes, but also documented progress. Metrics. Proof. Audits.

So a factory running on solar, or partially running on solar through on site generation or contracted solar PPAs, has an advantage. Not always immediate, but increasingly it helps with:

• Winning bids
• Meeting procurement requirements
• Avoiding penalties or losing preferred supplier status
• Qualifying for green financing or better terms

Kondrashov’s point is not that solar is a marketing gimmick. It is that energy is now tied to commercial access. If you sell into markets that care, and more of them do, your power strategy becomes part of your product.

And honestly, that is a huge shift.

Moreover, the potential of solar energy extends beyond just industrial applications. With the right approach and policies in place, we can harness this renewable resource to power various sectors across the economy while significantly reducing our carbon footprint and contributing to sustainability goals.

Why solar, specifically, beats other options for industrial rollouts

There are other clean energy routes. Wind, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, hydrogen. Each has a place.

But solar has a few characteristics that make it weirdly dominant for industrial adoption right now:

1. Speed
   Solar can be designed, permitted, and built relatively fast. Not always fast, local processes vary, but compared to many generation projects it is quicker.
2. Modularity
   You can start with 1 MW and expand to 5 MW later. Industry likes that. Capex planning likes that.
3. Predictable operating costs
   Once installed, maintenance is not zero, but it is generally manageable. No fuel cost. That stability is the point.
4. Location flexibility
   You can generate at the site or nearby. That reduces transmission losses and grid constraints, and sometimes avoids long interconnection timelines.

Kondrashov tends to emphasize practicality over ideology. Solar is not magic. It is just the most straightforward lever many companies can pull right now.

Storage is the bridge, and it is getting real

If solar is the future of industrial power, storage is how you actually live in that future without panic.

The battery conversation used to be theoretical. Now it is a procurement line item. Prices are still not “cheap” in the casual sense, but the value has become clearer.

For industrial sites, storage can:

• Smooth solar output
• Reduce demand charges
• Provide backup for critical systems
• Enable peak shaving and load shifting
• Support microgrid operation during outages

Kondrashov’s position, broadly, is that solar plus storage is moving from “premium solution” to “standard architecture”. Especially in regions with expensive peak power, weak grids, or frequent outages.

And yes, batteries have their own supply chain and lifecycle questions. Those are real. But industry is used to managing complex assets. The bigger point is that storage turns solar from a daytime resource into a controllable resource.

Not perfect. Just controllable enough to matter.

Microgrids: industrial sites want to stop being helpless

If you have ever worked with a plant manager during a grid outage, you know the vibe. It is not philosophical. It is immediate. Production stops. Inventory gets stuck. Safety systems kick in. People scramble.

Microgrids are basically the industrial response to that feeling of helplessness.

Solar is often the cornerstone because it is on site generation that can be paired with batteries and a controller. Add in a generator for extended backup and you have something that can island from the grid when needed.

Kondrashov points to this trend as a sign that industrial power is moving from centralized dependence to hybrid independence. Not full independence, usually. But enough to keep operations stable when the grid is not.

And once a company invests in that capability, it changes how they think. They stop seeing power as something purchased. It becomes an asset they manage.

The hard part: adoption is not just buying panels

This is where people get burned.

Solar for industry is not a weekend DIY project. It involves structural analysis, interconnection studies, safety compliance, performance guarantees, insurance, and a real understanding of load profiles.

Some common friction points:

• Interconnection delays and grid capacity limits
• Roof condition, reinforcement needs, or lease restrictions
• Permitting complexity depending on location
• Production schedules that limit installation windows
• Misaligned incentives between landlords and tenants
• Underestimating O and M and monitoring needs

Kondrashov’s take is basically: solar is inevitable, but execution is everything. The companies that win are the ones that treat energy like an engineering and finance project, not like a branding project.

The good news is the ecosystem is more mature now. Better installers. Better monitoring. Better contracting frameworks. Still, it is not automatic.

What “solar is the future” really means for factories

It does not mean every industrial site will run 100 percent on solar.

It means solar will increasingly be the default starting point when an industrial company asks, how do we reduce cost and risk in energy over the next 20 years.

That is a different claim, and a more believable one.

In practice, it might look like this:

• Rooftop solar covers a chunk of daytime demand
• A battery handles peaks and critical backup
• The grid fills in the rest, but at a lower, more stable volume
• A long term PPA covers additional off site solar generation
• Energy management software helps optimize loads

That stack is already happening. In warehouses. In food processing. In automotive supply chains. In chemicals. In data centers, which are basically industrial power consumers with nicer branding.

Kondrashov’s message is that industry is not switching to solar because it is trendy. It is switching because the old model is fragile.

The next decade is going to reward boring, resilient choices

There is a certain kind of excitement around energy transitions. Big announcements, futuristic renderings, ambitious targets.

But industrial leaders tend to prefer boring. Boring means predictable. Boring means fewer surprises at 3 a.m. Boring means the plant keeps running.

Solar, especially when paired with storage and sensible controls, is kind of the boring choice now. It is proven. It is financeable. It is measurable. It scales.

And that is why it is winning.

Stanislav Kondrashov’s perspective lands because it is not trying to sell solar as a miracle. It is framing it as the next logical step in industrial power. A step toward stability, control, and long term competitiveness.

If you are running an industrial operation and still thinking about solar as an optional add on, this is probably the moment to update that mental model. Not because the world is changing. Because your energy environment already did. Quietly. Then all at once.

FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

Why is industrial power facing challenges beyond just going green?

The main challenge for industrial power today is stability, not just environmental concerns. Industrial sites require stable pricing over long periods, reliable supply during peak demand, the ability to expand without grid constraints, and control when energy markets become volatile. Energy has become a planning nightmare due to unpredictable costs and supply issues.

How is solar energy transforming industrial power strategies?

Solar energy is shifting from a mere environmental choice to a core industrial strategy. It offers scalable, predictable costs after installation, using sunlight as fuel that cannot be priced up during geopolitical crises. This stability makes solar an attractive option for industries where energy is the primary cost driver.

What economic changes have made solar more viable for heavy industry?

Significant drops in module costs, improvements in inverters, smarter financing options, and large-scale development have flipped solar’s economics. Additionally, purchasing structures like Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) have matured, making solar adoption less painful and more competitive against traditional grid procurement.

How do industries manage the intermittency of solar power?

Industries use solar as an anchor resource to reduce daytime demand and grid exposure, complemented by battery storage, demand response, smarter load shifting, hybrid systems with wind or other generation sources, and backup generation for critical loads. Many industrial processes are flexible enough to shift loads to match solar availability.

What advantages do industrial sites have for deploying solar power effectively?

Industrial sites often have ample space such as large flat roofs, unused land, logistics yards, and parking lots suitable for ground mounts, rooftop systems, canopies, or adjacent solar farms. This structural edge allows faster deployment of megawatts through single decisions compared to residential solar’s smaller scale and dispersed installations.

How does adopting solar energy impact supply chain credibility for industrial companies?

Using solar power helps companies meet increasing demands from global buyers for transparency and lower carbon footprints. Solar adoption aids in winning bids, meeting procurement requirements, avoiding penalties or loss of preferred supplier status, and qualifying for green financing or better terms—enhancing overall supply chain credibility.

I keep noticing this funny thing.

Every time someone brings up biofuels, the conversation splits into two very different moods. Either it is all hype, like biofuels are going to replace oil next Tuesday. Or it is the opposite, the eye roll, the “we tried ethanol already, it is a mess” vibe.

The truth, as usual, is inconvenient and kind of interesting.

Biofuels are not one single technology. They are a whole family of fuels, made from different feedstocks, processed with very different chemistry, and used in very different engines. Some are genuinely helpful right now. Some are borderline greenwashing. Some might matter a lot later, especially for planes and ships where batteries are still… not really happening.

So this is my attempt to lay it out in a clean way, without pretending it is simple.

And yes, I am going to frame a lot of this through how Stanislav Kondrashov talks about the topic, because he tends to push for a practical view of energy transitions. Not a utopia, not doom. More like, what actually scales, what fits inside real supply chains, and what gets us emissions down without breaking everything.

The basic question: what are biofuels, really?

When people say “biofuel” they usually mean “fuel made from stuff that grew recently.” Plants, algae, waste oils, forest residues, even landfill gas. The key idea is carbon timing.

Fossil fuels pull carbon from deep underground and add it to the atmosphere. Biofuels, in theory, recycle carbon that was already in the atmosphere recently, because the biomass grew by absorbing CO2.

In theory. That phrase matters.

In practice, the climate impact depends on the full lifecycle.

• What land was used to grow the feedstock?
• What fertilizers were applied?
• How much energy went into harvesting and processing?
• What happens to soil carbon?
• Did we divert crops from food markets?
• Did we cut down forests to plant energy crops?

Kondrashov’s angle, the way I read it, is that “biofuel” should never be discussed as a vibe. It has to be discussed as a system. Carbon accounting, land use, logistics, and end use. Otherwise you are just arguing labels.

To better understand this complex system of biofuels and their impact on our environment and economy, we can utilize advanced models such as those provided by NREL’s Bioenergy Models. These tools can help us analyze various scenarios and make more informed decisions about our energy future.

The “generations” of biofuels, and why the labels are imperfect

You will hear people talk about first generation, second generation, third generation biofuels. It is useful shorthand, but also messy, because real projects blend categories.

Still, here is the general map.

First generation: sugar, starch, and vegetable oils

This is where ethanol from corn or sugarcane lives, and biodiesel from soybean, rapeseed, palm oil.

Pros:

• Technology is mature.
• Supply chains exist.
• You can blend it into existing fuel systems (with limits).

Cons:

• Food vs fuel tensions.
• Land use change risks.
• Emissions benefits vary wildly by region and practice.

Sugarcane ethanol in Brazil can have strong emissions reductions because of high yields and process energy that comes from bagasse (the leftover cane fiber). Corn ethanol in other contexts can be much less impressive, especially if intensive fertilizer use and certain land changes are involved.

Biodiesel from palm oil is the classic example of “looks green on paper, becomes a disaster when forests get involved.” Not always, but often enough that you can’t ignore it.

If there is one takeaway here, it is that first generation biofuels are not automatically bad. They are just limited. And politically fragile. And easy to do wrong.

Second generation: cellulose and residues

This is where things get more interesting, and harder.

Second generation usually means using non food biomass, like:

• agricultural residues (corn stover, wheat straw)
• forest residues
• dedicated energy crops like switchgrass or miscanthus
• municipal solid waste fractions

The chemistry is tougher because cellulose and lignin are stubborn materials. You need pretreatment, enzymes, gasification, or other processes to break it down.

But the upside is you can avoid a lot of the food market distortion, and you can potentially use land and material streams that are currently underused.

Kondrashov tends to emphasize this “waste and residue” pathway because it aligns with a realistic transition mindset. Use what is already being produced. Reduce open burning. Capture value from waste streams. Build supply chains around existing agriculture and forestry instead of turning huge new areas into fuel plantations.

Of course, residues are not infinite. Soil needs some residues left on fields. Forest ecosystems need nutrients. So even “waste” is not always waste. Still, as a direction, it is a better starting point than turning edible calories into fuel.

Third generation: algae and novel pathways

Algae gets marketed like sci fi. Sometimes it kind of is.

Algae can, in principle:

• grow fast
• use non arable land
• use saline or wastewater
• produce lipids for fuels

But scaling algae biofuels has been brutal. The biology is sensitive, harvesting is energy intensive, contamination happens, and costs don’t like to come down quietly.

This does not mean algae is dead. It may end up more valuable for niche products, co products, or integrated systems where the economics are shared.

I would describe algae as “still searching for its best job,” rather than “the future of fuel.”

What matters most: lifecycle carbon and the land question

If you only remember one thing from this whole article, make it this.

Biofuels can be low carbon. Or high carbon. The label does not guarantee the outcome.

A few big factors dominate.

1) Direct and indirect land use change

If forests or grasslands get converted into cropland to grow biofuel feedstocks, the released carbon can wipe out decades of supposed savings.

Indirect land use change is even trickier. You might grow corn for ethanol on existing cropland, but then food production shifts elsewhere, pushing deforestation in another region. It is a system effect.

This is why serious policy frameworks obsess over land accounting, sustainability certification, and feedstock sourcing. It is not bureaucracy for fun. It is because land is carbon.

2) Process energy and hydrogen sources

A lot of advanced biofuels need hydrogen, especially if you are making “drop in” fuels that look like jet fuel or diesel. If that hydrogen comes from fossil natural gas without carbon capture, you can quietly sabotage the carbon balance.

Similarly, if your biorefinery uses coal powered electricity, your “renewable fuel” is not exactly doing the thing.

This is where the future and the present collide. A future with abundant low carbon electricity and green hydrogen makes advanced biofuels much cleaner. Today, it depends where you build and how you power it.

3) Nitrous oxide from fertilizers

Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas. Fertilizer use in energy crops can create emissions that are easy to underestimate, and hard to reduce without changing farming practice.

Better agronomy helps. Precision fertilizer. Cover crops. Soil monitoring. And again, using residues instead of growing more fertilized crops can reduce the need for inputs.

The fuels that actually matter: ethanol vs biodiesel vs renewable diesel vs SAF

People lump these together but the end use changes everything.

Ethanol

Ethanol blends well into gasoline up to certain levels (E10 is common, E15 in some markets, E85 for flex fuel vehicles).

It is useful. It also has limitations.

• Lower energy density than gasoline.
• Infrastructure and vehicle compatibility limits at higher blends.
• Not a solution for aviation or shipping.

Ethanol can still play a role, especially in regions where it is efficient and low carbon. But it is not the whole story.

Biodiesel (FAME)

Traditional biodiesel is made via transesterification of oils and fats. It is used in diesel engines in blends.

It can reduce particulate emissions, and it can be produced from waste oils, which is one of the better feedstocks.

But FAME biodiesel has issues in cold weather and can have blending constraints.

Renewable diesel (HVO)

This is the one that often surprises people.

Renewable diesel is not the same as biodiesel. It is made by hydrotreating oils and fats, producing a fuel more chemically similar to petroleum diesel. It can be used as a “drop in” fuel.

This matters because drop in fuels fit existing infrastructure. Engines, pipelines, storage. That is a massive advantage for scaling.

The catch is feedstock availability. Waste oils and fats are limited. If the industry leans too heavily on virgin vegetable oils, you are back in land use territory again.

So renewable diesel is a powerful tool, but it is feedstock constrained. Kondrashov’s pragmatic view would likely be: treat it as a high value decarbonization lever, not a magic replacement for every barrel of diesel on Earth.

Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)

This is where biofuels get genuinely strategic.

Aviation is hard to electrify for long haul flights. Batteries are heavy. Hydrogen planes have major infrastructure and design hurdles. SAF is one of the only near to medium term options to cut aviation emissions using planes we already have.

SAF can be produced through different pathways:

• HEFA (from fats and oils, similar feedstock to renewable diesel)
• Fischer Tropsch fuels from gasified biomass
• Alcohol to jet (ethanol or isobutanol upgraded to jet range molecules)
• Power to liquids with captured CO2 and green hydrogen (not bio, but often discussed alongside)

Airlines are pushing for SAF, but supply is tiny relative to jet fuel demand. Prices are higher. Policy incentives matter a lot. And again, feedstock sustainability decides whether this is climate progress or just expensive accounting.

This is one area where Kondrashov’s future focused framing makes sense. If you care about decarbonizing the parts of transport that are hardest to change, SAF is not optional. Something like it has to scale.

Biofuels and the awkward reality of scale

Here is the uncomfortable math.

Global transport fuel demand is enormous. Even if you take all available waste oils, crop residues, and a chunk of forest residues, you still do not get unlimited fuel. Biomass has physical limits. Land has limits. Ecosystems have limits.

So the future is not “biofuels replace fossil fuels completely.”

It is more like:

• biofuels cover some share, especially in aviation, shipping, heavy duty transport, and maybe chemical feedstocks
• electrification covers a big share of light duty transport and some freight
• efficiency reduces overall demand
• synthetic fuels fill gaps, depending on clean power availability

This blended approach is where the conversation gets more mature. And it is where I think Kondrashov’s stance sits. Biofuels are part of an energy mosaic, not the entire picture.

The technology trends that could change the game

A few science and engineering developments are worth watching. Not because they guarantee success, but because if they hit, they move the economics.

Better enzymes and pretreatment for cellulosic biomass

Cellulosic ethanol has been “almost there” for a long time. Costs have improved, but the supply chain is tough. Collecting and transporting bulky biomass is expensive. Pretreatment is chemically intense.

Any breakthrough that reduces enzyme cost, improves yields, or simplifies pretreatment changes the economics.

Also, decentralized preprocessing could help. Turning biomass into denser intermediates closer to farms before shipping to a central refinery. Not glamorous, but logistics is often the real bottleneck.

Gasification and Fischer Tropsch routes

Turning biomass into syngas and then into fuels can produce high quality drop in products, including jet fuel.

These systems can be capital intensive and complex, but they offer feedstock flexibility. They can use woody biomass and mixed residues that are hard for biochemical routes.

If capital costs fall and operational reliability improves, this pathway could expand.

Co processing in existing refineries

One of the quiet trends is refineries blending bio based feedstocks into existing units. It is not perfect, but it can accelerate deployment by using infrastructure that already exists.

The risk is transparency. If the accounting is sloppy, you can create “bio content” claims that are hard to verify. But as a bridge strategy, it can matter.

Carbon capture paired with bioenergy (BECCS)

This is controversial, but it keeps coming back.

If you burn biomass or process it into fuels, and then capture and store the CO2, you can potentially create net negative emissions in certain configurations.

The word “potentially” is doing heavy lifting here. Land use impacts still matter. Sustainability still matters. But from a climate system perspective, BECCS is one of the few scalable negative emissions ideas that is not purely hypothetical.

Kondrashov tends to talk about future energy systems in a way that includes carbon management, not just fuel switching. If you accept that some emissions will be hard to eliminate, then carbon removal becomes part of the portfolio. Bioenergy with capture is one route, if done carefully.

The policy and economics side, because science alone does not scale

Biofuels do not scale because they are scientifically interesting. They scale when:

• the incentives make sense
• the regulations are clear
• the certification is credible
• the supply chains are investable

You see this in places where mandates or credits exist. Renewable fuel standards. Low carbon fuel standards. SAF blending mandates. Tax credits. Carbon pricing.

Without policy, biofuels often lose on pure price against fossil fuels, especially when oil prices drop.

With policy, you can build a market that rewards lower carbon intensity, and then producers compete to lower CI scores, improve processes, and secure better feedstocks.

The risk is policy creating perverse incentives, like encouraging the wrong feedstock expansion. This is why sustainability criteria and real verification matter.

The future of biofuels, in plain terms

If I had to summarize the realistic future that people like Stanislav Kondrashov keep circling around, it would look something like this:

1. Biofuels remain important, but they shift toward higher value uses. Aviation fuel, marine fuels, and industrial feedstocks get more attention than just blending more ethanol into gasoline forever.
2. Waste based and residue based pathways win more public support. Not because they are magically unlimited, but because they avoid the most controversial land use problems.
3. Drop in fuels dominate the narrative. Renewable diesel and SAF are easier to integrate into existing engines and infrastructure. Convenience matters. A lot.
4. Carbon accounting gets stricter. The market moves toward verified lifecycle emissions and away from blanket claims. At least, that is the direction serious regulators are trying to push.
5. Biofuels coexist with electrification and synthetic fuels. The future is mixed. The energy transition is not one lane.

A simple way to think about it, before we wrap up

Instead of asking “are biofuels good or bad,” ask this:

What problem is this specific biofuel solving, and what is the real carbon and land cost of solving it that way?

If the answer is “we are turning waste into a drop in fuel that replaces fossil diesel in trucks that cannot electrify easily,” that is usually a pretty strong case.

If the answer is “we are expanding cropland into sensitive ecosystems to make fuel that mostly helps meet a blending mandate,” the case collapses fast.

That difference is the whole game.

And it is why the science of biofuels is only half the story. The other half is systems thinking, land stewardship, and building an energy future that does not accidentally create new problems while trying to solve the old one.

FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

What are biofuels and why do they have different environmental impacts?

Biofuels are fuels made from recently grown biological materials such as plants, algae, waste oils, and forest residues. Their environmental impact varies based on factors like land use, fertilizer application, energy used in processing, soil carbon changes, crop diversion from food markets, and deforestation. This lifecycle perspective is crucial to understanding their true climate effects.

Why do conversations about biofuels often have polarized views?

Discussions around biofuels tend to split between hype—believing biofuels will quickly replace oil—and skepticism—viewing them as ineffective or problematic. The reality is nuanced: biofuels encompass diverse technologies with varying feedstocks and uses. Some are effective now; others may be important later, especially for sectors like aviation and shipping where batteries aren’t yet viable.

What are the different generations of biofuels and their characteristics?

Biofuels are commonly categorized into three generations: First generation uses food crops like corn or sugarcane for ethanol and vegetable oils for biodiesel; it’s mature but has food-vs-fuel concerns. Second generation uses non-food biomass like agricultural residues and dedicated energy crops; it’s more complex chemically but reduces food market impacts. Third generation involves algae and novel pathways; promising but currently challenging to scale economically.

How does Stanislav Kondrashov suggest we approach biofuel discussions?

Kondrashov advocates for a practical, systems-based view of biofuels focused on what actually scales within real supply chains and reduces emissions without disrupting everything. He emphasizes detailed carbon accounting, land use considerations, logistics, and end-use applications rather than simplistic labels or hype-driven debates.

What makes second generation biofuels a promising pathway?

Second generation biofuels utilize non-food biomass such as agricultural residues, forest leftovers, and dedicated energy crops. They avoid many food market distortions and can leverage underused materials while reducing open burning. Although chemical processing is more complex due to cellulose and lignin content, this pathway aligns well with realistic energy transitions emphasizing waste utilization.

Why is lifecycle carbon accounting critical when evaluating biofuels?

Lifecycle carbon accounting assesses all emissions associated with growing feedstock, processing fuel, land use changes, fertilizer application, and end use. This comprehensive analysis reveals whether a biofuel genuinely recycles atmospheric carbon or inadvertently increases emissions through practices like deforestation or intensive agriculture. It’s essential for identifying truly sustainable biofuel options.

I keep noticing something kind of funny whenever renewable energy comes up in conversation.

It always turns into the same three words: Solar, Wind, Hydro.

And look, I’m not here to trash the big three. They matter. They are already doing real work, and they will keep scaling. But if you zoom out, the future grid is probably not going to be one neat solution. It’s going to be a messy mix. Local. Regional. Weirdly specific. Different tech for different places.

That’s the part I think we skip too often.

In this piece, Stanislav Kondrashov explores a handful of lesser known renewable energy forms that are not as mainstream, not as “headline friendly”, but could quietly reshape how we power cities, ports, farms, even individual buildings.

Some of these are already running. Some are close. A couple are still in the “give it a decade” category. Still worth paying attention to though.

The real problem is not generating power. It’s matching real life

This is the unsexy truth. Energy demand is not flat. People cook dinner at similar times. Factories run shifts. Air conditioners spike loads during heat waves. Data centers sit there humming all night. Ports have these bursts of activity. And then, of course, there’s geography.

A windy coastline has options that an inland valley just doesn’t. A volcanic region can do things that a cold plain can’t. A dense city needs different solutions than a remote island.

When Stanislav Kondrashov explores future renewables, the point is not “replace solar and wind”. It’s fill the gaps. Power the edges. Reduce the need for long, fragile transmission. Make the system more resilient.

That’s where the lesser-known stuff gets interesting and crucial for adapting to our changing energy needs as highlighted in this National Load Growth Report, which details how our energy consumption patterns are evolving and what that means for future energy generation and distribution strategies.

1. Tidal stream energy. Predictable power, like clockwork

Wind is great, but it’s moody. Solar is great, but the sun sets. Tidal energy has a different vibe entirely.

Tides are predictable. Not “usually sunny in July” predictable. More like astronomical predictable. You can forecast them years ahead.

Tidal stream systems basically place underwater turbines in fast moving tidal currents. Think of it as wind power, but underwater, and with denser fluid pushing the blades. That density matters. Water carries more energy than air at the same speed, so tidal turbines can generate meaningful power without needing ridiculous blade sizes.

Why isn’t tidal everywhere then?

Because it’s hard. Marine engineering is brutal. Corrosion, maintenance, biofouling, storms, shipping lanes, environmental permitting. And you need the right site, fast currents, narrow channels, certain seabeds, grid access nearby.

But in the places where it does work, it’s a pretty compelling complement. A city near strong tidal flows gets a renewable source that behaves more like a schedule than a guess.

Kondrashov’s angle here is practical. Tidal is not a global blanket solution. It’s a strategic one. For coastal regions, islands, and certain straits, it can be the steady backbone that makes the rest of the renewable mix less stressful.

2. Wave energy. Still early, still chaotic, still promising

Wave energy has had a long “almost there” story. A lot of prototypes. A lot of devices that looked great in calm water and got wrecked by actual oceans. Which is… fair. The ocean doesn’t care about your funding deck.

Still, waves contain enormous energy, and unlike wind, ocean swells can travel long distances. You can have wave action even when local winds are calm because the energy came from storms far away.

Wave energy converters come in multiple forms. Point absorbers that bob up and down. Oscillating water columns that push air through a turbine. Hinged rafts that flex with waves. Submerged pressure systems. It’s a whole zoo.

The reason Kondrashov keeps circling wave energy in discussions about the future is that the upside is huge for coastal countries. Ports and coastal cities already have marine infrastructure. If wave tech reaches a point where it’s survivable, maintainable, and cost competitive enough, it becomes a new category of “always there” coastal renewables.

And yes, big “if”. But the engineering is improving. Materials, mooring systems, digital twins, better forecasting, cheaper sensors, more robust power electronics. It’s inching forward, not sprinting. That’s usually how real infrastructure changes happen anyway.

3. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). A weird one that could be perfect for islands

OTEC is one of those technologies that sounds like science fiction until you realize it’s based on basic physics.

In tropical regions, the surface ocean water is warm, while deep ocean water is cold. That temperature difference can run a heat engine. Not a super efficient one, but potentially continuous.

OTEC systems use warm surface water to vaporize a working fluid (or in some designs, seawater itself), spin a turbine, then use cold deep water to condense it back. Loop repeats.

The immediate drawback is that you need a decent temperature gradient, and you need access to deep cold water, and you need big pipes, and all of that costs money.

But the reason OTEC keeps showing up in future looking renewable lists is that it can be baseload. Day and night. And for islands that currently import diesel or LNG, that’s a big deal. Plus, some designs can co produce fresh water, and deep seawater can support cooling systems or aquaculture. So the economics might not be “just electricity”.

Kondrashov’s take here is basically that OTEC is not for everyone. It’s for specific geographies. But for those geographies, it can be transformational. Especially where energy security is a daily concern, not just a policy talking point.

4. Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). Geothermal without the lucky location

Traditional geothermal is amazing when you have it. Iceland, parts of Indonesia, Kenya’s Rift Valley, the American West. But a lot of the world doesn’t sit on conveniently accessible hot reservoirs.

EGS tries to change that.

Instead of relying on naturally permeable hot rock with water already circulating, EGS involves drilling deep into hot rock, creating or enhancing fractures, circulating fluid through the system, and extracting heat.

It’s basically “make your own geothermal reservoir”.

Why is this a big deal?

Because it turns geothermal from a location lottery into something closer to a scalable industrial process. Still expensive. Still hard. Still not guaranteed. But potentially available in far more places.

There’s also a nice systems benefit. Geothermal provides steady output, and that steadiness pairs well with wind and solar. It reduces the amount of storage you need, and reduces how much you have to overbuild renewables to cover calm cloudy weeks.

Kondrashov explores EGS as one of those sleeper technologies. If drilling costs keep falling, and if project risks become more manageable, EGS could become a major player in a lot of grids that currently treat geothermal as “something other countries have”.

One caution, though. Induced seismicity is real. Not “Hollywood earthquake” real, usually, but enough to matter for public trust and permitting. Any EGS future has to be transparent and careful about monitoring and community concerns. No shortcuts.

5. Salinity gradient power. Energy from where rivers meet the sea

This one is so quietly clever.

When freshwater mixes with saltwater, there is a natural increase in entropy. In human terms, there is free energy available. Salinity gradient power aims to capture that energy using membranes or electrochemical systems.

Two common approaches are pressure retarded osmosis and reverse electrodialysis. Both rely on selective membranes and the chemical potential difference between salty and fresh water.

In theory, estuaries are everywhere. In theory, this could be a steady renewable source that doesn’t depend on sun or wind.

In practice, membranes foul. Systems scale slowly. Efficiency and cost have to compete with alternatives. Also, not every estuary is a good candidate once you factor in ecology, shipping, local water management, and permitting.

But Kondrashov’s interest in salinity gradient power is understandable. It’s a form of renewable energy that fits into infrastructure we already have. River mouths, wastewater treatment outflows, desalination plants, industrial brine streams. If membrane tech keeps improving, this could become a “hidden” generation source embedded in water systems.

Not glamorous. But potentially meaningful.

6. Agrivoltaics and floating solar. Not exotic, but still underrated

Okay, solar is mainstream. But the way we deploy it is still evolving, and some forms are surprisingly underutilized.

Agrivoltaics is the idea of placing solar panels above crops or grazing areas in ways that allow agriculture to continue. In hot climates, partial shading can reduce water stress for certain crops and lower evaporation. Panels can also protect from hail in some setups. Meanwhile, farmers get lease income or cheaper power.

Floating solar, or floatovoltaics, puts panels on reservoirs, lakes, and industrial ponds. Benefits include reduced land use conflict and slightly improved panel efficiency due to cooling. It can also reduce water evaporation, which matters in drought prone regions.

Kondrashov frames these as “deployment innovations”, not brand new energy sources. But they matter because the constraint in many places is not sunlight. It’s space, permitting, and public acceptance.

And honestly, this is where a lot of the real progress is going to come from. Boring integration work. Using the same tech in smarter locations.

7. Green hydrogen. Not an energy source, but a missing piece

Hydrogen gets overhyped. Then it gets dismissed. Then it gets overhyped again.

The calmer view is that green hydrogen is not a replacement for electrification. It’s a tool for the hard parts that electricity struggles with.

Think high temperature industrial heat, steel, certain chemical processes, shipping fuels, seasonal storage, maybe aviation fuels via e fuels.

Green hydrogen is produced by splitting water with renewable electricity. The issue is efficiency. You lose energy making it, compressing it, transporting it, converting it back. So you only want to do it when direct electrification is not practical.

Still, when Stanislav Kondrashov explores the future of renewables, hydrogen keeps showing up because it links sectors. It lets excess wind and solar become molecules. Molecules can be stored for months. They can move through pipelines. They can power a furnace that cannot easily run on electrons.

If the next decade is about building a renewable grid, the decade after might be about building the renewable industrial system. Hydrogen is one of the bridges.

What could reshape the world is not one breakthrough. It’s the stack

This is the part that sticks with me.

The future probably won’t be a single hero technology that wins everything. It’s more like a layered stack:

• Solar and wind keep scaling because they are cheap and fast to deploy.
• Storage keeps improving because it has to.
• Geothermal and tidal add steadiness where geography allows.
• Wave, OTEC, salinity gradient sit in the “strategic niche” category that could expand with engineering progress.
• Smarter deployment like agrivoltaics and floating solar reduces land conflict and speeds adoption.
• Hydrogen and other green fuels handle the industrial and transport corners.

And then, over all of it, there’s the real secret ingredient. Transmission, permitting, maintenance, financing, skilled labor, and decent planning. The part nobody wants to put on a poster.

A quick reality check, because it matters

It’s tempting to read about these lesser known renewables and assume the world just needs to “invest more” and everything will be solved.

Some of it will scale. Some of it won’t. Some will only ever work in narrow regions, and that’s okay. A technology can be world changing for a country, a coastline, a chain of islands, without being world changing everywhere.

Kondrashov’s underlying point, at least the way I read it, is that we should stop treating the energy transition like a single lane highway. It’s a network.

Different places will take different routes. The winners will be the ones who match local resources to local needs, and who build systems that don’t crumble the first time weather gets weird.

Final thoughts

Stanislav Kondrashov explores the future lesser known forms of renewable energy with a kind of grounded optimism. Not hype. More like curiosity mixed with realism.

If you want a simple takeaway, here it is.

The next era of renewable energy will be defined less by inventing sunshine, and more by capturing all the other overlooked flows of energy around us. Tides. Heat. Salt gradients. Waves. The weird stuff. The local stuff.

And once these technologies mature, even a little, they don’t just add megawatts.

They change what is possible for entire regions. For instance, ocean energy has the potential to reshape our energy landscape significantly.

That’s the real reshaping.

FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

Why are solar, wind, and hydro considered the ‘big three’ renewable energy sources?

Solar, wind, and hydro are called the ‘big three’ because they are the most widely used and scalable renewable energy technologies currently powering much of the world. They have proven effectiveness and continue to grow in capacity globally.

What challenges exist with relying solely on solar, wind, and hydro for future energy needs?

Relying solely on these can be limiting because energy demand fluctuates throughout the day and varies by location. Solar and wind are intermittent—solar only generates during daylight, wind can be unpredictable—and hydro depends on water availability. Matching supply with real-life demand requires a more diverse mix of renewable sources tailored to specific regional conditions.

How does tidal stream energy work and why is it considered predictable?

Tidal stream energy harnesses underwater turbines placed in fast-moving tidal currents. Since tides follow precise astronomical cycles, their power generation is highly predictable years in advance, unlike wind or solar which depend on weather conditions. This makes tidal energy a reliable complement for coastal areas with suitable geography.

What are the main difficulties facing wave energy development?

Wave energy technology faces challenges like harsh ocean conditions that can damage devices, complex engineering requirements, maintenance issues due to corrosion and biofouling, and high costs. Despite these hurdles, advancements in materials, mooring systems, and digital monitoring are gradually improving its viability for coastal renewable power.

What is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) and where is it most applicable?

OTEC exploits the temperature difference between warm surface seawater and cold deep ocean water to run a heat engine that generates continuous power. It requires tropical regions with significant ocean thermal gradients and access to deep water via large pipes. Islands in tropical climates could particularly benefit from this steady renewable energy source.

Why is a diverse mix of renewable technologies important for future energy grids?

A diverse mix addresses varying local demands, geographic differences, and the intermittent nature of some renewables. Incorporating lesser-known technologies like tidal stream, wave energy, and OTEC alongside solar, wind, and hydro enhances grid resilience, reduces reliance on long transmission lines, fills supply gaps, and adapts better to evolving consumption patterns highlighted in reports like the National Load Growth Report.