Syria

[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?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

Cool

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

What do you mean compare then and now?

Any radiation comparisons? Cleaner? Same? Or is it just the current / flow measurements?

Can you gauge how much sea level rise we have seen in the last 40 years?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Cool
Any radiation comparisons? Cleaner? Same? Or is it just the current / flow measurements?

Not what I do. No idea. Too much chemistry for me

Originally Posted by JohnR

Can you gauge how much sea level rise we have seen in the last 40 years?

Easy.
Newport Tide Gauge 1930-now 2.74mm/yr (11cm or so in 40 years)
If you play games with statistics you can get a slightly higher trend the last 25 years, which would roughly match the satellite altimeter record of 3.3 mm/yr since 1993.

Doesn't sound like much, but much higher than the century(s) before, which was 1.2-1.7 mm/yr (estimates vary). There are many areas flooding now on spring high tides that didn't a decade ago; in many cases we build that close to the shoreline, that small changes in SL have big implications.

Scarier when you look at where the 3.3 mm/yr and the older tide gauges (globally) fit on curves modeling SL rise; we are on the higher side of things, and this includes models made independent of the data collected the last 20 years.

However high it ultimately goes in this century and beyond, we know it is rising, which means no matter what, things ain't getting better along the coastline.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Easy.
Newport Tide Gauge 1930-now 2.74mm/yr (11cm or so in 40 years)
If you play games with statistics you can get a slightly higher trend the last 25 years, which would roughly match the satellite altimeter record of 3.3 mm/yr since 1993.

Doesn't sound like much, but much higher than the century(s) before, which was 1.2-1.7 mm/yr (estimates vary). There are many areas flooding now on spring high tides that didn't a decade ago; in many cases we build that close to the shoreline, that small changes in SL have big implications.

Scarier when you look at where the 3.3 mm/yr and the older tide gauges (globally) fit on curves modeling SL rise; we are on the higher side of things, and this includes models made independent of the data collected the last 20 years.

However high it ultimately goes in this century and beyond, we know it is rising, which means no matter what, things ain't getting better along the coastline.

EPIC FAIL DR ROCKHOUND

http://www.eastbayri.com/opinion/let...n-i-was-a-boy/

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by spence

EPIC FAIL DR ROCKHOUND

http://www.eastbayri.com/opinion/let...n-i-was-a-boy/

Look at the last comment (someone forwarded this to me a few weeks ago)




The plural of anecdote is NOT data!

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Easy.
Newport Tide Gauge 1930-now 2.74mm/yr (11cm or so in 40 years)
If you play games with statistics you can get a slightly higher trend the last 25 years, which would roughly match the satellite altimeter record of 3.3 mm/yr since 1993.

Doesn't sound like much, but much higher than the century(s) before, which was 1.2-1.7 mm/yr (estimates vary). There are many areas flooding now on spring high tides that didn't a decade ago; in many cases we build that close to the shoreline, that small changes in SL have big implications.

Scarier when you look at where the 3.3 mm/yr and the older tide gauges (globally) fit on curves modeling SL rise; we are on the higher side of things, and this includes models made independent of the data collected the last 20 years.

However high it ultimately goes in this century and beyond, we know it is rising, which means no matter what, things ain't getting better along the coastline.

Thanks, dude!

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Thanks, dude!

In this forum, I am usually talking out of my ass . On this topic I know a thing or two for a change