EnergyFest 2026 – Make-or-break'ers for the energy transition – brainstorm results

At EnergyFest, we didn’t just want to talk about the energy transition — we wanted to get the insights of the participants on what can be a ‘maker’ or a ‘breaker’ for the transition. During four parallel brainstorm sessions, participants explored what could truly make or break progress in the coming 5–10 years. Each group focused on one critical theme and worked together with an expert to identify the single biggest barriers that could block progress. First, participants defined the most urgent obstacles. From this collective input, the expert selected three key barriers to work on in depth. The challenge? Not only to name the problems, but to define concrete, viable solutions. 

The four themes reflected some of pressure points in today’s transition debate: 

• Critical raw materials & supply chains: securing access to essential materials in a volatile geopolitical context while strengthening circularity – Led by Célestin Demuytere (Engineer at the Department of Green Chemistry and Technology at Ghent University) 

• Data, AI & energy: unlocking the potential of AI for energy systems without driving up demand or undermining trust – Led by Erik Mannens (AI strategist at Howest and author of the book Sustainable AI) 

• Industrial transition & competitiveness: reconciling decarbonisation with Europe’s industrial strength – led by Frederick Loeckx (Managing Director at Flux50)  

• Inclusive & affordable transition: Renovation, heat pumps, clean mobility, …Who can pay? And who benefits? – Led by Sam Hamels (Energy Economics expert at Ghent University)   

Below, we summarise the key barriers and solution directions identified during the sessions. 

1. Critical raw materials & supply chains 

This group’s discussion revolved around how Europe can move from dependency to strategic resilience. The emphasis was not only on securing access to materials, but also on redesigning value chains to embed circularity, cooperation and long-term geopolitical foresight.  

Barrier 1: Lack of circular ecodesign 

Products are not designed to last, be repaired, or be taken apart easily, which locks Europe into “buy–use–discard” supply chains and ongoing demand for virgin materials. 

Solution: Companies should implement take-back schemes to ensure products and materials return into controlled loops. Firms can shift to product-as-a-service models that incentivise durability, maintenance, and reuse. Industry should design circular systems that keep materials at higher value for longer. Decision-makers should explicitly recognise and account for the strategic value of materials, not only the product price. Products should be designed to be modular to enable repair, upgrading, and easier disassembly. Regions should upscale and professionalise repair shops to make repair convenient and affordable. 

Barrier 2: Challenging geopolitical situation 

Europe is exposed to supply disruptions and price shocks because critical raw materials are concentrated in a few countries and can be influenced by trade restrictions, conflict, or strategic competition. 

Solution: The EU should use tariffs and public tenders to steer markets towards secure and responsible supply chains and should tighten border measures for strategically sensitive materials where that is justified for security and resilience. Europe should develop a long-term geopolitical strategy that anticipates major players’ actions (including China) thus avoiding short-term, reactive policies, and should rebuild or expand key industrial capacity (“new make” industry) to reduce strategic dependencies. 

Barrier 3: Recycling constraints (e.g. infra, environmental pollution, permitting) 

Europe’s shift from linear to circular remains incremental because products are still hard to recycle, recycling capacity and permitting/infrastructure lag behind, financing is insufficient, and decisions are often made without a system-wide (life-cycle) view—leading to pollution risks and burden shifting. 

Solution: Europe should accelerate a genuinely large-scale shift from linear to circular systems, beyond incremental improvements. Products should be designed and regulated for recyclability so recycling becomes simpler and cleaner. Life cycle assessment should be used to steer choices towards solutions that reduce total impacts, not just shift burdens. Green bonds and other finance tools should be used to fund recycling infrastructure and circular value chains at scale. 

The key take away: Europe can build strategic resilience in critical raw materials by combining circular value chain design, long-term geopolitical strategy, and scaled, high-quality recycling. 

2. Data, AI & energy 

The discussions in this group showed both excitement and caution. AI is seen as a powerful enabler for optimising grids, forecasting demand and accelerating innovation, but only if structural barriers are addressed. 

Barrier 1: Energy availability Current AI systems already require vast amounts of electricity, and growing digitalisation risks increasing overall energy demand for both AI training and& inference further.    

Solution: In the short term, decentralise energy production to reduce bottlenecks. In the mid-term, strengthen interconnectivity across regions. In the long term, deploy AI-driven demand response systems to dynamically balance supply and demand, ensuring that AI becomes part of the solution rather than the problem. 

Barrier 2: Infrastructure limitations Europe lacks sufficient critical infrastructure and remains dependent on non-European tech actors. 

Solution: Mobilise EU capital for strategic infrastructure investments and establish a strong European community around cloud, AI and grid development. Introduce regulatory and fiscal mechanisms (including a flat fair taxation of big tech across all EU countries) to protect critical infrastructure from excessive concentration of power and to reinvest value into European systems. 

Barrier 3: Trust & willingness to share data Participants highlighted a fundamental issue: people and organisations do not know why or how to share data safely. There is limited transparency about benefits, confidentiality and security. 

Solution: Develop bottom-up data-sharing platforms led by local communities or trusted intermediaries. Ensure transparency about how data is handled and anonymised. The aim: enable local data sharing where value is created, while aggregating anonymised insights at higher levels to benefit the wider system. 

The key takeaway: technology is not the main bottleneck. Governance, infrastructure and trust are. 

3. Industrial transition & competitiveness 

The brainstorm on Industrial Transition & Competitiveness kicked off with a brief reflection on why this session had received a “grey coloured card.” We started by discussing why industry is still so often perceived as grey, traditional, polluting, and conservative, rather than colourful, innovative, and future-oriented. 

Barrier 1: Limited consumer willingness to pay for green products 

Solution:  In need of more/better marketing campaigns: for instance, use strategic promotion that highlights the small extra cost for sustainable features, like just 100 euros for a car made with green steel, while showcasing the environmental impact and aspirational appeal of choosing green. Make green sexy! 

We also touched upon the role of public procurement and the growing obligation to include green criteria in auctions and tenders. By requiring sustainable or low-carbon products in bidding procedures, governments can actively steer the market towards greener solutions. These obligations not only create demand for innovative products, but also strengthen the competitiveness of companies that invest in sustainability. 

Barrier 2: High aversion to risk (typical European/Belgian/Flemish mindsets) 

Solution: We highlighted education (education education education!) as a crucial lever to tackle risk aversion. By fostering entrepreneurial thinking from an early age and normalizing failure as an inherent part of the innovation process, the group believed mindsets can gradually shift toward a more opportunity-driven culture. 

We also agreed that this goes beyond formal education. While embedding entrepreneurship, creativity, and problem-solving in school curricula is essential, the broader societal narrative matters just as much. In our discussion, we emphasized that media, including TV programs, podcasts, and role models on “Tiktok & others” can help reshape perceptions by showcasing entrepreneurs and innovators, as well as stories where failure ultimately led to growth and success. 

Teach young people to take the risk! 

Barrier 3: Energy costs 

Solution: Rather than focusing on state-supported energy prices, the group emphasized a more immediate and pragmatic solution: making full use of what already exists. There is already a wealth of renewable energy solutions (e.g. PV installations, wind capacity, batteries, load-balancing systems,…) and companies need to actively put these tools to work. 

Barrier 4: Complexity and fragmentation of regulations 

Solution: The group suggested that this could be overcome by creating more uniform and harmonized rules across Europe, Belgium, and Flanders. Clearer, consistent regulations would reduce administrative burden, provide certainty for investments, and enable companies to focus more on innovation and competitiveness. Alongside this, the group also saw value in a more flexible and accessible approach (regulation wise) to starting a business. Making it easier to launch and grow ventures is an effective way to drive industrial transition and enhance competitiveness. 

The discussion made clear that the industrial transition should not be framed as a burden, but as a strategic opportunity. The group explored how the European Clean Industrial Deal could align decarbonisation with innovation leadership, investment stability and long-term competitiveness. 

4. Inclusive & affordable transition 

This group explored how the energy transition can be made fair and accessible for everyone, not just those with capital, property or technical know-how. The discussion centered on ensuring that climate policy does not deepen existing inequalities, and that the benefits of the transition are shared broadly across society. 

Barrier 1: Low-income tenants cannot switch heating systems and risk being penalised by ETS2 

Tenants, particularly those with lower incomes, have no control over the heating systems in their homes. They cannot decide to install a heat pump or improve insulation – those decisions rest with landlords, who often lack sufficient incentive to invest. Yet under the upcoming ETS2 carbon pricing system, it is tenants who will bear the cost of higher fossil fuel prices, despite having no ability to avoid them (other than turning down the heating). 

Solution: Policy should further strengthen incentives for landlords to invest in energy-efficient heating and insulation, for example through targeted subsidies, favourable loan conditions, or minimum energy performance standards for rental properties. Some incentives are already in place today, for example the regulation stating that rent can only be “indexed” if the home meets certain energy efficiency criteria.  

At the same time, ETS2 revenues should be redistributed in a way that accounts for income differences – ensuring that the burden does not fall disproportionately on those least able to pay or to act. Making carbon pricing income-dependent, or channelling revenues into direct support for vulnerable households, can help maintain social legitimacy while preserving, for non-vulnerable households, the incentive to reduce emissions. 

Barrier 2: Spatial choices lock people into unsustainable transport needs 

Many households have settled in locations – often suburban or rural – where car dependency is effectively unavoidable. Public transport is limited, cycling infrastructure may be absent, and essential services are far away. These spatial patterns are deeply entrenched and cannot be reversed overnight, yet they drive persistent emissions and high mobility costs. 

Solution: Fiscal policy could more actively incentivize sustainable spatial choices and urban lifestyles. This could include differentiated taxation on housing or mobility based on location and accessibility, as well as investment in public transport and active mobility infrastructure in underserved areas. The goal is not to punish people for past choices, but to gradually shift incentives so that sustainable choices become more attractive and accessible over time – while providing transitional support for those currently locked into car-dependent situations. 

Barrier 3: Information overload and low digestibility of guidance 

Households are confronted with a bewildering array of options, subsidies, technologies and regulations. Even motivated citizens struggle to understand what steps to take, in what order, and which support schemes apply to their situation. This complexity leads to decision paralysis, delays, and missed opportunities. 

Solution: Trusted, community-based guidance can cut through the noise. Local energy communities, neighbourhood coaches, or municipal one-stop shops can offer personalised advice that narrows down the options to what is relevant and feasible for each household. Rather than expecting citizens to navigate the full complexity themselves, these intermediaries translate policy into actionable steps – building trust and lowering the threshold for participation in the transition. 

The key takeaway of the session: The transition will only succeed if it is socially legitimate. Affordability, simplicity and fairness must be embedded in policy design from the start, not as afterthoughts. This means not only providing financial support, but also rethinking governance models to actively involve citizens and communities in shaping solutions that work for them.