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

Houston expert: Is China leading the global energy transition?

guest column

Photo by Bhavya Pratap Singh on Unsplash

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.


From Your Site Articles
It's a different world for startups on the other side of the pandemic — especially for business development. One Houston innovator shares her lessons learned. Photo via Getty Images

Energy tech professional shares 3 business development tips for 2024

guest column

The post-pandemic world of business development looks a lot different than it did in 2019. I started my first “sales” role in 2014 at a large, international company, and my days were filled with in-person meetings, often visiting four or five different prospects. The pandemic shifted this approach, as we all moved to web-based platforms and face-to-face meetings dwindled.

Fast forward to 2023, when I joined the Houston team at Square Robot, a startup that was trying to disrupt an industry. I had to learn how to navigate a post-pandemic sales world — where hybrid work, reliance on emails, and video based web calls are now the norm — coupled with the challenges of working for a relatively new company.

I think many working for startups will agree that the first barrier encountered in trying to build and grow your business is addressing the “who” in the equation. You are battling your prospect’s already busy schedule to earn a few minutes of their time, which is an uphill battle when the company is relatively unknown. Not to mention, startups often run into internal delays just from encountering a concern or problem that hasn't been sorted out before. A successful startup is made up of people who, when encountering that sort of a situation, instinctively and proactively figure out the way to solve it instead of sitting back and saying, "We don't have a tool I can use, so I can't get this accomplished.”

While there’s no perfect formula for how to drive sales at a startup, I can share my personal experience and success from the past 15 months at Square Robot. The company put their faith in me to develop business in an untapped market segment: the power industry. In one year, I grew this market by over 300 percent, despite the majority of prospects having never heard of Square Robot. There were a few key steps to my success, which included adjusting to the shift in work operations since Covid-19.

The power of developing a brand

My first focus was on developing my personal brand as an ambassador for Square Robot. Not only did I dive into learning all aspects of our robotic services, but I then did the same in the power industry. I heavily relied on LinkedIn to build my brand as a knowledge center, often creating short videos, posts and even articles about the benefits of Square Robot’s service for the power industry.

I found that in a business world that’s inundated with endless emails and cold calls, social media was an easy way to get in front of prospects without the pressure of calling as they’re stepping into a meeting or too busy to speak. The recognition of name and company from LinkedIn translated across the traditional platforms. I connected and messaged on LinkedIn, followed by email and phone outreach. Overall, about 75 percent of my closed opportunities in 2023 began with outreach on Linkedin.

Tapping into relevant organizations

As I continued to learn more about the power generation industry, I looked for associated research and non-profit groups. From there, I found the Electric Power Research Institute, and subsequently, Square Robot was accepted into a program to showcase new technology directly to the end user.

I also researched industry specific conferences and publications for either speaking submissions or written pieces, which are great avenues to grow the brand of a startup company while paying close attention to budgeting.

Making time for in-person meetings

While finding ways to raise the profile of Square Robot was important, I also wanted to make sure I still had the face-to-face connection that makes a lasting impact. True success in this role takes business development into relationship development, and I made it a priority to visit new clients when Square Robot was onsite providing service.

Taking the time to meet in person with the people and teams I’ve spoken with countless times — sometimes across months — helped to build trust and uncover additional opportunities. People are much more likely to answer emails or calls when they can put a face to a name. Many times I used this visit to extend my reach into a company, asking for introductions to other locations or areas.

Even though 2023 was an achievement for myself and Square Robot, it comes with the expectation of continued growth. In the startup world of business development, this means constantly engaging with potential audiences in new and different ways, not being deterred when things take time or you fail, and having creativity and tenacity to drive sales.

------

Stephanie Nolan is director of sales at Square Robot, which is headquartered in Massachusetts but has a growing presence in Houston.

This article originally ran on InnovationMap.
Scott Nyquist on what the path to net-zero will look like. Graphic via mckinsey.com

Column: Houston expert on what the path to net-zero will look like

guest column

The $275 trillion question: What does the road to net-zero look like?

That’s a good question, and McKinsey took a serious stab at providing an answer in a 2022 report, it considers the net-zero scenario described by the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), a consortium of 105 central banks and financial institutions. McKinsey then describes the costs, benefits, and social and economic changes that would likely be required for the world to start, stay on, and finish the pathway described by the NGFS.

Here is what the report isn’t, and what it doesn’t do. It isn’t a roadmap to net zero, and it does not make predictions. Rather, it offers estimates related to one specific scenario. It does not say who should pay. It does not address adaptation. It doesn’t even assume that restricting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050 is achievable. It doesn’t assert that this is the best or only way to of. Indeed, it notes that “it is likely that real outcomes will diverge from these estimates.”

What the report does do is more interesting: with rigor and thoughtfulness, it thinks through what a genuine, global effort to get to net zero would take. Here are a few insights from the report I found particularly noteworthy.

It won’t come cheap. Capital spending by 2050 under the NGFS scenario would add up to $275 trillion, or $9.2 trillion per year on average. That is about $3.5 trillion a year more than is being spent today, or the equivalent of about half of global corporate profits in 2020. In addition, about $1 trillion of current spending would need to shift from high- to low-emissions assets. In short, it’s a lot of money. Of course, some of these costs are also investments that will deliver returns, and indeed the share that do so will probably rise over the decades. Upfront spending now could also reduce operating costs down the line, through greater efficiency and lower maintenance costs. And it’s important to keep in mind the considerable benefit of a healthier planet and a stable climate, with cleaner air and richer land. But the authors do not shy away from the larger point: “Reaching net-zero emissions will thus require a transformation of the global economy.”

Some countries are going to be hit harder than others. It’s hardly surprising to read that countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela, which rely heavily on oil and gas resources, are going to have a more difficult time adjusting. The same is true for many developing economies. To some extent their residents can leapfrog to cleaner, greener technologies, just as they skipped the landline in favor of cellphones. But other factors weigh in. For example, developing countries are more likely to have high-emissions manufacturing as a major share of the economy; services are generally lower emission. In addition, poorer countries still have to build much of their infrastructure, which is costly. All this adds up. The report estimates that India and sub-Saharan Africa would need to spend almost 11 percent of its GDP on physical assets related to energy and land to get to net zero; in other Asian countries and Latin America, it is more than 9 percent. For Europe and the United States, by contrast, the figure is about 6 percent.

Now is better than later. An orderly, gradual transition would likely be both gentler and cheaper than a hasty, disorderly one. The report sees spending as “frontloaded,” meaning that there is more of it in the next decade to 15 years, and then it declines. That is because of the need for substantial capital investment. But why does this matter? There is timing, for one thing. If low emissions sources do not increase as fast (or preferably faster) than high-emissions ones are retired, there will be shortages or price rises. Both would be unpleasant, and could also cut into public support for change. And then there is the matter of money. If a coal plant is built today—as many are—and then has to be shut down, abruptly and well before its useful life over, a lot of money that was invested in it will never be recouped. The report estimates that as much as $2.1 trillion assets in the power sector alone could be stranded by 2050. Many of these assets are capitalized on the balance sheets of listed companies; shutting them down prematurely could bring bankruptcies and credit defaults, and that could affect the global financial system.

The world would look very different. Under the NGFS scenario, oil and gas production volumes in 2050 would be 55 percent and 70 percent lower, respectively, and coal would just about vanish. The market share for battery or fuel cell-electric vehicles would be close to 100 percent. Many existing jobs would disappear, and because these assets tend to be geographically concentrated, the effects on local communities would be harsh. For example, more than 10 percent of jobs in 44 US counties are in the coal, oil and gas, fossil fuel power, and automotive sectors. On the whole, McKinsey estimates that the transition could mean the loss of 187 million jobs—but the creation of 202 million new ones. Reaching net zero would also make demands on individuals, such as switching to electric vehicles, making their homes more energy efficient, and eating less meat like beef and lamb (cows and sheep are ruminants, emitting methane, a greenhouse gas).

There’s a lot else worth thinking about in the report, which goes into some detail about forestry and agriculture, for example, as well as the role of climate finance and what can be done to fill technology gaps. And its closing sentence is worth pondering: “The key issue is whether the world can muster the requisite boldness and resolve to broaden its response during the next decade or so, which will in all likelihood decide the nature of the transition.”

So, is something like this going to happen? I don’t know. There is certainly momentum. As of January 27, 2022, 136 countries accounting for almost 90 percent of both emissions and GDP, have signed up to the idea. But these pledges are not cast in stone, or indeed in legislation, in many places, and as a rule policy is running far short of the promise. “Moving to action,” the report notes dryly, “has not proven easy or straightforward.”

And while some things can be done from the top down, others cannot—such as the considerable shift in human diets away from high-emissions (and delicious) beef and lamb and more toward poultry and legumes. Moreover, inertia and vested interests are powerful forces. “Government and business would need to act together with singular unity, resolve, and ingenuity, and extend their planning and investment horizons even as they take immediate actions to manage risks and capture opportunities,” the report concludes. That’s a big ask.

So, like McKinsey, I am not going to make predictions. But for an analysis of what it would take, this is a valuable effort.

———

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 January 28, 2022.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

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

now open

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Houston quantum simulator research reveals clues for solar energy conversion

energy flow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EPA is easing pollution rules — here’s how it’s affecting Texas

In the news

The first year of President Trump’s second term has seen an aggressive rollback of federal environmental protections, which advocacy groups fear will bring more pollution, higher health risks, and less information and power for Texas communities, especially in heavily industrial and urban areas.

Within Trump’s first 100 days in office, his new Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Lee Zeldin, announced a sweeping slate of 31 deregulatory actions. The list, which Zeldin called the agency’s “greatest day of deregulation,” targeted everything from soot standards and power plant pollution rules to the Endangerment Finding, the legal and scientific foundation that obligates the EPA to regulate climate-changing pollution under the Clean Air Act.

Since then, the agency froze research grants, shrank its workforce, and removed some references to climate change and environmental justice from its website — moves that environmental advocates say send a clear signal: the EPA’s new direction will come at the expense of public health.

Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, said Texas is one of the states that feels EPA policy changes directly because the state has shown little interest in stepping up its environmental enforcement as the federal government scales back.

“If we were a state that was open to doing our own regulations there’d be less impact from these rollbacks,” Reed said. “But we’re not.”

“Now we have an EPA that isn’t interested in enforcing its own rules,” he added.

Richard Richter, a spokesperson at the state’s environmental agency, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, said in a statement that the agency takes protecting public health and natural resources seriously and acts consistently and quickly to enforce federal and state environmental laws when they’re violated.

Methane rules put on pause

A major EPA move centers on methane, a potent greenhouse gas that traps heat far more efficiently than carbon dioxide over the short term. It accounts for roughly 16% of global greenhouse gas emissions and is a major driver of climate change. In the U.S., the largest source of methane emissions is the energy sector, especially in Texas, the nation’s top oil and gas producer.

In 2024, the Biden administration finalized long-anticipated rules requiring oil and gas operators to sharply reduce methane emissions from wells, pipelines, and storage facilities. The rule, developed with industry input, targeted leaks, equipment failures, and routine flaring, the burning off of excess natural gas at the wellhead.

Under the rule, operators would have been required to monitor emissions, inspect sites with gas-imaging cameras for leaks, and phase out routine flaring. States are required to come up with a plan to implement the rule, but Texas has yet to do so. Under Trump’s EPA, that deadline has been extended until January 2027 — an 18-month postponement.

Texas doesn’t have a rule to capture escaping methane emissions from energy infrastructure. Richter, the TCEQ spokesperson, said the agency continues to work toward developing the state plan.

Adrian Shelley, Texas director of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said the rule represented a rare moment of alignment between environmentalists and major oil and gas producers.

“I think the fossil fuel industry generally understood that this was the direction the planet and their industry was moving,” he said. Shelley said uniform EPA rules provided regulatory certainty for changes operators saw as inevitable.

Reed, the Sierra Club conservation director, said the delay of methane rules means Texas still has no plan to reduce emissions, while neighboring New Mexico already has imposed its own state methane emission rules that require the industry to detect and repair methane leaks and ban routine venting and flaring.

These regulations have cut methane emissions in the New Mexico portion of the Permian Basin — the oil-rich area that covers West Texas and southeast New Mexico — to half that of Texas, according to a recent data analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund. That’s despite New Mexico doubling production since 2020.

A retreat from soot standards

Fine particulate matter or PM 2.5, one of six pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act, has been called by researchers the deadliest form of air pollution.

In 2024, the EPA under President Biden strengthened air rules for particulate matter by lowering the annual limit from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter. It was the first update since 2012 and one of the most ambitious pieces of Biden’s environmental agenda, driven by mounting evidence that particulate pollution is linked to premature death, heart disease, asthma, and other respiratory illnesses.

After the rule was issued, 24 Republican-led states, including Kentucky and West Virginia, sued to revert to the weaker standard. Texas filed a separate suit asking to block the rule’s recent expansion.

State agencies are responsible for enforcing the federal standards. The TCEQ is charged with creating a list of counties that exceed the federal standard and submitting those recommendations to Gov. Greg Abbott, who then finalizes the designations and submits them to the EPA.

Under the 9 microgram standard, parts of Texas, including Dallas, Harris (which includes Houston), Tarrant (Fort Worth), and Bowie (Texarkana) counties, were in the process of being designated nonattainment areas — which, when finalized, would trigger a legal requirement for the state to develop a plan to clean up the air.

That process stalled after Trump returned to office. Gov. Greg Abbott submitted his designations to EPA last February, but EPA has not yet acted on his designations, according to Richter, the TCEQ spokesperson.

In a court filing last year, the Trump EPA asked a federal appeals court to vacate the stricter standard, bypassing the traditional notice and comment administrative process.

For now, the rule technically remains in effect, but environmental advocates say the EPA’s retreat undermines enforcement of the rule and signals to polluters that it may be short-lived.

Shelley, with Public Citizen, believes the PM2.5 rule would have delivered the greatest health benefit of any EPA regulation affecting Texas, particularly through reductions in diesel pollution from trucks.

“I still hold out hope that it will come back,” he said.

Unraveling the climate framework

Beyond individual pollutants, the Trump EPA has moved to dismantle the federal architecture for addressing climate change.

Among the proposals is eliminating the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which requires power plants, refineries, and oil and gas suppliers to report annual emissions. The proposal has drawn opposition from both environmental groups and industry, which relies on the data for planning and compliance.

Colin Leyden, Texas state director and energy lead at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said eliminating the program could hurt Texas industry. If methane emissions are no longer reported, then buyers and investors of natural gas, for example, won’t have an official way to measure how much methane pollution is associated with that gas, according to Leyden. That makes it harder to judge how “clean” or “climate-friendly” the product is, which international buyers are increasingly demanding.

“This isn’t just bad for the planet,” he said. “It makes the Texas industry less competitive.”

The administration also proposed last year rescinding the Endangerment Finding, issued in 2009, which obligates the EPA to regulate climate pollution. Most recently, the EPA said it will stop calculating how much money is saved in health care costs as a result of air pollution regulations that curb particulate matter 2.5 and ozone, a component of smog. Both can cause respiratory and health problems.

Leyden said tallying up the dollar value of lives saved when evaluating pollution rules is a foundational principle of the EPA since its creation.

“That really erodes the basic idea that (the EPA) protects health and safety and the environment,” he said.

___

This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

View All Listings