Two contradictory nuclear puzzles: Bears say deployment lags, so it’s not needed. Bulls say it deploys regardless of carbon policy. Scenarios say otherwise: nuclear is much more limited when emissions don’t matter. If you care about decarbonization, you should care about nuclear.
The $850M coal rescue is ~35x smaller than what's retired since 2010. The fleet has shed ~43% of peak capacity. A chart.
No fanfare but, at some point in the last 4 years, California stopped being a grid that occasionally beat fossil fuels and became one that does it on a daily basis.
Fully phasing out fossil fuels by 2050 requires 1.6-1.8x more power generation than a standard 1.5°C pathway. And it’s not just more solar and wind: it means a much bigger role for nuclear and green hydrogen, too. Defossilization is a different beast than decarbonization.
Saturday would be John Nash’s 98th birthday. He has the record for one of the shortest recommendation letters ever.
Respect to 1991 Mt. Pinatubo for briefly pulling the vibe back.
Locusts cost $25 billion a year in stunted child growth when monitoring fails. The monitoring system costs $37-77 million a year to run. That’s a benefit-cost ratio between 160:1 and 680:1. One of the best investments in public health you’ve never heard of.
Here’s the paper: bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/u...
Amazing that FAO’s entire locust forecasting operation ran for 37 years on the expertise of essentially one person. Also amazing that exposure to locust swarms in the 9 months before birth increases stunting risk by 7+ percentage points!
