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.

February 8, 2026

Maritime Nuclear Moves Toward Deployment in the U.S. ()

CORE POWER convened its largest U.S. maritime nuclear summit to date in D.C., bringing together DOE, NRC, maritime regulators, classification societies, and industry participants to advance deployable pathways for floating nuclear power plants and nuclear propulsion, including licensing, classification, liability, safeguards, and ship integration...

December 3, 2025

Core Power Featured in S&P Coverage as Maritime Nuclear Standards Take Shape ()

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...

September 30, 2025

AI’s growing energy demand + carbon concerns powers momentum for nuclear

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.

July 7, 2025

Nuclear Shipping Gains Traction as CORE POWER and Global Partners Push Forward ()

CORE POWER is among the key players driving nuclear shipping forward, from regulatory work to its Liberty deployment program...

July 7, 2025

CORE POWER Forms Consortium to Explore Floating Nuclear in 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...

May 25, 2025

Climate anomalies, ecologic disasters and climate uncertainties: All point to climate being worse than projected

Forest fires

Climate tipping effects may be kicking in

Forest loss graphFor 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.

Hansen chart 1

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.

Climate modelsWhether 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.

November 1, 2024

Assessing the Election’s Impacts on Nuclear

By Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital Managing Partner

Kh v dt.png

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.

  1. 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.
  2. Bloomberg, US Economy Will Suffer If IRA Repealed, Solar Maker CEO Says, by Mark Chediak, Oct. 22, 2024.
  3. Politico E&E News, Trump cites cost and risks of building more nuclear plants, by Nico Portuondo, Francisco "A.J." Camacho, Oct. 29, 2024.
  4.  Huffington Post, Donald Trump Takes A Skeptical View Of Nuclear Energy On Joe Rogan’s Podcast, by Alexander Kaufman, Oct. 27, 2024
  5. 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.
  6. Joint Economic Committee, How Project 2025's Health, Education, and Climate Policies Hurt Americans, August 2024.
  7. FactCheck.org, Trump Clings to Inaccurate Climate Change Talking Points, Jessica McDonald, Sept. 9, 2024.
  8. New York Times, Trump Will Withdraw U.S. From Paris Climate Agreement, Michael D. Shear, June 1, 2017
  9. Cipher: Here's how cleantech stacks up in three swing states: Taking stock of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Sept. 3, 2024.
  10. Bloomberg Green, Climate Politics: Double-Punch Storms Thrust Climate Into the US Presidential Race, by Zahra Hirji, Oct. 11, 2024.
  11. 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
  12. Bloomberg, The Donald Trump Interview Transcript (with quote "Green New Scam"), July 16, 2024.
  13. 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.
  14. The New Republic, Trump Pushes Deranged Idea that Climate Change is Good for Real Estate, by Robert McCoy, Sept. 18, 2024.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. CNN: Fact check: Tramp's latest false climate figure is off by more than 1,000 times, by Daniel Dale, April 2023.
  18. 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.
  19. SIGNED: Bipartisan ADVANCE Act to Boost Nuclear Energy Now Law, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, July 9, 2024.
  20. Rodgers, Pallone, Carper, Capito Celebrate Signing of Bipartisan Nuclear Energy Bill, the ADVANCE Act, July 9, 2024.
  21. The White House, Bill Signed S. 870, July 9, 2024.
  22. 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
  23. Sidley Austin LLP, Congress Passes ADVANCE Act to Facilitate U.S. Development of Advanced Nuclear Reactors, June 26, 2024.

© 2026 Nucleation Capital | Terms & Policies

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