Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: San Onofre shutdown will mean tight electricity supplies [View all]AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)71. There have been, and there is risk of tsunami much taller than 14' hitting the west coast.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/tsunami/
(That was the 15' when it hit WA coastline, that I mentioned earlier)
There is a lot of fairly recent work to understand just how high and how often we actually get hit here.
"While the Pacific Ocean is prime tsunami territory, researchers had long believed that the U.S. coast was relatively safe from the threat of serious devastation. New evidence now suggests that a major tsunami may strike the West Coast every 300 to 500 years. Current thinking is that the Cascadia subduction zone, an area off the Pacific Northwest coast where a crustal plate carrying part of the ocean dives under the continent, last had an earthquake in the 1700s, which generated a giant and deadly tsunami.
"We guess it was about 30 meters high," says Eisner, explaining how marine sand deposits have been found in Oregon, evidence of this great event. "All along the Oregon coast, you see these swamps full of dead trees," he continues, "and these trees have been core-dated. They all died in the 1700s, correlating with the dates of the sand deposits, which were carried by powerful waves up onto the coastal bluffs."" (Richard Eisner)
Recorded human history isn't very old in this region. We mostly have to rely on geological record to infer what has happened, how big, and how often. I don't believe the evidence is encouraging. SONGS may be somewhat sheltered by the shape of the coastline from Alaska, but there are other potential sources of tsunami, even subduction zones, in the Pacific.
(That was the 15' when it hit WA coastline, that I mentioned earlier)
There is a lot of fairly recent work to understand just how high and how often we actually get hit here.
"While the Pacific Ocean is prime tsunami territory, researchers had long believed that the U.S. coast was relatively safe from the threat of serious devastation. New evidence now suggests that a major tsunami may strike the West Coast every 300 to 500 years. Current thinking is that the Cascadia subduction zone, an area off the Pacific Northwest coast where a crustal plate carrying part of the ocean dives under the continent, last had an earthquake in the 1700s, which generated a giant and deadly tsunami.
"We guess it was about 30 meters high," says Eisner, explaining how marine sand deposits have been found in Oregon, evidence of this great event. "All along the Oregon coast, you see these swamps full of dead trees," he continues, "and these trees have been core-dated. They all died in the 1700s, correlating with the dates of the sand deposits, which were carried by powerful waves up onto the coastal bluffs."" (Richard Eisner)
Recorded human history isn't very old in this region. We mostly have to rely on geological record to infer what has happened, how big, and how often. I don't believe the evidence is encouraging. SONGS may be somewhat sheltered by the shape of the coastline from Alaska, but there are other potential sources of tsunami, even subduction zones, in the Pacific.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
118 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yeah. Because we have barely scratched the surface of conservation efforts, which
kestrel91316
Jun 2013
#12
I don't know if I would associate 'reliable base load' and San Onofre...
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#2
And how much of a hole in the grid when a few wind turbines overspeed and break?
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#4
I don't think I've ever heard of doldrums affecting an entire state grid.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#7
Hell, I don't think the wind EVER dies down in the Tehachapi Pass or out in the desert........
kestrel91316
Jun 2013
#10
All it takes is a little intense heat in California and the winds begin to blow
CreekDog
Jun 2013
#62
the irony is that you want us to think of wind and solar as some scheming "industry"
CreekDog
Jun 2013
#89
"wind turbines are far less carbon intensive than the nuclear fuel cycle" WRONG
wtmusic
Jun 2013
#39
California has the highest geothermal production capacity in the nation.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#75
The 1995 Hanshin quake in Kobe was a strike-slip and even though only a 7.2, produced
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#24
The Fukushima Dai-ichi sea wall was considered adequate by some, until it wasn't.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#31
There have been, and there is risk of tsunami much taller than 14' hitting the west coast.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#71
Actually, you and PamW are all arguing peculiarly similar things, which are misleading
CreekDog
Jun 2013
#81
They're similar points (since they both correct the same error)... but they aren't 1 or 2
FBaggins
Jun 2013
#82
The simple fact is PamW said specifically that there aren't subduction zones off California --false
CreekDog
Jun 2013
#83
Actually, I pointed out far upthread that the Cocos/Pacific plate fault can produce these tsunami.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#84
Our understanding of how faults and quakes work in the Pacific is evolving to this day.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2013
#91
Certainly... but that returns us to the Yellowstone example and the first point
FBaggins
Jun 2013
#92
you're blaming Greenpeace supporters for the shutdown of San Onofre? did they f--- up the plant?
CreekDog
Jun 2013
#61
Hey wtmusic, San Onofre is not "reliable baseload" when it's been off for 1.5 years
CreekDog
Jun 2013
#90