Winter Storage Agreement 2014-2015: Fill & Download for Free

How destructive is the World's nuclear arsenal? A topic prone to extreme exaggeration and conjecture with little reliance on the facts.The destructive force of all the world's nuclear weapons is a fraction of what it once was. Surprisingly quietly, the USA and Russia have dismantled over 50,000 nuclear weapons over the past 30 years. The nuclear materials from these bombs and other stockpiles of weapons grade materials, was recycled and used in nuclear power generation over the past 20 years. [1] A fact that few may be aware of, the situation actually crashed the uranium market in the early 2000’s. The glut of available fuel brought the open market trading value down from $20 dollars a pound to near $2 per pound at that time. So a lot has changed from the time when many of us can remember the very real threat of mutually assured destruction.Multi Megaton Weapons Now ObsoleteWhat has changed that the world no longer is building megaton weapons? The need for multi-megaton weapons was the result of low accuracy of warhead deliver on target…. we needed a sledgehammer approach to take out hardened targets and the way that was done was through very high yield bombs >=5 mt typically. The average nuclear weapon size today in 2016 is about 443kt at full yield but a large portion of those bombs can be adjusted in the field to a very small fraction of their potential yield.Today the accuracy of on target delivery has massively improved ..we hit what we aim for. This means we need less hammer to do the same job. In the 1980’s the development of earth penetrating rounds was another game changer. Not only were we on target but now we could penetrate hundreds of feet of earth and concrete before detonating the warhead. This allowed a 100 kt weapon to do the damage of a >1 mt surface detonation. This is the primary method now for targeting hardened targets and is the final driver for smaller yield bombs.The net effect of the use of EPW’s (Earth Penetrating Weapons) is a reduction in the number of casualties as compared with the number of casualties from a surface burst. This is primarily due to a 96% reduction in the weapon yield needed using an EPW. The greater coupling of the released energy to the ground shock for a buried detonation is the same as a surface burst with 25 times the explosive energy. For rural targets, the use of a nuclear earth-penetrator weapon is estimated to reduce casualties by a factor of 10 to 100 relative to a nuclear surface burst of equivalent probability of damage.[2]War room from Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)A Common Story: “There are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over.” This is nothing more than poorly crafted fiction an urban legend. This common conclusion isn't based in any factual data. It is based solely in hype, hysteria, propaganda and fear mongering.If you take every weapon in existence today, approximately 6500 megatons between 15,000 warheads with an average yield of 433 kt, [3] and put a single bomb in its own 100 square mile grid… one bomb per grid (10 miles x 10 miles), you will contain >95% of the destructive force of each bomb on average within the grid it is in. [4] This means the total landmass to receive a destructive force from all the world's nuclear bombs is an area of 1.5 million square miles. Not quite half of the United States and 1/38 of the world's total land mass…. thats it!In truth it would be far less. A higher concentration of detonations would take place over military targets and would be likely 10–30 times greater in concentration over those areas. [5] If they were used in war it is unlikely more than 40% would get used even in a total war situation. So the actual area of intense destruction in a nuclear war is somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000 square miles or 1/384 to 1/192 of the worlds land mass.You win wars by taking out the opposing teams ability to make war, not their population centers. The arsenals of today are just enough to cover military objectives. There would be no wholesale war against civilians. That is just more fear mongering and Hollywood story telling.milliseconds after a detonation the bombs heat is conducted faster down the scaffolding support cables making these erie tentacles (called rope tricks). Contrary to most beliefs, the majority of the scaffolding often remains. Broken and thrown asunder after the detonation, the scaffolding will be scattered but it does not always vaporize.Continued from aboveThese numbers are easily verifiable, and they are right. So many have bought into the endless rhetoric of the world shattering destructiveness and the inevitable end of civilization scenarios that they can no longer be objective or analytical as they have put their beliefs in front of rational thinking. I find this true even with most scientists. I challenge anyone to just do the math …it is easy.Fallout is a short lived problem in most places.Using the 7/10 rule of exponential radionuclide decay, after just 49 days the radiation will be 1/10,000 the level it was an hour after the bombs went off and after a year and a half the radiation will have dropped below 1/100,000 of that initial level. The majority of bombs would be airburst which create little to no fallout which significantly reduces these dangers.[6]Where are you safest from fallout?A regular cellar isn't much better than being outside. A good fallout shelter has a rating of 1000, meaning it reduces your exposure to the fallout outside by a factor of 1000. A typical basement is only rated at a 10 which means you're dead if you are in the path of some major fallout.Places rated at a 1000 or higher:a sub-basement (basement under a basement) you need at least 6 feet of dirt over your head to protect you from all forms of radiation.the second level below street level of a concrete reinforced parking garage (obviously that also can be closed off at the entrance as well)the inner windowless rooms on the 4th floor or higher in a highrise building (always leave at least 2 floors above you before the roof.According to FEMA these are your best bets. Whatever gives you the greatest distance from the source of the radiation is your best option. If none of these examples are available you just need to apply that distance guideline and some common sense.[7] [8]Plan on being there at least 2 weeks and perhaps a monthA problem of scaleNuclear weapons are puny on the scale of things in nature. They may be impressive to man but they mean nothing to nature. A typical hurricane releases more energy than all the world's nuclear weapons combined in its brief lifetime. At its peak, a severe storm may have a total power near to 10^15 Watts: about 3,000 times the total electrical power generated in the world. This is equivalent to exploding 500,000 Hiroshima bombs per day. [9]The Chisholm Fire, a man-caused forest fire in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada in 2001 released the equivalent energy of 1200 Hiroshima atomic bombs or 18 megatons. [10]Large forest fires release hundreds to 10’s of 1,000’s the times of energy of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Forest fires release on the order of 1 megawatt per second per acre of fire area, a staggering number. [11] Its a perspective and scale issue… man doesn't have a chance in challenging nature.Another comparison of scale is the Chicxulub impact event which is thought to be the cause of the dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago. That impact released over 100,000,000 megatons of energy or over 15,300 times the world total nuclear arsenal without dramatically changing the climate in the long term.[12]How destructive is the worlds nuclear arsenals … as it relates to a possible war between Russia and the USA. A real world risk assessment.Since the early 2000’s there have been numerous scholarly papers written about an American nuclear and conventional weapons primacy and the end of MAD (Mutually Assured destruction)[13] [14] These papers suggest that the USA has such an advantage technologically that we now possess a first strike capability and that there isn't a credible threat to US dominance in the world today or in the upcoming decade. The underlying message is that the unthinkable is becoming thinkable.[15] That military planners may consider the use of local in theater nuclear strikes. Some say the risk of a nuclear exchange has never been greater.[16][17]So how would a war between Russia and the USA unfold in 2016 in a scenario of sudden escalation? There have been many relevant changes in how we posture our nuclear arsenals. In the event of a war breaking out and going nuclear there is one key difference than in the past. The majority of the available nuclear weapons have been taken off high alert. This creates a natural pause that would occur between a strike using high alert strategic assets and mobilization of non alert tactical assets. The strategic assets that would be used will include ICBM’s and SLBM’s, but not all of them. The USA and Russia, per our current treaty agreement, should have no more than 1550 warheads each in this category, all of them considerably less than 1 megaton (80–800kt typical).[18]In the USA it is estimated that approximately 1,930 warheads are deployed of which roughly 1,750 strategic warheads are deployed on ballistic missiles and at bomber bases in the United States. Another 180 tactical bombs are deployed in Europe. The remaining approximately 2,740 warheads – more than 58% – are in storage as a so-called hedge against technical or geopolitical surprises. Many of those are scheduled to be retired before 2030. In addition to the warheads in the Defense Department stockpile, approximately 2,340 retired, but still intact, warheads are in storage under the custody of the Energy Department and awaiting dismantlement, for a total US inventory of roughly 6,970 warheads. As of 1 September 2015, the United States reported that its nuclear arsenal contained 1,538 strategic warheads attributed to 762 deployed missiles and bombers on high alert– a decrease of 105 warheads and 30 launchers compared with a year ago.[19]Russia, as of early 2016, is estimated to have a stockpile of approximately 4500 nuclear warheads assigned for use by long-range strategic launchers and shorter-range tactical nuclear forces. Of these, roughly 1800 strategic warheads are deployed on missiles and at bomber bases on high alert. Another 700 strategic warheads are in storage along with nearly 2000 nonstrategic warheads. In addition to the military stockpile for operational forces, a large number – perhaps 2800 – of retired but still largely intact warheads await dismantlement for a total inventory of 7300 warheads. With its total inventory of roughly 550 deployed strategic launchers out of the 1550 warheads that is allowed by treaty, 768 warheads are on SLBM’s with a total yield of less than 70mt. Russia is already well below the limit of 700 set by New START for February 2018.[20]You may not be able to use any weapons in your active stockpile that wasn’t already deployed in the field. Since the USA no longer keeps large quantities of nukes in the field, you won't use up your strategic assets in the first exchange. The nukes that used to be kept on alert in the field have been removed from the Navy’s surface fleet and the Air Force’s available active weapons. These nukes would have to be staged from inventory first and then loaded onto vehicles. This will take some extra time. Knowing that these locations will be the first targets of a nuclear strike, time is one thing either side wont have available to spare.War on Civilians?With a limited resource of strategic warheads on high alert, you can be assured that the initial targeting is going to be all the hard military assets. Neither side is going to have the assets available for a long shopping list. ICBM’s are seen as a use it or lose it asset. If you don't use them they will be taken out in a major strike. Both the USA and Russia would put a high priority to get all the missiles launched as quickly as possible. Most SLBM’s would be held in reserve though they would still see some launched at command and control assets as the first volley in any war.After the Korean war the U.S. Army’s revised the field manual on the law of land warfare introduced a new statement that expressed as doctrine the growing importance of intention. The revised 1956 manual said, “It is a generally recognized rule of international law that civilians must not be made the object of attack directed exclusively against them.” Previous army manuals had left this rule unexpressed. As a subculture, military professionals may have placed even more emphasis on their intentions not to harm noncombatants even in the face of widespread civilian deaths. While the sources make it difficult to assess the personal sentiments of officers and soldiers about civilian casualties during the Korean War, it is not hard to believe that many in private did not want to think of themselves as waging war against defenseless civilians.[21]Military Doctrine is to minimize civilian casualties not take out the citiesThe committee notes that although some scenarios show substantial nuclear-radiation-induced fatalities, military operational guidance is to attack targets in ways to minimize collateral effects. Calculated numbers of fatalities to be expected from an attack on an HDBT might be reduced by operational planning and employment tactics. Assuming that other strategic considerations permit, the operational commander could warn of a nuclear attack on an HDBT or could time such an attack to take advantage of wind conditions that would reduce expected casualties from acute and latent effects of fallout by factors of up to 100, assuming that the wind conditions were known well enough and were stable and that defenses against the attack could not be mobilized. However, a nuclear weapon burst in a densely populated urban environment will always result in a large number of casualties.[22]MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has never been an accepted strategy in the military.Even today (2001), however, much discussion of MAD misses one central point: It is not the prime nuclear doctrine of the United States. For more than 30 years, increases in the size, accuracy, and sophistication of the US nuclear arsenal have reduced Mutual Assured Destruction to the status of one among many competing national strategic options.Perhaps any exchange of warheads between nuclear powers would escalate, inevitably, to total war and obliteration of both nations. That is what McNamara fervently believes to this day.However, the US military believes in preparing other, more flexible, strategic plans. Anything less would be an abdication of duty, says Gen. Russell E. Dougherty, a former commander in chief of the Air Force's Strategic Air Command."I don't think Mutual Assured Destruction was ever a military-espoused doctrine," says Dougherty.From a force planner point of view, MAD is a minimalist approach. It requires only that the American nuclear arsenal have enough warheads after any surprise first strike to destroy any opponent's population centers and civilian industry.The Air Force, by contrast, favors a larger and more complicated force structure capable of riding out a first strike and then retaliating against elusive, hardened military targets.[23]"Our philosophy has always been counterforce," says Dougherty. "Force is what hurts us. Find his force, and dis-enable it or denude it."“Riding the bomb” a scene from Dr Strangelove. The world has changed a lot or has it? General Ripper can be substituted with a rogue nuclear state in 2016.Continued from aboveAfter the Initial StrikeThis is where the natural pause after launching your strategic assets will come in handy. Cooler minds will hopefully be clammering for a cease fire.In a real world situation today, it is likely that both sides would see massive losses of their strategic, tactical and reserve nuclear weapons stockpiles as a result of not having these weapons on high alert. The military would be scrambling to get these assets staged and mounted on delivery vehicles with less than an hour of working time, more likely less than 30 minutes. Very few tactical assets would make it out into the field before that area is hammered by dozens of warheads. As a result, any war will see only a fraction of the prewar quantity of warheads actually get used. I would bet that both sides would lose at least 50% in the first strikes. The challenge here is that civilian casualties will always be high due to the close proximity of nuclear assets to population centers.The known locations of nuclear weapons stores at 111 locations in 14 countries, according to an overview produced by FAS and NRDC.Russia: Nearly 1,000 nuclear weapons surround Saratov. Russia has an estimated 48 permanent nuclear weapon storage sites, of which more than half are on bases for operational forces. There are approximately 19 storage sites, of which about half are national-level storage facilities. In addition, a significant number of temporary storage sites occasionally store nuclear weapons in transit between facilities. This is a significant consolidation from the estimated 90 Russian sites ten years ago, and more than 500 sites before 1991.Many of the Russian sites are in close proximity to each other and large populated areas. One example is the Saratov area where the city is surrounded by a missile division, a strategic bomber base, and a national-level storage site with probably well over 1,000 nuclear warheads combined.There is considerable uncertainty about the number of Russian nuclear weapons storage sites, for several reasons. First, the Russian government provides almost no information about its nuclear warhead storage program. Second, Western governments say very little about what they know.Moreover, estimates vary on what constitutes a “storage site;” some count each fenced storage bunker as a site, even though there may be several individually fenced bunkers within a larger storage complex.We count each storage complex as one site or storage location and estimate that Russia today stores nuclear weapons permanently at 40 domestic locations. This is a slight reduction from our 2009 estimate, but a significant reduction from the 100 sites in the late-1990s, 250 sites in the mid-1990s, and 500 sites in 1991.Although the Russian government provides almost no public information about its nuclear weapons storage program, it has occasionally made declarations. For example, at the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, Russia declared that “the total number of nuclear weapons storage facilities has been reduced fourfold” since 1991 (Russian Federation, 2010a: At the same event, the Russian delegation distributed a publication stating that “ Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons are concentrated in centralized storage bases exclusively ob the national territory” (Russian Federation, 2010b: Moreover, twice a year under the terms of New START, the Kremlin hands over a detailed list of its strategic force deployments to the US government. Unfortunately, the list is secret.There is also uncertainty about the status of many nuclear weapon systems, including what constitutes “non-strategic” weapons. For example, medium-range Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers are sometimes described by Russians as more than tactical, but they are not considered strategic in arms control agreements signed by Russia. Consequently, this notebook considers the Tu-22M3 and all other weapons not covered by New START to be non-strategic and to be covered by the Russian declarations that all non-strategic nuclear warheads have been placed in central storage.Russian permanent nuclear weapon storage locations fall into three main categories: operational warheads at Strategic Rocket Force, navy and air force bases; non-strategic and reserve/retired warheads at national-level storage sites; and warheads at assembly/disassembly factories.The storage locations for operational warheads include 11 ICBM fields and garrisons, two nuclear submarine bases, and two heavy bomber bases. The national-level storage sites include 12 separate storage sites, although the status of a few of these is unclear. The warhead production complexes also have warhead storage facilities. [24]The United States in 2014 stores nuclear weapons at 18 sites, including 12 sites in 11 states in the United States and another six sites in five European countries. At the end of the Cold War, the United States maintained thousands of nuclear weapons outside of its borders on land and on the high seas.In 2014 the United States has further consolidated its nuclear weapons into fewer sites. Most significant is the apparent termination of nuclear weapons storage at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, which only a decade ago contained one of the world’s largest concentrations of nuclear weapons. Similarly, nuclear weapons have been removed from Barksdale Air Force Base, one of three remaining heavy bomber bases,4 and from all tactical fighter-bomber bases in the continental United States. All Air Force nuclear warheads are now stored at five locations: three intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) bases (F. E. Warren, Malmstrom, Minot), two bomber bases (Minot, Whiteman), and one central storage facility, Kirtland Underground Munitions Storage Complex (KUMSC).The last naval non-strategic nuclear weapon system—the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile (TLAM/N)—was eliminated in 2012. The weapons were stored at the Strategic Weapons Facilities at Bangor in Washington and at Kings Bay in Georgia, the only two remaining naval nuclear weapons storage sites.The United States is the only nuclear-armed state that deploys nuclear weapons in other countries. Approximately 180 non-strategic nuclear bombs are stored in underground vaults beneath 87 aircraft shelters at six bases in five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey) for delivery by US and NATO fighter-bombers. [25]Approximately 50 B61 (variable yield bomb 0.3 to 340 kiloton) nuclear bombs inside an igloo at what might be Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. Seventy-five igloos at Nellis store “one of the largest stockpile in the free world,” according to the U.S. Air Force, one of four central storage sites in the United States.Continued from aboveThere is little comfort in this scenario other than the scope of a real nuclear war would likely only involve a fraction of the world's nuclear arsenals, perhaps 1/3 of the world total at most and that a natural pause in the hostilities early on might prevent it from being even that much. It isn't much and it shouldn't make you happy as we are on the verge of going backwards it seems. I am just calling a spade a spade here. This shouldn't be such a risk after making so much progress on disarmament, but it is.Projected US Casualties and Destruction of US Medical Services From Attacks by Russian Nuclear ForcesA 2002 study puts the US death toll from a strategic counterforce strike from the combined effects of blast, burns, and radiation, the attack by 2,000 warheads would cause 52 ± 2 million deaths and 9 ± 1 million injuries, even though it was primarily directed at military targets in sparsely populated areas. The goal of the first attack to recall, was to destroy US military, political, and economic targets. In the 2,000-warhead scenario, there were 660 air bursts, many of which had overlapping zones of mass fires and blast damage because the distances separating some of the targets were less than the diameter of the zones.In a second analysis a vengeance strike against countervalue targets (non-strategic population centers) In this second scenario, the US targets for 500 Russian nuclear weapons are chosen to maximize loss of life. If all 500 warheads detonated over their targets, a total of 132 million deaths and 8 million injuries are calculated to occur.The US Major Attack Options (MAO) in this first scenario assumes a Russian attack similar in target categories to a comprehensive US MAO, with 1,249 discrete targets, some receiving multiple warheads.[26]This 2002 study was made in a time when the world had twice as many nuclear weapons as we have today in 2016. The high alert weapons are fewer and have smaller yields in 2016. The list of high priority targets still remains high which means that there will be no available weapons for countervalue targets of population centers.This report intentionally emphasised a high casualty countervalue attack with the targets chosen for the highest loss of life. This was in response to a proposed National Missile Defense system which for some reason would mean the Russians would target civilians. I don't know why that is a logical conclusion. It really makes no sense and in the scenario in 2016 there isn't going to be strategic weapons available to do such a thing.All the strategic high alert Russian weapons will be aimed at the 1249 targets referenced in that study. In truth, the available weapons to cover this is insufficient to ensure all those targets are taken out. Using all 1800 high alert Russian warheads against 1249 targets only gives you a coverage of 1.4 warheads on a target. In the height of the cold war some targets had over 60 warheads assigned to them. While this is clearly overkill the ratio of 1.4 to 1 is not. It is unlikely that this force of missiles would be able to take out all the known targets as a result.The total military targets of the USA easily consumes all of Russia’s strategics weapons destructive power leaving zero weapons available for civilian targets.There are over 6000 military bases and military warehouses located in the U.S.A. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments [27] with a total building area 2.1 billion square feet or 75 square miles.[28] The US also has over 800 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of TBD (in excess of 100,000 square miles - online numbers reported add up to more than the reported total), which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide.So while the destruction would be less and the cities would not be targeted, the 52 million dead is probably a reasonable figure since the us population has increased over 20% since the time of this report.Map of military facilities in the United States (full size here [29] )EMP EffectsIn the case of high altitude nuclear bursts, two main EMP types come into play, “fast pulse” and the “slow pulse.” The fast pulse EMP field is created by gamma ray interaction with stratospheric air molecules. It peaks at tens of kilovolts per meter in a few nanoseconds, and lasts for a few hundred nanoseconds. The broad-band frequency content of (0-1000 megahertz) enables it to couple to electrical and electronic systems in general, regardless of the length of their penetrating cables and antenna lines. Induced currents range into the 1,000s of amperes. The “slow pulse” EMP is caused by the distortion of the earth’s magnetic field lines due to the expanding nuclear fireball and rising of heated and ionized layers of the ionosphere.DoD has adopted protective priorities using commercial protective equipment. The Department of Defense (DoD) has experience in prioritizing and protecting systems since the 1960s. The DoD has prioritized and has protected selected systems against EMP (and, by similitude to E3, GMD effects). DoD places emphasis on protecting its strategic triad and associated command, control, communications, computer, and intelligence (C4I) systems.Nuclear EMP will burn out every exposed electronic system is FALSE. Based on DoD and Congressional EMP Commission’s EMP test data bases we know that smaller, self-contained systems that are not connected to long-lines tend not to be affected by EMP fields. Examples of such systems include vehicles, hand-held radios, and disconnected portable generators. If there is an effect on these systems, it is more often temporary upset rather than component burnout. [30]“The most probable effect of EMP on a modern nuclear power plant is an unscheduled shutdown. EMP may also cause an extended shutdown by the unnecessary activation of some safety-related systems. In general, EMP would be a nuisance to nuclear plants, but it is not considered a serious threat to plant safety. Counter-measures to minimize the effects of EMP have been recommended. Implementation of these recommendations would also increase the protection of the plant against damage by lightning, switching, and electromagnetic interference transients as well as general failures in electrical, control, and instrument power. “ [31]In SummarySo here is the bottom line. The countries involved, the USA and Russia, will live on and the vast majority of the world would remain untouched. I am not saying it would be pretty as it certainly would not. It would be an unprecedented catastrophe for the USA without a parallel. While Russia has lived through invasions and suffered 10’s of millions dead in WII this would surely exceed that as well. Between the two countries there would be 10’s of millions dead, a total of 150 million is certainly a possibility but even that number means hundreds of millions more survived and for the majority it would be imminently survivable.It would not be the end of man, the world, civilization and not even the end of our countries. All the hype and fear mongering is just that. It isn't hard to do a valid analysis for your own peace of mind.MAD or mutually assured destruction, as a strategy does not exist in 2016 . The above math makes that evident. MAD actually has never been the official accepted position of the USA or Russia. For most of the post cold war era the USA has adopted deterrence as our primary policy.[32] Evidence suggests that this may be changing. A more important epiphany than realizing MAD no longer applies would be to understand the impact of this new reality in the world's future political and military decisions. [33]Further detailed reading on this subject and an analysis debunking a nuclear winter Allen E Hall's answer to In a total nuclear exchange where the entire worlds arsenals are used, how long would the nuclear winter last and would we survive?In the News:Russia Withdraws From a Post-Cold War Nuclear DealU.S. Accuses Russia of Violating Missile TreatyRussia calls new U.S. missile defense system a ‘direct threat’Russia says US missile system breaches nuclear INF treaty - BBC NewsThe future of U.S.-Russian arms control | Brookings InstitutionThe LRSO: US Plans for Nuclear PrimacyNote: I make no claim that I an right… I only offer an analysis with considerations for details and data overlooked by others … sometimes intentionally. Please do your own due diligence and make an educated determination for yourself. Feel free to challenge my analysis, I welcome opposing views.Footnotes[1] Against Long Odds, MIT’s Thomas Neff Hatched a Plan to Turn Russian Warheads into American Electricity[2] The National Academies Press[3] https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-notebook/[4] NUKEMAP[5] Overkill Is Not Dead[6] The 7:10 Rule of Thumb[7] https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/shelter.txt[8] Nuclear Blast | Ready.gov[9] What is Physics Good For?[10] http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5247/2006/acp-6-5247-2006.pdf[11] The Nuclear Imperative[12] The KT extinction[13] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7[14] https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9324932-a61c-4ad4-9626-8e9978b455f7/Johnson-Freese-and-Nichols.aspx[15] Rethinking the Unthinkable[16] A Nuclear Conflict with Russia is Likelier Than You Think[17] http://www.frstrategie.org/publications/notes/web/documents/2016/201601.pdf[18] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf[19] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145901[20] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170359[21] http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-ethics-of-bombing-civilians-after-world-war-ii-massive-casualties-and-the-targeting-civilians-in-the-korean-war/5402007[22] The National Academies Press[23] Air Force Magazine[24] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[25] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[26] http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-2-helfand.pdf[27] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564[28] http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/FY_2010_FRPP_Report_Final.pdf[29] Image on wikimedia.org[30] https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf[31] Effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) on nuclear power plants (Technical Report)[32] http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/SAGessentials.PDF[33] http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf

More innovation?There is so much happening right now..where do I start?https://www.tu.no/artikler/danmark-har-gatt-fra-14-kullkraftverk-til-6200-vindmoller-elnettet-fungerer-fortsatt/452258The economic revolution has started. Its personal, corporate, local and global all at once:And most important; The youth , the future of the planet, is aware, awaken and alerted. It’s their future, it’s their right. They care for each other, they care for the world.Greta Thunberg!She is like a bright light. A voice of reason in a time when greed and overconsumption seems to be the default.Greta Thunberg's words speak to larger truths about humanity'Biggest compliment yet': Greta Thunberg welcomes oil chief's 'greatest threat' labelMore on Gretas great movement:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What do you think about Greta Thunberg, the 16 year old climate activist? Is she a person to admire?Latest:Renewable Energy Now Accounts For A Third Of All Global Power CapacityNearly 200 nations of the world have signed an agreement to actually reduce emissions and more:Paris Agreement: essential elementsThe Paris Agreement builds upon the Convention and for the first time brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global climate effort.The Paris AgreementIf the world meets the objectives of the Paris Agreement, it will cause one million lives to be spared only through less air pollution until 2050. It is one of the findings in a report that World Health Organization presented on climate summit in Poland Wednesday.Health benefits far outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goalshttps://apps.who.int/iris/bitstr...Global warming is the biggest global non partisan issue humanity have faced since the threats of World War 3.It can only be solved with global actions. Does it work?Yes. Like this:Because of global actions we see restoration of ecosystems damaged by acid rain worldwide and we are also about to recover the ozone layer as well.“The acid rain problem in Europe and North America has largely abated because of stronger SO2 and NOx emission controls, such as the U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970, the Canada–United States Air Quality Agreement in 1991, and similar measures in Europe. In the United States the first phase of emission reductions took effect in 1995, and subsequent reductions followed”.What Happened to Acid Rain?"The ongoing recovery of Earth's "ozone hole" is a great example of what humans can do when they work together to solve a global atmospheric problem. We look at the key role one NASA mission has played in this success story."The Atmosphere: Tracking the Ongoing Recovery of Earth's Ozone Hole – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the PlanetAfter Decades Of Global Action, The Ozone Layer Is On The Road To RecoveryAfter Decades Of Global Action, The Ozone Layer Is On The Road To RecoveryIt's been 32 years since the world pledged to fix the ozone layer. And it workedAnd probably to the shock of all climate deniers out there; It was done without the installment of a global socialist illuminati dictatorship out to turn the world into a huge wind park.In a rare — and much-needed — environmental win, a UN report says parts of the ozone layer could be fully healed by the 2030s.Ozone at lower latitudes is not recovering, despite Antarctic ozone hole healingMORE JOBS:US green economy has 10 times more jobs than the fossil fuel industryGlobal green economy could create 24 million jobs by 2030A new report released by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reveals that solar jobs in the US (and other nations) are expanding quickly. As of November 2016, the American solar industry employed 260,077 workers. This is an increase of 24.5 percent from 2015, with a growth rate that is 17 times fasterthan the United States economy as a whole.NextEra Now More Valuable Than Exxon as Clean Power Eclipses OilJust 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green transition'Ending fossil fuel subsidies has long been seen as vital to tackling the climate emergency, with the G20 nations pledging in 2009 to phase them out, but progress has been limited. In May, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, attacked subsidies, saying: “What we are doing is using taxpayers’ money – which means our money – to boost hurricanes, to spread droughts, to melt glaciers, to bleach corals. In one word: to destroy the world.”CHEAPER ENERGY:Renewable Energy Costs Take Another Tumble, Making Fossil Fuels Look More Expensive Than EverThe cost of renewable energy has tumbled even further over the past year, to the point where almost every source of green energy can now compete on cost with oil, coal and gas-fired power plants, according to new data released today.Hydroelectric power is the cheapest source of renewable energy, at an average of $0.05 per kilowatt hour (kWh), but the average cost of developing new power plants based on onshore wind, solar photovoltaic (PV), biomass or geothermal energy is now usually below $0.10/kWh. Not far behind that is offshore wind, which costs close to $0.13/kWh.Smarte materialer kan gi grønn energiboomRenewable Energy Costs Take Another Tumble, Making Fossil Fuels Look More Expensive Than EverEIA forecasts renewables will be fastest growing source of electricity generationThe unsubsidised cost of wind and solar now beats coal as the cheapest form of bulk generation in all major economies except Japan, according to the latest levellised cost of electricity analysis by leading energy analyst BloombergNEF.The latest report says the biggest news comes in the two fastest growing energy markets, China and India, where it notes that “not so long ago coal was king”. Not any more.“In India, best-in-class solar and wind plants are now half the cost of new coal plants,” the report says, and this is despite the recent imposition of import tariffs on solar cells and modules.Unsubsidised wind and solar now cheapest form of bulk energyA harsh new reality is undermining the U.S. coal-fired electricity sector: Cleaner generation by way of utility-scale solar backed with storage is an increasingly cheaper option for utility companies than continuing to operate aging coal plants.IEEFA U.S.: Solar-plus-storage is undermining the economics of existing coal-fired generation - Institute for Energy Economics & Financial AnalysisUnsubsidised wind and solar now cheapest form of bulk energyWorld’s Largest Solar Project Will Also Be Its CheapestRenewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels by 2020 - The PenIt's now cheaper to build a new wind farm than to keep a coal plant runningThe global transition to clean energy, explained in 12 chartsTHE END OF PETROLEUM IS GETTING CLOSER:BIOFUELS IS COMING SUPER FAST:Norway sees the biggest investment for Blue Crude yet.Eighteen countries from developed economies have had declining carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels for at least a decade. While every nation is unique, they share some common themes that can show Australia, and the world, a viable path to reducing emissions.One could argue this decline is not particularly meaningful because global fossil fuel emissions continued to grow at 2.2% per year during the same period. However, this group of countries is responsible for 28% of the global CO₂ emissions from fossil fuelsEighteen countries showing the way to carbon zeroMore and more countries are preparing for the end of the Petroleum Age:The Powering Past Coal Alliance is a coalition of national and sub-national governments, businesses and organisations working to advance the transition from unabated coal power generation to clean energy.Powering Past Coal Alliance | Working towards the global phase-out of unabated coal powerSix new Powering Past Coal Alliance members announced at COP24 | Powering Past Coal AllianceClimate deniers in the year 1900:-”What do you mean giving up my horse and cart for this ugly gasolin driven black box on wheels? How am I going to cross the desert in this? There are no gasolin stations in the desert!!! And hardly any roads. My horse dont need roads nor gasolin.”Israel: Israel to stop electricity production from coal by 2030Angela Merkel’s government agreed to support a $60 billion package of climate policies aimed at getting Germany back on track to meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Critics say the package "lacks courage" and doesn't go far enough.Germany Unveils $60 Billion Climate PackageGermany - Germany Closes Its Last Black Coal MineGermany Closes Its Last Active Coal Mine, Ending 200-year-old IndustryGermany agrees to end reliance on coal stations by 2038German states want to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2030Renewables overtake coal as Germany's main energy source60% av tysk kraftproduksjon i februar 2020 var fornybar. Brunkull er helt på vei ut, svartkull følger etter. Fornybar er fremtiden.Nettostromerzeugung im Februar zu mehr als 60 Prozent erneuerbar – Braunkohle erreicht TiefststandFornybarrekord i Tyskland: Kullbruken faller kraftigGermany has unveiled a zero-emissions train that only emits waterFrance - France to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040Europe steams towards coal exit - researchMore Offshore Wind For FranceAustralia: Australia’s main grid hits new peak of 41 per cent wind and solarAustralia’s capital city switches to 100% renewable energySouth Australia could reach stunning 87 per cent wind and solar in four yearsCosta Rica Becomes the First Nation to Ban Fossil Fuels - MediumThe Netherlands: Amsterdam to ban petrol and diesel cars and motorbikes by 2030The UK - UK commits to 'net zero' emissions by 2050The UK - Wants production of petrol and diesel cars to end by 2040The UK: Why the City of London is considering a non-electric car banFinland - Finland pledges to become carbon neutral by 2035Norway: Departementet godkjenner utbyggingen av Hywind TampenEquinor, SSE win British contract for largest offshore wind projectNorway - Electric car sales grew by 40% in Norway this yearTesla Model 3 pushes Norway’s EV sales to new record: 58% of new cars are electricNorway is the leading market for electric vehicles and it keeps showing the rest of the world how fast electric vehicle adoption can happen.In 2018, EV sales grew by 40% in Norway and 1 out of 3 vehicles sold in the market was a zero-emission vehicle.Electric cars may already be making gas cars as obsolete as ‘flip phones’, experts sayBuying a gas car today would leave you with a financial "albatross" that has little resale value, warns Wall Street Journal.These companies are leading the fight against climate changePlunging prices for batteries and renewables are driving an electric vehicle (EV) revolution so rapidly that the economics of oil “are now in relentless and irreversible decline.”That’s the startling conclusion of a detailed new analysis for “professional investors” of the economics of EVs versus gasoline cars produced by BNP Paribas, the world’s eighth largest bank by total assets.One of the world’s largest banks thinks the writing is on the wall for the oil industrySalesforce Leads 21 Companies With Plan to Fight Climate Change Through TechnologyWith government on the sidelines, businesses address climate changeCorporations Are Stepping in to Combat Climate Change | JPMorgan Chase & Co.Google to Invest $2 Billion in Wind and Solar EnergyAnalysis: India’s CO2 emissions growth poised to slow sharply in 2019China and India Emerge as Leaders on Climate ChangeWhen China agreed to sign on to the Paris accord, it was not only hailed as a breakthrough in policy coordination, but as a sign that China was getting serious about the enormous size of its carbon footprint and was ready to commit to protecting against the effects of climate change.China and India Emerge as Leaders on Climate Change | The Takeaway | WNYCOne of India’s largest coal-mining states says it will not build new coal power plantsChina Built The World's Biggest Air Purifying Tower And It Works!Bad news for coal: India lands world’s largest, super cheap solar and storage tenderSlik får Kina fart i sol- og vindkraftChina and India are doing a lot to go green:11 countries leading the charge on renewable energy - Climate CouncilThe U.S. Has a Fleet of 300 Electric Buses. China Has 421,000The U.S. Has a Fleet of 300 Electric Buses. China Has 421,000The nine biggest solar power plants in the worldWhy China, and not the US, is the leader in solar powerHow China's giant solar farms are transforming world energyThe Breakneck Rise of China’s Colossus of Electric-Car Batteries | Bloomberg NEFChina builds world's biggest solar farm in journey to become green superpower #GlobalWarningChina Just Exceeded its 2020 Target for Solar InstallationsChina - Beijing’s plan to stop producing petrol and diesel carsChina Meets 2020 Carbon Target Three Years Ahead of ScheduleWind & Solar In China Generating 2× Nuclear Today, Will Be 4× By 2030China pledges to strengthen climate planFull speed ahead for China’s high-speed rail network in 2019Electric Buses Put The Big Hurt On Fossil Fuel CompaniesChina buys one out of every two electric vehicles sold globally6 of 10 Big Electric Car Companies Are in ChinaE-Bikes Already At $1.5 Billion Annual Revenue & Being Fought For GloballyChina’s emissions ‘could peak 10 years earlier than Paris climate pledge’China’s State Grid Envisions Global Wind-and-Sun Power NetworkCan China pick up US slack on climate change?India - India to sell only electric cars by 2030India just cancelled 14 huge coal-fired power stations as solar energy prices hit record lowOne of India’s largest coal-mining states says it will not build new coal power plantsThe Carbon Brief Profile: IndiaUSA: - US on pace for record coal retirements in 2018, IEEFA findsRENEWABLE ENERGY: U.S. readies first wind-powered steel plantUSA: A major U.S. electric utility has finally realized climate change is realityAUSTRALIA: Landmark Australian ruling rejects coal mine over global warmingAustralia Leads Global Renewable Energy RevolutionAustralia could hit 100% renewables sooner than most people think | Nicky IsonThe Netherlands - Confirms plan to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030Influencers, Articles and ConversationsMIT's conceptual "sun-in-a-box" energy storage system plugs into molten siliconGoing green is getting cheaper and cheaper:Renewable Energy Now Accounts For A Third Of All Global Power CapacitySouth Korea to implement Green New Deal after ruling party election winSolar and wind power cheaper than fossil fuels for the first timeSomething revolutionary has just happened to solar power, and it could change everythingRenewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels by 2020 - The PenThis is how coal dies — super cheap renewables (This is how coal dies — super cheap renewables plus battery storage) plus battery storagehttps://www.climaterealityproject.org/sites/climaterealityproject.org/files/Solar_Myths_Updated.pdfAging coal, natural gas and nuclear sites closing as nation shifts to wind, solarAnd Now, the Really Big Coal Plants Begin to CloseIt's now cheaper to build a new wind farm than to keep a coal plant runningHow Electric Cars and Renewables Could Beat Oil6 Myths About Renewable Energy, Busted! (6 Myths About Renewable Energy, Busted!)Many large car producers are already on the same track:This is Toyota's plan to stop making gas and diesel carsTesla & Rivals May Kill The Petrol Car As Early As 2025Tesla's Battery In South Australia Breaks Stranglehold Of Natural Gas IndustryYes, Electric Vehicles Work In Winter — Better Than Gas Cars!Even electric cars powered by the dirtiest electricity emit fewer emissions than diesel cars, says new study - ElectrekVOLVO WILL STOP PRODUCING GAS-ONLY CARS BY 2019Opec faces a mortal threat from electric carsAnd that’s just cars. Flying on Alternative Fuels.Why the age of electric flight is finally upon usThe Dutch Are Readying A Climate Tax On Flying, And The EU May FollowEven Lego is abandoning petroleum:Lego to stop producing petroleum-based plastic bricksMORE AND MORE OIL COMPANIES AGREES ON AGW AND WORKS TO REDUCE GAS EMISSIONS.Its over.Climate change skeptics have outlived their usefulness to the fossil fuel industry.Climate deniers are like those japanese soldiers who was unaware that the war had ended 60 years ago.GCI is a voluntary, CEO-led initiative which aims to lead the industry response to climate change. Launched in 2014, OGCI is currently made up of ten oil and gas companies that pool expert knowledge and collaborate on action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.http://oilandgasclimateinitiativ...BP:Renewable energy sources will be the world’s main source of power within two decades and are establishing a foothold in the global energy system faster than any fuel in history, according to BP.The UK-based oil company said wind, solar and other renewables will account for about 30% of the world’s electricity supplies by 2040, up from 25% in BP’s 2040 estimates last year, and about 10% today.In regions such as Europe, the figure will be as high as 50% by 2040. The speed of growth was without parallel, the company said in its annual energy outlook.Renewable energy will be world's main power source by 2040, says BPRenewable Energy Now Accounts For A Third Of All Global Power CapacityOUR FUTURE ENERGY SYSTEM: THE SMART GRIDWHAT IS A SMART GRID?“A smart grid is a system that can connect (and switch between) a number of energy sources (solar, wind, etc.), at many different sites, to provide a constant flow of electricity to users. It allows us to create a network of electricity production sites that spread over a wide area. So for example, it would allow you to create solar power on the roof of your house, and feed extra power back into the grid. This is part of what makes the grid “smart”: components can “talk” and “listen” to each other, making the supply of electricity much more flexible, reliable, and efficient. With smart grid solutions, we are no longer just passive consumers of energy, but active producers and consumers of clean energy – prosumers!An electricity grid – the system that connects power stations to consumers – can handle large shares of variable renewable energy if it is designed to do so. Adding wind and solar on top of ‘business as usual’ is not how it works. What’s needed is a gradual transformation of the whole energy system to accommodate modern energy production and consumption.Typically the ones who claim that wind and solar will bring trouble to the gridare the old players, who failed to take renewable energy seriously and over-invested in fossil fuel capacities instead. Renewable energy is now eating their profits and making their old business models out-of-date. SourceIn reality, Europe, for example, can switch to 77% renewable electricity by 2030 while maintaining affordable security of supply.” SourceHow three battery types work in grid energy storage systemsWhat is the Smart Grid?NEW TECHNOLOGY IS COMING SUPER FAST:Renewable energy materials are one of the hottest areas of scientific research today. We looked at four advanced materials that are supporting the future of distributed power and helping businesses meet the growing demand for clean energy.http://gereports.ca/four-cutting-edge-materials-shaping-future-renewables/#Google Maps Now Features EV Charging Stations #NewsQuickieThis is how coal dies — super cheap renewables plus battery storage.Look, no lithium! First rechargeable proton battery createdhttps://www.theguardian.com/tech..."Bird-Safe" Wind Turbines May Soon Take FlightUS Military Bases Using Solar, Wind, & Battery Storage For Energy SecurityFalling battery costs to push solar, wind to 50% electricity by 2050New battery could store wind and solar electricity affordably and at room temperatureWater-based battery stores solar and wind energy: What is now a prototype could one day lead to an industrial-grade system to store alternative energy to feed into the electric gridStudy shows how to improve production at wind farmsJapan Discovered a Rare-Earth Mineral Deposit This Year That Can Supply The World For CenturiesCheaper Battery Is Unveiled as a Step to a Carbon-Free Grid24-Hour Solar Energy: Molten Salt Makes It Possible, and Prices Are Falling FastStacking concrete blocks is a surprisingly efficient way to store energyWhat Long Duration Energy Storage Is & Why It Kills CoalTesla's Battery In South Australia Breaks Stranglehold Of Natural Gas IndustryEven electric cars powered by the dirtiest electricity emit fewer emissions than diesel cars, says new study - ElectrekGoogle Maps Now Features EV Charging Stations #NewsQuickiehttps://www.elbil24.no/lading/vil-bygge-n-million-ladestasjoner/71931863?fbclid=IwAR3Qyv-bok6jym8xqOao7DTFxqjkAd25jcS16R1OvbcFSz2QN9GioD9G98Ahttps://www.elbil24.no/lading/vil-bygge-n-million-ladestasjoner/71931863?fbclid=IwAR3Qyv-bok6jym8xqOao7DTFxqjkAd25jcS16R1OvbcFSz2QN9GioD9G98AFive things you can do to fight climate change1. Eat less meat, particularly beef2. Consider your transportation3. Insulate homes4. Reduce, recycle, reuse5. VoteTen simple ways to act on climate changeFive things you can do to fight climate changeClimate change: focusing on how individuals can help is very convenient for corporations“Our only hope is to change the energy and transportation infrastructure of our society — for us to drive electric cars powered by clean energy sources like wind, solar, nuclear and hydropower. We must advocate for clean energy production at all levels — energy that doesn’t emit greenhouses gases — and especially vote in representatives who recognize the the threat of global warming and will do something about it at the state and national level.”David Appell's answer to What causes global warming to start? And how do we control it?Why should I sacrifice when big companies are to blame for climate change?The Five Stages of Climate OptimismIn recent years the costs of wind and solar energy have declined substantially. Today renewable technologies are the most economical solution for new capacity in a growing number of countries and regions, and are typically the most economic solution for new grid-connected capacity where good resources are available.• Citigroup: The age of renewable energy is beginning. Increasingly cost competitive with coal, gas and nuclear in the US. Source• HSBC: Wind energy is now cost competitive with new-build coal capacity in India. Solar to reach parity around 2016-18. Source• Deutsche Bank: solar now competitive without subsidies in at least 19 markets globally. In 2014 prices to decline further. Source• Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new coal and gas fired power plants in Australia. SourceRENEWABLE ENERGY BENEFITS:1. reduction and ultimate elimination of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the energy sector;2. reductions in air and water pollution, water use and land degradation;3. reduction in respiratory diseases and cancers from pollution;4. energy security for as long as human civilization exists;5.a cap on energy costs, because most RE sources have no fuel costs;6.more local jobs, per unit of energy generated, than fossil or nuclear power;7. no risk of causing a nuclear war, or radioactive waste escape, or devastating accident.Why 100% renewable energy is feasible – INSURGE intelligence – MediumSaving the life of 600 000 children every year:WHO says air pollution kills 600,000 children every yearIf we are to reach the 2 C goal, emissions must begin to descend, and then sink rapidly for decades. That this will require a blend of renewable energy, efficiency, carbon capture and CO2 removal from the atmosphere, we can say without taking a strong political standpoint. But the concrete solutions become political. Do we choose to facilitate strong growth in solar power and a global carbon tax that will go beyond the fossil industry? Are we focusing on carbon capture and storage, which can extend the use of oil and gas? Do we have the capacity to do both, which will be even better for the climate, without going beyond the rest of society?Researchers should not take these choices. However, their job is to help understand the consequences of them. The challenge for the dissemination is that the debate debate moves beyond the research front.The scientific method is slow and thoughtful by nature. Are we supposed to say that we would like to have a few decades to consider every single measure? Or should we dare to guide, with the proviso that we speak out of the best of today's knowledge?In my opinion, our social responsibility requires us to do more of the last than we do today.THE BEST REASONS:No more oil spills:Top 10 LARGEST OIL SPILLS IN HISTORYCOAL IS DEAD IN THE WATER:Toxic air, water, soils and workplaces are responsible for the diseases that kill one in every six people around the world, the landmark report found, and the true total could be millions higher because the impact of many pollutants are poorly understood. The deaths attributed to pollution are triple those from Aids, malaria and tuberculosis combined. The vast majority of the pollution deaths occur in poorer nations and in some, such as India, Chad and Madagascar, pollution causes a quarter of all deaths. The international researchers said this burden is a hugely expensive drag on developing economies.https://thinkprogress.org/lamber...https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2020/04/20/oxford-university-passes-motion-banning-investment-in-fossil-fuels/Exxon's market value has crumbled by $184 billionJust 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study saysNearly half of world’s coal plants run at a loss, study findsThe Other Reason to Shift away from Coal: Air Pollution That Kills Thousands Every YearCoal Power Plants Face $7.3 Billion Losses in Europe in 2019How Britain ended its coal addictionJP Morgan economists warn climate crisis is threat to human raceAmerica's largest private coal miner files for bankruptcyEleven coal companies have filed for bankruptcy since Trump took officeShutdown of US coal power facilities saved over 26,000 lives, study findsTrump isn't saving coalTrump’s New Pollution Rules Still Won’t Save the Coal IndustryCoal Is Dead No Matter What Trump SaysThe coal miners themselves are going to solar and wind:“Coal is over. Forget coal,” said Jimmy Simpkins, who worked as a coalminer in the area for 29 years. “It can never be back to what it was in our heyday. It can’t happen. That coal is not there to mine.”“It’s a racket. Miners are being robbed every day,” said Bethel Brock, who was a coalminer for 32 years in Wise, Virginia. Between 1968 to 2014, an estimated 76,000 coalminers died of black lung disease. He fought coal companies for 14 years to secure his own black lung benefits after he was diagnosed.'Coal is over': the miners rooting for the Green New DealIn rural Colorado, the kids of coal miners learn to install solar panelsWyoming could lead US green energy push with wind power | DW | 24.01.2021Chevron Is Installing Solar Panels — To Produce Oil More CheaplySunnier times ahead for coal workers in renewables, tech | Powering Past Coal Alliance“There's never any debate about Einstein's theory of special relativity. They never question the revolution wrought by electronics. They revel in high-speed travel. And when it comes to health, they demand the latest and the very best.But with climate — or more specifically electricity generation — they blanch at the idea of moving much beyond 1776, the year James Watt improved Thomas Newcomen's steam engine.Setting fire to coal and boiling up a big pot of water so the steam can turn a machine is apparently the pinnacle of modern electricity generation and a point beyond which we shouldn't venture, regardless of cost.”Biden pauses onshore and offshore drilling leases, orders subsidy reviews (worldoil.com)The future of coal has already been decided in boardrooms around the globeGlobal fossil fuel subsidies totaled $544 billion in 2012, compared to only $101 billion for renewables. The International Monetary Fund estimates fossil fuel subsidies for 2015 to be $5.3 trillion - an amount equal to 6.5% of global GDP. More than 40% of this represents subsidies for coal, the most environmentally damaging of all fossil fuels. Although not good news on its face, the disproportionate funding for fossil fuels represents a tremendous opportunity to shift funding to renewable energy without an overall increase in costs.Global Subsidies - Fossil Fuels vs. Renewables — Environmental GraphitiGreen energy feels the heat as subsidies go to fossil fuelsHow Big Oil Clings to Billions in Government Giveawayshttps://www.motherjones.com/poli...Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per yearA new study finds 6.5% of global GDP goes to subsidizing dirty fossil fuelsThe International Monetary Fund estimates fossil fuel subsidies for 2015 to be $5.3 trillion - an amount equal to 6.5% of global GDP.https://www.theguardian.com/envi...https://www.sciencedirect.com/sc...Over the past century, the federal government has pumped more than $470 billion into the oil and gas industry in the form of generous, never-expiring tax breaks. Once intended to jump-start struggling domestic drillers, these incentives have become a tidy bonus for some of the world’s most profitable companies.Taxpayers currently subsidize the oil industry by as much as $4.8 billion a year, with about half of that going to the big five oil companies—ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips—which get an average tax break of $3.34 on every barrel of domestic crude they produce. With Washington looking under the couch cushions for sources of new revenue, oil prices topping $100 a barrel, and the world feeling the heat from its dependence on fossil fuels, there’s been a renewed push to close these decades-old loopholes. But history suggests that Big Oil won’t let go of its perks without a brawl.https://www.sciencedirect.com/sc...A new paper published in Climatic Change estimates that when we account for the pollution costs associated with our energy sources, gasoline costs an extra $3.80 per gallon, diesel an additional $4.80 per gallon, coal a further 24 cents per kilowatt-hour, and natural gas another 11 cents per kilowatt-hour that we don’t see in our fuel or energy bills.https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-ene...The United States has spent more subsidizing fossil fuels in recent years than it has on defense spending, according to a new report from the International Monetary Fund.The IMF found that direct and indirect subsidies for coal, oil and gas in the U.S. reached $649 billion in 2015. Pentagon spending that same year was $599 billion.Study: U.S. Fossil Fuel Subsidies Exceed Pentagon SpendingIMF Survey : Counting the Cost of Energy SubsidiesWhy are taxpayers subsidising the oil and gas companies that jeopardise our future?Instead of hoping market forces solve the climate crisis, the government needs to stop giving tax breaks to pollutersWhy are taxpayers subsidising the oil and gas companies that jeopardise our future? | Clive LewisThe economic costs of air pollution from fossil fuels are estimated at US$2.9 trillion in 2018, or 3.3% of global GDP, far exceeding the likely costs of rapid reductions in fossil fuel use. An estimated 4.5 million people died in 2018 due to exposure to air pollution from fossil fuels. On average, each death was associated with a loss of 19 years of life. ● Fossil fuel PM2.5 pollution was responsible for 1.8 billion days of work absence, 4 million new cases of child asthma and 2 million preterm births, among other health impacts that affect healthcare costs, economic productivity and welfare.De økonomiske kostnadene ved luftforurensning fra fossile brensler anslås til 2,9 billion dollar i 2018, eller 3,3% av verdens BNP, som langt overstiger de sannsynlige kostnadene for raske reduksjoner i fossilt brensel bruk.● Anslagsvis 4,5 millioner mennesker døde i 2018 på grunn av eksponering for luftforurensning fra fossil brensel. I gjennomsnitt var hvert dødsfall assosiert med et tap på 19 år i livet.● Forurensning av fossilt brensel PM2.5 var ansvarlig for 1,8 milliarder dager fravær, 4 millioner nye tilfeller av barneastma og 2 millioner for tidlige fødsler, blant andre helsemessige påvirkninger av helsetjenester, økonomisk produktivitet og velferd.https://energyandcleanair.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Cost-of-fossil-fuels-briefing.pdfUnited States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than EducationThe fossil fuel lobby has actively worked in many countries to protect their subsidies and avoid the imposition of carbon taxes. Doing so protects their profits.US spent on these subsidies in 2015 is more than the country’s defense budget and 10 times the federal spending for educationUnited States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than EducationNo wonder then:Trump Administration Rebrands Fossil Fuels As "Molecules Of U.S. FreedomWe want a cleaner world and the end of all the socialist subsidies for oil and coal:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How can we combat climate change?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How will we ever truly battle global warming when going green is only afforded by the wealthy?BONUS:What simple truths in your opinion Liberals "get" that Republicans simply don't seem to understand?In no particular order:“Voluntary charity” doesn’t work. We’ve tried it in the past — it’s like trying to fight a forest fire with a water gun that only works when it wants to, not when you need it to.The existence of public social safety nets is a win-win-win for the poor, middle class, and the rich. The cost in taxpayer dollars is more than offset by the benefits.Tax cuts are only beneficial when taxes are absurdly high. The US is far, far beyond the point where further tax cuts will benefit the country.Taxing the extremely wealthy at higher rates than the rest of the country is morally justified and pragmatically desirable.What’s good for corporate profit margins isn’t necessarily good for the country as a whole. There are other priorities which need to come first.Building on #5, protecting the environment is both a moral imperative and an economic benefit. Our natural environment is an enormous source of health and wealth. Keeping it safe and healthy at all costs is infinitely more important than keeping the oil and gas industries profitable.Building on #5, what’s good for stakeholders and business owners isn’t necessarily good for workers or consumers. The interests of all of these parties need to be factored into economic policy.Politics is about compromise and tradeoffs. No one can have everything they want.“Free” markets are more of an ideal than a reality. Real-world markets have all sorts of inherent imperfections and imbalances which necessitate government intervention.Government regulation of businesses is not axiomatically bad. Some businesses don’t like it, but that’s not important.If you can’t take it, you shouldn’t be dishing it out. You can’t spend 30+ years whining about how “political correctness” is “stifling” you, and then get your knickerbockers in a bunch when liberals/Democrats/progressives insult you in return.Words matter. They can inspire people to heroism or incite them to violence. Politically-motivated violence doesn’t happen overnight. It’s normalized, slowly, word by word and mindset by mindset. The politically-motivated violence we have seen recently in this country didn’t come from nowhere — it is the culmination of a President and a GOP which has been verbally assaulting political opponents and pushing already-unhinged followers over the edge. Certain forms of rhetoric send subtle signals to neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, and white supremacists that the time has come to act.The Republican Party of Trump is not “conservative.” The only true conservatives in your community have denounced your party.Christopher Anderson's answer to What simple truths in your opinion Liberals "get" that Republicans simply don't seem to understand?

Because some renewables specially intermittent renewables have legitimate downsides. Some examplesthe intermittency problem aka a non windy nightWind Blowing NowhereThis is half a month of wind power production europe wide. You can see 2 or 3 nights when wind speed is low europe wide. If you removed all nuclear and fossil fuel in europe, what do you do during times like those non windy nights? Batteries are out of the question. Hydropower/pumped storage might be a potential solution. But it would require building a huge number of number of dams and pumped storage. In 2014 only 18.5% of europes electricity was hydroEurope’s energy revolution marches on: one-third of power supply now renewableAnd as for pumped storage, in 2012 europe had enough pumped storage to cover 5% of its electricity consumption. Although most likely this overlaps with the 18.5% of hydroPumped Hydroelectric StorageThis also occurs in americaTexas hits new peak wind outputAnd in the gobi desert. That leads us to #33. Many “add ons” are needed that drive up real costIn the case of the gobi desert, wind is also intermittent sometimes. One way to ameliorate the intermittency problem is to build lots of long distance transmission lines. Doesnt always work like if you have europe wide low wind speeds at night, but sometimes it works.When you have a gigantic solar field, you also need a futuristic grid to handle all that intermittent power. And, while the Chinese government doesn't have much trouble stringing up new high-voltage lines wherever it feels like (unlike in the United States, where this is shaping up to be a pretty contentious issue), the country is still lagging in efforts to build a smart grid. It's not for lack of money—the government dished out some $7.3 billion on advanced grid gadgets in its last round of stimulus spending—but hashing out the technical issues is still, as best I can tell, a serious struggle. So a lot of that wind and solar capacity could end up getting wasted, and some of it already does.Nice Wind Farm, But So What?A wind or solar farm in the USA afaik doesnt spend for the long transmission lines needed. This makes their cost artificially low since its not their expense. In other countries where the government or government controlled corporations build both the power plants and the transmission lines, its a more noticable problem since they are both paid for by the government.4. poor match of time of supply to demandAn example from south africaAccording to the media, Molefe said renewables in practice are available from 9am to 3pm, which is not when Eskom needs them. He stated that solar power is only available when the sun shines, which excludes the evening peak in winter.Wind power is at its best in the early hours of the morning and late at night, when Eskom already has surplus power.Eskom’s boss highlighted that renewable energy was expected to deliver 3GW of generation capacity, which the utility needed in order to avoid load shedding, however renewables was providing power capacity to the grid during the day and not when Eskom needed it at the evening peak around 6pm.He stated that the utility is required to buy electricity from renewable projects at a higher cost than its own generation when it has excess capacity of its own, adding that it was forced to sign 20-year power purchase agreements, at the end of which the assets will be transferred to Eskom.http://www.esi-africa.com/news/south-africa-eskoms-molefe-disappointed-He alluded to the next problem5. Cost, at least some of the timeSometimes even intermittent renewables are cheaper. Sometimes they are not. It depends.power from Angra 3 <nuclear reactor in brazil now under construction> is expected to be slightly over twice as expensive as old hydro, about the same as that from coal and cheaper than that from gas.http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/brazil.aspxin south korea " The wholesale price of nuclear power, US$52 per megawatt hour (MWh) in 2014, is still cheaper than coal (US$61/MWh) without any form of carbon pricing."A sustainable South Korea should stick with nuclearIn 2012 a 95% majority in the Danish parliament arrived at a political agreement for 50% of energy consumption to be from wind power by 2020, and 84% by 2035.The Danish government has now completely changed its mind.Recently, the Danish government decided to abort the plans to build five offshore wind power farms, which were to stand ready by 2020. At the same time, Denmark is also scraping its green energy tariffs and abandoning some of its climate goals.“Since 2012 when we reached the political agreement, the cost of our renewable policy has increased dramatically,” said Minister for Energy and Climate Lars Christian Lilleholt to Reuters....The Danish consumers and companies pay the highest prices for electricity within the European Unionhttp://nordic.businessinsider.com/after-all-the-money-poured-into-wind-energy-denmark-admits-its-too-expensive-2016-56. sometimes the increased cost is hidden by subsidies, and renewables get more than their fair share compared to how much electricity they produceIn 2015, the United States generated about 4 trillion kilowatthours of electricity. About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum).Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015:Coal = 33%Natural gas = 33%Nuclear = 20%Hydropower = 6%Other renewables = 7%Biomass = 1.6%Geothermal = 0.4%Solar = 0.6%Wind = 4.7%Petroleum = 1%Other gases = <1%What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?2013 subsidies in the usaRenewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)Energy subsidies7. Being both anti fossil fuel and anti nuclearSometimes they are annoyed at people who underestimate the huge amount of building needed to replace american nuclear power. Shouldnt they be focusing on ending fossil fuels first? The stats below should show you how much harder decarbonizing the US electricity grid would be if you insisted on no nuclear power.In 2014, nuclear energy accounted for 62.9 percent of carbon-free sources of electricity. Hydropower accounted for 19.9 percent; wind, 14.4 percent; geothermal, 1.3 percent; and solar, 1.4 percent.Nuclear Energy: America’s Low-Carbon Electricity Leader - Nuclear Energy InstituteMost often closed nuclear plants get replaced by fossil fuel, like what happened in the new england states and californiaFor the first time in five years, power plants across New England are producing more carbon emissions, dealing a setback to Massachusetts’ legally mandated efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and raising concerns that reduced production of nuclear energy will undercut environmental gains.Carbon emissions rising at New England power plants - The Boston GlobeMay 23, 2016A new wave of natural gas power plants planned for Southern California has stoked a high-stakes debate about how best to keep the lights on throughout the region.New natural gas projects spark debate on power