Spill baby spill, slippery politics

By the way, all this bs by BP is just to calm the citizens. Once they screwed up the well they knew early on that the only chance they had to stop the oil flow was the relief wells that will be done by august. All this caping and clamping crap was BP's way of trying to look good and claming the idiot citizens.

1 Reply

@rabel22,

The "idiot citizens", as you call them, have been rendered hysterical by that miniscule proportion of the population which works Media and which consumes energy at rates which demand risk taking and also encourages the rest of us to emulate it.

BP's spin is standard practice. It is best for us to remain calm. Better decisions result. We are where we are.

0 Replies

@rabel22,

Probably so. I'm sure BP would be more than happy to disclaim every drop of it.

1 Reply

@roger,

They might be entitled to disclaim some of it if anybody has been taking advantage of it to dump waste oil or some tank cleaning.

0 Replies

I feel bad for the people in the gulf and know they will need compensation. What truly breaks my heart though is the effect this oil spill is having on the gulf, the beaches, the wild life and marshes. I can't see it ever being the same. I wish there was more attention paid to trying to protect or at least holding back some of the permanent damage. I doubt BP will really make any effort, and we need to start really doing it ourselves no matter the cost. Hold fund raisers and get on TV like we did with that earthquake a while back in Hatti to get people to donate money to help save the wild life and try to attempt to save some of the gulf. Perhaps get the government involved in a massive way, whatever it takes in my opinion.

1 Reply

@revelette,

Do you feel bad enough to actually alter your oil use habits (addictions?)

2 Replies

@maporsche,

I felt bad enough to alter mine BEFORE this thing happened.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Same here.....not quite as far as you though (I still own a car, although I drive less than 60 miles / week).

I still contend that the vast majority of people have not altered their oil use to any significant degree since this spill happened.

They 'care'....just not enough to actually do anything about it.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

On the contrary they are rapidly and often joyfully increasing their consumption of this remarkably efficient and portable fuel... in China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Middle East (more than half the world's population) they are adding automobiles, appliances and power stations in huge quantities.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

On the contrary they are rapidly and often joyfully increasing their consumption of this remarkably efficient and portable fuel... in China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Middle East (more than half the world's population) they are adding automobiles, appliances and power stations in huge quantities.

So what? Certainly you don't seek to hold Americans responsible for the behavior of others.

I would also point out that Oil/gasoline, and the internal combustion engine, really isn't that efficient a fuel. In fact such engines are highly inefficient and pollutive. The only thing it really has going for it is portability.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I still own a car, although I drive less than 60 miles / week

Nicely done!

I don't have the public transit options to get that low, but I try and use my motorcycle to commute if possible because it is far more efficient. I have a farmers market on Sunday that is in walking distance and I try to get more local produce.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

According to some scientific studies local produce is more polluting than the stuff brought in from where the sun shines more.

Local produce is only "green" when it's in season.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

According to some scientific studies local produce is more polluting than the stuff brought in from where the sun shines more.

Local produce is only "green" when it's in season.

It's green because the transportation cost is reduced by an incredible factor. Most of the farmers markets only bring produce that is in season anyways.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

According to some scientific studies local produce is more polluting than the stuff brought in from where the sun shines more.

Local produce is only "green" when it's in season.

Maybe where you live; out here in sunny CA, there is fresh produce in season all year round.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would also point out that Oil/gasoline, and the internal combustion engine, really isn't that efficient a fuel. In fact such engines are highly inefficient and pollutive. The only thing it really has going for it is portability.
Cycloptichorn

What is more efficient? An electric vehicle involves multiple energy transformations from the fuel burned to produce the electrical power to the transmission lines to the battery supplying the vehicle. The energy efficiency of such a vehicle is far less than that of an internal combustion engine,

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would also point out that Oil/gasoline, and the internal combustion engine, really isn't that efficient a fuel. In fact such engines are highly inefficient and pollutive. The only thing it really has going for it is portability.
Cycloptichorn

What is more efficient? An electric vehicle involves multiple energy transformations from the fuel burned to produce the electrical power to the transmission lines to the battery supplying the vehicle. The energy efficiency of such a vehicle is far less than that of an internal combustion engine,

Are you serious? This is amazingly simplistic thinking on your part, George, and incorrect on pretty much every point.

The electric engine is far more efficient than the internal combustion engine. Batteries can be charged from a variety of sources - You can have a home windmill and solar panel setup do it, no burning of anything involved, no transmission involved.

Anyway, to contend that the transmission costs of electricity across a line are somehow more wasteful than oil - which costs money to pump out of the ground, then to ship across a whole ocean, then to refine, then to ship again to your local dealer of gasoline, is a complete and total joke. You are also discounting the environmental costs as if they don't exist.

I think you really don't understand how inefficient internal combustion engines are. If we had better battery technology - which is coming - nobody would use gasoline at all.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

All of which wouldn't be too bad if electricity could be produced at low enough cost, and with little enough pollution to overcome the losses in conversion and transmission. If energy is cheap enough, we can afford to be very inefficient in its use.

That is, we could probably accept the inconvenience of plugging the vehicle in at least once a day, and having to plan our schedules around the charging cycle of the batteries.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

We are not all as fortunate as yourself Cyclo to find yourself, presumably through no fault of your own, in sunny California about which, after living there a few years, Aldous Huxley said that California was busy inventing a new type of humanity. It's obvious that the sort of people who would trek through the wilderness facing the very worst of dangers would pruduce a progeny which, when the gold ran out, turned it's hand to those wonderful movies of the distant past. They make product placement videos now and sell the American Dream.

And would go in for serious goofing off on the proceeds. Like the Deadheads. One might listen to Gerry Garcia goofing off on one of those 30 minute extravaganzas of solo guitar playing for ever. Real history lessons if you've been taught history properly.

And Evelyn Waugh said you were great company because nobody ever expected you to have listened to anything they had said.

And living on a major fault line is bound to emphasise the "live for today" attitude more than is the case here where the slightest tremor is headline news and all the top geologists come on telly to explain it.

They say you can't really appreciate good weather unless you have some alternatives to contrast it with. Constant blue skies pissed me off after a few months. I think it was Henry the eight-wived VIIIth who said we might not have the best weather but we have the best climate.

It is difficult to imagine the Industrial Revolution breaking out in California. They say it was due to the climate that it started here in our green and pleasant land. And without that, matey, you would still be chanting dirges and dancing in circles around totem poles in loin cloths made from buffalo skin. Without question.

I think more of us live in places like I do and where out of season produce is imported from places that don't need heated greenhouses. The carbon calculation says, according to the scientists, that the imported stuff is greener.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I think I understand far more of this than you. You should read my post again and consider what I really wrote. Our elecrtrical power comes mostly from coal (just over half). The next ranked sources are nuclear (21%) and natural gas (about 18% and rising). Wind power is less than 1% of our consumption. In terms of cost per Kw-hr actually produced nuclear is the cheapest, followed by coal and then natural gas. Wind power costs more than twice the cost of coal generated power. Moreover the capital cost of large scale wind generation per unit of power actually delivered is higher even than nuclear power.

The amount of energy consumed in combustion per unit of work done by the moving vehicle is far greater for an electrical vehicle than for an internal combustion engine, mostly due to the extra conversions of energy involved (thermal, mechanical, electrical, mechanical). Each step adds its own loss of energy and therefore thermodynamic efficiency.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I think I understand far more of this than you. You should read my post again and consider what I really wrote. Our elecrtrical power comes mostly from coal (just over half). The next ranked sources are nuclear (21%) and natural gas (about 18% and rising). Wind power is less than 1% of our consumption. In terms of cost per Kw-hr actually produced nuclear is the cheapest, followed by coal and then natural gas. Wind power costs more than twice the cost of coal generated power. Moreover the capital cost of large scale wind generation per unit of power actually delivered is higher even than nuclear power.

Fine; let's build nuclear power plants and use them to generate electricity. I contend that the cost of doing so over time, in terms of both actual resources needed and environmental impact, is far lower than gasoline.

What more, you CAN run an electric car from ANY electricity source. This means that the same engines can take advantage of greater technology raises in power generation; you can't say that for the internal combustion engine.

Quote:

The amount of energy consumed in combustion per unit of work done by the moving vehicle is far greater for an electrical vehicle than for an internal combustion engine, mostly due to the extra conversions of energy involved (thermal, mechanical, electrical, mechanical). Each step adds its own loss of energy and therefore thermodynamic efficiency.

You're just 100% incorrect on this one, George. You discount two things:

1, the truly gigantic effort required to get oil out of the ground and to ship it then refine it. You aren't counting the energy cost that it takes to even GET oil into a form in which it can be used.

2, the immense inefficiency of the combustion engine. Modern combustion engines are somewhere around 25% efficient, race cars around 35%. Electric engines are far higher. Here's a simple little blog post with a comparison of the numbers -

http://pbjots.blogspot.com/2008/07/electric-vs-combustion-engine.html

What more, you don't even need to read that - just take a look at the increased efficiency of the Hybrid engine.

I maintain that your complete ignoring of the costs associated with producing gasoline, and the environmental costs of burning it, give the lie to your argument that Gasoline is efficient in any way. The only thing it really has going for it is portability. Surely you can see that counting the energy required to produce and transmit electricity against the electric engine's efficiency is only valid if you do the same for gasoline?

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

Spill baby spill, slippery politics

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know