How Environmentalists Caused The BP Oil Spill

TC is friends with Sarah Palin on FB..

Or maybe this would have happened many times before, because they have leaks from time to time. Where's (not directed at you) the drill baby drill crowd now?btaylor2404

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]All I know is right NOW... we should stop pointing the freaking fingers at eachother and start FIXING the problem, and then... drop oil all together. Screw the oil industry. We really honestly dont need it anymore. We can use electric, solar, wind, hydrogen... yes even coal. We can use Electric and Hydrogen for cars. They HAVE the technology for it already, but they wont release it. GabuEx

Wait, "we can use electric"? The point of all of the above is to generate electricity; there's no such thing as an "electric power plant", unless I've misunderstood what you meant.

All of the above have problems. With solar power there's the issue of unreliability based on the weather; with wind unreliability is even higher; with hydrogen.. where do we get the hydrogen?; and with coal, that's even worse than oil in terms of pollution.

I got an idea...Lets set the ocean on fire. Whose with me?clayron

well, how many matches you think we are gonna need?

Yea, I meant electric fuel for cars :oops: my bad, but for power plants... ok now my brain is going dead, so pardon my lack of correct terminology, but dams on the water produce a heck o lot o energy as well. Solar energy, it should be more developed. There should be a better way of collecting more of it in a short amount of time and stored efficiently, and dispersed efficiently. With more research I think it could be done. xhellcatx

Hydroelectric dams are only viable in areas where there is something to dam. It's a very good source of power where you can make use of it, but it can't be a universal solution.

With solar energy, the problem is not the collection; the problem is the fact that you need direct sunlight in order to collect it, and on days when you don't have direct sunlight (and at night), you run the risk of not getting enough energy to be able to fulfill the energy demands of your customers. Even if storage of solar power is improved, you still have the problem that the amount of energy stored is finite. Would you want to be in a hospital that could experience failures in electrical equipment due to extended bad weather?

And on what basis do you believe this could be done, anyway? :P No offense, but I see a lot of people who approach things like this by just saying "SCIENCE!!" and expecting the scientists to fill in the details. It doesn't exactly work that way.

Before you go all ninja flaming on me, let me explain myself. Environmentalists made a law saying that you cannot drill in shallow waters. (Close to the shore) so BP had to drill out deep right? If they were drilling near the shore it probably would not have happened because of how easier it is. And would be easier to clean.

dunl12496

[QUOTE="clayron"]I got an idea...Lets set the ocean on fire. Whose with me?Colin1192

well, how many matches you think we are gonna need?

This is correct. It creates a climate of fear among the local avian population.cjek

Being the internet and all I can't tell if you are serious or not! However

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16115.full

You can read that :O

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]Yea, I meant electric fuel for cars :oops: my bad, but for power plants... ok now my brain is going dead, so pardon my lack of correct terminology, but dams on the water produce a heck o lot o energy as well. Solar energy, it should be more developed. There should be a better way of collecting more of it in a short amount of time and stored efficiently, and dispersed efficiently. With more research I think it could be done. GabuEx

Hydroelectric dams are only viable in areas where there is something to dam. It's a very good source of power where you can make use of it, but it can't be a universal solution.

With solar energy, the problem is not the collection; the problem is the fact that you need direct sunlight in order to collect it, and on days when you don't have direct sunlight (and at night), you run the risk of not getting enough energy to be able to fulfill the energy demands of your customers.

And on what basis do you believe this could be done, anyway? :P No offense, but I see a lot of people who approach things like this by just saying "SCIENCE!!" and expecting the scientists to fill in the details. It doesn't exactly work that way.

I got an idea...Lets set the ocean on fire. Whose with me?clayron

don't know about that, people still seem to be very stupid with the building of nuclear power plants, look at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, it was built on a major fault line, plus what about The Three Mile Island accident that was almost catastrophic. While I'd much rather have nuclear over oil or so called 'clean coal' lol, it still is not nearly as safe as geo thermal or solar. Although the amount of power it can generate makes it better in that aspect.KlownMaster

The Three Mile Island incident occurred over thirty years ago, and it was so catastrophic that... absolutely no one died. Edward Teller joked after receiving a heart attack while defending nuclear power against activists:

"You might say that I was the only one whose health was affected by that reactor near Harrisburg. No, that would be wrong. It was not the reactor. It was Jane Fonda. Reactors are not dangerous."

Hydroelectric dams have serious consequences for life that requires the habitat the dams destroyed. They definitely have a negative environmental impact.psychobrew

Granted, hydroelectric dams do certainly have consequences when constructed, but that is a one-time cost rather than a continual negative output from normal operation.

[QUOTE="clayron"]I got an idea...Lets set the ocean on fire. Whose with me?scorch-62

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="clayron"]I got an idea...Lets set the ocean on fire. Whose with me?clayron

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]Yea, I meant electric fuel for cars :oops: my bad, but for power plants... ok now my brain is going dead, so pardon my lack of correct terminology, but dams on the water produce a heck o lot o energy as well. Solar energy, it should be more developed. There should be a better way of collecting more of it in a short amount of time and stored efficiently, and dispersed efficiently. With more research I think it could be done. GabuEx

Hydroelectric dams are only viable in areas where there is something to dam. It's a very good source of power where you can make use of it, but it can't be a universal solution.

With solar energy, the problem is not the collection; the problem is the fact that you need direct sunlight in order to collect it, and on days when you don't have direct sunlight (and at night), you run the risk of not getting enough energy to be able to fulfill the energy demands of your customers. Even if storage of solar power is improved, you still have the problem that the amount of energy stored is finite. Would you want to be in a hospital that could experience failures in electrical equipment due to extended bad weather?

And on what basis do you believe this could be done, anyway? :P No offense, but I see a lot of people who approach things like this by just saying "SCIENCE!!" and expecting the scientists to fill in the details. It doesn't exactly work that way.

Before you go all ninja flaming on me, let me explain myself. Environmentalists made a law saying that you cannot drill in shallow waters. (Close to the shore) so BP had to drill out deep right? If they were drilling near the shore it probably would not have happened because of how easier it is. And would be easier to clean.

dunl12496

I blame atoms, without them none of this would have happened. :evil:

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Or maybe this would have happened many times before, because they have leaks from time to time. Where's (not directed at you) the drill baby drill crowd now?psychobrew

I actually blame this on oil. Why do you have to be so difficult?

kidsmelly

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.EMOEVOLUTION

So what we supposed to do? lol back to the stone age with us!???

I blame the demand for oil, which mean all of us here.

All I can say is :roll: A system where the most important thing are pieces of paper with numbers on them is what's responsible for this. We, as a species, need a fast change in priorities and to stop diistracting people from the real problems by putting the blame elsewhere.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]Hydroelectric dams have serious consequences for life that requires the habitat the dams destroyed. They definitely have a negative environmental impact.GabuEx

Granted, hydroelectric dams do certainly have consequences when constructed, but that is a one-time cost rather than a continual negative output from normal operation.

I know it's Wikipedia, but, "greenhouse gas emissions from the reservoir (created by the dam) may be higher than those of a conventional oil-fired thermal generation plant."

I'm sorry, but why the hell do people try to make those who are trying to make the world a better place look like the lowest of low?

I know it's Wikipedia, but, "greenhouse gas emissions from the reservoir (created by the dam) may be higher than those of a conventional oil-fired thermal generation plant."

psychobrew

Well, that quote leaves out some key points:

- That is only true if no clearing of the forest occurred prior to the construction of the dam;

- The greenhouse gas contributions were already part of the carbon cycle; and

- In practice, the greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric dams are a small fraction of what you get from the burning of fossil fuels.

While this specific spill might not have occurred were offshore drilling permitted in more shallow waters, and if a spill did occur, it would be easier to fix, this in absolutely no way exonerates BP from THEIR accident, which they should be held completely accountable for. A lot of things could have theoretically prevented the oil spill, but I think those that directly caused it should be held responsible. For the record, I did and still do support offshore drilling.

I blame the Earth. Who the hell does this planet think it is housing a ridiculous amount of oil?clayron

I blame satan and his dominions.

It's not a causal relationship.

If you're looking for causation in the actual spillage, then environmentalists are as far out there as Obama personally drilling a hole in the earth.

I blame my grandmother. Don't ask why, but I'm right and I encourage you all to blame her too! :evil:

[QUOTE="funsohng"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

So what we supposed to do? lol back to the stone age with us!???

Espada12

As the saying goes.. easier said than done. We have alternative sources and they all require us to mess up the environment or climate aside from solar energy which doesn't do anything harmful unless you count the manufacturing process.

The main reason we won't go for alternate energy sources is because it would hurt the bottom lines of some of the biggest corporations in the world. They'd much rather burn the world than suffer profit loss.

Before you go all ninja flaming on me, let me explain myself. Environmentalists made a law saying that you cannot drill in shallow waters. (Close to the shore) so BP had to drill out deep right? If they were drilling near the shore it probably would not have happened because of how easier it is. And would be easier to clean.

dunl12496

And after reading the ongoing discussion, no, we don't need oil to create energy. There is hydroelectric power, whic I see has alreayd been discussed. There is also wind power, wave power, tidal power, geothermal power, waste to energy incinerators, solar power, and more. 50% of the USAs power consumption is generated through renewable resources. In BC, the prvince I live in, over 90% of our energy is produced through renewable resources. We don't need to be dependent on fossil fuels. Some countries in the world get 100% of their power through renewable resources.

And after reading the ongoing discussion, no, we don't need oil to create energy. There is hydroelectric power, whic I see has alreayd been discussed. There is also wind power, wave power, tidal power, geothermal power, waste to energy incinerators, solar power, and more. 50% of the USAs power consumption is generated through renewable resources. In BC, the prvince I live in, over 90% of our energy is produced through renewable resources. We don't need to be dependent on fossil fuels. Some countries in the world get 100% of their power through renewable resources.

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="funsohng"] find an alternative energy source If we research it enough with all the money oil companies are racking up, we probably can find a plausible solution in near future.Pixel-Pirate

As the saying goes.. easier said than done. We have alternative sources and they all require us to mess up the environment or climate aside from solar energy which doesn't do anything harmful unless you count the manufacturing process.

The main reason we won't go for alternate energy sources is because it would hurt the bottom lines of some of the biggest corporations in the world. They'd much rather burn the world than suffer profit loss.

Or because no one wants to pay 10x the amount for something that's crappier then oil?

If alternative fuels would sell, then you bet your ass companies would be out their making it. But that's not the way it is. There's still a huge demand for oil, and the companies simply supply that demand.

And after reading the ongoing discussion, no, we don't need oil to create energy. There is hydroelectric power, whic I see has alreayd been discussed. There is also wind power, wave power, tidal power, geothermal power, waste to energy incinerators, solar power, and more. 50% of the USAs power consumption is generated through renewable resources. In BC, the prvince I live in, over 90% of our energy is produced through renewable resources. We don't need to be dependent on fossil fuels. Some countries in the world get 100% of their power through renewable resources.

BumFluff122

Hydroelectric power has a harmful effect on the environment. It's not a good choice of your want to preserve the Earth. Wind power, wave power, tidal power, and geothermal power only work in areas where that kind of energy is available. I'm sorry, you're not going to get wave or geothermal power in Kansas...

Solar power as it is isn't enough. Oil is still the best until newer technology comes out.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

And after reading the ongoing discussion, no, we don't need oil to create energy. There is hydroelectric power, whic I see has alreayd been discussed. There is also wind power, wave power, tidal power, geothermal power, waste to energy incinerators, solar power, and more. 50% of the USAs power consumption is generated through renewable resources. In BC, the prvince I live in, over 90% of our energy is produced through renewable resources. We don't need to be dependent on fossil fuels. Some countries in the world get 100% of their power through renewable resources.

mattbbpl

of course the reason why they aren't more widely used yet is because they do not have many charging stations. Recently, however, the city in which I live has made it manadtory to include these charging stations in at least 30% of their parking stalls. This is where the future is heading. Peoples reluctance to change is going to determine what country has a leg up over another in the future.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="funsohng"] find an alternative energy source If we research it enough with all the money oil companies are racking up, we probably can find a plausible solution in near future.Pixel-Pirate

As the saying goes.. easier said than done. We have alternative sources and they all require us to mess up the environment or climate aside from solar energy which doesn't do anything harmful unless you count the manufacturing process.

The main reason we won't go for alternate energy sources is because it would hurt the bottom lines of some of the biggest corporations in the world. They'd much rather burn the world than suffer profit loss.

The main reason is that it is significantly cheaper for the time being to stick woth oil, as nearly the entire vehicular transportation system infrastucture is currently based upon oil. Switching over would be expensive for everyone, not just the corporations. Furthermore, oil is relatively cheap to exctract from the earth.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

And after reading the ongoing discussion, no, we don't need oil to create energy. There is hydroelectric power, whic I see has alreayd been discussed. There is also wind power, wave power, tidal power, geothermal power, waste to energy incinerators, solar power, and more. 50% of the USAs power consumption is generated through renewable resources. In BC, the prvince I live in, over 90% of our energy is produced through renewable resources. We don't need to be dependent on fossil fuels. Some countries in the world get 100% of their power through renewable resources.

BumFluff122

of course the reason why they aren't more widely used yet is because they do not have many charging stations. Recently, however, the city in which I live has made it manadtory to include these charging stations in at least 30% of their parking stalls. This is where the future is heading. Peoples reluctance to change is going to determine what country has a leg up over another in the future.

Oh God, I would never switch to electric if I had to drive that car. It's almost as ugly as the Prius. If you want to tout electric cars, do yourself a favor. Stick with something like the Tesla Roadster.