BF2S Forums oil spill

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

same with me.  i do have shitloads of plastic though....

and my logic still stands.  it doesnt fail.  if you have products that are made by or use oil, the analogy fits.

I know there's one issue you do seem to care about.  You posted a thread a while back about how most modern food has a lot of shit in it.  You shared a clip from Food Inc., I believe.

It was a good thread, and I don't recall anyone trying to put down your concern because of perceived consumption of the agricorp food on your part.

However, if we use your logic, then unless you consume only organic food that isn't produced by these big businesses, then you shouldn't "cry" about the shit that's in your food.

Well, if you have a choice, and you fail to make the 'correct' decision you do lose your right to bitch. Currently there isn't an alternative to using oil. Even if you moved next to a nuclear power plant to assure that your power is not from fossil fuels, the car you drive still contains a lot of oil derived plastics and foams. So... congratulations, you maintain your right to bitch because there is no alternative short of riding a horse or walking

...or living in a city with metro.  But again, to suggest that we can't constructively criticize the current energy infrastructure because of our own use is no more logical than saying that we shouldn't complain about landfills because none of us are trash free.

The logic is very, very...  shortsighted.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Well, if you have a choice, and you fail to make the 'correct' decision you do lose your right to bitch. Currently there isn't an alternative to using oil. Even if you moved next to a nuclear power plant to assure that your power is not from fossil fuels, the car you drive still contains a lot of oil derived plastics and foams. So... congratulations, you maintain your right to bitch because there is no alternative short of riding a horse or walking

...or living in a city with metro.  But again, to suggest that we can't constructively criticize the current energy infrastructure because of our own use is no more logical than saying that we shouldn't complain about landfills because none of us are trash free.

The logic is very, very...  shortsighted.

Well, unless you're actively looking for replacements yourself, bitching is nothing more than hot air. Saying "We should do this" and then not providing a plan for getting there is rather pointless.

But I did...  at least in that other thread.  More nuclear power, more wind, more solar, ethanol, biodiesel, CNG, geothermal, hydroelectric, hydrogen fuel cells, etc.

The options are aplenty.  The only problem is that oil companies have bought a lot of the research.

JohnG@lt wrote:

All of which is prohibitively expensive and the benefits do not necessarily outweight the negatives. Wind and solar take up a lot of space, are NIMBYtastic and who knows what the environmental effects would be from wind farms over the long term? Ethanol is not an option. Growing more corn or sugar for fuel still requires burning carbon and it will jack up the price of crops since more farmland will be dedicated to growing fuel instead of food. Same for biodiesel, there's only so many Chinese food takeout places on the planet that can supply the spent cooking oil CNG is still burning a fossil fuel, maybe we can strap a balloon to the assholes of cows and capture the methane though . Geothermal is location specific and the waste water goes where exactly? Can't dump it into rivers since it's too hot and would kill fish. Hydroelectric destroys river ecosystems. Hydrogen fuel cells aren't recyclable and contain far more toxins than burning oil does.

So... we're stuck until we find a real solution and not the pipe dreams of people with limited applicable ideas. Good show though

Oil began as something more expensive than it was worth to explore and refine until public funds went toward it.  The earliest infrastructures in place for gas stations were also partially publicly funded.

Even today, oil exploration gets tax breaks despite there not being any need for it.

The point is... an energy form doesn't become cost-effective until public funding or incentives are implemented for it.  But of course, oil companies don't want that...  yet.   They'll surely demand them once they move to the alternatives they've bought into when oil starts running out.

What we should instead do is go ahead and end all incentives for the oil industry and make the move now with incentives for alternatives.

The more I think about it, the more that I think the only way we'll stop using oil is when it properly runs out, like for real. Or fusion power becomes viable. All this other stuff, it can't compensate for whatever reasons (practical reasons, or social reasons like the oil industry + politicians not letting it develop and such).

Maybe nuclear (fission) power could solve all our energy problems if we really wanted to, but everyone is scared of that now so people would rather stick to fossil fuels for now.


The problem is you look at all the richest companies in all the countries, they're all in the oil industry. They control all the countries. It's not just about the US being strangled by them, it's everyone. You can't even rely on China or EU or someone else to develop proper alternatives and take over from the US in terms of being a leader in technology for this shit...

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2010-05-01 11:40:16)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Wind and solar take up a lot of space, are NIMBYtastic...

I don't quote understand NIMBY-people or reasons for not doing something because of people being all NIMBY about it.

JohnG@lt wrote:

...and who knows what the environmental effects would be from wind farms over the long term?

Finding that out without some sort of insight about the subject can be quite difficult. Do you know what environmental effects wind farms have caused thus far?

It's funny how our wind turbine technology is still in the same shoes as it was about 2000 years ago. Progress.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ethanol is not an option. Growing more corn or sugar for fuel still requires burning carbon and it will jack up the price of crops since more farmland will be dedicated to growing fuel instead of food.

Odd that this is the stuff you plan on spending your life researching, yet you say ethanol is not an option. I thought you'd at least mention cellulosic ethanol, and/or ethanol possibly mixed with some other energy source.

Turquoise wrote:

The point is... an energy form doesn't become cost-effective until public funding or incentives are implemented for it.  But of course, oil companies don't want that...  yet.   They'll surely demand them once they move to the alternatives they've bought into when oil starts running out.

Alternative energy projects already receive public funding, albeit very little compared to the tax breaks that are still in place for oil companies.

But yeah, the big oil companies today will be the big wind farmers tomorrow.

Last edited by BLdw (2010-05-01 13:35:53)

so


when is Obama going to burn at the stake for this


if Big Bush was running the show he would have been crucified for this ................ because everything was his fault

without reading this thread, i just spotted the NIMBY term.

they can all go choke on a dick. They're often the most vocal campaigners for cleaner energy, but then when someone says 'ok we'll put a windfarm on those hills' they all cry and say stupid stuff like 'cant you put them in x retarded place like there?' NO YOU THICK CUNTS THEY HAVE TO GO ON HILLS OR IN THE SEA

fucking NIMBY shits. i'd build a nuke plant literally in their back-gardens and let it meltdown.

Uzique wrote:

there have been several good, viable solutions over the years (none of which, admittedly, quite have the scale or easy-applicability of fossil-fuels), but they've all been bought out and effectively silenced by the oil corporations.

Yeah, patent trolling. It's a nice way to shut down (possibly) upcoming rivals.

No more bubba gump shrimp.

say hello to high gas prices in a few months.

Uzique wrote:

the thing is with alternative energy solutions, is that the ethics and 'good-will' side of it are vying for influence over the market.

as oil becomes more scarce, the companies that have conglomerated and grown fat off it will only have a greater interest in making sure that their remaining reserves sell for increasingly higher and higer profits. there have been several good, viable solutions over the years (none of which, admittedly, quite have the scale or easy-applicability of fossil-fuels), but they've all been bought out and effectively silenced by the oil corporations. they hold a monopoly on world-power, a monopolising force that filters through to big political and social capital, too. the top-cat industrialists run the geopolitical show, not the politicians or the activists with their good-intentions. research has no doubt been stifled, slowed and refused funding because it is currently not in the interests of the 'demands of the market'.

like mek said, we'll only properly open our eyes to the alternative when we've hit rock bottom; when the last oil well has been sucked dry and the very last dime sucked out of the global market.

Kmarion wrote:

meh.. they said they were going up anyways.. before this. Summer driving season leading up to memorial day.. yada yada. In the winter we are told that they go up cause we gotz ta heat holmes. They don't need no stinkin explodin oil rig to raise prices on ye.

Truth lies somewhere in the sum of these two posts.

If a large quantity of that oil reaches the marshes and bays which are fish and shrimp nuseries, then its going to be a really bad disaster. But if it would stay off shore, it might not be that bad given where it is... remember all the talk about the dead zones in the gulf.



I couldn't find anything on a similar blow out off of Mexico in the 1980s??? where they put in an upside down funnel to catch the oil. Its probably what they will have to do here. So in fifty days this oil spill will equal the exxon valdez and its supposed to take 90 days to drill the relief well and plug the old well with concrete. So does that mean Exxon Valdez times two??? I read some where that 1/3 of the seafood comes for that area so I guess now "the only blue plate special they're serving is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State" (Good Will Hunting)


anyway from what I've read and heard the oil spill is directly related to the fact that BP decided not to install a $10 million safety valve to save money. And that regulations did not require them to have one installed. Another triumph of the "we need less regulation" crowd. IMO its pretty sad, we need the oil and for those who produce the oil its like printing money, you just wish that they could take reasonable care... I mean so you saved $10 million and cost economy billions.

At least one thing is for sure, this blow should not affect oil prices because this was exploratory drilling and this oil was not in production. But I can't wait to see the Wall Street spin on this one.

ruisleipa wrote:

Of course this is also an inadvertent effect of our dependence on oil.

Then I guess we should stop drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and let the Russans and Chinese drill all they want?

We definitely need to invest in technology so this never happens again.

So I guess this is Obama's Katrina?  ... federal government was slow to act...again.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Eh, I can dig up a few articles containing environmentalists bitching and moaning about wind farms disrupting bat migrations if you want. There's always something.

So what if there's always something? Sure why shouldn't bat migration be a factor in deciding where to put up windmills? Certainly doesn't imply the whole idea/tecnology/benefits are wrong does it? What's your point then?