Syria

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I challenge anyone to find mention of this

The world needs more Wind and Solar

[URL="http://www.ridgeblade.com/"]http://www.ridgeblade.com/[/UR]
i think this is a good idea

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Raven

[URL="http://www.ridgeblade.com/"]http://www.ridgeblade.com/[/UR]
i think this is a good idea

And Nuclear.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by JohnR

And Nuclear.

Great; I'm on board in theory..
where do we site them? Want one in Warwick?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Great; I'm on board in theory..
where do we site them? Want one in Warwick?

Plymouth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Great; I'm on board in theory..
where do we site them? Want one in Warwick?

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

p.s. Little Compton

There's some open land at Warren's Point.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So... offshore nukes and onshore wind?

Onshore / Offshore nuke, Onshore / Offshore Wind, I would add tide too as long as it does not crush fishing / boating access (like the proposed canal turbines). I am for this kind of power generation where efficient and practical.

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

Yes, we do need some sensible locating, particularly in remote locations, and there are some. While I do not think one should happen in the bay for various reasons, I might not be against it, but it should be discussed.

You have done some research on CTown?? Cool (not the event, but your having used data). Surprised how few Rhode Islander's have even heard of it. Any published references that compare then and now?

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

Agree

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;1087743]
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....

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

p.s. Little Compton

Yeh, that was for fun - as little chance of that happening as something off the Vineyard - over Kennedy's Dead Body

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by JohnR

You have done some research on CTown??

On the whole state shoreline-wise at times...the Charlestown work had current meters at the proposed outfall site, so I have used the numbers they got from that study in the late 70's.

What do you mean compare then and now?