S&P Global offers a useful overview of ongoing regulatory work at the IMO and IAEA aimed at updating the framework for civilian nuclear at sea — an effort that will eventually matter for developers like Core Power as the sector looks toward commercial pathways...
Growing Energy demand provided demand pull for both traditional and next-generation reactors throughout Q3 of 2025. Yet further boosting momentum was the announcement by the DOE that they had selected ten ventures for accelerated design review of a test unit. This has lit a fire under those and other ventures already making progress to try to get the DOE to allow them to build something by July 4, 2026.
Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Artificial Intelligence, Carbon emissions, Climate change, NEWSLETTER, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear financing, Nuclear innovation, Nuclear maritime propulsion, Nuclear R&D, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
CORE POWER is among the key players driving nuclear shipping forward, from regulatory work to its Liberty deployment program...
Published by Ian Brusewitz in Advanced Nuclear, Energy transition, International Collaboration, NEWS, Nuclear innovation, Nuclear maritime propulsion, Portfolio Venture, Venture capital support for nuclear
CORE POWER, a Nucleation portfolio company, has joined ABS and Athlos in a new consortium to assess floating nuclear power in the Mediterranean...
CORE POWER has joined ABS and Athlos Energy to form a new consortium studying floating nuclear power solutions for Mediterranean ports, islands, and coastal communities...
Climate tipping effects may be kicking in
For those tracking the state of the climate, the report published by the BBC showing that tropical forests were being destroyed at the fastest recorded rate over the last year, was frightening, with the prospect of total forest dieback and "savannisation" of these areas is a growing risk.
Compounding the loss of old-growth tropical forests in 2024 (estimated to have covered an area as large as Ireland) and the release of their carbon stores, is the loss of the moisture and climate systems maintained by those forest ecosystems, which previously provided localized cooling effects, produced cloud cover and contributed to the atmospheric moisture necessary for rain. These had also helped to brighten the earth, thereby reflecting more of the sunlight that otherwise would cause heating. This moisture and water cycle activity gets destroyed along with the trees, plants and animal life. This climatic loss to broad areas may be having more of a negative feedback effective on the planet's overall warming than has previously been recognized.
Global Surface Temperature Change (published 2/3/25)
This news add yet more data to the alarming report published in February by Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Pushker Kharecha and a team of sixteen other climate scientists plainly titled "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed? In it, Dr. Hansen's team explains that global temperatures have leaped up more than a half degree (0.7°F or 0.4°C) over the last 2 years, with a total average temperature rise of +1.6°C relative to the temperature at the beginning of last century (the 1880-1920 average). This reflects a temperature rise over the +1.5°C (or 2.7°F) level that we set as our goal for maximum increase. As of the last year, we've already exceeded that level.
These increases have, according to Hansen, baffled Earth scientists, as the increase's magnitude was literally off the charts. There were multiple explanations presented as to what could have caused such a big increase. Declining aerosol pollution was seen as a key contributor, by reducing nuclei that aided cloud formation and thus reflection of sunlight, thereby effectively darkening earth and allowing more heat to be absorbed. These are very troubling and portentious changes that may, in fact, show that feedback effects are already accelerating the heating impacts of our CO2 emissions, such that they no longer follow a direct relationship.
Dr. Hansen's report received considerable criticism both because it departed scientifically from the mainstream's more conservative consensus of a lower rate of warming and climate "sensitivity," as determined by the IPCC, and because it called for "a complement to the IPCC approach" to "avoid handing young people a dire situation that is out of their control." In a response to some of that criticism, Drs. Hansen and Karecha decried the ad hoc opinions, ad hominem attacks and sense that the media has gravitated towards reporting the opinions of just a small handful of scientists, rather than covering the total community and range of analyses, including their own.
Dr. Anatassia Makarieva, an atmospheric physicist, responded to this debate with a substack post titled "On the scientific essense of Dr. James Hansen's recent appeal." In it she agreed with Drs. Hansen and Karecha that many scientists were understating the degree of climate forcing but also shared her sense that many of the climate models in use, including Dr. Hansen's, erroneously ignored the major role of the biosphere in the climate destabilization that we are now experiencing. Which may, she argued, partially explain why none of the models predicted the heat anomaly of the 2023 - 2024 time period. Dr. Makarieva writes:
Why is this [i.e. accurate climate models] so important? Unless external causes of this recent temperature anomaly are identified, we may be dealing with a self-reinforcing process — for example, of reduced cloud cover causing more warming, this warming causing even less clouds and so forth until something truly ugly happens to our planet. But, if so, such a process could be started by many factors and does not necessarily need CO2 to kick off. For example, deforestation-induced reduction of evapotranspiration in the Amazon is associated with extreme heat events. This alone could trigger the warming that could then self-amplify via cloud (or some other) feedbacks.
Whether or not we have permanent self-reinforcing amplification happening with the climate now is being debated, partially thanks to new voices like Dr. Makarieva's, entering the field. What is clear, however, is that the fewer clouds, aerosols, snow cover, sea ice and also more invisible sources of water vapor (such produced by tropical forests and other natural ecosystems) the darker the earth is and the more sunlight gets through and heats the ground, the oceans and the air. This heating further impacts existing vegetation, ice sheets, permafrost and bodies of water negatively, which then also contribute more CO2, more fires, and further darkening of earth's surface. Earth's climate has been in a state of equilibrium for eons. Given what is happening with the climate now, it appears that it is leaving that state of equilibrium.
According to some reports, the Earth has "dimmed" by 0.5% in the past 25 years. We've known this and scientists have been able to track decreases in sea ice at the poles, a major factor in global warming. We're now seeing the climate effects of reductions in aerosols (due to the shipping industry trying to clean up their act and emit less aerosols), and we're seeing reduced cloud cover. The bottom line is that even just looking at cloud feedbacks, the more the climate warms, the fewer the clouds. The fewer the clouds, the more the planet warms. This feedback loop is enough to take us into very dangerous territory. Which is yet another reason why we want to prevent the loss of tropical forests, not just because of the CO2 impacts but because of the cloud and water vapor impacts. This feedback loop could explain why the rate of heating of the planet has increased beyond what was expected, even by scientists like Zeke Hausfather and James Hansen.
Dr. Hansen continues to urge immediate action and has proposed that "a multitude of actions are required within less than a decade to reduce and even reverse Earth’s energy imbalance for the sake of minimizing the enormous ongoing geoengineering of the planet; specifically, we will need to cool the planet to avoid consequences for young people that all people would find unconscionable."
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, "On the scientific essense of Dr. James Hansen's recent appeal." by Dr. Anatassia Makarieva, an atmospheric physicist, May 19, 2025.
Published by Valerie Gardner in Advanced Nuclear, Asset manager support, Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate innovation fund, Climate mayhem, Construction costs, Energy abundance, Environmental support for nuclear, Extreme weather, Future of Energy, International support for nuclear, Investor activity, Land Use by Energy, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear financing, Nuclear innovation, Nuclear maritime propulsion, Nuclear R&D, Philanthropic support for nuclear, Politicians supporting nuclear, Pro-nuclear campaign, Solving climate, Solving nuclear waste, US competitiveness, Venture capital support for nuclear, Zero emission energy
By Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital Managing Partner
Presidential elections are always important and this year's election is widely considered particularly critical and unusual. There are vast differences of opinion on matters of great national importance—from voting rights and health policies to international relations and national security policies. Less well litigated is where these candidates stand on matters of energy security, the energy transition and future deployments of both traditional and advanced nuclear power. How will the differences in character, knowledge and respect for facts, science and experts play out on U.S. policies towards nuclear power? Based upon various sources, it appears that the election will have a significant impact. For those still making up their minds, this summary assessment may help clarify how numerous pundits view these differences.
Summary
Nuclear energy has enjoyed enduring bipartisan support across both Democratic and Republican administrations for years now. The Congress has passed, with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, bills aimed at modernizing and accelerating commercialization of new nuclear.
Nevertheless, in 2024, the two presidential candidates bring potentially unconventional approaches that may differ from the standard positions of their respective parties. Republicans have long valued America's nuclear capacity and have seen the need for the US to maintain leadership to boost both national security and to expand our ability to export our technologies. They recognize that the U.S. needs to counter the geopolitical influence of adversaries like Russia and China which are offering to help developing nations with nuclear power as a means of increasing their influence within those countries.
Democrats have also, if more recently, come around to support nuclear. Both the Obama White House and the Biden Administration have provided broad support for the industry and particularly for the acceleration of next-generation nuclear technologies and American leadership in the energy transition. Front and center of their support is the recognition that nuclear power is a critical, differentiated component of a reliable, 24/7 low-carbon energy grid. They support its expansion primarily as a mechanism to meet growing energy needs and fortify grid reliability while reducing carbon emissions and addressing climate change, in tandem with renewables.
The question then of which candidate is more likely to support the continued acceleration of nuclear power is thus wrapped up with policies relating to energy security, fossil fuels, geopolitical competition with Russia and China, and support for addressing climate change. The Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022 and signed by President Biden marked the Congress' single largest investment in the economy, energy security and climate change and is widely seen as the most important piece of climate legislation ever passed. It simultaneously rebuilds the U.S. industrial capabilities while incentivizing the growth of clean energy technologies including domestic nuclear power. It is already making an enormous and beneficial impact on the U.S. nuclear indsutry.
Kamala Harris, while possibly more progressive than Biden, has shown her support for Biden's approach to incentivizing the clean energy transition through the IRA, Biden's signature piece of climate legislation, which has received staunch support from industry. She is unlikely to make many if any changes to the IRA's clean energy technology-neutral Investment Tax Credits and Production Tax Credits or reduce the billions in loan guarantees available through the Loan Program Office, which have already stimulated significant investment in protecting and restarting existing reactors.
Because of Biden’s Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act’s Civil Nuclear Credit program, California is proceeding with the relicensing of Diablo Canyon, Holtec has chosen to restart, rather than decommission, Michigan’s Palisades nuclear power plant, Constellation has inked a deal with Microsoft to restart Three Mile Island Unit 2, and NextEra Energy is actively considering the restart of Duane Arnold. Meanwhile, Google has signed a deal to buy power from advanced nuclear reactors being designed by Kairos Power and Amazon has signed a similar deal with X-energy, marking the first corporate purchases of next-generation nuclear, thanks to highly motivating tax and financing incentives available through the IRA and LPO.
Harris is clearly committed to addressing climate change. There is no evidence that she rejects the clean energy tech-agnostic approach developed during her term as Vice President, which levels the playing field for nuclear energy as a clean energy source. Harris recognizes the geopolitical importance of America's ability to compete with Russia to produce our own nuclear fuel supply and to provide nuclear technologies to developing nations seeking to build their clean energy capacity but wanting to remain free of Russian or Chinese influence.
In contrast, Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax," and/or a good thing and cares little about reducing U.S. or global emissions. He previously walked away from the Paris accord and would likely try to repeal, roll back or dilute the IRA. He's publicly allied himself with the fossil fuel industry and—in exchange for donations—has promised to roll back EPA regulations and help them "drill, drill, drill."
There is almost no doubt that Trump would step the U.S. away from its leadership role on climate and this time, that may mean reversing the U.S.'s pledge to triple the amount of nuclear power. This would seriously undermine both the U.S. nuclear industry's momentum to expand to meet growing demand as well as international progress. Given Trump’s overt courting of Putin, he may be disinclined to rebuild the U.S.'s nuclear fuel production capacity or seek to accelerate or support American efforts to build nuclear projects internationally in competition with Russia.
None of this would be good for nuclear power. Any potential efforts to rollback the IRA would slow restoration, development and deployment of reactors. Boosting the fossil fuel industry, whether through supporting expanded access to federal land or price manipulation to improve profitability would have severe impacts on the energy transition. Trump's recent acknowledgement that he didn't believe nuclear was safe also belies the stated "commitment" to nuclear energy expressed by his surrogates and gives considerable fodder to those who persist in opposing nuclear. His shoot-from-the-hip, truth-be-damned leadership style and embrace of conspiracy theorists, contrasts starkly with Harris' stated willingness to consult with scientific experts and even give those who disagree with her a seat at the table.
In sumary, Trump's likely propensity to undermine the IRA, oppose climate action and backtrack on US pledges to triple nuclear, his support for expanding fossil fuel production and his continued disdain for science and technical experts, poses extreme risks to the momentum generated within the nuclear sector over the last few years. Trump's ignorance of nuclear energy's exceptional safety performance make him unlikely to provide Oval Office leadership either to the industry or the NRC in support of the bipartisan ADVANCE Act, signed into law by Biden.
In contrast, a Harris Administration would likely remain on the current climate glideslope for leadership, technology-neutral funding and the U.S.'s nuclear tripling momentum as stimulated by the Biden Administration. It may be that a Harris Administration does not prioritize nuclear's growth or add billions in new accelerants as Biden has done, but she will not try to trash it. Having been briefed by senior energy advisors over the last four years about the importance of nuclear, she is well-informed and understands the importance of Biden's initiatives for addressing climate.
Based on this analysis, those who support an expansion of nuclear power and enduring progress towards transitioning away from fossil fuels should thus prefer to see Harris elected, rather than Trump, and the existing policies continued.
Sources
You can find more detailed information about the basis for this Summary Assessment from these sources.
- Forbes, Trump Plans To Rescind Funds For IRA Law’s Climate Provisions, But May Keep Drug Price Measures, by Joshua P. Cohen, Sept. 9, 2024.
- Bloomberg, US Economy Will Suffer If IRA Repealed, Solar Maker CEO Says, by Mark Chediak, Oct. 22, 2024.
- Politico E&E News, Trump cites cost and risks of building more nuclear plants, by Nico Portuondo, Francisco "A.J." Camacho, Oct. 29, 2024.
- Huffington Post, Donald Trump Takes A Skeptical View Of Nuclear Energy On Joe Rogan’s Podcast, by Alexander Kaufman, Oct. 27, 2024
- Bloomberg, Trump 2.0 Climate Tipping Points: A guide to what a second Trump White House can—and can't—do to the American effort to slow global warming, by Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Sept. 30, 2024.
- Joint Economic Committee, How Project 2025's Health, Education, and Climate Policies Hurt Americans, August 2024.
- FactCheck.org, Trump Clings to Inaccurate Climate Change Talking Points, Jessica McDonald, Sept. 9, 2024.
- New York Times, Trump Will Withdraw U.S. From Paris Climate Agreement, Michael D. Shear, June 1, 2017
- Cipher: Here's how cleantech stacks up in three swing states: Taking stock of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Sept. 3, 2024.
- Bloomberg Green, Climate Politics: Double-Punch Storms Thrust Climate Into the US Presidential Race, by Zahra Hirji, Oct. 11, 2024.
- New York Times, Biden’s Climate Plans Are Stunted After Dejected Experts Fled Trump, by Coral DavenportLisa Friedman and Christopher Flavelle, published Aug. 1, 2021, updated Sept. 20, 2021
- Bloomberg, The Donald Trump Interview Transcript (with quote "Green New Scam"), July 16, 2024.
- Google: New nuclear clean energy agreement with Kairos Power, by Michael Terrell, Oct. 15, 2024, and Google's The Corporate Role in Accelerating Advanced Clean Electricity Technologies, Sept. 2023.
- The New Republic, Trump Pushes Deranged Idea that Climate Change is Good for Real Estate, by Robert McCoy, Sept. 18, 2024.
- Grid Brief: What Was Said About Energy During the VP Debate, JD Vance and Tim Walz Discuss Energy and Climate During VP Debate, by Jeff Luse, Oct. 2, 2024.
- CNN: Fact check: Sea levels are already rising faster per year than Trump claims they might rise over "next 497 years', by Daniel Dale, June 29, 2024.
- CNN: Fact check: Tramp's latest false climate figure is off by more than 1,000 times, by Daniel Dale, April 2023.
- Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, YPCCC's Resources on Climate in the 2024 U.S. General Election, by Anthony Leiserowitz, Edward Maibach, Jennifer Carman, Jennifer Marlon, John Kotcher, Seth Rosenthal and Joshua Low, Oct. 8, 2024.
- SIGNED: Bipartisan ADVANCE Act to Boost Nuclear Energy Now Law, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, July 9, 2024.
- Rodgers, Pallone, Carper, Capito Celebrate Signing of Bipartisan Nuclear Energy Bill, the ADVANCE Act, July 9, 2024.
- The White House, Bill Signed S. 870, July 9, 2024.
- Power Magazine, The ADVANCE Act—Legislation Crucial for a U.S. Nuclear Renaissance—Clears Congress. Here's a Detailed Breakdown by Sonal Patel, June 20, 2024
- Sidley Austin LLP, Congress Passes ADVANCE Act to Facilitate U.S. Development of Advanced Nuclear Reactors, June 26, 2024.
Published by Valerie Gardner in 100% Renewables, Advanced Nuclear, Advanced Nuclear Customers, Biden-Harris Administration, Capital reallocation, Carbon emissions, Carbon markets, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Construction costs, Energy abundance, Energy transition, Fission, Fossil fuels, Fusion, Future of Energy, Government support, International Collaboration, International support for nuclear, Investor activity, NEWS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear innovation, Nuclear maritime propulsion, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear-inclusive energy policy, Politicians supporting nuclear, Pronuclear States, Regulatory reform, Solving climate, Solving nuclear waste, Uranium & Mining, US competitiveness, US technological leadership, Zero emission energy
The Atomic Energy Advancement Act, which aims to accelerate the deployment of nuclear energy technologies, such as advanced nuclear reactors, was passed by the otherwise highly polarized House of Representatives by the overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 365 to 36. The bill directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) "To advance the benefits of nuclear energy by enabling efficient, timely, and predictable licensing, regulation, and deployment of nuclear energy technologies."
In particular, the Atomic Energy Advancement Act (HR 6544) gives the Nuclear Regulatory Commission one year to update the mission statement of the Commission to specifically ensure that the licensing and regulation of nuclear energy activities be conducted in a manner that "does not unnecessarily limit: (A) the potential of nuclear energy to improve the general welfare; and (B) the benefits of nuclear energy technology to society. This is a welcomed shift, as previously, the NRC acted as though their only mandate was "zero accidents." When that translates to zero licensed reactors, that makes us all far less safe because the alternative is the use of deadly fossil fuels. The NRC must now balance these clear priorities!
Representative Jeff Duncan of South Carolina applauded the passage of the HR 6544 saying: “The Atomic Energy Advancement Act restores American leadership in nuclear energy and technology which is critical to our economic and national security. I’m proud to lead the most significant update to nuclear energy policy in the United States in over a generation.”
Rep. Diana DeGette, a Democrat from Colorado, who co-led the bill with Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), released the following statement celebrating its passage: “Tackling the climate crisis means we must modernize our approach to all clean energy sources, including nuclear. From enhancing our energy supply chain to recruiting a highly trained and skilled workforce, this bill makes critical updates to improve safety and ensure our nuclear regulations are up-to-date, pushing us closer to a carbon-free energy future.”
“Nuclear energy is not a silver bullet, but if we’re going to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, it must be part of the mix,” DeGette continued. “As this bill heads to the Senate, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to find bipartisan solutions to address our clean energy needs.”
This House bill must now be reconciled with the Senate’s ADVANCE Act (S.1111), which passed in 2023 and was very similar. Once they are reconciled and passed again, the bill can be signed by President Biden.
The Hill, "House approves bipartisan bill aimed at bolstering nuclear energy," by Rachel Frazin, February 28, 2024.
Also see Congress.gov: The Atomic Energy Advancement Act (H.R. 6544).
Rep. Diana DeGette, "DeGette celebrates passage of her bill to improve nuclear energy safety and modernize regulation," Feb. 28, 2024.
Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Energy abundance, Future of Energy, Government support, History Timeline, History-making, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear financing, Nuclear innovation, Nuclear maritime propulsion, Nuclear R&D, Politicians supporting nuclear, Regulatory reform, Solving climate, US competitiveness, US technological leadership, Zero emission energy
Dr. James Hansen's year-end update contains an admonishment right in the title, "A Miracle Will Occur" Is Not Sensible Climate Policy." Those who have followed his work and his typically well-tempered writing will recognize this as a very strong indictment of what we've not done to date to address climate change. This is, for this mild-mannered scientist, the equivalent of "Hey Guys, Get your S _ _ T together!"
Dr. Hansen proceeds to call "bunk" on the assertions from both the COP 28 Chairman and the UN Secretary General who imply that the goal of keeping temperature rise to below 1.5°C is still feasible. According to Dr. Hansen, the already banked warming will take us beyond 2.0°C "if policy is limited to emission reductions and plausible CO2 removal." In other words, he makes it clear that this is now merely wishful thinking and does not reflect a realistic understanding of the way that emissions released create future warming, which he calls "Global Warming in the Pipeline" and describes in the linked paper.
The only realistic approach is to take true climate analysis that is informed by knowledge of the warming "forcing" effects and to use that to drive decisions about policy options. If we can possibly use the next several years to define and commence more effective policies and courses of action, then there is a modicum of a chance that we can still save the future for our young people. If this isn't a bomb of an alarm, it would be hard to say what else would be, especially because the IPCC has made it very clear that major ecosystems, starting with coral reefs and then, therefore, all marine life, will be threatened with substantial (90%) collapse by 1.5°C and with 100% by 2°C.
Unfortunately, climate science is complicated and most people don't have a good understanding of the "human-made forcings that are driving Earth's climate away from the relatively stable climate of the Holocene (approximately the past 10,000 years.)" Even if they could grasp the implications about climate science from the graphs that Dr. Hansen and his team provide, very few are even reading Hansen's work. These graphs are very scary but clearly they are not being used as the basis for policy discussions by either politicians, government agencies (like the EPA), or by leading environmental groups and that is likely the primary reason why many people are still arguing about renewables versus nuclear power, thinking they have a certain luxury of time, rather than saying "Renewables and nuclear, YES!"
For his part, Dr. Hansen doesn't make it as easy as he could for those with less expertise in climate science. He spends a lot of effort discussing two major climate forcings: greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols (fine airborne particles), which in fact have opposing forcings. But then goes into detail on many other related forcings. This level of detail may provide a more scientifically accurate picture of what is going on but it makes for much sparser readership. Clearly, there are many different kinds of feedback loops, including how the aerosols impact cloud formation, albedo effects and also the way the ocean absorbs a considerable amount of the warming that is happening to our climate. It's important that he understands these effects but it takes considerable sifting work to get to the point that what it all adds up to is that there is much more warming that has occurred than what we are actually now experiencing, so in fact, the effect of warming will be accelerate and we're now seeing this.
Even for those of us who finding climate science fascinating, this 14-page paper is incredibly dense and gets relatively badly bogged down with details on things like cloud forcings, albedo changes, reviewing differences between expected temperatures and real world measurements, catching up with a 40-year old mystery having to do with the last glacial maximum and describing the impacts of an "experiment" that occurred when the International Maritime Organization limited sulfur content in ship fuel and the variability introduced by El Nino and La Nina events. The bottom line of quite extensive discussion that few will wade through, is that global warming is now accelerating. This is very important but definitely buried. The key graphic of the whole paper depicts this acceleration.
On page 7, we finally get to the implications of global warming acceleration. As shown in the above graph, were the warming happening at a steady rate, we'd be on the green dotted line. Instead, we are veering off into the yellow zone of accelerated warming, which means that we'll "exceed the 1.5°C mark within the next few months and reach a level far above 1.5C by May 2024."
Hansen, while recognizing that there could be some up and down based upon El Nino and La Nina effects, believes that the baked in energy imbalance already "in the pipeline" means that it does not serve anybody's interests to "wait a decade to declare that the 1.5°C limit has been breached." In summary, Hansen argues that, "unless purposeful actions are taken to reduce our present extraordinary planetary energy imbalance," the 2°C global warming limit will also be breached.
By its very nature of having a delayed, baked-in response, human-made climate change makes this an intergenerational issue. What we have done in the past is already having consequences but what we do today and going forward will mostly impact the next generation for better or worse.
To his credit, Hansen dives yet again into Climate Policy, unlike most other scientists. This has been long been a huge source of frustration for him and you can almost see him stomping on his own hat, in his anger and impatience with the political processes that have thwarted action. First he reviews just what makes solving cilmate extra hard, starting with the fact that the principal source of GHGs is fossil fuels, which are in his words "extremely beneficial to humanity." They have raised starndards of living worldwide and still provide 80% of the world's energy. "Fossil fuels are readily available, so the world will not give up their benefits without equal or better alternatives." Because of this conundrum, we are near a point of no return, where extreme consequences can spiral out of humanity's control.
Dr. Hansen has been a first-hand witness to humanity's failure to act over the last 35 years or so and his exasperation with that and his desperation to communicate to those in power about our increasingly limited options is abundantly clear. He's been advising governments around the world on possible approaches with little of the urgent response that is warranted. He delves into some of these details but then finally hones on in the three actions that are required to successfully address climate and achieve the bright future we desire for our children.
The first is a near-global carbon tax or fee. It is the sine qua non required to address the "tragedy of the commons" problem" wherein fossil fuels waste products can be dumpted in the atmosphere for free. There can be a range of approaches, yet something that penalizes those dumping GHGs is required to be enacted globally. A corollary to a carbon fee is a "clean energy portfolio standard," with government policies that are far more supportive of nuclear power.
The second major policy requirement, is the need for the West to cooperate with and support the clean energy needs of emerging and developing nations. There are economic imbalances with developed nations having caused the past emissions but emerging nations increasingly being the driver of future emissions:
The clear need is to replace the world’s huge fossil fuel energy system with clean energies,
which likely would include a combination of “renewables” and nuclear power. Even if the
renewables provide most of the energy, engineering and economic analyses indicate that
global nuclear power probably needs to increase by a factor of 2-4 to provide baseload power
to complement intermittent renewable energy, especially given growing demands of China,
India and other emerging economies. The scale of China’s energy needs makes it feasible to drive down the costs of renewables and nuclear power below the cost of fossil fuels.
Lastly, Dr. Hansen proposes that "a multitude of actions are required within less than a decade to reduce and even reverse Earth’s energy imbalance for the sake of minimizing the enormous ongoing geoengineering of the planet; specifically, we will need to cool the planet to avoid consequences for young people that all people would find unconscionable."
References:
"A Miracle Will Occur" is Not Sensible Climate Policy, by James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Columbia University, Earth Insitute's Climate Science & Solutions, December 7, 2023.
Columbia University, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Newsletter, "Groundhog Day. Another Gobsmackingly Bananas Month. What’s Up?, sent on January 4, 2024 from the same team.
"Dire Warnings from Dr. Hansen and Team, by Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital, Dec. 22, 2023.
Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Asset manager support, Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate innovation fund, Climate mayhem, Construction costs, Energy abundance, Environmental support for nuclear, Extreme weather, Future of Energy, International support for nuclear, Investor activity, Land Use by Energy, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear financing, Nuclear innovation, Nuclear maritime propulsion, Nuclear R&D, Philanthropic support for nuclear, Politicians supporting nuclear, Pro-nuclear campaign, Solving climate, Solving nuclear waste, US competitiveness, Venture capital support for nuclear, Zero emission energy
The ADVANCE Act, included in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by the Senate, was passed by the Senate in an 86-11 bipartisan vote. The NDAA now must be reconciled with the version narrowly passed by the House on July 14th, which contains several controversial GOP amendments. Previously, the ADVANCE Act was approved by a bipartisan 16-3 vote of the Environment and Public Works Committee in May.
Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R., W.Va.), Tom Carper (D., Del.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) were the bipartisan group of sponsors who introduced the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act back in April of this year. Its purpose is to support the preservation, development, and deployment of nuclear energy technologies in the United States.
The legislation was widely welcomed by experts, including the respected Clean Air Task Force, as an effort to strengthen the U.S. nuclear energy sector by creating a supportive policy environment where nuclear energy can expedite the clean energy transition and promote global energy security.
Included in the bill are much needed measures that enhance processes at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, especially the review and approvals of next-gen nuclear reactors, improve the prospects for coal to nuclear projects, and streamline civil nuclear exports, all which will help manage climate change and provide reliable, 24/7, carbon-free energy.
In the words of Shelley Moore Capito, the passage of the ADVANCE Act brings us "one step closer to reestablishing America's preeminence as the global leader in nuclear energy in the 21st century. Not only does our legislation strengthen our national and energy security, it expands a clean, reliable power source that should remain a major part of our future energy mix. The ADVANCE Act achieves these shared goals by making the nuclear licensing process more affordable, predictable, and efficient; creating pathways to repurpose former industrial sites for nuclear reactors in the future; and providing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the resources needed to help fulfill its mission."
“The complexity of achieving economy-wide decarbonization requires a diverse set of solutions, and nuclear energy has an important role to play,” said Evan Chapman, U.S. Federal Policy Director at Clean Air Task Force. “The bipartisan ADVANCE Act would build on action taken through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act to preserve and expand the United States’ nuclear energy capacity. Doing so would help meet growing energy demand while moving the U.S. closer to achieving its climate goals. It’s an exciting step forward and we stand ready to work with Congress to make this legislation as strong as possible.”
See Nuclear Newswire's "Senate okays defense bill with measure boosting U.S. nuclear sector, to learn more about the ADVANCE Act. Also see the Clean Air Task Force's news about the introduction of the ADVANCE Act from April 5, 2023.
Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Energy abundance, Future of Energy, Government support, History Timeline, History-making, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear financing, Nuclear innovation, Nuclear maritime propulsion, Nuclear R&D, Politicians supporting nuclear, Regulatory reform, Solving climate, US competitiveness, US technological leadership, Zero emission energy
Sign up to receive Nucleation Insights
For Current Investors
(Note: Must be logged in at AngelList)
Nucleation Direct Messages
Nucleation (Fund I) Posts
Your Portfolio Dashboard
Your Funding Page
How to Contact Us
© 2025 Nucleation Capital | Terms & Policies
