Slashdot Mirror
Rising Sea Level Could Put East Coast Nuclear Plants At Risk
mdsolar (1045926) writes with news that global warming may make it more difficult to use modern power sources that rely upon being near large bodies of water for cooling. From the article: "During the 1970s and 1980s, when many nuclear reactors were first built, most operators estimated that seas would rise at a slow, constant rate. ... But the seas are now rising much faster than they did in the past ... Sea levels rose an average of 8 inches between 1880 and 2009, or about 0.06 inches per year. But in the last 20 years, sea levels have risen an average of 0.13 inches per year... NOAA) has laid out four different projections for estimated sea level rise by 2100. Even the agency's best-case scenario assumes that sea levels will rise at least 8.4 inches by the end of this century. NOAA's worst-case scenario, meanwhile, predicts that the oceans will rise nearly 7 feet in the next 86 years. But most nuclear power facilities were built well before scientists understood just how high sea levels might rise in the future. And for power plants, the most serious threat is likely to come from surges during storms. Higher sea levels mean that flooding will travel farther inland, creating potential hazards in areas that may have previously been considered safe."
The article has charts comparing the current elevation of various plants with their estimated elevations under the various NOAA sea level rise estimates.
water also expands as it warms.
Just stick with "LA LA LA can't hear you!!! LA LA LA".
If you think about it a seven-foot rise in water is not very reasonable to predict - it has to come from somewhere and there is just not that much water locked up in ice anymore.
Really?! Are you even fucking trying anymore?
If all land ice melted, sea level would rise approximately 70 meters (230 feet) worldwide.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
How can anyone expect to move anything in only 86 years?
But it's not all going to melt, is it? That's the point. The amount that people are thinking will melt, even at the most panicky, doesn't come near to being seven feet worth of water.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The sun will rise tomorrow. I have no data for that. So by your logic, that's proof the sun will never rise again.
Learn to love Alaska
It's mostly glacier/ice sheets. There are lots of theories that small rises in temp will greatly affect average ice depth. What evidence do you have that all of those predictions are wrong?
Learn to love Alaska
We're looking at an increase overall of 2-4c for the atmosphere. Since the water temperature can't increase beyond ambient, how do you get multiple feet of water level rise out of just a few C difference in water temperature? To see any visible change in a flask of water requires a far larger swing in temperature.
Also remember that underground volcanic action is already dumping a lot of heat into the ocean here and there, so you probably would not even get the total atmospheric rise embodied in ocean temperatures that are already moderating much greater heat.
And also that greater heat means faster evaporation, which in turns means natural cooling...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, what you said was that there wasn't that much.
You are off by a large amount on that estimate. Why are we to trust you on the melting now?
You are also leaving off continental subsidence, but that is a separate consideration.
Why do I get reminded of the dead parrot sketch?
A: The sea levels are rising. ... a canal.
B: No, that's just the tide.
A: Look, I know a flood when I see one and I'm looking at one right now!
B: No, no, the levels ain't rising, it's just the tide. Isn't the sea so incredibly blue today...
B: Blue or not, it's rising!
A: No, I told you, it's the tide.
B: Allright, so if it's the tide, the water should be gone in 6 hours!
(waiting, A builds up walls of sandbags to keep the water at bay)
A: There, it's gone.
B: No it's not, you just built a wall!
A: I never!
B: Yes you did!
A: I never, never did anything.
B: (tears down wall of sandbags, water floods the floor)
B: Now that's what I call a flood!
A: No, it's just
B: A CANAL?
A: Yes, you dug a canal through the bags.
B: Yeah, you dug a canal just as the water was retreating.
(and so on, you know the routine)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The idea that these nuclear power plants are still relevant in 86 years should scare people more than any sea level rise. All those nuclear power plants are completely obsolete. If they need to be torn down and rebuilt elsewhere with new, safer, more efficient technology, we're all better off.
Don't worry, 5-10 meters should do to flood pretty much anything remotely close to a beach.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
*flips coin*
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not by half.
Not by half of what? The oceans are thousands of feet deep and cover 2/3 of the planet.
We're looking at an increase overall of 2-4c for the atmosphere. Since the water temperature can't increase beyond ambient, how do you get multiple feet of water level rise out of just a few C difference in water temperature? To see any visible change in a flask of water requires a far larger swing in temperature.
Also remember that underground volcanic action is already dumping a lot of heat into the ocean here and there, so you probably would not even get the total atmospheric rise embodied in ocean temperatures that are already moderating much greater heat.
And also that greater heat means faster evaporation, which in turns means natural cooling...
How many flasks of water would you have to stack up to get to the average depth of an ocean? Now imagine the water in each of those flasks expanding by just a little bit. Don't you think the cumulative amount would be noticeable?
Until recently most of the rise in ocean depth has been due to thermal expansion. Now that the ice sheets are melting at an accelerated rate, that is starting to be the main factor, but thermal expansion is still occurring.
The melting is primarily happening at the *bottom* of the ice, where it floats on liquid water.
There, the pressures are high (thus decreasing the temperature at which water melts), surface temperature really doesn't come into play, and small changes in the temperature of the water flowing under the ice can have huge impacts on how fast that ice melts (vs. how much is added back to the top of it each year in precipitation).
Obviously, we can only wait and see what happens. I've got ten dollars on the sun rising.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
"This is like the military drawing up plans for kaiju attacks and zombiepocalypses.":
No, those are tongue-in-cheek thought experiments.
What we have here is scientists using empirical data to project a range of future possible outcomes. No mythical creatures involved.
Climate change - go away,
Come again another day.
Koch brothers want to play.
Climate change - go away.
Climate change - go away,
Come again another day.
Don Blankenship wants to play.
Climate change - go away.
Climate change - go away,
Come again another day.
Exxon Mobil wants to play.
Climate change - go away.
Climate change - go away,
Come again another day.
Lord Monckton wants to play.
Climate change - go away.
Climate change, go away,
Come again another day.
James Inhofe wants to play.
Climate change - go away.
Climate change - go away,
Come again another day.
Congress wants to play.
Climate change - go away.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
So? Much of that melting ice is not floating on sea, but is on ground. On top of that water is heating up, so it's expanding in volume. And there is a lot of it to expand. On top of that some places might simply be sinking, but I'm sure this piece of news has nothing to do with that. Also, in some places the ground is still raising back after the last ice age, or at least that's the best quess as to why it is raising. Might as well be the continents just moving(althought this is happening in an area where that shouldn't be a factor). Things happen. IF they have measured the sea leves locally at some place there is no reason to doubt them. The best quess is the seas will keep their trend. Just build a wall on the shoreline. Ask the dutch how it's done.
I am a fan of both Anthony Watts' site Watts Up With That *AND* John Cook's Skeptical Science... both are run by real people who go the extra distance find the best links to their sources (not some blog chain) and both are considerate of the reader.
Here's a small research journey: Direct CO2 rise causes temperature rise (CO2drivesT)? YES or NO?
There has been a demonstrated correlation between CO2 and temperature shown by Antarctic ice core data (within ~800-1000y). If a rise of CO2 in this data should consistently lag behind rises in temperature then CO2drivesT is not ruled out (both may be responding to some other factor but at different rates) BUT CO2drivesT has fallen down a notch... it now requires more extraordinary proof.
Even though human-driven global CO2 has risen 'terrifyingly fast' to 400ppm -- empirically speaking I am not terrified -- because the temperature rise that should accompany such a SHOCK by any reasonable interpretation of CO2drivesT, and to any reasonable extent, has not arisen. The effects of this 'causation' are missing.
Which is to say the historical correlation is broken.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a thing,
Something we should be concerned about.
The rise to 400ppm is definitely humans' fault. It is 'massive'.
Temperature has not risen.
So such a causation, if any may exist, is unlikely to be significant.
We'd see it by now.
For example, head for Skeptical Science [SS] [SS] CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean which acknowledges that CO2 lags behind temperature but introduces 'CO2 amplification' which asserts a feedback where "the increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming.". This in itself is another extraordinary claim. While such a feedback might certainly exist I cannot just swallow it as a flat-fact when pursuing a simple answer to the CO2drivesT question. Where are the computer models incorporating this feedback that match observed temperature?
There is a stir these days among CO2drivesT proponents that some mechanism must exist that is hiding or delaying the warming that the models predict. Immature 'skeptics' jeer at this, implying that it is all about protecting the sacred forced-feedback hypothesis at any cost. Immature CO2drivesT proponents accuse them of attempting to derail the scientific method. There is a germ of truth in both. I think everyone should grow up a little.
Aside from the modern lack of warming, one thing seemed odd about amplification. In the Vostok ice core CO2+T graph clearly at ~75,000YA there is a massive injection of CO2 (~225-230ppm) that I think is Toba era volcanism. If such amplification exists and is significant, that would have been a fine time for CO2 feedback to jump in and 'save the day' with a slowing or a plateau of the declining temperature trend. Or even a rise? But 6,000 years after its onset -- on the Vostok graph at ~220ppm temperature and CO2 are once again in lock-step, both in steep decline. After some six millennia of 'higher' CO2 and 'lower' temperature. Plenty of time for particulates to settle and 'amplification' to occur. If it does. Did it?
But never mind, it's all changed, that [SS] Lag, what does it mean? page also said something astounding: "In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase." 90%... is that a fact.
Since when?
Which led me to the next step where the game-changer is supposed to be [SS] Shakun et al. Clarify th
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
But it's not all going to melt, is it? That's the point.
I thought the point was to have the working poor in Middle America build Montgomery Burns a seawall for his seaside mansion?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
That is only partially true. As you increase temperature from 0 to 4 degrees C, you are correct that water contracts. But for temperatures above 4 degrees, the water starts expanding again. Above 8 degrees, water takes up more volume than ice.
Water like other materials expands when it gets warmer.
Just a nit-pick, but water's maximum density is actually at about 4C.
That means as it cools below 4C, it begins to expand again. If it didn't, ice wouldn't float!
And despite bitter cold temperatures on Antarctica, it is losing ice at an accelerating rate. Please explain.
The US areas that are in trouble are mostly the Gulf coast, especially the Mississippi River flood plain and Florida. Florida is just barely above sea level now, and is very flat.
Slight rises in sea level cause problems all along the Mississippi. Hurricane and storm driven flooding are already getting worse.
The West Coast isn't so bad off, because there are cliffs along most of it. SF, LA and San Diego do have low spots, but they're a few miles long, and seawalls could be built. It might be necessary to dam the SF bay, with something like the Thames Barrage at the Golden Gate.
you aren't smart enough to deal with the data when you actually look for it and read it hence the stupid posts
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
you can start here http://news.slashdot.org/story...
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
i'm afraid that most of these deniers brains cannot compute those sorts of sizes, its the same with creationists not being able to visualise more than a few years
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
do your research for the formula. don't keep the attitude that because you don't know it, its not true or possible
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
With more water on Earth, comes more clouds, and more rainfall inland. Warmer temperatures allow for longer growing seasons. Can you imagine if the reverse were true? Would you prefer an ice age? Who needs to grow food? Stay warm? WTF cares about sea level rise? Here's a thought, pick up and move. No one said your land 2 inches above sea level in Florida was gonna stay above sea level. New Orleans? Why yes, by all means, we'll keep the ocean out. Lemme get my pail. We are humans, and to sit here and throw a fit and panic over such stupidity is just absurd. Deal with it. If the Earth froze over, then yes, we'd have a problem. Damn hard to feed 10 billion people on ice cubes.
If you think about it a seven-foot rise in water is not very reasonable to predict
This reminds me of an usenet post circa 1996, which talked about chernobyl and the Bible.
"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter."
In the post it was remarked that Chernobyl is linked to Wormwood, and that a star is essentally a nuclear reactor, and it thought the bible might predict the collapse of the sarcophagus built around reactor 4 in the river, *or a nuclear accident involving water*. It exactly describes Fukushima if the catastrophists are right.
Now, before you steer this into a religious debate consider that the abilities of making predictions are obvious consequence of an hypothetical god, but are not proof of it. In fact IIRC in the Bible, possibly to prove that God > Destiny, God's predictions are not fulfilled (except the one in Genesis: Adam indeed dies because with the knowledge of good and evil he made himself responsible, able to sin instead of driven by instinct).
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Or Princess Bride...
But if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.
I'm afraid so -- I can't compete with your solar and ocean causation. And you're no match for my atmosphere.
You're that effective?
Let me put it this way: have you ever heard of Venus?
Yes.
Forcing at it's finest.
Really? In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.
For the Climate Treaty?
Yes.
To the death?
I accept.
Good. Then pour the biosphere.
Inhale this, but do not touch.
I smell nothing.
What you do not smell is called carbon dioxide. It is odorless, dissolves instantly in liquid, and is among the more deadlier poisons known to man.
Hmm.
All right: where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right and who is dead.
But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what we know of paleoclimate, is this the kind of planet that would be driven by CO2, or merely show indications of varying levels as a consequence of other factors.... now, a clever planet would have evolved several effective 'coping mechanisms' for runaway warming such as a smooth atmospheric gradient and Tropopause water vapor, to dampen and oscillate between extremes. It would not put all its eggs in a trace gas basket or its fate would have been more likely to have been that of one of the dumber planets.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
I'm just getting started!
[... much later...]
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a SCIENTIST when DEATH is on the line."...
[...thump....]
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Your sources are biased pro-sun activists. They sent emails to someone once, and got paid for it. It's a scandal. A scandal related to pro-sun zealots is proof that they've always been lying.
Learn to love Alaska
No, I'd never seen that. It was just coincidence that I picked a problem that's been looked at but not solved before. That's considered an unsolved problem. The answer is "1" but it can't be proven. It's obvious from the data, and questioning the data won't change the outcome. But it makes for a "controversy". A fake one invented by the mega-rich trying to confuse the issue.
Learn to love Alaska
Wait, a seven-foot rise is not a reasonable prediction but our being beings of translucent energy in 400 years is? Allrighty then.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
No, most lay people are not smart (or educated in the subject) enough to correctly analyse the data. And the people are capable of analysing the data, are also capable of finding the data. It's not that well hidden, actually.
Prototypes? We've had operational floating mobile nuclear power plants for about 50 years, US Navy. :-)
You must have missed the Cryosat data, then. Antarctic sea ice is pretty much irrelevant in the discussion. It is mostly seasonal, and it has negligible impact on sea level. What we care about is the the grounded ice, and we care about the volume, not the area.
It doesn't have to thaw in place, it just has to slide into the ocean.
Because it's not for them? NOBODY CARES WHAT THE DENIERS ARE DOING. THis is for people who have the brains to taka facts as facts. Sea levels have risen more than estimated. This is measured data. They are not going to protect the nuclear plants by reversing global warming or whatever, but by elevating the ground, or building floodwalls, or something. If someone wants to deny rising sea levels please sell them flat land by the shoreline. They can then deny there all they want.
OK. So we pick sites with higher natural elevations for the 3rd generation reactors that are about to begin construction. Similar story for the 4th generation reactors when they go commercial in 30 years. 1st and 2nd generation reactors at risk can be take off line and the waste stored on these sites can be transferred to the 4th gen reactors to be used as fuel (a nice benefit of 4th gen, consuming old waste).
The at risk 1st and 2nd gen reactors can be replaced, taken off line and their sites cleaned up many decades before we get near that 7 foot increase in 86 years.
It seems as if at risk reactors will be phased out via their normal life cycle, no mounds, walls, etc are needed.
The total collapse of the vulnerable parts of West Antarctica’s ice sheets would raise sea levels by at least 3 metres . The possibility of this happening has now moved from the hypothetical to an unfortunate reality. The ends of many of the glaciers that drain these ice sheets are already significantly below sea level, and the ice sheets are not hemmed in by mountains, as Greenland’s ice sheets are.
Without an anchor on land, the ice sheets' collapse is inevitable and cannot be slowed. We can now only watch as West Antarctica’s ice sheets collapse. The best we can now hope for is that this collapse will be slow and stately, and take centuries to unfold.
If this is the case, then civilizations can probably adapt to the havoc this will cause to coastal communities. However, we have evidence from prehistoric warm periods that this could occur over decades. At this point we don’t know long it will take, but we do know that the climate forcing today is much stronger than at any time in over 50 million years.
Given we have made so little progress on limiting our global carbon emissions, the odds are that ice-sheet collapse will only accelerate. Once this sort of collapse begins, it will not stop. Satellite measurements compiled by UK researchers have shown that Antarctica is losing 160 billion tonnes of ice per year, mainly through thinning of West Antarctica’s ice sheets. The ground beneath the ice is being held down like a massive spring, and as the ice gets lighter the ground will rise quicker leading to more accelerated thinning.
Another way of putting it is that we appear to have crossed a tipping point. There are many other fuses that could be lit, and probably will be, if the collapse markedly accelerates - and these would add to the rate and magnitude of the sea level rise. One of those potential fuses is the Totten Glacier, on the margin of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. In this area, a rift in the Antarctic crust allows sea water to extend hundreds of kilometres under the ice, literally undermining the ice.
Here's a test for you.
Take a cup with water at 4 degrees C (it's maximum density) and heat it up and measure the change. Then you tell me if water expands when it gets warmer. To help you out here is a graph of how the density of water changes with temperature. Hint, lower density means larger volume.
I don't know how much energy a nuclear sub could provide, but there must be a good reason why we don't normally wire them into the power grid? I was referring to the floating nuclear plants that have been getting more attention lately. Using the ocean as a heat sink certainly won't help with rising sea levels, though!
I find it very enjoyable, yet irritating, to see people take every single effect/cause independently, somehow analyse them (while actually having no clue at all what they are doing) and come to the conclusion they are too small to be related to a trend, while missing the obvious point that independent effect can be cumulativ. Worse, different effect can promote other and accelerate the trend. And they cook up a counter arguments (again while having no clue, even of the oders of magnitude) and propagate their ignorance to others ready to believe their pseudo scientific facts.
I really have to stand on the side of other posts I read here, stating that most people are simply not open minded or bright enough to understand the data and analyse it. A large part of this is to blame on education, but when basic logic and analytic skills fail (either due to intellectual capacity or to unwillingness to use those skills) I doupt even that would help.
Please stop with the half-assed facts. The average temperature of the coldest region of Antractica is -57C. That has nothing to do with the average temperature overall on the continent. What you wrote is just as stupid as saying nobody will get a heat stroke anytime soon in Pheonix; the average temperature in Vail is 11C (52F) after all.
Then by all means, enlighten them. Explain these sorts of sizes, and similar sizes to which they are relative.
I'll wait.
And why to you assume it is always bitter cold everywhere on Antarctica. All the time. Did TV say that?
It's mostly glacier/ice sheets. There are lots of theories that small rises in temp will greatly affect average ice depth. What evidence do you have that all of those predictions are wrong?
Shhhhh.... you are messing up his Neocon fantasy about drilling for oil and digging for minerals once all the ice melts.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
The /. article links to an article in the Huffington Post. If that is not enough the article links to a report of NOAA on which the aticle is based. If this report is not enough (its 25 pages, 6 of which are references) you will have to look into the souces of this report.
The data is explained. Now it's up to you to read the explanation.
The point is anyone who asks such questions in that manner is objecting. It's a stupid rhetorical "trick" to claim [citation needed] without expressing an opinion themselves, nor supporting their obvious opinion. It's just lazy.
Learn to love Alaska
If only (Holland) some country (Holland) could come up with a way (Holland) so that areas (60% of the population of Holland) could remain viable (half of Holland's land area) in the face of (dikes in Holland) rising sea levels (Holland) so that we didn't (Holland) have to worry about this (Holland).
Doesn't the necessary (Holland) expertise (Holland) exist anywhere on Earth (Holland)?
Not sure why i'm replying to an anonymous retard but anyway.
Water does have the strange property of expanding significantly when it freezes (and expanding slightly just before freezing). However above about 4 degrees centigrade it expands with temperature. Of the order of 0.04% per degree centigrade (depending on the current temperature)
0.04% doesn't seem like much but the oceans are about 4km deep so a 1 degree centigrade rise in average ocean temperature would be of the order of a 1.6m rise in sea level.
however the bigger concern is the release of water that is currently locked up in ice on land (ice on the water floats and so has a negigable impact on sea levels when it melts).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
You claim that both are run by real people who go the extra distance find the best links to their sources, and blatantly they're not.
It is well known in climate circles for being written by a former TV weatherman, and regularly "falls" for basic mistakes like muddying weather and climate, shifting the goalposts, referring to "climategate" despite the fact that the results have been vindicated again and again. And politics, don't forget money and politics: if the statistics don't go your way, cherry pick the data, prey on people's fear of taxation, the UN, Al Gore and what not. That way, they won't bother listening to the actual scientists and their data (which is all too complicated - let me simplify that for you: conspiracy!).
You make it sound like this is valid source of information on climate science, when the vast majority of climate scientists have moved on from the false "debate" they claim to be having. Like, 10 years ago or more.
TODO: 753) write sig.
What does this have to do with nuclear? Nothing. Here's news.....sea rise will impact solar installations that are on the coast. It will also affect donut shops.
Is the solar lobby really this desperate? Why are the stupidest articles with desperate attempts to twist reality to make some kind of statement about nuclear energy generally posted by the same person?
What could really be the problem? Shut down the plants and start building wind farms.....Oopsy! The Kochs and other special interests have been busy getting special taxes on green energy instituted to sustain their utility production operations and make it so green energy is not likely adopted.
Seen any Citizens for Prosperity ads recently? Ever wonder whose prosperity they meant? Now you know.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Because it is useful to stir up a bunch of chicken-littles to run around panicking about the sky falling. Then D.C. is obliged to begin another round of legislation , probes and programs that wont work, but will create a nice diversion to cover other activities.
The useful parts of the report are probably classified so they dont fall to terrorist hands, like anyone who would vote them out of office.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
The difference is that nuclear is often situated at the coast to get access to plenty of cooling water, as well as limiting risk of radiation exposure over land.
It's still classified a "worst case scenario".
Meaning that, things would have to go seriously, MYTHICALLY wrong for it to happen.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"If someone wants to deny rising sea levels please sell them flat land by the shoreline."
If it's cheap, I know a few people from the Netherlands who'd buy it.
If, in 86 years, these nuclear plants are at risk, I think I would be more concerned about the fact that they're in operation for a length of time that is approximately 3x what they were initially supposed to be used for more so than them getting flooded.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
There are plenty of inland plants. Yes, some coastal plant could affected in decades if waters rise at the worst predicted rates, but the point is that everything else on the coast will also be affected. Its not a nuclear issue.
BTW, plants are not sited on the coast to "limit the risk of radiation exposure over land".
It's not like there will be no risk for the next 85 years, and then all of a sudden they'll be exposed to flood risk. Rather, the risk will gradually increase as the sea level rises, depending on their exact location and many other factors.
So then why provide them with fodder like these reports of the science that leave out all the crucial information?
MOD THIS UP!
In particular this nuclear FUD. It seems that certain submitters peruse for anything they can find that sounds remotely anti-nuke and post it regardless of any credibility or truth. In reality, most coastal nuclear plants are quite a bit above sea level already, and several feet of rise would likely make no difference at all to the main facility. The intake structures could easily be modified, if even needed, for higher water elevation. The intakes are by nature under water to start with. In truth, if the intake is actually further under water, the water would be a bit cooler, and would improve the efficiency of the turbine generator.
ironically, the most effective, fastest, and cost effective way to offset Co2 contributions and thereby reduce that impact on GW is to build more nuclear.
That was the first problem.
I kid, I kid. But, really, we should have skipped HuffPo and linked directly to the NOAA article. If I want data, I'll go to the source. If I want spin, snark, and misinterpretation, I'll go to the media.
Deniers? When you have data points that don't jive with the theory (Antarctic Ice being at a record breaking *MAXIMUM* ?) and you don't re-work or discard the theory, the only people that're deniers are the ones bitterly clinging to the busted theory and calling it "science" at that point.
Want to back up and re-think your remarks? Mods...Insightful MY ASS . Should be marked flamebait- but since it's not science and is blind faith based on what you all believe to be "truth"...I'm unsurprised.
They don't have to still be operating 86 years from now for there to still be significant risk. The decommissioning plans for a nuclear power plant extends into decades, and there are risks and vulnerabilities all during that time. The plans call for leaving the spent fuel there for years or decades after the operational lifetime of the plant. At the rate the U.S. is dealing with the problem of radioactive waste (that is, not at all), I wouldn't be surprised if some decommissioned plants still had spent fuel hanging around 86 years from now. Any nuclear facility that hasn't been decommissioned back to a green field state, and gets inundated in a flood, presents a risk that's worth looking into.
It is not as though the intervening 85 years are free from risk, either - rising sea level and a serious storm could flood a nuclear plant in the next decade. There is a risk today, and the risk will increase gradually and inexorably for decades.
According to a US geological survey there are 332,519,000 cubic miles of water in the oceans and they have a surface area of 129,444,000 square miles a rise of 7 feet is 171,611 cubic miles of water or a 0.05% increase. The average temperature of the ocean is 39F to get that increase in volume the average temperature would need to be 46F. That's 4.06e25 Joules to achieve that over 86 years or 4.83e23 J per year which is half the total energy of the sun that strikes the earth each year. I just have a hard time believing that greenhouse gases trap 50% more of the sun's energy and put it directly into the ocean.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Haha, no, I don't think I'm going to spend my time explaining such things as "the oceans are large." You are pig ignorance exemplified.
It comes from ice sitting on land that melts. There's enough of that to raise the sea level by seventy meters.
Yep - but this is about expanding water in the REST (non-arctic) of all earths oceans, and combine THAT with the melting Antarctic ice...
Don't be focused on what's happening in the arctic circle alone...
They're intentionally missing that point. No need to explain it - they can't understand it.
Indeed. Global warming, a scam, has been disproven! DIS-PROVE- (gigantic wave washes over you)
Indeed, I also can not accept such "theories" as "water is wet," "the sky is blue." Clearly, the science isn't in yet on the wetness of water.
South Florida has a population of greater than 6 million. Not only do we have nukes right on the beach we also have garbage mountains, graveyards that go back 150 years, chemical wells, and every other pollutant that a city tends to have. All of this is less than five feet above sea level. Most of it may be only two feet above sea level. The topography is such that the area will flood from the Atlantic all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. The region will not be habitable inland or on the coasts. Keep in mind we get high tides, spring tides, and hurricanes with surges as well as very tall waves. In other words a house on stilts would not help. Houseboats would have about a two year life span as tropical storms are common. So what you may say. Who gives a hoot about South Florida? the catch is that the pollution that would take place may well be enough to destroy the Atlantic ocean completely. South Florida also produces fruit and vegetables even in winter and there is no other part of the continental US that does that. On top of that the investment and mortgage value of south Florida is on a scale large enough to completely destroy the US economy if we go under.
The west Antarctic Ice Sheet is past the point of no return and will collapse. Antarctic glacier melt is unstoppable.
That will give you seven feet alone. In time it will give about 13.
But Greenland ice sheet is losing mass too, as are glaciers on the less icy continents.
Sea level rise - kind of like the hockey stick model.... kind of like a hockey puck or just plain bull hockey....
I found the following numbers: volume = 1.3 billion km^3, expansion coefficient = 250 ppm/K, heat capacity = 3.993 kJ/kg/K. Average depth = 3.68 km. So, to get a rise of 7 feet, a temperature rise of 2.32 K is required, which requires 1.3E21 * 3993 * 2.32 = 1.2E25 J total, or 1.4E23 per year. That's quite a bit less, but still a lot of heat. But of course, not all of the 7 feet rise will be due to thermal expansion. Over the last couple of years, about 75% of the rise in sea level was due to melting ice, and only 25% due to thermal expansion.
Your wet clothes when you hang them on the line only reach an average of 30C. The water won't be evaporating soon.
At the rates they just reported this week, the west Antarctica glaciers will be adding something like 1.7" per century. Not sure it's really something we have to worrry about. The sky isn't falling. Nuclear reactors have a finite lifetime. the sky isn't falling.
And how many people is that?
Probably about 30,000
Are each of their opinions independent of one another?
Most of them read the same climatology journals. Much like any other science.
Do any of them have vested interest?
The biggest one is publishing good research that is true. Particularly well regarded is if you're right and most people were mistaken. Much like any other science. And a few will have other conflicts of interest.
The NRC is responding to a court order to show that the nuclear waste issue is under control. They are trying to claim that it can be stored for a long long time at nuclear power plants. It seems pretty clear that climate change makes that claim false in some cases.
Yeah, they are in consensus that it's been getting a little warmer
A lot warmer, if you're interested in ecology. Take eucalyptus species for and example. 25% of species have a range that spans less that 1C in mean temperature. That means that a 1C change in temperature puts the new long-term survivable range completely outside their current range. That comes with a significant extinction risk, and where movement is blocked by the edge of continents, tops of mountains, or human land use, it get this think called "committed to extinction"
...and humans contributed a little to that.
The consensus is probably contributed the majority of that.
... other things being equal.)
I think most people would say likely all of it, or slightly more. (We are in the cooling part of the Milankovic cycle, having hit the peak about 8000 years ago, so many reconstructions of natural climate is that it would be in a slow cooling
So, they failed to add in subsistence of land, when they added the rebound? Or the unknown volcano's of the world? How dare those people not know settled science! Off with their heads! More witch Doctors!
One of the most severely affected plants is Turkey Point, yet Florida just approved and expansions. http://www.pennenergy.com/arti... Why new power would be needed when the customer base is eroding hard to fathom. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...
Its not the warming water I'm nervous about, its the frozen water expansion. Try growing something on ice. Generally polar bears do good then,but humans have a hard time with limited food production. Meaning less education, and more warfare over limited resources. Warm,means education, production, and resources available, more life. More diversity.
Yea, no big news, this is the latest roll out of old news to supplement the new global wierding narrative the administration is pushing.
Which administration are you talking about? You are aware that the authors of the SAM papers are from: (1) British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge CB3 0ET, United Kingdom, (2) Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory , Australia, (3) Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Laboratoire HydroSciences Montpellier et Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environment, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France, and (4) Climate Change Research Centre and ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia?
So unless this is an administration of Australia, France and the UK, you're mistaken.
This was known and predicted in 1999.
There are new findings about the relationship between the Southern Annular Mode (the winds around Antarctica's latitude and speed), and the ice mass loss. And there are new proxy data for this SAM, showing the current effect the strongest in the past 1000 years. So mass loss acceleration is expected.
No acceleration in the rise
The acceleration is more visible in the data here: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/seale...
This is the most interesting one. What is threatened is the artificial cooling pond. Wave action at the base of the levy used to hold the pond may undermine it. A design decision to avoid the perilous coast and its storms has been overcome by the coast coming to the power plant.
But the crysosat data missed lake superior. They had to look there by a standard photo sat. Record ice. Why, or is the data filtered to present a viewpoint? Why? Canadians were late getting their breaker out, to the saint Lawrence, why? Ice in the harbor? And had to use their ocean branch to break in first, not enough warming there? Or did they believe the hype, instead of being prepared like usual. Alarmist crap means more problems, not being prepared for tomorrow.
I loosely based it on this: http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/...
The unfortunate thing they forget to mention, much of the Antarctic is ice over water, not land. There are several thousand foot of ice cube in your ocean already. Same with the Greenland islands. Look at the maps. Where they drill is over water,
Dont worry about what is going to happen in the next 86 years or 100 years. They have plans to destroy humanity well before that.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
How is this relevant for Antarctic ice loss ?
mirror mirror dafuq
Just don't be stupid and sell them flood insurance.
Or really, really stupid an give government subsidies for flood insurance.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
All the information to understand the thermal expansion of ocean water is available with a few google searches,
Yes, it certainly is.
so why should you lean back and wait for somebody to enlighten you ?
Who said anything about ME?
The point here is that GP was talking out his ass, and actually doesn't know any of these specifics himself. His comment was nothing but a personal insult aimed at an entire category of people. Seems to me that isn't supposed to be socially acceptable these days.
If this is the case, then civilizations can probably adapt to the havoc this will cause to coastal communities. However, we have evidence from prehistoric warm periods that this could occur over decades. At this point we don’t know long it will take, but we do know that the climate forcing today is much stronger than at any time in over 50 million years.
Assuming you are referring to radiative forcing, all we have are forcing assumptions and climate models that use them, and it appears so far from observations that the assumptions of warming based on forcing are not accurate. A recent paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research demonstrates that global temperatures are entirely independent of radiative forcing.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
What's up with all the climate alarmism on Slashdot. Next, we'll have horoscopes and astrological papers.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
A rebuttal for the Obama's FUD piece.
They really can't seem to nail it down, can they?
As a serious question, how much longer does everyone think we are going to keep using our current 30-40 year-old reactors? If, as the best estimate suggests, the water rises about 8 inches by the year 2100, do we still plan on running 1970's reactors?
Ken
With straight-faced results that range from 8 inches to 8 feet over the next hundred years.
That's like a fortune teller telling a young man that his future wife will weigh between 100 and 1,000 pounds - only no self-respecting fortune teller would give such a wide-ranging answer.
The inability to estimate results within an order of magnitude is a hurdle such predictions will have to overcome if they are to be believed/acted upon...
Ken
Glacier bay used to be green in the 1700s. The indians lived there. And then the glacier came and filled the bay to where the wall of ice was 2 miles from the entrance. Without any help from mankind, over the next 200 years it receded. By the mid 1800's, it had retreated 44 miles and by the early 1900's it had retreated 65 miles.
The earth undergoes a constant state of change.
Climate change and all of the knee jerk reactions to save our planet are merely a scam to extract more money from the world serfs. Cap and Trade. California passed it. Electric rates are going up. The net effect for California's CaT is to take more from the middle and lower class.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
is a nice rebuttal to the whole climate warming...eh no...climate change...eh no....climate chaos and we must do something....anything in the next 500 days or it will be too late group..
People are stupid sheep.
Or maybe the alarmists don't have the brain capacity to see the bigger picture on geological time scales.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Then we can just dump the water somewhere it is needed like D.C. or the Sahara.
Untold billions and billions of plants and animals went extinct long before man ever appeared on the planet (thank you Neil Degrase-Tyson & Cosmos) - just because a particular plant that exists today is having problems as the climate changes doesn't mean anything, really. Is there a reason to believe the eucalyptus species won't evolve and adapt to the new climate? Why won't species that feed on the eucalyptus plants "evolve" and start eating something else? Can you not imagine a world without the eucalyptus plants or the animals that eat them? The planet is evolving over time, and, it's quite possible that if they eucalyptus plants and the animals that feed on them can't evolve along with the planet, the planet will go along without them just fine.
Maybe, if the temperature rising just one degree kills you, maybe you're supposed to die.
BTW, how do you know what "the right temperature" is for Earth? It used to be much hotter than it is now, and it also used to be a lot colder than it is now, who decided what the right temperature is, and how? How can scientists pretend to know what the "proper" temperature is for Earth? Is there a "Creator's Manual" somewhere that outlines the proper temperature? Has the planet ever been the same temperature for an extended period, or hasn't it constantly changed over millennia?
OK, so the planet is getting warmer - maybe it is supposed to be warmer? Our current temperatures are far from any planetary record. So the oceans will rise? And? Who decided that the current sea levels are the proper level, and that they should never change?
Please explain to me how we "know" that the "proper" temperature of the planet is/should be?
Ken
Why didn't they build a wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts? Was it the Koch brothers or Ted Kennedy?
Please describe the foot print of a wind or solar farm that generates electrical output equal to the 24x7 production capability of one nuke reactor plant... Your alternative isn't much of an alternative, really.
Each of the two reactors at Three Mile Island generate about 852 MWe, a comparable wind farm occupies about 9,000 acres (about 14 square miles) and the largest solar power plant takes up 2,400 acres just to generate 290 MWe, so to replace TMI you'd need to dedicate enough space for six such facilities, or about 14,400 acres (about 22.5 square miles)...
The Three Mile Island reactor occupies less than three square miles.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine if either facility can generate that much electricity 24x7 as Three Mile Island can.
Ken
LFTRs would take up less space, be more efficient, and rather than consuming water for cooling they could use low-grade leftover process heat to desalinate water. So, instead of being a massive freshwater sink it would be a freshwater source for piping inland (or, depending on the site, a river could be reversed for that task?)
*bow*
I concede.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If your asking about the rise in sea-level its after adjustment; and the adjustments have been bumped up a couple times, Watts published an article on it with lots of links to the "value added product" over at CU Sea Level Research Unit if you want to crunch data on your own.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Blue is pretty vague, yes - but it does define a perceived color. This suggests a particular peak of spectrum. "Wet" actually means something very specific.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Actually in Russia they did wire some into city power grids, these ships weren't going to sea anymore.
The report was examining NOAA data in relation to nuclear plants. You are questioning the source. The answer is NOAA. The report has nothing to do with NOAA, and it's outside the study's scope. The relevant information is included. NOAA. If you have an issue with NOAA's estimates, then take it up with them, not the people pointing out that the best case under NOAA's projections is still a Very Bad Thing.
I don't understand how you don't get this. You are asking for [citation needed] They gave one. Where's you issue again? That the conclusion doesn't agree with your personal opinion?
Learn to love Alaska
I'm sure you vastly underestimate the amount of heat required to raise sea-levels that much by melting ice.
consider 7 feet in the next 86 years. or 2,133.6 mm,
1 mm / (2.78 microns / Gt) = 10-3 m / (2.78 x 10-6 m / Gt) = 360 Gt, Conversion factors for ice and water mass and volume,
2133.6mm * 360 GT/mm = 768,096 GT,
334 Kj/Kg, 10^12 kg = 1 GT;
768,096 GT * 334*10^12 Kj/GT = 2.56544064e+20 Kj OR 61,315,502,868.069 kT nuclear explosion!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You forgot to say that the collapse has been going on for 22,000 years!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
My understanding is the ice is flowing down hill into the ocean, forming the Ross Ice Shelf, parts of the glacier that's over land is actually below sea-level, and in the past scientists were argueing over whether the sea-level would drop as sea water filled the depression left by the glacier. The melting is caused by a combination of warm sea currents and newly discovered underwater volcanoes.
Antarctica is a desert only getting 8 inches of precipitation on the coast and 4 inches at the pole so any losses add up quick. While Ice is unlikely to melt, it does sublimate, put a tray of ice cubes in the freezer for a few months and see how much they shrink.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Maybe at some point the ocean will heat up enough that we can eat the ocean like stew.
Learn to love Alaska
Great Lakes had 5.3% ice cover on May 15th, totally insane, lake Huron still looks like a parking lot just north of Port Huron because they can't get through the Sault Ste. Marie locks to get into Superior. The local farmers have just turned over the fields on corn rotation, hoping the reduced albedo will warm up the ground enough to plant, corn will not germinate until the ground is up to 50F, everything is way late this year. Now when I say "weather is not climate" I add "I hope".
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
FWIW, all the plants listed were above predicted storm surges in the worst case scenario. Probably they should have their protection improved, dikes with pumps to keep them dry, protected electrical generators, etc., but even without that failure isn't really to be expected from that cause.
FWIW, I'd be more worried about the Hanford plant on the Columbia. And not because of rising sea levels.
THAT said, these plants are all nearing, or beyond, their designed end of life. That they have been given extensions to continue operation is more due to politics than to safety. It would be expensive to replace them, nobody has properly budgeted to decommission them. (*That's* an expensive process.) And there's no agreed upon location to dispose of nuclear waste. Whoops!
Yeah, there are problems with these plants, but I don't expect rising sea level to be a major one. There are too many other problems.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
A) That's the worst case scenario. You don't expect those to be very reasonable.
B) Antarctica has shown signs of melting a lot faster than was projected as reasonable. And some of the factors that have sped it's melt are still increasing.
FWIW, I don't think of that as a worst case scenario. I can imagine scenarios that would be a lot more drastic. It's the worst one they wanted to make in a public prediction. You could get a lot worse, however, with a large meteor impact in various different places. Or some forms of vulcanism under Antarctica. Etc. There's lots of ways, each highly improbable. But just remember, the current situation was highly improbable a couple of decades ago. (Not just "we thought of it as highly improbable", we wouldn't be here without a tremendous number of improbable events. Each person conceived is highly improbable. Granted, many of the alternative possibilities would be very like the current one...at least as far as we could tell.)
So people don't try to predict what WILL happen, but rather what's most likely to happen, and what kind of spread can we expect. "Worst case scenario"s are one edge case that are given a low probability of occurence. But they aren't really the worst that could happen. If the worst really happens, we won't be around to be upset by it...or not for long.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The HuffPost article was to visualize results of the NOAA report. Why do you hate it when someone explores the meaning of a report? It should be buried and we should burn more oil to compensate for any carbon in the buried report?
Learn to love Alaska
That you have the source. You are attacking an intrepretation without addressing the data. If you have a problem with the data, state it. Instead, you complain that the article cites all sources for data, but doesn't include a detailed analysis of the data. What's the point of a cite is some A/C is too lazy/stupid to follow a cite? I'm not quite sure what's stopping you from getting my point.
Learn to love Alaska
The post you responded to asked questions anybody should be asking about any scientific result.
Your response is the response of a Luddite and someone who is ignorant of science.
It's the AGW activists who are thinking like young-earth-creationists, reasoning as if the world has always been like it's today, and that it is man's sinfulness that causes it to change and deteriorate. It's people like you who can't wrap your head around the fact that the Earth is actually a lot older than 6000 years.
"Deniers", on the other hand, know that trying to do anything about climate change is futile, and we know that the relative stability and warmth of the last few thousand years is an aberration. That is, "deniers" are scientifically minded people like me who accept global warming as reality but deny that we should take action.
Just as irritating as people who pick out every single thing that might happen when it gets a little warmer, total it all up, ignore the positive effects and negative feedback loops, and predict global disaster.
On this planet, water melts at around 0C. Unless a "small rise in temp" raises temperatures above that, it won't melt.
Furthermore, it takes a long time and a lot of heat to melt the Antarctic and Greenland. We're talking around a millennium even in the worst case.
Then say "In my opinion, I feel that the journalism in this article to be poor." whining about the lack of sources when they are clearly there makes you a liar.
I'd go back and quote your inconsistent and lying statements, but whenever I do, the A/C says "that one wasn't mine" or otherwise weasles out of responsibility for ones words.
Learn to love Alaska
On this planet, water melts at around 0C.
Water under a glacier is liquid at temperatures much colder than 0C. Perhaps you should learn more about chemistry and such before commenting on it.
Furthermore, it takes a long time and a lot of heat to melt the Antarctic and Greenland. We're talking around a millennium even in the worst case.
To melt it, maybe. To warm up the glaciers such that they flow faster than they build up, resulting in large masses of ice flowing into the ocean, nope, you are 100% wrong. Again.
Learn to love Alaska
The questions asked were answered quite plainly in the article. Asking them and hoping people won't read the article to realize they were stupid questions is the anti-science of a Luddite. The article was an analysis of the result of a NOAA study. They credit the NOAA study, and anyone questioning the data should take it up with NOAA, not those that use NOAA's numbers. Or do you not even know the basics of how cites and attributions work?
I'm ignorant of science? Tell us again how water under pressure melts only at 0C.
Learn to love Alaska
The dependence of melting point on pressure for ice is slight (I believe around 0.01C every 10m of depth), or around 2C at the very bottom; hardly "much colder". Of course, increases in air temperature don't make it down that far anyway for a long time.
I.e., you now recognize that melting point has nothing to do with it; it's the properties of the ice itself that change with temperature and cause it to flow faster. But that effect isn't dramatic and it's mostly at the surface.
Ice speed increases a few percent per degree Celsius increase in air temperature on normal glaciers, not exactly a dramatic change.
Oh, please, you're funny!
No, sorry, they were not.
It's roughly 0.01C melting point decrease per 1 atm of pressure. Please do tell how that somehow results in glaciers melting faster.
Ice speed increases a few percent per degree Celsius increase in air temperature on normal glaciers, not exactly a dramatic change.
http://www.livescience.com/454... Sometimes a small change can have a large effect.
Learn to love Alaska
No, sorry, they were not.
The questions asked were about the source of the data. The source of the data was given. What was the problem?
Learn to love Alaska
Untold billions and billions of plants and animals went extinct long before man ever appeared on the planet (thank you Neil Degrase-Tyson & Cosmos) - just because a particular plant that exists today is having problems as the climate changes doesn't mean anything, really.
The time scales involved are difficult to comprehend.
The problem is that the mean extinction rate is probably about one species every five years, and it is currently probably about 1 species every hour.
So we are seeing a reduction in biodiversity, and that means a reduction in intellectual resources, and a risk of knocking out parts entire groups upon which entire ecosystems depend on. Including the risk of making staying alive as a human very difficult and expensive.
Why won't species that feed on the eucalyptus plants "evolve" and start eating something else?
It works that they go extinct, and then there is an ecological niche that can be filled at some point in the coming millions of years. But probably not until something else replaces the extinct trees.
But the problem for humanity is that we won't be here in this form in the million years or so it takes for that to happen. So we have to live in a world with a lower biodiversity, and that imposes limits on our physical in intellectual resources that have a cost.
OK, so the planet is getting warmer - maybe it is supposed to be warmer?
"Supposed to be?" What does that mean?
Our current temperatures are far from any planetary record.
Not with any of the species that are alive now on it.
So the oceans will rise? And?
And we have a lot of our most expensive infrastructure near the coast, and even if we can gather the resources to rebuild it all, that will dramatically reduce what we can do in terms of new projects.
And this will keep being applied. The sea will keep rolling in for the foreseeable future.
Please explain to me how we "know" that the "proper" temperature of the planet is/should be?
What it was when we built our infrastructure and decided on our land use would be best for us. In terms of biodiversity, changing slowly enough for species to move is very important, but within the range that it has been for the past couple of million years would also be good. Unfortunately we are warming from near the warmest part of the Milankovich Cycle, and so many species won't have the geographical resources that they usually use to adapt to climate change over those cycles. (Meaning they will be pushed off the pole end of continents and islands and/or the tops of mountains). So downwards from here would be better than upwards as well.
The link is working for me.
You forgot to say that the collapse has been going on for 22,000 years!
I doubt it. We reached the climatic optimum about 8000 years ago. It would have been growing overall between then and the industrial era.
The post clearly objected to the article by challenging it with a question already answered. It was a stupid challenge, thus obviously nothing other than a shittily worded: "My opinion is the opposite of fact, so I object to reality."
Learn to love Alaska
First, you claim melting point depression due to pressure will cause glaciers to melt. Nonsense.
Where did I claim that?
Then you claim that warmer air temperatures cause problems because of faster flow, but the effect is quite small.
Where did I claim that?
Now you point to something yet different, namely how warming may cause a particular ice sheet to destabilize. Yeah, it destabilizes alright, and then takes leisurely millennia to actually make it into the sea. And it's out of our control anyway, hence irrelevant to climate change discussions.
Where did I say that?
Rather than lying when summarizing my words, just quote them directly.
You keep getting the science wrong, and whenever people point it out to you, you invent another bogus story.
Complaining that they don't like what I'm saying isn't pointing out errors in science.
Learn to love Alaska
Source data is at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ The graph shows an average rise of 3.2 mm / year. You can download the data in ASCII format, suitable for plotting at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/f...
Note that this includes a fudge-factor called GIS (Glacial Isostatic Adjustment). They give a long-winded explanation. tl;dr they've added a 10% fudge factor. From http://sealevel.colorado.edu/c...
> We apply a correction for GIA because we want our sea level time series
> to reflect purely oceanographic phenomena. In essence, we would like
> our GMSL time series to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes.
> This is what is needed for comparisons to global climate models, for
> example, and other oceanographic datasets.
So they talk out of one side of their mouths about how much sea level is rising. Out of the other side of their mouth, they admit that their numbers aren't really sea level rise.
Another question... what type of effing idiot approves nuclear reactors located such that a sealevel rise of a few inches, let alone a few feet, would cause problems? Anybody ever heard of tsunamis (like at Fukushima)? They're rarer in the Atlantic, but they do happen.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
What's the risk! Just think of all the free salt water coolant!
Then we can set up the mind controlled laser sharks as guards.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Water does not have a linear density ratio with respect to temperature so your number are suspect. At 4c, 370bar and 35 psu, the average temperature, pressure, and salinity of the ocean the density is 1029.502 kg/m^3 at 8c the density is 1028.957 about a 0.057% increase in volume which is what is needed for the 7 foot rise. I think in my original calcs I forgot to convert my delta F to delta K so I was off by a factor of two, that's still 25% of the sun's energy that hits earth. If you say that only 25% of that is due to expansion that's an increase of 1/8 of the suns energy that hits earth. That's still way too high to be plausible.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
If someone wants to deny rising sea levels please sell them flat land by the shoreline. They can then deny there all they want.
*Give* me the land on the shore you don't want because you're in denial. Denial of the facts about natural cycles. Denial about the political nature the Global Warming scam that you now refer to as "Climate Change" in a last ditch effort to prevent the collapse of the house of cards. Denial about the fear you and your fellow weaklings have to stand up against megalomanic bullies like Michael Mann.
Many years from now, me and my friends will sit on my shorefront property as old people, laughing and telling stories about the fools that gave away the shorefront properties for next to nothing because they weren't able to discern between a fake and reality.
Its the oil and coal industries that are providing false scientific studies and propaganda. They spend billions of dollars every year on a false information campaign against man made climate change.
But when it come to net energy gain (usable energy minus energy spent on generate/capture it, on facility maintinence, and to transport it) wind is by far superior. Out of all available energy sources, wind has the highest net energy while nuclear has the lowest. Nuclear power plants have a limited life span before they have to be decomisioned. They are extremely expensive to decomision and there is no economicaly feasable way to do it. Thats why their net energy is so low. Forget all concerns about the saftey of nuclear power. It for reasons purely economical that we should be going away from nuclear power.
Do you include the area for the wind plant between turbines that are used for other purposes?
Also do you include the uranium mine?
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Cost of nuclear station subsidy £96-£97 per megawatt hour
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
Cost of wind
£100 per megawatt hour
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
Cost wise they are about the same.
Currently in countries such as South Korea and China, typical construction times range from 4 to 6 years
https://www.oecd-nea.org/press...
Construction time is usually very short – a 10 MW wind farm can easily be built in two months. A larger 50 MW wind farm can be built in six months.
http://www.ewea.org/wind-energ...
Add in the time for planing etc and wind is faster.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Cost of wind £100 per megawatt hour
The article says that "wind farms built until March 2017 would receive a subsidized price of £100 for every 'megawatt-hour' unit of power they produce..."
So this is the subsidy in form of forced purchase. That on top of subsidies for construction which are often greater than 30%
As for the nuclear subsidy, it is a for a specific plant, not a general subsidy. It can be shown that nuclear has generated many times more tax revenue than it has ever been subsidized. Wind and Solar are tax negative big time. Its easy to cherry pick numbers to make a case, but it does not change the overall cost picture, like the cost of keeping reserve plants ready to make up for when the wind stops or the sun isn't shining.
And the benefit of dropping wholesale costs of electricity?
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Add in the time for planing etc and wind is faster.
Faster to build one small unit compared to a large nuclear plant, yes. But faster to offset CO2, no even close. In the US, in 2013, after the billions spent on solar, Solar PV accounted for less than 0.5% of the electricity generated in the US. That is after over a decade of heavy solar investment. In that same timeframe, the construction of only a few nuclear units would have the ability to surpass all that solar in short order. In reality, the amount of CO2 free electricity generated by nuclear in 2013 is greater than the expected solar contribution for the next 10 years.
Now, wind is better than solar. I like wind, and it makes sense to a certain extent. But, it is non-dis patchable, and must be backed up by natural gas or coal, so there are limits to the percentage of power we can depend on wind for.
Everyone benefits from the dropping of wholesale cost. That means the price can be reduced.
So that needs to be considered in the for column for wind.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
If you want an example of wind power
total cost of $0.062 per kWh composed of $0.04 production and $0.022 tax credit (or ~ £40 / MWH )
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/...
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
I am all for equivalent subsidies for CO2 free power sources. But make it across the board, with similar percentage construction/installation subsidies as well as production or power purchase subsidies.
Or a broader option is to charge per CO2 emitted and use that money to reduce other taxes.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Well, that is not exactly cheap, and it represents the lowest "contract" sales price for power in some of the best wind generation areas. It is not an average by any means. And, once again, it doesn't factor in the cost of spinning reservce.
Like I said, I like wind. I like it a heck of a lot more than solar. But it has limits in what percentage of our supply it can produce and not cause grid stability issues, or incur great costs to limit them. Right now, solar and wind ride on the backs of coal, gas, and nuclear when it comes to grid stability and reliability.
You mean the same spinning reserve for large changes in demand such as the ad breaks in popular shows as people make a cup of coffee or in case a large power station has a problem and shuts down?
Integration impacts are not exclusive to wind and solar. Nearly all generators can impose costs on the power system or other generators when they are added to the power system.
These impacts are seldom calculated as integration costs and never applied to conventional generators as integration costs.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11o... (page 11)
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
As for the percentage limit
http://www.aweablog.org/blog/p...
with wind farms at one point providing 35.05 percent, or more than a third, of the system's power.
It's important to note that these new marks are being set without any utility system reliability problems, as system operators make use of their standard techniques for balancing supply and demand.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Large power plant shutdowns are actually easier to deal with. Its still a big cost, but on a percentage basis, you may have a large plant tripping once or twice a year, while wind is up and down many times even in a day. Its not even remotely comparable. If large plants tripped daily, then it would be a fair comparison, but many plants run for over a year straight with no unplanned trips.
In addition, the transmission grid was designed to manage large plants tripping, with key transmission lines between large generators so that a few can ramp up a bit to handle the lost one. Since the power can be brought in from generators over a large area, the deficit can be made up with little grid stability problems. Sometimes a major trip does cause problems though. Wind brings the issue to areas that don't have the transmission infrastructure, and the wind generators are not yet willing to pay for that infrastructure.
That 35 percent was momentary, possibly only for a few seconds or minutes, which means other plants had to make up for it right after dropping back to lower percentage. There is a cost associated with that, one that I know you conveniently like to ignore. You also assume no grid issues were experienced, but you'd better talk to the dispatchers before you jump to that conclusion.
Also, note that it was 35 percent, for a short duration, at a time when power demand was relatively quite low.
Who paid the fixed costs for those gas plants to be ready to spin up to meet that demand? How much less would power have cost overall if it was just produced by existing plants and the wind was never built? Probably quite a bit less. But those total costs are never calculated.
Do these smaller reactors found on nuclear subs not require significantly higher fuel enrichment than the average power plant? Is this cost-effective, or even safe, to use on a large scale?
The sub was paid for, the fuel was paid for, these were essentially sunk costs. However they couldn't afford to send the ship to sea anymore and the city could really use some power. They were just making due with what they had. Was it cost effective for the navy, no, they weren't getting their desired value (combat power, deterrence, etc) from the sub. Was it cost effective for the city, perhaps, the sunk costs were not their problem and whatever the navy charged them was probably less than building a new power plant of any type (nuclear, natural gas, coal, ...).
That said, I'm just mentioning the subs as a working example of sea going nuclear power plants. I'm not suggesting we use sub reactor designs for commercial plants.
When you spread wind turbines out over a large area you also smooth out the variability.
The problem with allocating that cost to wind is that the other power plants do not pay for the spinning reserve.
My reading of the 6c/kwh is that includes transmission to the grid.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
From your earlier comment "But it has limits in what percentage of our supply it can produce and not cause grid stability issues"
I have shown that it can get to 35% without causing those issues .
Is the cost for spinning reserve paid for by the current power stations
Assuming power demand has not increased and thus no new plants would need to be built normally.
(I.e Wind is replacing existing instead of instead of new)
The marginal cost of coal and gas appears to be 50-80 putting the wind about equal. (And for your spinning reserve well we have gas power that is no longer running due to wind)
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
When you spread wind turbines out over a large area you also smooth out the variability.
You smooth at a little, but the problem is that the distance itself. Moving large amounts of power back and forth over distribution rather than transmission lines becomes the problem. Those lines are not sized to handle that type of load.
The problem with allocating that cost to wind is that the other power plants do not pay for the spinning reserve.
The cost is included in the total generation cost by the utility or power provider. So, yes, it is priced in. When a utility signed a normal power purchase agreement from another generator, it typically requires a certain amount of power and there is a reliability requirement. They power must be provided at the time and rate specified in the contract, or there are penalties. Most generators can supply at nearly a hundred percent reliability because they factor in the spinning reserve, and that is included in the contract price. But utilities are forced to buy from solar and wind at high rates, but they cannot ask for the same reliability, and if fact, they have to cover that deficiency themselves. So, solar and wind get to have their cake and eat it too, and then go off and boast about how they are competitive.