Nuclear winter

Higgenbotham
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: Nuclear winter

Post by Higgenbotham »

“This assessment indicates that the failure of a large number of bulk-power transformers due to thermal damage from E3 is unlikely. But the study results should not be interpreted to indicate that it is not a potential problem since impacts related to widespread outages due to voltage collapse are still being investigated,” he said.

In April 2016, EPRI, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), started a comprehensive three-year research project to provide a technical basis by which electric companies can address the HEMP threat by evaluating potential impacts, hardening and mitigation options, and recovery plans.
http://www.tdworld.com/distribution/epr ... etic-pulse
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.

Higgenbotham
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: Nuclear winter

Post by Higgenbotham »

My personal opinion is that without widespread damage to hard-to-replace transformers in the power grid, it will not be possible to get a 90% kill rate within 1 year from an EMP attack alone.
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.

Trevor
Posts: 1209
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:43 am

Re: Nuclear winter

Post by Trevor »

I've done plenty of reading on this, some for my own interests, some for a book I'm hoping to get published this year. The mass casualties from emp comes from the assumption that everything will be destroyed: all cars, all electronics, all transformers, all replacements, whether the equipment is on or off.

I'm aware of Joseph Tainter and he's spent years predicting a total collapse of global civilization.

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Nuclear winter

Post by John »

Trevor wrote: > I've done plenty of reading on this, some for my own interests,
> some for a book I'm hoping to get published this year. The mass
> casualties from emp comes from the assumption that everything will
> be destroyed: all cars, all electronics, all transformers, all
> replacements, whether the equipment is on or off.

> I'm aware of Joseph Tainter and he's spent years predicting a
> total collapse of global civilization.

OK, Trevor, here's the thing that really bothers me.

I keep hearing that a SINGLE emp blast at high altitude above Kansas
would fry all the electronics in the country, from California to
Maine.

I keep hearing this all the time, but it's simply not credible to me.

I can't believe that these emp blasts have an effective range of more
than a few miles.

In fact, if the emp blast were at such a high altitude that California
and Maine were even visible over the horizon, then I find it hard to
believe that even Kansas would be affected.

So what's the truth here?

Higgenbotham
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: Nuclear winter

Post by Higgenbotham »

Fundamentally, I believe an estimate of the strength of the electromagnetic field that the blast generates at ground level would be needed. It the equipment is off, I believe an EMF can still induce a current and voltage in the device, but it would be harder to damage the device than if it were on.
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Nuclear winter

Post by John »

Higgenbotham wrote: > Fundamentally, I believe an estimate of the strength of the
> electromagnetic field that the blast generates at ground level
> would be needed. It the equipment is off, I believe an EMF can
> still induce a current and voltage in the device, but it would be
> harder to damage the device than if it were on.
Sooooooooo, if there's an emp blast above Kansas, will it
affect California and Maine, or not?

Higgenbotham
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: Nuclear winter

Post by Higgenbotham »

John wrote:
Higgenbotham wrote: > Fundamentally, I believe an estimate of the strength of the
> electromagnetic field that the blast generates at ground level
> would be needed. It the equipment is off, I believe an EMF can
> still induce a current and voltage in the device, but it would be
> harder to damage the device than if it were on.
Sooooooooo, if there's an emp blast above Kansas, will it
affect California and Maine, or not?
It can if the EMF that is generated is strong enough and the blast is high enough. Off the top of my head, I don't know how to estimate the EMF from a nuclear blast as a function of blast size and distance. EPRI said they modeled the blast to estimate the effect on the transformers in the power grid, so they probably would have done those estimates. Another helpful piece of information might be how much the energy of a solar flare dissipates as it travels. We know the strength of an electromagnetic field that is stationary varies inversely with the square of the distance but I don't think that applies if it travels as a pulse or wave. Given that EPRI started this project in 2016 as a 3 year project, my guess is some very smart people tried to do some back of the envelope calculations and decided the didn't know whether an EMP can take the grid down or not.
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.

thomasglee
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:07 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Nuclear winter

Post by thomasglee »

Several years ago cell phone communications, power transmission, and other technologies were interrupted along the north/South Korean border by North Korea when they were testing some EMP weapons. After the interruptions, the ROK planned a massive program to "harden" all public buildings. However, I am not sure if they ever followed through on it or not. So the threat is real and has been put on display, to some extent.

In my opinion, the numbers that project a massive "die off" are dreamt up under the impression that NO outside, unaffected countries would come to our aid. I find that very difficult to believe. And as John mentions, our nation is known for being resourceful, when necessary. While I do worry about an EMP attack, I don't worry as much as some. Living where I live in Texas (west of DFW) is cattle country, and there are many, many high-fenced whitetail deer breeders in the area. Glad I moved back here! ;)
Psalm 34:4 - “I sought the Lord, and he answered me and delivered me from all my fears.”

Higgenbotham
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: Nuclear winter

Post by Higgenbotham »

An EMP attack isn't high on my list of worries either. That's because there are easier (and probably much more reliable - with emphasis on the word "much") ways to create havoc.

I'd posted a little bit about Buffett's meeting over the weekend in the other thread. Buffett is an insurance man. Along this vein, I believe he said in the meeting that he estimates a 2% yearly chance of a cyber attack that causes greater than $400 billion in damage. I believe he also said that is his number one worry.
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Nuclear winter

Post by John »

Higgenbotham wrote: > We know the strength of an electromagnetic field that is
> stationary varies inversely with the square of the distance but I
> don't think that applies if it travels as a pulse or wave.
Unless someone has figured out how to violate the laws of
thermodynamics and conservation of energy, the effective strength of
an emp attack must vary invesely with the square of the distance as
well. The only way that this could be violated is if the emp attack
is targeted -- that is, if the attack is a vector targeting a single
city. But if the emp attack is supposed to attack the entire country
from California to Washington to Maine to Florida, then all of the
energy from the emt explosion would have to be spread over the entire
3.5 million square miles. So if the strength of the emp explosion is
X, then the strength of the attack per square mile is X/3.5 million.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests