August 13, 2026

Air Pollution’s Impacts on Health: Ten Million Deaths a Year


News of out-of-control wildfires in Spain, France, Greece, the western U.S., and across Canada—fires worsened by drought and extreme heat—have been rampant for weeks. These forest fires are hotter and larger than we've ever seen and are now so prevalent and damaging that few doubt that they are new form of "extreme weather" that climate change has been making them worse. At the same time, these fires last longer and produce more smoke, contributing to many more days of unhealthy air quality and difficulty moving around. But these fires don't just cause stinging in the eyes or an acrid smell in the nose, they are a direct contributor to death and disease.  Just as with the already high levels of fossil fuel derived air pollution in many areas, breathing in this wildfire smoke is a known factor contributing to a wide range of serious diseases, shortened lifespans and mortality rates.

According to Andrew Dessler of The Climate Brink, starting around 2016, air quality which had been getting better up to then, began to decline again largely due to the growing smoke contribution from forest fires.  Today, there are between 5 and 10 more days of smoke per year than there was in the early 2000s. Not only is wildfire smoke a growing public climate impact and concern, there is more scrutiny on what the economic and health impacts are from the blend of air pollution that people are breathing in, as fires get worse and the pollution they deliver is more defined. It draws our attention back to another aspect of the pollution in our air, which is there even when wildfire smoke isn't: the toxic daily pollution from burning fossil fuels.

For all of the impacts and damage that burning fossil fuels has on climate change, which is certainly contributing to making wildfires far worse than they ever were, we have been largely ignoring the current health impacts of our addiction to fossil fuels. The toxic air pollution from burning coal, oil and gas is now estimated to kill 10 million people each year.  To better understand why even this impact alone should motivate us to transition away from fossil fuels, it is worth reading David Wallace-Wells article in the London Review of Books, "Ten Million a Year: David Wallace-Wells on polluted air," from December 2021.  Wallace-Wells provides greater context on the comparisons between the damage to humanity from the impacts of air pollution—which is already off the charts and killing millions of humans every day—especially in deeply polluted places India, Pakistan and China, that there is literally no threat to humanity that compares with the threat to human health and lifespan that is posed by the polluted air that we breath.

For example, the world panicked when the coronavirus emerged and killed 2714 people in a month. Yet around 800,000 people died from air pollution that same month. Air pollution kills 10 times more people every year than the flu but we hear less about it than about getting the flu shot. Air pollution kills about twenty times as many people as all annual deaths from war, murder and terrorism combined. And here's the statistic that will shock so many people: on an average day, air pollution deaths from burning fossil fuels are greater than all of the deaths caused by every meltdown or nuclear accident in the 70-year history of nuclear power combined including Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island and every other nuclear event.

We need to transition away from fossil fuels not just for the benefits to future generations that want to be able to inhabit a world that isn't reeling from climate change but because fossil fuels are already causing a hundred million premature deaths every decade, greater than any other threat to our health from any other cause. If nothing else were wrong with burning fossil fuels—remedying this health impact would be a huge benefit to humanity and should motivate us to transition to clean energy in and of itself.


Continue reading at London Review of Books, Ten Million a Year: David Wallace-Wells on polluted air, by David Wallace-Wells, December 2, 2021.

August 4, 2026

Planetary is boosting the ocean’s carbon storage capacity

Planetary Technologies, a Halifax, Nova Scotia-based portfolio company, is working to boost the ocean's carbon-storage capacity.

T

July 14, 2026

~90% chance of a record-setting El Nino

The Strongest El Niño Ever

According to Dr. Zeke Hausfather, one of the world's leading climate scientists, based on the data we have so far and the analysis of that data by some 667 scientists evaluating global temperatures through some 14 different forecast models, not only is this year's El Niño likely to be the strongest ever recorded, it may even be the strongest by a truly "mind-blowing margins."

After all the scientists submit their models' estimates for what may happen during this year's El Niño event, the "multi-model" median stands at 3.6C, which is roughly 0.8C hotter than the prior world record of 2.75C. Previously, the largest jump up was only 0.5C.  Thus, the models are, collectively, predicting weather outside of the bounds of anything previously ever observed with global temperatures. Which means that we are headed into entirely unknown territory as a planet, that even the scientists who have been watching the global temperature trends worsening for years and decade, have never seen in their lives.

What Dr. Hausfather finds remarkable is not just the magnitude of the projected heat level but also the trajectory of how quickly it is developing.  What scientists are seeing in how 2026 global temperatures are progressing, as we enter the northern hemisphere's summer months, is that there is an explosive El Niño onset happening. As unusual as the present trajectory is towards El Niño intensity, in fact the 14 different models have unusually strong model prediction agreement. Given this, the models yield a ~91% chance of a record peak in the El Niño that make it highly likely to be the strongest El Niño ever observed.

This is all still a prediction but the patterns reported by the model are extremely disturbing and the signature of a climate pattern that is not good for humanity or the planet. We definitely need to be more organized around marshalling our response and preparing for a world with record high heat that impacts not just air temperature but also ocean warming.  We can't respond fast enough to this threat and we are clearly going to miss the world's ambition to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030.  But, even with our abject failure to meet our 2030 goals, the good news is that we might be able to meet our 2050 goals, if we can continue our current commercialization progress for next-generation nuclear, that can compete and win against fossil fuels.


References:

The Climate Brink, The Strongest El Niño Ever, by Dr. Zeke Hausfather, July 13, 2026.

July 6, 2026

The Reactor Pilot Program: A Historic Success and the Road Ahead

Pictured: The Aalo team preparing for criticality.

The Reactor Pilot Program (RPP) has been a rousing success. As of 12:20 am on July 4, 2026, four novel new reactors have been built and started within one year after the formal initiation of the program. Executive Order 14301, which directed the Department of Energy to create the program included a stimulating, challenging goal of having at least 3 reactors start by July 4, 2026. It can be correctly claimed that the RPP has been an over-achiever. July 4, 2026 was the 250th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, adding a bit of historic gravitas to the event.

For nuclear energy professionals and supporters, the month-long period between June 4 and July 3, 2026 will be remembered as an exciting time, full of news and celebrations. New reactor starts were achieved in rapid-fire succession on June 4 (Antares Mark-0), June 18 (Valar Ward 250), June 30 (Deployable Energy Unity) and July 3 (Aalo Aalo-CTR). Along the way, several other milestones – including first thermal power and first electricity from a novel reactor (Valar Ward 250) – were achieved and celebrated.

A talented and diverse team of individuals and organizations from both the government and the private sector made it happen. The engineering, equipment and construction costs were paid by the private sector, while the government covered the costs of its employees when performing government functions. It also provided land, security and arranged for use of existing facilities.

The group of reactor criticalities achieved during the early phases of the RPP mark a major step forward in the process of designing, developing, testing, iterating, refining and licensing new types of nuclear fission power plants that have not yet become commercially viable.

Rod Adam at the INL

Rod Adams with the INL DOME in the background.

Perhaps the most important outcome of the RPP – measured over the long term – is that it provided the Department of Energy several opportunities to refine its processes for reviewing, approving, constructing and operating novel reactor technologies. That full authorization process has now been completed for four separate reactors with reviews continuing for participants in the RPP and Launch Pad that are at different stages of development. With experience and practice the process continues to improve. Exercising with real world projects is a terrific way to refine processes and procedures.

The Nuclear Energy Launch Pad is the combined follow-on for the RPP and the related Fuel Line Pilot Program. It will be able to build on and improve the solid foundation created and tested for the successful RPP.

The existence of a well-supported and improving path between the development stages of ideas and computer models to the stage of constructing and testing physical pilots can unlock access to a vast pool of private risk capital. The refined process retires a significant number of known risks. It lets the review process move at the speed of business. Even though more risks can be mitigated with additional actions, substantial progress should be made in parallel with continuing process improvements.

The pilot reactors that have achieved criticality are not commercial products. They need several iterative steps before they are even complete R&D products. Three of them are not yet ready to produce any fission power because they have not yet installed the heat transfer systems that will remove fission heat. The one that is producing power, the Valar 250, was built with a reduced power reactor and a correspondingly small heat rejection system, not a complete heat conversion or utilization system.

There is a reasonably clear path for installing the needed systems, both in a regulatory and physical sense. Once those steps are completed, an extensive series of tests will be completed. If electricity is produced during testing, it can be supplied to the reactor facilities and the hosting laboratories or it can be dissipated through heat rejection systems. Alternatively, it can be dissipated by producing electricity that is then discarded in added systems like resistor banks.

That’s as far as the pilot reactors can go under their DOE authorizations; those approvals do not allow for the sale of electricity or heat to outside customers. For micro reactors producing a megawatt or so, that limitation isn’t horrible, but the RPP and the Nuclear Energy Launch Pad include participants with much more powerful reactors. A heat rejection system for a few megawatts is reasonably compact and doesn’t have too much local environmental impact; one that needs to reject 225 – 900 MWth is a different story. Throwing away electricity generated during full power testing of a 75 MWe reactor wastes almost $200,000 per day.

It would be more prudent for pilot or demonstration reactors to build fully functional power conversion systems that produce useful electricity or heat and to sell those products when available during portions of the testing program. Some of the tests that help prove commercial viability will include sustained periods of high power operation for reliability and fuel performance evaluation. Selling the electricity produced as a byproduct of the testing won’t turn the test and demonstration reactor into a profitable installation, but the revenues can help reduce the amount of capital required for commercial product development.

Class 104c is the licensing step between DOE authorization as an R&D facility that is not allowed to sell products and NRC licensing as a Class 103 commercial reactor. It’s a licensing step that has not been exercised, but the NRC regulations associated with Class 104(c) licenses were recently updated and re-emphasized.

Reviews and approvals for Class 104(c) are, by law, somewhere between those required for a DOE authorization and those required for a fully commercial license under Class 103. The NRC page titled “Technology, License Class, and Regulatory Approach” includes the below quote:

Section 104(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, states that,

The Commission is directed to impose only such minimum amount of regulation of the licensee as the Commission finds will permit the Commission to fulfill its obligations under this Act to promote the common defense and security and to protect the health and safety of the public and will permit the conduct of widespread and diverse research and development.

Under Class 104(c), reactors that are still in the research and development – aka pre-commercial – phase can sell electricity, heat and non-energy services as long as less than 75% of their annual costs are dedicated to providing those activities. They are also allowed to sell training and research and development services without counting against the cost limitation.

For those who are well-versed in developing high tech products, think of Class 104(c) as a regulatory permission structure for beta product releases in high-impact, tightly-controlled markets.

The provision for licensing pre-commercial products under Class 104(c) licenses has been in the rules since 1970, but it hasn’t been exercised. It’s hard to determine the precise  reasons why something hasn’t been done before, but contributing factors include the assumption that all nuclear reactors had to be extra-large before they could be commercial and the financially risk averse nature of monopoly electric utilities and established reactor vendors. It’s hard to imagine a successful financing model for a reactor costing $10 B or more that is restricted in its ability to generate sales revenues.

The rising prominence of smaller, lower-cost reactors, non-traditional electricity customers and the increasing importance of venture capital-backed vendors has changed the decision process. Modern reactor developers know that new and improved products with revolutionary proprietary features need several iterations before they can become competitive products. They know that initial units will produce losses, but they may prefer to minimize those losses by selling output when they can.

Venture capitalists are not like bankers or public service commissions; they understand that there are major risks associated with product development and refinement. History has shown them that there are major rewards when the product finds a fit with the needs of eager customers, making venture capital an increasingly capable source of financing.

Pictured: United States Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, having just signed the DOE approval for Aalo Atomics to load its fuel. 

The RPP has helped to restore the development process originally envisioned by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. That foundational piece of legislation provided a framework for Atomic Energy Commission reactor licenses that established appropriately differentiated rules and process requirements for licensing reactors that were still being developed and refined compared to the rules that govern licensing for reactors that were ready to compete in the commercial energy markets.

The next step is to begin exercising the transition between DOE R&D reactor authorization and NRC pre-commercial licenses under Class 104(c). Adequate rules are in place and do not need any immediate legislation or lengthy rule-making processes.

The RPP showed that the U.S. is capable of moving smoothly when building new nuclear power systems using appropriate levels of cooperation between government, government contractors and private enterprise. Major process steps have been developed and exercised. There is a daunting amount of work ahead but there are clear paths on which to take the next important steps in this rewarding journey.

--

This article was written by Rodney Adams - Managing Partner at Nucleation Capital. You can read more from Rod at Atomic Insights.

July 4, 2026

Our best protection from heat? Trees: nature’s biologic air conditioners

››

Trees and Weather

Forest loss graphFor many, celebrating July 4th brings out patriotic sentiments, a sense of marvel at our country's founding, its multi-century endurance and appreciation for the clear articulation of rights made by our founders as to the underlying and undeniably humanist principals of our democracy.

Among those in the nuclear industry, we are also celebrating the successful achievements of several innovative nascent criticality events among other sector advancements, marking the impending arrival of a new generation of advanced reactor designs, which some have taken to calling the "Golden Era of Nuclear Power."

These technical achievements are truly inspiring but the moment is overlaid by record-breaking heat conditions, reminding us of the frightening reality that climate change is here. It is already dishing out scorching heat, strained energy systems, devasted agricultural and forest areas, declining wildlife, hotter and more acidic oceans, extreme weather events and increasingly taking lives and/or destroying livelihoods.

For those suffering from extreme heat this July 4th weekend, as millions in Europe and the eastern coast of the U.S. currently are, there is both good news and bad news. The good news is that if you can get somewhere where there is air conditioning, you won't die from the 100+ ∘ F heat. Probably you'll feel quite comfortable, so long as your power stays on and your air-conditioner continues to work—even though the energy powering your air-conditioner (with a few exceptions) is simultaneously making the planet hotter.

The bad news is that humans appreciate mechanical air-conditioners that cool a room or a building a lot more than they appreciate nature's most perfectly evolved biologic form of air conditioner: trees and forests. It turns out, if we want better protection from the extreme heat that our emissions are causing, we need to protect forests from senseless destruction. Their enormous and yet under-appreciated capabilities for regulating temperature, moisture, air pressure and wind have developed over millions of years and they use exactly the same physics to cool the earth as your A/C works, though on a vastly different scale and with other added benefits.

Tragically, we have continued to devalue the importance of trees and forests—even many environmentalists see them just as a form of carbon storage—and so we have been destroying them at record levels. This is extremely shortsighted but the result of the fact that so few actually understand how complex and critical the role forests play, especially in a climate stressed world. If forests had had a founder like Elon Musk to make the global pitch to investors on how incredible tree technology really is and demand trillions of dollars in valuation for their services keeping earth inhabitable, the story might be different.

We don't. For now, the closest we have is Dr. Anastassia Makarieva of the non-profit, the Biotic Pump Greening Group, which is making the scientific, academic and social media case to help people understand how and why forests are such an important part of ensuring the livability of our planet. Reading Dr. Makarieva's substack, Biotic Pump & Biotic Regulation, will blow your mind with the descriptions of the physics involved in the mechanisms by which forests control wind, make rain, and cool the earth. But, in honor of the July 4th holidays, I'll save you hours of reading by condensing some of Dr. Makarieva's key points and explain why you should think of forests as planet Earth's continent-scale air-conditioners and rain-makers. Once you understand that, it become easy to understand that the fewer we have left, the hotter and drier it will get.

Dr. Makarieva has made the case that forests act as earth's biotic pump (which she describes as working a lot like a steam engine), helping to bring in warm air containing moisture that was evaporated from over the seas and help to wring the moisture out by causing clouds to form and stimulating pressure changes to allow rain to fall down while ejecting the heat out into the upper atmosphere, where the pressure differential causes the winds that push cold air out over the ocean again, where it sinks, warms, loads up on water and repeats the cycle again. Her concept of this atmospheric pumping action explains the essential physics underlying the processes that are actively controlled by the forests through transpiration, evaporation, condensation and other mechanisms, which run on the same core physics and principles — leveraging the physics of phase changes of water — to operate a form of planetary air-conditioning — at a wildly enormous scale.

An air conditioner is a form of reverse heat pump: refrigerant evaporates inside the unit, absorbing heat from room air (that's the cooling), then a compressor forces it to condense outside, dumping that heat outdoors. As a side effect, room air passing over the cold evaporator coil drops below its dew point, so water vapor condenses out and drains away — the air comes out both cooler and drier, which is why AC feels so much more comfortable than the same temperature at high humidity: dry air lets your sweat evaporate and carry heat away from your skin.

A forest does something structurally similar but runs as an open, self-powered loop rather than a closed mechanical one. Transpiration is the evaporator side: trees pump enormous volumes of water from soil to leaf and release it as vapor, and that phase change for the water absorbs latent heat right at the leaf/canopy surface — which is the literal, physical reason it's cooler under a tree, which is an evaporative-cooling effect (such as what an old-fashioned swamp cooler uses). The condenser side happens later and higher up: as that warm moist air rises and cools, the vapor condenses into clouds and rain, releasing the latent heat at altitude, where it's far easier for the planet to radiate it away to space.

In contrast, something Dr. Makarieva describes as the "Super Greenhouse Effect," explains why heat trapped near a humid surface can stop escaping altogether, thus generating truly staggering heat that the body cannot reject through sweat, and thus can often be fatal, such as the prolonged heat waves we are seeing now. Which is one of the many not well valued services provided by forests, which do the hard work of getting heat rising up and out into the upper atmosphere via cloud condensation, which explains why some regions are better protected from long, lingering heat waves and heat-related deaths than others.

Here's the elegant and magical part: what if a hightech founder told you that their technology required zero electricity to work and just pure solar energy? Would that make you want to invest? What if you could buy an air-conditioner whose refrigerant could keep circulating without needing any power? In Makarieva's biotic pump, condensation itself does that job. When water vapor condenses aloft, it removes molecules from the gas phase back to liquid, which falls as rain and causes local air pressure to quickly drop (a change we've all felt but didn't understand). That pressure drop is what then sucks in more moist and dense air horizontally from the ocean, which we experience as wind coming in from the ocean. This is what keeps the whole cycle running and keeps carrying  moisture from the ocean inland. Forests don't need a compressor or electricity because the condensation event at large scale is the compressor — it's a self-sustaining engine powered by sunlight (as a source of heat), physics which makes warm air less dense, thus lighter, gravity (which makes cold dense air sink) and biology (in the form of healthy, natural and diverse forests, which have evolved a bag of tricks that we still barely understand but which can add extra transpiration moisture, spores or other particles into the air to juice the pressure and moisture content that ensures that rain happens overhead.

Forests don't just provide cool shade: they manage temperature like an airconditioner, but they also manage humidity and rain. An AC's whole comfort payoff comes from pulling heat out of a room, producing a little waste moisture in the process. A forest does the opposite at landscape scale: by keeping transpiration high, it keeps atmospheric moisture concentrated enough to fuel that condensation engine, which is precisely what lets it "trigger rain at the right time, in the right place, in the right quantity" (as Dr.  Makarieva puts it) rather than just letting incoming moist wind pass over dry land with nothing to condense it. An AC discards the moisture it removes as waste. A forest's whole function is to control the moisture that keeps it alive and well, while maintaining enough moisture in the air that condensation and pressure differentials can keep the pump running.

Solving climate change is not a simple process. To stop increasing the forced warming of the atmospher, we must urgently transition away from carbon-emitting energy sources (both fossil fuels and biofuels), which is why the world is now working towards tripling or quadrupling nuclear power. But, because we already have too many large molecules in the atmosphere, we should try to prevent atmospheric warming where possible, by increasing global albedo (expanding areas that reflect solar photons back into space rather than allowing them to be absorbed (such as white roofs, grass, trees, forests and snowcover).  Additionally, we must begin to remove the excess carbon and methane from the atmosphere and ocean, through direct air capture, carbon dioxide removal, and other methods that will lead to reduce GHGs that serve as atmospheric warming elements. That work must also be done by energy sources that don't emit carbon, which is another reason to support the expansion of nuclear power.

Which is why so many of us are celebrating the achievements of the last year in nuclear, which have brought the emerging generation of Gen IV nuclear designs to a new level of readiness. But between now and when we have seen substantial progress towards the above goals, we are in for increasing levels of heat and discomfort. We must work collaboratively to protect what's left of the earth's natural forests — now down to just about 8% of available land — and even begin to regenerate them as the planet's only source of live-saving natural air-conditioning. Without these forests, we'll experience the worst effects of the heating that our emissions have caused as if we were standing out in the field on a hot, sunny day without the protection of the shade of a tree.

By Valerie Gardner, Founder and Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital and life-long tree hugger.


References:

BBC, Tropical forests destroyed at fastest recorded rate last year, by Mark Poynting and Esme Stallard, May 20, 2025.

Columbia University, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?, published in Taylor & Francis, February 3, 2025 by James E. Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, George Tselioudis, Joseph Kelly, Susanne E. Bauer, Reto Ruedy, Eunbi Jeong, Qinjian Jin, Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Mark R. Schoeberl, Karina von Schuckmann, Joshua Amponsem, Junji Cao, Anton Keskinen, Jing Li, and Anni Pokela

Biotic Regulation and Biotic Pump Substack by Dr. Anatassia Makarieva, an atmospheric physicist, along with occasional guest authors.

Biotic Pump Greening Group, explaining the technological marvels that are trees and working to restore degraded forests to make sure that they and their functionality is repaired.

David Roberts' Volts Podcast: How to keep people cool without making the planet even hotter, June 24, 2026, with Ankit Kalanki, unpacking the the hidden world of AC refrigerants.

June 23, 2026

Vital Climate Science Resource Re-emerges As Non-Profit

Climate.us launches independent website for trusted climate information

For more than a decade, NOAA’s Climate.gov website was among the U.S. government’s most important platforms for climate information for the public. At the start of 2025, if someone in the U.S. googled “climate,” Climate.gov was the top result. It served 15+ million visitors in 2024 and had more than half a million social media followers and its reach was growing every year.

In the first half of 2025, Trump administration officials at NOAA terminated Climate.gov’s full-time federal and contractor staff, ordered removal of content, and redirected the home page to a page under more direct control of political appointees. With little fanfare, Climate.gov found itself unable to continue its operations which would deprive the public of a highly trusted source of climate information. Finding themselves unable to permit this loss, former Climate.gov staff decided to take matters into their own hands to continue the site's mission. In June, 2026, they launched Climate.us, as a new online platform that will carry on the legacy of Climate.gov and  even expand its scope.

A new home outside the federal domain allows the team to rescue Climate.gov and other federal assets, including the Fifth National Climate Assessment,  bringing key climate information together under one roof. The Climate.gov team, which has long excelled at delivering elegant content through which the public, journalists, educators, and students could easilylearn about climate, will now build a next-generation platform expanded to serve new audiences—climate service providers, community planners, app developers, etc.—seeking data and tools for analysis and decision-making.

Climate.us is now run by an independent nonprofit entity hosted and managed by Multiplier, a 501(c)(3) organization. An advisory panel with members representing target audiences and stakeholders will guide the site’s scope of contents and utility; science and data experts will help content teams ensure information is based on the best available science. We are thrilled by the heroic actions of the Climate.gov staff and their bold, forward-thinking strategy to safeguard public access to vital, trusted climate data and services. We have provided a donation in support of this effort and hope you will too. Please visit the Climate.us fundraising site and consider providing support in any amount.


References:

Climate.gov, no longer providing climate data according to this notice:

UPDATED: June 24, 2025. In compliance with Executive Order 14303 (“Restoring Gold Standard Science”), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s June 23, 2025 Memorandum (“Agency Guidance for Implementing Gold Standard Science in the Conduct & Management of Scientific Activities”), 15 USC § 2904 (“National Climate Program”), 15 USC § 2934 (“National Global Change Research Plan”), and 33 USC § 893a (“NOAA Ocean and Atmospheric Science Education Programs”), you have been redirected to NOAA.gov. Future research products previously housed under Climate.gov will be available at NOAA.gov/climate and its affiliate websites.

Climate.us, rising from the ashes of Climate.gov.

GiveButter Climate.us Launches New Independent Website for Trusted Climate Informtion by the climate.us team.

YouTube Video, Climate.us: independent, nonprofit, and immune to politics, May 2025.

The GuardianScientists breathe new life into climate website after shutdown under Trump, by Eric Holthaus, Aug 30, 2025.

New York Times, Former NOAA Employees Revive Climate Site Shut by Trump Administration, by Quinn Glabicki, June 23, 2026.

© 2026 Nucleation Capital | Terms & Policies

linkedin, for social media footer
X-logo, for social media footer
Nucleation transparent