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

Here's how Houston's energy and innovation sectors fared in the 2025 Texas legislative session

bills, bills, bills

Texas legislators carved out $715 million for nuclear, semiconductor and other economic development projects in the 2025 session. Photo via Getty Images

The Greater Houston Partnership is touting a number of victories during the recently concluded Texas legislative session that will or could benefit the Houston area. They range from millions of dollars for energy projects to billions of dollars for dementia research.

“These wins were only possible through deep collaboration, among our coalition partners, elected officials, business and community leaders, and the engaged members of the Partnership,” according to a partnership blog post. “Together, we’ve demonstrated how a united voice for Houston helps drive results that benefit all Texans.”

In terms of business innovation, legislators carved out $715 million for nuclear, semiconductor, and other economic development projects, and a potential $1 billion pool of tax incentives through 2029 to support research-and-development projects. The partnership said these investments “position Houston and Texas for long-term growth.”

"Nuclear power renaissance"

House Bill 14 (HB 14), for instance, aims to lead a “nuclear power renaissance in the United States,” according to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s office. HB 14 establishes the Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, and allocates $350 million for nuclear development and deployment. Two nuclear power plants currently operate in Texas, generating 10 percent of the energy that feeds the Electric Reliability Council Texas (ERCOT) power grid.

“This initiative will also strengthen Texas’ nuclear manufacturing capacity, rebuild a domestic fuel cycle supply chain, and train the future nuclear workforce,” Abbott said in a news release earlier this year.

One of the beneficiaries of Texas’ nuclear push could be Washington, D.C.-based Last Energy, which plans to build 30 micro-nuclear reactors near Abilene to serve power-gobbling data centers across the state. Houston-based Pelican Energy Partners also might be able to take advantage of the legislation after raising a $450 million fund to invest in companies that supply nuclear energy services and equipment.

Reed Clay, president of the Texas Nuclear Alliance, called this legislation “the most important nuclear development program of any state.”

“It is a giant leap forward for Texas and the United States, whose nuclear program was all but dead for decades,” said Clay. “With the passage of HB 14 and associated legislation, Texas is now positioned to lead a nuclear renaissance that is rightly seen as imperative for the energy security and national security of the United States.”

Infrastructure

In the infrastructure arena, state lawmakers:

  • Approved $265 million for Houston-area water and flood mitigation projects, including $100 million for the Lynchburg Pump Station.
  • Created the Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District.
  • Established a fund for the Gulf Coast Protection District to supply $550 million for projects to make the coastline and ship channel more resilient.

Dementia institute

One of the biggest legislative wins cited by the Greater Houston Partnership was passage of legislation sponsored by Sen. Joan Huffman, a Houston Republican, to provide $3 billion in funding over 10 years for the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Voters will be asked in November to vote on a ballot initiative that would set aside $3 billion for the new institute.

The dementia institute would be structured much like the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT), a state agency that provides funding for cancer research in the Lone Star State. Since its founding in 2008, CPRIT has awarded nearly $3.9 billion in research grants.

“By establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, we are positioning our state to lead the charge against one of the most devastating health challenges of our time,” Huffman said. “With $3 billion in funding over the next decade, we will drive critical research, develop new strategies for prevention and treatment, and support our healthcare community. Now, it’s up to voters to ensure this initiative moves forward.”

More than 500,000 Texans suffer from some form of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, according to Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

“With a steadfast commitment, Texas has the potential to become a world leader in combating [dementia] through the search for effective treatments and, ultimately, a cure,” Patrick said.

Funding for education

In the K-12 sector, lawmakers earmarked an extra $195 million for Houston ISD, $126.7 million for Cypress-Fairbanks ISD, $103.1 million for Katy ISD, $80.6 million for Fort Bend ISD, and $61 million for Aldine ISD, the partnership said.

In higher education, legislators allocated:

  • $1.17 billion for the University of Houston College of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Baylor College of Medicine.
  • $922 million for the University of Houston System.
  • $167 million for Texas Southern University.
  • $10 million for the Center for Biotechnology at San Jacinto College.
From Your Site Articles
D.C.-based Last Energy plans to bring 30 micro-nuclear reactors in Texas online within the next two years. Rending courtesy Last Energy.

Energy co. to build 30 micro-nuclear reactors in Texas to meet rising demand

going nuclear

A Washington, D.C.-based developer of micro-nuclear technology plans to build 30 micro-nuclear reactors near Abilene to address the rising demand for electricity to operate data centers across Texas.

The company, Last Energy, is seeking permission from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build the microreactors on a more than 200-acre site in Haskell County, about 60 miles north of Abilene.

The privately financed microreactors are expected to go online within roughly two years. They would be connected to ERCOT’s power grid, which serves the bulk of Texas.

“Texas is America’s undisputed energy leader, but skyrocketing population growth and data center development is forcing policymakers, customers, and energy providers to embrace new technologies,” says Bret Kugelmass, founder and CEO of Last Energy.

“Nuclear power is the most effective way to meet Texas’ demand, but our solution—plug-and-play microreactors, designed for scalability and siting flexibility—is the best way to meet it quickly,” Kugelmass adds. “Texas is a state that recognizes energy is a precondition for prosperity, and Last Energy is excited to contribute to that mission.”

Texas is home to more than 340 data centers, according to Perceptive Power Infrastructure. These centers consume nearly 8 gigawatts of power and make up 9 percent of the state’s power demand.

Data centers are one of the most energy-intensive building types, says to the U.S. Department of Energy, and account for approximately 2 percent of the total U.S. electricity use.

Microreactors are 100 to 1,000 times smaller than conventional nuclear reactors, according to the Idaho National Laboratory. Yet each Last Energy microreactor can produce 20 megawatts of thermal energy.

Before announcing the 30 proposed microreactors to be located near Abilene, Last Energy built two full-scale prototypes in Texas in tandem with manufacturing partners. The company has also held demonstration events in Texas, including at CERAWeek 2024 in Houston. Last Energy, founded in 2019, is a founding member of the Texas Nuclear Alliance.

“Texas is the energy capital of America, and we are working to be No. 1 in advanced nuclear power,” Governor Greg Abbott said in a statement. “Last Energy’s microreactor project in Haskell County will help fulfill the state’s growing data center demand. Texas must become a national leader in advanced nuclear energy. By working together with industry leaders like Last Energy, we will usher in a nuclear power renaissance in the United States.”

Nuclear energy is not a major source of power in Texas. In 2023, the state’s two nuclear power plants generated about 7% of the state’s electricity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Texas gains most of its electricity from natural gas, coal, wind, and solar.

Pelican Energy Partners has raised more than it intended with its new nuclear-focused fund. Photo via Getty Images

Houston PE firm unveils oversubscribed $450M fund to advance nuclear power innovation

fueling the future of energy

Houston-based private equity firm Pelican Energy Partners has raised a $450 million fund to invest in nuclear energy services and equipment companies.

Pelican had aimed to raise $300 million for Pelican Energy Partners Base Zero LP and had imposed an initial “hard cap” of $400 million. Investors include endowments, foundations, family offices, and pension plans.

As of the fund’s closing date, the fund had wrapped up six investments, with several more deals expected to close by the end of this year.

In a news release, Pelican says the fund “is committed to growing and improving nuclear services companies, which are critical to sustaining and enhancing the installed nuclear power generation base.” Nuclear energy accounts for more than one-fifth of U.S. power generation and nearly half of U.S. carbon-free electricity.

“The wide-ranging enthusiasm for Base Zero is a testament to the growing interest and necessity of nuclear power. We look forward to continuing to build an outstanding portfolio where we can add substantial value and achieve excellent returns for our partners,” says Jay Surina, managing director of Pelican.

Since 2012, Pelican has raised over $1 billion for investments in companies in the energy services, equipment manufacturing, and technology sectors.

Houston-area companies that have received Pelican investments include AWC Frac Technology, Axon Energy Services, GHT, Vault Pressure Control, Epic International, P360 Management Solutions, Multilift Wellbore Technology, EnerCorp, Downhole Technology, and Capline Environmental Services.

Nuclear could be a powerful tool to address rising greenhouse-gas emissions. But to get there, the industry needs to raise its game. Photo via Pexels

Houston expert explains what’s needed to bend the curve on nuclear power

guest column

I argued previously that nuclear power can help the world deal with two related challenges: energy security and climate change. I still think that is the case.

McKinsey & Company, where I worked for more than 30 years, also recently turned to the topic. The authors agreed that nuclear can play a significant role in decarbonization, and noted that there were some encouraging trends, even in markets, such as the United States, where new plants are thin on the ground. And then the authors asked a critical question: “Can the industry reverse the trend of exceeding budgets and timelines while scaling up fast enough to rise to the climate challenge?”

That query got me thinking. To me, the case for nuclear is clear and compelling. Given that electricity demand could triple by 2050, the need for low-emission and constant power is acute. Nuclear fits that bill. Other sources either emit much more (coal, gas, oil) or are intermittent (wind, solar). Little new hydro is being built. Nothing else is at anything like scale.

But clearly, nuclear has not carried the day, particularly in Europe, Japan, and the United States. These markets are, at best, wary of nuclear power. They are willing to invest some money in next-generation technologies or maybe to extend an operating license. But they are not doing much about the conditions that make new construction so costly and difficult.

For that to happen, I think we need to go deeper—to change mindsets among two very different sets of players.

Anti-nuclear green activists. As the Rolling Stones wisely noted, “You can’t always get what you want.” To deal with something as complicated and wide-ranging as climate change, there will be trade-offs. But if you want reliable power and lower emissions and if you don’t want thousands of square miles of land coated with wind and solar farms, something has to give.

Consider France. It gets more than two-thirds of its power from nuclear, which is a huge part of the reason it ranks 60th in the world in per capita carbon-dioxide emissions (4.46 tons), a much better performance than global peers like Japan (8.5), Belgium (8.1), Germany (7.9), and Austria (7.3). Those four countries have all dialed back on nuclear. Here is the Austrian energy minister, Leonore Gewessler: “The attempt to declare nuclear energy as sustainable and renewable must be resolutely opposed.”

If the goal is to reduce emissions, though, why should that be the case? Well, one response is that championing nuclear power could reduce investment in renewables. But again, if the goal is to reduce emissions, then why not embrace technologies that do exactly that? Whether nuclear can be considered “renewable” seems to me to be almost a theological question, not a technical one. And certainly not a useful one. The goal should not be X or Y percent of renewables, but how to promote an energy transition that delivers reliable, low-emission power. Somehow that point is lost, or dismissed. Instead, major environmental groups such as the Sierra Club (“unequivocally opposed”), Greenpeace (“say no to new nukes”), the Climate Action Network Europe, the European Environmental Bureau (“We advocate for an exit from nuclear energy”) and so on don’t see a place for nuclear.

The mindset shift needed among these and other green groups is to see nuclear as one component of a diversified energy system that can be part of the climate solution, and then to turn their considerable power and creativity toward convincing the public. I just don’t see how shutting down nuclear plants before their time, and replacing them with higher-emissions sources, as is often the case, helps to reduce emissions.

I am not holding my breath on this, but stranger things have happened. Heck, nuclear has found an unlikely advocate in film-maker Oliver Stone. His new documentary, “Nuclear,” argues that the public “has been trained, from the very beginning, to fear nuclear power. The very thing that we fear is what may save us.”

Nuclear could be a powerful tool to address rising greenhouse-gas emissions. But to get there, the industry needs to raise its game. Stone’s nuclear-could-save-us scenario would be likelier if the industry made a better case for itself. Not in safety or reliability, where its record is remarkably good, but in frustration and economics. The stereotype of huge delays and budget over-runs is no myth. Georgia is the only US state building plants, and they are both running years and billions beyond the initial projections.

Granted, some things are beyond the industry’s control: legal challenges plus complex and shifting regulation add up. Some countries clearly do better than others on this. South Korea, for example, gets a third of its power from nuclear, is building three more plants, and is expanding its export market. It will be interesting to see if it could develop something like a nuclear assembly line that drives down its costs, which are already much lower than in the United States.

Like any other sector, nuclear needs to excel at competitiveness, cost control, and innovation—and it hasn’t. In the United States, the typical template has been to build really big plants, each unique, and each very expensive because of the size. The McKinsey report noted a number of things that the industry itself could do better, such as learning and applying best practices for large-scale projects; establishing standard designs; and using modular construction techniques. US construction productivity has stagnated for decades; the use of digitization and automation could help.

There are reasons to believe that the industry is improving. A cluster of companies is developing smaller, salt-cooled reactors; these are cheaper and safer. In January 2023, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified NuScale’s small modular reactor that uses natural water circulation, obviating the need for pumps and thus lowering capital costs. Compared to the 1,000 MW Georgia plants, NuScale’s are about 77MW, but can be added onto. No such plants have been built yet in the United States, though; advanced fission and fusion are even further away. So at the moment, this is all about potential. As one Department of Energy official put it, “It becomes truly real when electrons go on the grid.”

McKinsey concluded: “We believe a nuclear scale-up is achievable. It’s time for the industry to meet the challenge.” I agree,

Nuclear could be a powerful tool to address rising greenhouse-gas emissions. But to get there, the industry needs to raise its game. And it could use a little help from its enemies.

------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn.

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.

"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.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston’s data center capacity set to grow 80%, report says

data findings

Houston stands to benefit from constraints dogging data center markets elsewhere in Texas, a new report indicates. This comes against the backdrop of Texas surpassing Virginia as the country’s top state for data centers — and amid deepening opposition to these facilities.

The report, published by commercial real estate services provider JLL, foresees Houston continuing to gain traction in data center development as occupants seek “scalable alternatives” to Texas markets experiencing supply-and-demand imbalances.

The Houston area currently hosts data centers with 287 megawatts of capacity, well below capacity levels in the Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin-San Antonio and West Texas markets.

However, the region is witnessing a spike in capacity, with 390 megawatts of capacity under construction, according to the report. Counting newly built data centers, Houston would be home to 677 megawatts of data center capacity, an 80 percent increase from the current inventory, the report says.

Developers target West Houston for large-scale data centers

Developers increasingly are evaluating West Houston and surrounding areas for large-scale campuses capable of supporting behind-the-meter power, according to the report. Data center development in the region is likely to remain concentrated in those areas, where power is readily accessible and flood risks are lower, the report adds.

The report notes that Houston is evolving from a traditionally enterprise-focused co-location market for data centers into a “credible large-scale growth market,” buoyed by rising interest in hyperscale facilities and increased development activity.

Corporate, energy and healthcare users are still active in Houston’s data center market, the report says, with cloud computing and technology tenants making inroads. The Houston market absorbed 25 megawatts of data center capacity in the first half of this year.

Texas crowned No. 1 state market for data center capacity

The growth of Houston’s data center sector is occurring in tandem with Texas’ ascent as a data center market. The report shows Texas now boasts 26 gigawatts of existing and under-construction capacity, followed by Virginia at 13 gigawatts.

JLL declares that “Texas has cemented its position as the state for data centers.”

The “frontier” markets of West Texas, the Carolinas, Louisiana, and Ohio account for 77 percent of all capacity being developed nationwide, according to the report.

As evidence of Texas’ heightened stature in the data center sector, commercial real estate services provider Cushman & Wakefield recently ranked Dallas as the world’s No. 1 primary data center market, while Austin-San Antonio led the list of second-tier markets and West Texas topped the third-tier ranking.

These rankings underscore “Texas’ growing importance as a large-scale AI infrastructure hub,” Cushman & Wakefield says.

Opposition to new data centers in Texas grows

While businesses see the value of adding data centers in Texas, the state’s data center boom is rattling residents and politicians alike.

A recent University of Houston survey finds that although 85 percent of Houston-area residents use AI—a key driver of data center growth—nearly 63 percent oppose construction of a data center within a mile of their home. Experts estimate 6.5 gigawatts of capacity, or roughly one-fifth of the total U.S. pipeline, will join the Texas power grid by 2030, with Houston serving as a main hub.

A poll taken recently by the University of Texas/Texas Politics Project yielded similar results: 56 percent of Texans oppose development of data centers in their community.

“Texas’ grid is already facing pressure from population growth, extreme weather and rising industrial demand,” UH researcher Soran Mohtadi says. “When residents say they are concerned about data centers, they’re mostly referring to grid reliability and affordability.”

Data center backlash prompts action by politicians

Responding to Texans’ concerns over power and water consumption, Gov. Greg Abbott recently imposed a moratorium on new data centers in the state to allow time for regulatory agencies to assess the projects’ impact. Meanwhile, some state lawmakers are calling for a crackdown on data center development.

Last month, a state legislative committee chaired by Sen. Joan Huffman, a Houston Republican, held a hearing on the effects of state sales tax exemptions given to data centers. The cost of these exemptions has climbed from an estimated $14.6 million in 2014-15 to a projected $3.3 billion in 2028-29, according to law firm Holland & Knight.

Two backers of massive data centers in Texas, social media giant Meta Platforms and AI powerhouse OpenAI, agreed this week to comply with Abbott’s recently issued standards regarding data center projects—and more have followed suit.

Dan Diorio, executive vice president of state policy and government affairs for the industry-backed Data Center Coalition, fears backlash against data centers may curb economic growth in Texas.

“I worry that communities that put moratoriums ultimately create too much uncertainty and unpredictability, and what that ultimately means is that those communities may shut themselves off to data center development but also may shut themselves off to broader economic development,” Diorio told Fox 7 News in Austin.

Texas battery startup hits $13 billion valuation & more top energy news

Trending News

Editor's note: Summer is sizzling in the energy transition sector, with a big investment for Base Power and the acquisition of Houston-based Zupt. Plus, an Alabama-based renewables company relocates to Houston. Below are the five most-read EnergyCapitalHTX stories published between July 30-August 13, 2026:

1. Texas battery startup Base Power hits $13B valuation with $1B raise

Base Power, an Austin-based residential power provider with a Houston office, has raised $1 billion in a Series D round, bringing the startup’s valuation to $13 billion. Ribbit, Addition, Valor Equity Partners, and JPMorganChase’s Strategic Investment Group led the round, with participation from Altimeter, D1 Capital Partners, Sands Capital, Coatue, Layer Global, and Energy Impact Partners. Existing investors also added to the round, including Thrive Capital, a16z, Lightspeed, Trust Ventures, and CapitalG. Base Power, which provides residential battery backup systems that automatically turn on during outages and sells electricity to homeowners, says the funding will go toward hiring more people and expanding nationally. Continue reading.

2. Houston subsea firm Zupt acquired in offshore tech deal

Houston-based Zupt LLC, a provider of advanced metrology, inspection, and engineering services for offshore energy and renewable projects, has been acquired by Columbus, Ohio-based Rosenxt Holding USA for an undisclosed amount. Rosenxt says the deal, which closed July 21, represents another step in its long-term strategy to build a portfolio of technology and engineering capabilities for the subsea market in the energy sector. Continue reading.

3. Alabama-based renewable fuels company to move HQ to Houston

An Alabama-based clean tech company is moving its headquarters to Houston. Alléo Energy announced that it will move its headquarters from Bay Minette, Alabama, to Houston's Ion District. The company develops carbon-negative fuels and renewable commodities through its conversion technology that turns wood waste and cellulosic feedstocks into high-energy, high-yield syngas. Continue reading.

4. Houston geothermal startup adds former BP, Calpine execs to C-suite

XGS Energy, a Houston-based developer of geothermal power systems, has added several energy industry veterans to its C-suite this summer. The company named Al Vickers as its new chief operating officer earlier this month. Vickers will replace Ghazal Izadi in the role, as she moves into the chief growth officer position. Vickers previously served as CEO of bp's U.S. Low Carbon Energy business and most recently was COO of Houston-based Grid United, which develops next-generation transmission infrastructure. Continue reading.

5. Woodlands-based Lancium teams up on West Texas data center campus

The Woodlands-based Lancium Technologies, which designs, develops, and manages gigawatt-scale data center campuses, has teamed up with Denver-based data center builder and operator Crusoe Energy Systems on a new grid-connected campus more than 100 miles east of Wichita Falls. Construction on the 1-gigawatt Childress County campus, being built for an unidentified tech company, is expected to start in Q3 of this year. Continue reading.

Houston energy startups help drive $1B funding haul for Q1-Q2 2026

cha-ching

Houston startups started 2026 strong, bringing in nearly $1 billion in venture capital in the first half of the year, Pitchbook data shows.

Here are 17 Houston companies that secured funding since January, according to reporting by Energy Capital and our sister site, InnovationMap.com.

Did we miss a funding round? Let us know by emailing innoeditor@innovationmap.com. This article originally appeared on our sister site, InnovationMap.com.

Sage Geosystems

Sage Geosystems has raised a $97 million Series B. Photo via sagegeosystems.com.

Houston-based geothermal energy startup Sage Geosystems closed its Series B fundraising round in January and plans to use the money to launch its first commercial next-generation geothermal power generation facility.

Ormat Technologies and Carbon Direct Capital co-led the $97 million round, according to a press release from Sage. Existing investors Exa, Nabors, alfa8, Arch Meredith, Abilene Partners, Cubit Capital and Ignis H2 Energy also participated, as well as new investors SiteGround Capital and The UC Berkeley Foundation’s Climate Solutions Fund.

The new geothermal power generation facility will be located at one of Ormat Technologies' existing power plants. The Nevada-based company has geothermal power projects in the U.S. and numerous other countries around the world. The facility will use Sage’s proprietary pressure geothermal technology, which extracts geothermal heat energy from hot dry rock, an abundant geothermal resource. Continue reading.

TrueLeap Inc.

Sandip Bordoloi and Sunny Zhang, founders of True Leap Inc. Photo via trueleapinc.com.

Houston-based edtech company TrueLeap Inc. closed an oversubscribed seed round in January.

The $3.3 million round was led by Joe Swinbank Family Limited Partnership, a venture capital firm based in Houston. Gamper Ventures, another Houston firm, also participated with additional strategic partners.

TrueLeap reports that the funding will support the large-scale rollout of its "edge AI, integrated learning systems and last-mile broadband across underserved communities." Continue reading.

Wellysis

Wellysis is known for its continuous ECG/EKG monitor with AI reporting, known as the S-Patch. Photo via wellysis.com.

Wellysis, a Seoul, South Korea-headquartered wearable biosensing company with its U.S. subsidiary based in Houston, closed a $13.5 million pre-IPO funding round in February and plans to expand its Texas operations.

The round was led by Korea Investment Partners, Kyobo Life Insurance, Kyobo Securities, Kolon Investment and a co-general partner fund backed by SBI Investment and Samsung Securities, according to a news release.

Wellysis reports that the latest round brings its total capital raised to about $30 million. The company is working toward a Korea Securities Dealers Automated Quotations listing in Q4 2026 or Q1 2027.

Wellysis is known for its continuous ECG/EKG monitor with AI reporting. Its lightweight and waterproof S-Patch cardiac monitor is designed for extended testing periods of up to 14 days on a single battery charge. Continue reading.

DexMat

DexMat plans to use its seed funding to commercially scale Galvorn, its carbon-based conductive fiber. Photo courtesy DexMat.

Houston-based material science and climatech startup DexMat closed a $5 million seed round in February.

The round was led by non sibi ventures, with participation from Governance Partners, Tailwind Futures, BetterWay, Capital Factory and other investors. The company additionally announced that it has secured $3 million of non-dilutive funding.

DexMat plans to use the recent round to commercially scale Galvorn, its carbon-based conductive fiber. The high-performance copper alternative, originally developed at Rice University, is made from carbon nanotube (CNT) fibers, which are less energy- and CO2-intensive to produce. Continue reading.

Coya Therapeutics

Coya Therapeutics plans to scale up manufacturing and prepare for the commercialization of COYA 302, its ALS therapy drug. Photo via Getty Images

Houston-based clinical-stage biotechnology company Coya Therapeutics (NASDAQ: COYA) closed a $11.1 million in a private investment round in February.

India-based pharmaceuticals company Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. led the round with a $10 million investment, according to a news release. New York-based investment firm Greenlight Capital, Coya’s largest institutional shareholder, contributed $1.1 million.

Coya reports that it plans to use the proceeds to scale up manufacturing of low-dose interleukin-2 (IL-2), which is a component of its COYA 302 and will support the commercial readiness of the drug. COYA 302 enhances anti-inflammatory T cell function and suppresses harmful immune activity for treatment of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD), Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Continue reading.

Utility Global

Utility Global’s H2Gen technology aims to decarbonize the heavy industrial sector. Photo courtesy of Utility Global

Houston-based Utility Global raised $100 million in an ongoing Series D round to globally deploy its decarbonization technology at an industrial scale, the company reported in February.

The round was led by Ara Partners and APG Asset, according to a news release. Utility plans to use the funding to expand manufacturing, grow its teams and support its commercial developments and partnerships.

Utility Global's H2Gen technology produces low-cost, clean hydrogen from water and industrial off-gases without requiring electricity. It's designed to integrate into existing industrial infrastructure in hard-to-abate assets in the steel, refining, petrochemical, chemical, low-carbon fuels, and upstream oil and gas sectors. Continue reading.

Cart.com

Cart.com raised $180 million to scale its logistics network, expand AI capabilities and develop workflow automation tools. Photo courtesy of Cart.com

Houston-based commerce and logistics platform Cart.com raised $180 million in growth capital from private equity firm Springcoast Partners, pushing the startup past the $1 billion funding mark since its founding in 2020, the company reported in March.

Cart.com says it will use the capital to scale its logistics network, expand AI capabilities and develop workflow automation tools. Continue reading.

Artemis

Houston-based Artemis, formerly Monalee, closed its latest funding round in March. Rendering courtesy Artemis.

Houston tech startup Artemis raised $6 million from 10 investors, it reported in March. The company offers an AI-supported platform that enables solar, battery storage and home improvement contractors to design, sell and finance energy projects.

Long Journey and Copec WIND Ventures co-led the round, with participation from angel investor Scott Banister, Coalition Operators, FJ Labs, Ludlow Ventures, Palm Tree Crew, Plug and Play Ventures, Shrug Capital and Tribeca Ventures.

To help propel growth, the company secured $10 million in financing last year (under its previous name, Monalee) from venture debt and growth credit provider Applied Real Intelligence. As Monalee, the company raised $16 million in venture capital. Continue reading.

Helix Earth Technologies

Helix Earth's technology is estimated to save up to half of the net energy used in commercial air conditioning, reducing both emissions and costs for operators. Photo via Getty Images

Houston-based Helix Earth Technologies closed a $12 million Seed 2 funding round to scale manufacturing of its energy-efficient commercial HVAC add-on technology in April.

Veriten, a Houston-based energy investment firm, led the round. Rua Ventures, Carnrite Ventures, Skywriter LLC and Textbook Ventures also participated.

Helix Earth—which was founded based on NASA technology, spun out of Rice University and has been incubated at Greentown Labs—is developing high-efficiency retrofit dehumidification systems that aim to reduce the energy consumption of commercial HVAC units. The company reports that its technology can lead to "healthier indoor air, lower energy bills, reduced building maintenance, and more comfortable spaces for building owners and occupants." Continue reading.

NanoTech Materials

The company has developed thermal insulation technology that improves efficiency and safety in buildings and outdoor infrastructure. Photo via LinkedIn

Houston-based NanoTech Materials closed a $29.4 million Series A in April.

The round was led by Austin-based HPI Real Estate & Investments. Houston-based Goose Capital and Austin-based Milliken & Company also participated.

Nanotech has developed its patented Insulative Ceramic Particle (ICP) technology, which reduces heat transfer in buildings and outdoor infrastructure, improving efficiency and safety. It's known for its Cool Roof Coat, Wildfire Shield and Insulative Coat: Cool Touch product lines. Continue reading.

Paige

Paige founder and CEO Emily Cisek. Photo courtesy Paige

Houston-based Paige, a comprehensive life planning and succession software company, secured a $2.5 million investment to expand the AI-driven tools on its platform this spring.

The funding comes from Alabama-based 22nd State Banking Company, according to a news release. Paige says it will use the funding to expand automation, AI-driven onboarding and self-service tools, as well as add to its sales and customer success teams.

The company was originally founded by CEO Emily Cisek in 2020 as The Postage and rebranded to Paige last year. It helps users navigate and organize end-of-life planning with features like document storage and organization, password management, and funeral and last wishes planning. Continue reading.

Ace Green Recycling

The company plans to use the funds to support its flagship Texas facility and planned merger. Photo via LinkedIn

Houston-based Ace Green Recycling raised $32 million in private investment in public equity (PIPE) financing to support its future plans for growth, the company reported in May.

The battery recycling technology company secured the financing with Athena Technology Acquisition Corp. II, a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company that Ace previously announced it plans to merge with. Once the merger is completed, Ace will become a publicly traded company on the Nasdaq Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "AGXI."

Ace says the financing will be used to complete the merger and scale the company. Continue reading.

Casimir

Casimir’s semiconductor chips can generate power from quantum vacuum fields without the need for batteries or charging. Photo via casimir.inc

Houston-based Casimir emerged from stealth in May with a $12 million seed round to commercialize its quantum energy chip.

The round was led by Austin-based Scout Ventures. Lavrock Ventures, Cottonwood Technology, Capital Factory, American Deep Tech, and Tim Draper of Draper Associates also participated in the round. The oversubscribed round exceeded the company’s original $8 million target, according to a news release.

Casimir’s semiconductor chips can generate power from quantum vacuum fields without the need for batteries or charging. The company plans to commercialize its first-generation MicroSparc chip by 2028. Continue reading.

VoltaGrid

VoltaGrid has developed a modular power generation system that improves reliability and limits emissions. Photo via voltagrid.com

Houston-based power generation startup VoltaGrid nailed down a $1 billion equity investment from asset management heavyweight Blackstone and Houston-based oilfield services provider Halliburton in May.

The investment came in two forms:

  • A $775 million primary capital raise
  • A $225 million secondary capital purchase from existing investors

VoltaGrid, founded in 2020, provides behind-the-meter mobile power generation equipment for data centers, microgrids and industrial customers. Continue reading.

Aquanta Vision

Babur Ozden is the founder and CEO of Aquanta Vision. Photo via LinkedIn

Houston climatech startup Aquanta Vision secured pre-seed funding to accelerate the commercialization of its methane leak detection software, the company announced in May.

EIC Rose Rock participated in the round, joining investors like Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Chevron Technology Ventures, Ecosphere Ventures, and Odyssey Energy Advisors. The investment follows successful field trials for Aquanta Vision’s optical gas imaging (OGI) detection software, according to the company. Continue reading.

Axiom Space

Axiom Space closed an oversubscribed $525 million round in June. Image via NASA

Axiom Space tacked on an additional $175 million to a previously announced capital raise in June, bringing the oversubscribed round to a total of more than $525 million.

Axiom shared in February that it had secured $350 million in a financing round led by Type One Ventures and Qatar Investment Authority. In June, the company reported that Japan-based MUFG Bank Ltd. joined the round as a new investor, in addition to continued participation from existing backers.

The funding will go toward developing the company's commercial space station, known as Axiom Station, and the production of its Axiom Extravehicular Mobility Unit (AxEMU) under its NASA spacesuit contract. Continue reading.

Receipts Depositary Corporation

The company's platform makes it easier to buy and trade hard-to-access and less traditional assets. File photo

Houston-based fintech company Receipts Depositary Corporation closed a $7 million oversubscribed funding round in June and plans to scale.

The round was led by Austin-based LiveOak Ventures, with participation from Hivemind Capital, Onigiri Capital, OTC Markets Group, GTS, and Redbeard Ventures, according to a release from RDC.

RDC's platform issues depositary receipts (DRs) to qualified investors on digital and alternative assets, making it easier for investors to buy and trade hard-to-access and less traditional assets. Continue reading.

View All Listings