BP Oil Spill

[Satya]

NO BIG DEAL.

[Eaquae Legit]

That second picture is one angry-looking hellbird.

[Sonikku13]

To be honest, it would be a lot easier to just start bashing people, but that's a waste of time.

Just posting pictures will not solve the problem. What the United States needs is nuclear power.

Nuclear power is the safest form of electricity to date in the United States. There have been 0 deaths directly attributed to nuclear power in the US. This is due to safety culture and overregulation of nuclear power.

Nuclear power only generates radioactive waste as the byproduct. However, all the waste we have produced can fit in a football field. Looks like Yucca Mountain would be a nice place for a waste dump without aesthetically affecting the region.

If only we could get it past more extreme environmentalists and red tape...

[Dr. Mobius]

Have you even bothered to read the thread you're posting in? You don't even have to read the posts of the guy you're having a s***-throwing contest with. I've just lightly skimmed over the thread and I get the idea that nuclear power in the US is a very bad idea until there's a fundamental shift in how our government and businesses operate and where their priorities lie. I don't even want to imagine the inevitable nuclear equivalent to the recent financial crisis and the current oil one if the status quo started mass-producing nuclear energy. I think it's fair to say it would probably dwarf Chernobyl.

I know nuclear looks safest and cleanest on paper, but unless things change the reality is the exact opposite because someone, somewhere will eventually f*** it up for all of us.

[jotabe]

I just find it extremely amusing that Satya, precisely him, gets angry at a big corp messing up big time. Last time i heard he was the one laughing that the tree-hugger bleeding-hearts. But really, will the big corps feel betrayed!

Maybe i should get him a pin that says "save the whales" or something

I am impatiently waiting for him to convert to the true faith of the AGW.


@CeneZ:

EXTERMINATE ALL HUMANS

[daPyr0x]

Have you even bothered to read the thread you're posting in? You don't even have to read the posts of the guy you're having a s***-throwing contest with. I've just lightly skimmed over the thread and I get the idea that nuclear power in the US is a very bad idea until there's a fundamental shift in how our government and businesses operate and where their priorities lie. I don't even want to imagine the inevitable nuclear equivalent to the recent financial crisis and the current oil one if the status quo started mass-producing nuclear energy. I think it's fair to say it would probably dwarf Chernobyl.

I know nuclear looks safest and cleanest on paper, but unless things change the reality is the exact opposite because someone, somewhere will eventually f*** it up for all of us.

Thank you for being the one person who understands my point. I'm not exactly good at expressing it in an understandable way.

[Satya]

Jota, you don't know me. Honestly. Even if I was the anti-hippie you think I am, you don't need to be a liberal to be (rightfully) pissed off at what's going on.

And Doc hits it right on the head. Imagine the bumbling fools at BP running a nuclear power plant. Or the incompetent management like many of the banks. Combine that with the heavy, slow hand of the government - you get a bunch of avaricious money-suckers who don't give a s*** about their customers because their customers don't have a choice, plus a bureaucratic nightmare that makes the DMV look like a 7-11.

Edit: I know you've been saying that in this thread for awhile dap, I've just been busy lol.

[jotabe]

True, i don't know you, nor i care about that. (And frankly, as nervous as people who use guns make me, it might be a fortunate circumstance.)
You don't know me either.
But i know which role you have decided to assume in the discussions.

And maybe you don't need to be a liberal, but a conservative would be too busy saying how it's a god-given right to all good (conservative) americans to destroy ecosystems as long as there is a profit in it. "Fill the earth and subdue it" and nonsense like that.
And a libertarian would be too busy crying "strict liability" and over the 0.00001% of profit they will have to employ to pay the fishermen. And say "well, in the future some scientist will invent something to clean it up (not that we will fund the research, because obviously, government funding kills scientific creativity)".
Not that liberals fare much better, as they would just sit in front of the BP buildings whining "corps are the evilz!" without doing anything useful, like young puppies (only difference is that puppies eventually grow up and stop whining).

Because actually being part of the solution is so much work. You'd have to actually get up and like do something!

[Caspian]

BP oil spill in 60 seconds, reenacted by kittens.

[daPyr0x]

Solar power requires far too much space to ever be a feasible solution to our power requirements...

[jotabe]

Not only that, even on used space you can feasibly set up solar power panels: rooftops are the obvious choice, but there is provocative research into making roads solar-power-capable.

There are many untapped energy sources, but oil is way too cheap in comparison with having to develop these other sources. On the other hand, if we don't develop them, when we reach the point where oil is getting too expensive, we could have energy shortages till we do our homework.

[Sonikku13]

There are 104 operable nuclear power plants in the United States, and they produce a total sum of 101,119 megawatts of power. This is equivalent to 19.7% of our electric production. And out of these 104 plants, we have had only one error - TMI. Chernobyl isn't a concern, as I've stated before, that was due to substandard design of the plant. And I think the prevalent view here is pessimistic - if one disaster happens, more will occur. However, TMI led to the overregulation of nuclear power plants in the USA. Provided we don't reduce this overregulation, or only reducing it somewhat, then if all plants meet safety standards regulated by the USA, there will be no issue.

Besides, wind power kills birds. I see it as a nonissue, but extreme environmentalists are trying to sue over this.

When renewable energy becomes viable over nuclear, then we'd begin to replace the nuclear plants. But as of today, wind and solar energy doesn't provide enough power for the land used. The Three Gorges Dam is planned to produce 22.5 gigawatts per hour and the Port Alma Wind Farm produces 101.2 megawatts of power with 44 turbines. Meanwhile, TMI is rated to produce 802 megawatts of electric power, and it produced 6645 gigawatt hours of energy in 2007. So the two most viable energy sources based on this are hydroelectric and nuclear. Hydroelectric only is viable on rivers AFAIK. Meanwhile, nuclear power plants can be built anywhere where there is flat land. This makes nuclear more viable, but overblown safety concerns due to TMI and Chernobyl lead me to think we should build more dams.

I'm in school, I'll update later.

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Wind+Far ... e18641.htm

[daPyr0x]

There are 104 operable nuclear power plants in the United States, and they produce a total sum of 101,119 megawatts of power. This is equivalent to 19.7% of our electric production. And out of these 104 plants, we have had only one error - TMI. Chernobyl isn't a concern, as I've stated before, that was due to substandard design of the plant. And I think the prevalent view here is pessimistic - if one disaster happens, more will occur. However, TMI led to the overregulation of nuclear power plants in the USA. Provided we don't reduce this overregulation, or only reducing it somewhat, then if all plants meet safety standards regulated by the USA, there will be no issue.

So the fact that the USA has a history not only of doing precisely this (reducing regulations to appease corporate lobbyists), but also of having ineffective - or corrupt - methods of oversight to ensure that regulations are followed is something we should just ignore? This oil spill is something that's going to affect coastlines for the entirety of this generation's lifespan. A nuclear accident would affect more people for far longer. You think it's pessimistic to see the US repeat the same mistakes time after time and somehow expect that it won't happen this time?

When renewable energy becomes viable over nuclear, then we'd begin to replace the nuclear plants. But as of today, wind and solar energy doesn't provide enough power for the land used. The Three Gorges Dam is planned to produce 22.5 gigawatts per hour and the Port Alma Wind Farm produces 101.2 megawatts of power with 44 turbines. Meanwhile, TMI is rated to produce 802 megawatts of electric power, and it produced 6645 gigawatt hours of energy in 2007. So the two most viable energy sources based on this are hydroelectric and nuclear.

Wait, what? "Here are 3 power plants of unequal size, location and purpose. Plants 1 and 2 produce more power than plant 3, thus the technology of plants 1 and 2 is more viable than that of 3." Tell me I'm not the only one spotting this logical fallacy...

Hydroelectric only is viable on rivers AFAIK. Meanwhile, nuclear power plants can be built anywhere where there is flat land. This makes nuclear more viable, but overblown safety concerns due to TMI and Chernobyl lead me to think we should build more dams.

What about geothermal, tidal, wave, or even biofuel power? I mean, you can ignore my earlier solar power link that shows how little land is actually required to sustain our current and future energy needs if you must; but do you really expect me to buy "hydroelectric is only possible on rivers, thus we should use nuclear?" Come on, man.

[Janus%TheDoorman]

My biggest concern with the way energy policy is run in the United States is that it's entirely dependent on the market, and the market depends on people's ability to make informed choices about what they're doing. As it stands, the price of harnessing carbons is much lower than the price of harnessing renewables, but the overall time-sensitive costs in economic terms - the inevitable changeover when oil runs out, the physical damage to the economic capabilities of low lying areas as the oceans rise, the costs of cleanups, medical costs of those affected by toxins that leach into the environment near production facilities, and the various "near-apocalypse" scenarios that global warming can lead to - together all these costs far outweigh the difference between harnessing costs, but the market - the people making the decision either on the public or private level, either don't have the information or are ignoring these costs on their balance sheets. The market simply isn't accounting for them.

It's like the entire world buying up incandescent bulbs over CFLs because the incandescents are cheaper on the shelf, even when the CFLs are cheaper over the lifetime.

[Sonikku13]

I expect a meltdown will not happen with better technology - Generation III and IV reactors. They are extremely unlikely to melt down, with Generation III reactors having one core damage event generally occurring in the range of one every 15 to 20 million years to one in every 300 to 350 million years. Different ranges for different reactors. Generation III reactors are just coming online now. Lets compare it to Generation II reactors. Core damage frequencies with Generation II reactors are known to be as high as 1 in 100,000 years. Taking the highest from each generation, Generation III reactors are at least 150 times less likely to melt down. TMI is a pressurized water reactor design, Generation II, while the Chernobyl plant used technology developed in the 1950s, the Russians called it RBMK, which was a boiling light water reactor. Meanwhile, future technology includes Generation IV reactors, which should start coming online after 2020. Generation IV reactors are claimed to produce waste lasting multiple magnitudes of order less than current Generation III reactors. Generation IV reactors would also be able to make power from current nuclear waste - solving the nuclear waste problem. Generation IV reactors can also produce 100 to 300 more energy from the same amount of nuclear power over current reactors. Long story short - future reactors will not melt down and are the most viable option today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile ... ng_Station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_ ... ower_Plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf32.html

Wave power costs ten times as much as nuclear power to produce one megawatt of electricity. That alone takes wave power out of the equation. And areas of use are affected by ocean shipping lanes.

Biofuels aren't worth it either. E85 is currently the most marketed biofuel in the USA. It's mostly produced by corn and sugarcane. Thats food. Food or fuel? Well I see millions, if not billions starving in Africa, so why are we making fuel from food? We also have the problem of biomass - it produces pollution. Instead of a plant decaying over thousands of years, the plant is used up in an instant - contributing to climate change. Commercial sources would likely be reliant on agriculture, which means if it's slash and burn farming, we have even more trouble.

Extreme environmentalists would be angry about a high mortality rate of fish with tidal power. And these same extreme environmentalists keep us from leaving fossil fuels for nuclear or renewable energy. They want to block wind power due to a meager bird kill amount - so I believe they want to block tidal power too. However, thats bad. Also a concern would be world shipping lanes. We can't block all our shipping lanes with turbines. That would be stupid.

Geothermal electricity is viable and renewable, but it pollutes. No one says anything about that because it's renewable - the green movement wants renewable energy. The average geothermal plant produces 122 kg of carbon dioxide for every 1 MWh of electricity produced.

http://www.geothermal-energy.org/files-39.html


Either way, the United States has chosen natural gas. Over 90% of plants being constructed from the present day to 2020 will be natural gas.

http://www.energy.gov/energysources/electricpower.htm

Solar power relies on the sun - can't get power at night. Efficiency also remains very low.

Wind power relies on the wind - limited locations. It is also extremely climate dependent - a windstorm could damage equipment and no power is produced when there is no wind.

My hydroelectric claim still stands. The river comment signifies limited locations. And most prime locations already have dams built on them. Not much of a future for hydroelectric, though there should be a few more locations left to build on.

[daPyr0x]

It's blatantly obvious that you have some clear bias towards nuclear technology based on your detailed knowledge of it and relatively less knowledge in other areas of power generation. I get that. Combined with your refusal to put the same amount of effort into actually refuting what I'm saying, that's frustrating. Me, I'm equally stupid on all forms. Here's the point, though.

Nuclear energy, like coal and oil before it, relies on a resource that is finite on the planet, as far as we know. Not only that, it decays! It's crazy s***! (please catch the humour, I'm tired of being assassinated over my insertions of randomness) The laws of conservation of energy require that. Sure, we're getting better and better at extracting the most possible amounts of energy out of this source; but it's still a finite resource. When we've proven so many times over that our energy sources never last us as long as we predict; why keep using that model?

Now, the Sun; that's a pretty great energy source. Sure, if it goes supernova we won't have it anymore; but 99.9998% of us will be dead by the time it's over with, so who cares? The Earth's gravitational pull? Sweet, can't exactly run out of that can we? Our orbit interacting with our moon's causing tides? That really ain't goin anywhere soon either, is it?

Am I saying any of these particular models are perfect at their current levels of technology, infrastructure, and abilities right now? No. I'm saying that the billions of dollars spent on the resource-sucking forms of energy generation would be better spent towards resources that, for all intents and purposes, will never cease to be abundant.

Wiki

One study of the Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy (RITE, Verdant Power) project in the East River (New York City), utilized 24 split beam hydroacoustic sensors (scientific echosounder[51]) to detect and track the movement of fish both upstream and downstream of each of six turbines. The results suggested (1) very few fish using this portion of the river, (2) those fish which did use this area were not using the portion of the river which would subject them to blade strikes, and (3) no evidence of fish traveling through blade areas.

Really though, that wasn't the kind of tidal power I was thinking.

Oh Noes! We might use too much corn?!?

I actually don't believe in biofuels either, I just would much rather our technological focus was on energy sources that are either essentially infinite, or that we can create ourselves.

Yes, I realize you "can't get power at night" with solar power. A single solar plant is not a solution. Really; on it's own (without massive storage batteries, which, in production, present their own environmental issues), solar energy is not a "whole" solution. But that doesn't mean it isn't a viable source of energy that we know cannot run out that we be looking to adopt to supplement our current system. Why the hell not? You build a few dozen solar plants, and with each one you've got more and more money going towards improvements, research and development that will improve the technology for the next plant. It's really no different from your nuclear progression; just that there are many more dollars going to that technology out of relative ease. I'll never argue that it isn't cheaper and easier to build a nuclear power plant, but is it really a good idea to keep latching on to finite resources?

[Satya]

True, i don't know you, nor i care about that. (And frankly, as nervous as people who use guns make me, it might be a fortunate circumstance.)
You don't know me either.
But i know which role you have decided to assume in the discussions.

People with guns make you nervous? Cops? Military? Sport shooters? Get over it, dude.

And maybe you don't need to be a liberal, but a conservative would be too busy saying how it's a god-given right to all good (conservative) americans to destroy ecosystems as long as there is a profit in it. "Fill the earth and subdue it" and nonsense like that.

Blatant generalization - not to mention absolute bullshit. Some of most ardent environmentalists are religious folk who believe in being a good steward of the earth. Total bullshit on your part here.

[Syphon the Sun]

I haven't been reading this thread closely, but...

there is provocative research into making roads solar-power-capable.

Have you read about the Israeli engineers developing roads that contain piezoelectric crystals in the asphalt which create power when driven over? It made the news a few years ago (and I believe is still being tested on the Israeli highway system).

[ender1]

but there is provocative research into making roads solar-power-capable.

AFAIK, the Dept of Transportation has prototype funding for this, I think it was announced last August.

[daPyr0x]

I haven't been reading this thread closely, but...

there is provocative research into making roads solar-power-capable.

Have you read about the Israeli engineers developing roads that contain piezoelectric crystals in the asphalt which create power when driven over? It made the news a few years ago (and I believe is still being tested on the Israeli highway system).

Ooo! What about the one guy who's designed shock absorbers to generate electricity? Imagine one day running low on power and driving over rumble strips to recharge? Anybody else suddenly think F-Zero is coming true? Haha...

[jotabe]

AFAIK there would be 2 ways of making roads into solar generators: one would be using the asphalt thermal capacity and its properties as a good black-body to take advantage of its heating. Other would be replacing asphalt roads with solar cells, and covering it with a glass layer whose mechanical properties should be short of amazing.
And yes, i remember hearing about that kind of road a while back, StS. Actually, i think dap is mentioning the same concept, but...
but the problem is the same as with the other 2: the concept is a very good idea, and the theory behind it is sound. But then the technological challenges come: we need materials with certain properties and we are still not that good at designing materials from scratch.

Think of the fusion power: it works, except for technological problems (here's hoping ITER actually manages to produce a positive energy balance... when it gets finished 20 year from now)

Remember this chart:


My point is: we definitely need to develop this. And get new ideas on taking advantage of solar power. But what if it takes longer than thought? We need to be prepared for a period between oil commercial depletion and a sustainable energy source. I think nuclear power is such an energy, so nuclear power plants must be made as secure as reasonably possible.
In the US and the EU, we have barely had any incident at all due to nuclear power plants. Not only that, even in the USSR, they had an accident due to obvious malpractice and lack of funding. Water tanks had leaks... it was a disaster waiting to happen.
Not only that, newer technology in nuclear power is making old nuclear waste to be reusable as fuel (i don't remember the exact numbers, but i read in SciAm that current plants only take advantage of less than the 20% of the power the nuclear fuel can give, and then are discarded), so the waste will become less of a problem.

[Dr. Mobius]

How feasible would it be to put solar panels on every house in suburbia and rural areas, enough so they'd be at least self-sufficient and possibly even feeding excess energy into the power grid? I doubt it would work in dense urban areas or industry with larger buildings, but it should be able to power a significant percentage of our needs anyway.

ETA: I missed Dap's and Jota's posts about this halfway up the page.

[Janus%TheDoorman]

The problem with solar power, at least as far as expense is concerned, especially with PV generation isn't the generators themselves, it's with storage. Batteries are expensive, toxic to manufacture, and don't hold much energy. There's a couple different technologies that promise real (And I'm taking the chart into account here, jota) commercial promise within the next 5-10 years, but right now moving on widespread diffused solar generation isn't economical as an energy policy. You could certainly meet the energy needs of the nation that way, but it'd be expensive and not very efficient.

[jotabe]

The problem with solar power, at least as far as expense is concerned, especially with PV generation isn't the generators themselves, it's with storage. Batteries are expensive, toxic to manufacture, and don't hold much energy. There's a couple different technologies that promise real (And I'm taking the chart into account here, jota) commercial promise within the next 5-10 years, but right now moving on widespread diffused solar generation isn't economical as an energy policy. You could certainly meet the energy needs of the nation that way, but it'd be expensive and not very efficient.

It would be inefficient now, because production of panels is still small (scale economy, after all). As they become more mainstream, and technology improves, solar cells should dramatically reduce their cost.

Also, that's the whole point of saying that hydrogen batteries are meant to support a cleaner energy: if we use oil-generated electricity to power up hydrogen batteries, we are at the same spot as we were.

My bet is on nuclear fusion, in any case. That one should last us at least for a few thousand years, at which point we should probably be building a dyson sphere.

[Satya]

Oil spill's toll on Florida could be 195,000 jobs and nearly $11 billion

BUT DON'T WORRY, IT'S NO BIG DEAL. I'm sure those 195,000 soon-to-be unemployed people, who were lucky enough to have jobs in this recession in the first place, will be just fine. Of course, losing 10 billion dollars might not have the best effect on unemployment benefits.. Oh well, I'm sure it'll all be just fine.

[Sonikku13]

Have we tried blowing the leak up?

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18683

[Janus%TheDoorman]

Have we tried blowing the leak up?

Apparently the Soviets dealt with four oil spills by detonating nuclear weapons to cause shifts in the rock near the leak that squeezed the channel shut.

[jotabe]

Have we tried blowing the leak up?

Apparently the Soviets dealt with four oil spills by detonating nuclear weapons to cause shifts in the rock near the leak that squeezed the channel shut.

Ugh...
Seriously, nukes are NOT the solution to every problem, however tempting it might sound.
I mean, it *might* work, but the whole reason why the leak is a problem in the first place it's because it's affecting the maritime ecosystem, not because oil is leaking per se.

And sub-nuclear devices... i don't think they can really work. A nuke can melt the rock around the drilling point, welding it shut. But while a daisy-cutter or similar...
Ok read about the physical principles, hummm it might work.

[Janus%TheDoorman]

I'll just leave this right here.

[endercoaster]

The concern I have about the oil spill is the beach destruction in Louisiana... it effectively renders beaches useless in cutting the power of hurricanes. This oil spill could cause a category 2 or 3 hurricane to cause the level of flooding in New Orleans that was seen in Katrina.

I also definitely fall into the category of people who find BP is being down right evil. Not just in terms of cutting corners on safety causing the spill in the first place, or in not putting any effort into developing new ways to stop these oil spills in the last 30 years, but in essentially bribing local law enforcement to prevent journalists from getting any pictures of the continuing environmental destruction. The reason the pictures Satya has poster are the same ones you've seen a million times before is that BP is making sure that there aren't any new ones.

What needs to be taken away from this situation is a greater government regulation of corporations. In situations where there are great externalities involved, the government needs to set up fines to correct for those externalities, and they can't be simple slaps on the wrist. BP should pay for the clean up. BP should pay for any damages this spill has caused. And BP should pay a hefty fine for cutting corners to save money and for bribing law enforcement. If that drives BP into bankruptcy, so be it. They should have considered that risk, and we need to make an example out of them so that maybe, just maybe, corporations will start acting in a vaguely ethical manner.

[Sonikku13]

You're forgetting about the law of unintended consequences. The minimum wage law led to outsourcing of jobs to third world countries. More regulation would lead to a continued exodus of unskilled labor from the US.

I don't think BP will exist much longer. Their market capitalization is going down the tubes fast due to this oil spill. I think ExxonMobil will execute a hostile takeover of BP.

Besides - BP IS paying for the cleanup. Potential fines are estimated to be around $9 billion. But I also don't trust the government handling this mess either. We need petroleum engineers.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18740

[Wil]

Janus: I think that picture is somewhat outdated. According to it, 68,000 tons had been spilled. According to wikipedia, we're actually at anywhere from 242,000 to 777,000 tons, placing it most-likely-second in the worst sea-based oil disasters of all time.

Also, I think that the US should be awarded best named oil spill. Deepwater Horizon is such an awesome name.

[Janus%TheDoorman]

That graphic is beyond out of date. Deepwater Horizon's probably the worst oil accident in history - the Gulf War spill was done intentionally to slow the progress of US troops into Kuwait. The point I'm making is that oil spills happen - they're an ugly fact of the production process, and will continue to be so as long as we rely on oil to fuel our infrastructure.

BP's incompetence however, has escalated well beyond my imagining. The scale of this disaster is now likely to make offshore drilling and oil production in general politically radioactive. I'll expect to see a ton of "Senator so-and-so voted for more and more dangerous oil rigs on our shores" ads coming up to November. A lot of incumbents will be hit right in the gut by that. Sooner or later there's going to be a picture - one shot, or maybe a few that hammers home the effect of the spill on the country. A child sick from exposure or some such, and it'll be all over come election time.

Of course, tragedy can birth a renewal, but it requires a skilled midwife, and after the healthcare debacle, I'm not convinced on the President's ability to deliver on that.

[Satya]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Broadcast/BP- ... d=10916445

Seriously.

[locke]

Just because a celebrity provided the R&D money for an oil cleanup technology fifteen years ago and then also used his celebrity to get word out about the technology today does not invalidate the technology.

see that dude that invented the segway and other crazy tech.

fwiw, Costner was never an A-list megastar in the era of massive salaries. (mid-late nineties and beyond). He probably had some good backend deals on his biggest hits and a hedge fun managing his investments and made off quite well. but I wouldn't be surprised if the 20 million he invested represented a fifth of his net worth.