I wonder if those MAGA folks in Nebraska will ever admit global warming is real. The highs tomorrow are supposed to be 98 degrees in parts of the state. That's June or July temps for a state that averages highs in the 50's in March.
We have too many water issues here in the US to rely on Nuclear. In order for Nuclear plants to be reliable and safe you need a steady flow of fresh water from a river or lake that can cool the reactors. I know people who worked on the STP plant down by Matagorda, and even that plant was made with some hesitancy about the reliability in the future of the Colorado River here in Texas. That plant is only possible because of that river, and keep in mind that if Lake Travis in Austin dries up, the Colorado River that cools the reactor down in Matagorda dries up and.... yeah. There is a reason why there are not more Nuclear energy plants here in the US, and it's not because of Tree huggers, or oil and greedy gas barons. Texas is already one of the largest wind energy producers in the world so it'll be a great idea soon to do some analysis on how productive those wind farms have been in North Central Texas so see about a massive expansion. Here in Texas we have ALOT of virtually unlivable spaces to double or triple the size of the production we have today. Right now we are at 29% of our entire power coming from wind with really only 7 major wind farms. IMO, that is a MUCH smarter and safer approach. One that adds a TON of high paying jobs. I'm all for Nuclear plants as long as they are located in safe places long term, but again... there is a reason why there aren't more already in the US, and it is usually because of the issue of reliable rivers for the next however many years.
1,200 Years of Cherry Blossoms Reveal What Climate Models Confirm | Orennia Japanese monks kept meticulous records of cherry blossom festivals for 1,200 years and accidentally created the longest climate dataset on Earth.
I read that a solar power plant + battery storage is on par with a gas power plant starting in 2030 to build. Of course, solar fuel is free. So economically, the answer is very clear there. It costs so much to start a large nuclear power plant (and takes a decade to build one). The cost means not many companies are willing. The government would have to incentivize. Not sure if those larger power plants make sense... even Microsoft didn't start a new one, but restarted an old one. Maybe there is room for a few new big ones in coastal regions with seawater cooling and smaller ones elsewhere. What is clear is we need more energy and we should be doing everything to get more energy. What we don't do is be ideologically stupid and take down energy sources, like wind. As many have said before, the country that leads the next energy revolution will win... and right now, that's China. This administration is going back to doubling down on "coal" and "oil" old tech while China is bringing online new tech. Dumb as f**k.
Trump doesn't give a damn, as long as he can keep taking bribes and donations from the fossil fuel industry. All he cares about is who will pay him the most.
It's a long read (or listen). Throughout history, choices made do have impact, significant impacts. The lost opportunity, and now, the disastrous decisions and choices will again have significant impacts. We were finally playing catch-up with the IRA, and now, I think we would be lucky if we are the 2nd most powerful country in the world in a few decades. In the 1970s, facing an energy crisis, Carter saw the potential of breaking free from ME oil and got it started, putting solar panels on the WH and investing in the technology. Reagan reversed course and didn't prioritize green energy, understandably in some ways, since he didn't have the vision and the technology wasn't anywhere close to being ready. China made a strategic bet on renewable manufacturing, aided by access to foreign (US) IPs, and built a commanding lead. Biden finally got the ball rolling again, investing heavily to help the US catch up. Now the current administration is unwinding much of that, pulling back investments and restarting old coal plants. Still, the economics are hard to argue with: green energy keeps getting cheaper, and that trend will continue regardless of any single administration. It was a missed opportunity. Carter saw where things were headed before the technology was ready to prove him right, and Reagan pulled back just as it needed sustained investment to mature. Now it's self-sabotage, and we will overcome it, but we will pay for it in every way. Opinion | The Very Good and Very Bad News on Climate - The New York Times This next sentence was unimaginable even a few years ago: In April, the energy think tank Ember found that all of the new electricity demand around the world in 2025 was met with green power. That is wild. But here is the bad news: Climate change is accelerating. We’re discovering new ways that the climate system is more fragile, more sensitive to emissions, than we previously had thought. And climate politics is in almost total disarray. Donald Trump has gutted the Inflation Reduction Act. His administration is accelerating fossil fuel production and kneecapping green energy. But here’s the possibility, a bit of optimism: The advances in green technology make a new climate politics possible — one that doesn’t just talk about sacrifice and disaster prevention but presents decarbonization and green energy as a way station on the path to somewhere better. Clean energy abundance, a new form of energetic wealth, the possibility of the left actually offering a future of more and better — not less and worse — was a hard case to make even a few years ago. But now we cannot only imagine it, we can see it, touch it, live in it. It is here. Ezra Klein: Bill McKibben, welcome back to the show. Bill McKibben: Very good to be back with you. You have a line that people still think of clean energy like Whole Foods energy — it’s virtuous, pricey, a bit of a flex — when, in fact, you say it has become the “Costco of energy.” ...
