2023 Date Line
Proprietary: Not publicly disseminated

First, let’s talk about what is global warming. Since the Industrial Revolution, the global annual temperature has increased in total by a little more than about 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Between 1880—the year that accurate recordkeeping began—and 1980, it rose on average by 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit every 10 years. Since 1981, however, the rate of increase has more than doubled: For the last 40 years, we’ve seen the global annual temperature rise by 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit, per decade.

What it means is that the earth has never been hotter in terms of man’s historic memory, about 10,000 years. Nine of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have occurred since 2005—and the 5 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2015. People on the other side of this issue have argued that there has been a “pause” or a “slowdown” in rising global temperatures, but numerous studies have shown otherwise.

Now the scientists that believe in global warming say that we must limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2040 if we are to avoid a future in which everyday life around the world is marked by its worst, most devastating effects: the extreme droughts, wildfires, floods, tropical storms, and other disasters that we refer to collectively as climate change.

We should not knowingly be polluting our planet __ and passing on the social costs to future generations

We should not knowingly be polluting our planet __ and passing on the social costs to future generations

The first thing you must realize to understand global warming is that everything in our universe is a complex system, whether it’s the birth of stars, or an infinitely small microbe or virus. It’s complex with millions and billions of interactions going on. The earth itself is a complex system of such magnitude that no single massive supercomputer or thousands of them strung together could even begin to deal with all of the inputs necessary to build a true model of how this planet operates.

We therefore believe that it is far better not to think in terms of global warming but instead to frame this problem if in fact, it is a problem as pollution of our planet potentially leads to global warming. We think all of us including members of the political right and left can get behind the banner of we should not be knowingly polluting our planet and leaving it this way for our descendants to be dealing with in the decades and centuries ahead. Instead of keeping this issue in the political arena and choosing sides we probably can all agree that a less polluted planet is a healthier planet and if that deters the negative outcome of a hotter planet, then that is a very good thing. So let’s down to basics based on our strong understanding of technology in the 21st century.

Electric Cars

In 15 U.S. states last year, coal was used to generate electricity more than any other energy source. Twenty years earlier, in 2001, coal was the largest source of electricity generation in 32 states. The United States has shifted away from coal-fired generation since it peaked in 2007 and toward natural gas and renewables. Those 15 states range from Arkansas with 28% coal-generated electricity to West Virginia where 88% of their electricity is generated from coal.

Coal mining the dirtiest pollutant of all

Coal mining is the dirtiest pollutant of all

Now let’s look at nuclear. Nuclear power plants play an important role in U.S. electricity generation, consistently providing about 20% of total annual generation. Of the 30 U.S. states with operating commercial nuclear power plants, 12 states generated more than 30% of their electricity from nuclear power.

Tesla, not as efficient as it is made out to be. Replacement batteries extremely __ expensive

Tesla is not as efficient as it is made out to be. Replacement batteries are extremely __ expensive

Because the electric system in the Lower 48 states essentially operates as three large interconnections, the electricity generated in one state may be consumed in another.

Three states generated more than 50% of their in-state electricity from nuclear power in 2019. New Hampshire had the largest share of in-state generation from nuclear power at 61%, followed by South Carolina with 56%. Illinois, which has the most nuclear reactors (11) and the most nuclear generating capacity (11.6 gigawatts) among states, generated 54% of its in-state generation from nuclear power in 2019.

Here’s the problem in a nutshell. The media is lying to our citizens and our government is misinforming our citizens as well. If it were up to the federal government, we will all be driving electric cars and cars with internal combustion engines will be banned from the roads in the next 10 years.


The reality is this. If your state gets a majority of its electricity generation from power plants fueled by coal then your electric car is getting its power from the same energy source fueling those very same power plants. So in the 15 states where coal predominates, your electric car is being fueled by coal which is the worse pollutant on the planet in terms of common greenhouse emissions. Why are we being lied to?

The same critics who complain about nuclear energy and want to shut down every nuclear plant in the country need to know that those states which utilize abundant nuclear power to fuel their electricity generation are powering their electric cars with nuclear-sourced fuel. People have to know what they are talking about before they talk about things.

And while we are on the topic cars run by gasoline-based internal combustion engines are not the main culprit in climate change. In fact, regular cars would account for only 1/40th of a degree of change in terms of global warming. So we are kidding ourselves about the magnitude of effects that electric cars will have on our global warming problem.

Next, pundits like to explain that electricity for electric cars is far cheaper on a cost-per-mile basis than gasoline-driven cars. Not true if you look at what’s really involved. Check out the price of battery replacements in a Tesla after your warranty runs out. It’s thousands upon thousands of dollars. Drivers will not be able to afford those replacements which come after 500 charges. A generator on a regular car is $300 to $500; on an electric car it’s ten times the amount and it will have to be replaced.

When you then think about the infrastructure that will have to be built to deal with millions of electricity-based cars, you are looking at some wild engineering feats that will have to come into being to get this show on the road. Electric cars in our present state of technology are not the answer. Perhaps in 10 or 20 more years, battery development will be at a point where it will be more feasible. Nobody is telling us the truth on this technology.

As for Nuclear

Our entire country has been deceived and miss led by politicians and others with regard to nuclear energy and its potential application to our global warming problems. If you look at the history of nuclear energy in this country there has been no adoption of energy safer than atomic technology. A few years ago there was a destructive tsunami in Japan that killed 15,000 people and basically destroyed the Fukishima nuclear power generating station on the coast. The tidal wave swept over the plant destroying the ability of the reactor to cool itself. Thirty firemen died as a result of trying to deal with the problem. No civilians died in the surrounding areas. It is believed that 1000 civilians in the future may die as a result of radioactivity from the plant during the destruction.

Nuclear Energy, a safe, clean, interim solution for the next 30 to 40 years. It will transition us awaiting other efficient energy sources evo

Nuclear Energy is a safe, clean, interim solution for the next 30 to 40 years. It will transition us awaiting other efficient energy sources evo

First of all the first rule in dealing with a disaster like this is everybody hunkers down in place. The Japanese started moving civilians from their homes and those are the ones who are affected and likely to die in future years. Secondly, if you hunker down for just a couple of days the half-life of the isotopes involved begins to dissipate immediately and within days, you are far better off in terms of movement.

Thirdly, who puts a nuclear reactor at sea level by the ocean, when you could build it a quarter of a mile away and you would be several hundred feet above sea level? This is especially true when your reactor has a 75-year life expectancy, and your seashore is a documented active seismic space where earthquakes and tidal waves are expected. Don’t you think over 75 years you are going to get hit? Who’s driving the bus as they say?

When Three Mile Island went bad in 1979, there were no deaths or injuries reported that’s right. A combination of equipment failure and operator error led to the partial meltdown of the power plant’s Unit 2 reactor which resulted in the release of a small amount of radioactive material. There were no injuries, deaths, or direct health effects were caused by the accident. The power plant’s Unit 2 experienced equipment and instrumentation malfunctions. There were no adverse effects on the surrounding environment. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Implemented Enhanced Safety & Training. Three Mile Island’s Unit 1 continued operation until 2019.

While we are on the topic 31 people died at Chernobyl which was the Soviet Union’s worst nuclear disaster completely their own fault. Compare all of this to the hundreds that die every year in accidents and incidents related to the coal mining industry in this country and the thousands upon thousands of coal miners who will die prematurely from Black Lung disease brought on by working a lifetime in the coal mines in this country and cynics want to talk about nuclear energy.

France derives 75% of all their electricity from nuclear power – never a problem. The United States Navy has utilized nuclear-powered ships including aircraft carriers and submarines since the early 1950s, that’s 70 years – never a problem. Why have we allowed the press and others to distort and reshape our understanding of the safety of nuclear power generation of electricity? If we are serious about global warming we should be building nuclear power plants like France everywhere in this country. We know the technology, the engineering, the financial capability. We simply lack the will. Nuclear power is a safe interim solution for the next few decades while we await improvements and innovations in other technologies.


Wind, Solar, Hydro

The answer to these technologies is yes, yes, and yes. Wind, solar, and hydro are not competitive with other electricity-generating technologies but you must know how to use them and where to place them. You can’t build these technologies into the population centers of the northeast like the Boston to Washington DC corridor. For wind, the Midwest with its open flat areas is ideal for wind generation. Solar is ideal in the Southwest including Texas and Arizona and New Mexico. It’s strange how the states for which these technologies are the most ideal are the politically conservative areas that to date seemed most opposed to the adoption of these new technologies.

Keep in mind that one of the problems you have with solar and wind is that in order to utilize them, the sun must be shining and the wind must be blowing. On those days or evenings when the sun isn’t shining or the wind blowing, you must have a power generation that can kick in immediately to supply the electricity that is needed. This means a gas, coal, or nuclear power plant as a backup. You have to keep it in mind. There’s no free lunch here.

The problem with wind farms in Europe, is little wind. Wind farms are perfect for the Western Plain states of the United States, lots of wind

The problem with wind farms in Europe is little wind. Wind farms are perfect for the Western Plain states of the United States, lots of wind

In conclusion, we can deal with global warming if that is our problem by attacking this problem as a pollution problem where we can all get behind a common fight against polluting our planet. We must adopt nuclear power generation for the next several decades at the very least as an interim safe solution with stringent safety standards developed by the federal government, not free enterprise. We must realize that electric cars are not even the beginning of solution to our issues and we must encourage stronger CAFÉ standards to develop cars that get higher gas mileage than currently available. Since the real problem is with the lesser developed countries trying to modernize as opposed to the United States, we should continue to share our advanced technologies regarding power generation with the world in an effort to get them on board with what’s coming down the pike. Good luck.