Build Fast or Fall Behind with Michael Webber

For a long time, the basic story in U.S. energy was stability. Demand growth had flattened, efficiency was doing more work than most people realized, and expansion was steady.

Not anymore.

In this week’s conversation, Josh Rhodes talks with Michael Webber about what may be the most important shift now underway in energy: the dramatic growth in electricity demand, in Texas and beyond. Data centers are a big part of the story, but not all of it. Electrification, industrial growth, and population growth are also fueling the need for more energy.

In this episode, Webber notes that energy progress moves fastest when markets, policy, and engineering align. That is true for shale development, and it may be true again with the coming growth of the grid.

Texas is well-positioned to lead this next stage of energy development — we have a strong energy base, growing demand, and a mix of technologies competing to meet it. Josh and Michael talk through why geothermal power is gaining attention, why nuclear expansion plans feel different this time, and why wind, solar, storage, gas, and transmission remain essential.

They also address a problem that is becoming hard to ignore: new load can be built faster than new generation, and new generation can be built faster than transmission. That mismatch is showing up in transformer backlogs, turbine supply constraints, and growing pressure to move much faster than some energy executives are used to.

n many cases, the challenge Texas faces is not a lack of energy throughout the year — rather, it’s a shortage of power during a relatively small number of peak hours. That has real implications for cost, reliability, and what kinds of loads and technologies make sense for ERCOT.

Tune in to hear Michael and Josh talk through those challenges — and opportunities.

Energy Capital Podcast is produced by ClarityForge Studios.

Timestamps

* 00:03 – Introduction & Michael Webber Background

* 01:14 – The Energy Three-Body Problem

* 04:16 – Shale Revolution & Forecasting Misses

* 08:42 – Webber’s 2029 Energy Predictions

* 09:42 – Why Efficiency Still Matters

* 13:37 – Gasoline, Natural Gas & Texas Exports

* 18:13 – Electrifying the Texas Oil Patch

* 19:45 – Why Webber Is Bullish on Geothermal

* 23:32 – Nuclear’s New Momentum

* 26:27 – The Three-Part Energy Transition

* 33:30 – Scarcity, Flexibility & Data Centers

* 39:11 – Build Faster, Then Career Advice

* 45:15 – Closing & Outro

Resources

People & Organizations

* Joshua Rhodes (LinkedIn)

* IdeaSmiths (Website - LinkedIn)

* Michael Webber (Website - LinkedIn)

* Webber Energy Group (Website - LinkedIn)

Company & Industry News

* US power use to beat record highs in 2026 and 2027 as AI use surges, EIA says

* GE Vernova expects to end 2025 with an 80-GW gas turbine backlog that stretches into 2029

* A tour of global geothermal projects in progress

Books & Articles Discussed

* Annual Energy Outlook Products - Archive

* Energy Policy Act of 2005

Related Podcasts by Energy Capital

* Interview with Energy Expert Dr. Michael Webber

* Drilling for Geothermal Power and Storage with Cindy Taff

* More Power that’s Faster and Fairer

Related Posts by Texas Energy & Power

* Reading & Podcast Picks — March 4, 2025: Data Centers, Nukes, VPPs, and More

* The Growing Importance of Energy Efficiency, Reading and Podcast Picks

Transcript

Joshua Rhodes (00:03.726)

Hey everyone, and welcome to the Energy Capital podcast. I am really excited to have Dr. Michael Weber on to talk about, well, energy. He’s an energy guy, and I’m really excited to talk to him about energy and Texas energy and all kinds of things. Most of you probably know Michael, but just really quickly, he’s got a PhD from mechanical engineering from Stanford. He’s worked at Rand, various clean energy incubators, really been in kind of the energy space for a long time.

Joshua Rhodes (00:32.472)

But really the kind of the main areas right now that Michael’s he’s a double chaired professor at the University of Texas, which is pretty rare thing. The Sid Richardson chair at the LBJ School of Public Affairs and the Cockrell family chair number 16 in mechanical engineering. He’s a former CTO at Energy Impact Partners, which is a big climate clean tech venture fund and a former chief science and technology officer at Engie, one of the world’s largest energy companies, as well as a founding partner of Ideasmus upon which he and I work together.

Joshua Rhodes (01:01.688)

So he really sits at the intersection of engineering and policy and commercialization. Welcome to the Energy Capital Podcast.

Dr. Michael Webber (01:10.008)

Thanks for having me. Very excited to be part of the conversation today after being a long time listener.

Joshua Rhodes (01:14.574)

And so you really are kind of like a rare three world energy person. I mean you’ve kind of like gone across the spectrum from engineering to policy and you know commercialization. One of the things that this actually reminded me of and I’m gonna go off script almost immediately is kind of like the three body problem. You’re familiar with the three body problem in classical mechanics is that it’s basically impossible to predict the motions of three things that are gravitationally

Joshua Rhodes (01:42.786)

connected to each other at the same time. you feel this way in your three worlds? An engineering policy in the technical space? Like, is it similar?

Dr. Michael Webber (01:51.34)

That is a great orbital mechanics reference. did my undergraduate degree in aerospace engineering at UT. I took a class on orbital mechanics from one of the famous professors, Zabihay. Professor Zabihay taught that. And we could solve the two-body problem. You cannot solve the three-body problem. You can only approximate it. So you’re exactly right. And it does feel like this tension between engineering policy and markets or commercialization are in tension where you can’t completely solve the problem with all three. Although in orbital mechanics, you do get alignment if one’s swallowed.

Dr. Michael Webber (02:19.47)

where the planets align or the different celestial bodies align. And in my observation, at least in the United States, things work best when policies and markets and innovation are all aligned. If they’re all pointed the same direction, amazing things can happen very quickly. And so I like this sort of idea, like you can’t solve it perfectly, you can kind of get close, you can do some numerical approximation, but sometimes you have alignment. And if you have alignment, then great things happen. So let me give an example of that from like 2005 to seven timeframe, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Dr. Michael Webber (02:49.454)

in other things were happening where the policies were calling for more domestic production. We more natural gas in particular. The markets were calling for more natural gas production. Natural gas prices were quite high, say 2003 and other years. So the markets were calling for more natural gas. The policies were calling for more natural gas. And the innovation engineering was also unlocking a lot of new natural gas, which was a combination of technologies of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. So we had engineering policy and markets all aligned.

Dr. Michael Webber (03:16.044)

The world flipped, the whole shale revolution of producing so much oil and gas in such a sudden turnaround flipped geopolitics on its head. Where we went from LNG imports to exports, we went from feeling at the mercy of foreign countries for their oil and gas production to feeling a little more confident on the energy stage globally. That was a remarkable instance where things aligned. And we don’t have that very often in energy, frankly, for the decades before that.

Dr. Michael Webber (03:41.164)

We had groups calling for less production because of environmental concerns. have policies that inhibited production. The markets and innovation work there. So we often have misalignment, though when you have alignment, it goes quickly. And that’s another cool thing from Celestial Mechanics. So maybe we should write an article that says, what Celestial Mechanics teaches us about the energy three-body problem. That’d be a great op-ed. Let’s write that essay.

Joshua Rhodes (04:00.239)

Like we’re getting work done immediately even when we’re doing a podcast. This is great.

Dr. Michael Webber (04:04.204)

Yes, our to-do list just grew though, unfortunately.

Joshua Rhodes (04:07.106)

folks

Joshua Rhodes (04:07.307)

are interested in Three-Body Problem, there’s actually a Netflix series on it right now based on a series of books that have been written.

Dr. Michael Webber (04:13.026)

Yeah, and I feel like I should watch it. I hear it’s violent though. I don’t know. So we’ll have to check it out.

Joshua Rhodes (04:16.91)

I read the first book. I think there’s three of them, which of course there would be three, a trilogy on the three body problem. But it is on my list of things to watch. So that was interesting that we immediately got into a situation where we’re talking about fracking just a minute ago. If you had gone just a few years before that, no one saw that coming or very few people saw that coming. I did an exercise once where I went back and looked at all of like the annual energy outlooks from the EIA in like early 2000s. And you know,

Joshua Rhodes (04:44.47)

natural gas was on the decline. were going to be importing natural gas. Like LNG imports were like big chunks of charts. Coal consumption was going up. And then, boom, this thing happened. Hydraulic fracturing that no one was really thinking about or people didn’t see, weren’t predicting. And it completely flipped the script, as you say. We started turned around import terminals and, you know, turned them into export terminals and, you know, made us one of the energy powerhouses of today.

Dr. Michael Webber (05:09.166)

So the era of say like 2001 to 2007, it was a uniquely bad era when it comes to EIA forecasting. And I’m not trying to pick on them because what they do is very hard and they’re better at it than anybody yet they were wrong. They were wrong on top level energy consumption. Like they thought energy consumption was going to increase forever in the United States.

Dr. Michael Webber (05:30.51)

The EIA forecast were particularly bad. They thought top level energy consumption was going to grow forever. They failed to anticipate the effects of efficiency, for example, with the light bulbs and cars and other things. They missed on the fuels. They missed on whether it’s imports or exports or whether it’s domestically produced. A lot of mistakes were made. And that’s something we should all keep in mind and use as a source of humility. It’s easy to be wrong about the future of energy when making predictions. So let’s keep that in mind. The first I heard of shale in eventually hydraulic fracturing was in 2007 from a man named Robert Heffner.

Dr. Michael Webber (06:00.174)

who is a very famous sort of producer of gas, especially, but only gas in Oklahoma. He and I were at a conference together. He gave a presentation of the Shell resource in the United States and how much energy is there. And I was like, I’d never heard of this. So I heard about it in 2007. Then T. Boone Pickens, another Oklahoman, came to Texas, UT, and gave a lecture around 2008. And he talked about it. So Shell really hit my radar in 2007, 2008. It had been on policymakers’ radars in 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Dr. Michael Webber (06:29.934)

had some clarity around how hydraulic reaction would be regulated. And they clarified that it would be the states would regulate it to the federal government. People called that the Halliburton loophole. Dick Cheney could put that into place. Dick Cheney from only guess since she knew it very well. So it was certainly on the radar of industry. It was on the radar of policymakers and a few wildcatters, but it wasn’t on my radar until I heard them talk about it. And then so to my eye, the shale revolution was really born from around 2007, 2008. It really took off around then.

Dr. Michael Webber (06:58.862)

from basically a zero dollar industry in 2008 to $150 billion a year in 2019. So it from zero to 150 billion in 11 years. And then if you dig into history, people like George Mitchell and Mitchell Energy or Devon Energy have been trying it since the seventies or the eighties. If you go back in time, there was dynamite fracturing in the 1860s and 1880s. wasn’t hydraulic fracturing. So we’ve been knocking on the door for quite some time, but it didn’t really hit the poppet of conscience even for energy analysts like me.

Dr. Michael Webber (07:25.856)

until 2007 or so. So there were a few people who saw it. There are a people who were evangelical about it, sort of preaching that it was going to change things. And they ended up being correct. But I feel like a lot of people missed it. I feel like Exxon Mobil missed it. Like some really big companies didn’t have a place. So they had to do an acquisition. They had to buy their way into it at the top of the market. So a lot of us missed it. But there were a few people who were singing it from the rooftops. And that’s something for us to keep in mind that the conventional wisdom could be wrong.

Dr. Michael Webber (07:54.178)

but there’s always someone who’s got some idea of the future, they might be right, there’s also a lot of people wrong who are seeing it from the rooftop, so we can’t believe all of them. But hydroelectric fraction really changed things quickly.

Joshua Rhodes (08:02.914)

Didn’t in the 70s we also try to do it with nuclear? Didn’t we try to do nuclear bombs?

Dr. Michael Webber (08:07.086)

Yeah. So there was projects to put nuclear down hole in the seventies to do fracturing. There were a lot of down hole nuclear tests for weapons purposes, but also for energy production. In the seventies, there were a couple of oil crises. like, let’s try everything. Let’s turn coal into liquid. Let’s try gasification. Let’s put nuclear down holes. See how that goes. We looked at nuclear aircraft that made people nervous. So there was like all sorts of things we tried in the seventies. Some were goofy. Some ended up leading to the development of hydraulic fracturing, which ended up

Dr. Michael Webber (08:34.689)

been very beneficial in solar and wind got their start in 70s. Didn’t really make sense for decades, but we fiddled around with it back then as well. Yeah.

Joshua Rhodes (08:42.83)

No, absolutely. So now that we’ve talked about how hard it is to get things right, I kind of want to put you on the spot a little bit because you’re a bit famous or infamous, I don’t know, depending on how you want to say it, for making predictions about the future. But I appreciate you willing to talk about the predictions after you’ve made them because I most people make them and then try to forget them, right?

Dr. Michael Webber (08:59.086)

Dr. Michael Webber (08:59.387)

That’s right, and I write them down and I publish them and so everyone can hold me accountable which is I think silly. I’ve made but anyway here we

Joshua Rhodes (09:06.656)

are.

Joshua Rhodes (09:06.946)

Yeah, here we are. about a year ago, roughly, you made some predictions about kind of where US energy would be in 2029 or so, kind of at the end of the Trump administration. Let’s just take like intermediate step on these and just kind of see how they’re going and if you would change them or if you’re still bullish in the direction that you’re going. One of the first ones you said is you said you think that national energy consumption will decrease, which is kind of counter in terms of

Joshua Rhodes (09:35.65)

We’re talking about data centers and electrification, like building out all this infrastructure. So what do you mean by that? And do you still stand by that?

Dr. Michael Webber (09:42.798)

So the context was it was April 19th, 2025. So we’re at the end of three months of the Trump administration. So by the end of three months, had a pretty clear view of what the Trump administration’s energy priorities would be. And not really many surprises. They were the things that he said he would do in the campaign trail. And so trying to flash forward, OK, at the end of the Trump administration, which is four years, so three years and nine months remaining when I wrote this on LinkedIn, what will the energy situation be in United States on January 20th, 2029?

Dr. Michael Webber (10:09.862)

And I think I stand by all my predictions. I haven’t really changed my mind, but we can go through them. the first one is your point out, and I’ve even tagged this or pinned it or bookmarked it whatever on LinkedIn so people can come back and make fun of me when I’m wrong, is that national energy consumption will decrease. And primarily, that is my hat tip towards energy efficiency. That efficiency will continue to be deployed and that despite population growth and economic growth, we will use less energy as a nation four years from now.

Dr. Michael Webber (10:37.922)

than today, well, I three years from now, but at this point, because of the new devices we are implementing and the ones that come to mind for you like electric cooktops, electric heat pumps, electric cars, more efficient industry. We already have better light bulbs. So we already done what we can there, but we have more ways to do things that accommodate even the low growth of data centers because we’ll have so many savings elsewhere. If we just take cars and the electrification of cars and despite Trump and despite policies that are not friendly to electric cars, electric cars are growing in their adoption.

Dr. Michael Webber (11:07.534)

might not be fully electric, it might be electrified drive trains like hybridized drive trains, things that will reduce the amount of gasoline and diesel we need to move about. Plus we have work from home and zoom and other things. So we have a variety of ways that our gasoline consumption will drop. It actually peaked in 2018, will continue to drop. the electricity we use in place either for working remotely or for electric cars is all more efficient. We use less energy. And so we can get a couple of percentage points of savings just on light duty vehicle transportation.

Dr. Michael Webber (11:35.374)

and then add this to the devices, we’ll get some savings. And in fact, I think efficiency is the unsung hero of the last 25 years. In the last 25 years, the United States, our energy consumption has been level or dropped, but our population has grown 20 % and the economy has doubled or tripled, depending on whether you look at nominal or real terms. So I think we’ll continue to have population economic growth, but energy consumption will drop, primarily because of this efficiency play. I stand by that. I think that’s gonna be the trend that continues.

Joshua Rhodes (12:00.418)

You think it’ll be resilient even in terms of the rollback of the endangerment finding?

Dr. Michael Webber (12:04.044)

Yes, so the endangerment is a very big news. So endangerment findings been rolled back. We’ll also have a lot of lawsuits that will go to the Supreme Court. Who knows what the Supreme Court says. Sure. But I think at this point, the endangerment finding really drives EPA decisions, for example. Yeah. But it doesn’t drive all the market decisions and the market decisions are going to go by what’s easiest or cheapest to build. And that’s not going to be a coal plant. Yeah. And coal plants, even if they don’t have endangerment finding for CO2, do have to deal with ash and NOx and SOx, the precursors to acid rain.

Dr. Michael Webber (12:31.65)

And they have to deal with mercury and the mercury rules are from the Bush administration. Those rules aren’t going away. And so no one’s going to build new coal. And then we have all this gas and wind and solar batteries that are cheaper than coal. So we’ll shut that down and even cheaper than gas in some cases. And then if we look beyond the Trump administration to the rise of geothermal nuclear. So I think endangerment finding is kind of sand in the gear. I’m going keep using that phrase probably in our coverage. Sand in the gears, it slows down the progress, but doesn’t stop the progress. We’re still going to move towards cleaner stuff.

Joshua Rhodes (13:00.492)

Yeah, I I think for a lot of our industry to be competitive in the global market, if we’re going to be at trade parity with other countries, they’re not going to want to buy stuff that they can’t use that’s less efficient, right?

Dr. Michael Webber (13:10.062)

I mean, maybe the Trump administration doesn’t care about CO2, but customers in Europe do. Right. And so people making products here for European market or Japanese market, you name the market that cares about CO2, there are several, they sell to clean up the supply chain to satisfy that market. So I think those fundamentals haven’t shifted. In fact, Europe’s now got the C-band, the carbon border adjustment mechanism. So there are even policies in place that will push for cleaning things up, even if those policies aren’t domestic out of DC. Yeah.

Joshua Rhodes (13:37.582)

You touched a bit on oil consumption, gasoline consumption. One of the predictions you made is gasoline exports will increase. So where are we going to send that gasoline?

Dr. Michael Webber (13:45.902)

Yeah, so there’s a phenomenon going on right now for the oil and gas world where half the products laid out of a barrel, the barrel goes of crude and the refinery comes out roughly half gasoline. The other half is diesel, jet fuel, waxes and tars and things like that. The demand for diesel and jet fuel is increasing, but the demand for gasoline domestically is dropping and has been dropping. We’re in year eight of the drop of gasoline. And so that means gasoline will be cheap. So gasoline is pretty cheap in the United States right now. And that will slow down the adoption of electric vehicles, but not stop the adoption of electric vehicles.

Dr. Michael Webber (14:14.902)

So I expect we’ll dump cheap gasoline on the world markets to other customers around the world who might want it for their light duty transportation and older cars or other purposes. So I’m thinking to sub-Saharan Africa or other markets around the world that would be happy to have the gasoline, they’ll export it. Now that might be a uniquely American problem because the refineries in Europe already produce more diesel and jet fuel than gasoline. So they’re less at risk for this problem. The American refineries have been tuned for a hundred years to produce more gasoline. So I think we’ll have to...

Dr. Michael Webber (14:44.61)

find other markets for it. We still need our diesel and jet fuel. So the refinery is going to keep running. And they’ll have this excess gasoline, which will lower prices. We’ll find someone for it potentially.

Joshua Rhodes (14:54.742)

Yeah, I guess similar for natural gas, like you predict natural gas production will increase and LNG exports will increase. I similar things are that like finding customers and

Dr. Michael Webber (15:03.886)

And there are lot of customers for natural gas globally. There might be more customers for natural gas than gasoline. The way I think about it, I feel like we’re entering a natural gas era. had a wood era, coal era. We’re in an oil era. Natural gas might have overtaken oil in terms of consumption in the United States last year. If not last year, probably this year. We just are producing so much gas. We consume so much gas, but we produce more than we consume. So we have gas that we can export to customers in Europe or Asia who are happy to have it.

Dr. Michael Webber (15:32.014)

For us, that’s good because they might use that gas to displace some coal, or they might use that gas to make electricity to displace some gasoline in those countries, and that would be good for the environment. So I think natural gas as a nation, we’re leaning in, in the Trump administration. People are very angry about the Biden administration, but frankly, natural gas production and consumption grew a lot under the Biden administration as well, and in the first Trump administration, and under the Obama administrations. So natural gas has been on the rise, has been ascended for a while, and I’ll see that stopping anytime soon.

Dr. Michael Webber (16:00.586)

maybe in a few decades, but it looks like the next five or 15 years natural gas. That’s a really good run ahead of it.

Joshua Rhodes (16:06.232)

absolutely. I think we’ve been talking about this in more of kind of a US context. Like, what do you think this means for the traditional energy production in Texas and how these like new exports and other things like that? Like, what does that mean for Texas here?

Dr. Michael Webber (16:19.352)

Texas has a good export capacity. We actually all have the ports. We have the LNG refrigeration trains. We have a lot of pipes that can move the oil and gas from West Texas or Haynesville or wherever to the ports. We can export to other states in the United States, not just other countries. So Texas is in a position. But if you look at the oil and gas policies under Trump administration, they’re actually not so good for oil and gas. In particular, they’re bad for domestic oil drillers. So oil drilling is down 20 % or something in Texas.

Dr. Michael Webber (16:47.638)

gas drilling is up 10 % nationally. so drilling overall is down say 10 % nationally. The rise has been in gas, the decline in oil, and that gas drilling is mostly in like Pennsylvania. The gas we produce in Texas is mostly, least in West Texas, mostly associated gas. It is the gas that is associated with oil production. So as long as we’re drilling for oil, we will have a lot of gas in Texas from the West. But if we...

Dr. Michael Webber (17:12.462)

drill less for oil or produce less oil, we will eventually have less natural gas in West Texas. The Haynesville areas in East Texas probably will still keep producing these gases in demand. And so there’s already been some warning signs that the CAPEX or the capital expenditures, the drilling investments, new sites for drilling in West Texas are down. So far, oil production has not dropped because they’re more efficient or more productive per well. But you can anticipate that in 2026 oil production in West Texas might drop.

Dr. Michael Webber (17:41.262)

which means gas production in West Texas might drop, which mean prices might go up. That might be good for natural gas sellers. It might be tough for consumers. If natural gas prices go up, it might make our exports less desirable on the global scene, depending on what price Australia or Russia are charging or Qatar, you name your country. We’re competing in a global marketplace and American gas is always undercut on price other providers. But that might be harder if our gas prices go up because our oil production goes out. It gets a very tangled mess, is the guess I’m saying.

Dr. Michael Webber (18:09.514)

And Texas benefits and loses simultaneously from all these maneuvers.

Joshua Rhodes (18:13.326)

We’ve been talking about energy writ large and focusing in on electricity. I one of the policy decisions we’ve made in Texas is to electrify those oil and gas operations out in West Texas, right? And so, if we run into these other kinds of pressures, they’ve been talking about at the same time, we’re getting them cheaper energy to get the energy out of the ground. Is this a wash? Do you think it’s net positive, net negative?

Dr. Michael Webber (18:32.014)

One of the hidden heroes of the oil and gas success in Texas, certainly a lot of innovation in the oil and gas sector, hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, but electrification of the oil patch. I believe that the West Texas production, the Permian, is the most electrified oil field in the world at any significant scale. And having access to cheap electricity has improved productivity. It’s cleaned up production by reducing the venting or flaring of gases in some cases. It’s also improved

Dr. Michael Webber (18:57.454)

improved the boost with these downhole electric submersible pumps. electrification of oil and gas helps keep it competitive while also making it more environmentally friendly because of reduced emissions. And so, I think if we keep expanding the grid and keep installing transmission lines, which I know you’ve talked about and thought about, that will keep electricity cheaper for oil and gas. That is a competitive advantage that we get to have in Texas that not every oil and gas patch in America or around the world has. I think that’s kind of cool. And then if you look at Governor Abbott really pushing to expand the grid, he’s really leaning in hard on nuclear especially, but

Dr. Michael Webber (19:26.99)

he seems friendly to geothermal and other technologies. We’re going to have a pretty diverse mix of electricity. We’re going to build a lot of power plants. That means in my mind, despite data center load growth, we might still have low prices and that’ll be really good for oil and gas. oil and gas benefits from a big cheap reliable grid, just like we all do.

Joshua Rhodes (19:45.804)

Yeah, at the same time, you you’re bullish on wind, you’re bullish on solar, geothermal, nuclear will stay roughly about the same. I think some of this transmission we’ve been talking about are going to benefit particularly those first two. You’re bullish on geothermal. Talk about that.

Dr. Michael Webber (19:59.35)

Also in geothermal, I don’t think a whole lot of new geothermal will come online before January 2029, but there’ll be some. I think we’re entering in a few years, the geothermal decade. We’ve been in a solar and battery decade. Before that, we were in a wind decade. And wind growth has slowed down a lot. Solar growth doesn’t look like it’s slowing down again soon, but geothermal is about to take off for a couple of reasons. The technology has gotten better, especially for drilling. The technologies for finding the pockets of heat has gotten better with startups like Zanskar and others.

Dr. Michael Webber (20:28.878)

The demand for the power is there. We have a new customer class, these data center companies that have a lot of money and really want round the clock performance, but they want clean, they want renewable. So geothermal meets a lot of those. Geothermal doesn’t really compete with wind and solar. It competes with nuclear or competes with natural gas or carbon capture. So geothermal looks pretty good. It’s a good hedge against gas prices and it’s a good sort of speed to power choice because probably you can get geothermal online faster than nuclear. So geothermal looks good. It also seems to be

Dr. Michael Webber (20:58.566)

a favorite in a bipartisan way. Democrats and liberals and environmentalists like it because it’s clean and renewable and sustainable. think Republicans like it because it leverages drilling technologies, it’s domestic. So it’s got unique bipartisan, well maybe it’s not unique, along with nuclear has bipartisan support. And I think that means you’ll get good alignment on policies at the state, local and federal levels. And so there’s support for the Trump administration. I think Trump doesn’t love it as much as he loves nuclear.

Dr. Michael Webber (21:26.182)

But he seems to like it and he’s not beating up on it for sure. So geothermal looks like a winner. And one of the things that geothermal can leverage is all the advances in drilling technology that have happened in the last 20 years. It will also make advances, but it can leverage other people’s investments, namely the only gas industry’s investments in drilling technology. The geothermal industry can ride that cost curve down. And then they have this stable around the clock performance and customers who have the cash to pay for it. So geothermal looks really good.

Dr. Michael Webber (21:53.184)

It’s limited in location. tends to be Nevada, Utah, California, like Hawaii, places where have volcanoes or tectonic activity. There are a few pockets in Texas where you can do it. What I like from the Texas perspective as a Texas patriot is even if we’re not producing a lot of geothermal in Texas, the companies are talent or know-how might be here. So there’s a real good Texas angle for this, even if it’s for a site in Utah.

Joshua Rhodes (22:15.522)

That makes a lot of sense. I was thinking about this concept of talking about multiple different constituencies. They probably won’t want to use this as a tagline, but carbon-free drilling or something like that or low carbon drilling. It’s like got both buzzwords for both sides of this thing.

Dr. Michael Webber (22:27.456)

Yes, it’s one of the few options that satisfies most different people’s priorities, which is really great. think that’s one reason why it’ll be a winner.

Joshua Rhodes (22:35.512)

Yeah, it reminds me of the Green Tea Party, which is a coalition of Sierra Club and the Tea Party in Georgia back in like the early 2000s. They got together to force the utility to let them put solar on their roof. And was the libertarians were like, you won’t tell me what I won’t do on my own property. Thank you very much. And Sierra Club was like solar. In the Venn diagram of things, I was like the one thing that they kind of agreed on, but it was powerful enough to force Southern Company to let them do it, which is not an easy thing to do. It worked. It worked.

Dr. Michael Webber (22:59.522)

right? Yeah, they wanted to push back against the utility control. Environmentalists wanted the low emissions profile and the cleanliness. So yeah, and that’s a sign and I think solar still has that by the way, solar opportunity to grow because it satisfies some libertarian instinct as well as some environmental instinct. And so you look at those solutions that get there, they’ll do okay. Nuclear doesn’t satisfy a libertarian instinct so much nuclear is very clean. It is very reliable. It needs a very strong hand from government that is back to succeed. So you have a

Dr. Michael Webber (23:27.778)

kind of intervention in the markets to really give nuclear boost, but some of the other options do.

Joshua Rhodes (23:32.364)

Yeah, nuclear feels like it’s gone through a bit of a renaissance too in terms of like, it’s acceptance. There’s a lot of new environmentalist movements that are very pro-nuclear, just like, okay, we got to build something. We can’t just say no to building everything. Like the new environmental movement has to be about building something. And it doesn’t seem like it’s getting beat up on as much as it used to.

Dr. Michael Webber (23:52.11)

feel

Dr. Michael Webber (23:52.21)

like this is my third nuclear renaissance I’ve watched in the last 20 years. Everyone feels different. This one feels different. It feels stickier for that reasons you said, which is the environmental movement has been sort of looking at nuclear with a wary eye for one time because of the concerns around nuclear waste or meltdowns or public risk. Some security folks have looked at nuclear with a wary eye because of the connections with weapons proliferation. But I think the security establishment’s more concerned about other things in the energy system. And environmentalists had come around to the idea like, okay, nuclear still needs a lot of water.

Dr. Michael Webber (24:21.87)

There’s a nuclear waste issue, but there’s technologies for that. But it’s got a really clean profile. It doesn’t have the air emissions that are toxic. It doesn’t have the greenhouse gases. So the environmental movement’s kind of come around on nuclear after a hesitant relationship for many decades. But then there’s a cultural movement where you have students at universities like, why don’t we build nuclear? So you see nuclear engineering students from Texas A &M on ESPN College game day holding them a sign like, we love nuclear. And this moment went viral. And you have like,

Dr. Michael Webber (24:50.264)

beauty pageant winner who’s in nuclear engineering working for Constellation. She’s talking about nuclear, a Brazilian fashion model. So we have like fashion models and beauty pageant winners and engineering students on college game day all seeing the same thing, which is nuclear is a part of the future. And so there is a youthful cultural force that’s very different than the people who had been promoting nuclear for many decades. There’s going to be older engineers who worked at a utility or something. So it’s very different profile. So nuclear looks good. And then what that sort of manifests itself as is

Dr. Michael Webber (25:20.416)

local state and federal policies as far as certainly Trump administration supportive. But as I mentioned, Governor Abbott supportive, but even cities like city of Austin doesn’t seem opposed, right? Austin actually has a six of a nuclear reactor. I think you started to get this political and policy alignment, which is really interesting.

Joshua Rhodes (25:35.018)

totally. So thank you for letting us go through your historical predictions, predictions from last year about still into the future. And so I’m hoping you can come on and we can do this multiple times and you can either be proved right over and over again or wrong. So switching gears a little bit. So some folks may know that every year we have the annual Weber Energy Group Symposium, which is at the University of Texas. I’m in your research group and it’s kind of a celebration of all the research that we do.

Joshua Rhodes (26:01.964)

in the group. But one of the highlights of that event is you kind of give state of the energy or whatever talk, like a big wide ranging talk about where we’ve been, where we are, maybe where we’re going in terms of energy. And to keep with the theme of this podcast, one of the big themes of that talk you gave was energy is going through a three-part transition, right? So could you tell me what is that three-part transition that you think energy is going through?

Dr. Michael Webber (26:27.086)

Yeah, now we’re on our third trilemma, our third three-part transition, I would say. to my eye, it looks like three dimensions of the energy transition we’re going through right now. One is expanding the energy system or particular, expanding energy access. We have universal energy access in the United States, but we don’t around the world. There’s a billion or more people who don’t have access to electricity. A billion or more people don’t have access to other modern fuels, say gasoline or propane or something. They’re using solid fuels like wood or caldunga or straw or something like that.

Dr. Michael Webber (26:55.274)

And then we have a couple billion people who don’t have access to pipe to treated water or sanitation. So the sole access problem to clean resources or modern energy forms. And part of the transition is to expand energy access so that those people will have access to the energy that you and I already have access to. So that’s part number one, expanding energy access globally. Second is cleaning up the energy system. Those of us who have access, have a lot of emissions or land or water impacts must reduce our impacts.

Dr. Michael Webber (27:22.86)

And the energy system generally gets cleaner per unit of energy and cleaner per person, but we have more people, so it gets dirtier as a whole. It feels like we’re hitting a turning point where the energy system will get cleaner on absolute terms, even as we have population economic growth. So we have to expand energy access, that’s part one, but to clean up the energy system, that’s part two. Part three is operate in a warmer world. A lot of our energy system was built, for example, in the power sector 40 or 50 years ago in the United States, the pipelines often built

Dr. Michael Webber (27:50.828)

long before that, or the transmission lines built long before that. So we have a multi-decade or century old system in many parts of the United States that was designed for a different population, different strain on the system from the population, but also different weather. So as the climate warms on average, that means we’ll have milder winters, warmer summers, so more heat waves and droughts in the summers, but also perhaps more frequent and intense polar vortices or these cold snaps, which we just had a couple weeks ago in Texas and...

Dr. Michael Webber (28:18.904)

five years ago with winter storm Uri and we had all sorts of winter storms. So we have warmer weather, which will strain the system if you design it for different weather. And the heat waves are a typical problem in Texas, but the heat waves are hotter and lasting longer. Think of the heat dome in 2023 where it was summer for like four and a half months or something. heat waves in early May and heat waves in November, that’s six months, I can’t even do my math, but the heat waves in November and it was so hot for so long, that’s a real strain on the system.

Dr. Michael Webber (28:47.096)

but it is accompanied by droughts. You don’t have the cooling water you need for the power plants. We also have more people doing irrigation, which means more electric pumps for water, which means the demand goes up and blah, blah, blah. So we have all these things, that’s a real problem. So expanding energy access, decarbonizing, operating a warming world, that’s what we have to do with the entire system. And a lot of these assets are kind of old. The newer assets will be easier to design for, but we have to work with what we got and a lot of what we got isn’t new.

Joshua Rhodes (29:11.682)

Yeah, no, I think sometimes, you for some people now the term energy transition is kind of a triggering phrase. We have any other ideas for other things?

Dr. Michael Webber (29:21.006)

Yeah, I’ve got a list of phrases we no longer we used to call energy revolution unacceptable for a while we talked about energy evolution that’s no longer acceptable. For the last few years, we talked about energy transition that’s also unacceptable. So there were now like a short list of acceptable phrases, meaning like non triggering for different constituencies, things like energy innovation or energy expansion or energy addition or energy abundance or energy dominance. And you hear like with Trump administration’s energy

Dr. Michael Webber (29:48.524)

dominance. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright talks a lot about energy addition and energy abundance. And I like the innovation. I don’t really like the word dominant. That sounds like you’re beating someone up. But these are the kind of the phrases that work with the Trump administration that are less triggering. But within, say, the concept of energy innovation or energy expansion or energy addition, we have a lot of opportunity to add a lot of cool things to the grid or to the energy system that are cleaner and higher performing and more affordable and more reliable.

Joshua Rhodes (30:15.566)

Oh, totally. And so, maybe we’re beating up on the term energy transition. I mean, as it’s become, I guess, embody what it means, is it getting anything wrong right now? Like in 2026, what is the phrase energy transition get wrong?

Dr. Michael Webber (30:27.458)

I feel like a transition is still happening. I feel like for the most part, the fundamental trends are still occurring. We have to label it something different. Energy dominance, I think means exporting a lot of energy to the world and dominating the geopolitics of the markets, which actually we started around 21 or 22. Like a few years ago, we became the biggest exporter of qualified natural gas. For example, the biggest producer of hydrocarbons in the world. So we were kind of already been energy dominant for years, but we didn’t call it that. The Biden administration didn’t talk about energy dominance. They talked about energy transition.

Dr. Michael Webber (30:56.514)

The Trump administration talks about energy dominance, but not transition, but not a whole lot has changed for the most part. Some of the rhetoric has changed. Some of the policies has changed. The market preferences haven’t changed a whole lot to my eye. No one in the markets is really clamoring to build a new coal plant and the people who own coal plants are actually looking to shut them down. But they’re often forced to keep them online, even if they’re expensive because of policy fiat. So I think the word transition is too triggering. We had to drop it, but what the markets are doing hasn’t changed a whole lot.

Dr. Michael Webber (31:26.732)

The biggest change of the Trump administration has been sort of the all out war on offshore wind. That’s where the president has had the biggest impact. He’s revoked the permits or tried to cancel five projects that are either operating or closed operating. All have led to lawsuits. He’s lost every one of those lawsuits. All five of those wind farms will operate or are operational. But it’s going be hard to build a new offshore wind farm. So that’s one distinct change from the dominance. And I was like, well, if you really believe in energy expansion, we’ll expand everything. So that doesn’t make sense to me.

Dr. Michael Webber (31:56.046)

But he’s got his preferred fuels and the fuels he doesn’t like. Onshore wind and onshore solar will also suffer, but not as badly as offshore wind. And onshore solar is too competitive to keep out of the bar. The markets just are calling for it. Yeah. Yeah. Wind’s actually started to slow down in 2021 in the Biden administration. Yeah. Primarily because its supply profile doesn’t match our load profile and the lines were getting congested. So the new power plants with solar are a good compliment to that wind. I think we just had different phrases, but

Dr. Michael Webber (32:25.42)

the trends are basically the same.

Joshua Rhodes (32:27.982)

But even so, you said like the output may be not matching our load profile. But if we add a bunch of data centers that have not exactly flat, but flat-ish load profiles