Bp back in the news, another spill

[briansjacobs]

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/91000

[BlueBMW]

As much as I like driving my gasoline powered car... we gotta get off this oil addiction somehow... :(

[briansjacobs]

Jay Leno had once said that hybrid and electric vehicle will not kill the gas powered car, it will only help by reducing the demand fuel prices will come down and make it easier for people with classic cars to enjoy them. I tend to agree

[joshh]

Yeah because what we need are millions of more batteries we can't get rid of. And the mining associated with them. Everything has a price.
Shit happens, clean it up and keep pumping. We can't live without the oil.

[GOOBER]

Yeah because what we need are millions of more batteries we can't get rid of. And the mining associated with them. Everything has a price.
Shit happens, clean it up and keep pumping. We can't live without the oil.

Eh developing countries can't but if the US were to take a serious initiative to actually implement the use of alternative energy we could make progress. Then again geopolitics has a funny way of stagnating progress.

[briansjacobs]

Josh you think very small.cell phones batteries today are smaller than a matchbox, 20 years ago cell phone batteries were larger then the phones are today. my point is that if there is a market for something it will be developed.

[e30e]

Alternative and battery energy lol

[briansjacobs]

reserved to make some points and correct add some conveniently left out info in the article. Not to mention the alternative energy fallacy and the fact that the evil FOX NEWs reported on this the day it was happening

can always count on you for negative input:-)

[joshh]

Eh developing countries can't but if the US were to take a serious initiative to actually implement the use of alternative energy we could make progress. Then again geopolitics has a funny way of stagnating progress.

It's not progress when wind farms are so inefficient. And require 6 million dollars of maintenance for each windmill every 6 years.
If alternative energy sources were that much better we'd already be using them. What we don't want is to develop alternative energy sources that are outdated just a few years after we go with it.
Nuclear power is the answer. Fuck the greenies and all their ugly ass wind farms and other silly ideas so far.

Josh you think very small.cell phones batteries today are smaller than a matchbox, 20 years ago cell phone batteries were larger then the phones are today. my point is that if there is a market for something it will be developed.

I'm talking about the rows of large batteries they use in Pruis cars and others.
And there is a market for some alternative energy ideas. But just because it's a good idea and "cleaner" doesn't mean people will give a fuck. Oil will be in our future for years and years, Thankfully.

[briansjacobs]

I was actually not even talking about wind, I was thinking strictly about getting cars more fuel effecient. Hell 20 years ago we had gas powered cars getting 50MPG, of course they only had 1 star crash ratings and that was before they shared the road with Excursions! But you have to see my point. or better question, are you happy with cars getting 14-16 MPG?

[McGyver]

as for hydrogen powered cars, their byproduct is water which makes up something like 70-80% of green house gasses. oil wont be leaving us for a VERY long time.

leno said that alt energy will have the same effect on gas powered cars as the car did on the horse.

[mrsleeve]

Well Well Well here we are with more conclusion jumping and and finger pointing coupled with selective journalism. This is why I hate this green movement and demonizing of the any resource development company.

1: 6 company's own the Trans alaska BP is one so is Phillips, XOM, Williams, Hess, unocal. But is run and managed by Alyeska. You want point a finger at some one for issues with this line you do so at Alyeska. Yes BP has like a 47% stake in the line but to say this is their fault and solely their responsibility is a little off base, and just more sensationalism and demonizing of the one oil company an the oil/gas industry in general.

Its just more bull shit to get people stirred up and pissed off at the oil industry so they will get behind more legislation of it and in the process taxation in hopes of getting support for some kind of Cap and trade. For fucks sake the labor secretary and a bunch of hippie douche bags are talking about wanting to put BP US assets into Receivership to the govt. Fuck we nationalized banks, a huge car company, an insurance giant, what the fuck why not one of the largest oil companies in the world while we are at it. Hugo would be proud.

2 this was a pump station surrounded by a containment system to keep the shit outta the environment. All of what was spilled was contained and cleaned up. So this is nothing more than a moot point at best. You see they know this is a possibility and there for the saftey systems worked just fine, this is why all pump stations and other transfer facilities have containment systems and have since day one.

as to the lack of smart pig inspections. I dont belive it one bit, its a necessary for product lines (especially crude) to be pigged every so often to get all waxy build up off the inside walls which hampers flow. Its not a big deal and to run a smart pig at when these are maintenance pigs are run.

You want to blame some one for this, You blame ALYESKA, they are in charge of the day to day operation, maintenance, security, and all things Alaska Pipeline. Alyeska was the consortium that was in charge of the original construction as well.

Oh and FNC was reporting this the day it was happening. Evil aren't they.

Yes Brian you can count on me to give you all the stuff that your articles leave out.

Again if there was an effective way to generate alternative power/energy then the utilities would be doing it with out the need for the US govt/taxpayers to subsidize the construction of said facilities. If there was a favorable cost benefit for the utility owners then we would be seeing this already and long ago. Business look for any edge to increase their margins. Especially in the highly regulated ( you know price controlled) power generation/energy sector.

When We decrees our use of gas by driving less or with other power sources. The govt will lose its one of its largest sources of income, There for the price of the product will go down (supply and demand) but the Taxation will go up and the product will likely be
much more expensive (IE EUROPE)

ethanol is a inferior fuel and a energy negative proposition. It takes more fossil fuels to make corn into automotive fuel than it dose to make a equal amount of Gas from Crude. Ethanol has only 85% of the BTU of an equal amount of straight Gas. In other words you get 15% less fuel mileage (or work) for the same vehicle under the same conditions if the only thing you change is the fuel from gas to ethanol.

I have all ready explained to you why we cant have cars that get 50+ MPG here in this country, and its not from them not existing. Its the EPA regulating those efficient cars out with stupid tail pipe laws and the FED DOT for all the heavy and expensive mandated safety shit and features


Shall I continue????

[z31maniac]

I was actually not even talking about wind, I was thinking strictly about getting cars more fuel effecient. Hell 20 years ago we had gas powered cars getting 50MPG, of course they only had 1 star crash ratings and that was before they shared the road with Excursions! But you have to see my point. or better question, are you happy with cars getting 14-16 MPG?

My 300hp sports car pulls nearly 30mpg on the highway, point?

Once you convice people that cars don't need heated seats/6 disc changers and navigation/enough sound insulation to keep you from hearing an ambulance in the next lane, etc etc etc etc, then maybe we will get back to more fuel efficient vehicles.

Or maybe carbon fiber will suddenly become 1/20th as cheap and 100 times easier to work with.

Your idealism is admirable, but how's aboot joining the rest of us in the real world.

Nuclear power. Nuclear power. Nuclear power.

And take a look at how the French do it. They have set a great model for Nuclear Power.

[BlueBMW]

I agree that nuclear power is a good idea (even though i tend to be on the environmentalist side...) Nuclear power has become far safer and cleaner than in years past. The trouble I see with nuclear is that it is only a temporary solution. Uranium reserves (known) will only last 100 years tops if a large movement towards nuke power is implemented. Also, nuclear fuels like uranium are even more dangerous than coal to mine. And of course there is the waste issue, which has been resolved I believe better than coal waste (see kingston,TN ash spill) I see nuclear power as a stop gap to allow more time for other alternatives to become more efficient and cheaper. Although there are something like 250 years worth of coal reserves... the continued use of coal as the primary electricity source will have severe environmental consequences.

My vision (and the reason I'm in college right now)...

Electricity...

Nuclear power + wind/solar/geo/hep/wave to replace coal/oil/gas as electricity sources. Solar and wind to provide the majority of electricity while nuclear is used to supply a reliable variable base (much like reservoir hydroelectric plants do now). HEP, Geo and wave should be implemented where available and coal or natural gas as backup sources only!

Transportation...

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for longer range vehicles and electric vehicles / mass transit for urban transit....

Hydrogen produced using water and electricity at the fill site (gas station) using electricity during low demand times. This eliminates the large fuel transportation system we have now. Electricity would be sourced from local alternative sources and produced hydrogen would be stored in cells (not compressed / liquid tanks)

High speed electric train transit between large metropolitan areas to reduce / eliminate air travel.

Of course all of these ideas require a change in popular thought on transportation and of course initial investment by someone. All these ideas are expensive now, but like anything produced in large quantities, costs go down and efficiencies go up. While a wind turbine may be expensive now, if you're building millions of them the cost will be reduced.

Oil is finite, coal is finite, and eventually a shift will have to be made. Unfortunately, there is a lot of money to be made with oil and coal, and those industries will fight hard and spend lots of money to stifle the growth of alternative sources. Once these fossil fuels lose their profitability (due to scarcity or extraction costs) energy companies will want to be poised to lead the next fuel (which I believe will be hydrogen)

No one likes to change their lifestyle though, and that's what makes this energy problem so difficult. People don't like to change, and the ideas I've presented here would require people to give up some conveniences.

Certainly there are flaws in my thinking and no doubt mrsleeve will offer a good counter argument which is always welcome :) But much like people made sacrifices for our nations independence, or the sacrifices made to stop Hitler, someone somewhere at some time in the near future will have to sacrifice something to ensure sustainability. If we dont do it willingly... nature will force us to (or destroy us).

[joshh]

I was actually not even talking about wind, I was thinking strictly about getting cars more fuel effecient. Hell 20 years ago we had gas powered cars getting 50MPG, of course they only had 1 star crash ratings and that was before they shared the road with Excursions! But you have to see my point. or better question, are you happy with cars getting 14-16 MPG?

I really don't care. If I want a car that gets good gas mileage I'll buy a car that gets good gas mileage. If I want a pig, I'll buy a guzzler. That should be my choice not the Governments choice, or the hippies choice. If I'm paying for it whose to butt in and tell me what I can or can not do?
If a company wants to come up with alternate energy sources, go for it but why should my money go towards development when we already have good choices for energy? Because eco hippie green extremists think anything other than wind farms and solar power are "killing the planet"?
There's a cost when government gets involved with emissions and standards too much. Freight liner was smacked with ridiculous emissions standards and it killed their market. Truck buyers went with used trucks because they were better trucks. They lost sales.

Innovation doesn't come from politicians and bureaucrats.

as for hydrogen powered cars, their byproduct is water which makes up something like 70-80% of green house gasses. oil wont be leaving us for a VERY long time.

leno said that alt energy will have the same effect on gas powered cars as the car did on the horse.

Show me a Hydrogen car that can make it up a hill? Then an argument of what happens when hydrogen leaks and there's a huge explosion? AHHHHHHH everyone bitches and whines about how the hydrogen industry is criminal. Same ol same ol.
"Clean" energy is over rated. And not actually clean. You still have to produce the factories, you still have to make the cars and you still have to produce the fuel.


Edit, the sealed hydrogen cells would have to have more technology. As far as I know they don't have much for "charge" right now. I might be wrong here.