|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads Post here for all Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
November 9th, 2012, 03:05 PM | #1051 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,044
Thanks: 24,638
Thanked 34,288 Times in 4,008 Posts
|
scoundrel,
Thanks for the info. It seems to me this would be a huge engineering project far surpassing what you guys have done in London (especially if you're going to include Staten Island and the Jersey Shore. Quote:
And something you guys in London are probably going to have to look at. |
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to 9876543210 For This Useful Post: |
November 9th, 2012, 03:17 PM | #1052 | |
Former Staff
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 16,579
Thanks: 452,836
Thanked 222,657 Times in 16,567 Posts
|
Quote:
Anyway, it looks like work for a lot of people, which is good. Pity the circumstances are so negative, but you know... |
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to palo5 For This Useful Post: |
November 9th, 2012, 04:33 PM | #1053 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,044
Thanks: 24,638
Thanked 34,288 Times in 4,008 Posts
|
palo5,
Quote:
But this idea of separating the power lines from subways and other underground areas actually could keep the estimates in that $33 b to $50 b range, or exceed it. There is going to be a lot of engineering needed for this as well as new lines. Will water and sewage also be affected? Do you have to make sure the electrical lines stay dry? I don't think you can put those electrical lines back aboveground. At least in NYC. I don't know. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. |
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to 9876543210 For This Useful Post: |
November 9th, 2012, 04:59 PM | #1054 |
Good show!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The Marches
Posts: 2,526
Thanks: 102,981
Thanked 31,897 Times in 2,528 Posts
|
Perhaps a better idea, in the long term, would be to "transfer" Central Park to any part of New York prone to flooding and use the existing park to re-locate any displaced businesses/homes.
Probably prohibitively expensive and controversial, but like London, if climatologists are to be believed, everyone living near sea level in New York will have to re-locate to higher ground at some point.
__________________
motley crew though they were, they were all happily united in the roisterous, bawdy camaraderie of lust. |
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to mizlaplan For This Useful Post: |
November 9th, 2012, 05:28 PM | #1055 | |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,237
Thanks: 162,389
Thanked 278,408 Times in 26,182 Posts
|
Quote:
However, our sea defences nationally are badly in arrears for basic maintenance and in the current financial climate that's how they'll stay. Such work as has been going on seems to be on improving river courses, dredging and straightening them and building bypass channels. After the widespread and repeated flood events of 2000, which wenton from September and into the early spring of 2001 (caused by exceptional rainfall) the insurance industry made public their concerns about government inaction on flood defences; there is informal agreement between government and the insurance industry that flood insurance premiums are controlled, but in exchange, government minimises the rish burden by looking after the river courses. This is harder since silly bitch Margaret Thatcher sold off the water boards into private ownership in 1989; but the arrangement still stands, and makes river flood defences and drainage systems a higher priority. I think one day sooner or later we'll have a "perfect storm" such as 1953 again. London will be defended by the Thames Barrier; it was designed to resist exactly such an event. Elsewhere, we'll be just as damaged as we were in 1953. Hopefully people will evacuate when they are told; otherwise, they might not be rescued.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post: |
November 9th, 2012, 06:41 PM | #1056 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,044
Thanks: 24,638
Thanked 34,288 Times in 4,008 Posts
|
mizlaplan,
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to 9876543210 For This Useful Post: |
November 9th, 2012, 06:50 PM | #1057 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,044
Thanks: 24,638
Thanked 34,288 Times in 4,008 Posts
|
Scoundrel,
I don't think I quite got my point across about this problem of separating the power lines from other underground utilities and the subways. It seems to me that every city close to an ocean with a subway system is now going to have to rethink how they run their electrical utilities. I think that may be one of the most important lessons from Sandy (at least for big cities). Running them next to each other seems to be extremely problematic if those areas are flooded. |
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to 9876543210 For This Useful Post: |
November 9th, 2012, 06:58 PM | #1058 |
Good show!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The Marches
Posts: 2,526
Thanks: 102,981
Thanked 31,897 Times in 2,528 Posts
|
You can't make an omelette without beating a few eggs to smithereens
But seriously, you have to think of land near sea level as being transitory. In a century or more it might be permanently underwater, a tidal beach/mud flat, or even higher than it currently is (look up "isostatic adjustment"). If it's treated as park land, it will have great recreational/social value which won't be affected that much if it occasionally floods. A few plants killed by salt water/waterlogging, sculptures overturned,etc. Docks damaged. At most, a few million in damages. A heavily built up area which floods as badly as lower New York appears to be prone to? Billions, every time.
__________________
motley crew though they were, they were all happily united in the roisterous, bawdy camaraderie of lust. |
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to mizlaplan For This Useful Post: |
November 9th, 2012, 07:15 PM | #1059 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,044
Thanks: 24,638
Thanked 34,288 Times in 4,008 Posts
|
mizlaplan,
Quote:
But something tells me I'd be in the minority and stomped straight into the ground if I even suggested it. But what do I know? It would take a really strong leader to get that one through some people's thick skulls. Good luck, I hope it works. |
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to 9876543210 For This Useful Post: |
November 9th, 2012, 07:50 PM | #1060 | |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,237
Thanks: 162,389
Thanked 278,408 Times in 26,182 Posts
|
Quote:
They are a familiar sight in the UK. Don't even think of flying a kite anywhere near one of these things. Most of our largest power stations are remote from London and other major cities and so these powerlines are the cost effective method of transmission, though they are obviously vulnerable to weather events. Future solutions may well require an evolution of the technology instead of a redesign of the network; for example: It took decades to build the UK's national grid. The Weir Report of 1925, which led to such vital reforms as a UK-wide stadard 240volts for home and busness electricity, and later a three-point-plug which was introduced for new buildings in 1947 (British Standard BS 1363, still widely regarded as one of the best in the developed world) also led to a decades long construction project to build those 400kV transmission masts all over the UK. There are hundreds of thousands of them in all, and they were still being built in the 1970s, fulfilling a commitment made in 1925. So when it comes to replacing them, we have time to rethink our technical approach and it might be quicker and cheaper to move over to smaller scale local generation and to wireless transmission than to build a different national grid based on underground cables, which will be safer from damage but harder to fix if they get damaged. Another approach might be to concede to nature and accept that stuff will get trashed now and again, and design it to be replaced more quickly, cheaply and easily, to reduce the inevitable down-time after incidents like Sandy. It isn't my professional field so I don't know if the UK national grid uses London Underground tunnels. I stand to be corrected but I don't think they do, actually. I am aware that LU once had their own dedicated power station in Chelsea, but this was decommissioned in the 1980s and the network now depends on the national grid; which I personally think is foolish and should change. The national grid are replacing overhead powerlines in the London metropolitan area with dedicated service tunnels:http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-dept...010600.article However, this is not a case of wave-a-magic-wand. Stuff like this takes a very long time unless you want to throw money at it like Niagara Falls and don't mind the traffic chaos you will cause by doing all of it at once.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|