Gulf of Mexico oil leak

[Moose]

So how does something like this happen?

[Morgoth]

Guess we have to switch over to alternative energy a little bit sooner now.

[HoonDing]

So how does something like this happen?

Some BP fatcats must've had the morbid desire to make the Guiness Book of Records for 'largest natural disaster'.

[Enoch]

Deepwater oil rigs are some of the most amazingly complicated feats of engineering on the planet-- the Deepwater Horizon platform whose explosion/sinking caused this had previously drilled the deepest oil/gas well in history. Something clearly went wrong, but it might take a while before we understand exactly what it was. The initial theory is simply "blowout," but the rig's safety mechanisms should have prevented that, so some other additional failure seems likely to have happened as well.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Enoch

[Walsingham]

The rig exploded. If you have any idea how expensive they are, or how harsh US maritime law is on oil spills you'll tend to give BP the benefit of the doubt on any slackness.

[Guard Dog]

Guess we have to switch over to alternative energy a little bit sooner now.

Too bad there isn't one to switch to.

[HoonDing]

Guess we have to switch over to alternative energy a little bit sooner now.

Too bad there isn't one to switch to.

I've always thought a lot of energy could be drawn from dead people rolling in their graves.

[Moose]

Crikey some of you make it sound like black mesa.

[Humodour]

Guess we have to switch over to alternative energy a little bit sooner now.

Too bad there isn't one to switch to.

 

You're right: instead of one, there's many. Nuclear, solar, wind, geo and you can make the rest up with traditional fossil fuels if you don't have enough renewables or thorium (Haha get the joke? Thorium is abundant as ****, and clean too.)

 

Come on mate, don't be so daft.

[Guard Dog]

Guess we have to switch over to alternative energy a little bit sooner now.

Too bad there isn't one to switch to.

 

You're right: instead of one, there's many. Nuclear, solar, wind, geo and you can make the rest up with traditional fossil fuels if you don't have enough renewables or thorium (Haha get the joke? Thorium is abundant as ****, and clean too.)

 

Come on mate, don't be so daft.

 

Well, lets see, in the US there is a moritorium on building nuclear plants and we have not built one since the 80's. Solar power makes a nice supplement but no municipality can afford to implement it on a large scale, wind farms might power a building or two but that science is a long way from being perfected. Plus almost all of out cars are still gas powered because the average working person cannot afford a hybrid (which only gets slightly better mialage for double the cost) and smart cars and electrics are impractical or cost prohibitive.

 

The US enegery policy since Bush 41 has been a bloody disaster and with every new administration it gets worse and worse.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Guard Dog

[Enoch]

The US eneregy policy since Bush 41 Carter has been a bloody disaster and with every new administration it gets worse and worse.

FTFY.

 

(Seriously, for all the often-justified criticism the Carter Admin gets, their push for efficiency at the consumption end is the only really effective major energy policy that has been enacted in the States over the last 50 years. It's because of the efficiencies that their policies helped create that the scary projections we're looking at today didn't happen 20 years ago. Other Admins (and Congresses) have done little or nothing to address the problem.)

[Humodour]

Guess we have to switch over to alternative energy a little bit sooner now.

Too bad there isn't one to switch to.

 

You're right: instead of one, there's many. Nuclear, solar, wind, geo and you can make the rest up with traditional fossil fuels if you don't have enough renewables or thorium (Haha get the joke? Thorium is abundant as ****, and clean too.)

 

Come on mate, don't be so daft.

 

Well, lets see, in the US there is a moritorium on building nuclear plants and we have not built one since the 80's. Solar power makes a nice supplement but no municipality can afford to implement it on a large scale, wind farms might power a building or two but that science is a long way from being perfected. Plus almost all of out cars are still gas powered because the average working person cannot afford a hybrid (which only gets slightly better mialage for double the cost) and smart cars and electrics are impractical or cost prohibitive.

 

The US enegery policy since Bush 41 has been a bloody disaster and with every new administration it gets worse and worse.

 

Fair enough.

[Walsingham]

I've read a couple of studies - including a fun interactive one on the BBC a couple of years ago - looking at how to budget for power using several options. Alterative energy just didn't cut it. The numbers are insane, for things like windfarms. Wishing that solar panels and dinky roof turbines made as much power as a fething great coal burner going as industrial whack is woolly middle class arts thinking. Nuclear is the only way to make enough power for the world we inhabit, accounting for carbon emissions. At least until we develop means of capturing and sinking CO2 into permanent stores.

[Humodour]

I've read a couple of studies - including a fun interactive one on the BBC a couple of years ago - looking at how to budget for power using several options. Alterative energy just didn't cut it. The numbers are insane, for things like windfarms. Wishing that solar panels and dinky roof turbines made as much power as a fething great coal burner going as industrial whack is woolly middle class arts thinking. Nuclear is the only way to make enough power for the world we inhabit, accounting for carbon emissions. At least until we develop means of capturing and sinking CO2 into permanent stores.

 

I think you're misinformed on the topic, Wals. Maybe we caqn get into a citation war when I get off work. :D First of all: nobody is advocating 100% wind energy or 100% solar, because it's a ****ing stupid idea. Secondly, the energy production capabilities of the two are pretty high per dollar, they're just something like 20%, maybe 100% more expensive depending on whatever technology you're looking at. It's certainly NOT energy output capacity that is the limiting factor, rather bang for buck. This will change as fossil fuels get rare and demand increases (two related but independent processes, one a product of finite supply, the other a product of demand in developing nations). Thirdly, carbon requestration technologies are not showing much promise. It's not even certain they viable for mass industrial use.

 

Nuclear is also a poor choice to power the world. It's good for powering something like 25% of energy requirements but you'd quickly run into problems if you wanted to switch to it near exclusively, not least because it IS a finite fuel (I guess less so for Thorium, and humanity could conceivably run on it for a couple of millenia before it ran out, but people ignore Thorium at the moment because all the reactors that exist are designed for Uranium, and reactors are expensive to make).

 

The sane thing to do is opt for the mix of fuel technologies and it greatly frustrates me that people always want to pull the debate completely in one direction ("oooooh nuclear is evil, we must have 100% renewable energy!" or "omg don't be a tree hugger, who gives a ****, 100% coal is cheaper" or "100% atomic cheaper will solve all our problems").

[Walsingham]

I am quite prepared to be corrected. However, in my defence the studies were looking at the UK, not the whole planet. We have a small landmass, irregular overcast weather, and fethloads of people.

[Rosbjerg]

Thorium is definitely a technology we should look into, but I'm a big advocate of renewable energy. The sun is blasting us with insane amounts of energy each second it's seems like such a waste not to develop methods to truly harness the sun.

 

That and we need to give the world a safe, clean and cheap way of producing energy - so we can get the rest of the world on track.

[Humodour]

It really irks me that all Australian political parties are anti-nuclear, because we own 25% of the world's uranium, and 25% of the world's thorium. We also use coal almost exclusively for energy production. Nuclear energy would make so much sense in Australia it's not funny.

[HoonDing]

The Germans had a thorium power plant in the 80s. They had to shut down for being too costly... and for almost having their very own Chernobyl.

[Humodour]

The Germans had a thorium power plant in the 80s. They had to shut down for being too costly... and for almost having their very own Chernobyl.

 

Tell that to India: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html

 

In reality, thorium plants can't even go critical (though the freak-out is understandable given how fresh Chernobyl was in people's minds), and neither can most modern uranium reactors (by design). Even then Chernobyl was an exercise in poor maintenance.

 

It also looks like THTR they were using an old design for the thorium reactor, though the cost blow-out could have been due to the fact it was essentially a pilot, or simply poor management. I'll read up on it one day.

[Morgoth]

We Austrians have the mountains, so we can use hydroelectric stations.

 

On the bad side, if our Czech neighbors screw something up with their nuclear power plant, we are screwed as well.

[Humodour]

Here is an example of just how useless carbon capture and storage seems to be: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensl...f-1225860166734

[213374U]

The rig exploded. If you have any idea how expensive they are, or how harsh US maritime law is on oil spills you'll tend to give BP the benefit of the doubt on any slackness.

The rig wasn't BP's AFAIK, and they didn't even operate it, despite having some personnel on board. Some sort of lease contract, I think. I don't know who would be liable for the incident.

 

It's undoubtedly a blow to BP in the sense that a cutting-edge, multi-million mobile facility like this can't be replaced overnight, but probably it's going to be worse for the owner of the rig and the insurance company. Just sayin'.

 

 

Well, lets see, in the US there is a moritorium on building nuclear plants and we have not built one since the 80's.

Huh? I'm pretty certain I heard something about Obama planning to build some 20 new NPPs to deal with "energy dependence" in the US?

 

I'll try to look it up and get back to you. Since I'm 100% drug and alcohol free, I expect to find at least something... or I'll be very worried.

 

 

This will change as fossil fuels get rare and demand increases (two related but independent processes, one a product of finite supply, the other a product of demand in developing nations).

*ahem*

 

 

 

Nuclear is also a poor choice to power the world. It's good for powering something like 25% of energy requirements but you'd quickly run into problems if you wanted to switch to it near exclusively, not least because it IS a finite fuel (I guess less so for Thorium, and humanity could conceivably run on it for a couple of millenia before it ran out, but people ignore Thorium at the moment because all the reactors that exist are designed for Uranium, and reactors are expensive to make).

Well, yes. It's difficult enough to reliably estimate the current global reserves of oil, and that's with the current development of relevant tech and the volume of prospections being done each year, so you'll excuse me if I'm a bit skeptic on estimations of retrievable Uranium deposits. The sun will also run out of fuel eventually, heh -- I remember some report from an international agency that claimed that currently surveyed Uranium deposits could provide enough fuel for the next twenty centuries. In the meantime we could make do with "fast breeders", if alternate energy sources were expensive enough. Thorium is cool too. Edited April 30, 2010 by 213374U

[Enoch]

Well, lets see, in the US there is a moritorium on building nuclear plants and we have not built one since the 80's.

Huh? I'm pretty certain I heard something about Obama planning to build some 20 new NPPs to deal with "energy dependence" in the US?

 

I'll try to look it up and get back to you. Since I'm 100% drug and alcohol free, I expect to find at least something... or I'll be very worried.

Title 17 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides for federal loan guarantees for innovative energy technology, and a fair portion of the funds that have since been appropriated for the program in annual appropriations acts have been earmarked for nuclear projects. (The Obama admin gets to claim some credit because they have highlighted this as something that should get more funding in their first few annual budget requests, and because the first actual loan guarantees are being made under their watch.) The only major program to be approved for funding so far is a nuclear plant in Georgia. Congress has appropriated the money to make a lot more loan guarantees, but DOE hasn't gone through the selection and approval process yet on the others.

 

Of course, the loan guarantee program has its critics, and it isn't being run particularly well at the adminstrative level.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Enoch

[Walsingham]

Here is an example of just how useless carbon capture and storage seems to be: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensl...f-1225860166734

 

 

Um... that article you linked to says quite clearly that the chaps who claim storage won't work are contradicted by "many others". I haven't read the source piece, but it's hardly conclusive.

[Gorgon]

On the other hand, if we did switch to 100% nuclear we would eventually have to canibalise our neuclear arsenals for uranium.