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

Why 2026 must be the year Texas makes transmission as its top energy priority

guest column

Texas takes pride in running one of the most dynamic and deregulated energy markets in the world, but conversations about electricity rarely focus on what keeps it moving: transmission infrastructure.

As ERCOT projects unprecedented electricity demand growth and grid operators update their forecasts for 2026, it’s becoming increasingly clear that generation, whether renewable or fossil, is only part of the solution. Transmission buildout and sound governing policy now stand as the linchpin for reliability, cost containment, and long-term resilience in a grid under unprecedented stress.

At the heart of this urgency is one simple thing: demand. Over 2024 and 2025, ERCOT has been breaking records at a pace we haven’t seen before. From January through September of 2025 alone, electricity use jumped more than 5% over the year before, the fastest growth of any major U.S. grid. And it’s not slowing down.

The Energy Information Administration expects demand to climb another 14% in 2026, pushing total consumption to roughly 425 terawatt-hours in just the first nine months. That surge isn’t just about more people moving to Texas or running their homes differently; it’s being driven by massive industrial and technology loads that simply weren’t part of the equation ten years ago.

The most dramatic contributor to that rising demand is large-scale infrastructure such as data centers, cloud computing campuses, crypto mining facilities, and electrified industrial sectors. In the latest ERCOT planning update, more than 233 gigawatts of total “large load” interconnection requests were being tracked, an almost 300% jump over just a year earlier, with more than 70% of those requests tied to data centers.

Imagine hundreds of new power plants requesting to connect to the grid, all demanding uninterrupted power 24/7. That’s the scale of the transition Texas is facing, and it’s one of the major reasons transmission planning is no longer back-of-house policy talk but a central grid imperative.

Yet transmission is complicated, costly, and inherently long-lead. It takes three to six years to build new transmission infrastructure, compared with six to twelve months to add a new load or generation project.

This is where Texas will feel the most tension. Current infrastructure can add customers and power plants quickly, but the lines to connect them reliably take time, money, permitting, and political will.

To address these impending needs, ERCOT wrapped up its 2024 Regional Transmission Plan (RTP) at the end of last year, and the message was pretty clear: we’ve got work to do. The plan calls for 274 transmission projects and about 6,000 miles of new, rebuilt, or upgraded lines just to handle the growth coming our way and keep the lights on.

The plan also suggests upgrading to 765-kilovolt transmission lines, a big step beyond the standard 345-kV system. When you start talking about 765-kilovolt transmission lines, that’s a big leap from what Texas normally uses. Those lines are built to move a massive amount of power over long distances, but they’re expensive and complicated, so they’re only considered when planners expect demand to grow far beyond normal levels. Recommending them is a clear signal that incremental upgrades won’t be enough to keep up with where electricity demand is headed.

There’s a reason transmission is suddenly getting so much attention. ERCOT and just about every industry analyst watching Texas are projecting that electricity demand could climb as high as 218 gigawatts by 2031 if even a portion of the massive queue of large-load projects actually comes online. When you focus only on what’s likely to get built, the takeaway is the same: demand is going to stay well above anything we’ve seen before, driven largely by the steady expansion of data centers, cloud computing, and digital infrastructure across the state.

Ultimately, the decisions Texas makes on transmission investment and the policies that determine how those costs are allocated will shape whether 2026 and the years ahead bring greater stability or continued volatility to the grid. Thoughtful planning can support growth while protecting reliability and affordability, but falling short risks making volatility a lasting feature of Texas’s energy landscape.

Transmission Policy: The Other Half of the Equation

Infrastructure investment delivers results only when paired with policies that allow it to operate efficiently and at scale. Recognizing that markets alone won’t solve these challenges, Texas lawmakers and regulators have started creating guardrails.

For example, Senate Bill 6, now part of state law, aims to improve how large energy consumers are managed on the grid, including new rules for data center operations during emergencies and requirements around interconnection. Data centers may even be required to disconnect under extreme conditions to protect overall system reliability, a novel and necessary rule given their scale.

Similarly, House Bill 5066 changed how load forecasting occurs by requiring ERCOT to include utility-reported projections in its planning processes, ensuring transmission planning incorporates real-world expectations. These policy updates matter because grid planning isn’t just a technical checklist. It’s about making sure investment incentives, permitting decisions, and cost-sharing rules are aligned so Texas can grow its economy without putting unnecessary pressure on consumers.

Without thoughtful policy, we risk repeating past grid management mistakes. For example, if transmission projects are delayed or underfunded while new high-demand loads come online, we could see congestion worsen. If that happens, affordable electricity would be located farther from where it’s needed, limiting access to low-cost power for consumers and slowing overall economic growth. That’s especially critical in regions like Houston, where energy costs are already a hot topic for households and businesses alike.

A 2026 View: Strategy Over Shortage

As we look toward 2026, here are the transmission and policy trends that matter most:

  • Pipeline of Projects Must Stay on Track: ERCOT’s RTP is ambitious, and keeping those 274 projects, thousands of circuit miles, and next-generation 765-kV lines moving is crucial for reliability and cost containment.
  • Large Load Forecasting Must Be Nuanced: The explosion in large-load interconnection requests, whether or not every project materializes, signals demand pressure that transmission planners cannot ignore. Building lines ahead of realized demand is not wasteful planning; it’s insurance against cost and reliability breakdowns.
  • Policy Frameworks Must Evolve: Laws like SB 6 and HB 5066 are just the beginning. Texas needs transparent rules for cost allocation, interconnection standards, and emergency protocols that keep consumers protected while supporting innovation and economic growth.
  • Coordination Among Stakeholders Is Critical: Transmission doesn’t stop at one utility’s borders. Regional cooperation among utilities, ERCOT, and local stakeholders is essential to manage congestion and develop systemwide reliability solutions.

Here’s the bottom line: Generation gets the headlines, but transmission makes the grid work. Without a robust transmission buildout and thoughtful governance, even the most advanced generation mix that includes wind, solar, gas, and storage will struggle to deliver the reliability Texans expect at a price they can afford.

In 2026, Texas is not merely testing its grid’s capacity to produce power; it’s testing its ability to move that power where it’s needed most. How we rise to meet that challenge will define the next decade of energy in the Lone Star State.

———

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

New Gulf Coast recycling plant partners with first-of-kind circularity hub

now open

TALKE USA Inc., the Houston-area arm of German logistics company TALKE, officially opened its Recycling Support Center earlier this month.

Located next to the company's Houston-area headquarters, the plant will process post-consumer plastic materials, which will eventually be converted into recycling feedstock. Chambers County partially funded the plant.

“Our new recycling support center expands our overall commitment to sustainable growth, and now, the community’s plastics will be received here before they head out for recycling. This is a win for the residents of Chambers County," Richard Heath, CEO and president of TALKE USA, said in a news release.

“The opening of our recycling support facility offers a real alternative to past obstacles regarding the large amount of plastic products our local community disposes of. For our entire team, our customers, and the Mont Belvieu community, today marks a new beginning for effective, safe, and sustainable plastics recycling.”

The new plant will receive the post-consumer plastic and form it into bales. The materials will then be processed at Cyclyx's new Houston Circularity Center, a first-of-its-kind plastic waste sorting and processing facility being developed through a joint venture between Cyclix, ExxonMobil and LyondellBasell.

“Materials collected at this facility aren’t just easy-to-recycle items like water bottles and milk jugs. All plastics are accepted, including multi-layered films—like chip bags and juice pouches. This means more of the everyday plastics used in the Chambers County community can be captured and kept out of landfills,” Leslie Hushka, chief impact officer at Cyclyx, added in a LinkedIn post.

Cyclyx's circularity center is currently under construction and is expected to produce 300 million pounds of custom-formulated feedstock annually.

Houston quantum simulator research reveals clues for solar energy conversion

energy flow

Rice University scientists have used a programmable quantum simulator to mimic how energy moves through a vibrating molecule.

The research, which was published in Nature Communications last month, lets the researchers watch and control the flow of energy in real time and sheds light on processes like photosynthesis and solar energy conversion, according to a news release from the university.

The team, led by Rice assistant professor of physics and astronomy Guido Pagano, modeled a two-site molecule with one part supplying energy (the donor) and the other receiving it (the acceptor).

Unlike in previous experiments, the Rice researchers were able to smoothly tune the system to model multiple types of vibrations and manipulate the energy states in a controlled setting. This allowed the team to explore different types of energy transfer within the same platform.

“By adjusting the interactions between the donor and acceptor, coupling to two types of vibrations and the character of those vibrations, we could see how each factor influenced the flow of energy,” Pagano said in the release.

The research showed that more vibrations sped up energy transfer and opened new paths for energy to move, sometimes making transfer more efficient even with energy loss. Additionally, when vibrations differed, efficient transfer happened over a wider range of donor–acceptor energy differences.

“The results show that vibrations and their environment are not simply background noise but can actively steer energy flow in unexpected ways,” Pagano added.

The team believes the findings could help with the design of organic solar cells, molecular wires and other devices that depend on efficient energy or charge transfer. They could also have an environmental impact by improving energy harvesting to reduce energy losses in electronics.

“These are the kinds of phenomena that physical chemists have theorized exist but could not easily isolate experimentally, especially in a programmable manner, until now,” Visal So, a Rice doctoral student and first author of the study, added in the release.

The study was supported by The Welch Foundation,the Office of Naval Research, the National Science Foundation CAREER Award, the Army Research Office and the Department of Energy.

View All Listings