"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

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.

Energy sources are often categorized as renewable or not, but perhaps a more accurate classification focuses on the type of reaction that converts energy into useful matter. Photo by simpson33/Getty Images

How is energy produced?

ENERGY 101

Many think of the Energy Industry as a dichotomy–old vs. new, renewable vs. nonrenewable, good vs. bad. But like most things, energy comes from an array of sources, and each kind has its own unique benefits and challenges. Understanding the multi-faceted identity of currently available energy sources creates an environment in which new ideas for cleaner and more sustainable energy sourcing can proliferate.

At a high level, energy can be broadly categorized by the process of extracting and converting it into a useful form.

Energy Produced from Chemical Reaction

Energy derived from coal, crude oil, natural gas, and biomass is primarily produced as a result of bonds breaking during a chemical reaction. When heated, burned, or fermented, organic matter releases energy, which is converted into mechanical or electrical energy.

These sources can be stored, distributed, and shared relatively easily and do not have to be converted immediately for power consumption. However, the resulting chemical reaction produces environmentally harmful waste products.

Though the processes to extract these organic sources of energy have been refined for many years to achieve reliable and cheap energy, they can be risky and are perceived as invasive to mother nature.

According to the 2022 bp Statistical Review of World Energy, approximately 50% of the world’s energy consumption comes from petroleum and natural gas; another 25% from coal. Though there was a small decline in demand for oil from 2019 to 2021, the overall demand for fossil fuels remained unchanged during the same time frame, mostly due to the increase in natural gas and coal consumption.

Energy Produced from Mechanical Reaction

Energy captured from the earth’s heat or the movement of wind and water results from the mechanical processes enabled by the turning of turbines in source-rich environments. These turbines spin to produce electricity inside a generator.

Solar energy does not require the use of a generator but produces electricity due to the release of electrons from the semiconducting materials found on a solar panel. The electricity produced by geothermal, wind, solar, and hydropower is then converted from direct current to alternating current electricity.

Electricity is most useful for immediate consumption, as storage requires the use of batteries–a process that turns electrical energy into chemical energy that can then be accessed in much the same way that coal, crude oil, natural gas, and biomass produce energy.

Energy Produced from a Combination of Reactions

Hydrogen energy comes from a unique blend of both electrical and chemical energy processes. Despite hydrogen being the most abundant element on earth, it is rarely found on its own, requiring a two-step process to extract and convert energy into a usable form. Hydrogen is primarily produced as a by-product of fossil fuels, with its own set of emissions challenges related to separating the hydrogen from the hydrocarbons.

Many use electrolysis to separate hydrogen from other elements before performing a chemical reaction to create electrical energy inside of a contained fuel cell. The electrolysis process is certainly a more environmentally-friendly solution, but there are still great risks with hydrogen energy–it is highly flammable, and its general energy output is less than that of other electricity-generating methods.

Energy Produced from Nuclear Reaction

Finally, energy originating from the splitting of an atom’s nucleus, mostly through nuclear fission, is yet another way to produce energy. A large volume of heat is released when an atom is bombarded by neutrons in a nuclear power plant, which is then converted to electrical energy.

This process also produces a particularly sensitive by-product known as radiation, and with it, radioactive waste. The proper handling of radiation and radioactive waste is of utmost concern, as its effects can be incredibly damaging to the environment surrounding a nuclear power plant.

Nuclear fission produces minimal carbon, so nuclear energy is oft considered environmentally safe–as long as strict protocols are followed to ensure proper storage and disposal of radiation and radioactive waste.

Nuclear to Mechanical to Chemical?

Interestingly enough, the Earth’s heat comes from the decay of radioactive materials in the Earth’s core, loosely linking nuclear power production back to geothermal energy production.

It’s also clear the conversion of energy into electricity is the cleanest option for the environment, yet adequate infrastructure remains limited in supply and accessibility. If not consumed immediately as electricity, energy is thus converted into a chemical form for the convenience of storage and distribution it provides.

Perhaps the expertise and talent of Houstonians serving the flourishing academic and industrial sectors of energy development will soon resolve many of our current energy challenges by exploring further the circular dynamic of the energy environment. Be sure to check out our Events Page to find the networking event that best serves your interest in the Energy Transition.


------

Lindsey Ferrell is a contributing writer to EnergyCapitalHTX and founder of Guerrella & Co.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston earns No. 3 spot among cities with most Fortune 500 headquarters

biggest companies

Houston maintained its No. 3 status this year among U.S. metro areas with the most Fortune 500 headquarters. Fortune magazine tallied 26 Fortune 500 headquarters in the Houston area, behind only the New York City area (62) and the Chicago area (30).

Last year, 23 Houston-area companies landed on the Fortune 500 list. Fortune bases the list on revenue that a public or private company earns during its 2024 budget year.

On the Fortune 500 list for 2025, Spring-based ExxonMobil remained the highest-ranked company based in the Houston area as well as in Texas, sitting at No. 8 nationally. That’s down one spot from its No. 7 perch on the 2024 list. During its 2024 budget year, ExxonMobil reported revenue of $349.6 billion, up from $344.6 billion the previous year.

Here are the rankings and 2024 revenue for the 25 other Houston-area companies that made this year’s Fortune 500:

  • No. 16 Chevron, $202.8 billion
  • No. 28 Phillips 66, $145.5 billion
  • No. 56 Sysco, $78.8 billion
  • No. 75 Conoco Phillips, $56.9 million
  • No. 78 Enterprise Products Partners, $56.2 billion
  • No. 92 Plains GP Holdings, $50 billion
  • No. 143 Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, $30.1 billion
  • No. 153 NRG Energy, $28.1 billion
  • No. 155 Baker Hughes, $27.8 billion
  • No. 159 Occidental Petroleum, $26.9 billion
  • No. 183 EOG Resources, $23.7 billion
  • No. 184 Quanta Services, $23.7 billion
  • No. 194 Halliburton, $23 billion
  • No. 197 Waste Management, $22.1 billion
  • No. 214 Group 1 Automotive, $19.9 billion
  • No. 224 Corebridge Financial, $18.8 billion
  • No. 256 Targa Resources, $16.4 billion
  • No. 275 Cheniere Energy, $15.7 billion
  • No. 289 Kinder Morgan, $15.1 billion
  • No. 345 Westlake Corp., $12.1 billion
  • No. 422 APA, $9.7 billion
  • No. 443 NOV, $8.9 billion
  • No. 450 CenterPoint Energy, $8.6 billion
  • No. 474 Par Pacific Holdings, $8 billion
  • No. 480 KBR Inc., $7.7 billion

Nationally, the top five Fortune 500 companies are:

  • Walmart
  • Amazon
  • UnitedHealth Group
  • Apple
  • CVS Health

“The Fortune 500 is a literal roadmap to the rise and fall of markets, a reliable playbook of the world's most important regions, services, and products, and an indispensable roster of those companies' dynamic leaders,” Anastasia Nyrkovskaya, CEO of Fortune Media, said in a news release.

Among the states, Texas ranks second for the number of Fortune 500 headquarters (54), preceded by California (58) and followed by New York (53).

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.