All Activity

it's interesting some of the road names here, Lakeview and Soundview-everyone says you can't see the water....but then someone mentions that when the area was settled in the 40's there was a clear view b/c alot of the trees were felled by 1938....just could not imagine the destruction here today with all the development and tree canopy.

and, if you have a private well, good luck flushing your toilet

lol at wall street journal opinion articles; everyone has opinions, but just because someone typed their opinion, and you believe it, does not make it true here are some facts: link and link and if you want to look at "actual" numbers, you need to include operating costs including fuel inputs over the life of the facility, not just cost to build; and for nuclear, you need to include the cost of long term storage and disposal of radioactive components from the plant operations if you want try again and this time include operational costs to support your opinion, please do so

Tide is extra high today, at least on the Sound. Enough for splash over onto waterfront parks and sidewalks

Not sure who would pay any attention to this type of thing no matter who issued it. At best it is clickbait and at worst it is a steaming pile of ....

ready 2 plume

Yeah, I agree. October 2021 was basically a category 1 in Plymouth county with over 500k out. Imagine a cat 3 into CT.

Not to mention the breakdown of society and local government that would come with that.

Where is it putrid and mist?

Yup you're right...forgot 9/13 and 9/20 were also pretty blah Sundays too.

it's probably underdone. these types of science -based studies result in estimates. Sophisticated as they may be compared to oh say ..., Kevin-types and their brilliant objective-based illustrations of what is going to happen to trees and building and stuff... , they are still based upon more linearly algebraic resolutions using available/reanalaytic metrical inputs. what they don't include are the synergistic products of complex higher order energetic systems. one question that immediately leaps to mind for me is the 'domino effect' thereof. You get to a certain pervasive failure quotient and the weight just topples everything. We actually observed something similar to this during the 2008 ice storm up there in N Worcester and Middlesex Co. The margin towns that did record any icing, or if so... limited amounts, lost power by load balancing when substations reeled - often times safety measures built in cut regional grids... This is particularly true in tangled messes of major events where regions are a labyrinth of partially mixed with total and non disrupted messes. Everyone goes down in that region... I'm sure their science takes that into account, but when events get in that GOAT range ...there's almost always unexpected emergent properties.

60s are flip flop weather? Putrid and rancid ass mist?

Chalk it up to the law of averages. The previous decade (2006-2015) had none in that area.

Was nicer earlier here…felt milder too. Now you can feel the east flow marine puke even..clammy and damp.

Very warm feel today and humid too.

Upper 60s is shorts and flip flops??

First El NINO -related risk event of the season ?

Winter cancel ?

Make that 5 rainy Sundays in a row >:(

Look at the data. Europe in general has had a heavier push for renewables, and has seen higher rises in electricity prices than has the US as a result. It's clear. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/climate-policy-reality-europe-energy-costs-gas-coal-11632754849 https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/europes-green-energy-rush-slashed-emissionsand-crippled-the-economy-e65a1a07 etc. etc. Don't just look at the costs of individual projects and "peak output" which is what's often widely touted. Peak output is meaningless by itself. The problem is that renewables can't exist in a vacuum - they are too unreliable. Thus *even* if renewables could be less expensive than fossil on a per-KW basis (it generally isn't) - the overall *solution* is more expensive, because the fossil cannot be removed - it has to also stay in place to pick up the slack when unreliable wind and solar aren't present. Taking a specific case near where I live. There's an 800-acre 100 MW solar plant being installed right here (northern VA). Cost is $200 million. Since the capacity factor of solar here is about 20%, that makes it roughly $10M per MW. Compare that with a natural gas plant just down the road - 774 MW (about 540 MW w/capacity factor of 70%), and a cost of $778M. Thus it cost about 4x as much to build - but will be producing about 28x the electricity, and much more reliably so. Then compare with Kemmerer SMR being built in Wyoming. Cost is estimated to be $4B; will be putting out about 345 MW. Thus will be about $11.5M per MW - about the same cost as solar. And that's the *first* SMR being built - costs of future ones will come down a lot. Look at the numbers. Look at the *actual* numbers, not the theoretical ones. Look at the constant stream of renewable projects that have to be canceled to high costs - either during construction or during maintenance. Look at the interplay between sources of energy. Look at geography. Look at weather. Look at where people live, and what it takes to get electricity from there to here. Look at infrastructure. Look at land space usage. Look at materials usage (rare earths, silver, etc. etc.). Look at life spans, cycles, and recycling of materials used for generation. Etc. etc.

My area was the worst on that map….that 38 cane crushed us. While I’d love to experience that type of ferocity….i don’t think I’d want to be without power for 3 months.

There as actually a presentation similar to this at the Tri-State Weather conference this past Saturday.