tapping in

University of Houston selected for DOE-backed energy storage innovation initiative

The University of Houston has joined the Energy Storage Research Alliance, one of two DOE-backed energy innovation hubs. Photo via Getty Images

The University of Houston was selected for a new energy storage initiative from the United States Department of Energy.

UH is part of the Energy Storage Research Alliance (ESRA), which is one of the two energy innovation hubs that the DOE is creating with $125 million. The DOE will provide up to $62.5 million in ESRA funding over a span of five years.

“To fuel innovation and cultivate a sustainable and equitable energy future, all universities, government entities, industry and community partners have to work together,” Ramanan Krishnamoorti, vice president for energy and innovation at UH, says in a news release. “No one person or entity can achieve all this by themselves. As the Energy University and a Carnegie-designated Tier One research university, located in Houston — a center of diverse talent and experience from across the energy industry — UH has a unique advantage of continuing to build on Houston’s global leadership and demonstrating solutions at scale.

The hubs will attempt to address battery challenges and encourage next-generation innovation, which include safety, high-energy density and long-duration batteries. The batteries will be made from inexpensive, abundant materials, per the release.

The work that will be done at ESRA and other hubs can optimize renewable energy usage, reduce emissions, enhance grid reliability, and assist in growing electric transportation, and other clean energy solutions.

ESRA will bring in 50 researchers from three national laboratories and 12 other universities, including UH. The deputy lead of the soft matter scientific thrust and the principal investigator for UH’s portion of the project will be Yan Yao. Yao is the Hugh Roy and Lillie Cranz Cullen Distinguished Professor at the UH Cullen College of Engineering and principal investigator at the Texas Center for Superconductivity.

UH professor Yan Yao will lead the school's participation in the program. Photo via UH.edu

ESRA will focus on three interconnected scientific thrusts and how they work together: liquids, soft matter, and condensed matter phases. Yao and his team have created next-generation batteries using low-cost organic materials. The team previously used quinones that can be synthesized from plants and food like soybeans to increase energy density, electrochemical stability and safety in the cathode. Yao’s team were the first to make solid-state sodium batteries by using multi-electron conformal organic cathodes. The cathodes had a demonstrated record of recharging stability of 500 charging cycles.

Robert A. Welch Assistant Professor of electrical and computer engineering at UH Pieremanuele Canepa, will serve as co-PI. Both will investigate phase transitions in multi-electron redox materials and conformable cathodes to enable solid-state batteries by “marrying Yao’s experimental lab work with Canepa’s expertise in computational material science,” according to the release.

Joe Powell, founding director of the UH Energy Transition Institute and a professor in the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, will create a community benefit plan and develop an energy equity course.

“New energy infrastructure and systems can have benefits and burdens for communities,” Powell says in the release. “Understanding potential issues and partnering to develop best solutions is critical. We want everyone to be able to participate in the new energy economy and benefit from clean energy solutions.”

This project will be led by Argonne National Laboratory and co-led by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

“This is a once in a lifetime opportunity,” adds Yao. “To collaborate with world-class experts to understand and develop new science and make discoveries that will lead to the next generation of batteries and energy storage concepts, and potentially game changing devices is exciting. It’s also a great opportunity for our students to learn from and work with top scientists in the country and be part of cutting-edge research.”

Trending News

A View From HETI

No critical minerals, no modern economy. Getty images

If you’re reading this on a phone, driving an EV, flying in a plane, or relying on the power grid to keep your lights on, you’re benefiting from critical minerals. These are the building blocks of modern life. Things like copper, lithium, nickel, rare earth elements, and titanium, they’re found in everything from smartphones to solar panels to F-35 fighter jets.

In short: no critical minerals, no modern economy.

These minerals aren’t just useful, they’re essential. And in the U.S., we don’t produce enough of them. Worse, we’re heavily dependent on countries that don’t always have our best interests at heart. That’s a serious vulnerability, and we’ve done far too little to fix it.

Where We Use Them and Why We’re Behind

Let’s start with where these minerals show up in daily American life:

  • Electric vehicles need lithium, cobalt, and nickel for batteries.
  • Wind turbines and solar panels rely on rare earths and specialty metals.
  • Defense systems require titanium, beryllium, and rare earths.
  • Basic infrastructure like power lines and buildings depend on copper and aluminum.

You’d think that something so central to the economy, and to national security, would be treated as a top priority. But we’ve let production and processing capabilities fall behind at home, and now we’re playing catch-up.

The Reality Check: We’re Not in Control

Right now, the U.S. is deeply reliant on foreign sources for critical minerals, especially China. And it’s not just about mining. China dominates processing and refining too, which means they control critical links in the supply chain.

Gabriel Collins and Michelle Michot Foss from the Baker Institute lay all this out in a recent report that every policymaker should read. Their argument is blunt: if we don’t get a handle on this, we’re in trouble, both economically and militarily.

China has already imposed export controls on key rare earth elements like dysprosium and terbium which are critical for magnets, batteries, and defense technologies, in direct response to new U.S. tariffs. This kind of tit-for-tat escalation exposes just how much leverage we’ve handed over. If this continues, American manufacturers could face serious material shortages, higher costs, and stalled projects.

We’ve seen this movie before, in the pandemic, when supply chains broke and countries scrambled for basics like PPE and semiconductors. We should’ve learned our lesson.

We Do Have a Stockpile, But We Need a Strategy

Unlike during the Cold War, the U.S. no longer maintains comprehensive strategic reserves across the board, but we do have stockpiles managed by the Defense Logistics Agency. The real issue isn’t absence, it’s strategy: what to stockpile, how much, and under what assumptions.

Collins and Michot Foss argue for a more robust and better-targeted approach. That could mean aiming for 12 to 18 months worth of demand for both civilian and defense applications. Achieving that will require:

  • Smarter government purchasing and long-term contracts
  • Strategic deals with allies (e.g., swapping titanium for artillery shells with Ukraine)
  • Financing mechanisms to help companies hold critical inventory for emergency use

It’s not cheap, but it’s cheaper than scrambling mid-crisis when supplies are suddenly cut off.

The Case for Advanced Materials: Substitutes That Work Today

One powerful but often overlooked solution is advanced materials, which can reduce our dependence on vulnerable mineral supply chains altogether.

Take carbon nanotube (CNT) fibers, a cutting-edge material invented at Rice University. CNTs are lighter, stronger, and more conductive than copper. And unlike some future tech, this isn’t hypothetical: we could substitute CNTs for copper wire harnesses in electrical systems today.

As Michot Foss explained on the Energy Forum podcast:

“You can substitute copper and steel and aluminum with carbon nanotube fibers and help offset some of those trade-offs and get performance enhancements as well… If you take carbon nanotube fibers and you put those into a wire harness… you're going to be reducing the weight of that wire harness versus a metal wire harness like we already use. And you're going to be getting the same benefit in terms of electrical conductivity, but more strength to allow the vehicle, the application, the aircraft, to perform better.”

By accelerating R&D and deployment of CNTs and similar substitutes, we can reduce pressure on strained mineral supply chains, lower emissions, and open the door to more secure and sustainable manufacturing.

We Have Tools. We Need to Use Them.

The report offers a long list of solutions. Some are familiar, like tax incentives, public-private partnerships, and fast-tracked permits. Others draw on historical precedent, like “preclusive purchasing,” a WWII tactic where the U.S. bought up materials just so enemies couldn’t.

We also need to get creative:

  • Repurpose existing industrial sites into mineral hubs
  • Speed up R&D for substitutes and recycling
  • Buy out risky foreign-owned assets in friendlier countries

Permitting remains one of the biggest hurdles. In the U.S., it can take 7 to 10 years to approve a new critical minerals project, a timeline that doesn’t match the urgency of our strategic needs. As Collins said on the Energy Forum podcast:

“Time kills deals... That’s why it’s more attractive generally to do these projects elsewhere.”

That’s the reality we’re up against. Long approval windows discourage investment and drive developers to friendlier jurisdictions abroad. One encouraging step is the use of the Defense Production Act to fast-track permitting under national security grounds. That kind of shift, treating permitting as a strategic imperative, must become the norm, not the exception.

It’s Time to Redefine Sustainability

Sustainability has traditionally focused on cutting carbon emissions. That’s still crucial, but we need a broader definition. Today, energy and materials security are just as important.

Countries are now weighing cost and reliability alongside emissions goals. We're also seeing renewed attention to recycling, biodiversity, and supply chain resilience.

Net-zero by 2050 is still a target. But reality is forcing a more nuanced discussion:

  • What level of warming is politically and economically sustainable?
  • What tradeoffs are we willing to make to ensure energy access and affordability?

The bottom line: we can’t build a clean energy future without secure access to materials. Recycling helps, but it’s not enough. We'll need new mines, new tech, and a more flexible definition of sustainability.

My Take: We’re Running Out of Time

This isn’t just a policy debate. It’s a test of whether we’ve learned anything from the past few years of disruption. We’re not facing an open war, but the risks are real and growing.

We need to treat critical minerals like what they are: a strategic necessity. That means rebuilding stockpiles, reshoring processing, tightening alliances, and accelerating permitting across the board.

It won’t be easy. But if we wait until a real crisis hits, it’ll be too late.

———

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 appeared on LinkedIn on April 11, 2025.


Trending News