Officials make urgent move as country faces power grid collapse: 'The quickest way to obtain energy'
The new project consists of 44,000 solar panels across 55 photovoltaic solar parks. Several of them will occupy sites that had previously been dedicated to Soviet-funded nuclear power plants, which have sat abandoned since the USSR collapsed.
Currently, Cuba generates power from just eight thermoelectric power plants — which Tech Xplore described as "outdated" — as well as crude-oil generators and floating electric plants rented from a Turkish company. These all use dirty fossil fuels to produce energy, which has led to a number of issues.
Fossil fuels, including oil and gas, are both expensive and in short supply in Cuba. In fact, some of the generators are using crude oil that is also in demand for fueling cars, tractors, and ambulances on the island. Add to that the pollution — including air pollution near the power generators, which has been found to pose a grave threat to public health — and the formula isn't looking good.
That's why the country is aiming to generate 12% of its energy from renewable sources by the end of 2025 and 37% of it by 2030. And solar is an excellent first step in this effort. Tech Xplore quoted Energy and Mines Minister Vicente de la O Levy, who told state-run newspaper Granma that solar is key because "investments are cheaper, they are built more quickly, and can be spread throughout the country."
Installing batteries will also be critical, as they'll be able to store excess energy to use in the event of a dip in power.
But understandably, the entire undertaking is costly; fortunately for Cuba, while its Western allies remain scant, China is investing heavily in the project. The costs were estimated to be several million dollars, although no exact numbers have been made public.
Tech Xplore also quoted Eliecer Machin, a former Soviet thermophysicist who stayed in Cuba even after the nuclear plants were closed. He is hopeful about the implementation of solar, calling it "the quickest way to obtain energy" for Cuba's energy-stable future.
Should the government be able to control how we heat our homes?
Definitely
Only if it saves money
I'm not sure
No way
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK (AP) — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
80 years ago, the A-bomb saved countless lives — but now we must defend against nukes
Eighty years ago, in one of the most consequential understatements of all time, Emperor Hirohito told the people of Japan that 'the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage.' He was originally going to say that 'the war situation has deteriorated day by day,' but that was considered too strong — even after the United States had dropped the atom bomb on two Japanese cities. Whether it was justified to use the bomb constitutes one of the most controversial historical questions in American history, but it was clearly the right call. Advertisement It's nice to think that Imperial Japan would have decided to surrender on the same timeline without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but there is no evidence of it. The Japanese had a strong strategic commitment to defeating or inflicting a severe blow against a prospective American invasion. Advertisement Then, they'd have the leverage for a negotiated peace on favorable terms. The A-bomb scuppered these plans. Critics of President Harry Truman's decision have suggested it was the start of a Soviet invasion at the end that convinced Imperial Japan to capitulate. Or, if only we'd offered more temperate terms rather than demanding unconditional surrender, Tokyo would have been much more reasonable. Advertisement In his definitive account, 'Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire,' Richard Frank dismantles these notions, noting that nothing in the record supports them. 'Not only has no relevant document been recovered from the wartime period, but none of them,' he writes of Japan's top leaders, 'even as they faced potential death sentences in war-crimes trials, testified that Japan would have surrendered earlier upon an offer of modified terms, coupled to Soviet intervention or some other combination of events, excluding the use of atomic bombs.' In his message, Hirohito said that 'the enemy has begun to employ a new and cruel bomb, causing immense and indiscriminate destruction, the extent of which is beyond all estimation.' The Japanese prime minister at the end of the war, Kantarō Suzuki, recalled in December 1945 that the war cabinet didn't believe the Americans could win the war based on air power alone. Advertisement Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Then, the atomic bomb demonstrated that, to the contrary, the United States 'need not land,' and 'so at that point they decided that it would be best to sue for peace.' Even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were divisions in the war cabinet about surrender, which is why the intervention of the emperor was necessary. There was still resistance after he made his decision and a coup attempt. The end of the war made unnecessary a US invasion that could have meant hundreds of thousands of American casualties; saved millions of Japanese lives that would have been lost in combat on the home islands and to starvation; cut short the brief Soviet invasion (that alone accounted for hundreds of thousands of Japanese deaths); and ended the agony that Imperial Japan brought to the region, especially a China that suffered perhaps 20 million casualties. Bequeathed with untold power by the new weapon, it is telling that we used the bomb to bring an end to a terrible war and didn't use it to dominate Europe, or for other cynical purposes. Instead, our nuclear umbrella became part of a security arrangement that endured for decades, defending the free world from the Soviets and preventing the re-occurrence of world war. Now, with further nuclear proliferation in prospect (although thankfully delayed in Iran) and the chances of great power conflict rising, it is becoming more likely that nuclear weapons will be used again. Advertisement This is why President Donald Trump's vision of a Golden Dome to protect the U.S. from missile attack is so important, and why we need a robust nuclear force to deter our enemies. Eighty years ago, the atom bomb was the peacemaker in a horrific conflict that killed millions. Next time, it could be an instrument in the hands of an irrational regime, or rival nation bent on the destruction of American power. Advertisement Beware. Twitter: @RichLowry
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Semtech, Teradyne, Western Digital, Allegro MicroSystems, and Intel Shares Are Falling, What You Need To Know
What Happened? A number of stocks fell in the morning session after the U.S. jobs report for July came in significantly weaker than expected while new widespread import tariffs were announced, sparking fears of a potential economic slowdown. The U.S. economy added only 73,000 jobs, far below estimates, and massive downward revisions to the prior two months painted a much weaker picture of the labor market. This has stoked recession fears, which would directly impact demand for chips used in countless products. Compounding these worries, the White House announced new tariffs, including a 20% levy on imports from Taiwan, a global hub for chip manufacturing. This dual shock of slowing domestic growth and renewed trade friction creates a challenging outlook for the highly cyclical and globally connected semiconductor industry, leading to a broad-based sell-off. The stock market overreacts to news, and big price drops can present good opportunities to buy high-quality stocks. Among others, the following stocks were impacted: Semiconductor Manufacturing company Semtech (NASDAQ:SMTC) fell 3.2%. Is now the time to buy Semtech? Access our full analysis report here, it's free. Semiconductor Manufacturing company Teradyne (NASDAQ:TER) fell 4%. Is now the time to buy Teradyne? Access our full analysis report here, it's free. Memory Semiconductors company Western Digital (NASDAQ:WDC) fell 3.4%. Is now the time to buy Western Digital? Access our full analysis report here, it's free. Processors and Graphics Chips company Allegro MicroSystems (NASDAQ:ALGM) fell 3.4%. Is now the time to buy Allegro MicroSystems? Access our full analysis report here, it's free. Processors and Graphics Chips company Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) fell 3.1%. Is now the time to buy Intel? Access our full analysis report here, it's free. Zooming In On Teradyne (TER) Teradyne's shares are very volatile and have had 23 moves greater than 5% over the last year. In that context, today's move indicates the market considers this news meaningful but not something that would fundamentally change its perception of the business. The previous big move we wrote about was 2 days ago when the stock gained 21.1% on the news that the company reported better-than-expected second-quarter financial results and provided a strong third-quarter forecast, driven by robust demand for its artificial intelligence (AI) chip testing equipment. The semiconductor test equipment manufacturer posted revenue of $651.8 million and adjusted earnings of 57 cents per share, both of which topped analyst expectations. Growth was primarily fueled by its core chip testing division, as demand for System-on-a-Chip (SoC) components for AI applications surged. This strength in AI was significant enough to offset weakness in the automotive and industrial sectors. Looking ahead, Teradyne's management provided an optimistic outlook, forecasting third-quarter revenue between $710 million and $770 million, which suggested continued momentum. Teradyne is down 18.6% since the beginning of the year, and at $103.06 per share, it is trading 26.4% below its 52-week high of $140 from January 2025. Investors who bought $1,000 worth of Teradyne's shares 5 years ago would now be looking at an investment worth $1,142. Today's young investors likely haven't read the timeless lessons in Gorilla Game: Picking Winners In High Technology because it was written more than 20 years ago when Microsoft and Apple were first establishing their supremacy. But if we apply the same principles, then enterprise software stocks leveraging their own generative AI capabilities may well be the Gorillas of the future. So, in that spirit, we are excited to present our Special Free Report on a profitable, fast-growing enterprise software stock that is already riding the automation wave and looking to catch the generative AI next. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
