It is being bulit just above sea level on a sandy coast. Is this wise?
Z.
It is being bulit just above sea level on a sandy coast. Is this wise?
Z.
Odd. I just wrote a reply which did not appear.
The main acute problem would be tsunamis. The Atlantic is not known to be a location for earthquake-induced tsunamis; the key danger is the possible collapse of La Palma in the Canaries. Exactly how such a tsunami would play out in that location is a matter for simulation. I don't know it has been done but I suspect it has. An obvious way to get a PhD in marine engineering is to perform a viable simulation.
Sea level rise anticipated from climate change, even worst-case, can surely be countered with dykes. Current Dutch engineering is well up to that task.
Given the location, any tsunami will also be traversing the site rather than coming full-on, so can probably be mitigated with diversion breakwaters and then dykes, maybe in multiple.
But of course they actually have to be spec'd and built. Just knowing that and how something can be done does not ensure that it will be done.
Peter. You are so miss informed or just ignorant.
Sea level rise is constant and not accelerating in an alarming way.
Also, f you build a reactor in a tsunami area without consideration of the possible surge height then your standby cooling generators will get washed away in the surge.
Pretty obvious really.
Peter. You are so miss informed or just ignorant.
Interesting spelling.
Also, an interesting sequence of non-sequiturs.
What it shows is that, if you play bots in the right way, you can quickly get them to spout out obvious garbage.
BTW, anyone who Googles "Ladkin Fukushima" will see a number of reasons why many people think I am expert in this subject. I was invited to give an SSS'12 Keynote talk on it. The paper is essentially the one on ResearchGate, but if one goes to https://scsc.uk/scsc-116 there is also a link to a video of the talk.
Sea level rise is constant and not accelerating in an alarming way.
What data set are you using for this assertion?
For those unfamiliar:
Lowestoft is part of the 44-station UK National Tide Gauge Network, maintained by the Environmental Agency.
The NTGN is in turn a member of the Global Sea Level Observing System (GLOSS) which is maintained by UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. The GLOSS core network consists of around 300 measuring stations. The real time data are available through the Sea Level Station Monitoring Facility at VLIZ in Belgium. Collection, publication, analysis and interpretation is the responsibility of the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL), established in 1933 at the National Oceanography Centre at the Uni Liverpool. The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Group of Experts meets every two years to publish a report. The experts are named on the respective WWW sites and the reports available on-line. PSMSL and GLOSS publications may be found at https://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/training/gloss/
Contrary to what has been said above, the MSL has been rising recently. A graph showing the rise from 1700 to 2100 can be found at Figure 7.1 of J.T. Houghton, Global Warming, Fifth Edition, Cambridge U.P. 2015. The figure from 1700 is composed from paleo sea level data; for about the last 100 years from tide gauge data and altimeter data; and the future projections from models using the RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 scenarios.
The PSMSL WWW page reports the 2013 IPCC WG1 statement that
"It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm/yr between 1901 and 2010, 2.0 [1.7 to 2.3] mm/yr between 1971 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm/yr between 1993 and 2010. Tide-gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate of the latter period"
Since these data are based on actual measurement, AFAIK they have not changed since the 2013 statement.
But our bot claims otherwise. On the apparent basis of data that are included in this dataset. It is all but certain that it will not be able to explain its deviation.
https://ntslf.org/tgi/portinfo?port=Lowestoft
The device cannot be completely accurate being attached to such a structure as it is.
Where's the allowance for movement.
Let's follow the train of (if it may be so called) "thought" here.
Proposition 1: Sea level rise is constant
Question: On the basis of what data?
Proposition 2: On the basis of data from Lowestoft
Remark: The data from Lowestoft are part of the NTGN, which is in turn part of the GLOSS, and it is on the basis of the GLOSS that the sea level rise is judged. And the GLOSS data do not show constant rise, but increasing rise (in three periods from 1901 to 2010).
Proposition 3: The Lowestoft data are maybe not accurate.
So let's put Propositions 1-3 together: Sea level rise is constant, on the basis of Lowestoft data, but they are maybe not accurate.
If someone said that to me in an exam, I would ask, first, why they were making an unqualified assertion on the basis of data they don't trust. (There is no good answer to this question.) Then, second, I would ask how maybe more reliable data can be gathered. The obvious answer is: use a wider collection of data. I would remark that that has been done since 1933 in Britain and 1960 internationally, and those datasets have been analysed. Third, I would ask how often they are nominally analysed? The answer is: every two years. Fourth, I would ask what those analyses have shown. The answer is above.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site