By Stephen Heins
“We’ve got to call out the greenwishing of energy’s future. Excitement is good; delusion isn’t. Let’s demand proof, not promises. Reliable, affordable energy isn’t a luxury—it’s the foundation of modern life—time to get serious about what energy technologies actually scales.”
I’ve been watching this energy debate for years, and I’m tired of the hype. We’ve got politicians, billionaires, and startups promising the next big “green” breakthrough that’ll solve everything from climate change to data center power demands, with no downsides.
But most of it is what I call greenwishing—a cousin to greenwashing, where they polish up promising energy ideas, but unproven, unscalable technologies with fancy renderings, press releases, and government grants, all while the real engineering and economics lag behind.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for clean, reliable, affordable energy. As a guy in the Frozen Tundra (Wisconsin), I know we need power that works in the dead of winter and doesn’t bankrupt families or factories. Wind and solar have their place in backup systems, but they’re intermittent. Nuclear has proven itself, but new construction will drag on for a decade or more.
The real excitement—and the real risk—lies in these next-gen sources that sound amazing on paper but aren’t ready for prime time. Let’s break down a few big ones that fit my “greenwishing” label perfectly as of 2026.
Nuclear Fusion: The Eternal 30-Years-Away Star
Fusion is the poster child for greenwishing. The dream is simple: smash hydrogen atoms as the sun does, get clean, nearly limitless energy with no long-lived waste, and power the world forever. Private investment has exploded past of billions dollars, with companies like Commonwealth Fusion Systems talking about grid power in the 2030s. ITER in France keeps plugging along, and we’ve seen net energy gains in labs.
But let’s be real. We’ve been hearing “fusion is 30 years away” since the 1970s, and it’s still mostly true. Engineering hurdles are massive: containing plasma at insane temperatures, materials that survive neutron bombardment, repetitive operation at power-plant scale, and costs that make economic sense. Even optimistic projections put commercial rollout decades out, and that’s before supply chains, regulations, and grid integration.
It’s exciting science, but clearly not a baseload solution for the Frozen Tundra or anywhere else for that matter. Not yet. We’re greenwishing it by treating demo breakthroughs as if their future is guaranteed. On the other hand, AI data centers hungry for power can’t wait for stars in a bottle.
Green Hydrogen: The Swiss Army Knife That Costs a Fortune
Green hydrogen—produced by electrolyzing water with renewable electricity—gets hyped as the answer for heavy industry, trucking, shipping, and even power storage. Governments are pouring subsidies into projects, and announcements are made left and right.
It could decarbonize sectors that batteries or electrification can’t touch.
The problems? Cost and efficiency kill it. Green H2 is still way more expensive than gray (fossil-based) hydrogen, thanks to the high cost of electrolyzers, renewable power variability, and massive energy losses in production, compression, storage, and transport. Efficiency hovers around 60-70%, and infrastructure barely exists at scale—no pipelines, ports, or refueling networks ready for gigatons.
Blue hydrogen (with carbon capture) is scaling faster in the U.S., but it comes with its own emissions baggage from methane leaks and lower climate benefits.
We’re greenwishing this one hard by pretending its future is solid while real deployments lag and rely on massive taxpayer support. For places like Wisconsin with cold winters and industrial needs, reliable hydrogen would be great—if it weren’t so far from economic reality. Demand uncertainty and custom-built projects create a economic chicken-and-egg problem that won’t vanish with more announcements.
Advanced Geothermal: Hot Rocks with Huge Potential, But Drilling Hell
Next-gen geothermal—enhanced (EGS) or superhot rock systems—promise 24/7 baseload power almost anywhere by drilling deep, fracturing rock, and circulating fluid to harvest heat.
Companies like Fervo are building projects in Utah, with Cape Station eyeing commercial operation soon. MIT spinouts and others are pushing millimeter-wave drilling and closed-loop designs. It’s not as flashy as fusion, but it could be a game-changer for firm clean power.
Challenges remain big. Drilling costs in hot, hard rock are brutal, even with fracking’s oil-and-gas tech adaptations. Induced seismicity fears, water use, and long-term reservoir sustainability need to be proven at scale. While costs have dropped and projects are advancing (Fervo’s expansions, pilots in Germany), we’re still talking small MW outputs compared to what the grid needs.
It’s promising, but greenwishing creeps in when boosters claim it’ll unlock terawatts overnight without addressing the “great filter” of repeated, cheap drilling success.
Tidal and Wave Energy: Predictable Power from the Ocean, If It Survives
Tidal power taps reliable lunar cycles; wave energy harvests ocean swells. Both sound perfect for coastal or island grids—predictable, dense energy without fuel. Prototypes exist, especially in Europe, with some tidal stream projects operating.
Reality check: Harsh marine environments destroy equipment fast. Corrosion, biofouling, storms, and high installation/maintenance costs make LCOE (levelized cost) sky-high—often $130-280/MWh versus $20-50 for wind/solar. Suitable high-flow sites are limited, supply chains are immature, and environmental impacts on marine life continue to spark environmental debate.
Wave Tech is even further behind. We continue greenwishing these energy solutions by celebrating small demos while ignoring that total global installed capacity remains tiny after decades of effort. Great niche potential, lousy broad scalability.
SMR: Closer, But Still Not There
Of course, Small Modular Reactors deserve mention, too. Factory-built nuclear reactors under 300 MW could be cheaper and faster to deploy, and could be sited flexibly for data centers or towns. U.S. projects are advancing with DOE funding, and some designs aim for early 2030s operations. Russia and China already have units running.
But in general licensing, supply chains, first-of-a-kind costs, and public acceptance slow things down to a crawl. They’re more proven than pure fusion, but they still carry energy’s vibes when pitched as instant solutions that ignore regulatory and economic risks. Traditional nuclear works fine; scaling new designs is the hurdle.
Greenwishing Has Consequences
These technologies aren’t scams—they represent real human ingenuity chasing hard problems. Private capital, DOE programs, and international efforts show momentum. But the danger is overpromising. We delay proven options like expanding reliable nuclear, improving grid resilience, or pragmatic mixes of gas, hydro, and renewables with storage while chasing moonshots. Energy demand is surging from AI, EVs, and manufacturing. Hyping unready tech risks blackouts, higher bills, or policy whiplash when timelines slip or disappear.
In Wisconsin, we value practicality. Build what works. Support R&D aggressively—fusion, hot rock geothermal, better electrolyzers—but don’t bet the farm on greenish timelines. Prioritize energy density, reliability, and cost. Baseload matters. Innovation thrives with honest engineering, not marketing.
The path forward? Aggressive permitting reform, sustained funding for demos that actually prove scalability, and an all-of-the-above mindset that doesn’t dismiss working tech for perfect future ones. Fusion might power the 2050s or beyond. Green hydrogen could carve out industrial niches if costs crash. Advanced geothermal and ocean energy at best might fill regional gaps. But today, they’re aspirational with capital A.
We’ve got to call out the greenwishing of energy’s future. Excitement is good; delusion isn’t. Let’s demand proof, not promises. Reliable, affordable energy isn’t a luxury—it’s the foundation of modern life—time to get serious about what energy technologies actually scales.
——————————
Stephen Heins writes at The Word Merchant, where this post first appeared. His previous post on the energy contributions of Robert L. Bradley Jr. is here.
