In the Event of WW3, Oil and/or Renewables?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

I hope the members approve of this discussion topic.  It would seem timely, as sad as that may be to say.  But I believe this discussion is relevant to the world and the times we live in. 

Given current world affairs, one must ask oneself, IF we were to reach 100% of power generation, or even 70%, from renewables (mainly wind, solar and hydro) and then be thrust into a battle for the survival of our country, would renewables and the renewables infrastructure of, say, 10 years from now get the job done?  Would we be able to rely on renewables for 1/2 the job?  Or would they fail to provide more than, say, 10% of our Nation's needs during a protracted world war, or even the possibility of global nuclear war?  For that matter, if we suffered from a global nuclear war, would that drive everything, or say over 90%, to renewables?

To kick things off, if a real biological attack were launched against the United States in 2025, with 20% (67.6 million) of the U.S. population dead within 2 weeks of the attack, which power generation system would we be able to even maintain for domestic supply of electricity, and heat for the northern portion of the U.S.?  Oil or Renewables?  Both?  (I'd like to take this discussion all the way out to a situation where nuclear war may darken the skies for a long period of time, but that will be up to the participants)

A topic worth discussion?  Or one which we should lock away into the hole of "let's not go there"?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Interesting point.

Would renewables allow us to project force outside our borders? Whether you think that the US should operate overseas or not, we are often called on to do so.

Do we have, or are we developing electric armored vehicles? Electric combat aircraft or drones? An all nuclear Navy?

Without fossil fuels, we would not be able to defend our own country, as it now stands.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Possibly in the Navy, with the expanded use of nuclear?  But I assume there is a limit to how small a craft can realistically have some sort of reactor on board?  Maybe we could power smaller craft with batteries, with the aircraft carrier acting as the charging station?  Seems risky.  If the carrier was destroyed, the whole flotilla would be rendered useless.  I don't think you would want/need a separate nuclear charging station ship, since it would require the same defenses that a carrier already requires.  Or maybe reactors of today are small enough that your could spread "charging station" ships across a grid, more expendable and harmless to the environment if attacked?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

The whole idea of an electric military machine is farsical.

[Hotone + 412]

4 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

I hope the members approve of this discussion topic.  It would seem timely, as sad as that may be to say.  But I believe this discussion is relevant to the world and the times we live in. 

Given current world affairs, one must ask oneself, IF we were to reach 100% of power generation, or even 70%, from renewables (mainly wind, solar and hydro) and then be thrust into a battle for the survival of our country, would renewables and the renewables infrastructure of, say, 10 years from now get the job done?  Would we be able to rely on renewables for 1/2 the job?  Or would they fail to provide more than, say, 10% of our Nation's needs during a protracted world war, or even the possibility of global nuclear war?  For that matter, if we suffered from a global nuclear war, would that drive everything, or say over 90%, to renewables?

To kick things off, if a real biological attack were launched against the United States in 2025, with 20% (67.6 million) of the U.S. population dead within 2 weeks of the attack, which power generation system would we be able to even maintain for domestic supply of electricity, and heat for the northern portion of the U.S.?  Oil or Renewables?  Both?  (I'd like to take this discussion all the way out to a situation where nuclear war may darken the skies for a long period of time, but that will be up to the participants)

A topic worth discussion?  Or one which we should lock away into the hole of "let's not go there"?

Well, this site predicts that 227 million Americans will be gone by 2025, and the world loses 500 million in total.  Doesn't give any reasons why.

I also checked China on this site and they didn't lose any people, so it doesn't seem like there will be a war between US and China. Ditto Russia.

http://www.deagel.com/country/United-States-of-America_c0001.aspx

Edited June 6, 2020 by Hotone

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 minutes ago, Hotone said:

Well, this site predicts that 226 million Americans will be gone by 2025.  Doesn't give any reasons why.

http://www.deagel.com/country/United-States-of-America_c0001.aspx

That site's projections are based on their belief that the Dems will gain the White House this year and immediately implement a 0.32 children per child-bearing-approved-aged couple (23-23.5 years of age) per demi-decade policy, together with the gift of the fly-over states to Mexico in consideration of an annual payment to Mexico of $5 Trillion and Mexico's promise to feed the remaining 4 United States for another $2 Trillion.  

[Hotone + 412]

11 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

That site's projections are based on their belief that the Dems will gain the White House this year and immediately implement a 0.32 children per child-bearing-approved-aged couple (23-23.5 years of age) per demi-decade policy, together with the gift of the fly-over states to Mexico in consideration of an annual payment to Mexico of $5 Trillion and Mexico's promise to feed the remaining 4 United States for another $2 Trillion.  

Finally, someone figured out something puzzling me for a long time 😅

[0R0 + 6,251]

Would have to be predominantly liquid fuel, as both NG and electric/renewables are big networks asking to be hit. Oil and LNG are mobile and do not require a grid or pipelines. Can be transported anywhere.

In the case of nuclear attacks, the solar contribution globally would be minimal. Same for a major volcanic eruption. You can't decommission the fossil fuel and nuclear baseload. It has to stay, at least to cover the solar contribution. There are no alternatives for that but for stacking year's worth of batteries, not a real possibility.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

11 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

Would have to be predominantly liquid fuel, as both NG and electric/renewables are big networks asking to be hit. Oil and LNG are mobile and do not require a grid or pipelines. Can be transported anywhere.

In the case of nuclear attacks, the solar contribution globally would be minimal. Same for a major volcanic eruption. You can't decommission the fossil fuel and nuclear baseload. It has to stay, at least to cover the solar contribution. There are no alternatives for that but for stacking year's worth of batteries, not a real possibility.

Good points.

In the case of nuclear attacks, would wind turbines be knocked offline by EMPs?  If so, could they recover quickly, or at all?

Same questions for refineries and carbon fueled powerplants?

Edited June 6, 2020 by Dan Warnick

[0R0 + 6,251]

10 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Good points.

In the case of nuclear attacks, would wind turbines be knocked offline by EMPs?  If so, could they recover quickly, or at all?

Same questions for refineries and carbon fueled powerplants?

EMPs would affect everything. It is a matter of what gets hit by the surge in the grid. Presumably the refiners operate off grid at alert conditions. Major generation and pipeline hubs are targets. possibly refiners, Oil fields are not. Only the Russians can waste a nuke for broad area denial of access attacks with a dirty bomb, China would need a hard target to hit.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

I'm interested to get @Jay McKinsey's views on the questions as well.  Specifically, what positives about renewables, in the event of a WW3 scenario, could prove themselves during such a time/conflict?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

EMPs would affect everything. It is a matter of what gets hit by the surge in the grid. Presumably the refiners operate off grid at alert conditions. Major generation and pipeline hubs are targets. possibly refiners, Oil fields are not. Only the Russians can waste a nuke for broad area denial of access attacks with a dirty bomb, China would need a hard target to hit.

You lost me with "what gets hit by the surge in the grid".  Could you explain what you mean by this?  Does it mean that EMPs create a grid surge of electricity that could be driven into the powerplant, causing overloads and burnouts?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

And back to wind turbines:  My understanding of them is that the spinning blades turn an electricity generator, located in the hub at the top of the structure, with the produced electricity fed down to feed into a grid or storage facility.  If the generators were hit with EMPs, would they get "fried", and therefore need heavy parts replacement?  Or would it be a minor task to get them running again?

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

29 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

You lost me with "what gets hit by the surge in the grid".  Could you explain what you mean by this?  Does it mean that EMPs create a grid surge of electricity that could be driven into the powerplant, causing overloads and burnouts?

That's close enough to what happens. EMP blasts don't need conductors, they'll produce radio waves with tremendous energy behind them. You know that FCC part 15 message you read on virtually every electronic device? That's what will get effected, the EMP will deliver potentially megawatts of RF energy right near the blast. That will happily traverse the grid blowing every transformer along the way. 

Even things not connected to power, but configured to receive such as radios, are likely to be fried. The likelihood is quite high that most semiconductors will be fried. That means lots of things will no longer function, like any modern car. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

I guess one has to understand the concept of MADD, no matter who launched it would be the end of that countrys civilization..culture what ever one wants to call it. Aside from that one has to understand the concept of Triad, along with the stockpiles of nuclear device across the world.

Nuclear war is a means to a end for any country...taticial strikes are for those that like marketing...just words. Ive often thought of China testing the waters with a conventional navy strike then one has to ask to prove what? 

One thing Obama did get right was the navy....in todays world war on the seas would be a standoff missile warfare no direct engagement..

Always remember the US has 7000 warheads China 250....China has no wish to self destruct nor does any country on this planet..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad

With that mouthful there is not much defence we have in a geo polictical storm...that is the new frontier.

Edited June 7, 2020 by Eyes Wide Open

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

11 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

I'm interested to get @Jay McKinsey's views on the questions as well.  Specifically, what positives about renewables, in the event of a WW3 scenario, could prove themselves during such a time/conflict?

A nuke into Cushing, Henry Hub, and some of the big refinery complexes and power stations would take out fossil energy.  Solar and wind are very dispersed, what would the enemy target to nock them out?

Ultimately I don't think any energy system or the population to use it will really survive nukes flying so the question is academic. But the best answer I think would be to have as many energy types and locations as possible so that more would survive. 

In regard to bio weapons and huge loss of life it comes down to which is more manpower intensive. I don't know which is though my guess is fossil requires more workers.

[El Gato + 254]

The safest Energy systems are probably is hydro and Natural gas .Natural gas because most of the system is under ground and also because with the advent of cheap gas many small power generators have been set up across the gas generating states. Dams are just a booger to take out unless you have high explosives or a crappy dam and really bad weather.

Nuclear ships in the Navy are currently limited to Subs and Aircraft carriers. They made about 10 nuclear powered Destroyer and cruisers, but all were phased out either due to obsolescence in technology or the cost of running them. The last set of nuclear cruisers were laid up after an average of 15 yrs service due to operating costs. They use them on Subs for fuel endurance and speed.(Primarily endurance), and Carriers because it saves you room for jet fuel(ie flight operations) and power production for speed and generation

The Gentlemen who said EMP as the most likely form of attack is the ones I agree with the most. If it isn't military grade shielded on any and all circuits, it would be cooked. There is a book out written by an former Army officer called One Second After that describes it well. The blast could be delivered from missiles launched from cargo containers imported on ships.(how many containers have you seen floating around the country on trains, trucks and ships?) The Club-K family of Missiles is the name of them

Good Bio weapons are a Bitch to use due to the instability of virus' and bacteria, and their ability to affect the users.(not to mention that Chinese and Russian Bio-weapons expert develop weapons they have no known cure from, confirmed from a former defected Russian Bio-weapons expert)

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, El Gato said:

The safest Energy systems are probably is hydro and Natural gas .Natural gas because most of the system is under ground and also because with the advent of cheap gas many small power generators have been set up across the gas generating states. Dams are just a booger to take out unless you have high explosives or a crappy dam and really bad weather.

Nuclear ships in the Navy are currently limited to Subs and Aircraft carriers. They made about 10 nuclear powered Destroyer and cruisers, but all were phased out either due to obsolescence in technology or the cost of running them. The last set of nuclear cruisers were laid up after an average of 15 yrs service due to operating costs. They use them on Subs for fuel endurance and speed.(Primarily endurance), and Carriers because it saves you room for jet fuel(ie flight operations) and power production for speed and generation

The Gentlemen who said EMP as the most likely form of attack is the ones I agree with the most. If it isn't military grade shielded on any and all circuits, it would be cooked. There is a book out written by an former Army officer called One Second After that describes it well. The blast could be delivered from missiles launched from cargo containers imported on ships.(how many containers have you seen floating around the country on trains, trucks and ships?) The Club-K family of Missiles is the name of them

Good Bio weapons are a Bitch to use due to the instability of virus' and bacteria, and their ability to affect the users.(not to mention that Chinese and Russian Bio-weapons expert develop weapons they have no known cure from, confirmed from a former defected Russian Bio-weapons expert)

Aren't all inbound containers scanned for radioactivity?

[El Gato + 254]

Not if the right people are paid, and it isn't real hard to drive one over the border. I can't speak for all of them, but I imagine with all of the inbound goods to the US, they can't scan them all. Air, sea land, logistically, no way. Seeing as how the US nails Intellectuals every other month for selling national or military secrets, how much would it take to pay off a few dock workers or border patrol? Not saying they are all culpable, but everybody usually has a price.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

You cannot do guerrilla in mountain, underground or forest with solar energy. You can hide smoke or light or anything but your panel have to face the sun for charging. Fossil fuel will still be the most important in war for its mobility. Half of the war is in the logistics and supply side. You cannot defense a long line of supply from air strike unless you can disguise your supply line in the forests. That's why the bombing in Vietnam war was mostly in the forest and the use of agent orange. 

And the way for the large devices that depends on circuit, it is very hard to repair compares to traditional engines and in war the more mini products in your supply lines, the harder to distribute them. 

Missile are too expensive to strike in cheap targets so the frontier will still be foot soldiers, tanks and artillery , Missile can only create an opening or hard to reach land targets far behind the frontiers (bombing in most case will still be cheaper if you have air superiority).

Edited June 7, 2020 by SUZNV

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

56 minutes ago, SUZNV said:

You cannot do guerrilla in mountain, underground or forest with solar energy. You can hide smoke or light or anything but your panel have to face the sun for charging. Fossil fuel will still be the most important in war for its mobility. Half of the war is in the logistics and supply side. You cannot defense a long line of supply from air strike unless you can disguise your supply line in the forests. That's why the bombing in Vietnam war was mostly in the forest and the use of agent orange. 

And the way for the large devices that depends on circuit, it is very hard to repair compares to traditional engines and in war the more mini products in your supply lines, the harder to distribute them. 

This is kind of what I'm interested in.  In a fight for survival of the country, it seems we would be talking about the ability to defend one's territory over a long period of time.  In order to do that one's military on the ground would need to be mobile and, as many are pointing out, well supplied.  Being mobile in that scenario would seem to negate any significant advantage from wind or solar.

However, from the perspective of nuclear attack survivors, it would seem viable if not preferable to have mini solar systems, say enough to charge batteries and the like.  Is there a small mobile system that could be packed up nightly and moved with a small group of people?  One might be able to use gas/diesel/kerosene for a short while until storage tanks run dry, but I believe the military would control any remaining production facilities and product, so it seems a mini solar system might be the survivalists savior?  I guess firewood would also be a basic necessity, as always.

[0R0 + 6,251]

4 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

You lost me with "what gets hit by the surge in the grid".  Could you explain what you mean by this?  Does it mean that EMPs create a grid surge of electricity that could be driven into the powerplant, causing overloads and burnouts?

There would be the grid equipment itself, particularly transformers and electronic switches, then what is attached on the producing and consuming side. Electronic controls would be fried by the EMP itself if they are close enough to it, but the entire grid will convey the surge well beyond the EMP zone. There you need to worry about the generation equipment and the equipment consuming the power - e.g. a server farm might have a Faraday cage against EMP but needs to be operating off the grid on battery or generator power during  the attack.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

That's close enough to what happens. EMP blasts don't need conductors, they'll produce radio waves with tremendous energy behind them. You know that FCC part 15 message you read on virtually every electronic device? That's what will get effected, the EMP will deliver potentially megawatts of RF energy right near the blast. That will happily traverse the grid blowing every transformer along the way. 

Even things not connected to power, but configured to receive such as radios, are likely to be fried. The likelihood is quite high that most semiconductors will be fried. That means lots of things will no longer function, like any modern car. 

EMP blows PV solar cells and their inverters will guaranteed to be fried as well.  Only reason Wind power can exist is with computer control.  EMP will destroy that for sure.  Now you can partially insulate against EMP, but at HIGH cost.  None of these systems or any of our NG/Coal/Nuclear generators are safe from EMP.  Hydro?  Yes, is safe.  Maybe some of the Nuclear generators are as well due to effectively being buried under concrete, but... the rest is screwed as is just about everything else including your cars.  Cars/trucks more than 30 years old have a chance, but anything else?  Dead.  100% dead. 

[Hotone + 412]

12 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

That site's projections are based on their belief that the Dems will gain the White House this year and immediately implement a 0.32 children per child-bearing-approved-aged couple (23-23.5 years of age) per demi-decade policy, together with the gift of the fly-over states to Mexico in consideration of an annual payment to Mexico of $5 Trillion and Mexico's promise to feed the remaining 4 United States for another $2 Trillion.  

People have been speculating on Deagel's prediction for years.  Deagel themselves claim that their prediction is based on calamity, economic collapse, mass exodus, and not war.  Here is a video of someone analysing Deagel's prediction last year, before the Chinese virus hit America

Who knows, Trump will get re-elected for a second term. Listen to a continuation from Mike Moore's talk and his prediction.😱

Edited June 7, 2020 by Hotone

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Now that's ^^ the Michael Moore we're all used to.  Bless his heart.  He means well.