"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

7 must-attend Houston energy transition events in August 2025

Must-Attend Meetings

Editor's note: It's time to mark your calendars for the top Houston energy events this month. From globally-focused forums to intimate conversations with Houston energy leaders, these events are not to be missed, so begin registering today. Please note: this article may be updated to include additional event listings.

August 6-7 — U.S.-Africa Energy Forum

The U.S.-Africa Energy Forum (USAEF) connects the U.S. market with Africa’s vast energy sector opportunities. The forum empowers participants to uncover emerging opportunities in Africa’s energy sector, positioning licensing rounds and projects as prime conduits for U.S. investment. By bringing together investors, governments, and project developers, the forum fosters meaningful partnerships, expands investor networks, and paves the way for impactful collaborations across the energy value chain.

This event begins August 6 at the Post Oak Hotel. Click here to register.

August 21 — Transition on Tap

Greentown Labs’ signature networking event returns in August to foster conversations and connections within Houston's climate and energy transition ecosystem. Entrepreneurs, investors, students, philanthropists, and more are invited to attend, meet colleagues, discuss solutions, and engage with the growing community.

This event takes place Thursday, August 21 at 5:30 pm at Greentown Labs. Click here to register.

August 22 – Determined to Lead Women Lunch: Investing Through Market Cycles with Ellen Wilkirson

EnergyTech Nexus hosts a monthly Determined to Lead Women’s Lunch as part of its ongoing efforts to create safe spaces for women leaders in the energy transition to connect, learn, and lead. The August session features Ellen Wilkirson, principal at Rev Innovations. With deep experience across traditional and transition energy sectors, Wilkirson will share how she’s approached investing through multiple market and commodity cycles and what it means to be a clean energy investor in today’s evolving landscape.

This event takes place Friday, August 22 at 1 pm. Click here to register.

August 25-28 — IMAGE 2025

Join the world's premier gathering for geoscientists, energy professionals, and industry leaders to connect, collaborate, and innovate. IMAGE 2025 will feature 1,100 presentations and 260 exhibitors. It will connect more than 7,800 energy leaders from more than 90 countries. In addition to four days of programming, guests can attend pre-convention field trips on August 23-25 and post-convention workshops on August 29.

This event begins August 25 at George R. Brown Convention Center. Click here to register.

August 27 — Future of Flight: Inside Venus Aerospace with Founder Sassie Duggleby

Join EO Houston for an exclusive, behind-the-scenes conversation with Sassie Duggleby, co-founder and CEO of Venus Aerospace, a Houston-based company pioneering breakthrough propulsion systems for hypersonic and space applications.

This event takes place Wednesday, August 27 at 10 am at Venus Aerospace. It is open to EO members and partners only. Click here to register.

August 27 — Work Wednesday Lunch AMA with Scott Craig

EnergyTech Nexus will host a Work Wednesday Lunch & Learn with special guest Scott Craig from Latham Watkins LLP. This recurring event is an opportunity for founders andc ommunity members to connect, network, and share ideas, with a focus on exploring the latest trend sin climate technology. Craig advises startups and investors across climate tech, energy transition, and frontier technology and has firsthand insight into structuring early-stage deals and navigating regulatory complexity.

This event takes place Wednesday, August 27 at 12 pm at One Memorial City Plaza. Click here to register.

August 27-28 — 6th Texas Energy Forum 2025

The 6th Texas Energy Forum will dive deep into the strategies, policies, and innovative solutions that reinforce energy security for the United States and its allies and fuel economic growth — centered on Texas’ pivotal role in the global energy landscape. Key discussions will address the future of regulatory reform, tariffs, and tax incentives; advancements in oil, gas, and LNG markets; the expansion of power generation; and breakthroughs in EVs and charging infrastructure. This year's topic is "Texas: The Energy Innovation Powerhouse."

This event begins Wednesday, August 27 at the Petroleum Club of Houston. Click here to register.

Japanese energy tech manufacturer officially relocates U.S. HQ to Houston

new to hou

TMEIC Corporation Americas has officially relocated its headquarters from Roanoke, Virginia, to Houston.

TMEIC Corporation Americas, a group company of Japan-based TMEIC Corporation Japan, recently inaugurated its new space in the Energy Corridor, according to a news release from TMEIC. The new HQ occupies the 10th floor at 1080 Eldridge Parkway, according to ConnectCRE. The company first announced the move last summer.

TMEIC Corporation Americas specializes in photovoltaic inverters and energy storage systems. It employs approximately 500 people in the Houston area, and has plans to grow its workforce in the city in the coming year as part of its overall U.S. expansion.

"We are thrilled to be part of the vibrant Greater Houston community and look forward to expanding our business in North America's energy hub," Manmeet S. Bhatia, president and CEO of TMEIC Corporation Americas, said in the release.

The TMEIC group will maintain its office in Roanoke, which will focus on advanced automation systems, large AC motors and variable frequency drive systems for the industrial sector, according to the release.

TMEIC Corporation Americas also began operations at its new 144,000-square-foot, state-of-the-art facility in Brookshire, which is dedicated to manufacturing utility-scale PV inverters, earlier this year. The company also broke ground on its 267,000-square-foot manufacturing facility—its third in the U.S. and 13th globally—this spring, also in Waller County. It's scheduled for completion in May 2026.

"With the global momentum toward decarbonization, electrification, and domestic manufacturing resurgence, we are well-positioned for continued growth," Bhatia added in the release. "Together, we will continue to drive industry and uphold our legacy as a global leader in energy and industrial solutions."