The project would nearly eliminate the emissions associated with power and steam generation at the Dow plant in Seadrift, Texas. Getty Images

Dow, a major producer of chemicals and plastics, wants to use next-generation nuclear reactors for clean power and steam at a Texas manufacturing complex instead of natural gas.

Dow's subsidiary, Long Mott Energy, applied Monday to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction permit. It said the project with X-energy, an advanced nuclear reactor and fuel company, would nearly eliminate the emissions associated with power and steam generation at its plant in Seadrift, Texas, avoiding roughly 500,000 metric tons of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions annually.

If built and operated as planned, it would be the first U.S. commercial advanced nuclear power plant for an industrial site, according to the NRC.

For many, nuclear power is emerging as an answer to meet a soaring demand for electricity nationwide, driven by the expansion of data centers and artificial intelligence, manufacturing and electrification, and to stave off the worst effects of a warming planet. However, there are safety and security concerns, the Union of Concerned Scientists cautions. The question of how to store hazardous nuclear waste in the U.S. is unresolved, too.

Dow wants four of X-energy's advanced small modular reactors, the Xe-100. Combined, those could supply up to 320 megawatts of electricity or 800 megawatts of thermal power. X-energy CEO J. Clay Sell said the project would demonstrate how new nuclear technology can meet the massive growth in electricity demand.

The Seadrift manufacturing complex, at about 4,700 acres, has eight production plants owned by Dow and one owned by Braskem. There, Dow makes plastics for a variety of uses including food and beverage packaging and wire and cable insulation, as well as glycols for antifreeze, polyester fabrics and bottles, and oxide derivatives for health and beauty products.

Edward Stones, the business vice president of energy and climate at Dow, said submitting the permit application is an important next step in expanding access to safe, clean, reliable, cost-competitive nuclear energy in the United States. The project is supported by the Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program.

The NRC expects the review to take three years or less. If a permit is issued, construction could begin at the end of this decade, so the reactors would be ready early in the 2030s, as the natural gas-fired equipment is retired.

A total of four applicants have asked the NRC for construction permits for advanced nuclear reactors. The NRC issued a permit to Abilene Christian University for a research reactor and to Kairos Power for one reactor and two reactor test versions of that company's design. It's reviewing an application by Bill Gates and his energy company, TerraPower, to build an advanced reactor in Wyoming.

X-energy is also collaborating with Amazon to bring more than 5 gigawatts of new nuclear power projects online across the United States by 2039, beginning in Washington state. Amazon and other tech giants have committed to using renewable energy to meet the surging demand from data centers and artificial intelligence and address climate change.

Texas leaders discussed the opportunity for nuclear energy. Photo via htxenergytransition.org

5 reasons Texas energy leaders are excited about sustainable nuclear energy

the view from heti

The University of Texas at Austin Cockrell School of Engineering hosted an event on August 16th called Advanced Nuclear Technology in Texas, where Dow and X-Energy CEOs joined Texas Governor Greg Abbott for a discussion about why the Texas Gulf Coast is quickly becoming the epicenter for nuclear with the recent announcement about Dow and X-Energy. Dow and X-energy are combining efforts to deploy the first advanced small modular nuclear reactor at industrial site under DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program

“Texas is the energy capital of the world, but more important is what we are doing with that energy and what it means for our future in the state of Texas,” said Abbott. “Very important to our state is how we use energy to generate power for our grid. For a state that continues to grow massively, we are at the height of our production during the day, and we generate more power than California and New York combined. But we need more dispatchable power generation. One thing we are looking at with a keen eye is the ability to expand our capabilities with regard to nuclear generated power.”

The Governor announced a directive to the Public Utilities Commission of Texas to formulate a workgroup that will make recommendations that aim to propel Texas as a national leader in advanced nuclear energy.

According to the directive, to maximize power grid reliability, the group will work to understand Texas’s role in deploying and using advanced reactors, consider potential financial incentives available, determine nuclear-specific changes needed in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) market, identify any federal or state regulatory hurdles to development, and analyze how Texas can streamline and speed up advanced reactor construction permitting.

Below are five key takeaways about the project and why energy experts are excited about advanced nuclear energy:

  • Advanced SMR Nuclear Project for Carbon-Free Energy: Dow, a global materials science leader, has partnered with X-energy to establish an advanced small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear project at its Seadrift Operations site in Texas. The project aims to provide safe, reliable, and zero carbon emissions power and steam to replace aging energy assets.
  • Decarbonization and Emission Reduction: This collaboration is set to significantly reduce the Seadrift site’s emissions by approximately 440,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year. By adopting advanced nuclear technology, Dow is making a notable contribution to decarbonizing its manufacturing processes and improving environmental sustainability.
  • Grid Stability and Reliability: The advanced nuclear technology offers enhanced power and steam reliability, ensuring a stable energy supply for Dow’s Seadrift site. This is crucial for maintaining uninterrupted manufacturing operations and contributing to overall electric grid stability.
  • Texas Gulf Coast Energy Hub: Texas, as the energy capital of the world, has been chosen as the location for this groundbreaking project. This selection underscores Texas’ exceptional business climate, innovation history, and commitment to leading the energy transition. The project builds upon Texas’ position as a global energy leader.
  • Economic Growth and Job Opportunities: The SMR nuclear project promises to bring economic growth to the Texas Gulf Coast. It is expected to create new jobs, provide economic opportunities, and strengthen the local economy. By embracing innovative and sustainable energy solutions, Dow and X-energy are driving both industrial advancement and community prosperity.
———

This article originally ran on the Greater Houston Partnership's Houston Energy Transition Initiative blog. HETI exists to support Houston's future as an energy leader. For more information about the Houston Energy Transition Initiative, EnergyCapitalHTX's presenting sponsor, visit htxenergytransition.org.

"The world has two complementary challenges: decarbonization to deal with climate change and ensuring that there is a steady, safe, and reliable supply of energy. Nuclear can help with both." Photo via Getty Images

Houston expert: Why we need to talk about nuclear power

guest column

A magnitude 9.0 earthquake and resulting tsunami devastated Japan’s Fukushima province in 2011 and flooded the nearby nuclear power plant. This damaged the reactor cores and released radiation. How many people died as a result of radiation exposure?

A. More than 10,000

B. More than 5,000

C. More than 1,000

D. More than 100

E. 1

The correct answer: E.

Yes, I was surprised, too.

No question: Fukushima was a tragedy. The earthquake and tsunami; about 18,000 people died. The evacuation of 150,000 people due to fears about possible radiation was traumatic and cost lives due to stress and interrupted medical care, particularly among the elderly. Fukushima a disaster — but it was a natural disaster, not a nuclear one.

In 2018, Japan confirmed the first death of a worker at the plant as a result of radiation exposure, and there has been none since. But surely, this is just a matter of time; there will be more cancers and premature deaths. Not so, according to the UN’s Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. In 2021, it found that “no adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that could be directly attributed to radiation exposure from the accident, nor are expected to be detectable in the future.” The World Health Organization came to a similar conclusion, as did the US Centers for Disease Control.

Fukushima is widely regarded as the second-worst nuclear-power accident in history (after Chernobyl which was much, much worse). As a result of it, Japan shut down or suspended all of its nuclear operations, which generated about 30 percent of its power at the time. Many have stayed shut. Germany pledged to phase out nuclear power by the end of 2022, and Spain, Belgium and Switzerland announced the same, but a bit more slowly.

And so, to my point: While I know there are difficulties, I think more countries, particularly in the West, need to get serious about nuclear. Even though people with impeccable green and/or progressive credentials like George Monbiot of The Guardian, James Hansen (sometimes known as the “father of global warming”), Stewart Brand (of Whole Earth Catalog fame), Steven Pinker, and yes, Sting believe that nuclear must play a bigger role in order to achieve deep and last decarbonization, I get the impression that the topic is often seen not fit for discussion in polite green society. It’s striking how few of the country submissions about meeting their climate goals under the Paris accords mention nuclear.

There are two major objections.

It’s dangerous. No, it’s not, and nuclear plants are not run by legions of Homer Simpsons. In fact, nuclear has proved incredibly safe over its 60-plus year history. Here is the OECD in 2010: “Even though nuclear power is perceived as a high risk, comparison with other energy sources shows far fewer fatalities.” Since releases of radioactivity were so rare — and none in OECD countries prior to Fukushima — the OECD noted that “reliance on statistics of events is not possible.” Instead, it had to do a theoretical exercise. An analysis of deaths per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity estimated nuclear’s toll at 0.03 per TWh. That figure includes Chernobyl as well as things like workplace accidents. That is less than wind (0.04), and a bit more than solar (0.02).

And of course, since we live in the real world, it’s important to remember that any particular source is part of a larger system. Nuclear power is markedly less dangerous than fossil fuels, which are deadlier in terms of production, and also carry risks in the form of respiratory disease and other problems related to air pollution. James Hansen estimated in 2013 that, by displacing fossil fuels, nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatons of GHG emissions.

It’s expensive. Upfront costs are high, and operating a plant isn’t cheap. By any measure, renewables, gas, and coal are all cheaper and that will probably be the case for the foreseeable future. In addition, renewables and gas can continue to innovate and their costs could continue to fall without the big capital expenditures that nuclear requires. It’s fair to say that under today’s conditions, the economics of nuclear are against it.

But, what if conditions change? For one thing, a big chunk of the expense comes in the form of time. In places where it takes a decade or more just to get through the regulations and litigation — and the United States is one — that drives up costs enormously. McKinsey has estimated that If nuclear costs could be lowered 20 to 40 percent, it would be competitive with other forms of generation. (It’s worth noting that in the years when renewables were very expensive, there were still many voices in support of them, for reasons of health, energy security, and diversity of supply. All these apply to nuclear.) To be clear: I am not against nuclear regulation: safety first and last. But it is possible to foster both safety and efficiency, and to drive down costs in the process.

Moreover, renewables are dependent on the weather; they cannot keep the lights on 24/7 without storage, which at the moment is both limited and expensive. The relative economics compared to nuclear change a lot if storage is added to the equation.

As for the positive case for nuclear, there are several elements. One has to do with innovation. A new generation of advanced water-cooled and small modular reactors (SMRs) are even safer than existing ones and generate less waste. (The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified NuScale’s SMR design in July.) These new designs might also change the economics. The capital and construction costs of SMRs are much less, although still big, an estimated $3 billion for NuScale, for example. The idea is that they could be mass-manufactured, generating economies of scale, then shipped to markets that could never afford the kind of massive plants that are the norm now. But that can only happen if it is allowed to happen, which is a kind of Catch-22. As an MIT study noted: “Policies that foreclose a role for nuclear energy discourage investment in nuclear technology.” And that guarantees that costs will stay high.

An important advantage of nuclear is that, acre for acre, it produces more power than solar or wind. Indeed, it’s not even close. The late British physicist and climate scientist David Mackay estimated that wind has a power density — power per unit of land area—of two watts per square meter (2W/m2); for solar farms, the figure is 10W/m2 — and for nuclear 1,000W/m2. To visualize what that means, to deliver the same amount of power, wind would require 500 acres, or almost three-fifths of New York’s Central Park, or all of Disneyland; nuclear would need less than a football field. And Earth is not growing massive amounts of new land.

Finally, it is hard to see how the world gets to deep decarbonization without it. Right now, nuclear provides more than half of all carbon-free US emissions and 30 percent globally. That cannot be replaced quickly or cost-effectively, particularly given that demand will continue to rise. It’s interesting, too, that to some extent, nuclear is assumed to be part of the climate solution. Indeed, in all three of the pathways it describes that limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (see page 28) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sees substantial increases in nuclear power.

There are itty-bitty signs that the mood may be changing, even in democratic places with active anti-nuclear campaigns. With Europe’s energy system struggling, Germany is slowing down its nuclear phase-out, by extending the life of two of its reactors. Japan, which has to import almost all its energy, is considering investing in a new generation of nuclear power plants. Britain is building its first new plant in decades — although the process has been troubled with delays and cost overruns. France is accelerating deployment and President Macron has said the country could build as many as 14 more — a reversal of the country’s previous plan to reduce its reliance on nuclear, which generates more than two-thirds of its power.

Closer to home, in September, California decided to extend the life of its Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which is the state’s largest single source of electricity (see image). The Biden Administration has allocated $2.5 billion for research into new nuclear technologies, and supported existing ones to stay open.

But the fact remains that the United States has just two plants under construction, both in Georgia, and costs are ballooning. Only one nuclear plant has started up since 1996, while almost a dozen have been retired. And it’s not just the US: there are only two under construction in the EU. Most new plants are rising in Asia, particularly China, India, and Korea.

Here’s the thing: I have been what passes for a nuclear optimist for decades — and been wrong for that long. I am tempted, yet again, to say that nuclear is having its moment. I won’t go that far, because in the West, I don’t think it is.

But I think that, just maybe, that moment is edging closer, out of necessity. The world has two complementary challenges: decarbonization to deal with climate change and ensuring that there is a steady, safe, and reliable supply of energy. Nuclear can help with both.

------

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.

Radioactive waste is an obstacle to nuclear energy adoption potential. This research team from the University of Houston has discovered a potential solution. Photo via uh.edu

Houston research team discovers new application for crystals in nuclear energy

cleaning up nuclear energy

Researchers at the University of Houston have unlocked a new way to use crystals to safely dispose of radioactive waste.

The team of UH researchers published a paper in Cell Reports Physical Science this month detailing their discovery of how to use molecular crystals to capture large quantities of iodine, one of the most common products of radioactive fission, which is used to create nuclear energy.

According to a statement from UH, these molecular crystals are based on cyclotetrabenzil hydrazones. Ognjen Miljanic, professor of chemistry and author of the paper, and his team have created the organic molecules containing only carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms, which create ring-like crystals with eight smaller offshoots, earning them the nickname "The Octopus."

The discovery was made by Alexandra Robles, the first author of the study and a former doctoral student in Miljanic’s lab.

The crystals have an uptake capacity similar to that of porous metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) and covalent organic frameworks (COFs), which traditionally have been considered the “pinnacle of iodine capture materials," according to UH. They allow iodine to be moved from one area to another, are reusable and can be produced using commercially available chemicals for about $1 per gram in an academic lab.

“They are quite easy to make and can be produced at a large scale from relatively inexpensive materials without any special protective atmosphere,” Miljanic said in a statement.

The team also believes the crystals can be used to capture additional elements like carbon dioxide.

“This is a type of simple molecule that can do all sorts of different things depending on how we integrate it with the rest of any given system,” Miljanic continued. “So, we’re pursuing all those applications as well.”

Next up, Miljanic is looking to find a partner that will help the team explore practical applications and commercial aspects.

UH has been making net-zero news lately. A team of students from UH placed in the top three teams in a national competition for the Department of Energy earlier this summer. The college also shared details about its forthcoming innovation hub, which will house UH's Energy Transition Institute, as well as other centers and programs.

Joseph Powell, founding director of UH's Energy Transition Institute, sat down with EnergyCapitalHTX last week to talk about UH's vision for the organization.

Ognjen Miljanic is a University of Houston professor of chemistry and author of the paper. Photo via UH.edu

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

3 Houston energy companies rank among most innovative startups in Texas

report card

Three Houston companies claimed spots on LexisNexis's 10 Most Innovative Startups in Texas report, with two working in the geothermal energy space.

Sage Geosystems claimed the No. 3 spot on the list, and Fervo Energy followed closely behind at No. 5. Fintech unicorn HighRadius rounded out the list of Houston companies at No. 8.

LexisNexis Intellectual Property Solutions compiled the report. It was based on each company's Patent Asset Index, a proprietary metric from LexisNexis that identifies the strength and value of each company’s patent assets based on factors such as patent quality, geographic scope and size of the portfolio.

Houston tied with Austin, each with three companies represented on the list. Caris Life Sciences, a biotechnology company based in Dallas, claimed the top spot with a Patent Asset Index more than 5 times that of its next competitor, Apptronik, an Austin-based AI-powered humanoid robotics company.

“Texas has always been fertile ground for bold entrepreneurs, and these innovative startups carry that tradition forward with strong businesses based on outstanding patent assets,” Marco Richter, senior director of IP analytics and strategy for LexisNexis Intellectual Property Solutions, said in a release. “These companies have proven their innovation by creating the most valuable patent portfolios in a state that’s known for game-changing inventions and cutting-edge technologies.We are pleased to recognize Texas’ most innovative startups for turning their ideas into patented innovations and look forward to watching them scale, disrupt, and thrive on the foundation they’ve laid today.”

This year's list reflects a range in location and industry. Here's the full list of LexisNexis' 10 Most Innovative Startups in Texas, ranked by patent portfolios.

  1. Caris (Dallas)
  2. Apptronik (Austin)
  3. Sage Geosystems (Houston)
  4. HiddenLayer (Austin)
  5. Fervo Energy (Houston)
  6. Plus One Robotics (San Antonio)
  7. Diligent Robotics (Austin)
  8. HighRadius (Houston)
  9. LTK (Dallas)
  10. Eagle Eye Networks (Austin)

Sage Geosystems has partnered on major geothermal projects with the United States Department of Defense's Defense Innovation Unit, the U.S. Air Force and Meta Platforms. Sage's 3-megawatt commercial EarthStore geothermal energy storage facility in Christine, Texas, was expected to be completed by the end of last year.

Fervo Energy fully contracted its flagship 500 MW geothermal development, Cape Station, this spring. Cape Station is currently one of the world’s largest enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) developments, and the station will begin to deliver electricity to the grid in 2026. The company was recently named North American Company of the Year by research and consulting firm Cleantech Group and came in at No. 6 on Time magazine and Statista’s list of America’s Top GreenTech Companies of 2025. It's now considered a unicorn, meaning its valuation as a private company has surpassed $1 billion.

Meanwhile, HighRadius announced earlier this year that it plans to release a fully autonomous finance platform for the "office of the CFO" by 2027. The company reached unicorn status in 2020.

Tech entrepreneur turned climate investor is on a mission to monetize carbon removal

now streaming

The climate conversation is evolving — fast. It’s no longer just about emissions targets and net-zero commitments. It’s about capital, infrastructure, and execution at industrial scale.

That’s exactly where Yao Huang operates. A seasoned tech entrepreneur turned climate investor, Yao brings sharp clarity to one of the biggest challenges in climate innovation: how do we fund and scale technologies that remove carbon without relying on goodwill or government subsidies?

In this episode of the Energy Tech Startups Podcast, Yao sits down with hosts Jason Ethier and Nada Ahmed for a wide-ranging conversation that redefines how we think about decarbonization. From algae-based photobioreactors that capture CO₂ at the smokestack, to financing models that mirror real estate and infrastructure—not venture capital—Yao lays out a case for why the climate fight will be won or lost on spreadsheets, not slogans.

Her message is as bold as it is practical: this isn’t about saving the planet for the sake of it. It’s about building profitable, resilient systems that scale. And Houston, with its industrial base and project finance expertise, is exactly the place to do it.

The 40-Gigaton Challenge—and a Pandemic Pivot

Yao’s entry into climate wasn’t part of a long-term plan. It was sparked by a quiet moment during the pandemic—and a book.

Reading How to Avoid a Climate Disaster by Bill Gates, she came to two uncomfortable realizations:

  1. The people in power don’t actually have this figured out, and
  2. She would be alive to suffer the consequences.

That insight jolted her out of the traditional tech world and into climate action. She studied at Stanford, surrounded herself with mentors, and began diving into early-stage climate deals. But she quickly realized that most of the solutions she was seeing were still years away from commercialization.

So she narrowed her focus: no R&D moonshots, no science experiments—just deployable solutions that could scale now.

Carbon Optimum: Where Algae Meets Infrastructure

That’s how she found Carbon Optimum, a company using algae photobioreactors to remove CO₂ directly from industrial emissions. Their approach is both elegant and economic:

  • Install algae reactors next to major emitters like coal and cement plants.
  • Feed the algae with flue gas, allowing it to absorb CO₂ in a controlled system.
  • Harvest the algae and convert it into valuable commodities like bio-oils, fertilizer, and food ingredients.

It’s a nature-based solution, enhanced by engineering.
One acre of tanks can capture emissions and generate profit—without subsidies.

“This is one of the few solutions I’ve seen that can scale profitably and quickly,” Yao says. “And we’re not inventing anything new—we’re just doing it better.”

The Real Problem? It’s Capital, Not Carbon

As an investor, Yao is blunt: most climate startups are misaligned with the capital markets.

They’re following a tech startup playbook—built for SaaS, not steel. But building climate infrastructure requires a completely different approach: project finance, blended capital, debt structures, carbon credit integration, and regulatory incentives.

“Climate tech is more like real estate or healthcare than software,” Yao explains. “You don’t raise six rounds of venture. You build a stack—grants, equity, debt, tax credits—and you structure your project like infrastructure.”

It’s not just theory. It’s exactly how Carbon Optimum is expanding—through partnerships, offtake agreements, and real-world deployments. And it’s why she believes many climate startups fail: they don’t speak the language of finance.

Houston’s Role in the Climate Capital Stack

For Yao, Houston isn’t just a backdrop—it’s a strategic asset.

The city’s deep bench of project finance professionals, commodity traders, lawyers, and infrastructure veterans makes it uniquely positioned to lead the deployment phase of climate solutions.

“We’ve been calling it the wrong thing,” she says. “This isn’t just about climate—it’s an energy transition. And Houston knows how to build energy infrastructure at scale.”

Still, she notes, the ecosystem needs to evolve. Less education, more execution. Fewer workshops, more closers.

“Houston could be the epicenter of this movement—if we activate the right people and get the right projects over the line.”

From Carbon Capture to Circular Economies

The potential applications of Carbon Optimum’s algae platform go beyond carbon capture. Because the output—algae biomass—can be converted into:

  • Renewable oil
  • High-efficiency fertilizers (critical in today’s geopolitically fragile supply chains)
  • Food ingredients rich in protein and nutrients
  • Even biochar, a highly stable form of carbon sequestration

It’s scalable, modular, and location-agnostic. In island nations, Yao notes, these systems can offer energy independence by turning waste CO₂ into local energy and fertilizer—without needing to import fuels or food.

“It’s not just emissions reduction. It’s economic sovereignty through circular systems.”

Doing, Not Just Talking

One of Yao’s key takeaways for founders? Don’t waste time. Climate startups don’t have the luxury of trial-and-error cycles stretched over years.

“Founders need to get real about what it takes to scale: talent, capital, storytelling, partnerships. If you’re not ready to do that, maybe you should be a CSO, not a CEO.”

She also points out that founders don’t need to hire everyone—they need to tap the right networks. And in cities like Houston, those networks exist—if you know how to motivate them.

“It takes a different kind of leadership. You’re not just raising money—you’re moving people.”

Why This Episode Matters

This conversation is for anyone who’s serious about scaling real solutions to the climate crisis. Whether you’re a founder navigating capital markets, an investor seeking return and impact, or a policymaker designing the frameworks — Yao Huang offers a grounded, urgent, and actionable perspective.

It’s not about hope. It’s about execution.

Listen to the full episode of the Energy Tech Startups Podcast with Yao Huang:


--
Hosted by
Jason Ethier and Nada Ahmed, the Digital Wildcatters’ podcast, Energy Tech Startups, delves into Houston's pivotal role in the energy transition, spotlighting entrepreneurs and industry leaders shaping a low-carbon future.


Rice scientist receives $2 million award for research on 'new type of fuel'

winner, winner

Rice University chemistry professor László Kürti was named as a recipient of the 2025 Ross M. Brown Investigator Award from the California Institute of Technology’s Brown Institute for Basic Sciences.

Kürti is one of eight mid-career faculty members to receive up to $2 million over five years for their research in the physical sciences.

“I’m greatly honored,” Kürti said in a news release. “We will learn a tremendous amount in the next five years and gain a much clearer understanding of the challenges ahead.”

Kürti was selected for the research he’s been developing for six years on a molecule called tetrahedral N4, which studies show can release large amounts of energy on demand. The molecule can also decompose directly into nitrogen gas without producing carbon dioxide or water vapor. Kürti believes N4 can be used as a "new type of fuel for vehicles."

“Eventually, N4 and other stable, neutral polynitrogen cages could be used to power rockets, helping us reach the moon or Mars faster and with heavier payloads,” he added in this release.

The Brown Investigator Awards were founded by entrepreneur and Caltech alumnus Ross M. Brown and established by the Brown Science Foundation in 2020. The organization has recognized 21 scientists over the last five years.

“Midcareer faculty are at a time in their careers when they are poised and prepared to make profound contributions to their fields,” Brown said in the news release. “My continuing hope is that the resources provided by the Brown Investigator Awards will allow them to pursue riskier innovative ideas that extend beyond their existing research efforts and align with new or developing passions, especially during this time of funding uncertainty.”