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

Houston expert: From EVs to F-35s — materials that power our future are in short supply

guest column

No critical minerals, no modern economy. Getty images

If you’re reading this on a phone, driving an EV, flying in a plane, or relying on the power grid to keep your lights on, you’re benefiting from critical minerals. These are the building blocks of modern life. Things like copper, lithium, nickel, rare earth elements, and titanium, they’re found in everything from smartphones to solar panels to F-35 fighter jets.

In short: no critical minerals, no modern economy.

These minerals aren’t just useful, they’re essential. And in the U.S., we don’t produce enough of them. Worse, we’re heavily dependent on countries that don’t always have our best interests at heart. That’s a serious vulnerability, and we’ve done far too little to fix it.

Where We Use Them and Why We’re Behind

Let’s start with where these minerals show up in daily American life:

  • Electric vehicles need lithium, cobalt, and nickel for batteries.
  • Wind turbines and solar panels rely on rare earths and specialty metals.
  • Defense systems require titanium, beryllium, and rare earths.
  • Basic infrastructure like power lines and buildings depend on copper and aluminum.

You’d think that something so central to the economy, and to national security, would be treated as a top priority. But we’ve let production and processing capabilities fall behind at home, and now we’re playing catch-up.

The Reality Check: We’re Not in Control

Right now, the U.S. is deeply reliant on foreign sources for critical minerals, especially China. And it’s not just about mining. China dominates processing and refining too, which means they control critical links in the supply chain.

Gabriel Collins and Michelle Michot Foss from the Baker Institute lay all this out in a recent report that every policymaker should read. Their argument is blunt: if we don’t get a handle on this, we’re in trouble, both economically and militarily.

China has already imposed export controls on key rare earth elements like dysprosium and terbium which are critical for magnets, batteries, and defense technologies, in direct response to new U.S. tariffs. This kind of tit-for-tat escalation exposes just how much leverage we’ve handed over. If this continues, American manufacturers could face serious material shortages, higher costs, and stalled projects.

We’ve seen this movie before, in the pandemic, when supply chains broke and countries scrambled for basics like PPE and semiconductors. We should’ve learned our lesson.

We Do Have a Stockpile, But We Need a Strategy

Unlike during the Cold War, the U.S. no longer maintains comprehensive strategic reserves across the board, but we do have stockpiles managed by the Defense Logistics Agency. The real issue isn’t absence, it’s strategy: what to stockpile, how much, and under what assumptions.

Collins and Michot Foss argue for a more robust and better-targeted approach. That could mean aiming for 12 to 18 months worth of demand for both civilian and defense applications. Achieving that will require:

  • Smarter government purchasing and long-term contracts
  • Strategic deals with allies (e.g., swapping titanium for artillery shells with Ukraine)
  • Financing mechanisms to help companies hold critical inventory for emergency use

It’s not cheap, but it’s cheaper than scrambling mid-crisis when supplies are suddenly cut off.

The Case for Advanced Materials: Substitutes That Work Today

One powerful but often overlooked solution is advanced materials, which can reduce our dependence on vulnerable mineral supply chains altogether.

Take carbon nanotube (CNT) fibers, a cutting-edge material invented at Rice University. CNTs are lighter, stronger, and more conductive than copper. And unlike some future tech, this isn’t hypothetical: we could substitute CNTs for copper wire harnesses in electrical systems today.

As Michot Foss explained on the Energy Forum podcast:

“You can substitute copper and steel and aluminum with carbon nanotube fibers and help offset some of those trade-offs and get performance enhancements as well… If you take carbon nanotube fibers and you put those into a wire harness… you're going to be reducing the weight of that wire harness versus a metal wire harness like we already use. And you're going to be getting the same benefit in terms of electrical conductivity, but more strength to allow the vehicle, the application, the aircraft, to perform better.”

By accelerating R&D and deployment of CNTs and similar substitutes, we can reduce pressure on strained mineral supply chains, lower emissions, and open the door to more secure and sustainable manufacturing.

We Have Tools. We Need to Use Them.

The report offers a long list of solutions. Some are familiar, like tax incentives, public-private partnerships, and fast-tracked permits. Others draw on historical precedent, like “preclusive purchasing,” a WWII tactic where the U.S. bought up materials just so enemies couldn’t.

We also need to get creative:

  • Repurpose existing industrial sites into mineral hubs
  • Speed up R&D for substitutes and recycling
  • Buy out risky foreign-owned assets in friendlier countries

Permitting remains one of the biggest hurdles. In the U.S., it can take 7 to 10 years to approve a new critical minerals project, a timeline that doesn’t match the urgency of our strategic needs. As Collins said on the Energy Forum podcast:

“Time kills deals... That’s why it’s more attractive generally to do these projects elsewhere.”

That’s the reality we’re up against. Long approval windows discourage investment and drive developers to friendlier jurisdictions abroad. One encouraging step is the use of the Defense Production Act to fast-track permitting under national security grounds. That kind of shift, treating permitting as a strategic imperative, must become the norm, not the exception.

It’s Time to Redefine Sustainability

Sustainability has traditionally focused on cutting carbon emissions. That’s still crucial, but we need a broader definition. Today, energy and materials security are just as important.

Countries are now weighing cost and reliability alongside emissions goals. We're also seeing renewed attention to recycling, biodiversity, and supply chain resilience.

Net-zero by 2050 is still a target. But reality is forcing a more nuanced discussion:

  • What level of warming is politically and economically sustainable?
  • What tradeoffs are we willing to make to ensure energy access and affordability?

The bottom line: we can’t build a clean energy future without secure access to materials. Recycling helps, but it’s not enough. We'll need new mines, new tech, and a more flexible definition of sustainability.

My Take: We’re Running Out of Time

This isn’t just a policy debate. It’s a test of whether we’ve learned anything from the past few years of disruption. We’re not facing an open war, but the risks are real and growing.

We need to treat critical minerals like what they are: a strategic necessity. That means rebuilding stockpiles, reshoring processing, tightening alliances, and accelerating permitting across the board.

It won’t be easy. But if we wait until a real crisis hits, it’ll be too late.

———

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 appeared on LinkedIn on April 11, 2025.


Photo by Bhavya Pratap Singh on Unsplash

Houston expert: Is China leading the global energy transition?

guest column

China plays a big role in the global push to shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy. It's the world's largest carbon emitter but also a global leader in solar, wind, and battery technologies. This combination makes China a critical player in the energy transition. China may not be doing enough to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions, but it is leading the way in producing low-cost, low-carbon solutions.

Why Materials Matter

One of the biggest challenges in switching to alternative energy is the need for specific materials like lithium, cobalt, and rare earth metals. These are essential for making things like solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. In her report, "Minerals and Materials Challenges for Our Energy Future(s): Dateline 2024," Michelle Michot Foss emphasizes the critical role of materials in energy transitions:

"Energy transitions require materials transitions; sustainability is multifaceted; and innovation and growth will shape the future of energy and economies."

China controls much of the supply and processing of these materials. For example, it produces most of the world’s rare earth metals and has the largest capacity for making batteries. This gives China a big advantage but also creates risks. Michot Foss points out:

"China’s command over material supply chains presents both opportunities and risks. On one hand, it enables rapid scaling of technologies like wind, solar, and batteries. On the other hand, it exposes the global market to potential vulnerabilities, as geopolitical tensions and trade barriers could disrupt these critical flows."

China’s strategy for dominating alternative energy materials is also closely tied to its national security interests. By securing control over these critical supply chains, China not only hopes to guarantee its own energy independence but also gains significant geopolitical leverage.

“Is China’s leadership strategic or accidental? China’s dominance is a consequence of enormous excess materials supply chain and manufacturing capacity. A flood of exports are undermining materials and “green tech” businesses everywhere. It heightens vulnerabilities and geopolitical tensions. How do we in the US find our own comparative advantage?” Michot Foss notes that advanced materials should be a priority for US responses, especially as attention shifts to nuclear energy possibilities and as carbon capture and hydrogen initiatives play out.

Balancing Energy Growth and Emissions

GabrielCollins, in his report "Reality Is Setting In: Asian Countries to Lead Transitions in 2024 and 2025," offers another perspective. He focuses on how developing nations, especially in Asia, are shaping the energy transition:

"The developing world, including many countries in Asia, increasingly demand that developed nations’ policy advocacy stop treating the economic and environmental needs of the developing world as an afterthought."

Collins highlights China’s dual strategy: investing heavily in renewables while still using coal to meet its growing energy demand. He explains:

"China, which now has installed a terawatt combined of wind and solar capacity while still ramping up coal output and moving to dominate EV and renewables supply chains and manufacturing."

This strategy appeals to other developing nations, which face similar challenges of balancing energy needs with environmental goals while fostering economic growth and expanding industries.

The Numbers: Progress and Challenges

McKinsey’s Global Energy Perspective 2024 provides some useful data. On the bright side, China is installing renewable energy faster than any other country. In 2023, it added over 100 gigawatts of solar capacity, a world record. Wind energy is growing quickly too, and China leads in producing electric vehicle batteries.

But McKinsey also notes the challenges. Coal still generates more than half of China’s electricity. While renewable energy is growing fast, it’s not replacing coal yet—it’s just adding to China’s total energy capacity.

McKinsey sums it up: China is leading in renewable energy deployment, but its reliance on coal highlights the slow pace of deep decarbonization. The country is transitioning, but not fast enough to meet global climate targets.

Is China Leading or Lagging?

So, is China leading the energy transition? The answer is: it depends on how you define “leading.”

If leadership means building more solar and wind farms, dominating the materials supply chain, and being the leading supplier of low-carbon solutions, then yes, China is ahead of everyone else. But if leadership means cutting their own emissions quickly and shifting away from fossil fuels, China still has work to do.

China’s approach is practical. It’s making progress where it can—like scaling up renewables—but it’s also sticking with coal to ensure its economy and energy needs stay stable.

Final Thoughts

China is both a leader and a work in progress when it comes to the energy transition. Its achievements in renewable energy are impressive, but its reliance on coal and the challenges of balancing growth with sustainability show there’s still a long road ahead.

China’s story reminds us that the energy transition isn’t a straight path. It’s a journey full of trade-offs and complexities, and China’s experience reflects the challenges the whole world faces. At the same time, its focus on national security through energy independence and industrial strategy to build low-carbon export businesses signals a strategic move that is reshaping global power dynamics, leaving the United States and other nations to reevaluate their energy policies.

———

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 on December 5, 2024.


The politicians point to a recent Texas merger. Photo via Getty Images

Politicians urge Justice Department to prosecute alleged collusion, price-fixing by oil industry

call for action

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and 22 other Democratic senators are calling on the Department of Justice to “use every tool” at its disposal to prevent and prosecute alleged collusion and price-fixing in the oil industry.

In a letter Thursday to Attorney General Merrick Garland and other officials, the Democrats said a recent Federal Trade Commission investigation into a high-profile merger uncovered evidence of price-fixing by oil executives that led to higher energy costs for American families and businesses.

The FTC said earlier this month that Scott Sheffield, the former CEO of Texas-based Pioneer Natural Resources, colluded with OPEC and OPEC+ to potentially raise crude oil prices. Sheffield retired from the company in 2016 but returned as CEO in 2019. After retiring again in 2023, he continued to serve on its board.

The FTC cleared Houston-based ExxonMobil's $60 billion deal to buy Pioneer on May 2 but barred Sheffield from joining the new company’s board of directors. Pioneer, which is based in Dallas, said it disagreed with the allegations but would not impede closing of the merger, which was announced in 2023.

In a report, the FTC said collusion by Pioneer and others may have cost the average American household up to $500 per car in increased annual fuel costs, an amount Democrats called “an unwelcome tax that is particularly burdensome for lower-income families.'' Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and other major oil companies collectively earned more than $300 billion in profits over the last two years, "a surge that many market experts believe cannot be explained away by increased production costs from the (coronavirus) pandemic or inflation,” Democrats said.

The letter calls for the Justice Department to launch an industry-wide investigation into possible violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It outlined how “Big Oil’s alleged collusion with OPEC is a national security concern that aids countries looking to undermine the U.S.," including Russia and Iran.

“Corporate malfeasance must be confronted, or it will proliferate," the letter said. “These alleged offenses do not simply enrich corporations; hardworking Americans end up paying the price through higher costs for gas, fuel and related consumer products. The DOJ must protect consumers, small businesses and the public from petroleum-market collusion."

The letter by Senate Democrats was the latest in a series of partisan actions targeting the oil industry.

Separately, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland have formally asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Exxon, Chevron and other oil companies misled the public over decades about the climate effects of burning fossil fuels. Whitehouse and Raskin led a multiyear investigation that uncovered what they described as “damning new documents that exposed the fossil fuel industry’s ongoing efforts to deceive the public and block climate action.”

Republicans, meanwhile, have attacked President Joe Biden's energy policies, including a freeze on liquefied natural gas exports, restrictions on new oil and gas leasing on a petroleum reserve in Alaska and a decision to charge companies higher rates to drill for oil and natural gas on federal lands.

Sen. John Barrasso, the top Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, said the Democratic president was “doing all he can to make it economically impossible to produce energy on federal lands.''

The letter released Thursday was signed by 23 Democrats, including Schumer, Whitehouse, Senate Commerce Committee Chairwoman Maria Cantwell of Washington state and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin of Illinois.

The lizard already is “functionally extinct” across 47 percent of its range. Photo via Getty Images

New endangered listing for rare lizard could slow oil and gas drilling in Texas, New Mexico

to save the species

Federal wildlife officials declared a rare lizard in southeastern New Mexico and West Texas an endangered species Friday, citing future energy development, sand mining and climate change as the biggest threats to its survival in one of the world’s most lucrative oil and natural gas basins.

“We have determined that the dunes sagebrush lizard is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range,” the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said. It concluded that the lizard already is “functionally extinct” across 47 percent of its range.

Much of the the 2.5-inch-long (6.5-centimeter), spiny, light brown lizard's remaining habitat has been fragmented, preventing the species from finding mates beyond those already living close by, according to biologists.

“Even if there were no further expansion of the oil and gas or sand mining industry, the existing footprint of these operations will continue to negatively affect the dunes sagebrush lizard into the future,” the service said in its final determination, published in the Federal Register.

The decision caps two decades of legal and regulatory skirmishes between the U.S. government, conservationists and the oil and gas industry. Environmentalists cheered the move, while industry leaders condemned it as a threat to future production of the fossil fuels.

The decision provides a “lifeline for survival” for a unique species whose “only fault has been occupying a habitat that the fossil fuel industry has been wanting to claw away from it,” said Bryan Bird, the Southwest director for Defenders of Wildlife.

“The dunes sagebrush lizard spent far too long languishing in a Pandora’s box of political and administrative back and forth even as its population was in free-fall towards extinction,” Bird said in a statement.

The Permian Basin Petroleum Association and the New Mexico Oil & Gas Association expressed disappointment, saying the determination flies in the face of available science and ignores longstanding state-sponsored conservation efforts across hundreds of thousands of acres and commitment of millions of dollars in both states.

“This listing will bring no additional benefit for the species and its habitat, yet could be detrimental to those living and working in the region,” PBPA President Ben Shepperd and NMOGA President and CEO Missi Currier said in a joint statement, adding that they view it as a federal overreach that can harm communities.

Scientists say the lizards are found only in the Permian Basin, the second-smallest range of any North American lizard. The reptiles live in sand dunes and among shinnery oak, where they feed on insects and spiders and burrow into the sand for protection from extreme temperatures.

Environmentalists first petitioned for the species' protection in 2002, and in 2010 federal officials found that it was warranted. That prompted an outcry from some members of Congress and communities that rely on oil and gas development for jobs and tax revenue.

Several Republican lawmakers sent a letter to officials in the Obama administration asking to delay a final decision, and in 2012, federal officials decided against listing the dunes sagebrush lizard.

Then-U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said at the time that the decision was based on the “best available science” and because of voluntary conservation agreements in place in New Mexico and Texas.

The Fish and Wildlife Service said in Friday's decision that such agreements “have provided, and continue to provide, many conservation benefits” for the lizard, but “based on the information we reviewed in our assessment, we conclude that the risk of extinction for the dunes sagebrush lizard is high despite these efforts.”

Among other things, the network of roads will continue to restrict movement and facilitate direct mortality of dunes sagebrush lizards from traffic, it added, while industrial development “will continue to have edge effects on surrounding habitat and weaken the structure of the sand dune formations.”

The world can't keep on with what it's doing and expect to reach its goals when it comes to climate change. Radical innovations are needed at this point, writes Scott Nyquist. Photo via Getty Images

Only radical innovation can get the world to its climate goals, says this Houston expert

guest column

Almost 3 years ago, McKinsey published a report arguing that limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels was “technically achievable,” but that the “math is daunting.” Indeed, when the 1.5°C figure was agreed to at the 2015 Paris climate conference, the assumption was that emissions would peak before 2025, and then fall 43 percent by 2030.

Given that 2022 saw the highest emissions ever—36.8 gigatons—the math is now more daunting still: cuts would need to be greater, and faster, than envisioned in Paris. Perhaps that is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted March 20 (with “high confidence”) that it was “likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century.”

I agree with that gloomy assessment. Given the rate of progress so far, 1.5°C looks all but impossible. That puts me in the company of people like Bill Gates; the Economist; the Australian Academy of Science, and apparently many IPCC scientists. McKinsey has estimated that even if all countries deliver on their net zero commitments, temperatures will likely be 1.7°C higher in 2100.

In October, the UN Environment Program argued that there was “no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place” and called for “an urgent system-wide transformation” to change the trajectory. Among the changes it considers necessary: carbon taxes, land use reform, dietary changes in which individuals “consume food for environmental sustainability and carbon reduction,” investment of $4 trillion to $6 trillion a year; applying current technology to all new buildings; no new fossil fuel infrastructure. And so on.

Let’s assume that the UNEP is right. What are the chances of all this happening in the next few years? Or, indeed, any of it? President Obama’s former science adviser, Daniel Schrag, put it this way: “ Who believes that we can halve global emissions by 2030?... It’s so far from reality that it’s kind of absurd.”

Having a goal is useful, concentrating minds and organizing effort. And I think that has been the case with 1.5°C, or recent commitments to get to net zero. Targets create a sense of urgency that has led to real progress on decarbonization.

The 2020 McKinsey report set out how to get on the 1.5°C pathway, and was careful to note that this was not a description of probability or reality but “a picture of a world that could be.” Three years later, that “world that could be” looks even more remote.

Consider the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter. In 2021, 79 percent of primary energy demand (see chart) was met by fossil fuels, about the same as a decade before. Globally, the figures are similar, with renewables accounting for just 12.5 percent of consumption and low-emissions nuclear another 4 percent. Those numbers would have to basically reverse in the next decade or so to get on track. I don’t see how that can happen.

No alt text provided for this image

Credit: Energy Information Administration

But even if 1.5°C is improbable in the short term, that doesn’t mean that missing the target won’t have consequences. And it certainly doesn’t mean giving up on addressing climate change. And in fact, there are some positive trends. Many companies are developing comprehensive plans for achieving net-zero emissions and are making those plans part of their long-term strategy. Moreover, while global emissions grew 0.9 percent in 2022, that was much less than GDP growth (3.2 percent). It’s worth noting, too, that much of the increase came from switching from gas to coal in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine; that is the kind of supply shock that can be reversed. The point is that growth and emissions no longer move in lockstep; rather the opposite. That is critical because poorer countries are never going to take serious climate action if they believe it threatens their future prosperity.

Another implication is that limiting emissions means addressing the use of fossil fuels. As noted, even with the substantial rise in the use of renewables, coal, gas, and oil are still the core of the global energy system. They cannot be wished away. Perhaps it is time to think differently—that is, making fossil fuels more emissions efficient, by using carbon capture or other technologies; cutting methane emissions; and electrifying oil and gas operations. This is not popular among many climate advocates, who would prefer to see fossil fuels “stay in the ground.” That just isn’t happening. The much likelier scenario is that they are gradually displaced. McKinsey projects peak oil demand later this decade, for example, and for gas, maybe sometime in the late 2030s. Even after the peak, though, oil and gas will still be important for decades.

Second, in the longer term, it may be possible to get back onto 1.5°C if, in addition to reducing emissions, we actually remove them from the atmosphere, in the form of “negative emissions,” such as direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in power and heavy industry. The IPCC itself assumed negative emissions would play a major role in reaching the 1.5°C target; in fact, because of cost and deployment problems, it’s been tiny.

Finally, as I have argued before, it’s hard to see how we limit warming even to 2°C without more nuclear power, which can provide low-emissions energy 24/7, and is the largest single source of such power right now.

None of these things is particularly popular; none get the publicity of things like a cool new electric truck or an offshore wind farm (of which two are operating now in the United States, generating enough power for about 20,000 homes; another 40 are in development). And we cannot assume fast development of offshore wind. NIMBY concerns have already derailed some high-profile projects, and are also emerging in regard to land-based wind farms.

Carbon capture, negative emissions, and nuclear will have to face NIMBY, too. But they all have the potential to move the needle on emissions. Think of the potential if fast-growing India and China, for example, were to develop an assembly line of small nuclear reactors. Of course, the economics have to make sense—something that is true for all climate-change technologies.

And as the UN points out, there needs to be progress on other issues, such as food, buildings, and finance. I don’t think we can assume that such progress will happen on a massive scale in the next few years; the actual record since Paris demonstrates the opposite. That is troubling: the IPCC notes that the risks of abrupt and damaging impacts, such as flooding and crop yields, rise “with every increment of global warming.” But it is the reality.

There is one way to get us to 1.5°C, although not in the Paris timeframe: a radical acceleration of innovation. The approaches being scaled now, such as wind, solar, and batteries, are the same ideas that were being discussed 30 years ago. We are benefiting from long-term, incremental improvements, not disruptive innovation. To move the ball down the field quickly, though, we need to complete a Hail Mary pass.

It’s a long shot. But we’re entering an era of accelerated innovation, driven by advanced computing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning that could narrow the odds. For example, could carbon nanotubes displace demand for high-emissions steel? Might it be possible to store carbon deep in the ocean? Could geo-engineering bend the curve?

I believe that, on the whole, the world is serious about climate change. I am certain that the energy transition is happening. But I don’t think we are anywhere near to being on track to hit the 1.5°C target. And I don’t see how doing more of the same will get us there.

------

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.

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

Chevron eyes $7B Texas power plant for Microsoft data center campus

power deal

Software giant Microsoft is negotiating exclusively with Houston-based oil and gas titan Chevron and investment firm Engine No. 1 about the development of a $7 billion power plant in West Texas that would supply electricity for a Microsoft data center campus.

The proposed natural-gas-fired plant initially would generate 2,500 megawatts of electricity, Bloomberg reports. The plant would be built near Pecos, a Permian Basin city, in an area where Microsoft plans to build a 2,500-megawatt data center campus on a 7,000-acre site.

A deal with Microsoft would secure a long-term customer for the plant’s output and help finance its construction, Bloomberg says. The project, expected to be producing power by 2030, still requires tax and environmental approvals as well an agreement to terms among Chevron, Engine No. 1, and Microsoft.

In a statement issued after Bloomberg reported the news, Chevron acknowledged it was in exclusive talks with Engine No. 1 and Microsoft, but the oil and gas company offered no details.

Chevron says the proposed plant “reflects an emerging shift in how power for AI is being developed, bringing energy supply closer to demand through co-located, behind-the-meter generation to deliver reliability while helping avoid added strain on regional electricity systems. It pairs sustained, always-on demand from advanced computing with proven capability to design, build, and operate large-scale energy infrastructure.”

Development of gas-powered electrical plants for AI data centers represents a new—and potentially lucrative— business line for Chevron. In 2025, Chevron, Engine No. 1 and GE Vernova announced a partnership to produce natural gas for AI data centers in the U.S.

Chevron’s collaboration with Engine No. 1 has already secured an order for seven large natural gas turbines from GE Vernova, according to Bloomberg.

“Energy is the key to America’s AI dominance,” Chris James, founder and chief investment officer of Engine No. 1, said last year. “By using abundant domestic natural gas to generate electricity directly connected to data centers, we can secure AI leadership, drive productivity gains across our economy, and restore America’s standing as an industrial superpower.”

8 CERAWeek 2026 takeaways from a new Houston energy leader

guest column

My first CERAWeek was a blur.

Having top energy executives, policymakers, and technologists all gathered in Houston—over 11,000 of them this year—was both overwhelming and energizing. The theme was “Convergence and Competition: Energy, Technology, and Geopolitics,” and walking through the George R. Brown Convention Center, it was immediately clear that this was no ordinary industry conference.

As a first-timer with a Greentown Labs lens, here’s what really stuck with me.

Disruption is the new normal

CERAWeek 2026 was set against the backdrop of conflict in the Middle East, the continued race to power AI, and a clear throughline: disruption is increasingly the new normal. You could feel it in every hallway conversation. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East, specifically Iran’s attacks on Qatar’s Ras Laffan facility and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, affected roughly 20% of the world’s liquified natural gas supply, and that was woven into nearly every conversation throughout the week.

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright opened the conference with “Energy is life,” then quickly turned to natural gas. “America’s superpower is natural gas,” he said, pointing to its role in industry, heat, electricity, fertilizer, exports, and leading AI and manufacturing. That set the tone early and it never really shifted.

AI is still everywhere, but the conversation has shifted

No surprise that AI dominated the agenda. But what struck me as a first-timer was how much the conversation had matured. The AI discussion has moved from general enthusiasm to a much more practical focus on real use cases and measurable outcomes.

NVIDIA, Anthropic, and CyrusOne joined the established tech presences of Microsoft, Google, and AWS, occupying the Innovation Agora’s new AI Hub, which displaced the hydrogen hub from prior years. That detail alone tells you something about where the energy conversation has shifted. Annual global investment in data centers reached $771 billion in 2025, nearly on par with oil and gas ($835 billion) and renewable energy ($798 billion). We are not talking about a niche technology story anymore. This is a capital story, an infrastructure story, and an energy story all at once.

The prevailing tone was uncertain; the gap between what is being announced and what can actually be delivered was the subtext of almost every conversation. Transmission takes over a decade to build. The new generation takes five to nine years. AI infrastructure moves on three-to-five-year timelines. The math doesn’t work yet, and everyone is aware.

Pitch competitions still draw crowds

The Energy Venture Day and Pitch Competition at the McKinney Balcony was one of my favorite events of the week. Seeing Greentown members on that stage never gets old, but what really energized me was the broader mix: students, new founders, and veteran entrepreneurs in one space, all talking about how what they’re building is going to impact the world. S&P Global launched the NextGen cohort with 100+ graduate students from around the country getting a front-row seat to the energy sector.

Geothermal may have stolen the show

If I had to pick the most surprising theme of my first CERAWeek, it was geothermal. It drew the most consistent endorsement of the week, with Department of Energy representatives, oil and gas majors, and operators broadly aligned on its potential. Project InnerSpace hosted a dedicated Geothermal House for the first time, launching a standardized resource classification framework with the Society of Petroleum Engineers and an XPRIZE collaboration targeting surface-plant supply chain breakthroughs. For a sector that has lived in the shadows of wind and solar for years, CERAWeek 2026 was geothermal’s time to shine.

Wow, was I impressed with Melanie Nakagawa

Melanie Nakagawa, chief sustainability officer at Microsoft, delivered an impressive keynote during her fireside chat with Brad Burke. Her depth of experience, from the U.S. Department of State and venture capital to her current role at Microsoft, was matched only by her calm, hopeful demeanor. Leaders like her at the helm of climate action inspire genuine confidence in the future.

What about hydrogen?

Hydrogen was notably absent from the main stage. The AI Hub in the Innovation Agora displaced the hydrogen hub that had been a fixture in prior years. Seems like hydrogen still plays a role, but not as quickly or broadly as hoped. Blue hydrogen is moving forward cautiously. It wasn’t gone from the conversation entirely, but it no longer commands the room.

The label problem isn’t going away

Politics continues to polarize the industry. Climatetech, sustainability, cleantech — some labels carry broad objectives, others have become tribal signals. “Energy transition” for some means a replacement of fossil fuels; for others, it means an evolution across multiple dimensions simultaneously. CERAWeek 2026 showed an industry increasingly focused not on feel-good narratives about the future of energy, but on the harder questions of security, buildout, reliability, affordability, and competitiveness. A pragmatic shift may be the best answer to the label problem.

Collaboration isn’t optional—it’s strategic

The energy transition is no longer primarily an environmental story. It has become a technology and national competitiveness story. The problems are too big for any one company, sector, or country to solve alone. From incubators and investors to utilities and hyperscalers, the message was consistent all week: move together or we don’t move. S&P Global introduced “The Bridge,” a new venue specifically for energy-tech crossover conversations: a small but meaningful signal that even the conference organizers recognize that collaboration will get us further.

The scale and the energy in the room (pun intended) are what stood out most from my first CERAWeek. The industry knows what needs to get built. The question now is whether we can work together to build it fast enough.

See you next year, CERAWeek.

---

Kelsey Kearns is director of Greentown Houston with more than a decade of experience in the technology sector. She served as director of community strategy for Greentown Houston from September 2025 to February 2026. Before that, she was director of business development for Howdy.com.

Houston nuclear startup launches at CERAWeek, plans Texas facility

going nuclear

A new nuclear energy startup launched last month during CERAWeek in the Bayou City.

FluxPoint Energy, the new Houston- and McLean, Virginia-based company, plans to develop the nation’s first new uranium conversion facility in more than 70 years, an effort CEO and founder Mike Chilton says is critical to unlocking the next phase of nuclear energy growth.

"Policymakers, utilities, and developers increasingly point to fuel availability as a limiting factor for America's nuclear reactors—both present and future," Chilton said in a news release. "Uranium conversion has become an unacceptable chokepoint in a global supply chain still dominated by foreign providers."

Chilton has held leadership roles at Pegasus-Global Holdings and GE Verona Hitachi Global Nuclear Fuels. Rodrigo Gonzalez Arbizu serves as COO and Christopher J. Rimel as chief of staff. The Board of Advisors includes energy leaders, including Jeff Lyash, John Sharp, Jane Stricker, Jennifer Skylakos, Leo Weitzenhoff and Jay Wileman.

FluxPoint’s planned facility will convert uranium oxide into uranium hexafluoride (UF6). Although FluxPoit’s new facility is still far off, the company announced it had secured a site and completed both market and feasibility studies. The specific area has not been revealed, only that it will be in Texas.

Discussions at CERAWeek revolved around securing reliable sources of uranium.

Nuclear energy production has been stagnant or even in slight decline since the 1990s. Concerns about nuclear waste and safety, as well as prohibitive costs, have kept new plants from being built, while the widespread availability of cheap natural gas has made investing in nuclear power less profitable. Many see the technology as dangerous and outdated.

However, as energy crises become more common, companies like FluxPoint are looking to restart the nuclear energy sector. The industry got a boost under the Biden Administration thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, which set goals of adding 35 gigawatts of new capacity by 2035.

Chilton participated in a panel on the best ways to ensure American nuclear plants have access to uranium, most of which is not mined in the United States.

"America cannot lead in nuclear energy while relying on foreign-controlled fuel processing," Chilton added. "FluxPoint was created to restore a critical piece of our nation's energy infrastructure—ensuring that U.S. reactors have access to a secure, domestic fuel supply. This is about energy security, economic strength, and global leadership."

View All Listings