SOOOO MAD!

[Trevor Emmerson]

Can anyone with a RED in Louisiana document this? It is a horrible tragedy.

i hope anyone with any and every camera is documenting this. to me the only thing more tragic that what has happened would be someone(s) not winning an oscar for best documentary covering this. what happened completely sucks, nothing can change that now but i hope someone out there takes it upon themselves to make a statement that matters on an equally epic and influential level

 

[Tom.Wong]

"WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House says the federal government is sending BP a $69 million bill Thursday for costs so far in its response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill."


In my opinion, we should be fining them for every last penny BP has...

 

[Trevor Emmerson]

Nuke is the best option, always has been, it is clean, efficient, cheap and once you have the waste storage sorted out, it is not dangerous.

except when you don't happen to have the waste storage sorted out. like how drilling for oil is completely safe until it isn't.

 

[Joe G.]

"Nuclear power is the best in terms of initial investment and power output, no form of power generation is more efficient. "

Okay, this is utter nonsense.

Nuclear waste is the most toxic stuff on the planet and will remain so for billions of years. Babysitting radioactive waste, transporting it, having it leak into the air and water does not make for "efficiency."

The nuclear industry was dead, for good reason. It's a nightmare.

In case you don't know, it couldn't exist without capping the liability of the plants such that if they destroy your city in a meltdown, the industry doesn't have to pay you for your house and land. They are immune to justice. They get a privileged position to risk your environment and your wealth, without having to compensate you if (when) it fails.

Nuclear is the absolute worst option there is, for many reasons. They regularly leak radiation into the air as a result of "normal" operation.

You think the Gulf of Mexico is bad. What about Chernobyl?

"Nuclear reactors are an obvious target for those who would inflict maximum damage.

On September 11, 2001, the hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 flew directly over the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York State.

If the passenger plane had crashed into the plant instead of into the World Trade Center, the number of casualties and the damage to the region’s economy would have been incalculable.

Nuclear reactors “[invite] assault by plane, truck bombs, armed attack, or covert intrusion into the reactor’s control room. The subsequent meltdown could induce the death of hundreds of thousands of people in heavily populated areas,” warns Dr. Caldicott."

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I imagine BP is doing everything within their power to fix it. Because they love fuzzy animals? No they're cold hearted bastards and their stock is plummeting and fines are going to be astronomical.

This is a case where the easiest fix would have been prevention. I keep wondering why there is only one Blow Out Protector. If the problem is there was a failed Blowout protector then... why isn't there redundancy? And why isn't there a manual shut-off? I mean like a mechanical giant ass screw which in an emergency you could dock an ROV to and screw in. Blow the explosive bolts holding on the cover or cut off the bolts if that fails.

Maybe oil would gum it up after a few months years. But getting enough force to get something to turn seems like an easier problem to solve. And would dramatically reduce the flow.

Then again I'm not an engineer. Maybe the force of the oil would apply too much pressure to the screw and prevent it from turning once it's in the flow.

 

[Trevor Emmerson]

.heres the problem with the electric car .. the more people buy the more they plug in .. the more electricity will need to be created and that means the more oil the electric company has to burn

yeah but generally they are plugged in at night, when there's usually an oversupply of energy to the grid because it can be less efficient to power certain kinds of station down than to keep then running at their optimal level. and who's burning oil for power anyway? Not sure what the energy mix is where you guys are but where i am [australia] its all coal. if governments pursued sustainable energy sources concurrently with promotion of the electric car, by the time market penetration was large enough for people plugging in to be an issue the energy would be there. and it would be clean.

but its all wishful thinking i guess at this point. disasters like this though can go a long way to changing peoples minds about the necessity to seek better options

 

[Trevor Emmerson]

You think the Gulf of Mexico is bad. What about Chernobyl?

ahh, yep.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

my father works at Hawaiian Electric and i hate to break it to you guys but the electric companies burn oil to make electricity

This is true but it's also overlooking all the other factors.

Burning oil isn't as bad as burning oil in one place. When you have an industrial oil burning generator it's easy to build in better environmental standards. It's a building. Putting those into 100m cars is dramatically more difficult.

A power plant is several orders of magnitude more efficient. They usually are large industrial turbines which are extremely efficient compared to your car's ICE. Same reason we don't all have honda or cat generators sitting outside our houses. They're far less efficient than a real power plant.

Nuclear isn't that dangerous. Our power plants can take a 747 flying into them and keep ticking. That's why the terrorists didn't bother crashing into them.

Nuclear waste isn't that difficult to get rid of. France etc have all been dealing with it without too much trouble. We also don't have to go with old nuclear power plants which were designed to produce nuclear weapons. There are reactor designs which produce radioactive waste that only lasts a few hundred years which is completely manageable. Even then in a 100 years space travel should be relatively inexpensive anyway so we can just chuck it into the sun.

There are also other reactor designs such as Pebble Bed Reactors which are extremely safe and produce extremely easy to dispose of waste.

Lastly we don't have to necessarily rely on nuclear. If the demand is there fore electricity then even green electricity is cheaper than gasoline.

And if you live in a state such as WA we already get more than 80% of our power from renewable sources. For a few % extra in your electric bill you can pay the price difference and go 100% renewable. (obviously the electrons are all mixed in but they pay the cost of operation difference and fund further renewable investment in the energy company).

 

[David Rasberry]

Best solution to fossil fuel problems is to quit using the stuff, coal and oil.
It will become practical and economical enough to do this for electricity and transportation within the next 5 years or so that fossil and nuclear won't be price competitive. Especially if we eliminate their subsidies.
Very interesting major disruptive technologies going commercial in the next two years if the dinosaurs don't manage to shut it down. Don't think that will happen this time around.

 

[Trevor Emmerson]

The biggest downside i can see to nuclear power, apart from the potential for complete environmental disaster if [agreed, when] that rare mishap takes place, as of right now i think would be the issue of buyers remorse. just like when in 2008 i bought a sony ex1 because i couldn't quite afford a red one or see how revolutionary the technology would be, investing in nuclear right now when renewable technologies are advancing at an exponential rate- and then waiting for 10 years or more until it is finished... you are going to regret it because there are going to be infinately better options available that don't come with baggage like nuclear waste.

and on a selfish note, the world wants to dig up all the uranium thats lying in the ground underneath some of the most awesome country on the planet [the Kimberly region of Western Australia] where i like to take holidays. and once they are done with it they would like to send it back to us so it can be buried underneath our deserts- because thats the safest place for it. i really can't trust my Government not to cash in on those opportunities... so please, no nuclear. it sucks

edit: i really didn't round out that analogy properly. i am in no way suggesting that my sony ex1 comes with nuclear waste as baggage. its bad enough though

 

[Michael McVicar]

my father works at Hawaiian Electric and i hate to break it to you guys but the electric companies burn oil to make electricity

Hawaii is rich in solar, wind, hydro, ocean, and geothermal energy sources. Unless Hawaiian Electric controls them than I doubt it fits their business model.

 

[chrislancaster]

Hawaii is rich in solar, wind, hydro, ocean, and geothermal energy sources. Unless Hawaiian Electric controls them than I doubt it fits their business model.

what is this suppose to mean?


I live here and he's worked there for over 20 years .. ar you saying im a liar ?


maui has wind farms but their population is a tenth on honolulu .. there are no clean energy products to speak of here maybe a few solar panels on roofs but thats it.


Hawaiian Electric and the majority of utility companies own more than you would believe


also i would like to add i did not say the ONLY burn oil .. i simply stated they do burn oil for electricity






god, this board needs an enema

 

[Andrew Rieger]

"Nuclear power is the best in terms of initial investment and power output, no form of power generation is more efficient. "

Okay, this is utter nonsense.

Nuclear waste is the most toxic stuff on the planet and will remain so for billions of years. Babysitting radioactive waste, transporting it, having it leak into the air and water does not make for "efficiency."

The nuclear industry was dead, for good reason. It's a nightmare.

In case you don't know, it couldn't exist without capping the liability of the plants such that if they destroy your city in a meltdown, the industry doesn't have to pay you for your house and land. They are immune to justice. They get a privileged position to risk your environment and your wealth, without having to compensate you if (when) it fails.

Nuclear is the absolute worst option there is, for many reasons. They regularly leak radiation into the air as a result of "normal" operation.

You think the Gulf of Mexico is bad. What about Chernobyl?

"Nuclear reactors are an obvious target for those who would inflict maximum damage.

On September 11, 2001, the hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 flew directly over the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York State.

If the passenger plane had crashed into the plant instead of into the World Trade Center, the number of casualties and the damage to the region’s economy would have been incalculable.

Nuclear reactors “[invite] assault by plane, truck bombs, armed attack, or covert intrusion into the reactor’s control room. The subsequent meltdown could induce the death of hundreds of thousands of people in heavily populated areas,” warns Dr. Caldicott."

As you may know, coal is currently the largest producer of electricity in the United States. As you know, coal is the cleanest, most environmentally friendly energy source in the country. Hopefully you can read sarcasm. No lives have ever been lost to a nuclear related accident in the US yet dozens of men die each year in coal mining accidents. That does not take into account the thousands more that die each year from lung cancer from the coal dust. Coal mining is very dangerous, erodes soil and certainly takes a toll on the environment. Nuclear power is very clean since it produces no emissions during the power production process. We make around 25% of our electricity from nuke power. When properly stored, nuclear byproduct loses its radioactivity after thousands of years. Sure there will be non lethal amounts for millions but certainly not billions like you said. France is almost up to 80% electricity from nuclear power without any problems. Coal and fossil fuels need to go. Wind is not that practical, what happens when there is no wind? Solar needs more development to be viable. That leaves nuclear. There are no secret power sources that scientists are waiting to spring on us.

They do not leak radiation whatsoever, get your facts correct. Nuclear is not dead as you state, Europe is using it quite extensively.

What about Chernobyl? Well, the Russians were incompetent, the disaster was easily avoidable. When else has nuclear gone wrong? There are very few nations in the world truly equipped to handle nuclear power (Iran is not one of them), since the United States is, there is no reason why we should not take advantage of that.

About power plants becoming targets. Ever see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk&feature=related

The walls of reactors are designed for such an impact. Also, commercial airliners no longer fly over them and air defense grids will respond if commercial flight get too close.

Unfortunately, you believe the myths that have been spread about nuclear power. Unless you can think of something better, nuclear power is the best option to free us from fossil fuel dependency.

I'm not saying not to try the others but if cars are going to become electric, we need much much more electricity. The other options will not be able to meet the demand which leaves nuclear power as a very attractive offering. People tend to complain about all forms of power production. Nuclear is scary , wind looks ugly, solar creates distracting glare, oil is expensive and destroys the environment, coal is dirty. They all have problems, they all cost money, pick which one does the least real damage, not speculate.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Truly sickening!!

 

[Joseph Hutson]

And then the hurricanes come... :frown2:

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

I kinda hope this world does end in 2012.. wipe out all of us sickening bacteria

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

omg.. when the hurricanes hit...

were talking OIL flying in the air at crazy speeds.. lighting strikes.. OIL bursts into fire..
Hurricanes of fire.. that just grow and grow from the heat..
spitting fire water all over..

doom!

 

[Andy Jarosz]

If I were a rich man, I would buy ad space for this clip on every network.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4TFPlfPM6o

This is a direct quote that can still be found on the Heritage Foundation's website:

"Myth: Drilling poses great risks of oil spills. The last major offshore oil spill in America occurred off of Santa Barbara in 1969. Critics of offshore drilling still refer to this incident, but much has changed in the interim. Drilling technology has greatly advanced in recent decades, and any new drilling will have to comply with strict safeguards that did not exist then."

Go for it!
http://www.google.com/adwords/tvads/

 

[Trevor Emmerson]

Wind is not that practical, what happens when there is no wind? Solar needs more development to be viable. That leaves nuclear. There are no secret power sources that scientists are waiting to spring on us.

the wind is always blowing somewhere. and the sun is always shining somewhere too. the secret to deploying renewable energy is that you don't put all your eggs in one basket. you spread the load, make up an energy mix. saying that sun and wind are unreliable so the only option is nuclear is a bit simplistic. there is wave energy and geothermal energy and they are both much more constant, and far from secrets. and scientists are working on them and have been for a long time. there are no magical solutions but there are many very real solutions that suffer from a general lack of awareness and as a result cash. once the ball gets rolling though, and it is rolling, these things will make a lot more sense to people.

i have been spending fair bit of time in the last few years with people a lot smarter that i am who are focussed on the battle to convince government at my local state level that it is a myth that renewables can't provide 100% of our energy needs. they can. and eventually they will have to. and it has been trained nuclear physicists and petro chemists and engineers and a range of very knowlegable people who have convinced me it not a pipe dream. when i started out, i too thought nuclear to be the lesser of 2 evils and that we would be better off just bulk building these nuclear plants everywhere until we could figure out something better- but the better is already here. and from a person who used to design and build nuclear power stations for a living i've been told they are just bad news. and i'm inclined to believe him. and when at 50 this bloke has gone back and done a 2nd phd in geothermal research and he tells me it, and the other renewables have to be the way forward. i'm inclined to agree with that too.

anyway, we live in interesting times.

by the way your dads friends 911 sounds like a cool project. i was building a car myself up until it just got too expensive to complete, would of loved to do a porsche- but they are a little little to fit in enough batteries to get good distance. things have changed alot in 10 years, but i would disagree with the claim that it would of been inefficient. mechanically i think dc/ac electric motors beat all comers in terms of efficiency, and completely pants the ICE.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

heres the problem with the electric car .. the more people buy the more they plug in .. the more electricity will need to be created and that means the more oil the electric company has to burn

Unless they have a highly efficient solar panel on the roof of their house.

but this forum is not the place to discuss that...

Unless you see the potential of world network of storytellers with imaging devices in their hands.