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

Texas ranks below average on most energy-efficient states report

room to improve

Despite being home to a booming energy sector, Texas ranks below average on a new list of the country’s most and least energy-efficient states.

The list, compiled by personal finance website WalletHub, puts Texas at No. 34 for energy efficiency. It ranked 27th for energy efficiency of homes and 41st for energy efficiency of cars. Texas improved by one spot on the 2026 report, after coming in at No. 35 last year and No. 36 in 2024.

California took the top spot on the list this year, beating out Vermont, which claimed the No. 1 rank in 2025. South Carolina ranked No. 48. Due to data limitations, Alaska and Hawaii were excluded from WalletHub’s analysis.

In the WalletHub study, California had the lowest residential energy consumption per capita and the third-highest efficiency for home energy. At the bottom of the list, South Carolina ranked 48th for energy efficiency of homes and 35th for energy efficiency of cars.

Here’s who joined California in the top 5:

  • No. 2 Vermont
  • No. 3 New York
  • No. 4 Washington
  • No. 5 Massachusetts

WalletHub notes the average U.S. family spends at least $2,000 per year on utilities, and the average consumer spent $2,411 on gasoline in 2024.

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that adopting energy-efficient measures in the home could reduce a family’s utility costs by as much as 25 percent. As for gas, the agency found a more fuel-efficient vehicle could save the average driver more than $1,000 per year.

“Energy efficiency doesn’t just help save the planet — it also helps save you money by lowering the amount of electricity, gas, oil, or other types of energy you need to consume,” WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo says.

“While there are some steps you can take to become more energy-efficient on your own, living in the right area can give you a big boost,” he adds. “For example, certain states have much better public transportation systems that minimize your need to drive, at least in big cities. Some places also have better-constructed buildings that retain heat better during the winter or stay cooler during the summer.”

WalletHub compiled the listing using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Energy Information Administration, and Federal Highway Administration.

Utility Global's H2Gen named one of the best inventions of 2026

Best of 2026

One of the year's most buzzworthy innovations comes from a Houston-based leader in the energy transition. Utility Global's H2Gen recently made Time magazine’s list of the 300 best inventions of 2026.

The H2Gen is an innovative system that produces low-cost clean hydrogen from water and industrial off-gases. The company says the process doesn’t require electricity, a notable claim since hydrogen production typically consumes a lot of power.

"Using a tubular electrochemical cell containing a proprietary electrolyte and water, the company can turn industrial off-gases into hydrogen at scale—no extra electricity required," writes Time. "Bonus: the process also pulls out carbon dioxide as a separate stream, where it can be captured and kept out of the atmosphere.

CEO Parker Meeks tells Time, it's “a practical pathway to decarbonize existing industrial assets."

The startup is on a roll. It has raised $100 million so far in an ongoing Series D round to offer its decarbonization technology at industrial scale around the world.

H2Gen is joined by 10 other inventions with Texas connections onTime's list, as well as one "special mention."

In North Texas, they are:

Samsung
Plano-based Samsung Electronics America pulled off a hat trick this year, with three products making Time’s list. First up is the Galaxy S26 Ultra smartphone. It packs a more powerful camera, Galaxy AI features, and pro-level content creation tools. But Time singled out its new built-in privacy display as the phone’s “biggest selling point.”

Samsung’s Bespoke AI Family Hub refrigerator also got smarter. When AI first came to the Family Hub in 2024, it could recognize some fresh foods, but you still had to log packaged items by hand, Time noted. Now, with Google Gemini built in, the fridge can identify more than 2,000 packaged foods, read handwritten labels, and warn you when food is about to expire. It then uses what’s inside to build grocery lists and suggest recipes.

And for gamers, there’s the Odyssey G8 monitor. Its 6K resolution leapfrogs the 4K standard, delivering what Samsung calls “exceptional visual clarity and detail” on a screen big enough for gaming and multitasking.

OxeFit
Plano-based OxeFit’s XS1 Peak is about the size of a treadmill but works like an entire gym. It can be set up for strength training, simulated skiing or kayaking, Pilates, or rowing. What makes it stand out is a built-in virtual spotter. According to Time, the machine “uses AI, computer vision and sensors to correct the user’s form, change resistance in the middle of a rep and reduce the weight when the user is struggling, much like a human spotter.”

EssilorLuxottica
EssilorLuxottica, the French eyewear giant whose U.S. headquarters is in Farmers Branch, makes Essilor Stellest lenses. The lenses correct nearsightedness while also slowing the eye growth that makes it worse over time. Stellest is the first and only eyeglass lens authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to control myopia, Time said. The lenses look like regular glasses but contain 1,021 tiny lenslets. In a U.S. trial of kids ages 6-12, myopia progression slowed by an average of 71 percent over two years compared with standard lenses.

Helpany
Helpany, a startup based in Phoenix that manufactures its devices in DFW, makes Paul, a ceiling-mounted gadget that uses radar and AI to spot subtle changes in how residents move and flag those at higher risk of falling. Helpany says the technology can cut falls by as much as 72 percent.

Aurora Innovation
Aurora, based in Pittsburgh with a corporate and operations hub in Coppell, rolled out its second-generation Driver 2 system in July. By September, Driver 2 trucks had logged more than 500,000 driverless miles without a single at-fault crash, Time reported, and the company expects 200 of them on the road by the end of 2026.

Colossal Biosciences
Dallas-based Colossal Biosciences built an artificial egg by placing an ultra-thin, transparent silicone membrane inside a rigid 3D-printed cup, letting scientists watch the embryo develop. Twenty-six chickens have already been hatched.

In Austin, they are:
Cedar Park-based Hyliion landed on Time’s list with its Karno Power Module, a modular generator designed to produce power wherever it’s needed. The Karno represents a big pivot for the company. Hyliion got its start building electrified powertrains for 18-wheelers before shifting into power generation after acquiring the Karno generator technology from GE Aerospace. Founded in Pittsburgh in 2015, the company relocated to Cedar Park in 2018.

The other Austin-associated honoree is Moment Energy. As more electric vehicles hit the road, a growing number of their batteries are nearing retirement, while demand for power keeps climbing. Moment Energy found a way to tackle both problems at once. The company’s Megafactory 1, which opened in Vancouver, Canada, in June, turns old EV batteries into modular energy storage systems for hospitals, factories, data centers, and other big power users. “Our goal is to make sure these batteries don’t end up in landfills,” founder Edward Chiang told Time.

In the “Special Mentions” category, Austin-based Renzoe Box gained notice for its refillable custom makeup palette for on-the-go people. Licensed architect René Graham designed the box. She graduated from Houston's Rice University, and was born and raised in Dallas.

---

A version of this article first appeared on CultureMap.com.

Houston researchers develop heating method to recover critical minerals from e-waste

hot new research

Researchers at Rice University have developed a new technique to efficiently recycle electronic waste and harvest critical minerals using rapid heating.

Most electronic devices use flame-retardant plastic. The plastic is formulated from a critical metal called antimony.

However, recapturing antimony is typically a challenging task since it first has to be released from the plastic. As it is released, other compounds can form, such as organic bromides, which are toxic and difficult to capture. However, the organic bromides can also be reused and have applications in industrial chemicals when safely captured.

“Conventionally heating the plastic releases the antimony in a volatile and difficult-to-collect form as well as creating and releasing hazardous organic bromide compounds,” Leo Haoxin Ye, first author of the paper and a graduate student at Rice, said in a news release. “Other options are risky or more impractical, such as using strong acids, organic solvents or multistep treatment options.”

To address this issue, leading Rice chemistry professor James Tour, Ye and their team adapted Tour’s flash Joule heating technique, which heats materials to hundreds of degrees Celsius in milliseconds, according to Rice.

The team ground up flame-retardant plastic waste and placed it between two sheets of electrically heated carbon paper before using what’s known as isothermal-clamped flash Joule heating to release and collect the antimony.

The team found that limiting the time the plastic spent in the high temperature range dramatically reduced the production of the hazardous organic bromide compounds. The plastic remained between 200 degrees and 500 degrees Celsius for only 9.4 milliseconds, according to Rice.

Through the process, the team recovered 90 percent of antimony from tested materials and converted 83 percent of the bromide into hydrogen bromide. Their findings were published this month in the journal Nature Chemical Engineering.

“Isothermal-clamped flash Joule heating could improve the speed, safety and practicality of antimony recovery from discarded flame-retardant plastics,” Tour added in the release. “This represents an important step forward to conserving and reusing our critical antimony supply while also regenerating bromide salts for reuse.”

The study noted that the world is currently trending toward producing 82 million metric tons of flame-retardant plastic waste by 2030, which adds to the fact that e-waste is the fastest-growing solid waste stream in the world.

The research was funded by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

View All Listings