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]CreekDog
(46,192 posts)117. turns out you're wrong, Tsunamis are a risk
Tsunami study finds Southern California at risk
A theoretical 9.1 quake off Alaska could flood Long Beach and parts of O.C., and force 750,000 to evacuate.
September 4, 2013, 6:21 p.m.
A large tsunami hitting California would cause major flooding in Long Beach and parts of Orange County and force 750,000 people to evacuate coastal areas in just a few hours, according to an extensive simulation published Wednesday by the U.S. Geological Survey.
The study, released two years after a tsunami killed thousands in Japan, identified several communities that are particularly vulnerable to flooding because of their low elevation and lack of protection from waves.
They include Marina del Rey and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach as well as the low-lying coastal areas extending from the ports to Newport Beach.
The report, compiled by dozens of scientists, emergency responders and industry representatives, is the most extensive examination of what a tsunami would do to California's coastline. The research simulated a 9.1 quake off the Alaska coast that would send damaging waves to California.
While waves would be larger in Northern California between 10 and 23 feet the damage could be greater in Southern California because the region has more coastal development and fewer coastal cliffs.
Tsunami waves of 3 to 10 feet could submerge blocks of Long Beach south of Ocean Boulevard, including the Aquarium of the Pacific and the Long Beach Convention Center as well as the Shoreline Village and Pike shopping centers. Those same-sized waves could cause flooding around the affluent communities of Newport Bay and Huntington Harbour as well.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-tsunami-study-20130905,0,1877440.story
A theoretical 9.1 quake off Alaska could flood Long Beach and parts of O.C., and force 750,000 to evacuate.
September 4, 2013, 6:21 p.m.
A large tsunami hitting California would cause major flooding in Long Beach and parts of Orange County and force 750,000 people to evacuate coastal areas in just a few hours, according to an extensive simulation published Wednesday by the U.S. Geological Survey.
The study, released two years after a tsunami killed thousands in Japan, identified several communities that are particularly vulnerable to flooding because of their low elevation and lack of protection from waves.
They include Marina del Rey and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach as well as the low-lying coastal areas extending from the ports to Newport Beach.
The report, compiled by dozens of scientists, emergency responders and industry representatives, is the most extensive examination of what a tsunami would do to California's coastline. The research simulated a 9.1 quake off the Alaska coast that would send damaging waves to California.
While waves would be larger in Northern California between 10 and 23 feet the damage could be greater in Southern California because the region has more coastal development and fewer coastal cliffs.
Tsunami waves of 3 to 10 feet could submerge blocks of Long Beach south of Ocean Boulevard, including the Aquarium of the Pacific and the Long Beach Convention Center as well as the Shoreline Village and Pike shopping centers. Those same-sized waves could cause flooding around the affluent communities of Newport Bay and Huntington Harbour as well.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-tsunami-study-20130905,0,1877440.story
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