Gulf Coast oil spill could eclipse Exxon Valdez - Page 2

Hands, I'm usually on your side, but when it comes to Nuclear Power you are horribly misinformed. Look up pebble bed reactors. They are safe and clean. No possibility of Chernobyl. The reaction literally cannot get out of hand in such a reactor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

No energy development program is free of risks... a few weeks ago a West Virginia coal mine explosion killed several miners. A few weeks before that there were fatalities at a hydro electric plant. Every energy effort is full of risk. Now we see the environmental effect of an oil leak in the Gulf. Yet, in the final analysis, in terms of risk, nuclear power remains the safest form of energy. Yes a "meltdown" as you suggest 'could" occur. So too, terrorists could obtain a weaponized nuclear device and detonate it. All sorts of things "could" happen. Thus this nation needs to choose a path and nuclear energy stands shoulders above other energy development programs as the best alternative. Other types of clean energy plans do exist, but none present the potential that nuclear energy offers. Solar energy is realistic but only offers power generation during daylight. Wind energy is realistic but only offers power generation in selected open plain areas.

Wasn't Chernobyl the result of the Russians building a nuclear power plant without a containment vessel, something no-one else in the world has done?

Modern reactors are indeed incapable of melting down, but Chernobyl was a really bad design even by the older standards. I have issues about nuclear waste storage, but hauling out Chernobyl every time to demonize nuclear power is simply stupid and pointless.

gasoline engine 14% efficiency.
Electric motor 60%.

Yea, we all know that simply burning shit up and not going anywhere makes you happy. Your brilliance shines in every one of your posts.

I love it when people talk about stuff and have no clue.

Here is how large scale solar works.
Sun makes very hot fluid.
Fluid is pumped into underground tank.
Heat of fluid makes steam and drives generator DAY AND NIGHT.

Wind energy can be used to pump water up to a dam. Water runs down because of gravity and makes energy.

There's also storage by compressing air -

Quotes-

Compressed air energy systems currently exist in conventional power plants there is one in McIntosh, Alabama that has been in operation for a decade. These conventional plants compress and heat the air with natural gas or coal, however Southwest Solar Technology is planning to compress and heat the air in their CAES with clean technology. Where a conventional plant will switch from natural gas to coal at night the Southwest Solar Technology plant will switch from solar to wind.

The big coal plant they needed to meet the daytime demand made too much power at night. Turning down the plant at night wasnt a good solution because coal plants work most efficiently at full capacity, and turning them down makes them dirtier. And even with the plant at full power during the day, the utility still had to buy power from other companies to meet their peak daytime demand. But with a storage plant, they could use the extra electricity made at night to satisfy their daytime peak demand.

EPRI has determined that up to 80 percent of the US has geology suitable for CAES.
~ http://www.physorg.com/news188048601.html

My point is not that we can suddenly get off oil completely, but that the oil companies have fought to limit the expansion of new clean energies whilst downplaying the harm fossil fuels cause.

True up to a point for sure. All the large businesses are catered to, to one degree or another. Fortunately though ExxonMobil doesn't write the global warming agenda for Obama, unlike during the Bush years.

If what your saying is true then that's a big step forward and I would consider that technology worth using. My concern is though that it might not be true, especially in the case of some kind of attack. I read your wiki link and it appears that a number of projects have been cancelled due to safety concerns, though those concerns may not be on the same scale as Chernobyl, they still may be severe. I wonder why there seem to be so few of them too?

With all the enriched uranium and plutonium that these plants produce and then transport I wonder too how sensible it is to be building more, given that only a little obtained by terrorists could cause so much ruin.

I fully accept that nuclear plants are a lot safer than Chernobyl, that pollution from fossil fuels is a big killer/ harmful and that CO2 emmissions are hugely less from nuclear plants but the potential devastation from them I believe cannot be ruled out. So why invest in the technology when there is alternative clean energy? Many believe that renewables can provide nearly all of our power and there's certainly lots of room to save by being more efficient.

You can download one book on the subject here called "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy". ( http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/ ). I've only read a little of it so far. There are many people who believe that clean energy can provide us with all the power we need, it's the interests of fossil fuel industries and nuclear that keep it from us not our ability to utilize it.

So if it's possible to create another Chernobyl and possibly several at the same time, why build any more except to make a few powerful and wealthy people a little more powerful and wealthy?

I would hope that you're right about the strength of the plants resistance to an airliner attack. I can't help think of that impenetrable armor though, that wasn't impenetrable when it was hit in the same place twice.

The Greenpeace article I linked to earlier reported-

"The US NRC has conducted over 90 force en force trials (coined as ‘Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation Tests’) but despite the fact that the security staff receive prior warning of the tests, about 45% of the tested nuclear plants failed. Most disturbing is that three plants tested shortly before September 11th (Farley, Oyster Creek and Vermont Yankee ) were the worst on record. In another assessment, The NRC notes that between 15-20% of US nuclear plants would sustain safety critical levels of damage from a vehicle bomb accessing close to the supervised boundary of the plant."
~ http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/Multime...eport/5387.pdf

Personally I think it's probably a whole lot easier to set off dirty nuclear bombs in cities than it is to attack nuclear power plants, however, given that they remain a large target and given that terrorists may come up with clever new ideas involving missile launchers near the plants etc, I think we should be cautious and shut them all down. That would create serious problems in the short term and no doubt isn't about to happen. But maybe it will if there's a major and successful attack on these plants. But then it'll be too late again.

Also note that these nuclear plants can't get insurance. Only the government will insure them because no one else is daft enough. Not only that the government has to front a lot of the money to build them because Wall Street considers them a bad investment.

This spill will change our energy policy for the better.
Unfortunately it is (trumptmans favorite word): genocide.

Please donate to the army of vets which is on the move to help.
Millions of birds and sea life will perish.
Thank you BP. We love you.
Please raise our gas prices so we all can pay for cleaning up your mess.

And we thought 9/11 was bad.
This will take the cake.

Hopefully they'll mandate the $500,000 per rig acoustic switches that may well have prevented the leak but that Bush thought were just too expensive for oil companies to mess with.

video- http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...-and-his-meeti

To provide relatively inexpensive power and energy to millions of people.

And what is it with people who hate it if someone were to get rich providing things people need or want?

Are you suggesting that this was a terrorist attack? One that will ultimately kill thousands of people?

No he is not, he is suggesting that it is environmental genocide, and lots of animals will die if I read him right.

A bunch of latte-sipping hippies managed to go on a deep sea scuba-diving eco-terrorism mission? No one really thinks that here right?

The timing certainly is remarkable though. I assume it's a coindidence of course. I was actually in my mind thinking hey, why not, let's allow SOME offshore drilling. After all to my knowledge (I haven't looked this up though) it's been a while since a huge catastrophe like Exxon Valdez. Perhaps the industry has gotten better in combination with better regulations. Well I guess not. CNN or someone had a report which mentioned we're one of the only countries that doesn't require remote-controlled blowout prevents. Typical stupid Republican idea that industry will "do the right thing" if you just "leave them alone." Well I assume there will be new regulations. Everyone will have BP to blame.

Nice to see Bobby Jindall all about the government bailout (again, of course, after Katrina). Of course he is also against most Federal government spending...

Well this sucks there are no two ways about it. I hope the Coast Guard and National Guard win the fight against the clock and the spill. I want to work on emergency disaster response doing GIS. I hope I will be able to join them and help them in efforts like this in a few years. The best response is of course prevention...

Agreed...I never understood why oil companies didn't hedge their bet and invest in renewable energy! I guess it's because it'd take 10 or 20 years to pay off and that is "too long", way past the usual company thinking of only caring about the next 4 quarters? \

It's interesting that two very vocal Repubs who strongly supported the "Drill, baby, drill" meme, Sara and Steele, have been silent since the spill started, not even to say something along the lines of feeling sorry for the workers' deaths nor saying anything about needing a quick clean up. Guess they're busy prepping their talking points.

-----

Yes, it is mainly about prevention, but like the fire department, it is essential to be ready for disaster and hope it never happens. BP didn't have this one covered at all and if it weren't for the government scientists nobody would know how big the spill actually is. Hopefully now that it is not being left up to the big corporation and its greed the problem can actually be dealt with before it does too much harm.

As a former responder, it's also good to see people wanting to get in to emergency response, so I applaud your hope. Good luck to you.

But what about Transocean? They seem to be the more likely candidate for legal action.

Regardless of this spill, freeing ourselves as a nation from foreign petroleum reliance is a priority and we do as a nation need to "drill baby drill" for the future of our energy needs. While oil spills do severely impact the environment, they do not change our national petroleum needs. We cannot yet drive our cars on wind or solar power so while petroleum does impact the environment it also powers our nation and we owe a lot to the oil companies and oil workers who provide it. What bothers me is why Obama has waited a week to visit the gulf? Was the comedy last night at White House Correspondents Dinner so more important than the oil spill?


There are thousands of offshore oil platforms and we have been quite fortunate thus far on our petroleum development.

Joe the leaky plumber speaks his two brain cells- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y7M9AxGQOI

The first nation to be off oil will lead the world's economy and win peace.

It's like quitting smoking or loosing weight, I'll just have one more drag or one more bite after that I'll quit.... Yeah rite.

We are going to have to do something drastic. Currently all considered the gallon of gas costs $ 15.- (incl. wars, environmental impact, health, +++), Let's put a "f - u" tax on it and make it cost $ 30 at the pump which would not be much more than in many countries. We'll have E trains, and E cars within 1 year all paid for by gas tax and free health care for everyone.

Wherever is best to manage the spill from. A trip may not be necessary. It would certainly be smarter PR though. And perhaps it would guide his decision-making. Perhaps it would've been a good idea to visit sooner.

I agree, we can't just turn off oil. Also you make a good point. Spills are few and far in between. But because of their impact, that's not good enough. They need to not happen. They're low-frequency large-magnitude events. People wouldn't except nuclear meltdowns that were "rare" but happened every now and then. In fact more than ever I hope we research nuclear more. Perhaps this can give the President political cover from the left on that issue.

2010: one disaster after another! \

Yes. I read BP has the remote vehicles, not the government. So for success on this response they need to be on their A-game, too. Were you in fire, police, EMT, hazmat? Or PM me if you shouldn't disclose it. Anyhow that's good to know, glad you served your community.

Obama's detractors are now claiming that when a private corporation f∆cks up, it's the fault of the government. But perhaps thats not so far from the reality, since government is now merely an extension of corporate power. We The People (whozzatt??) don't count for anything at the federal level, regardless of whether its Tweedledum, or Tweedledumber in office.

Actually, there is always oil on the beaches in the Santa Barbara area; there is natural leakage of thick gooey tar from the seabed in the Santa Barbara Channel, which periodically washes ashore. The local Chumash tribe used the tar to waterproof their boats 1000+ years ago.

Oh good. That makes it cool.

The odds you and your family die in a terrorist attack are even less. But still we went to war twice and spent several trillion so why not spent that cash on cleaning up our act instead?

Toshiba has a prototype mini reactor which can supply a highrise bldg for 25 years on a fill. What I really don't like about nuclear is the long power lines and the fact that the grid can be targeted by terrorists. Home made (local) power is the way to go.

I only mention it because the oil companies operating the rigs in the Santa Barbara Channel constantly use "natural seepage" as a way of cutting corners, or deflecting blame for spills. Venoco, one of the companies operating in the area is one of the worst offenders, re. lax practices.

Death is coming ashore. Oil is death.

Thank god those are mostly red states and they won't want any federal $ and really don't give a shit about a couple thousand dead sea turtles.

The Hangout is going to be the a ghost town this summer.

Drill, baby drill.

_____
___________
_____
___

Chlorine gas was used as a chemical weapon by the Germans. I can't believe they'd have so much stored like that, amazing.

You said, "The only real security concern I have is some ground force occupying a plant and knowing enough to bypass the safety systems to cause a meltdown". Which is highly likely in my opinion and once they take control what's to stop them using whatever means at their disposal, like explosives to break through the containment wall?

Here's how a CNN piece described the security training in the face of a terrorists attack-

"They are training for an attacking force of five, when in reality they'd come in with at least 12," said Stockton, noting that they also don't allow the "terrorists" to use automatic weapons or high-powered explosives. "It's ridiculously unbelievable."
~ http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/12/news...rity/index.htm

I live about thirty miles from a nuclear power station and UK security is even more lax than US security. So maybe they'll try attacking a few here first and see how they get on. \

Uh oh.....70 times worse than Chernobyl...

"Terrorists targeting the high-density storage systems used at nuclear power plants throughout the nation could cause contamination problems "significantly worse than those from Chernobyl," the study found.

Strapped for long-term storage options, the nation's 103 nuclear power plants routinely pack four to five times the number of spent fuel rods into water-cooled tanks than the tanks were designed to hold, the authors reported. This high-density configuration is safe when cooled by water, but would likely cause a fire -- with catastrophic results -- if the cooling water leaked. The tanks could be ruptured by a hijacked jet or sabotage, the study contends.
The consequences of such a fire would be the release of a radiation plume that would contaminate eight to 70 times more land than the area affected by the 1986 accident in Chernobyl. The cost of such a disaster would run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, the researchers reported."
~ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0214073629.htm

A little less hyperbole and over the top rhetoric I think is needed here!

Yes... this oil spill will harm the environment temporarily, then we will clean it up and go on to usual business... the same oil that is floating ashore is the same oil that is fueling the presidential motorcade viewing the cleanup... the same oil that will fuel American enterprise Monday morning and every morning thereafter. Oil is not death but the fuel that powers American enterprise. Let's not loose sight of the real issue here....

Business as usual I don't think so somehow!

oil is dead vegetation and critters, dead bacteria and more dead things.
La Brea tar pits ...?

wait for the fish prices and oil prices and jobless fishermen on welfare and health care bills for residents from fumes and no tourism and clean up for years and..., this spill will cost more than the wars plus maybe tarp. $ 30 gas is here folks.

Add into that the results of a possible war with Iran and Obama's less, but still relevant, $39 billion being taken away from oil and coal companies in the form of tax breaks plus climate change legislation and gas prices will significantly rise.

The shit has officially hit the very large fan.

Red states, oil spill - poetic justice?
god is a prankster, you know.

I'm seeing a lot of projecting in the press... back up to $100/barrel? Possible. Very possible.