ADVERTISEABOUT USSUBMIT A STORYSUBSCRIBETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY
Visit our family of Brands

Houston analyst named energy and geopolitics chair at national think tank

moving up

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

Houston expert explains what’s needed to bend the curve on nuclear power

guest column

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.

------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn.

Students from the University of Houston are celebrating a win at a national competition focused on carbon innovation. Photo via UH.edu

University of Houston team places in prestigious DOE collegiate challenge

top of class

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

------

This article originally ran on InnovationMap.

There's no silver bullet for clean energy. We need an all-hands-on-deck approach, writes Scott Nyquist. Photo via Getty Images

Houston expert: When it comes to the future of energy and climate, think 'all of the above'

guest column

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.

Or, in a phrase, “all of the above.”

------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

UH launches latest micro-credential program focused on energy risks

coming soon

UH Energy at the University of Houston will launch a new micro-credential program this fall focused on risks associated with today's changing energy landscape.

The new self-paced, hybrid program, known as Managing Non-Technical Risks in Energy, is geared towards energy professionals and those who aspire to work in the industry. Enrollment must be completed by Sept. 15 to participate.

According to UH, it will equip participants with "tools, strategies, and real-world insights needed to lead confidently" as they face pressure to meet increased energy demand while also operating under sustainable guidelines.

The program will be led by expert instructors, including:


  • Suryanarayanan Radhakrishnan, Managing Director of UH Energy
  • Amy Mifflin, Principal Consultant and Partner at Sustrio Inc.
  • Chris Angelides, Honorary Consul of The Republic of Cyprus to Texas, Managing Director at Ernst & Young LLP
  • Carolina Ortega, Vice President, Sustainability and Communications at Milestone Environmental Services
  • Krish (Ravi) Ravishankar, Senior Director ESG Analytics & Reporting, Sustainability, Worldwide Environmental Affairs at Oxy

Participants can earn up to three "badges" through the program. Each badge consists of two modules, which can be completed virtually and take about 10 hours to complete over four weeks.

Each module will also include one in-person engagement session that will last about two hours.

The three badges include:


  • Badge 1: Managing Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts
  • Badge 2: Frameworks, Standards, and Implementation
  • Badge 3: Advanced Applications

Badges can be earned individually or as a series of three, and participants must complete assessments to earn each badge.

Badge 1 Module 1 will start on Sept. 15, followed by Badge 1 Module 2 on Oct. 20. Find more information here.

Expert on powering Texas: The promise and challenges of renewable energy

Guest Column

Texas leads the nation in wind and solar energy, but that leadership is being tested as a surge in project cancellations raises new concerns about the future of renewables in the state.

While Texas clean energy has grown significantly in recent years, solar and wind often fall short of meeting peak electricity demand. As extreme weather, rising demand, and project cancellations strain the grid, Texas must confront the growing gap between renewable potential and real-time reliability.

Solar and Wind Energy

Solar generation in the Lone Star State has grown substantially over the past decade. The Texas solar industry is estimated to employ over 12,000 Texans and is contributing billions in local tax revenue and landowner income, and solar and storage are the largest sources of new energy on the Texas grid.

With a significant number of sunny days, Texas’ geography also enables it to be among the states with the greatest energy potential for solar power generation. Further moving to advance the use of solar energy generation, the 89th Texas legislature passed SB 1202 which accelerates the permitting process for home solar and energy storage installations. SB 1202 empowers homeowners to strengthen their own energy security and supports greater grid resilience across the state.

Texas has also led the United States in wind energy production for more than 17 years, with 239 wind-related projects and over 15,300 wind turbines, which is more than any other state. The economic impact of wind energy in Texas is substantial, with the industry contributing $1.7 billion a year to the state’s gross domestic product. With wind electric power generation jobs offering an average annual wage of $109,826, the growing sector provides lucrative employment opportunities.

However, solar and wind currently struggle to meet Texas’ peak electricity demand from 5 pm to 7 pm — a time when millions of residents return home, temperatures remain high and air conditioner use surges. Solar generation begins to decline just as demand ramps up, and wind production is often inconsistent during these hours. Without sufficient long-duration storage or dispatchable backup power, this mismatch between supply and demand presents a significant reliability risk — one that becomes especially urgent during heat waves and extreme weather events, as seen during ERCOT conservation alerts.

Geothermal Energy

Geothermal energy uses heat from beneath the Earth’s surface to provide reliable, low-emission power with minimal land use and no fuel transport. Though it currently supplies a small share of energy, Texas is emerging as a leader in its development, supported by state leaders, industry, and environmentalists. During the 89th legislative session, Texas passed HB 3240 to create a Geothermal Energy Production Policy Council, set to begin work on September 1, 2025.

In 2024, Sage Geosystems was selected to develop geothermal projects at the Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi, expanding its work with the Department of Defense. In partnership with the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, Sage is using its proprietary Geopressured Geothermal Systems technology to evaluate the potential for geothermal to be a source of clean and consistent energy at the base.

One limitation of geothermal energy is location. Deep drilling is costly, and areas with high water tables, like some coastal regions, may not be viable.

Hydroelectric Energy

While hydropower plays a minor role in Texas’ energy mix, it is still an essential energy source. Its output depends on water availability, which can be affected by seasonal and long-term changes like droughts.

Texas has 26 hydropower plants with a total capacity of nearly 738 megawatts, serving about 2.9 million people as of 2019. Harris County holds 43% of all hydropower generation jobs in the state, and in 2021, hydroelectric power generation contributed $700 million to Texas’ gross domestic product.

Federal funding is helping expand hydropower in Texas. The Southwestern Power Administration has committed about $103 million to support infrastructure, including $32 million for upgrades to Central Texas’s Whitney Dam. The 2021 Inflation Reduction Act added $369 billion in tax credits for clean energy, supporting dam retrofits nationwide. In 2022, the Department of Energy launched over $28 million in new funding through the Infrastructure Law to help meet national clean energy goals by 2035 and carbon neutrality by 2050.

Tidal Energy

Driven by the moon and sun, tidal energy is predictable but limited to coastal areas with strong tides. Although Texas has modest tidal potential, research is ongoing to optimize it. Texas A&M University is developing a floating test platform for hybrid renewable systems, integrating tidal, wave, wind, and solar energy. In addition, St. Mary’s University in San Antonio is prototyping small-scale tidal turbines using 3D printing technology.

While commercial tidal power remains in the research phase, the state’s offshore capabilities, engineering talent, and growing university-led innovation could make it a player in hybrid marine renewable systems. Floating platforms that integrate wave, tide, solar, and wind offer a compelling vision for offshore power generation suited to Texas’ unique coastal conditions.

Biomass Energy

Biomass energy is the largest renewable source worldwide, providing 55% of renewables and over 6% of global energy. While reliable, it can be less efficient, sometimes using more energy to burn the organic matter than it produces, and demand may exceed supply.

In Texas, biomass is a nominal part of the state’s energy portfolio. However, substantial research is being conducted by Texas A&M University to attempt to convert algae and food waste into a cost-efficient source of biomass material. In addition, UK-based biomass and renewable energy company Drax opened its North American headquarters in Houston, which created more than 100 new jobs in Texas’ renewable energy industry.

It’s clear that renewable energy is playing an increasingly important role in shaping Texas’ energy future. But the road ahead demands a realistic view: while these sources can reduce emissions and diversify our generation mix, they do not yet solve for peak load reliability — especially during the critical 5 pm to 7 pm window when grid stress is highest.

Meeting that challenge will require not just investment in renewables, but also innovation in grid-scale storage, flexible generation, market reform and consumer programs. A diversified, resilient energy portfolio — one that includes renewables and reliable dispatchable sources — will be the key to ensuring that Texas remains powered, prepared and prosperous for generations to come.

---

Sam Luna is director at BKV Energy, where he oversees brand and go-to-market strategy, customer experience, marketing execution, and more.

Shell to shut down Volta EV charging business with 2,000 stations

pulling the plug

A little over two years after buying it for $169 million, Houston-based Shell USA is shutting down its Volta C electric vehicle charging business.

Shell confirmed to AdExchanger that it will dismantle Volta’s network of more than 2,000 EV charging stations this year. A Shell spokesperson said the energy giant is turning its attention to high-speed public charging stations at Shell-branded sites like gas stations and standalone EV hubs.

Around the world, Shell operates more than 70,000 public EV charging stations. In 2024, the company said it was aiming for a global total of about 200,000 charging stations by 2030.

When Shell announced in March 2023 that it had completed its acquisition of Volta, the energy company said it was gaining an EV charging network with more than 3,000 charging stations at places such as shopping centers, grocery stores and pharmacies.

Shell had said that although Volta’s revenue came from advertising on screens at EV charging stations, it planned to increase the number of charging stations that required motorists to pay for power.

Shell explored a sale of the Volta business earlier this year but didn’t find a buyer, according to AdExchanger.

View All Listings