How the Moon, Mars, and Antarctica Expose Our Grid Blind Spots
It’s a fallacy that ranks among the longstanding utility sector sins: “But we’ve always done it this way.”
Any business that continues with a practice simply because it’s familiar is already falling behind. This tendency leads to lazy thinking, uninspired problem-solving, and missed opportunities in the fast-changing modern energy landscape.
Observers have called out this tendency to stick to entrenched systems for years. When I talk to utility leaders, I often hear quiet acknowledgement that the sector practices a “race to second place”—they generally don’t want to be the ones breaking new ground. But once another utility crosses that new territory? They want in.
This approach to innovation is inherently limiting. This thought struck me as I recently watched the Artemis II mission take off my back porch (one of the benefits of living under an hour from the Kennedy Space Center).
Not only was I inspired by the space program’s ability to imagine the impossible and shoot for the (literal) stars, but my mind also gravitated towards energy systems. How will we sustain power systems on those eventual lunar settlements enabled by Artemis?
One thing is certain: Those systems will not be designed around the constraints of “this is how we’ve always done it.”
And that sparked a broader thought experiment: Where in the world (or universe) are energy generation and transmission systems being built without the baggage of legacy assumptions? And what can we learn from them?
Going from the least to most remote…
Non-electrified regions of Africa
Current practices:
Across Africa, 600 million people remain without access to electricity.Without power, these communities are held back from the next modernization leaps.
Efforts to power these regions have drawn significant international investment, and for years the default approach was replicating what works in modernized economies: Grid expansion and integration. But doing so creates economic, engineering, and regulatory challenges.
So developers are also integrating mini-grids and standalone systems. These tools are increasingly seen as complementary, each with its own role to play in a blend of solutions built around hyper-local realities.
What the legacy US grid can learn:
One-size-fits-all thinking does not match the diversity of energy needs across geographies and demographics, especially across the vast US grid. Today, localized generation mixes demonstrate this nature (i.e. hydropower dominating where it’s available in the Pacific Northwest vs. wind in the Midwest). But we still have room to go further and tailor grid tech and priorities based on regional characteristics like climate and natural resources.
Ocean-bound Infrastructure
Current practices:
Until someone confirms that Atlantis has a power grid, the most relevant sea-based frontier? Floating data centers.
This concept would place data centers in the middle of the ocean and power them with wave energy. Even more eyebrow-raising, they do the computing at sea and beam the results to satellites, no power or data tethers to land.
What the legacy US grid can learn:
The clear lesson: Use what’s around you! Why should we expect grid-tied power to run these floating data centers? In that same vein, why would we expect consistent energy solutions across Texas and Vermont? Different locations come with unique natural advantages—an efficient energy strategy reflects that fact.
What this project also demonstrates: reframing the actual problem. Rather than asking ‘How do we expand the grid to meet power needs?’ they ask ‘How do we power the computing load effectively?’ The more effective answer may be reimagining what’s actually needed!
Antarctica
Current practices:
The frosty continent’s research stations typically run via on-site generation, largely because building a costly grid across that vast, harsh environment isn’t worthwhile.
The majority of that power comes from diesel fuel, though more recently we’ve seen a push to add wind, solar, and storage. After all, transporting fuel to Antarctica is incredibly expensive and prone to interruptions.
What the legacy US grid can learn:
The lesson is simple: Diversify at the grid edge. By avoiding overreliance on a single fuel source, energy systems reduce risk. And by building more localized, islandable systems closer to end use, you improve resilience.
That’s not to say any US region should copy Antarctica’s hardware, but instead mimic its grid operating philosophy—small, modular, fuel-flexible, locally controlled, and built to fail gracefully.
The Moon…and beyond
Current practices:
The Artemis mission was meant to take a critical step toward establishing a permanent human presence on the moon, which requires energy. So, what is NASA planning?
In early 2026, DOE and NASA announced their aim to develop a nuclear fission system on the Moon, which would also include nuclear reactors in orbit. The appeal is obvious, as these systems are low-maintenance with minimal refueling and high energy density.
DOE has also been mapping out microgrid plans for the lunar surface, including solar arrays away from central hubs and even small robotic vehicles (CubeRovers) that can physical carry payload (including charged batteries) to where the energy is needed.
What the legacy US grid can learn:
The lesson for our terrestrial grid is straightforward: Once again, we can’t assume that the familiar answer is the best one. And we need to apply technology where it actually fits best.
For example, lunar engineers recognized the unique benefit of vertical-facing solar panels that can almost always be rotated to receive sunlight on the Moon, as well as the opportunity to move payload easier thanks to reduced gravity. But if these innovators were locked into “this is how a power system works,” they’d miss these creative solutions.
And looking ahead…
While the Moon is the proving ground, it’s not the final destination. Ultimate expansion to Mars will prove that there is always another frontier with different rules. Mars’ lower solar flux, higher gravity, and intense wind separate it notably from the lunar environment…emphasizing that the farther we go, scaled-up versions of what came before becomes less valuable than purpose-built responses to unique environments.
In Sum…
If we had a magic wand and could design the US grid from scratch, it would (of course) not look exactly like the one we have today. What currently exists is the result of decades of layered decisions that were perfectly rational for the time and place they were made.
But that does not mean we should stop questioning the baseline assumptions behind why “we’ve always done it that way.”
We still have a chance to pause, think differently, and plan for the future with a clean sheet of paper. So, don’t just think outside the box. It’s time to rethink the box itself, why it exists…and whether we need it at all.