Spill baby spill, slippery politics

Never is a long time.

I think wind power is a move in the right direction for other new technologies (for storage and distribution) which will eventually supplant our dependence on petrochemicals. But it's not going to happen in a decade, or even two. Still, it's a move in the right direction.

Ha, you sound like Ralph Nader, who said...

we will NEVER (despite the nice rhetorical statements) wean ourselves from petroleum. We may have to make some other aliphatic substance from algae or other plant materials. Our needs for NON SOLUBLE petrochemicals will outstrip the supply of raw material. Then we will have to use coal tars for a few decades and then (unless research is faster paced) we may have a decent substitute. That will mean that we will become a primary diesel planet. (Anything that burns due to compression rather than ignition like gasoline) Actually, I find that good becase this spill in Louisiana is mostly "light" crude which contains lots of the volatile nasties

Im more in favor of nuclear than wind power. Wind is kind of a boutique energy. Solar PV technology is also good for "at a point" energy needs. I see these wind farms are being planned off Cape Cod. Im less excited about that concept. (Ill bet that theres a lot of petrochemocals involved in the turbines and blades and towers

the 1969 spill off of Santa Barbara effects the politics of drilling off shore even today...yes , this BP spill is going to be huge. It is also adding fuel to the fire of the perception that government does not work, that government is corrupt, that Corporations have fucked us.

farmerman :

germany ( and germans ) seem to favour windpower .

germans definetely do not favour atomiic power . whenever an attempt is being made to build or re-activate atomic power stations there are huge demonstrations and tens of thousands of people will turn out to form human rings around these developments .

of course , i don't know what the best way of achieving energy independence is . however , i am astonished at the really ferocious resistance by germans against atomic power installations .

http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/wind-power-in-germany.html

120,000 germans form a human link to demonstrate against atomic power .

http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/120000_Germans_protest_against_nuclear_999.html



hard to believe but germans believe in very strong protest movements .

Reading along with interest & bookmarking.
I've been watching the reports from the other side of the planet with considerable alarm. What a shocking mess!

the cause of both disasters is the same, namely government failed. I think that you will find that the American people have had enough of the tired bickering between you partisans, so good luck trying to score points against the Democrats on this. BP paid off both sides, and we the people lost.

At least liberal supremacists haven't blamed Bush for this disaster... not yet anyway.

good suggestion, thanks.

I saw a headline in my news skimming with something about blame to Halliburton - didn't read the article, which was probably on Huffpo.
Read a piece in (BBC?) about BP talking about putting a dome over the spill source and then drilling another well to stop the flow (release the pressure) from this one. No links, sorry.

I was talking late last year to a director or one of the directors of the Atomic Museum here. Interesting, long conversation. Anyway, we were talking about wind produced energy and its need for back up energy such as dams. This is, I think, a problem up around the Columbia River. The fellow I was talking to mentioned a scientist who was working with/promoting mini-dams, which if I remember right, don't take up all that much of the river as do regular dams, but provide a pretty fair amount of energy. I don't remember the scientist's name, and never looked into it further, but I left the conversation with some hope for simpler, smaller answers.

hydro dams are stupid technology. wevery dam out there is turning into a huge sediment pond that will , soon need scouring and very expensive dredging. Look at the Aswan High dam in Egypt. They are talking about blowing it up.

This guy was not talking about the usual hydrodams, but tiny ones, barely noticeable to the river, not impeding flow. I can't defend this more since I haven't read up.

Seems a bit strange to be posting a video from an Oz source about the Louisiana wetlands to a mostly US forum, doesn't it? But here you go, anyway. (Please excuse whichever advertisement appears at the start. Fox, the last time I looked.)

http://media.theage.com.au/world/world-news/louisiana-wetlands-under-threat-from-oil-spill-1399328.html?from=newsbox

THe Wetlands have been dieing rapidly, and all of the proposed solutions don't have enough support to get funded, as they are hecka expensive.

This spill will likely hasten their demise.

OH , you mean the water turbine tech. THey may work in rivers that have a good flow but arent overly navigable. These kinds are good for tidal turbines in bays and esturies where they wont impede the movement of silt. (One reason why the Mississippi delta wetlands are eroding and dying is because the sediment from the Mississippi is being chnneled via the Atchafalaya cutoff and other sed catching sites.

Problem with dredging. Most really good dams are built in canyons, with no feasable place to dump the sediment.

That sounds right.

More analysis today pointed fingers at BP for not reacting quickly enough.

how about for lying about how much oil was leaking? The US government did not trust their number, and figured out that it was five times what BP claimed, according to reporting.