Winter Storage Agreement Free: 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][1][1][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][2][2][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][3][3][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][4][4][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][5][5][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][6][6][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][7][7][7] [8][8][8][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][9][9][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][10][10][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][11][11][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][12][12][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][13][13][13] [14][14][14][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][15][15][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][16][16][16][17][17][17][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][18][18][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][19][19][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][20][20][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][21][21][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][22][22][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][23][23][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][24][24][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][25][25][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][26][26][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][27][27][27] with a total building area 2.1 billion square feet or 75 square miles.[28][28][28][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][29][29][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][30][30][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][31][31][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][32][32][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][33][33][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[1] Against Long Odds, MIT’s Thomas Neff Hatched a Plan to Turn Russian Warheads into American Electricity[1] Against Long Odds, MIT’s Thomas Neff Hatched a Plan to Turn Russian Warheads into American Electricity[1] Against Long Odds, MIT’s Thomas Neff Hatched a Plan to Turn Russian Warheads into American Electricity[2] The National Academies Press[2] The National Academies Press[2] The National Academies Press[2] The National Academies Press[3] https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-notebook/[3] https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-notebook/[3] https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-notebook/[3] https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-notebook/[4] NUKEMAP[4] NUKEMAP[4] NUKEMAP[4] NUKEMAP[5] Overkill Is Not Dead[5] Overkill Is Not Dead[5] Overkill Is Not Dead[5] Overkill Is Not Dead[6] The 7:10 Rule of Thumb[6] The 7:10 Rule of Thumb[6] The 7:10 Rule of Thumb[6] The 7:10 Rule of Thumb[7] https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/shelter.txt[7] https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/shelter.txt[7] https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/shelter.txt[7] https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/shelter.txt[8] Nuclear Blast | Ready.gov[8] Nuclear Blast | Ready.gov[8] Nuclear Blast | Ready.gov[8] Nuclear Blast | Ready.gov[9] What is Physics Good For?[9] What is Physics Good For?[9] What is Physics Good For?[9] What is Physics Good For?[10] http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5247/2006/acp-6-5247-2006.pdf[10] http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5247/2006/acp-6-5247-2006.pdf[10] http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5247/2006/acp-6-5247-2006.pdf[10] http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5247/2006/acp-6-5247-2006.pdf[11] The Nuclear Imperative[11] The Nuclear Imperative[11] The Nuclear Imperative[11] The Nuclear Imperative[12] The KT extinction[12] The KT extinction[12] The KT extinction[12] The KT extinction[13] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7[13] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7[13] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7[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[14] https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9324932-a61c-4ad4-9626-8e9978b455f7/Johnson-Freese-and-Nichols.aspx[14] https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9324932-a61c-4ad4-9626-8e9978b455f7/Johnson-Freese-and-Nichols.aspx[14] https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9324932-a61c-4ad4-9626-8e9978b455f7/Johnson-Freese-and-Nichols.aspx[15] Rethinking the Unthinkable[15] Rethinking the Unthinkable[15] Rethinking the Unthinkable[15] Rethinking the Unthinkable[16] A Nuclear Conflict with Russia is Likelier Than You Think[16] A Nuclear Conflict with Russia is Likelier Than You Think[16] A Nuclear Conflict with Russia is Likelier Than You Think[16] A Nuclear Conflict with Russia is Likelier Than You Think[17] http://www.frstrategie.org/publications/notes/web/documents/2016/201601.pdf[17] http://www.frstrategie.org/publications/notes/web/documents/2016/201601.pdf[17] http://www.frstrategie.org/publications/notes/web/documents/2016/201601.pdf[17] http://www.frstrategie.org/publications/notes/web/documents/2016/201601.pdf[18] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf[18] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf[18] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf[18] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf[19] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145901[19] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145901[19] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145901[19] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145901[20] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170359[20] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170359[20] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170359[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[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[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[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[22] The National Academies Press[22] The National Academies Press[22] The National Academies Press[23] Air Force Magazine[23] Air Force Magazine[23] Air Force Magazine[23] Air Force Magazine[24] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[24] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[24] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[24] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[25] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[25] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[25] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[25] Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014[26] http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-2-helfand.pdf[26] http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-2-helfand.pdf[26] http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-2-helfand.pdf[26] http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/7-2-helfand.pdf[27] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564[27] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564[27] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564[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[28] http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/FY_2010_FRPP_Report_Final.pdf[28] http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/FY_2010_FRPP_Report_Final.pdf[28] http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/FY_2010_FRPP_Report_Final.pdf[29] Image on wikimedia.org[29] Image on wikimedia.org[29] Image on wikimedia.org[29] Image on wikimedia.org[30] https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf[30] https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf[30] https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baker-Statement-5-13-EMP.pdf[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)[31] Effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) on nuclear power plants (Technical Report)[31] Effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) on nuclear power plants (Technical Report)[31] Effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) on nuclear power plants (Technical Report)[32] http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/SAGessentials.PDF[32] http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/SAGessentials.PDF[32] http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/SAGessentials.PDF[32] http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/SAGessentials.PDF[33] http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf[33] http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf[33] http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf[33] http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf

The answer is the most forceful possible no.Solar power itself is a good thing, but Germany's pro-renewables policy has been a disaster. It has the absurd distinction of completing the trifecta of bad energy policy:Bad for consumersBad for producersBad for the environment (yes, really; I'll explain)Pretty much the only people who benefit are affluent home-owners and solar panel installation companies. A rising tide of opposition and resentment is growing among the German press and public.I was shocked to find out how useless, costly, and counter-productive their world-renowned energy policy has turned out. This is a serious problem for Germany, but an even greater problem for the rest of the world which hopes to follow in their footsteps. The first grand experiment in renewable energy is a catastrophe! The vast scale of the failure has only started to become clear over the past year or so. So I can forgive renewables advocates for not realizing it yet -- but it's time for the green movement to do a 180 on this.Some awful statistics before I get into the details:Germany is widely considered the global leader in solar power, with over a third of the world's nameplate (peak) solar power capacity. [1] Germany has over twice as much solar capacity per capita as sunny, subsidy-rich, high-energy-cost California. (That doesn't sound bad, but keep going.)Germany's residential electricity cost is about $0.34/kWh, one of the highest rates in the world. About $0.07/kWh goes directly to subsidizing renewables, which is actually higher than the wholesale electricity price in Europe. (This means they could simply buy zero-carbon power from France and Denmark for less than they spend to subsidize their own.) More than 300,000 households per year are seeing their electricity shut off because they cannot afford the bills. Many people are blaming high residential prices on business exemptions, but eliminating them would save households less than 1 euro per month on average. Billing rates are predicted by the government to rise another 40% by 2020. [2]Germany's utilities and taxpayers are losing vast sums of money due to excessive feed-in tariffs and grid management problems. The environment minister says the cost will be one trillion euros (~$1.35 trillion) over the next two decades if the program is not radically scaled back. This doesn't even include the hundreds of billions it has already cost to date. [3] Siemens, a major supplier of renewable energy equipment, estimated in 2011 that the direct lifetime cost of Energiewende through 2050 will be $4.5 trillion, which means it will cost about 2.5% of Germany's GDP for 50 years straight. [4] That doesn't include economic damage from high energy prices, which is difficult to quantify but appears to be significant.Here's the truly dismaying part: the latest numbers show Germany's carbon output and global warming impact is actually increasing [5] despite flat economic output and declining population, because of ill-planned "renewables first" market mechanisms. This regime is paradoxically forcing the growth of dirty coal power. Photovoltaic solar has a fundamental flaw for large-scale generation in the absence of electricity storage -- it only works for about 5-10 hours a day. Electricity must be produced at the exact same time it's used. [29] The more daytime summer solar capacity Germany builds, the more coal power they need for nights and winters as cleaner power sources are forced offline. [6] This happens because excessive daytime solar power production makes base-load nuclear plants impossible to operate, and makes load-following natural gas plants uneconomical to run. Large-scale PV solar power is unmanageable without equally-large-scale grid storage, but even pumped-storage hydroelectricity facilities are being driven out of business by the severe grid fluctuations. They can't run steadily enough to operate at a profit. [2,7] Coal is the only non-subsidized power source that doesn't hemorrhage money now. [8] The result is that utilities must choose between coal, blackouts, or bankruptcy. Which means much more pollution.So it sucks on pretty much every possible level. If you're convinced by these facts, feel free to stop reading now, throw me an upvote, and go on about your day. This is going to get long -- I haven't even explained the half of it yet. There are lots of inter-related issues here, and the more you get into them, the worse the picture gets.Issue 1: Wrong place, wrong tech to start the green revolutionRenewables advocates constantly hold up Germany as an example of how large-scale rooftop solar power is viable. But the problem is, Germany's emphasis on solar power is bad policy. I'm pretty sure other countries can do solar better, but that isn't saying much because German solar is just awful. To be blunt, it's a stupid place for politicians to push solar panels. I was there all last week for a work meeting and I didn't see the sun the entire time. From talking to the locals, it's overcast for about a third of the year in the region near Hanover where I was staying. Their solar resource is simply bad, nearly the worst of any well-populated region in the world:Annual Solar IrradianceBetween the northern latitude, the grey weather, and the Alps blocking much of the diffused morning sunlight from the south, Germany is a terrible place for solar power. When you put the US side-by-side on the same scale, you realize that Germany has the same solar power potential as dismal Alaska, even worse than rain-soaked Seattle:Solar Radiation MapI look at this and ask, "what on earth are they thinking?" They couldn't have picked a worse generation technology for their climate.But most people seem to look at it and say, "if Germany is investing so much in solar power, then it's obvious the US should build solar panels too." I insist we examine the contrapositive: if solar power is only taking off slowly in the US, even with significant subsidies/incentives and one of the world's best solar resources, then the Germans should be building even less solar capacity. It's clear their market must be severely distorted for them to pursue such a sub-optimal energy policy.You're welcome to disagree with my thought process here, but the simplest proof can be seen in the capacity factor, which is the percent of the nameplate capacity that is actually generated over the course of a year. The existence of nighttime means solar capacity factors must be less than 50%, and when you add clouds, dawn, dusk, dust, and non-optimal installations, 18% is the average capacity factor for panels in the continental US. [9] In contrast, Germany's total solar capacity factor in 2011 was under 9%! [1]German residential solar panel installations today cost about $2.25/watt capacity, [10] versus a hair over $5/watt in the US. [11] (Numbers vary over a considerable range. Most of this is labor/permitting costs.) But German panels generate less than half as much actual power over time. So when you normalize the panel install cost by capacity factor, US and German solar power generation are already at cost parity. The payback periods for solar investments are about the same in California and Germany. This is surprising to most solar advocates, who tend to blame higher costs for the low uptake rates in the US. But system economics alone do not explain disparities in installation rates.So why does Germany have 16 times as much nameplate panel capacity per capita as the US? [12] Yes, permitting is much easier there, but that's mostly captured by the $/watt costs since installation companies usually pull the permits. And I don't think the German people are that much more pro-environment than the rest of the world. There's no good reason for the disparity that I can find -- it ought to swing the opposite way. Solar just isn't a good power source for a cold, dark country that has minimal daytime air conditioning load. Solar in Phoenix, Arizona makes sense, but not in Frankfurt. The only conclusion I can come to is that Germany's solar power boom is being driven entirely by political distortions. The growth of solar is not economically justified, nor can it continue without massive political interference in power markets.Many people are surprised to hear that Germany only gets a tiny 2.0% of its total energy / 4.6% of its electricity from solar power (in 2012). [5,13] All the headlines about new records on peak summer days make it seem more like 50%. Despite all the cost and pain and distortions, PV solar has turned out to be a very ineffective way of generating large amounts of energy. They could have generated at least four times as much carbon-free power via new nuclear plants for the same cost. [14] (Nuclear would have been a better option for a lot of reasons. I'll get to that later.)With subsidies for new solar systems phasing out over the next 5 years, solar growth has already started to decline. The installation rate peaked and is now dropping. [13, 15] Despite falling panel and installation costs, the majority of new German solar projects are expected to stop when subsidies end. They're already on the downward side of the technology uptake bell curve:(Data after 2008 from [14], prior to 2008 from Wikipedia)If you pay close attention, all the pro-solar advocates are still using charts with data that stops after 2011. That's because 2011 was the last year solar was growing exponentially. Using data through July 2013 and official predictions for the rest of this year, it's now clear that solar is not on an exponential growth curve. It's actually on an S-curve like pretty much every other technology, ever. Limitless exponential growth doesn't exist in the physical world. [13]Also note the huge gap on that graph between the actual generation and the nameplate capacity. That's where the miserable capacity factor comes in. (I think this is the source of a lot of misplaced optimism about solar's growth rate.) Green media outlets only report solar power either in peak capacity or as percent of consumption on sunny summer days. Both of these measurements must be divided by about 10 to get the true output throughout the year.In reality, solar is scaling up much slower than conventional energy sources scaled up in the past, despite solar receiving more government support. This graph shows the growth rate of recent energy transitions in the first 10 years after each source reached grid scale (1% of total supply):[13]I think this chart is the best way to make an apples-to-apples comparison of uptake rates. Only about a quarter of the "renewables" line is due to solar (the majority is biomass, wind, and trash incineration). So the true solar growth rate from 2001-2011 is only 1/4th as fast as nuclear from 1974-1984, and 1/6th as fast as natural gas from 1965-1975. [13]When a new energy source is genuinely better than the old energy sources, it grows fast. Solar is failing to do so. Yet it's had every advantage the government could provide.What this all implies is that without government intervention, PV solar can't be a significant source of grid power. The economics of German solar have only made sense up til now because they tax the hell out of all types of energy (even other renewables), and then use the proceeds to subsidize solar panels. Utilities are forced to buy distributed solar power at rates several times the electricity's market value, causing massive losses. The German Renewable Energy Act directly caused utility losses of EUR 540 million in August 2013 alone. [16] It's a shocking amount of money changing hands. When you strip away the well-intentioned facade of environmentalism, this is little more than a forced cash transfer scheme. It's taking from utilities (who are losing money hand over fist on grid management and pre-existing conventional generation capacity) and from everyone who doesn't have rooftop panels, and shoveling it into the pockets of everyone who owns or installs panels. Which means it's both a massive market distortion and a regressive tax on the poor.This explains why per-capita solar uptake is so high in Germany. The government has engineered a well-intentioned but harmful redistribution system where everyone without solar panels is giving money to people who have them. This is a tax on anyone who doesn't have a south-facing roof, or who can't afford the up-front cost, or rents their residence, etc. People on fixed incomes (eg welfare recipients and the elderly) have been hardest hit because the government has made a negligible effort to increase payments to compensate for skyrocketing energy prices. The poor are literally living in the dark to try to keep their energy bills low. Energiewende is clearly bad for social equality. But Germany's politicians seem to have a gentleman's agreement to avoid criticizing it in public, particularly since Merkel did an about-face on nuclear power in 2011. [17]Issue 2: Supply VariabilityOne major problem with all this solar-boosting, ironically, is oversupply. It's mind-boggling to me that a generation technology that provides less than 5% of a country's electricity supply can be responsible for harmful excess electricity production, but it's true. On sunny summer afternoons, Germany actually exports power at a loss compared to generation costs: EUR 0.056/kWh average electricity export sale price in 2012, [18] vs EUR 0.165/kWh average lifetime cost for all German solar installed from 2000 to 2011. [14] (This is optimistically assuming a 40 year system life and 10% capacity factor -- reality is probably over EUR 0.20/kWh.) German utilities often have to pay heavy industry and neighboring countries to burn unnecessary power. On sunny summer days, businesses are firing up empty kilns and furnaces, and are getting paid to throw energy away.You can argue that this excess summer solar generation is free, but it's not -- not only is this peak summer output included in the lifetime cost math, but excess solar power actually forces conventional power plants to shut down, thereby lowering the capacity factor of coal & gas plants. Yes, this means large-scale solar adoption makes non-solar power more expensive per kWh, too! On net, excess solar generation is a significant drag on electricity economics. You're paying for the same power generation equipment twice -- once in peak conventional capacity for cloudy days, and again in peak solar capacity for sunny days -- and then exporting the overage for a pittance.Why would they bother exporting at a loss? Because the feed-in-tariff laws don't allow utilities to shut off net-metered rooftop solar. Utilities are forced by law to pay residential consumers an above-market price for power that isn't needed. Meanwhile, Germany's fossil-burning neighbors benefit from artificially-low EU energy market prices. This discourages them from building cleaner power themselves. It's just a wasteful, distorted energy policy.Remember, electricity must be used in the same moment it's generated. [29] The technology for grid-scale electricity storage does not yet exist, and nothing in the development pipeline is within two orders of magnitude of being cheap enough to scale up. Pumped-hydro storage is great on a small scale, but all the good sites are already in use in both Europe and the US. The only plan on the table for grid-scale storage is to use electric car batteries as buffers while they're charging. But that still won't provide anywhere near enough capacity to smooth solar's rapidly-changing output. [19] And if people plug in their cars as soon as they get home from work and the sun goes down, the problem could get even worse. California's regulators have recently acknowledged that the generation profile at sundown is the biggest hurdle to the growth of solar power. The classic illustration is the "duck chart" (shaped like a duck) that shows how solar forces conventional power plants to ramp up at an enormous rate when the sun stops shining in the evening:[29]People often complain about wind power being unreliable, but when you get enough wind turbines spread over a large enough area, the variability averages out. The wind is always blowing somewhere. This means distributed wind power is fairly reliable at the grid level. But all solar panels on a power grid produce power at the same time, meaning night-time under-supply and day-time over-supply. This happens every single day, forever. At least in warm countries, peak air conditioning load roughly coincides with peak solar output. But Germany doesn't use much air conditioning. It's just a grid management nightmare. The rate of "extreme incidents" in Germany's power grid frequency/voltage has increased by three orders of magnitude since Energiewende started. [20]The severe output swings have even reached the point where Germany's grid physically cannot operate without relying on neighboring countries to soak up the variability. The ramp-down of solar output in the evening happens faster than the rest of Germany's generation capacity can ramp-up. (Massive power plants can't change output very quickly.) Which either means blackouts as people get home from work, or using non-solar-powered neighbors as buffers. Here's one day's generation profile for German solar power, showing how net electricity imports/exports are forced to oscillate back and forth to smooth out the swings in production:[21]If Germany's neighbors also had as many solar panels, they would all be trying to export and import at the same time, and the system would fall apart. The maximum capacity of the entire EU grid to utilize solar power is therefore much lower than the level reached by individual countries like Germany and Spain.Solar boosters often say people need to shift their energy consumption habits to match generation, instead of making generation match consumption. That's feasible, to an extent -- perhaps 20% of power consumption can be time-shifted, mostly by rescheduling large consumers currently operating at night like aluminum electrosmelters. But modern civilization revolves around a particular work/sleep schedule, and you can't honestly expect to change that. People aren't going to give up cooking and TV in the evening, or wait three hours after the sun goes down to turn on the lights. And weekends have radically different consumption profiles from weekdays.It all adds up. PV solar output doesn't properly sync up with power demand. That severely limits the maximum percentage of our electricity needs it can provide. Germany hit that limit at about 4%. They are now finding out what happens when you try to push further.Issue 3: Displacing the wrong kinds of powerYou may have noticed in the daily generation chart above how wind power is throttled back when the sun comes out. Residential solar has legal right-of-way over utility-scale wind. A lot of the power generation that solar is displacing is actually other renewables. Most of the rest is displacing natural gas and nuclear power. Coal power is growing rapidly. [6,8]Here's what the weekly generation profile is predicted to look like in 2020:[22]Notice the saw-tooth shape of the big grey "conventional" (coal/gas) category. What all this solar is doing is eating into is daytime base load generation, which seems good for displacing fossil fuels, but in the long run it's doing the opposite.The majority of electricity worldwide comes from coal and nuclear base load plants. They are big, efficient, and cheap. But base load generation is extremely difficult and expensive to throttle up and down every day. To simplify the issue a bit, you cannot ramp nuclear plants as fast as solar swings up and down every day. It takes several days to shut down and restart a nuclear plant, and nuclear plants outside France are not designed to be throttled back, so nuclear cannot be paired with the daily oscillations of PV solar. Supply is unable to match demand. You end up with both gaps and overages.Most people think Germany is decommissioning its nuclear fleet because of the Fukushima accident, but the Germans didn't really have a choice. They are being forced to stop using nuclear power by all the variability in solar output. That's a big, big problem -- Germany gets four times more electricity from nuclear than solar, so the math doesn't add up. The generation time-profile is wrong, and the total power output from solar is too low. They have to replace nuclear plants with something else.The normal way to handle variable power demand is via natural gas "peaker" plants. But Germany has minimal domestic natural gas resources and load-following gas plants are very expensive to operate, so what they're doing is building more coal plants, and re-opening old ones. [6,8,22] It's expensive and inefficient, but you can run a coal plant all night and then throttle it back when the sun comes up. It has better load-following capabilities than nuclear (although worse than gas). The German Green Party has been fighting nuclear power since the 1970s, and has finally won. Nuclear is out, and coal is in.If you're a regular follower of my writing, you'll know what a terrible idea this is. [23] Replacing nuclear power with coal power is unquestionably the most scientifically-illiterate, ass-backwards, and deadly mistake that any group of environmentalists has ever made. It's unbelievable how much cleaner and safer nuclear power is than coal power. The Fukushima meltdown was pretty much a "worst case scenario" -- one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded, the largest tsunami to ever hit Japan, seven reactor meltdowns and three hydrogen explosions -- and not a single person has died from radiation poisoning. [24] The expected lifetime increase in cancer rates due to the released radiation is somewhere between zero and a number too small to measure. [25] Even spectacular nuclear disasters are barely harmful to the public. Studies are now showing that the stress from the evacuation has killed more people than would have been killed by radiation if everyone had just stayed in place. [26,27]In comparison, coal power kills about a million people per year, fills the oceans with mercury and arsenic, releases more carbon dioxide than any other human activity, and is arguably one of the greatest environmental evils of the industrialized world. [23]This is counter-intuitive, but second-order effects are enormously important. Expansion of photovoltaic solar power past 1-2% of total electricity demand means less nuclear, and more coal. The amount of damage this does completely overwhelms the environmental benefit from the solar panels themselves. You have to avoid building so much solar power that it destabilizes and eliminates other clean power sources. When you get to the "duck chart" stage, things start to get bad. Otherwise you'll end up worse off than when you started, as Germany has found out to its dismay.So that all sucks a lot. German solar power is hurting people and the planet. But there's more.Issue 4: The kickerThe category for "biomass" power you see in all these charts is actually firewood being burned in coal plants. 38% of Germany's "renewable energy" comes from chopping down forests and importing wood from other countries. [28] Effing firewood, like we're back in the Middle Ages or something. Due to overzealous renewables targets, and a quirk in the EU carbon pricing system that considers firewood carbon-neutral, Europe is chopping down forests at an alarming rate to burn them as "renewable biomass." The environmental movement has spent most of the last 200 years of industrialization trying to fight deforestation, and that noble goal has been reversed in an instant by bogus carbon emission calculations.In the very long run, over 100 years or so, firewood is close to carbon neutral because you can regrow the trees and they absorb CO2 as they grow. Unfortunately, using firewood for fuel destroys a living carbon sink and releases all its carbon to the atmosphere right now. When you consider that you're destroying a carbon sink as well as releasing stored carbon, firewood is actually much worse than coal for many decades thereafter. [28] The next few decades is humanity's most critical time for reducing carbon emissions, so this policy is mind-boggling lunacy.Germany is so focused on meeting renewables targets that it is willing to trample the environment to get there. They've managed to make renewables unsustainable! It's tragicomic.To summarize: Energiewende is the worst possible example of how to implement an energy transition. The overzealous push for the wrong generation technology has hurt citizens, businesses, and the environment all at the same time.I want to make it clear that I'm not saying we should abandon solar. It should definitely be part of our generation mix. Due a mix of bad climate and bad policy, Germany ran into problems at a very low solar penetration, and other countries will be able to reach higher penetrations. But even if we ignore cost, there is still a maximum practical limit to solar power based on the realities of grid management.You can't build more PV solar than the rest of the grid can ramp up/down to accept. The necessary grid storage for large-scale solar power is a "maybe someday" technology, not something viable today. Calls for 50% of power to come from solar in our lifetimes are a fantasy, and we need to be realistic about that.You can't force utilities to buy unneeded power just because it's renewable. The energy and materials to build the excess capacity just goes to waste. That is the opposite of green.We have to learn those lessons. We can't sweep this failure under the rug.Every time a renewables advocate holds Germany up as a shining beacon, they set back the credibility of the environmental movement. It's unsupported by reality and I think even gives ammunition to the enemy. We have to stop praising Germany's Energiesheiße and figure out better ways to implement renewables. Other models should work better. They have to -- the future of the world depends on it.[1] Solar power by country[2] Germany's Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good - SPIEGEL ONLINE[3] German 'green revolution' may cost 1 trillion euros - minister[4] Global Warming Targets and Capital Costs of Germany's 'Energiewende'[5] Germany's 'Energiewende' - the story so far[6] Germany: Coal Power Expanding, Green Energy Stagnating[7] Merkel's Blackout: German Energy Plan Plagued by Lack of Progress - SPIEGEL ONLINE[8] Merkel’s Green Shift Backfires as German Pollution Jumps[9] Capacity factor, Price per watt[10] German Solar Installations Coming In at $2.24 per Watt Installed, US at $4.44[11] It Keeps Getting Cheaper To Install Solar Panels In The U.S.[12] Germany Breaks Monthly Solar Generation Record, ~6.5 Times More Than US Best[13] Germany and Renewables Market Changes (source link in original article is broken, here is an updated link:http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp...)[14] Cost of German Solar Is Four Times Finnish Nuclear -- Olkiluoto Nuclear Plant, Plagued by Budget Overruns, Still Beats Germany’s Energiewende[15] 313 MWp German PV Capacity Added in July 2013 - 34.5 GWp Total[16] EEG Account: 5,907 GWh of Renewable Energy in August Sold for EUR 37.75 at Expenses of EUR 399.52 per MWh - EUR 540 Million Deficit[17] Germany will dilute - not abandon - its Energiewende plan[18] German power exports more valuable than its imports[19] Ryan Carlyle's answer to How large would an array of solar panels have to be to power the continental US? How much would such an array cost to build? What are the major engineering obstacles to powering the US this way?[20] Electricity demand response shows promise in Germany[21] Energiewende in Germany and Solar Energy[22] Problems with Renewables and the Markets[23] Ryan Carlyle's answer to What are some policies that would improve millions of lives, but people still oppose? Why do people oppose them? What is the one area where you wish politicians and the public would pay attention to scientific consensus or other data?[24] Stephen Frantz's answer to What is a nuclear supporter's response to the Fukushima disaster?[25] Fukushima Cancer Fears Are Absurd[26] Evacuation ‘Fukushima’ deadlier then radiation[27] Was It Better to Stay at Fukushima or Flee?[28] The fuel of the future[29] Fowl Play: how the utility industry’s ability to outsmart a duck will define the power grid of the 21st century

TL;DR — you need a big oil tank to put it in if you are going to buy a forward contract for oil, whereas you need a brokerage account to trade it if you are going to buy a futures contract for oil.Futures contracts are a specific form of security one can buy, sell, and otherwise speculate on via regular exchanges just like stock shares, or like options and other derivatives. They have standardized terms, they are highly regulated, and they exist only for publicly-traded stock, foreign currency, and fixed set of well-defined commodities for which there are defined standards (e.g. grades of oil, frozen concentrated orange juice, and so on). As an instrument, the value of a future is the difference between the market price of the thing on any given date, and the price at which the future was struck. Although “contract” is in the name, that is largely besides the point. Stock ownership is a contract issue too. But futures are a standardized financial product, you don’t have to read the contract to know what you are getting and hardly anyone does. Because the exchange guarantees the validity of the instrument, there is no contract risk or enforcement requirement. Most people never intend to actually take delivery, they settle the contract out for cash at or before maturity. They are “marked-to-market”, meaning the value is computed every night, so you always know what the trading price will be.Forwards, by contrast, are highly specialized contracts that can be negotiated on just about anything — public or private stock, any commodity, a car, a piano, a particular condominium. At the core, it is an agreement between a buyer and seller to pay for an item today and receive delivery at some future date, or alternately, to pay and take delivery at that future date. There is no option on whether or not to buy it, no provision for early termination, and no right of “booking out” the contract for cash (though the parties are always free to agree to that in the future, anything is fair if both parties agree). There are a few template documents and common versions knocking around, but in theory a forward can be individually drafted and negotiated, and could say just about anything, subject to some regulatory limits. They are not settled via exchanges or other clearing services, they must be privately enforced by the parties. So unlike a future, which behaves like a security and can be placed into a brokerage account, a forward behaves more like a written purchase contract you stuff into your file drawer, cloud storage, blockchain, etc. You need to hire a lawyer or broker, or really know what you are doing, or both, to deal with forwards.Both instruments may be used by producers, buyers, and funds as a hedging device to reduce risk. For example, a power plant that will need a lot of oil in the winter may buy oil futures so that if the price of oil goes up they hold some securities that they can sell at a profit to offset the hit they would take from higher supply cost. They could get the same result by entering a forward contract with a specific oil distributor to ship them a set amount of oil down the pipeline for a cost negotiated months ahead of time. Futures are a further step removed from the actual thing being sold — the seller doesn’t actually have to own any of it and the seller doesn’t have to use it. So futures, unlike forwards, are often used purely by speculation by parties that have no direct connection with the subject of the contract.