36
   

Spill baby spill, slippery politics

 
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 01:08 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
We will never meet our energy demands for such things as mobile needs or petrochemicals from wind.

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.
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 01:10 pm
@rabel22,
rabel22 wrote:

The government comprised of both dem and rep do what they have always done. They bow down to big money and screw the rest of us.

Ha, you sound like Ralph Nader, who said...
Ralph wrote:
The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That's the only difference.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 02:19 pm
@rosborne979,
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
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 02:25 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
hamburgboy
 
  3  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 02:59 pm
@farmerman,
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

Quote:
120,000 Germans protest against nuclear

Hamburg, Germany (UPI) Apr 26, 2010

Around 120,000 Germans formed a 75-mile human chain to protest the government's plan to extend the lifeline of the country's nuclear power reactors.
The peaceful demonstrators Saturday linked arms in a chain that stretched from the northern towns of Brunsbuettel through Hamburg to Kruemmel, the location of two nuclear power plants.


hard to believe but germans believe in very strong protest movements .
Below viewing threshold (view)
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 03:15 pm
@rosborne979,
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!
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  4  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 03:20 pm
@H2O MAN,
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.
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 03:28 pm
@hawkeye10,



At least liberal supremacists haven't blamed Bush for this disaster... not yet anyway.
dyslexia
 
  4  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 03:30 pm
@H2O MAN,
good suggestion, thanks.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 03:39 pm
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.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 04:32 pm
@ossobuco,
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.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 04:57 pm
@farmerman,
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.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 05:52 pm
@rosborne979,
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
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 05:58 pm
@msolga,
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.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 07:23 pm
@ossobuco,
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.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 07:34 pm
@farmerman,
Problem with dredging. Most really good dams are built in canyons, with no feasable place to dump the sediment.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 07:46 pm
@farmerman,
That sounds right.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 09:06 pm
More analysis today pointed fingers at BP for not reacting quickly enough.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 09:28 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/09/2020 at 09:49:44