Chapter 13. Evaluating Energy, Climate and Sustainable Technologies
13.1 Introduction
Energy technologies occupy a distinctive position within technology evaluation because energy systems influence virtually every aspect of modern economic and social activity. Electricity generation, transportation, industrial production, buildings, agriculture, digital infrastructure, communications, healthcare and education all depend upon reliable energy supplies. Consequently, decisions concerning energy technologies can produce consequences that extend across organizations, communities, national economies and future generations.
The contemporary transition toward renewable and lower-carbon energy systems has significantly expanded the range of technologies requiring systematic assessment. Solar photovoltaic systems, wind power, hydropower, energy storage, electric vehicles, hydrogen systems, smart grids, energy-efficiency technologies, carbon-management systems and distributed energy resources all represent different technological pathways through which societies may seek to address energy security, economic development and climate objectives.
Energy technologies should therefore not be evaluated solely according to their ability to produce or conserve energy. They should be assessed in relation to their technical performance, reliability, cost, resource requirements, environmental consequences, social implications, infrastructure requirements, energy-security implications, regulatory environment, lifecycle effects and long-term resilience. The International Energy Agency has repeatedly emphasized the importance of considering energy technologies within broader system transformations rather than evaluating individual technologies in isolation (IEA, 2023).
The energy sector also demonstrates particularly clearly why technology evaluation must be multidimensional. An energy technology may achieve high technical efficiency but require substantial quantities of scarce materials. Another technology may have relatively low operating emissions but involve significant environmental impacts during manufacturing. A third technology may be inexpensive but dependent upon infrastructure that is vulnerable to disruption. A fourth may be environmentally attractive but difficult for organizations or communities to finance and maintain.
The evaluator must therefore ask not merely whether a technology works, but under what conditions it works, for whom it works, for how long it works, what resources it consumes, what risks it creates, and whether its wider benefits justify its total lifecycle consequences.
13.2 Energy Technology as a Socio-Technical System
Energy systems consist of interconnected technological, economic, institutional, environmental and social components. Electricity-generation equipment cannot operate independently of transmission systems, distribution networks, financing arrangements, regulatory institutions, skilled personnel, maintenance capabilities and patterns of user behaviour.
A solar photovoltaic installation, for example, depends upon the availability of solar resources, photovoltaic modules, inverters, electrical infrastructure and, where appropriate, batteries or other storage systems. Its successful operation also depends upon financing, regulatory permissions, installation expertise, maintenance, grid compatibility and user behaviour. If one of these components is substantially inadequate, the expected benefits of the technological investment may not be achieved.
This perspective is consistent with the socio-technical understanding of technological transitions developed by Geels (2002). Technological transitions occur through interactions among technologies, institutions, markets, users, organizations, policies and broader social structures. Consequently, energy evaluation must consider the relationship between technological innovation and the institutional environment in which the technology operates.
The socio-technical perspective also explains why technology transfer between countries or organizations may produce different outcomes. A technology successfully implemented in one geographical, economic or regulatory environment may perform differently elsewhere because of differences in infrastructure, climate, maintenance capability, financing, user behaviour, technical skills and institutional capacity.
13.3 Renewable Energy Technologies
Renewable energy encompasses a diverse collection of technologies, including solar photovoltaic systems, concentrated solar power, wind energy, hydropower, geothermal energy, sustainable bioenergy and marine-energy technologies. Although these technologies are frequently grouped under the general category of renewable energy, their technical characteristics, environmental consequences, infrastructure requirements and social effects can differ substantially.
The evaluation of renewable energy should therefore consider both direct performance and lifecycle consequences. Operational emissions alone do not provide a complete picture of environmental performance. A renewable-energy system requires raw materials, manufacturing processes, transportation, construction, installation, maintenance and eventual decommissioning. Each stage may generate environmental, economic and social consequences.
The appropriate question is consequently not simply whether renewable energy produces energy without direct fossil-fuel combustion during operation. The broader question is how the complete technological system performs over its entire lifecycle and in comparison with realistic alternatives.
13.4 Solar Energy
Solar photovoltaic technology converts sunlight directly into electricity through semiconductor materials. Its deployment has expanded significantly because photovoltaic systems can be installed at a range of scales, from small household systems to utility-scale solar farms.
Evaluation should consider conversion efficiency, degradation rate, system availability, installation costs, maintenance requirements, land requirements, material requirements, grid integration and lifecycle emissions. Solar resources also vary geographically and seasonally, meaning that technical performance measured under standardized laboratory conditions may not correspond exactly to field performance.
Actual evaluation should therefore incorporate local environmental conditions such as solar irradiance, temperature, dust, humidity, shading and maintenance practices. In regions where dust accumulation is significant, for example, cleaning requirements may influence real-world performance. Similarly, high temperatures can affect the performance of some system components.
Solar technology should also be evaluated in relation to land use and competing land requirements. Rooftop solar may provide energy generation without requiring large areas of additional land, while utility-scale installations may involve more significant land-use decisions. Consequently, the appropriate technology configuration depends partly upon geographical, social and organizational circumstances.
13.5 Wind Energy
Wind technology converts the kinetic energy of moving air into electrical energy. Its evaluation requires consideration of the quality and consistency of the wind resource, turbine design, capacity factor, reliability, maintenance requirements, transmission infrastructure and system integration.
Wind resources are geographically variable, and therefore a turbine that performs well in one location may produce significantly different results in another. Wind-speed distribution, turbulence, terrain, temperature and extreme weather conditions can all influence performance.
Social and environmental considerations are equally important. Wind projects can affect landscapes, local communities and biodiversity. Potential effects on birds and bats, noise perceptions, visual characteristics and community acceptance may influence project feasibility. These issues illustrate the importance of integrating technical, environmental and social evaluation rather than treating engineering performance as sufficient evidence for adoption.
13.6 Hydropower
Hydropower has historically played an important role in electricity generation and can provide significant system flexibility. Reservoir-based systems may also provide energy-storage capabilities and contribute to grid balancing.
However, hydropower projects can substantially alter river systems and surrounding ecosystems. Large projects may affect communities, land use, fisheries, sediment movement, water availability and biodiversity. The evaluation of hydropower must therefore distinguish the electricity-generation benefits of a project from its broader ecological and social consequences.
The scale and location of a project are particularly important. A small run-of-river installation and a large reservoir project should not be evaluated using exactly the same assumptions because their environmental footprints, infrastructure requirements and social consequences may differ substantially.
13.7 Energy Storage
Energy storage has become increasingly important as electricity systems incorporate variable renewable resources. Storage can help balance supply and demand, stabilize electricity systems, provide backup capacity and shift electricity availability across time.
Technologies include lithium-ion batteries, flow batteries, pumped-storage hydropower, thermal storage, hydrogen and other emerging storage approaches. Their evaluation should consider energy density, round-trip efficiency, cycle life, degradation, safety, capital cost, maintenance requirements, material requirements, recycling potential and environmental consequences.
Storage technologies should also be evaluated according to their intended function. A technology designed for short-duration frequency regulation may have very different technical and economic requirements from one designed for multi-day energy storage. Consequently, the evaluator should define the problem before comparing technologies.
Moni et al. (2020) emphasize that emerging technologies may contain substantial lifecycle uncertainty because evidence concerning future performance, large-scale manufacturing and end-of-life management may be incomplete. Technology evaluation should therefore explicitly identify evidence gaps rather than presenting uncertain projections as established facts.
13.8 Electric Vehicles
Electric vehicles can reduce direct tailpipe emissions because propulsion does not depend upon internal combustion during operation. However, a comprehensive evaluation must consider the complete vehicle and energy lifecycle.
Relevant factors include vehicle manufacturing, battery production, electricity generation, charging infrastructure, battery degradation, vehicle lifetime, maintenance, battery reuse and recycling, and mineral requirements. The overall environmental profile of an electric vehicle therefore depends partly upon the electricity system from which it obtains energy.
Electric-vehicle evaluation should also include practical considerations such as charging availability, charging duration, driving patterns, grid capacity and consumer behaviour. A technically capable vehicle may provide limited practical value if appropriate charging infrastructure is unavailable to its intended users.
At the system level, widespread electric-vehicle adoption can also affect electricity demand, distribution networks, urban planning and transportation patterns. Electric mobility should therefore be evaluated as part of an interconnected transportation-energy system.
13.9 Hydrogen Technologies
Hydrogen should not be treated as a single technological or environmental category because its characteristics depend heavily upon the pathway through which it is produced. Hydrogen may be produced using different feedstocks, energy sources and industrial processes, each associated with different efficiency characteristics, infrastructure requirements and lifecycle emissions.
Evaluation should therefore identify the production pathway, energy source, conversion efficiency, storage requirements, transportation requirements, leakage considerations, infrastructure needs and lifecycle emissions. Economic feasibility should also be considered because hydrogen systems may require substantial investment in production, storage, transportation and end-use infrastructure.
The evaluation of hydrogen illustrates a general principle of technology assessment: a broad technological label may conceal substantial differences among specific technological configurations. Meaningful evaluation therefore requires the evaluator to define the technology precisely.
13.10 Smart Grids
Smart grids integrate digital technologies with electricity-generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure. Sensors, communications systems, advanced meters, data analytics, automation and artificial intelligence can enable improved monitoring, demand management, distributed generation, predictive maintenance and system flexibility.
However, digitalization also creates new risks. Increasing connectivity can increase cybersecurity exposure, while extensive data collection may create privacy concerns. Automated systems can also introduce risks associated with incorrect algorithms, system failures, software vulnerabilities and inadequate human oversight.
Consequently, smart-grid evaluation must integrate energy technology evaluation with digital technology evaluation, cybersecurity assessment, data governance and human-factors analysis.
The resulting principle can be expressed as:
Energy technology evaluation + digital technology evaluation + cybersecurity evaluation + governance evaluation = comprehensive smart-grid evaluation.
13.11 Energy Efficiency Technologies
Energy-efficiency technologies include efficient lighting systems, building-management systems, heat pumps, efficient motors, industrial controls, intelligent energy-management systems and improved insulation.
The distinction between engineering efficiency and actual energy savings is particularly important. A technology may be designed to consume less energy under controlled conditions but produce smaller savings in practice because of differences in operating conditions, maintenance, user behaviour or increased utilization.
This phenomenon demonstrates the importance of evaluating actual performance rather than relying solely on technical specifications. Post-implementation measurement is therefore essential for determining whether projected energy savings have been achieved.
Technology evaluation should also consider rebound effects, in which improvements in efficiency may alter behaviour or increase the use of a service, potentially reducing some of the expected net savings.
13.12 Energy Performance
Energy technologies can be evaluated using performance indicators appropriate to their particular technological function. Relevant measures may include energy output, conversion efficiency, capacity factor, availability, reliability, degradation, response time and lifecycle energy return.
No single indicator is universally appropriate. For a power-generation technology, capacity factor and availability may be important. For storage, round-trip efficiency, cycle life and response characteristics may be more relevant. For buildings, energy intensity and thermal performance may be important. For industrial systems, energy consumed per unit of production may provide a useful measure.
The evaluator should therefore begin with the purpose of the technology and identify indicators that directly measure whether the technology is achieving that purpose.
13.13 Levelized Cost of Energy
Levelized Cost of Energy, commonly abbreviated as LCOE, provides a method for estimating the average cost of generating electricity over the lifetime of an energy project. It can be useful for comparing certain generation technologies under defined assumptions.
However, LCOE should not be interpreted as a complete technology-evaluation metric. It may not fully capture system integration requirements, grid flexibility, reliability characteristics, transmission investment, environmental externalities, social consequences or energy-security considerations.
A technology with a low calculated LCOE may therefore create additional system costs that are not represented within the basic calculation. Conversely, a technology with a higher LCOE may provide characteristics such as dispatchability, flexibility or resilience that have significant system value.
LCOE should consequently be treated as one economic indicator within a broader multidimensional assessment rather than as a universal technology-selection rule.
13.14 Energy Security
Energy security concerns the ability of a society, organization or infrastructure system to obtain adequate, reliable and affordable energy. Technology evaluation should therefore consider more than immediate cost.
Relevant factors include dependence upon imported fuels, concentration of supply chains, availability of energy resources, infrastructure resilience, geographical diversification, storage capacity and dependence upon critical minerals or specialized components.
A technology may appear economically attractive while increasing dependence upon a small number of suppliers or geographically concentrated resources. Another technology may have higher initial costs while diversifying energy sources and reducing exposure to supply disruptions.
Energy-security evaluation should therefore include both normal operating conditions and disruption scenarios.
13.15 Critical Minerals
Many modern energy technologies depend upon specialized minerals and materials. Batteries, electric vehicles, renewable-energy systems, electronics and electrical infrastructure may all require materials whose production is geographically concentrated or technically complex.
Technology evaluation should therefore consider resource availability, geographical concentration, mining impacts, processing capacity, supply-chain resilience, geopolitical risks and recycling potential.
This reinforces the importance of lifecycle thinking. A technology cannot be regarded as fully sustainable merely because its operational phase has low emissions if its upstream supply chain generates significant environmental or social pressures.
Recycling and material recovery may become increasingly important as technology deployment expands. Circular approaches can potentially reduce dependence upon primary resource extraction and improve long-term material security.
13.16 Climate Technology
Climate technologies may pursue several different objectives. Some technologies are designed primarily to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, while others seek to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Additional technologies aim to help societies adapt to climate-related hazards or strengthen resilience against environmental disruption.
Examples include renewable energy, energy-efficiency systems, electric mobility, carbon-management technologies, climate-resilient infrastructure and precision agriculture.
Evaluation should distinguish mitigation from adaptation. A technology that reduces emissions is addressing a different problem from one that protects infrastructure against flooding, drought or extreme heat. Some technologies may address both objectives, but their evidence requirements and evaluation criteria may differ.
The evaluator should therefore identify the specific climate problem being addressed before assessing technological performance.
13.17 Carbon Capture and Carbon Removal
Carbon capture and carbon-removal technologies require particularly careful lifecycle evaluation. The existence of a carbon-capture process does not by itself demonstrate a particular level of climate benefit.
Evaluation should consider the quantity of carbon captured, the energy required by the process, emissions associated with energy consumption, transportation requirements, storage arrangements, storage permanence, monitoring requirements and overall lifecycle emissions.
The evaluator should also distinguish between gross quantities of carbon captured and net quantities of greenhouse-gas emissions avoided or removed. The distinction is important because a system may capture carbon while consuming energy or resources that create additional emissions elsewhere.
Questions of technological substitution and policy interaction are also relevant. Evaluators may need to consider whether reliance upon a particular carbon-management technology could affect investment in other mitigation strategies. Such questions should be investigated empirically rather than assumed in advance.
13.18 Sustainable Technology
Sustainable technology seeks to contribute to economic development while reducing environmental harm and supporting social wellbeing. Sustainable technology evaluation therefore requires consideration of economic, environmental and social dimensions simultaneously.
The concept is closely connected with the broader sustainable-development framework associated with the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Sustainable development requires attention to present needs while recognizing the needs and interests of future generations.
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals further demonstrate the interconnected nature of technology and development. Energy, poverty, health, education, infrastructure, inequality, responsible consumption and climate action are not independent domains. Technological interventions in one area can generate consequences in another (United Nations, 2015).
Technology evaluation should therefore examine both intended contributions and unintended consequences.
13.19 Circular Economy
A circular economy seeks to reduce dependence upon continuous extraction of finite resources by emphasizing strategies such as reuse, repair, remanufacturing, refurbishment, recycling and product-life extension. Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) describe the circular economy as a regenerative approach intended to reduce resource dependence and waste.
The circular-economy perspective changes the way technology is evaluated. Instead of asking only whether a product works during its intended operational period, evaluators can ask whether the product is designed for durability, repairability, modularity, reuse and material recovery.
Digital technologies provide an important example. Devices that cannot easily be repaired or upgraded may have short effective lifetimes, increasing replacement demand and electronic waste. A more sustainable design may therefore be one that enables component replacement and software support over a longer period.
13.20 Life-Cycle Assessment
Life-Cycle Assessment, or LCA, evaluates environmental impacts across different stages of a product or system's life. Typical stages include raw-material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, deployment, operation, maintenance and end-of-life treatment.
The simplified lifecycle can therefore be represented as:
Raw materials → Manufacturing → Transportation → Deployment → Operation → Maintenance → End of life
ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 provide internationally recognized principles and requirements for life-cycle assessment (ISO, 2006a, 2006b).
LCA is particularly valuable because technological systems may shift environmental burdens from one stage to another. A technology that reduces operating emissions may require additional materials during manufacturing. A system that minimizes waste during production may require more energy during operation. Lifecycle assessment makes such trade-offs more visible.
However, LCA itself depends upon methodological assumptions, system boundaries, datasets and allocation procedures. Consequently, evaluators should report assumptions transparently and recognize uncertainty rather than presenting lifecycle estimates as perfectly precise measurements.
13.21 Carbon Footprint
Carbon assessment should consider both direct and indirect greenhouse-gas emissions. For technology systems, relevant sources may include manufacturing, transportation, electricity consumption, maintenance, infrastructure and disposal.
The distinction between operational and embodied emissions is especially important for digital technologies. Data centres, telecommunications systems, semiconductor manufacturing, computing equipment and network infrastructure all require energy and materials before the user interacts with the technology.
Consequently, the environmental evaluation of digital systems should consider both the energy consumed during operation and the environmental consequences associated with the technological infrastructure itself.
13.22 Water Footprint
Water is another important but sometimes overlooked dimension of technology sustainability. Technologies may require water during manufacturing, cooling, extraction, processing and operation.
Industries such as semiconductor manufacturing, mining, energy generation and data-centre operations can therefore have important water-related considerations. The significance of water use depends upon local water availability, competing demands, seasonal conditions and the quality of water required.
Technology evaluation should consequently examine not only how much water is consumed but also where, when and under what environmental conditions that consumption occurs.
13.23 Electronic Waste
Rapid technological innovation and shortened replacement cycles have contributed to growing electronic-waste challenges. Computers, mobile devices, telecommunications equipment, sensors, batteries and other electronic systems eventually require replacement, repair, reuse or disposal.
Technology evaluation should therefore examine whether products are repairable, whether components can be reused, whether materials can be recovered, whether hazardous substances are present and whether manufacturers or users have practical end-of-life pathways.
Design decisions made at the beginning of the technology lifecycle can strongly influence end-of-life outcomes. Modular design, replaceable components, software support and accessible repair mechanisms can extend product lifetimes and reduce resource consumption.
13.24 Environmental Justice
Environmental impacts are rarely distributed equally across populations. Communities may experience different levels of pollution, resource extraction, land-use change, infrastructure burden and economic benefit.
Environmental justice therefore introduces a distributional dimension into technology evaluation. The evaluator should examine not only the total environmental impact of a technology but also who experiences the benefits and who bears the costs or risks.
This principle is particularly important for large infrastructure projects. Employment opportunities and economic development may provide benefits, while nearby communities may experience land-use changes, noise, ecological disruption or increased infrastructure demands.
Technology evaluation should therefore make distributional consequences visible rather than relying exclusively on aggregate measures.
13.25 Climate Resilience
Technology should not only reduce environmental harm; it should also remain functional under changing environmental conditions. Climate resilience therefore becomes an increasingly important component of technology evaluation.
Infrastructure may need to withstand flooding, extreme heat, drought, storms, sea-level changes or other environmental stresses. Energy systems, telecommunications networks, transportation infrastructure, buildings, agricultural technologies and healthcare systems may all require resilience assessment.
Resilience evaluation should consider the ability to resist disruption, absorb shocks, recover functionality and adapt to changing conditions. A technology that performs exceptionally under normal conditions but fails under foreseeable environmental stress may have limited long-term value.
13.26 Energy Technology Evaluation Framework
Energy technology evaluation can be organized into an integrated multidimensional framework. The technical dimension asks whether the technology performs reliably under realistic operating conditions. This includes efficiency, availability, durability, maintainability and performance under environmental stress.
The economic dimension examines whether lifecycle costs are manageable and whether the technology provides sufficient value relative to realistic alternatives. Evaluation should include capital expenditure, operating expenditure, maintenance, financing, replacement and end-of-life costs.
The energy dimension examines whether the technology provides useful energy in an efficient, reliable and appropriately timed manner. The environmental dimension investigates lifecycle impacts, including emissions, land use, water consumption, material requirements, waste and ecological consequences.
The materials dimension evaluates resource dependence, availability, supply-chain concentration, extraction impacts and recycling possibilities. The social dimension examines who benefits from the technology, who may experience negative consequences and how communities respond to the technology.
The security dimension asks whether the technology strengthens or weakens energy security, including resilience against supply disruption, cyberattack, infrastructure failure and geopolitical instability. The organizational dimension considers whether institutions have the skills, infrastructure, financial capacity and management systems required to operate the technology.
Finally, the governance dimension examines whether appropriate regulatory, safety, environmental and institutional systems are available. Resilience evaluation determines whether the technology can withstand disruption, environmental stress and changing operating conditions.
Taken together, these dimensions form an energy-specific extension of the broader AMTEF approach.
13.27 Case Study: Battery Storage
Consider a large battery-storage facility supporting a renewable-energy system. A narrow evaluation might focus only on storage capacity and cost. A multidimensional evaluation, however, would examine technical, economic, environmental, risk, social and governance dimensions simultaneously.
Technical evaluation would examine storage capacity, round-trip efficiency, cycle life, degradation, response time and system availability. Economic evaluation would include capital expenditure, financing, maintenance, replacement costs and expected operating life. Environmental evaluation would examine material requirements, manufacturing impacts, transportation, energy consumption, recycling and end-of-life management.
Risk evaluation would consider thermal events, fire safety, electrical hazards, software failure, cybersecurity vulnerabilities and operational errors. Social evaluation would examine local impacts, employment, public perceptions, land requirements and community concerns. Governance evaluation would consider applicable safety standards, emergency procedures, environmental requirements, operator responsibilities and regulatory oversight.
The case demonstrates that no single dimension is sufficient. A battery-storage facility can be technically effective but economically unsustainable, economically attractive but difficult to regulate, or environmentally beneficial during operation while creating significant upstream material challenges. AMTEF therefore encourages the evaluator to examine the complete system and make the interactions among dimensions explicit.
13.28 Integrating Energy Evaluation with the AMTEF Model
Energy technology evaluation can be integrated directly into the broader AMTEF architecture. The evaluation begins with the problem or development objective, such as reducing emissions, increasing energy access, improving reliability or reducing operating costs. The evaluator then identifies the relevant technology and defines its boundaries.
Evidence is subsequently collected concerning technical performance, economic characteristics, environmental impacts, organizational requirements, social consequences, risks and regulatory conditions. Stakeholder perspectives are incorporated where the technology affects communities, consumers, workers or other groups.
The evaluator then examines trade-offs. Improving one dimension may create pressures elsewhere. Increasing battery capacity may increase material requirements. Increasing cybersecurity may increase system complexity. Expanding renewable generation may increase requirements for storage or transmission. Reducing capital expenditure may increase maintenance costs.
The purpose of multidimensional evaluation is not necessarily to eliminate every trade-off. Rather, it is to make those trade-offs visible, evidence-based and governable.
13.29 Research Questions
Research into energy and sustainable technologies can investigate a broad range of issues. One important question is how renewable-energy technologies should be evaluated across their complete lifecycle rather than through operational performance alone. Another concerns the limitations of using LCOE as a technology-comparison measure when technologies differ substantially in reliability, flexibility, infrastructure requirements and environmental effects.
Research can also examine how energy security can be incorporated systematically into technology evaluation and how environmental justice can influence assessment frameworks. Another important research area concerns digitalization. Smart grids, artificial intelligence, sensors and automated control systems may improve energy efficiency and system flexibility while simultaneously introducing cybersecurity, privacy and dependency risks.
Further research may investigate how organizations can balance economic objectives with resilience and sustainability, how lifecycle uncertainty should be incorporated into technology decisions, and how emerging technologies should be evaluated when long-term evidence is limited.
13.30 Chapter Summary
Energy technologies must be evaluated as components of broader socio-technical systems rather than as isolated technological artefacts. Their performance depends upon infrastructure, markets, institutions, users, regulations, environmental conditions and organizational capabilities.
Technical performance, economic value, environmental sustainability, resource requirements, energy security, social consequences, governance and resilience are interconnected. A technology may perform strongly in one dimension while creating challenges in another.
Lifecycle analysis is particularly important because operational performance does not necessarily reveal the complete environmental or social impact of a technology. Manufacturing, transportation, infrastructure, maintenance, resource extraction and end-of-life management may significantly influence overall sustainability.
The evaluation of energy technologies should therefore move beyond simple comparisons of efficiency or cost. Tools such as LCOE, LCA and carbon-footprint analysis can provide valuable evidence, but each represents only one component of a multidimensional assessment.
The central lesson of this chapter is that responsible energy technology evaluation requires an integrated understanding of technology, economics, environment, society, security, organizational capacity and governance. This approach is consistent with the broader AMTEF principle that technology decisions should be based on multiple forms of evidence and should explicitly recognize uncertainty, trade-offs and lifecycle consequences.
13.31 Discussion Questions
Why should energy technologies be evaluated as socio-technical systems rather than solely as engineering systems? What limitations arise when LCOE is used as the primary basis for comparing energy technologies? Why is lifecycle assessment important when evaluating technologies whose operational emissions appear low? How does digitalization change the evaluation of modern energy systems? What is environmental justice, and why should distributional consequences be incorporated into energy technology assessment? How should energy security influence decisions be concerning technology adoption? In what ways can critical-mineral dependence affect the long-term sustainability of renewable-energy and storage technologies? How should organizations evaluate the trade-offs between technical efficiency, economic cost, environmental impact and resilience? What additional risks emerge when energy infrastructure becomes increasingly dependent upon software, artificial intelligence and connected digital systems? Finally, how can the AMTEF framework help decision-makers evaluate energy technologies without reducing complex technological decisions to a single numerical indicator?