You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:

It’s been just over a week since one of the 350-foot-long blades of a wind turbine off the Massachusetts coast unexpectedly broke off, sending hunks of fiberglass and foam into the waters below. As of Wednesday morning, cleanup crews were still actively removing debris from the water and beaches and working to locate additional pieces of the blade.
The blade failure quickly became a crisis for residents of Nantucket, where debris soon began washing up on the island’s busy beaches. It is also a PR nightmare for the nascent U.S. offshore wind industry, which is already on the defensive against community opposition and rampant misinformation about its environmental risks and benefits.
The broken turbine is part of Vineyard Wind 1, which is being developed by Avangrid and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. The project was still under construction when the breakage occurred, but it was already the largest operating offshore wind farm in the US, with ten turbines sending power to the New England Grid as of June. The plan is to bring another 52 online, which will produce enough electricity to power more than 400,000 homes. Now both installation and power generation have been paused while federal investigators look into the incident.
There’s still a lot we don’t know about why this happened, what the health and safety risks are, and what it means for this promising clean energy solution going forward. But here’s everything we’ve learned so far.

Vineyard Wind
On the evening of Saturday, July 13, Vineyard Wind received an alert that there was a problem with one of its turbines. The equipment contains a “delicate sensoring system,” CEO Klaus Moeller told the Nantucket Select Board during a public meeting last week. Though he did not describe what the alert said, he added that “one of the blades was broken and folded over.” Later at the meeting, a spokesperson for GE Vernova, which manufactured and installed the turbines, said that “blade vibrations” had been detected. About a third of the blade, or roughly 120 feet, fell into the water.
Two days later, Vineyard Wind contacted the town manager in Nantucket to explain that modeling showed the potential for debris from the blade to travel toward the island. Sure enough, fiberglass shards and other scraps began washing up on shore the next day, and all beaches on the island’s south shore were quickly closed to the public.
On Thursday morning, another large portion of the damaged blade detached and fell into the ocean. Monitoring and recovery crews continued to find debris throughout the area over the weekend. The beaches have since reopened, but visitors have been advised to wear shoes and leave their pets at home as cleanup continues.
During GE’s second quarter earnings call on July 24, GE Vernova CEO Scott Strazik and Vice President of Investor Relations Michael Lapides said the company had identified a “material deviation” as the cause of the accident, and that the company is continuing to work on a "root cause analysis" to get to the bottom of how said deviation happened in the first place.
The turbine was one of GE’s Haliade-X 13-megawatt turbines, which are manufactured in Gaspé, Canada, and it was still undergoing post-installation testing by GE when the failure occurred — that is, it was not among those sending power to the New England grid. This was actually the second issue the company has had at this particular turbine site. One of the original blades destined for the site was damaged during the installation process, and the one that broke last week was a replacement, Craig Gilvard, Vineyard Wind’s communications director, told the New Bedford Light.
By Vineyard Wind’s account at the meeting last week, the accident triggered an automatic shut down of the system and activated the company’s emergency response plan, which included immediately notifying the U.S. Coast Guard, the federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and regional emergency response committees.
Moeller, the CEO, said during the meeting that the company worked with the Coast Guard to immediately establish a 500 meter “safety zone” around the turbine and to send out notices to mariners. According to the Coast Guard’s notice log, however, the safety zone went into effect three days later. In response to my questions, the Coast Guard confirmed that the zone was established around 8pm that night and announced to mariners over radio broadcast.
Two days after the turbine broke, on Monday, Vineyard Wind contacted the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for aid in modeling where the turbine debris would travel in the water. The agency estimated pieces would likely make landfall in Nantucket that day. Vineyard Wind put out a press release about the accident and subsequently contacted the Nantucket town manager. At the Nantucket Select Board meeting last week, Moeller said the company followed regulatory protocols but that there was “really no excuse” for how long it took to inform the public, and said, “we want to move much quicker and make sure that we learn from this.”
The Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement has ordered the company to cease all power production and installation activities until it can determine whether this was an isolated incident or affects other turbines.
By Tuesday, Vineyard Wind said it had deployed two small teams to Nantucket in addition to hiring a local contractor to remove debris on the island. The company later said it would “increase its local team to more than 50 employees and contractors dedicated to beach clean-up and debris recovery efforts.”
GE Vernova is responsible for recovering offshore debris and has not published any public statements about the effort. In response to a list of questions, a GE Vernova spokesperson said, “We continue to work around the clock to enhance mitigation efforts in collaboration with Vineyard Wind and all relevant state, local and federal authorities. We are working with urgency to complete our root cause analysis of this event.”
There have been no reported injuries as a result of the accident.
Vineyard Wind and GE Vernova have stressed that the debris are “not toxic.” At the Select Board meeting, GE’s executive fleet engineering director Renjith Viripullan said that the blade is made of fiberglass, foam, and balsa wood. It is bonded together using a “bond paste,” he said, and likened the blade construction to that of a boat. “That's the correlation we need to think about,” he said.
One of the board members asked if there was any risk of PFAS contamination as a result of the accident. Viripullan said he would need to “take that question back” and follow up with the answer later. (This was one of the questions I asked GE, but the company did not respond to it.)
That being said, the debris poses some dangers. Photos of cleanup crews posted to the Harbormaster’s Facebook page show workers wearing white hazmat suits. Vineyard Wind said “members of the public should avoid handling debris as the fiber-glass pieces can be sharp and lead to cuts if handled without proper gloves.”
Though members of the public raised concerns at the meeting and to the press that fiberglass fragments in the ocean threaten marine life and public health, it is not yet clear how serious the risks are, and several efforts are underway to further assess them. Vineyard Wind is developing a water quality testing plan for the island and setting up a process for people to file claims. GE hired a design and engineering firm to conduct an environmental assessment, which it will present at a Nantucket Select Board meeting later this week. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has requested information from the companies about the makeup of the debris to evaluate risks, and the Department of Fish and Game is monitoring for impacts to the local ecosystem.
As of last Wednesday morning, Vineyard Wind had collected “approximately 17 cubic yards of debris, enough to fill more than six truckloads, and several larger pieces that washed ashore.” It is not yet known what fraction of the turbine that fell off has been recovered. Vineyard Wind did not respond to a request for the latest numbers in time for publication, but I’ll update this piece if I get a response.
Yes. In May, a blade on the same model of turbine, the GE Haliade-X, sustained damage at a wind farm being installed off the coast of England called Dogger Bank. At the Nantucket Select Board meeting, a spokesperson for GE said the Dogger Bank incident was “an installation issue specific to the installation of that blade” and that “we don’t think there’s a connection between that installation issue and what we saw here.” Executives emphasized this point during the earnings call and chalked up the Dogger Bank incident to “an installation error out at sea.”
Several blades have also broken off another GE turbine model dubbed the Cypress at wind farms in Germany and Sweden. After the most recent incident in Germany last October, the company used similar language, telling reporters that it was working to “determine the root cause.”
A “company source with knowledge of the investigations” into the various incidents recently told CNN that “there were different root causes for the damage, including transportation, handling, and manufacturing deviations.”
GE Vernova’s stock price fell nearly 10% last Wednesday.
The backlash was swift. Nantucket residents immediately wrote to Nantucket’s Select Board to ask the town to stop the construction of any additional offshore wind turbines. “I know it's not oil, but it's sharp and maybe toxic in other ways,” Select Board member Dawn Holgate told company executives at the meeting last week. “We're also facing an exponential risk if this were to continue because many more windmills are planned to be built out there and there's been a lot of concern about that throughout the community.”
The Select Board plans to meet in private on Tuesday night to discuss “potential litigation by the town against Vineyard Wind relative to recovery costs.”
“We expect Vineyard Wind will be responsible for all costs and associated remediation efforts incurred by the town in response to the incident,” Elizabeth Gibson, the Nantucket town manager said during the meeting last week.
The Aquinnah Wampanoag tribe is also calling for a moratorium on offshore wind development and raised concerns about the presence of fiberglass fragments in the water.
On social media, anti-wind groups throughout the northeast took up the story as evidence that offshore wind is “not green, not clean.” Republican state representatives in Massachusetts cited the incident as a reason for opposing legislation to expedite clean energy permitting last week. Fox News sought comment from internet personality and founder of Barstool Sports David Portnoy, who owns a home on Nantucket and said the island had been “ruined by negligence.” The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a nonprofit funded by oil companies and which is backing a lawsuit against Vineyard Wind, cited the incident as evidence that the project is harming local fishermen. The First Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments on the case this Thursday.
Meanwhile, environmental groups supportive of offshore wind tried to do damage control for the industry. “Now we must all work to ensure that the failure of a single turbine blade does not adversely impact the emergence of offshore wind as a critical solution for reducing dependence on fossil fuels and addressing the climate crisis,” the Sierra Club’s senior advisor for offshore wind, Nancy Pyne, wrote in a statement. “Wind power is one of the safest forms of energy generation.”
This story was last updated July 24 at 3:15 p.m. The current version contains new information and corrects the location where the turbine blades are produced. With assistance from Jael Holzman.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
This is what we’re tracking in energy and climate over the next four months — and beyond.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
We’re in the last third of 2026. In yesterday’s newsletter, I looked at the biggest planned upcoming events in climate and energy policy that we’re tracking at Heatmap for the rest of this year.
Today, I want to look at some of the biggest questions that I’m pondering for the rest of the year.
What will the AI backlash mean for data centers and energy demand?
In just the past 24 hours, existential concerns about artificial intelligence has gone mainstream. Even though AI engineers have warned that the technology could trigger some kind of mass fatality event — or even human extinction — for years, the resignation of Sam Coxon from Anthropic seems to have broken through into a new tier of public awareness. “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade,” Evan Hubinger, an Anthropic employee, posted on X after Coxon’s resignation broke.
It’s unscientific, but I’ve seen more celebrity Instagram posts, vertical videos, and concerned messages from friends about AI doom in the past day than I have in weeks. Senator Bernie Sanders is now holding a bipartisan meeting next week to discuss the “extraordinary dangers” posed by AI, according to Axios.
We already know that the public detests AI data centers. But so far the data center story has been somewhat severable from the AI story — voters, politicians, and journalists could talk about the AI infrastructure buildout separately from the tales of, say, AI allegedly solving century-old math problems. Will that remain the case? Or will the two stories merge? If that happens, will politicians and AI safety experts start to encourage (or even empower) the data center backlash because it might slow down AI’s overall development? What will that mean for the politics of infrastructure, electrification, and load growth — and will it cut greenhouse gas emissions?
What will happen in Iran, how high can oil go, and what will it mean for the energy system?
President Donald Trump has never been “looking for long term” in Iran, yet his war continues to drag on without an obvious or easy resolution. It has dragged energy prices up with it.
The global crude benchmark has now edged above $100. Gasoline costs more than $4.20 a gallon on average in the United States (and far more in Europe), and diesel is even more expensive. According to an ongoing estimate from Brown University researchers, the war has now cost Americans more than $100 billion due to energy inflation since it began. Hostilities have seemed to intensify in the past few days; Iran fired missiles at U.S. Navy ships and the United States responded by destroying oil tankers.
This has been generally bad for European economies, which are to some degree still recovering from the triple shock of Covid, energy inflation from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and China’s ongoing export boom. At the same time, the Iran war has broadly vindicated China’s energy strategy, which has used electrified technology, strategic stockpiling, and a coal, solar, and battery-dependent power grid to reduce economic dependence on seaborne liquid fuels. (China’s greenhouse gas emissions actually fell in the second quarter because of a drop in the country’s oil consumption.)
The most urgent question here, of course, is whether President Trump will find a way to end the war that he began earlier this year — and how expensive oil and liquified natural gas will get in the interim.
But an end to the war will trigger another set of questions about what this energy shock will mean for energy, climate, and industrial policy going forward. Shocks like these tend to dominate national strategy for years or decades after they happen; Thailand’s government announced last month that it’s backing off LNG imports in favor of renewables. Will we start to see a wider set of countries do the same? Will more countries build strategic oil stockpiles, driving up oil demand in the short term? And will more middle- and low-income countries embrace Chinese-made electric cars in the name of boosting energy security and cutting their oil dependence?
Will the U.S. get bipartisan permitting reform?
The most important political question this year — if you are a normal person — is whether Democrats will take over the House of Representatives and even the Senate in the upcoming midterm election. But we aren’t normal people here at Heatmap. And the midterm elections will, for us, only commence the year’s most interesting political moment.
Right now, lawmakers from both parties say they are trying to reach a deal on bipartisan permitting reform. Such a bill would make it easier to build transmission lines, renewable energy, and some fossil fuel infrastructure, as well as presumably restraining the president’s extralegal war on solar and wind. It could even make it easier for the government to build public infrastructure of all sorts.
We haven’t seen the text of such a deal yet — although my Shift Key interview with Daniel Palken, a permitting expert at Arnold Ventures, offers a lot of clues to its potential content. So it remains an open question whether lawmakers can reach a deal in November and shepherd it through a lame-duck Congress before the end of the year.
If they can, it could enable a future president to conduct a faster and more aggressive clean energy or infrastructure buildout than was previously imaginable. If they can’t, then it will be hard to imagine when such a deal might ever come together, as it has failed to congeal under almost every partisan combination of a president and Congress.
Will 2026 be the hottest year ever?
Back in the spring, climate scientists assigned low odds to the probability that 2026 would become the hottest year ever measured. Since then, though, a monstrous El Niño has clawed out of the Pacific Ocean, nudging up global temperatures and contributing to America’s record-breaking summer.
2026 now has a greater than 33% chance of eclipsing 2024’s hottest-year-on-record title, according to a late July estimate from Carbon Brief; the odds have probably risen further since then. Either way, 2026 will probably come in about 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than the pre-industrial average — and 2027 is very likely to be even hotter.
Are we entering a post-Trump, post-2010s energy and climate era — and what will it look like?
President Donald Trump is about as unpopular as he has ever been, and on a range of issues, he seems to be losing touch with the American public. Simply by dint of being the country’s most prominent political figure for most of the past 10 years, he has become an establishment politician. He now champions AI, data centers, and the Iran War, for instance, while Americans seem skeptical of all three (at best).
In the next several months, these trends are all likely to intensify: Trump is likely to lose control of Congress — at least according to the polls and the betting markets — and a new presidential election will begin, one in which he will probably not be running.
Which isn’t to say that Trump will lose his grip on the Republican Party or its voters — nor that his actions in the coming years will be lawful, or even Constitutional. But nevertheless if you squint, you can begin to imagine what a post-Trump political era might look like, and it is quite different from the epoch that we have just lived through. It is an era where voters will likely be more worried about inflation and the cost of living than unemployment and economic growth. It is an era where Democrats will be looking to play up economic populism and where the federal deficit might matter again. It is an era where Millennials will be in their prime earning years, where politicians will fear a backlash to industrial policy and infrastructure buildout, and where America’s role in the world will remain unsettled.
It is, in short, not at all like the era that gave us the Green New Deal or the other energy and climate policy of the early 2020s; even if a recession hits and employment becomes a major concern once again, then the resulting political environment might look more like 1992 (or even 1937) than 2008. We are, in short, entering a new era — one we’re excited to watch, develop, and cover here at Heatmap.
Current conditions: Hurricane Lowell came within 40 miles of making landfall over Hawaii, knocking out power in much of Kaua’i • The Atlantic hurricane season, which hit its climatological peak this week, is now trending toward a record low amount of storm activity • After months of heat, an unusual cold front is arriving in Central Europe, threatening flooding from the temperature whiplash.

Back in 1986, the writer Marc Reisner painted a bleak picture of the future of the reservoirs that helped fulfill America’s Manifest Destiny, spread Anglo civilization westward, and quench the thirst of farms, people, and their lawns. His classic Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water predicted that the hydrological system would be thrown into disarray as sediment filled in reservoirs, leaving croplands parched and water scarce. A startling new Bloomberg analysis of scant federal reservoir data suggests that future is fast approaching. Compiling 140 sediment surveys from the Bureau of Reclamation of 105 unique dams, the newswire found that nearly one in three are more than 10% full of sediment. That’s only an average. Montana’s Fresno Reservoir is roughly 29% full of sediment, “displacing enough water to last nearly one-third of the state’s residents for a year.” Wyoming’s Buffalo Bill Dam, meanwhile, “has lost most of its hydroelectric generating capacity due to sediment.” An engineer who oversaw sediment work at the Bureau of Reclamation estimated that the U.S. has already lost up to 44% of its per capita water storage since a peak in the 1970s. “People back in the ’60s and ’70s figured, ‘Well, the next generation can figure that out,’” Randle told the publication. “But now, fast-forward to the present, there aren’t any great solutions.”
The finding comes just months after the Western U.S. suffered what my colleague Jeva Lange called “a once-in-a-4,433-year heat wave” with consequences that “will linger well past the high temperatures.”
In 2020, when activists sought to block individual gas or oil pipelines as a way to spur decarbonization, then-New York Governor Andrew Cuomo bowed to months of protests by blocking the state’s approval of water permits for a major gas pipeline under New York Bay. The project, known as the Northeast Supply Enhancement pipeline, would have carried gas from the fracking fields of Pennsylvania to the nation’s most densely populated and increasingly energy-starved region. In the meantime, demand for gas has soared, particularly as New York and Massachusetts shut down major nuclear stations and the offshore wind buildout began stalling even before President Donald Trump launched what my colleagues have repeatedly described as a “war” on turbines. When Trump returned to office, now-New York Governor Kathy Hochul compromised with the new administration by agreeing to work together to move forward with the mothballed pipeline plans. Last November, New Jersey followed suit by approving the water permits for the project on the same day New York did. Williams broke ground in April.
But bipartisan consensus is no guarantee against this nation’s process rules for environmental permitting. On Tuesday, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s water certifications. Prior to the decision last year, New Jersey’s state agency held only one public hearing, prompting a lawsuit from a coalition of green groups. NJ Sierra Club, one of the leading litigants, hailed Tuesday’s ruling as “a massive victory over the fossil fuel industry.” The decision “tells us what we already knew, the DEP couldn’t prove that NESE will not harm our water quality and waterways,” Anjuli Ramos-Busot, NJ Sierra Club’s director, said in a statement. When I emailed Williams to ask about the ruling last night, spokesperson Cherice Corley told me the company was “reviewing the court’s decision.”
It’s a big week for carbon capture and sequestration in Europe. On Monday, the continent’s largest CCS facility officially opened at the fertilizer company Yara International’s Sluiskil plant in the Netherlands. At full capacity, the facility will capture and liquify up to 800,000 tons of carbon dioxide annual from an ammonia production plant. Yara said the facility “proves that large-scale industrial decarbonization is possible today.” The European Union’s climate commissioner, Wopke Hoekstra, said “this is exactly the kind of project Europe needs to combine climate ambition with a strong and resilient industrial base.”
That same day, the British startup Cool Planet Technologies christened its 10,000-ton-per-year CCS plant at building material maker Holcim’s cement plant in Lower Saxony, Germany. “We are relying on leading European technology and drawing on the engineering expertise of our technology partners,” Holcim Germany CEO Stephan Hinrichs told the Carbon Herald. “Together in Lower Saxony, we are proving that climate protection and industrial competitiveness can go hand in hand.” Someone may want to tell the incoming far-right rulers of neighboring Saxony-Anhalt.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
If bipartisan consensus on gas infrastructure bows to environmental lawfare in blue states, bipartisan consensus on transmission lines seems equally vulnerable to not-in-my-backyard-ism in states of any color. But there’s at least some bipartisan consensus on doing something about that. On Tuesday, Representatives Scott Peters, a California Democrat, and Gabe Evans, a Colorado Republican, introduced the Certainty in Litigation for Electric Asset Reliability, or CLEAR Act, to “resolve ambiguity in current law so that Department of Energy-coordinated transmission projects follow clear standards.”
“Our grid is too old and too slow to meet our skyrocketing energy demand,” Peters said in a press release. “We can’t wait years for badly needed infrastructure to be built. The CLEAR Act would accelerate the review process for large energy infrastructure projects and establish clear rules for stalled transmission projects.” While permitting reform may bring down the cost of transmission lines, and bring more renewables and other new generation onto the grid, it won’t do much to deal with oil prices, now soaring again as the Iran War drags on. Brent crude — the main European and global metric for oil prices — surpassed $100 per barrel again yesterday. West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark for the U.S. supply, hovered just below $96.
The Department of the Interior is planning to “significantly reorganize” the National Park Service and other bureaus in the agency as part of what The Washington Sun called “the second major shake-up of the nation’s public lands infrastructure” since Trump’s return to office. While the leaked document the publication obtained suggested the agency would avoid layoffs “in the short term,” talking points told officials to “avoid categorical promises; explain notification process” if asked about job cuts.
“We want to reorganize. We want to make things more efficient. You know what? We can do all those things, but how is that actually helping us be a leader and setting an example of how we protect our nation’s natural and cultural resources?” Russell Galipeau, who served as superintendent of Channel Islands National Park for 15 years, told the publication.
The summer of 2023 marked Quebec’s worst wildfire season on record, burning some 4.5 million hectares of boreal forests and darkening the skies of cities such as New York with toxic smoke. A new study by Concordia University researchers is among the first to quantify how the smoke affected wildlife. The research looked at lepidoptera — moths and butterflies — and concluded that the smoke exposure during the larval stage caused significantly higher rates of wing deformities in spruce budworm and forest tent caterpillar moths. “These insects are important because they are considered pests, meaning they have outbreak seasons, where the population density becomes very high,” Rosa Alicia Castillo Salazar, the study’s co-author, said in a statement. “We do not yet know how forest fires and climate change will affect them in the long term. However, there was no significant change in their population the following year.”
Rob goes back to school with Princeton University’s Jesse Jenkins on the basics of energy and power.
As we catch up from summer vacation, we’re bringing you a favorite from the Shift Key archive. We’ll be back in your feed with more fresh episodes starting next week.
What is the difference between energy and power? How does the power grid work? And what’s the difference between a megawatt and a megawatt-hour?
On this week’s episode, we answer those questions and many, many more. This was the start of Shift Key Summer School, a series of introductory “lecture conversations” meant to cover the basics of energy and the power grid for listeners of every experience level and background. In less than an hour, Rob and former Shift Key co-host Jesse Jenkins, a professor of systems engineering at Princeton University, try to get you up to speed on how to think about energy, power, horsepower, volts, amps, and what uses (approximately) 1 watt-hour, 1 kilowatt-hour, 1 megawatt-hour, and 1 gigawatt-hour.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: I’m raising my hand.
Jesse Jenkins: Yeah, okay. Robinson has a question. Yes, Robinson.
Meyer: Okay, so I have a few questions. The first is, I think it is kind of important to establish, like, energy here — the joule — what that changes about a substance — and I realize this is high school physics, physics 101 — is the acceleration, not the velocity. We sometimes think of energy as a property of velocity, but it’s actually the ability to change velocity. That is what energy does.
Jenkins: Right. Yeah, that’s right. I think about the basic Newtonian mechanics, right? If you have an object in a vacuum with no friction, or no forces working against it, it will continue at the same velocity and the same trajectory forever. And so what it requires energy is to change that direction or velocity, which requires acceleration or the application of force to some mass.
Meyer: You just kind of said this, but what is the difference between energy and power?
Jenkins: So energy is the actual thing that ... it’s the quantity of the thing that’s doing work, right? So it’s the amount of fuel we burned, or the number of calories we had to eat to run our bodies over the course of a day, or the amount of electricity we had to generate to run our lights or our computer. Power is the rate at which that energy is consumed or supplied or transported or transformed. And so it is not itself a unit of quantity. You don’t use power. You use energy. Power is the rate at which you’re using energy.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Verse’s software platform Aria helps data centers connect to the grid faster and optimize power operations in real time. Learn more at verse.inc.
RE+ 26 is the largest clean energy event in North America, happening November 16th through 19th at the Las Vegas Convention Center. Register at re-plus.com and use code SHIFTKEY20 to save 20% off a Full Conference pass.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.