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:

As climate writers, my colleagues and I spend a lot of time telling readers that places are hot. The Arabian Peninsula? It’s hot. The Atlantic Ocean? It’s hot. The southern U.S. and northern Mexico? Hot and getting hotter.
But here’s a little secret: “Hot” doesn’t really mean … anything. The word is, of course, of critical importance when it comes to communicating that global temperatures are the highest they’ve been in 125,000 years because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, or for public health officials to anticipate and prevent deaths when the environment reaches the point where human bodies start malfunctioning. But when you hear it’s “100 degrees out,” what does that really tell you?
Beyond that you’re a fellow member of the Fahrenheit cult, the answer is: not a lot. Humans can “probably avoid overheating” in temperatures of 115 degrees — but only if they’re in a dry room with 10 percent relative humidity, wearing “minimal” clothing, and not moving, The New York Times reports. On the other hand, you have a high chance of life-threatening heat stroke when it’s a mere 90 degrees out … if the humidity is at 95%. Then there are all the variables in between: if there’s a breeze, if you’re pregnant, if you’re standing in the shade or the sun, if you’re a child, if you’re running a 10K or if you’re napping on your couch in front of a swamp cooler.
In order to better specify how hot “hot” is, a number of different equations and techniques have been developed around the world. In general, this math takes into account two main variables: temperature (the one we all use, also known as “dry bulb” or “ambient air temperature,” which is typically measured five feet above the ground in the shade) and relative humidity (the percentage of air saturated with water vapor, also known as the ugly cousin of the trendier dew point; notably Canada’s heat index equivalent, the Humidex, is calculated from the dew point rather than the relative humidity).
In events like the already deadly heat dome over the southern United States and northern Mexico this week, you typically hear oohing and ahhing about the “heat index,” which is sometimes also called the “apparent temperature,” “feels like temperature,” “humiture,” or, in AccuWeather-speak, the “RealFeel® temperature.”
But what does that mean and how is it calculated?
The heat index roughly approximates how hot it “actually feels.”
This is different than the given temperature on the thermometer because the amount of humidity in the air affects how efficiently sweat evaporates from our skin and in turn keeps us cool. The more humidity there is, the less efficiently our bodies can cool themselves, and the hotter we feel; in contrast, when the air is dry, it’s easier for our bodies to keep cool. Regrettably, this indeed means that insufferable Arizonans who say “it’s a dry heat!” have a point.
The heat index, then, tells you an estimate of the temperature it would have to be for your body to be similarly stressed in “normal” humidity conditions of around 20%. In New Orleans this week, for example, the temperature on the thermometer isn’t expected to be above 100°F, but because the humidity is so high, the heat toll on the body will be as if it were actually 115°F out in normal humidity.
Importantly, the heat index number is calculated as if you were standing in the shade. If you’re exposed to the sun at all, the “feels like” is, of course, actually higher — potentially as many as 15 degrees higher. Someone standing in the New Orleans sun this week might more realistically feel like they’re in 130-degree heat.

Here’s the catch, though: The heat index is “purely theoretical since the index can’t be measured and is highly subjective,” as meteorologist Chris Robbins explains. The calculations are all made under the assumption that you are a 5’7”, 147-pound healthy white man wearing short sleeves and pants, and walking in the shade at the speed of 3.1 mph while a 6-mph wind gently ruffles your hair.
Wait, what?
I’m glad you asked.
In 1979, a physicist named R. G. Steadman published a two-part paper delightfully titled “The Assessment of Sultriness.” In it, he observed that though many approaches to measuring “sultriness,” or the combined effects of temperature and humidity, can be taken, “it is best assessed in terms of its physiological effect on humans.” He then set out, with obsessive precision, to do so.
Steadman came up with a list of approximately 19 variables that contribute to the overall “feels like” temperature, including the surface area of an average human (who is assumed to be 1.7 meters tall and weigh 67 kilograms); their clothing cover (84%) and those clothes’ resistance to heat transfer (the shirt and pants are assumed to be 20% fiber and 80% air); the person’s core temperature (a healthy 98.6°F) and sweat rate (normal); the effective wind speed (5 knots); the person’s activity level (typical walking speed); and a whole lot more.
Here’s an example of what just one of those many equations looked like:

Needless to say, Steadman’s equations and tables weren’t exactly legible for a normal person — and additionally they made a whole lot of assumptions about who a “normal person” was — but Steadman was clearly onto something. Describing how humidity and temperature affected the human body was, at the very least, interesting and useful. How, then, to make it easier?
In 1990, the National Weather Service’s Lans P. Rothfusz used multiple regression analysis to simplify Steadman’s equations into a single handy formula while at the same time acknowledging that to do so required relying on assumptions about the kind of body that was experiencing the heat and the conditions surrounding him. Rothfusz, for example, used Steadman’s now-outdated calculations for the build of an average American man, who as of 2023 is 5’9” and weighs 198 pounds. This is important because, as math educator Stan Brown notes in a blog post, if you’re heavier than the 147 pounds assumed in the traditional heat index equation, then your “personal heat index” will technically be slightly hotter.
Rothfusz’s new equation looked like this:
Heat index = -42.379 + 2.04901523T + 10.14333127R - 0.22475541TR - 6.83783x10-3T 2 - 5.481717x10-2R 2 + 1.22874x10-3T 2R + 8.5282x10-4TR2 - 1.99x10-6T 2R 2
So much easier, right?
If your eyes didn’t totally glaze over, it actually sort of is — in the equation, T stands for the dry bulb temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit) and R stands for the relative humidity, and all you have to do is plug those puppies into the formula to get your heat index number. Or not: There are lots of online calculators that make doing this math as straightforward as just typing in the two numbers.
Because Rothfusz used multiple regression analysis, the heat index that is regularly cited by the government and media has a margin of error of +/- 1.3°F relative to a slightly more accurate, albeit hypothetical, heat index. Also of note: There are a bunch of different methods of calculating the heat index, but Rothfusz’s is the one used by the NWS and the basis for its extreme heat alerts. The AccuWeather “RealFeel,” meanwhile, has its own variables that it takes into account and that give it slightly different numbers.
Midday Wednesday in New Orleans, for example, when the ambient air temperature was 98°F, the relative humidity was 47%, and the heat index hovered around 108.9°F, AccuWeather recorded a RealFeel of 111°F and a RealFeel Shade of 104°F.
You might also be wondering at this point, as I did, that if Steadman at one time factored out all these variables individually, wouldn’t it be possible to write a simple computer program that is capable of personalizing the “feel like” temperature so they are closer to your own physical specifications? The answer is yes, although as Randy Au writes in his excellent Substack post on the heat index equation, no one has seemingly actually done this yet. Math nerds, your moment is now.
Because we’re Americans, it is important that we use the weirdest possible measurements at all times. This is probably why the heat index is commonly cited by our government, media, and meteorologists when communicating how hot it is outside.
But it gets weirder. Unlike the heat index, though, the “wet-bulb globe temperature” (sometimes abbreviated “WBGT”) is specifically designed to understand “heat-related stress on the human body at work (or play) in direct sunlight,” NWS explains. In a sense, the wet-bulb globe temperature measures what we experience after we’ve been cooled by sweat.

The “bulb” we’re referring to here is the end of a mercury thermometer (not to be confused with a lightbulb or juvenile tulip). Natural wet-bulb temperature (which is slightly different from the WBGT, as I’ll explain in a moment) is measured by wrapping the bottom of a thermometer in a wet cloth and passing air over it. When the air is dry, it is by definition less saturated with water and therefore has more capacity for moisture. That means that under dry conditions, more water from the cloth around the bulb evaporates, which pulls more heat away from the bulb, dropping the temperature. This is the same reason why you feel cold when you get out of a shower or swimming pool. The drier the air, the colder the reading on the wet-bulb thermometer will be compared to the actual air temperature.
Wet bulb temperature - why & when is it used?www.youtube.com
If the air is humid, however, less water is able to evaporate from the wet cloth. When the relative humidity is at 100% — that is, the air is fully saturated with water — then the wet-bulb temperature and the normal dry-bulb temperature will be the same.
Because of this, the wet-bulb temperature is usually lower than the relative air temperature, which makes it a bit confusing when presented without context (a comfortable wet-bulb temperature at rest is around 70°F). Wet-bulb temperatures over just 80, though, can be very dangerous, especially for active people.
The WBGT is, like the heat index, an apparent temperature, or “feels like,” calculation; generally when you see wet-bulb temperatures being referred to, it is actually the WBGT that is being discussed. This is also the measurement that is preferred by the military, athletic organizations, road-race organizers, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration because it helps you understand how, well, survivable the weather is, especially if you are moving.
Our bodies regulate temperature by sweating to shed heat, but sweat stops working “once the wet-bulb temperature passes 95°F,” explains Popular Science. “That’s because, in order to maintain a normal internal temperature, your skin has to stay at 95°F degrees or below.” Exposure to wet-bulb temperatures over 95°F can be fatal within just six hours. On Wednesday, when I was doing my readings of New Orleans, the wet-bulb temperature was around 88.5°F.
The WBGT is helpful because it takes the natural wet-bulb temperature reading a step further by factoring in considerations not only of temperature and humidity, but also wind speed, sun angle, and solar radiation (basically cloud cover). Calculating the WBGT involves taking a weighted average of the ambient, wet-bulb, and globe temperature readings, which together cover all these variables.
That formula looks like:
Wet-bulb globe temperature = 0.7Tw + 0.2Tg + 0.1Td
Tw is the natural wet-bulb temperature, Tg is the globe thermometer temperature (which measures solar radiation), and Td is the dry bulb temperature. By taking into account the sun angle, cloud cover, and wind, the WBGT gives a more nuanced read of how it feels to be a body outside — but without getting into the weeds with 19 different difficult-to-calculate variables like, ahem, someone we won’t further call out here.
Thankfully, there’s a calculator for the WBGT formula, although don’t bother entering all the info if you don’t have to — the NWS reports it nationally, too.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Deciding what counts as a heat death is more difficult than it sounds.
Just last month, a heat wave killed an estimated 2,700 people in France. Think about that for a second: 2,700 people. That’s equivalent to the mortality of two Hurricane Katrinas or 10 Hurricane Sandys. In France, where there were roughly 970 murders in 2024, the heat wave killed more people in two weeks than almost three years’ worth of homicides.
But unlike floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, or murders, heat doesn’t leave behind much of a crime scene. Although heat kills people in obvious, direct ways like heat stroke, it also puts enormous strain on our hearts and kidneys as our bodies work to keep our internal temperature at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Heart attacks spike during heat waves because vasodilation diverts blood to the skin’s surface to cool it down, in the process lowering blood pressure and forcing the heart to work harder and faster to circulate oxygen. Deaths from renal diseases also jump during periods of high temperatures due to severe dehydration and restricted blood flow to the kidneys.
“Let’s say you have two people with underlying heart disease; somebody has a heart attack versus somebody has a heart attack because it’s too hot,” Kristie Ebi, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington and an expert on heat-related mortality, explained to me. “Will the second one be recorded as a heat death or will it just be recorded as a heart attack? Frankly, when both go into the emergency department, the number one goal is to save a life — it’s not necessarily to record whether it was because of temperature.”
But if physicians don’t code the second heart attack as a heat death— a procedure designed for insurance and billing rather than getting to the root of underlying environmental conditions — then the headline number of heat wave-related deaths will almost certainly be an undercount. In Washington during the 2021 heat dome, for example, the state health department initially reported that 129 people died from the temperatures. But later analyses compared the overall number of people who died that week in the state to the average number of people who died during the same week from 2013-2019 and concluded that there were 485 “additional” deaths compared to what would have been expected during normal early summer conditions.
Those 485 deaths are called “excess deaths,” and the number offers a broader picture of who actually dies from a heat wave. The tally captures not only those heart attacks that are coded by physicians and medical examiners as caused by the heat, but also the ones the state may have overlooked or discounted. Air pollution deaths, homicides, drownings, and accidents, for example — all of which also spike in relation to heat waves — show up. As one epidemiologist explained it to the Seattle-area NPR affiliate KUOW, a boating death might count as an excess heat death, too, because while “not directly attributable to heat in the sense of heat stroke … it arguably is attributable to heat in the sense that had it not been hot, they would not have gone out.”
Excess death analyses are also methodical in what they don’t count. “After a heat wave, there’s a deficit in the number of deaths, which means that the heat wave brought forward deaths that would have occurred anyway,” Ebi told me. The analyses also take those into account to model only the “true” excess events. This, at least, is relatively simple in scope: The advantage of heat waves for mortality accounting is that they don’t have the long tails associated with hurricanes and other weather-related tragedies. “Deaths occur over a few days of a heat wave, and then it’s over,” Ebi added.
But the calculation, while relatively straightforward, has its critics, too. “The limitation of that approach is that it doesn’t actually quantitatively attribute that excess mortality to the heat,” Christopher Callahan, a climate scientist and assistant professor at Indiana University Bloomington, told me. Take the boating accident example: Maybe if it’d been a regular summer day, the enthusiast still would have taken his pontoon out and had all those beers. Maybe during the heat wave it was also smoky, and that caused some of the excess deaths. There’s also the possibility that the baseline number of deaths already includes some baked-in heat-related deaths, obscuring the cumulative total.
A third approach, favored by academics — and recently employed by Callahan to estimate the 2,700 heat-related deaths in France last month — involves using long-term data on both temperatures and mortality for a given location and then fitting a statistical model that relates the two. This method has the advantage of generating a U-shaped relationship that shows how mortality rates change once temperatures exceed a certain threshold (or drop below it, in the case of cold-weather-related deaths, hence the “U”). Like an excess death analysis, this method “has the benefit of, again, not having to rely on individual diagnoses,” Callahan said. “It has the drawback that there is no one right statistical model. Different people have different philosophies about how to fit those models.”
The other drawback is that creating such a model and subjecting it to the rigor of peer review is time-consuming — by the time you’re able to publish a death toll, the news cycle has probably moved on. Callahan got lucky: He had already created such a model for France to study the 2003 heat wave, which killed an estimated 15,000 in the country in a couple of weeks. The model relies on a historical understanding of the relationship between temperature and mortality in France — “not a crazy assumption, but an assumption,” he admitted to me — and he published the findings in Carbon Brief earlier this month. (Callahan also estimated that 20,000 people died continent-wide in Europe during the June 2026 heat wave — a number that circulated widely, but that he told me he’s now working to revise downward.)
Notably, the number Callahan arrived at for France does not represent “real” people or “real” deaths, at least as linked to death certificates. There are no biographical or even demographic numbers attached to it. (That said, you can create models of the same U-shaped relationship for anything: temperature and age, income, race.) More mind-bending, though, is that because of this, Callahan’s model can also be used to predict. Had there been a way to know the exact temperatures before the European heat wave, he could have told you how many people would likely die before they actually did.
In the case of France, the simple excess death count put the toll at 2,025, though officials say they expect the number to rise. While Callahan’s number and the official tally from France differ by what seemed to me to be a lot — 675 deaths — Callahan told me he’s actually encouraged by how close his model came to the government’s empirical count, given that the two use completely different methodologies.
After all, heat death counts can vary by orders of magnitude, including within a single government. Before 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that only about 700 Americans died each year from heat, relying primarily on physician diagnostic codes. After moving in recent years to better incorporate underlying and contributing causes of death, the CDC adjusted its estimate upward to about 2,000 heat-related deaths per year in the United States. Still, the government’s numbers remain extremely conservative; independent researchers studying heat mortality say the figure is likely closer to 12,000.
But even more holistic heat-related mortality numbers have their critics. For example, models don’t work as well for many lower-income countries, where mortality may be reported monthly, thereby making day- or week-level heat attribution impossible.
Granularity presents its own set of problems. Excess deaths and modeling analyses both have to define the first “heat day” of an event. You can do that by setting a fixed threshold — say, anything above 90 degrees Fahrenheit counts as “high heat” — but Ebi told me there is little value in analyses or policies that take that approach. That’s because heat is contextual: “My standard joke is, if we had the temperatures here in Seattle that they have in Phoenix, we basically all die, because we don’t have the infrastructure and we’re not acclimatized,” she said.
A slightly better metric might be a relative threshold — say, temperatures above the 95th percentile of historical temperatures for a specific location count as “extreme heat.” The problem there, though, is that it may need to be stratified further by vulnerable populations that feel the effects much sooner, like adults over the age of 65, pregnant women, outdoor workers, or people with certain medical conditions. While that approach might seem overly complicated, parts of Asia already use nuanced thresholds to warn older adults to take precautions. “It’s going to be more challenging to communicate, I grant you that,” Ebi told me of such an approach — much less to try to model. “But it’s also going to be more useful.”
Even so, a larger problem remains: The multiple systems for calculating heat deaths are honed to address different questions, which makes them impossible to compare. The Federation of American Scientists has pushed for the CDC to upgrade and standardize its heat-mortality tracking. “We’ve thought about if it’s possible to ever set a goal of bringing heat-related deaths down by 50%, or something like that,” Grace Wickerson, the senior manager of climate and health at FAS, told me. “But we don’t even have a baseline number or a way to say, ‘This is the starting point for this goal or strategy.’”
Wickerson also suggested, though, that there might be things we lose in trying to nail down the most correct heat-related mortality number. “I’m almost a bit weary of the pursuit of large numbers,” she said. “At least to me, what feels more important is why people are suffering and dying, what types of people they are, and what stories, messages, and stakeholders we need to engage and target to actually build meaningful policy strategies.”
Despite being deeply engrossed in the calculations, Callahan stressed that he wants readers to have a similar takeaway from his own research. Improved “healthcare access and access to cooling, shade, and shelter” — or in the case of heat-related mortality from climate change, “reducing greenhouse gas emissions” — lead to fewer heat deaths, meaning the vast majority are preventable.
“The relationship between environmental conditions and a person’s mortality is not fixed or necessary,” he told me. “It can be stopped.”
Current conditions: Canadian wildfires smoke has returned to the Northeast United States, worsening air quality across the region • Catastrophic 1-in-1,000-year floods devastated Missouri’s Black River region, right as intense rainfall is headed for Texas • Temperatures in Beijing are set to drop by nearly 10 degrees Fahrenheit after roasting at nearly 100 degrees yesterday.
PJM Interconnection just released the results of its latest capacity auction for 2028 to 2029, and the nation’s largest grid system maxed out its prices yet again. The clearing price hit its cap of $325 per megawatt-day, all while PJM failed to line up enough supply to meet its incoming demand with a sufficient margin of safety. “These auction results show that demand for electricity continues to grow faster than electricity supply,” PJM CEO David Mills said in a statement. “At the same time, PJM recognizes how this supply-and-demand imbalance impacts the reliability of the system and costs for consumers. We are working with government and industry leaders on multiple fronts to restore that balance by bringing on new generation as fast as possible and managing the growth of new load on the grid.” But Julia Kortrey, the director of strategic initiatives for state-level programs at the climate advocacy group Evergreen, said PJM had just “delivered more bad news for people already struggling with higher energy bills,” and accused the grid operator of slow-walking “cheap, clean energy that could lower bills.”

Back in April, I told you about Clean Core Thorium Energy. The Chicago-based startup is dusting off a decades-old dream of harnessing abundant thorium as a fuel for nuclear reactors to replace uranium, which is rarer and produces more long-lived radioactive waste. In the spring, the firm inked a handful of deals to begin manufacturing its first fuel assemblies using thorium. Now, I can report exclusively, Clean Core has surpassed a technical milestone for its fuel with the publication of a comprehensive peer-reviewed engineering assessment in the journal Nuclear Engineering and Design. The paper comes after the company completed a multi-year campaign of irradiating the fuel at the Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Test Reactor. The results showed that the fuel can be used in an existing pressurized heavy water reactor, like those that make up the bulk of the Canadian and Indian fleets, and achieve a high “burnup” of the material. “Milestones in this industry are earned in reactors, not in renderings,” Mehul Shah, Clean Core’s chief executive and founder, told me in a statement. “The analyses underpinning the fuel’s design have now withstood the scrutiny of peer review in one of the field's leading journals.”
Google has agreed to buy the entire initial output of a sweeping solar project in Arkansas in a bid to offset its fossil fuel emissions. On Tuesday, the Financial Times reported that the tech giant would purchase the full 1.6 gigawatts of solar power and 2 gigawatt-hours of battery storage from the first phase of construction on the Steel River Energy Center, set to be complete in 2029. The second phase will up the output to 2.5 gigawatts of solar and 2.9 gigawatt-hours of storage. The panels will all come from First Solar, the U.S. manufacturer that boasts a 100% domestic supply chain. None of Google’s data centers will use the electricity, but the power will serve as an offset to gas-fueled operations elsewhere.
It’s hardly the only bullish sign for solar. In June, Europe generated a quarter of its power from photovoltaics for the first time, according to an analysis by the renewables-focused think tank Ember. “Solar’s rise has been truly stratospheric, beating prediction after prediction,” Chris Rosslowe, a senior energy analyst at Ember, said in a statement. “In just a few years solar has gone from a small player to an essential part of Europe’s power system, as governments and citizens look for low-cost, quick-to-install domestic power sources.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
You can’t make it here, but you can — at least, for now — make it anywhere else. New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed an executive order Tuesday enacting the nation’s first state-level moratorium on building large-scale data centers. The one-year pause “will ensure New Yorkers are not paying for transmission and infrastructure build outs” and will give Albany time to create a statewide investment framework to direct more benefits from projects to local communities, the governor’s office said in a press release. “New York will lead the way in creating the strongest standards in the nation for data center development, ensuring that when companies succeed because of New York, New Yorkers succeed too,” Hochul said in a statement. She also vowed to press the legislature to pass a bill to repeal sales tax exemptions from large data center projects.
It’s no surprise. At least seven in 10 Americans oppose data centers built near their homes, Heatmap Pro polling showed last month. That’s at least partly driven by the perception that data centers are driving up electricity costs. Utilities requested $18.6 billion in electric and gas increases in the first six months of this year, according to a new report from the grid-focused nonprofit PowerLines. More than $9 billion of those requests were filed in the second quarter of this year alone, surpassing the total for the same period in 2025 — which was itself a record — by 26%. “Summer is when Americans pay attention to what electricity costs because their utility bills are often higher,” Charles Hua, PowerLines’ founder and executive director, said in a statement. “The amount of utility rate increase requests in these filings shows the pressure on household energy bills isn’t easing.”
Realta Fusion, a magnetic mirror fusion startup, announced plans Wednesday to convert an iconic former Oscar Mayer plant in Wisconsin into its corporate headquarters and research hub. As part of the deal, the state and its capital city of Madison will contribute $55 million to support the conversion. The facility will employ more than 600 people in technical and non-technical roles. “We spent the better part of the past two years searching across the country to find the most favorable business environment and the most attractive site to build our R&D facility, and we found it in our own backyard,” Realta CEO Kieran Furlong said in a statement. “The state of Wisconsin and the city of Madison have made it clear they understand the promise of fusion energy and share our vision for the future, and now they’ve thrown their lot in together to make that vision a reality.” It’s yet another sign, as my colleague Katie Brigham put it in 2024, that fusion is “finally, possibly, almost” here.
Meanwhile, some fission news: Remember when I told you last month about why I try to cover all the major milestones in China’s nuclear construction projects? Well, I have another update: China General Nuclear, one of the country’s two main state-owned nuclear companies, just installed the reactor pressure vessel for unit 1 of the Lufeng nuclear plant in Guangdong province. In a statement to World Nuclear News, CGN, as the company is known, said the latest item off the construction checklist marks “the beginning of the peak period for the installation of main system equipment in the nuclear island of unit 1 and lays a solid foundation for the orderly progress of subsequent key processes such as the installation of main pipelines.”
There are thousands of ways to pull a climate or energy angle out of Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. Here’s one: Tajikistan isn’t receiving as much Russian oil and gas as before, given Ukraine’s campaign of drone attacks on key pipeline and refinery infrastructure, so it’s looking to ramp up its own drilling operations again. On Monday, the Times of Central Asia reported that Tajik Energy Minister Daler Juma said the country had only enough fuel to last about two months.
Rob sits down for a conversation with Stardust Solutions CEO Yanai Yedvab.
For more than 30 years, a heterodox group of scientists have proposed injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth, thereby cooling the atmosphere and reversing climate change.
But actual research into the idea has remained taboo, or at least the province of university and government labs. Then, last year, Heatmap broke the story of an Israeli-American company named Stardust Solutions that had raised $60 million to develop a new solar geoengineering technology. This system would be easier to control and track than the traditional approach to geoengineering, it claims.
On this episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Yanai Yedvab, the cofounder and CEO of Stardust. They discuss why Stardust is researching geoengineering now, whether a for-profit company belongs in the space, why Yanai believes Stardust’s particles are superior to sulfate aerosols, and whether Stardust has or will ever conduct outdoor experiments.
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, 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: It’s an inert particle — or it dissolves, right? If it dissolves and breaks down in water, is it really inert? Because on the one hand, we’re saying, oh it’s inert when it’s sprayed in the atmosphere, and on the other hand, oh but it dissolves in water. But a particle that dissolves doesn’t seem to me to be a particle that could be inert, so ... And then if it’s inert then it would bioaccumulate, right, because that’s, you know, plastic, for instance is inert and what we’ve learned is that plastic is bioaccumulating in tissue.
So walk through, how can it be inert and also dissolve in water and break down through a number of natural processes that exist in the Earth system already?
Yanai Yedvab: It sounds like a paradox, right? And the short answer is the difference between the air atmosphere, the stratosphere, where we need these particles to be inert, which is very, very dry, contains primarily sulfates and a few other trace gases. But much, much cleaner and drier than the atmosphere. And yes, you’re right. In that environment, the particle is inert. And once it falls on the ground, where you have enormous amount of water and vapor and all the other components, these components are able to dissolve it.
But I think that I would say the more fundamental point that you’ve been making in your question is that essentially you need to meet a very strict set of requirements. Part of it has to do with the stratosphere. Part of it has to do with the atmosphere. And to your question, why do we believe that the right way to do it is to actually develop the technology? It’s because in the end of the day, only when you’re walking through these problems and you are able to do, for example, I would say, micromanagement of the surface properties of the particle and make sure exactly, as you were saying, that it will be inert when it’s up there in the sky but once it falls, it will dissolve, is when you have a potential to come up with a solution that works.
So yeah, it looks like a paradox but the bottom line is that we were able to demonstrate that we can do both. That we can make sure that it’s inert up there but it dissolves when it falls on the ground.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Rob’s initial story on Stardust: Stardust Solutions, a Geoengineering Startup, Raises $60 Million to Build a Solar-Reflecting System by 2030
Stardust’s new governance commitments
What we know about Stardust’s tiny spheres
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Tandem PV is the leader in perovskite solar technology. We’re building the most efficient and durable perovskite solar panels on the market at our factory in Freemont, California. Learn how we're restoring U.S. leadership for the next era of solar manufacturing at tandempv.com.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow