or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Gulf Coast oil spill could eclipse Exxon Valdez
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gulf Coast oil spill could eclipse Exxon Valdez - Page 2

post #41 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Ever hear of killing the electric car? Ever hear of stupid American's determined to use a Ford Expedition/ suburban to take their kids to school in the suburbs because they think that global warming is just some bullshit hoax and it would never effect them anyway?

Nuclear power is a fucked up energy source. We would be much better off developing cleaner and safer alternatives. FUCK NUCLEAR POWER. Nearly a million Russians have died as a result of Chernoble. The money it takes to develop nuclear power would be much, much, much better spent on solar etc.

Are you really trying to claim that the Democrats are less pro clean energy than the repubs? Who are you talking about in New Mexico? Bill Richardson? Please provide a link.

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

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #42 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

If a meltdown were to occur at a nuclear facility the ramifications could be much more severe than crashing an airliner into a building. I wonder too what other methods of attacking nuclear power plants might be in the future too.

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.
post #43 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

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

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.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #44 of 700
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The US is the leading producer of nuclear power, not France. France has a higher ratio of it's power coming from nuclear but has only about 60 nuclear power stations to Americas 104.

As to the "hyperbole" of a million deaths from Chernobyl-

Obviously an accident on the scale of Chernobyl is dangerous, but since cancers and other health effects caused by radiation (at low/chronic exposure levels) are indistinguishable from cancers and health effects from other causes, I'd like to know how they tracked these cases down as being directly caused by Chernobyl.

What about the ~30,000 deaths caused yearly by coal power plants/mining in the USA alone? Every technology has its hazards, I'd rather go with the one with a fraction of a percentage chance of being dangerous to one that kills on a daily basis.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

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.

There were many design faults in the RMBK reactor, which has since been acknowledged by the Soviets/Russians. Chief among them being the graphite moderator used in the reactor, which caught fired and lead to the extensive spread of contamination. Otherwise the contamination would have been limited to a local event. (Still not pleasant for those living in the area, but not an international incident) If the reactor would have been equipped with a containment dome the effects would have been completely contained (see Three Mile Island), or if it was built to a modern heavy water moderated design the accident would never have occurred.

Quote:
-The RBMK had no containment structure. It was so large that constructing a containment would have been prohibitively expensive. If Chernobyl had been constructed with a containment, all of the reactor design flaws, human errors, incorrect construction, and flawed testing, leading up to a steam explosion, would have been stopped at the containment and never reached the outside world.

Also:
Could it happen here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

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.

I recall an article in National Geographic comparing different energy technologies that could power New York City. In comparison to two nuclear power plants that can provide the required loads, the solar panels with current technology would take up most of Westchester County, a wind farm would be even larger and take up a large portion of the southern part of the state.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #45 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Is it time for "Fun With Bad Analogies" again? Damn I miss that show.

For me that "130 year old gasoline engine" for of "modern transportation" works just great getting me where I need to go quickly, safely and efficiently. But it's probably only me.

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.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #46 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

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.

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.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #47 of 700
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
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #48 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

HS, what would you propose "the world" do with our global dependence/interdependence on oil? Simply give it up? Not possible, not by a long shot. Oil will still be around for another 50 to 100 years, and if it's not being used for fuel by then, it'll still be used for plastics, chemicals and other things. You should actually visit an oil company, see how things are done first hand and then make informed comments.

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.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #49 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Obama is beholden to the exact same interests as Bush, give or take a few unions. When the players are the same, expect the results of the game to be the same.

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.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #50 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

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

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.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #51 of 700
Thread Starter 
That compressed air technology looks interesting. I agree that storage and security of spent fuel is a concern. I'm not very happy about Obama's push to shut down the National Repository, that would have made both issues irrelevant.

Hands, an airliner crashing into a nuclear plant shouldn't cause any damage to the core or an overload, that is factored into the design of the plant containment building. One of the flights on 9/11 flew directly over the Indian Point nuclear plant, they didn't bother to hit it because it would not have caused much damage or loss of life, wouldn't have made as much of a statement.

The containment are typically many feet of reinforced concrete with a several inch thick steel inner liner. (the actual amounts are classified, but former Nayv nuke people I know who work at civilian nuclear facilities say anecdotally a fully loaded 747 at top speed would hardly dent one) There's a reason the NRC refers to them as a "missle shield". 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, however unlikely that might be. (again any meltdown/explosion would be contained by the containment building)

Quote:
The containment building itself is typically an airtight steel structure enclosing the reactor normally sealed off from the outside atmosphere. The steel is either free-standing or attached to the concrete missile shield. In the United States, the design and thickness of the containment and the missile shield are governed by federal regulations (10 CFR 50.55a), and must be strong enough to withstand the impact of a fully loaded passenger airliner without rupture.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #52 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

That compressed air technology looks interesting. I agree that storage and security of spent fuel is a concern. I'm not very happy about Obama's push to shut down the National Repository, that would have made both issues irrelevant.

Hands, an airliner crashing into a nuclear plant shouldn't cause any damage to the core or an overload, that is factored into the design of the plant containment building. One of the flights on 9/11 flew directly over the Indian Point nuclear plant, they didn't bother to hit it because it would not have caused much damage or loss of life, wouldn't have made as much of a statement.

The containment are typically many feet of reinforced concrete with a several inch thick steel inner liner. (the actual amounts are classified, but former Nayv nuke people I know who work at civilian nuclear facilities say anecdotally a fully loaded 747 at top speed would hardly dent one) There's a reason the NRC refers to them as a "missle shield". 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, however unlikely that might be. (again any meltdown/explosion would be contained by the containment building)

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.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #53 of 700
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.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #54 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

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
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #55 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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?

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?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #56 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

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

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

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #57 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #58 of 700
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...
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #59 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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.

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? \
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #60 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

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.

-----

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...

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.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #61 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

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.

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

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #62 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

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.

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

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.

There are thousands of offshore oil platforms and we have been quite fortunate thus far on our petroleum development.
post #63 of 700
Joe the leaky plumber speaks his two brain cells- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y7M9AxGQOI
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #64 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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.

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.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #65 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

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.

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! \
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #66 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

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.

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.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #67 of 700
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.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #68 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Getting onto an oil rig is not the easiest venture. Explosions of oil wells are not uncommon.
BP is ready to pay.
Halliburton anyone?

The oil spilled in 1969 is still in the sands of Santa Barbara, CA. Hotels hand you a special cleaner and little nylon socks to wear so you can walk on the beach. This oil will be in the sand long after we no longer use oil.

Drill, baby drill.

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.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #69 of 700
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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?

Huh? That is the exact opposite of what I linked to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

"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.

Like I said, security from land attack is a concern. No reason to shut down all plants (and increase our reliance on foreign oil/US coal, plus emit more CO2). Plus those tests referred to are going on 10 years old, that PDF you linked to is from 2003. Hopefully security would have improved since then. (I don't have any handy data on that so I can't comment directly) How would the terrorists get the missile launchers into the country? Our security is still fairly loose, but not that loose.

How is security at your local water treatment plant? Many people don't realize that thousands of pounds (maybe cubic feet, not sure how it's measured in large quantities) of chlorine gas are stored at those facilities. The last Navy base I was stationed at had an evacuation plan for the possibility of the neighboring treatment plant suffering a massive gas leak. AFIK the adjoining town where we lived had no planning whatsoever, even though it had the potential depending on wind, etc. to kill everyone withing several miles of the facility.

Quote:
Nearly 19 million Americans are at risk from exposure to dangerous chlorine gas used at 45 wastewater treatment facilities, according to a report released by the Environmental Defense Fund and a coalition of environmental groups. A major incident, accidental or deliberate, at only one of these plants could kill or seriously injure more than 100,000 people, according to Environmental Defense.

“All facilities using large amounts of dangerous chemicals have a public responsibility to reduce the hazards they pose,” said Carol Andress, an analyst for Environmental Defense. “For wastewater treatment, there is no excuse for using chlorine gas. Safer alternatives are available, affordable and practical for facilities large and small.”

Six of these wastewater treatment plants (Back River Wastewater Treatment Facility in Baltimore; Metro Wastewater Reclamation District in Denver; Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant; Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant in Modesto, Calif.; the City of Niagara Fall Wastewater Treatment Plant; and Central Valley Reclamation in Salt Lake City) could affect more than one million residents, the group said.

From http://www.environmentaldefense.org.

My family and I live about 30-40 minutes from a nuclear plant. We are much more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the store than a one in a million (billion?) incident that somehow exceeds the design limits of the reactors. That doesn't mean I advocate getting rid of cars and trucks.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #70 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

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.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #71 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

My family and I live about 30-40 minutes from a nuclear plant. We are much more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the store than a one in a million (billion?) incident that somehow exceeds the design limits of the reactors. That doesn't mean I advocate getting rid of cars and trucks.

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.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #72 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Oh good. That makes it cool.

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.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #73 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

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.

_____
___________
_____
___
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #74 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Huh? That is the exact opposite of what I linked to.



Like I said, security from land attack is a concern. No reason to shut down all plants (and increase our reliance on foreign oil/US coal, plus emit more CO2). Plus those tests referred to are going on 10 years old, that PDF you linked to is from 2003. Hopefully security would have improved since then. (I don't have any handy data on that so I can't comment directly) How would the terrorists get the missile launchers into the country? Our security is still fairly loose, but not that loose.

How is security at your local water treatment plant? Many people don't realize that thousands of pounds (maybe cubic feet, not sure how it's measured in large quantities) of chlorine gas are stored at those facilities. The last Navy base I was stationed at had an evacuation plan for the possibility of the neighboring treatment plant suffering a massive gas leak. AFIK the adjoining town where we lived had no planning whatsoever, even though it had the potential depending on wind, etc. to kill everyone withing several miles of the facility.



From http://www.environmentaldefense.org.

My family and I live about 30-40 minutes from a nuclear plant. We are much more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the store than a one in a million (billion?) incident that somehow exceeds the design limits of the reactors. That doesn't mean I advocate getting rid of cars and trucks.

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
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #75 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Death is coming ashore. Oil is death

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....
post #76 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

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!
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #77 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

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....

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.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #78 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

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.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #79 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #80 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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.

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

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Gulf Coast oil spill could eclipse Exxon Valdez