Mashika
27th October 2019, 05:33
I've been reading this document today, i have not been able to completely finish it due to lots of distractions but wanted to share in case someone finds it valuable
From what i read so far, i get the impression that this is not really meant to point actual solutions to existing/future problems, mainly because the document writer is very clear in clarifying the document doesn't assume climate change is real or not, or related to political views of the issue. And this diagram also
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=41750&d=1572154295
My personal opinion of this document is this. This document will be used to push an agenda of intervention on the next years, in the Artic region, under the "we can ignore climate change or we can do something about it, just in case" guidance the document pushes, like so
The intent is to provide senior leaders with an
easy to understand anticipation of risk associated with
each recommendation.
Interesting mention of small nuclear reactors (portable), which also happens to be something Russia is working on and has already deployed to the Artic some months ago
3. NATIONAL CONTEXT
3.1 Problem: Power Grid Vulnerabilities
Recommendation: A. An inter-agency approach,
coupled with collaboration of the commercial
sector, should catalogue the liabilities across the
electrical grid and prioritize budget requests for
infrastructure improvements. B. The DoD should
pursue options to reverse infrastructure degradation around military installations, including
funding internal power generation such as solar/
battery farms and small-nuclear reactors.
Implementation Timing: Now (A); 6-10, 10+
Years (B)
Resource Requirement: Low (A); High (B)
And this is something that i find interesting because of this
https://time.com/5659769/russia-floating-nuclear-power/
Here's the link to the full pdf
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf
:coffee:
From what i read so far, i get the impression that this is not really meant to point actual solutions to existing/future problems, mainly because the document writer is very clear in clarifying the document doesn't assume climate change is real or not, or related to political views of the issue. And this diagram also
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=41750&d=1572154295
My personal opinion of this document is this. This document will be used to push an agenda of intervention on the next years, in the Artic region, under the "we can ignore climate change or we can do something about it, just in case" guidance the document pushes, like so
The intent is to provide senior leaders with an
easy to understand anticipation of risk associated with
each recommendation.
Interesting mention of small nuclear reactors (portable), which also happens to be something Russia is working on and has already deployed to the Artic some months ago
3. NATIONAL CONTEXT
3.1 Problem: Power Grid Vulnerabilities
Recommendation: A. An inter-agency approach,
coupled with collaboration of the commercial
sector, should catalogue the liabilities across the
electrical grid and prioritize budget requests for
infrastructure improvements. B. The DoD should
pursue options to reverse infrastructure degradation around military installations, including
funding internal power generation such as solar/
battery farms and small-nuclear reactors.
Implementation Timing: Now (A); 6-10, 10+
Years (B)
Resource Requirement: Low (A); High (B)
And this is something that i find interesting because of this
https://time.com/5659769/russia-floating-nuclear-power/
Here's the link to the full pdf
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf
:coffee: