Thread: Syria
View Single Post
Old 12-03-2015, 05:57 AM   #27
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post
Around here?

Coastal, desolate Maine, Little Compton or Charlestown (hell they already had one criticality incident), Gould Island, Prudence. I would put one at Groton, CT, though they have one nearby, Nomans. And in a very rare instance I would put the Navy/Gubmint in charge - they do have a good record and they can sell the power to the grid. Sell me some nearby waterfront land cheap and I'll setup near a nuke.

I would even consider offshore Nuke plants.

Other ideal places, more desolate and off the beaten path though I would think a more sensible way is to put Nuclear in more desolate regions and offshore and some local land based wind farms.

I am really into nonrenewable energy / nuclear. As opposed to a lot of people that want it but NIMBY.
So... offshore nukes and onshore wind?

The one thing I agree is we need more nukes online. Maine, I agree. I'd love to see the Canadians get involved and sell some power back. I think the reality of NIMBY is that while you want be willing to live next door most aren't. The site in Charlestown I know well; I use some of the data they collected offshore in the 1970's. I think a good compromise is utilize Gould and other state/fed properties is wind/solar farms. I think the siting of a nuke would not happen in the Bay, at least not with current mindsets on Nukes.

The one thing I will add, something I am 'really into' is that we have a dubious record globally and domestically of underestimating both coastal flood risks, both the actual water levels/waves/sea level rise AND our ability to 'hold the line'. Coastal areas need to be selected carefully; we need to think centuries and beyond when planning these; especially since most of the material will stay on site until we find a better long-term plan.

Ultimately, the future of energy policy will have to be a combination of technologies and solutions, with more and more local, on-site production; coupled with efficiency, we actually have a lot of the tools already. Nukes + other technologies + efficiency is a big chunk of the 'wedge' strategy proposed by the CMI group at Princeton 5 or 6 years ago....


p.s. Little Compton

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline