Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The most important issue has to be CLIMATE CHANGE? (Original Post) Live and Learn Feb 2016 OP
Yep. deathrind Feb 2016 #1
What is the first? nt Live and Learn Feb 2016 #2
IMO. deathrind Feb 2016 #3
I'm still going with climate change. nt Live and Learn Feb 2016 #4
It's not far... deathrind Feb 2016 #5
And climate change could well lead to a nuclear war over resources which could take us out first. nt Live and Learn Feb 2016 #7
Do you know what the consequences of a limited nuclear exchange would be on CC? kristopher Feb 2016 #8
That would threaten a city but not the entire planet. n/t Motown_Johnny Feb 2016 #6
Understood. deathrind Feb 2016 #9

deathrind

(1,786 posts)
5. It's not far...
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 09:05 AM
Feb 2016

...behind in 2nd place IMO. Climate change is a chronic immanent threat to humanity on a global scale. The change already coming that we can do nothing about is going to be disasterous. But if we don't do something soon it will be catastrophic over the next 100yrs.

From an acute standpoint a nuclear weapon in the wrong hands and the follow on actions that leaders might take in response only slightly trumps what climate change is gonna do.

Having said that from standpoint of "what is gonna happen" vs "what might happen" Climate change is certainly in first place on that point.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
8. Do you know what the consequences of a limited nuclear exchange would be on CC?
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 09:18 AM
Feb 2016
4d. Effects of nuclear energy on nuclear war and terrorism damage

Because the production of nuclear weapons material is occurring only in countries that have developed civilian nuclear energy programs, the risk of a limited nuclear exchange between coun- tries or the detonation of a nuclear device by terrorists has increased due to the dissemination of nuclear energy facilities worldwide. As such, it is a valid exercise to estimate the potential number of immediate deaths and carbon emissions due to the burning of buildings and infrastructure associated with the proliferation of nuclear energy facilities and the resulting proliferation of nuclear weapons. The number of deaths and carbon emissions, though, must be multiplied by a probability range of an exchange or explosion occurring to estimate the overall risk of nuclear energy proliferation. Although concern at the time of an explosion will be the deaths and not carbon emissions, policy makers today must weigh all the potential future risks of mortality and carbon emissions when comparing energy sources.

Here, we detail the link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons and estimate the emissions of nuclear explosions attributable to nuclear energy. The primary limitation to building a nuclear weapon is the availability of purified fission- able fuel (highly-enriched uranium or plutonium).68 Worldwide, nine countries have known nuclear weapons stockpiles (US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea). In addition, Iran is pursuing uranium enrichment, and 32 other countries have sufficient fissionable material to produce weapons. Among the 42 countries with fissionable material, 22 have facilities as part of their civilian nuclear energy program, either to produce highly-enriched uranium or to separate plutonium, and facilities in 13 countries are active.68 Thus, the ability of states to produce nuclear weapons today follows directly from their ability to produce nuclear power. In fact, producing material for a weapon requires merely operating a civilian nuclear power plant together with a sophisticated plutonium separation facility. The Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has been signed by 190 countries. However, international treaties safeguard only about 1% of the world’s highly-enriched uranium and 35% of the world’s plutonium.68 Currently, about 30 000 nuclear warheads exist worldwide, with 95% in the US and Russia, but enough refined and unrefined material to produce another 100 000 weapons.69

The explosion of fifty 15 kt nuclear devices (a total of 1.5 MT, or 0.1% of the yields proposed for a full-scale nuclear war) during a limited nuclear exchange in megacities could burn 63–313 Tg of fuel, adding 1–5 Tg of soot to the atmosphere, much of it to the stratosphere, and killing 2.6–16.7 million people.68 The soot emissions would cause significant short- and medium-term regional cooling.70 Despite short-term cooling, the CO2 emissions would cause long-term warming, as they do with biomass burning.62 The CO2 emissions from such a conflict are estimated here from the fuel burn rate and the carbon content of fuels. Materials have the following carbon contents: plastics, 38–92%; tires and other rubbers, 59–91%; synthetic fibers, 63–86%;71 woody biomass, 41–45%; charcoal, 71%;72 asphalt, 80%; steel, 0.05–2%. We approximate roughly the carbon content of all combustible material in a city as 40–60%. Applying these percentages to the fuel burn gives CO2 emissions during an exchange as 92–690 Tg CO2. The annual electricity production due to nuclear energy in 2005 was 2768 TWh yr 1. If one nuclear exchange as described above occurs over the next 30 yr, the net carbon emissions due to nuclear weapons prolif- eration caused by the expansion of nuclear energy worldwide would be 1.1–4.1 g CO2 kWh 1, where the energy generation assumed is the annual 2005 generation for nuclear power multiplied by the number of yr being considered. This emission rate depends on the probability of a nuclear exchange over a given period and the strengths of nuclear devices used. Here, we bound the probability of the event occurring over 30 yr as between 0 and 1 to give the range of possible emissions for one such event as 0 to 4.1 g CO2 kWh 1. This emission rate is placed in context in Table 3.


Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security†
Mark Z. Jacobson*


Not disagreeing with you, just informing the discussion.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The most important issue ...