Hydrogen industry could have major impact on Texas water resources, study says

water works

A new study from the University of Texas at Austin shows that new hydrogen production facilities could account for 2 percent to nearly 7 percent of the state's water demand by 2050. Photo via Getty Images.

Just as the data center industry thrives on electricity, the hydrogen industry thrives on water.

A new study from researchers at the University of Texas at Austin found that by 2050, new hydrogen production facilities could account for 2 percent to nearly 7 percent of water demand in the state. The impact could be especially dramatic along the Gulf Coast, where most of the state’s hydrogen production facilities are already built or are being planned.

The research was published in the journal Sustainability.

The study reported that "most existing and proposed hydrogen production infrastructures are within projected water-strained cities and counties, such as Houston in Harris County and Corpus Christi in Nueces County."

Compared with municipal water supplies or irrigation systems, the hydrogen industry’s demand for water is comparatively small, the study’s lead author, Ning Lin, an energy economist at UT’s Bureau of Economic Geology, said in a news release. But hydrogen-fueled demand could strain communities that already are grappling with current and future water shortages.

“Where you put a project can make a huge difference locally,” Lin says. “With multiple hydrogen facilities planned in water-stressed Gulf Coast counties, this study highlights the urgent need for integrated water and energy planning and provides a solid foundation to help policymakers, industry, and communities make informed decisions about hydrogen and water management.”

To forecast water demand, Lin and her colleagues crunched data from a 2024 National Petroleum Council study that estimated the regional hydrogen demand from 2030 to 2050 based on two energy policy scenarios.

As part of the study, researchers reviewed water use and water quality for various hydrogen production methods that affect whether water remaining from production can be recycled.

“In order to plan for water needs, somebody has to figure out what those future demands might look like, and this paper puts some numbers to (it) that, I think, will be very helpful,” Robert Mace, executive director of the Meadows Center for Water and the Environment at Texas State University, who was not part of the study, added in the release.

From Your Site Articles

Scott Nyquist debates both sides of the hydrogen argument in this week’s ECHTX Voices of Energy guest column. Photo courtesy of Aramco.

Will 2023 be hydrogen’s year?

GUEST COLUMN

Yes and no.

Yes, because there is real money, and action, behind it.

Globally, there are 600 projects on the books to build electrolyzers, which separate the oxygen and hydrogen in water, and are critical to creating low-emissions “green hydrogen.” That investment could drive down the cost of low-emissions hydrogen, making it cost competitive with conventional fuels—a major obstacle to its development so far.

In addition, oil companies are interested, too. The industry already uses hydrogen for refining; many see hydrogen as supplemental to their existing operations and perhaps, eventually, supplanting them. In the meantime, it helps them to decarbonize their refining and petrochemical operations, which most of the majors have committed to doing.

Indeed, hydrocarbon-based companies and economies could have a big opportunity in “blue hydrogen,” which uses fossil fuels for production, but then captures and stores emissions. (“Green hydrogen” uses renewables; because it is expensive to produce, it is more distant than blue. “Gray hydrogen” uses fossil fuels, without carbon capture; this accounts for most current production and use.) Oil and gas companies have a head start on related infrastructure, such as pipelines and carbon capture, and also see new business opportunities, such as low-carbon ammonia.

Houston, for example, which likes to call itself the "energy capital of the world,” is going big on hydrogen. The region is well suited to this. It has an extensive pipeline infrastructure, an excellent port system, a pro-business culture, and experience. The Greater Houston Partnership and McKinsey—both of whom I am associated with—estimate that demand for hydrogen will grow 6 to 8 percent a year from 2030 to 2050. No wonder Houston wants a piece of that action.

There are promising, near-term applications for hydrogen, such as ammonia, cement, and steel production, shipping, long-term energy storage, long-haul trucking, and aviation. These bits and pieces add up: steel alone accounts for about 8 percent of global carbon-dioxide emissions. Late last year, Airbus announced it is developing a hydrogen-powered fuel cell engine as part of its effort to build zero-emission aircraft. And Cummins, a US-based engine company, is investing serious money in hydrogen for trains and commercial and industrial vehicles, where batteries are less effective; it already has more than 500 electrolyzers at work.

Then there is recent US legislation. The Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 allocated $9.5 billion funding for hydrogen. Much more important, though, was last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, which contains generous tax credits to promote hydrogen production. The idea is to narrow the price gap between clean hydrogen and other, more emissions-intensive technologies; in effect, the law seeks to fundamentally change the economics of hydrogen and could be a true game-changer.

This is not without controversy: some Europeans think this money constitutes subsidies that are not allowed under trade rules. For its part, Europe has the hydrogen bug, too. Its REPowerEU plan is based on the idea of “hydrogen-ready infrastructure,” so that natural gas projects can be converted to hydrogen when the technology and economics make sense.

So there is a lot of momentum behind hydrogen, bolstered by the ambitious goals agreed to at the most recent climate conference in Egypt. McKinsey estimates that hydrogen demand could reach 660 million tons by 2050, which could abate 20 percent of total emissions. Total planned production for lower-emission green and blue hydrogen through 2030 has reached more than 26 million metric tons annually—quadruple that of 2020.

No, because major issues have not been figured out.

The plans in the works, while ambitious, are murky. A European official, asked about the REPowerEU strategy, admitted that “it’s not clear how it will work.” The same can be said of the United States. The hydrogen value chain, particularly for green hydrogen, requires a lot of electricity, and that calls for flexible grids and much greater capacity. For the United States to reach its climate goals, the grid needs to grow an estimated 60 percent by 2030.That is not easy: just try siting new transmission lines and watch the NIMBY monsters emerge.

Permitting can be a nightmare, often requiring separate approvals from local, state, interstate, and federal authorities, and from different authorities for each (air, land, water, endangered species, and on and on); money does not solve this. Even a state like Texas, which isn’t allergic to fossil fuels and has a relatively light regulatory touch, can get stuck in permitting limbo. Bill Gates recently noted that “over 1,000 gigawatts worth of potential clean energy projects [in the United States] are waiting for approval—about the current size of the entire U.S. grid—and the primary reason for the bottleneck is the lack of transmission.”

Then there is the matter of moving hydrogen from production site to market. Pipeline networks are not yet in place and shifting natural gas pipelines to hydrogen is a long way off. Liquifying hydrogen and transporting is expensive. In general, because hydrogen is still a new industry, it faces “chicken or egg” problems that are typical of the difficulties big innovations face, such as connecting hydrogen buyers to hydrogen producers and connecting carbon emitters to places to store the carbon dioxide. These challenges add to the complexity of getting projects financed.

Finally, there is money. McKinsey estimates that getting on track to that 600 million tons would require investment of $950 billion by 2030; so far, $240 billion has been announced.

Where I stand: in the middle.

I believe in hydrogen’s potential. More than 3 years ago, I wrote about hydrogen, arguing that while there had been real progress, “many things need to happen, in terms of policy, finance, and infrastructure, before it becomes even a medium-sized deal.” Now, some of those things are happening.

So, I guess I land somewhere in the middle. I think 2023 will see real progress, in decarbonizing refining and petrochemicals operations and producing ammonia, specifically. I am also optimistic that a number of low-emissions electrolysis projects will move ahead. And while such advances might seem less than transformative, they are critical: hydrogen, whether blue or green, needs to prove itself, and 2023 could be the year it does.

Because I take hydrogen’s potential seriously, though, I also see the barriers. If it is to become the big deal its supporters believe it could be, that requires big money, strong engineering and construction project management, sustained commitment, and community support. It’s easy to proclaim the wonders of the hydrogen economy; it’s much more difficult to devise sensible business models, standardized contracts, consistent incentives, and a regulatory system that doesn’t drive producers crazy. But all this matters—a lot.

My conclusion: there will be significant steps forward in 2023—but take-off is still years away.

------

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

Houston's KBR tapped to provide tech for first SAF plant in Kazakhstan

clean deals

Houston-based engineering and technology firm KBR Inc. has been tapped to provide technology for Kazakhstan's first sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production plant.

KazMunayGas-Aero LLP (KMG-Aero), a subsidiary of Kazakhstan’s national oil and gas company KazMunayGas, and KazFoodProducts awarded the contract to KBR for the project. The plant will use the alcohol-to-jet (AtJ) process for producing aviation fuel and aims to support President Kassym-Jomart Kemeluly Tokayev’s goal of boosting Kazakhstan's profile as a global aviation player, according to a news release from KBR.

"We are honored to support KMG-Aero and KFP in advancing the national commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, recognizing the pivotal role of aviation decarbonization in achieving these strategic objectives,” Jay Ibrahim, president of KBR Sustainable Technology Solutions, said in the release.

KBR will provide its PureSAF technology and engineering design for the project. Invented and developed by Swedish Biofuels AB, the PureSAF tech will be used to convert alcohol-based feedstocks into SAF. The PureSAF Technology can process multiple feedstocks—like bioethanol, syngas, carbon dioxide and hydrogen—and convert them to SAF, diesel and gasoline, according to KBR.

"KBR’s PureSAF is a feed-flexible, bankable technology that is designed to deliver high SAF yields and supports the project across the full lifecycle,” Ibrahim added in the release. “We look forward to closely collaborating and supporting the successful execution of this landmark SAF project.”

Earlier this summer, KBR was also chosen to provide technology for what’s expected to be Asia's first commercial-scale ethanol-to-jet (SAF) plant. The plant has a planned production capacity of up to 100,000 tons of SAF per year.

In addition to the SAF projects, KBR also announced this month that it has been selected by ORNX Green Hydrogen to provide proprietary ammonia technologies for a low-cost green ammonia project in Morocco.

The commitments come as KBR shifts its focus solely toward sustainability technology and services. The company is in the process of spinning off its Mission Technology Solutions business, which KBR recently announced will be named Trinzic. The remaining company, "New KBR," will serve the ammonia and syngas, chemical and petrochemicals, clean refining and circular economy markets.

Army to build nuclear microreactors at 5 U.S. bases, including Texas

Nuclear News

The U.S. Army announced Wednesday that it plans to add nuclear microreactors at five military bases from New York to Texas as a reliable source of energy independent of the commercial electric grid.

The announcement comes as the Trump administration pushes hard to develop the next generation of nuclear power, including billions in loans for large nuclear reactors to meet skyrocketing power demand from data centers and a pilot program to boost advanced reactor designs and projects for military and civilian use. No nuclear microreactors are supplying power to the commercial electric grid in the United States today.

Five companies selected by the Army will be awarded up to $2.2 billion in total over five years to own, construct and operate the microreactors, if they hit set milestones along the way for their performance. The Army expects that more than 20 nuclear microreactors will be built and operated.

Army and industry officials say microreactors offer a resilient power source for critical infrastructure at military installations in case the grid fails. Reactors can run for years without refueling.

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said the awards will accelerate the military’s ability “to deliver safe, reliable baseload power directly to our installations. We are building the energy resilience necessary to project combat power globally, without relying on potentially vulnerable external grids,” he said.

The grants are part of the Army's “Janus Program” launched last year to deliver next-generation nuclear energy. Officials hope to push nuclear development forward so that advanced reactor designs move beyond experiments and prototypes to provide power for years to come. This will be the “spear tip,” said Jeff Waksman, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment.

“That is the transition that we are trying to effect here,” he said on a call with reporters Wednesday. “These are not meant to be Army-specific designs.”

Critics of building more nuclear reactors say they’re too expensive and riskier than other energy sources. The Army program is using the military's “deep pockets to provide a hidden subsidy” to nuclear companies that can't find private-sector customers for their hypothetical and uneconomical reactors, said Alan J. Kuperman, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project.

The reactors will be licensed by the Army, rather than the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses commercial nuclear reactors. Kuperman said it's “a dangerous scam on many levels.”

Waksman said these reactors will shut down safely in case of a failure, they're small and the Army wouldn't add them to installations without being certain they are safe. He said the Army is working on a deal with the Energy Department to remove radioactive waste, and there won't be any long-term storage on these installations.

The Army is working to align its regulatory processes as much as possible, Waksman said, so that companies won’t need major changes to their designs to be later licensed by the NRC. Along with federal funding, the Army expects billions of dollars in private capital investment.

Army leads the military’s adoption of nuclear energy

President Donald Trump signed executive orders in May 2025 to speed up the development of nuclear power. The Army was tasked with ensuring that an advanced reactor would start operating at a domestic military installation no later than Sept. 30, 2028. The Janus program is named for the ancient Roman god of transitions.

Officials know that delivering nuclear power to a military base will be a challenge, so they picked five companies in case one or more fail, Waksman said. The selected companies are: Antares Nuclear at Fort Bragg in North Carolina; BWXT at Fort Campbell in Kentucky; General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems at Fort Hood in Texas; Radiant Industries at Fort Benning in Georgia; and Westinghouse Government Services at Fort Drum in New York.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked the Army to select Fort Drum. The critical missions Fort Drum supports require secure power generation, the New York Democrat said.

The military installations will remain connected to the grid. The reactors would not completely power them. Each reactor will provide between 1 megawatt to 20 megawatts of power, depending on the company's design. Major bases use as much power as a small city. Antares and Radiant are planning to deliver their reactors in three-packs, Waksman said.

The Army now uses diesel as a primary backup for critical infrastructure. But in a conflict, Waksman said, the Army may not be able to move fossil fuels easily wherever it needs them.

“That makes nuclear energy just a natural game changer,” he said. “It makes sense for the Army to take the lead here.”

A reactor at Fort Belvoir in Virginia, completed in 1957, was the first nuclear power reactor to provide electricity to a commercial power grid in the United States for an extended period, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Companies say this will accelerate US nuclear development

California-based Antares reached a crucial milestone under the U.S. pilot program that could allow it to produce electricity at Idaho National Lab next year. The company said the Army's announcement extends its momentum. Westinghouse Government Services said it’s proud to support the Army’s efforts to strengthen energy security and innovate.

Tori Shivanandan, president and chief operating officer of California-based Radiant, said the Army’s $750 million award “shows confidence in Radiant’s product and ability to manufacture, deploy and safely operate nuclear microreactors for the American military.” The Janus program “will build a stronger and more resilient America,” she said.

General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems said its reactor is designed to operate in remote, off-grid and extreme environments for 40 years. It said it will draw on more than 70 years of nuclear expertise to provide safe, dependable and independent power for the military.

Rex Geveden, BWXT's president and chief executive officer, said, “As we commence work on the Janus program, we are delivering the nation’s most credible and reliable path to deployable nuclear power.”

Energy giant Shell lists Houston HQ for sale for $325 million

asset offload

Energy giant Shell has put its U.S. headquarters in Houston’s Energy Corridor on the market and is exploring the sale of its U.S. chemical business.

Green Street News reported Shell just listed its longtime Energy Corridor campus at 150 N. Dairy Ashford Road. The asking price is $325 million, The Real Deal reported. Shell plans to lease back half of the nearly 1.5 million-square-foot Woodcreek campus for 15 years.

A sale-leaseback deal could transform the 43.6-acre campus into a multitenant hub, CoStar News reported.

“Houston is a critical hub for Shell globally and the headquarters of our U.S. businesses,” a Shell spokesperson told the Houston Business Journal. “We remain committed to Houston and are evaluating opportunities to optimize our Woodcreek campus as part of our ongoing review of workplace needs while maintaining a strong presence in the city.”

Shell occupied its first building at the West Houston campus in 1980. The company employs more than 6,000 people in Texas.

Shell is one of the highest-profile businesses occupying space in the Energy Corridor. It’s home to 67,000 workers, more than 27 million square feet of office and mixed-use space, and 3.8 million square feet of retail and restaurant space.

Shell considers $8B sale of chemical business

As the company seeks to unload its Woodcreek campus, The Financial Times reported Shell is looking into selling its U.S. chemical business. The price tag: $8 billion.

Potential buyers include Spring-based ExxonMobil and Houston-based LyondellBasell.

Shell operates four chemical plants in Texas, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, producing an array of chemicals for use in plastics, detergents and pharmaceuticals.

Shell CEO Wael Sawan said last year that the company had spent $45 billion in capital “that is underperforming for us,” split between its chemical business and renewable energy arm.

Shell also agreed to sell its solar and wind power business in India this summer. Read more here.

View All Listings

ENERGYCAPITALHTX EMAILS ARE AWESOME