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.

Where does 7 feet of water come from?

[unimacs]

water also expands as it warms.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from?

[pitchpipe]

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. [nsidc.org]

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from?

[AK Marc]

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?

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from?

[Barsteward]

do your research for the formula. don't keep the attitude that because you don't know it, its not true or possible

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from?

[petermgreen]

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).

Re:CO2 and climate: my take

[ideonexus]

If you're interested in the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming, I suggest you read the science, not blog posts. I've read both WattsUp and SkepticalScience, and they are both very poorly written and lack rigorousness. If you are reading these two blogs, you are reading the work of bias amateurs.

Here's what you should be reading:

• the peer-reviewed Journal "Nature Climate Change [nature.com]," which includes and references thousands of scientific papers on the subject.
• he IPCC's 1,500-page "Physical Science Basis [climatechange2013.org]" report, clearly states what we know, don't know, and how we know it. It reviews its past predictions, notes where its models have errored, and takes into account an incredible wealth and scope of scientific observations over 150 years. I highly recommend downloading this 0.5 GIG report and at least skimming it. I consider it the model of good science [ideonexus.com].
• The IPCC also makes all of its data and models available for review [ipcc-data.org]. So you can see for yourself. Take this data and give it to a machine-learning algorithm. The science of AGW is actually shockingly simple.
• The US Government also recently updated it regularly scheduled report [globalchange.gov] written by over 300 experts.
• If you don't trust the government, then I recommend The Berkely Earth Project [berkeleyearth.org]. It was funded by the liberal's favorite bad guys, the Koch Brothers, but its results were so compelling that the lead Climatologist, Richard A. Muller, wrote a piece for the New York Times announcing he no longer a skeptic [nytimes.com].
• Of course, it's always good to have a contrarian viewpoint in the mix, and for that, I recommend AGW skeptic Judith Curry [judithcurry.com], who presents valid challenges to the consensus with her strong scientific background. I don't find her convincing, but her challenges make for good food for thought.

Science, published peer-reviewed science, not blogs, is where we should keep this discussion.

WUWT is denier nonsense

[tota]

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.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from?

[hxnwix]

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.