BY REP. FRENCH HILL (R-ARK.), OPINION CONTRIBUTOR

But hidden in this strategy, such as it is, lies one idea of consequence, and that is the president's goal to finance lower emissions in developing countries through organizations like the World Bank. While the Bank already seeks to do this, its hands have been tied in an area where it could make an enormous difference: nuclear energy. For the president's climate plan to be serious, it should prioritize nuclear support through the Bank and the other multilateral lenders where the U.S. is a top shareholder.

While rich countries' carbon output is largely flat, the developing world's emissions are only projected to grow unchecked. The U.S. and Europe, responsible for nearly all emissions at the turn of the 20th century, now only account for one third. Wealthy nations may be the loudest voices in climate activism, but the future will be decided elsewhere, and it won't be an especially prosperous one if we insist that poorer societies power their way up the income scale with renewables alone. Nuclear will be essential for their energy mix.

Although its reputation in the United States suffers from memories of Three Mile Island, a 1979 accident as haunting as the bell bottoms of that era (but just as harmless to human life), nuclear energy is a mainstream power source providing 30 percent of the world's low-carbon electricity. The main risks connected with nuclear arise when retreating from it, not embracing it. For instance, after a 2011 tsunami hit Japan's Fukushima reactor, leading the country to temporarily take its nuclear power plants offline, fossil fuel usage and electricity prices surged, resulting in more deaths for the country than from the disaster itself. Researchers have shown that Germany overreacted to Fukushima too, shutting down some of its reactors and incurring $12 billion in social costs each year, mostly through increased mortality from higher levels of air pollution. //

Though the World Bank left nuclear finance decades ago, its own anti-poverty mission makes its return a no-brainer. The governments that act as the Bank's shareholders have already compelled it to quit upstream oil and gas projects in the developing world, even as the Bank pursues a goal of universal access to electricity. This makes little sense. If the World Bank has to surrender its expertise in fossil fuel lending, surely it can restore its know-how in nuclear finance.

BY REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TEXAS), OPINION CONTRIBUTOR //

Last month's once-in-a-century freeze throughout Texas and much of the Midwest underscored an inescapable reality: we need reliable energy, and more of it. Modern society demands it. Millions around the world are escaping poverty because of increased access to reliable energy, a demand that will increase by an estimated 25 percent over the next 20 years. But this isn't the only demand from the public. People all over the world are also demanding cleaner energy that reduces carbon emissions.

The Biden administration believes we can do this by prioritizing solar and wind energy. They're wrong.

Now, I am not opposed to wind and solar on any philosophical level. I think they should be a part of the energy mix in locations where it makes sense and the environmental damage can be minimized (remember, you need to clear huge areas to build wind and solar. This is not costless to the environment).

But the sun and wind have self-evident limitations that many refuse to acknowledge. If the Texas grid was solely or even mostly reliant on renewables last month, our situation would be far more dire. So how do we achieve both a massive reduction in emissions while also maintaining reliable baseload energy? Nuclear. //

We don't even designate nuclear energy as clean energy, even though it is carbon-free. As a result, solar power gets 250 times more subsidies than nuclear, and wind gets 160 times more. Not only is nuclear fuel vastly underutilized, but it is virtually infinite with the potential to separate uranium from seawater. One uranium fuel pellet creates as much energy as one ton of coal.

So why don't we build more? Nuclear plants are expensive, for starters. This is partly because permitting requirements go far beyond reasonable safety standards, as well as a lack of scale (we aren't committing to building a lot of plants, so we can't "buy in bulk"). And here in Texas, where wind energy is prioritized to the grid, nuclear plants sometimes operate at a loss, despite the fact that they are producing reliable clean energy continuously. The result? No one wants to invest in building a nuclear power plant. //

For all the hysterical talk from the Green New Dealers of a renewable-only future, the simple truth remains: renewables will never be reliable enough to power the modern world. If we want to tackle climate change, reduce emissions, and power the grid, then we need the proper mix of energy. We need to make sure that nuclear not only stays on the grid, but grows on it.

The EAA shares that the definition of service ceiling is the height above sea level at which an aircraft with normal-rated load “is unable to climb faster than 100 feet per minute under standard air conditions.” //

Boeing 747
Lufthansa previously bragged that its 747-400 could reach the highest altitude in its fleet, reaching a max altitude of 44,947 ft (13,610 m). Meanwhile, the modern 747-8, which is well deployed by the carrier, has a service ceiling of 43,100 ft (13,137 m). //

Boeing 767
Including extended ranges, the 767 family has six variants. These planes have a service ceiling that ranges from 43,000 (13,106 m) to 43,199 (13,167 m). //

Altogether, the surface ceiling figures of most of the modern jets are not so far apart. Regardless, the widebodies generally have a higher ceiling than the narrowbodies. However, there was a clear winner earlier this century when Concorde was around. This supersonic jet had a whopping service ceiling of 60,000 ft (18,300 m).

About 20 years ago, through the course of their research, Michael Mann — distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University — and his colleagues identified a novel phenomenon. //

About every half-century, wind and waves seemed to conspire to warm up or cool down part of the North Atlantic, with probable large-scale effects on weather.

Drawing on the same Earth simulations on which most climate research was then based, they concluded that the back-and-forth swing must be a feature intrinsic to the natural system itself. Mann dubbed it the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” (AMO). //

Only here’s the thing: The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation turns out not to actually exist. That’s the latest and definitive conclusion from Mann and three colleagues, who wrote recently in the journal Science that the newest climate models can no longer find any evidence of a natural temperature flip in the Atlantic every few decades.

Instead, the data has led them to another smoking gun: smoking volcanoes.

Research into ancient climates suggests that before industrialization took off in the 19th century, volcanoes periodically belched out enough sulfate aerosols to explain the “oscillation” going back a thousand years. These aerosols have a cooling effect, by reflecting about a quarter of sunlight back into space, until they wash out of the atmosphere within months or a few years.

In the 20th century, the steady concoction of man-made warming and cooling pollution likely influenced the temperature swings.

“This article is the final nail in the coffin,” said Mann, who last month chronicled his experiences bringing climate science into the public sphere in a book, The New Climate War.