Clay Seigle has joined the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Photo by Douglas Rissing. Courtesy of Getty Images.
Houston-based energy industry analyst Clay Seigle has joined the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) as a senior fellow and the James R. Schlesinger Chair for Energy and Geopolitics in the Energy Security and Climate Change (ESCC) Program.
“I’m honored to join CSIS as Senior Fellow and the James R. Schlesinger Chair for Energy and Geopolitics,” Seigle said in a news release. “In a time of unprecedented change in global energy markets, CSIS is uniquely positioned to advance policies that promote security, resilience, and innovation. I look forward to working alongside Joseph (Majkut, director of the Energy Security and Climate Change Program) and our outstanding colleagues to deliver impactful research and expand CSIS’s engagement with stakeholders in Washington and Houston.”
Seigle most recently served as director of Global Oil at Rapidan Energy Group, a D.C.-based independent energy analysis firm. At REG, he provided expert analysis on oil market forecasts and geopolitical scenarios to government and private sector stakeholders. He has also held leadership and analysis roles at organizations including Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), the U.S. Department of Energy, Enron and others. He specializes in market intelligence, global energy security and political risk.
Seigle is a board member of the Houston Committee on Foreign Relations and chairs its Finance Committee. He is also a former vice president of the U.S. Association for Energy Economics. He holds a master’s degree in international relations (Middle East) and economics from Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a bachelor’s degree in government from the University of Texas at Austin.
The ESCC’s work has focused on developing diverse energy resources for the U.S. and providing leaders with insights on how to address challenges like climate change. According to CSIS, the ESCC program recently launched an Economic Security and Technology Department that aims to tackle topics like using artificial intelligence to maintain energy security.
“Our longstanding energy program is a centerpiece of our department’s work on the drivers of U.S. economic security in an era of technology competition,” Navin Girishankar, president of the CSIS Economic Security and Technology Department, said in a news release. “Clay’s deep understanding of energy markets and energy security will be an asset to CSIS leadership on these issues in the years to come. We are delighted that he is joining our team at a critical time for U.S. economic security policy.”
Nuclear could be a powerful tool to address rising greenhouse-gas emissions. But to get there, the industry needs to raise its game. Photo via Pexels
I argued previously that nuclear power can help the world deal with two related challenges: energy security and climate change. I still think that is the case.
McKinsey & Company, where I worked for more than 30 years, also recently turned to the topic. The authors agreed that nuclear can play a significant role in decarbonization, and noted that there were some encouraging trends, even in markets, such as the United States, where new plants are thin on the ground. And then the authors asked a critical question: “Can the industry reverse the trend of exceeding budgets and timelines while scaling up fast enough to rise to the climate challenge?”
That query got me thinking. To me, the case for nuclear is clear and compelling. Given that electricity demand could triple by 2050, the need for low-emission and constant power is acute. Nuclear fits that bill. Other sources either emit much more (coal, gas, oil) or are intermittent (wind, solar). Little new hydro is being built. Nothing else is at anything like scale.
But clearly, nuclear has not carried the day, particularly in Europe, Japan, and the United States. These markets are, at best, wary of nuclear power. They are willing to invest some money in next-generation technologies or maybe to extend an operating license. But they are not doing much about the conditions that make new construction so costly and difficult.
For that to happen, I think we need to go deeper—to change mindsets among two very different sets of players.
Anti-nuclear green activists. As the Rolling Stones wisely noted, “You can’t always get what you want.” To deal with something as complicated and wide-ranging as climate change, there will be trade-offs. But if you want reliable power and lower emissions and if you don’t want thousands of square miles of land coated with wind and solar farms, something has to give.
Consider France. It gets more than two-thirds of its power from nuclear, which is a huge part of the reason it ranks 60th in the world in per capita carbon-dioxide emissions (4.46 tons), a much better performance than global peers like Japan (8.5), Belgium (8.1), Germany (7.9), and Austria (7.3). Those four countries have all dialed back on nuclear. Here is the Austrian energy minister, Leonore Gewessler: “The attempt to declare nuclear energy as sustainable and renewable must be resolutely opposed.”
If the goal is to reduce emissions, though, why should that be the case? Well, one response is that championing nuclear power could reduce investment in renewables. But again, if the goal is to reduce emissions, then why not embrace technologies that do exactly that? Whether nuclear can be considered “renewable” seems to me to be almost a theological question, not a technical one. And certainly not a useful one. The goal should not be X or Y percent of renewables, but how to promote an energy transition that delivers reliable, low-emission power. Somehow that point is lost, or dismissed. Instead, major environmental groups such as the Sierra Club (“unequivocally opposed”), Greenpeace (“say no to new nukes”), the Climate Action Network Europe, the European Environmental Bureau (“We advocate for an exit from nuclear energy”) and so on don’t see a place for nuclear.
The mindset shift needed among these and other green groups is to see nuclear as one component of a diversified energy system that can be part of the climate solution, and then to turn their considerable power and creativity toward convincing the public. I just don’t see how shutting down nuclear plants before their time, and replacing them with higher-emissions sources, as is often the case, helps to reduce emissions.
I am not holding my breath on this, but stranger things have happened. Heck, nuclear has found an unlikely advocate in film-maker Oliver Stone. His new documentary, “Nuclear,” argues that the public “has been trained, from the very beginning, to fear nuclear power. The very thing that we fear is what may save us.”
Nuclear could be a powerful tool to address rising greenhouse-gas emissions. But to get there, the industry needs to raise its game. Stone’s nuclear-could-save-us scenario would be likelier if the industry made a better case for itself. Not in safety or reliability, where its record is remarkably good, but in frustration and economics. The stereotype of huge delays and budget over-runs is no myth. Georgia is the only US state building plants, and they are both running years and billions beyond the initial projections.
Granted, some things are beyond the industry’s control: legal challenges plus complex and shifting regulation add up. Some countries clearly do better than others on this. South Korea, for example, gets a third of its power from nuclear, is building three more plants, and is expanding its export market. It will be interesting to see if it could develop something like a nuclear assembly line that drives down its costs, which are already much lower than in the United States.
Like any other sector, nuclear needs to excel at competitiveness, cost control, and innovation—and it hasn’t. In the United States, the typical template has been to build really big plants, each unique, and each very expensive because of the size. The McKinsey report noted a number of things that the industry itself could do better, such as learning and applying best practices for large-scale projects; establishing standard designs; and using modular construction techniques. US construction productivity has stagnated for decades; the use of digitization and automation could help.
There are reasons to believe that the industry is improving. A cluster of companies is developing smaller, salt-cooled reactors; these are cheaper and safer. In January 2023, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified NuScale’s small modular reactor that uses natural water circulation, obviating the need for pumps and thus lowering capital costs. Compared to the 1,000 MW Georgia plants, NuScale’s are about 77MW, but can be added onto. No such plants have been built yet in the United States, though; advanced fission and fusion are even further away. So at the moment, this is all about potential. As one Department of Energy official put it, “It becomes truly real when electrons go on the grid.”
McKinsey concluded: “We believe a nuclear scale-up is achievable. It’s time for the industry to meet the challenge.” I agree,
Nuclear could be a powerful tool to address rising greenhouse-gas emissions. But to get there, the industry needs to raise its game. And it could use a little help from its enemies.
A team of students from the University of Houston have placed in the top three teams for a national competition for the Department of Energy.
The inaugural American-Made Carbon Management Collegiate Competition, hosted by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, or FECM, tasked the student teams with "proposing regional carbon networks capable of transporting at least one million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year from industrial sources," according to a news release from DOE.
“With this competition, DOE hopes to inspire the next generation of carbon management professionals to develop carbon dioxide transport infrastructure that will help drive technological innovation and emissions reductions, new regional economic development, and high-wage employment for communities across the United States,” Brad Crabtree, assistant secretary of fossil energy and carbon management at DOE, says in the release.
GreenHouston, the University of Houston team mentored by Assistant Professor Jian Shi from the UH Cullen College of Engineering, took third place in the competition, securing a $5,000 cash prize. Sequestration Squad of University of Michigan secured first place and $12,000 and Biggest Little Lithium of the University of Nevada won second and a $8,000 prize.
The UH team's proposal was for an optimized carbon dioxide transportation pipeline for the Houston area. The presentation included cost analysis, revenue potential, safety considerations, weather hazards, and social impact on neighboring communities, according to a release from UH.
“We chose the greater Houston metropolitan area as our target transition area because it is a global hub of the hydrocarbon energy industry,” says Fatemeh Kalantari, team leader, in the release.
“Our team was committed to delivering an optimized and cost-effective carbon dioxide transfer plan in the Houston area, with a focus on safety, environmental justice, and social engagement,” she continues. “Our goal is to ensure the health and safety of the diverse population residing in Houston by mitigating the harmful effects of carbon dioxide emissions from refineries and industries in the area, thus avoiding environmental toxicity.”
With the third place win, GreenHouston will get to present their proposal at DOE’s annual Carbon Management Research Project Review Meeting slated for August.
"We are thrilled to see the exceptional work and dedication displayed by the GreenHouston team in this competition," said Ramanan Krishnamoorti, vice president of energy and innovation at UH. "The team’s innovative proposal exemplifies UH’s commitment to addressing the pressing global issue of carbon management and advancing sustainable practices. We wish the students continued success."
The team included four Cullen College of Engineering doctoral students from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering – Kalantari, Massiagbe Diabate, Steven Chen, and Simon Peter Nsah Abongmbo – and one student, Bethel O. Mbakaogu, pursuing his master’s degree in supply chain and logistics technology.
The prize money will go toward funding additional research, refining existing technologies, addressing remaining challenges and raising awareness of CCUS and its project, according to the release, as the team feels a responsibility to continue to work on the GreenHouston project.
“The energy landscape by 2050 will be characterized by reduced greenhouse gas emissions, cleaner air quality, and a more sustainable environment,” Kalantari says. “The transition to green energy will not only mitigate the harmful effects of carbon dioxide on climate change but also create new jobs, promote economic growth, and enhance energy security. This is important, and we want to be part of it.”
The team of students plans to continue to work on the GreenHouston project. Photo courtesy
People in the energy industry don’t have the Oscars. For us, the big event of the year is CERAWeek — a conference stuffed with CEOs, top policymakers, and environmental and energy wonks held annually in March.
CERAWeek 2022, with the theme“Pace of Change: Energy, Climate, and Innovation," meant the return of in-person activations, panels, and networking. Walking and talking between sessions and around the coffee table, it occurred to me that the unofficial theme of the event was “Maybe now we can find middle ground on energy.” This idea came up time and time again, from all kinds of people.
As with too many other issues, the discussion of the future of US energy has become polarized. On one end of the spectrum are those who want everything renewable and/or electrified by ….. last week, whatever the cost. Their mantra for fossil fuels: “Keep them in the ground.”
On the other end, are those who dismiss climate change, saying we can always adapt and that it doesn’t much matter, anyway. Just keep digging and drilling and mining as we have always done. And in the middle are the great majority of Americans who are not passionate either way, but want to be responsible consumers, and also to be able to visit grandma without breaking the bank.
I believe that the transition toward an energy system that is cleaner and less reliant on fossil fuels is realand will ultimately bring substantial benefits. At the same time, I believe that energy security and economics also matter. At a time when inflation was already running high, paying an average of $4.25 a gallon at the pump is piling pain on tens of millions of US households. Ultimately, over decades, the use of electric vehicles will reduce the need for oil and that lower-emissions sources, including renewables, will provide a larger share of the power supply, which today depends largely on gas and coal. But that moment is not now, or next week. Indeed, fossil fuels continue to account for almost 80 percent of US primary energy consumption, and a similar figure globally.
Here is one way to think about the interplay between the energy transition and energy security: “We need an energy strategy for the future—an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.” No, that isn’t some apologist for Big Oil; it was President Obama. In 2014, the Obama White House also noted the role of US domestic oil and gas production in enhancing economic resilience and reducing vulnerability to oil shocks. In short, the White House argued, US oil and gas production can bring real benefits for the country. I think that is still true.
Does that mean throwing in the towel on the energy transition and climate change? Absolutely not. There are a variety of ways to pursue the goal of reducing emissions and eventually getting to net-zero emissions. I’ve touched on many of them in previous posts—including reducing methane emissions,pricing carbon, hydrogen, renewables, electric vehicles, urban planning, carbon capture, and negative emissions technologies. In other words, an “all of the above strategy” makes sense in this regard, too.
I don’t know how, or if, a middle ground can be captured. But from what I heard at CERAWeek last year, from people of otherwise widely divergent views, there just may be momentum to get there. A middle-ground consensus rests on three premises. First, we need fossil fuels for energy security and reliability now and until the time when technologies are in place to secure the energy transition. Second, at the same time, we need to be investing in the energy transition because climate change is real and matters. And third, for sustained and systematic progress, government and industry need to work together.
Houston maintained its No. 3 status this year among U.S. metro areas with the most Fortune 500 headquarters. Fortune magazine tallied 26 Fortune 500 headquarters in the Houston area, behind only the New York City area (62) and the Chicago area (30).
Last year, 23 Houston-area companies landed on the Fortune 500 list. Fortune bases the list on revenue that a public or private company earns during its 2024 budget year.
On the Fortune 500 list for 2025, Spring-based ExxonMobil remained the highest-ranked company based in the Houston area as well as in Texas, sitting at No. 8 nationally. That’s down one spot from its No. 7 perch on the 2024 list. During its 2024 budget year, ExxonMobil reported revenue of $349.6 billion, up from $344.6 billion the previous year.
Here are the rankings and 2024 revenue for the 25 other Houston-area companies that made this year’s Fortune 500:
Nationally, the top five Fortune 500 companies are:
Walmart
Amazon
UnitedHealth Group
Apple
CVS Health
“The Fortune 500 is a literal roadmap to the rise and fall of markets, a reliable playbook of the world's most important regions, services, and products, and an indispensable roster of those companies' dynamic leaders,” Anastasia Nyrkovskaya, CEO of Fortune Media, said in a news release.
Among the states, Texas ranks second for the number of Fortune 500 headquarters (54), preceded by California (58) and followed by New York (53).
Three Houston companies claimed spots on LexisNexis's 10 Most Innovative Startups in Texas report, with two working in the geothermal energy space.
Sage Geosystems claimed the No. 3 spot on the list, and Fervo Energy followed closely behind at No. 5. Fintech unicorn HighRadius rounded out the list of Houston companies at No. 8.
LexisNexis Intellectual Property Solutions compiled the report. It was based on each company's Patent Asset Index, a proprietary metric from LexisNexis that identifies the strength and value of each company’s patent assets based on factors such as patent quality, geographic scope and size of the portfolio.
Houston tied with Austin, each with three companies represented on the list. Caris Life Sciences, a biotechnology company based in Dallas, claimed the top spot with a Patent Asset Index more than 5 times that of its next competitor, Apptronik, an Austin-based AI-powered humanoid robotics company.
“Texas has always been fertile ground for bold entrepreneurs, and these innovative startups carry that tradition forward with strong businesses based on outstanding patent assets,” Marco Richter, senior director of IP analytics and strategy for LexisNexis Intellectual Property Solutions, said in a release. “These companies have proven their innovation by creating the most valuable patent portfolios in a state that’s known for game-changing inventions and cutting-edge technologies.We are pleased to recognize Texas’ most innovative startups for turning their ideas into patented innovations and look forward to watching them scale, disrupt, and thrive on the foundation they’ve laid today.”
This year's list reflects a range in location and industry. Here's the full list of LexisNexis' 10 Most Innovative Startups in Texas, ranked by patent portfolios.
Fervo Energy fully contracted its flagship 500 MW geothermal development, Cape Station, this spring. Cape Station is currently one of the world’s largest enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) developments, and the station will begin to deliver electricity to the grid in 2026. The company was recently named North American Company of the Year by research and consulting firm Cleantech Group and came in at No. 6 on Time magazine and Statista’s list of America’s Top GreenTech Companies of 2025. It's now considered a unicorn, meaning its valuation as a private company has surpassed $1 billion.
Meanwhile, HighRadius announced earlier this year that it plans to release a fully autonomous finance platform for the "office of the CFO" by 2027. The company reached unicorn status in 2020.
The climate conversation is evolving — fast. It’s no longer just about emissions targets and net-zero commitments. It’s about capital, infrastructure, and execution at industrial scale.
That’s exactly where Yao Huang operates. A seasoned tech entrepreneur turned climate investor, Yao brings sharp clarity to one of the biggest challenges in climate innovation: how do we fund and scale technologies that remove carbon without relying on goodwill or government subsidies?
In this episode of the Energy Tech Startups Podcast, Yao sits down with hosts Jason Ethier and Nada Ahmed for a wide-ranging conversation that redefines how we think about decarbonization. From algae-based photobioreactors that capture CO₂ at the smokestack, to financing models that mirror real estate and infrastructure—not venture capital—Yao lays out a case for why the climate fight will be won or lost on spreadsheets, not slogans.
Her message is as bold as it is practical: this isn’t about saving the planet for the sake of it. It’s about building profitable, resilient systems that scale. And Houston, with its industrial base and project finance expertise, is exactly the place to do it.
The 40-Gigaton Challenge—and a Pandemic Pivot
Yao’s entry into climate wasn’t part of a long-term plan. It was sparked by a quiet moment during the pandemic—and a book.
Reading How to Avoid a Climate Disaster by Bill Gates, she came to two uncomfortable realizations:
The people in power don’t actually have this figured out, and
She would be alive to suffer the consequences.
That insight jolted her out of the traditional tech world and into climate action. She studied at Stanford, surrounded herself with mentors, and began diving into early-stage climate deals. But she quickly realized that most of the solutions she was seeing were still years away from commercialization.
So she narrowed her focus: no R&D moonshots, no science experiments—just deployable solutions that could scale now.
Carbon Optimum: Where Algae Meets Infrastructure
That’s how she found Carbon Optimum, a company using algae photobioreactors to remove CO₂ directly from industrial emissions. Their approach is both elegant and economic:
Install algae reactors next to major emitters like coal and cement plants.
Feed the algae with flue gas, allowing it to absorb CO₂ in a controlled system.
Harvest the algae and convert it into valuable commodities like bio-oils, fertilizer, and food ingredients.
It’s a nature-based solution, enhanced by engineering. One acre of tanks can capture emissions and generate profit—without subsidies.
“This is one of the few solutions I’ve seen that can scale profitably and quickly,” Yao says. “And we’re not inventing anything new—we’re just doing it better.”
The Real Problem? It’s Capital, Not Carbon
As an investor, Yao is blunt: most climate startups are misaligned with the capital markets.
They’re following a tech startup playbook—built for SaaS, not steel. But building climate infrastructure requires a completely different approach: project finance, blended capital, debt structures, carbon credit integration, and regulatory incentives.
“Climate tech is more like real estate or healthcare than software,” Yao explains. “You don’t raise six rounds of venture. You build a stack—grants, equity, debt, tax credits—and you structure your project like infrastructure.”
It’s not just theory. It’s exactly how Carbon Optimum is expanding—through partnerships, offtake agreements, and real-world deployments. And it’s why she believes many climate startups fail: they don’t speak the language of finance.
Houston’s Role in the Climate Capital Stack
For Yao, Houston isn’t just a backdrop—it’s a strategic asset.
The city’s deep bench of project finance professionals, commodity traders, lawyers, and infrastructure veterans makes it uniquely positioned to lead the deployment phase of climate solutions.
“We’ve been calling it the wrong thing,” she says. “This isn’t just about climate—it’s an energy transition. And Houston knows how to build energy infrastructure at scale.”
Still, she notes, the ecosystem needs to evolve. Less education, more execution. Fewer workshops, more closers.
“Houston could be the epicenter of this movement—if we activate the right people and get the right projects over the line.”
From Carbon Capture to Circular Economies
The potential applications of Carbon Optimum’s algae platform go beyond carbon capture. Because the output—algae biomass—can be converted into:
Renewable oil
High-efficiency fertilizers (critical in today’s geopolitically fragile supply chains)
Food ingredients rich in protein and nutrients
Even biochar, a highly stable form of carbon sequestration
It’s scalable, modular, and location-agnostic. In island nations, Yao notes, these systems can offer energy independence by turning waste CO₂ into local energy and fertilizer—without needing to import fuels or food.
“It’s not just emissions reduction. It’s economic sovereignty through circular systems.”
Doing, Not Just Talking
One of Yao’s key takeaways for founders? Don’t waste time. Climate startups don’t have the luxury of trial-and-error cycles stretched over years.
“Founders need to get real about what it takes to scale: talent, capital, storytelling, partnerships. If you’re not ready to do that, maybe you should be a CSO, not a CEO.”
She also points out that founders don’t need to hire everyone—they need to tap the right networks. And in cities like Houston, those networks exist—if you know how to motivate them.
“It takes a different kind of leadership. You’re not just raising money—you’re moving people.”
Why This Episode Matters
This conversation is for anyone who’s serious about scaling real solutions to the climate crisis. Whether you’re a founder navigating capital markets, an investor seeking return and impact, or a policymaker designing the frameworks — Yao Huang offers a grounded, urgent, and actionable perspective.
It’s not about hope. It’s about execution.
Listen to the full episode of the Energy Tech Startups Podcast with Yao Huang:
-- Hosted by Jason Ethier and Nada Ahmed, the Digital Wildcatters’ podcast, Energy Tech Startups, delves into Houston's pivotal role in the energy transition, spotlighting entrepreneurs and industry leaders shaping a low-carbon future.
The team of students plans to continue to work on the GreenHouston project. Photo courtesy