Add environmentalists to the list of those responsible for Gulf oil disaster

[Silver Bullet]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2011980260_krauthammer29.html

I like Krauthammer; he's not afraid to speak unPC.

WASHINGTON — Here's my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

So we go deep, ultra deep — to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?

Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they've escaped any mention at all.

The other culprits are pretty obvious. It starts with BP, which seems not only to have had an amazing string of perfect-storm engineering lapses but no contingencies to deal with a catastrophic system failure.

However, the railing against BP for its performance since the accident is harder to understand. I attribute no virtue to BP, just self-interest. What possible interest can it have to do anything but cap the well as quickly as possible? Every day that oil is spilled means millions more in losses, cleanup and restitution.

Federal officials who rage against BP would like to deflect attention from their own role in this disaster. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose department's laxity in environmental permitting and safety oversight renders it among the many bearing responsibility, expresses outrage at BP's inability to stop the leak, and even threatens to "push them out of the way."

"To replace them with what?" asked the estimable, admirably candid Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander. No one has the assets and expertise of BP. The federal government can fight wars, conduct a census and hand out billions in earmarks, but it has not a clue how to cap a one-mile-deep, out-of-control oil well.

Obama didn't help much with his finger-pointing Rose Garden speech in which he denounced finger-pointing, then proceeded to blame everyone but himself. Even the grace note of admitting some federal responsibility turned sour when he reflexively added that these problems have been going on "for a decade or more" — translation: Bush did it — while, in contrast, his own interior secretary had worked diligently to solve the problem "from the day he took office."

Really? Why hadn't we heard a thing about this? What about the September 2009 letter from Obama's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration accusing Interior's Minerals Management Service of understating the "risk and impacts" of a major oil spill? When you get a blowout 15 months into your administration, and your own Interior Department had given BP a "categorical" environmental exemption in April 2009, the buck stops.

In the end, speeches will make no difference. If BP can cap the well in time to prevent an absolute calamity in the Gulf, the president will escape politically. If it doesn't — if the gusher isn't stopped before the relief wells are completed in August — it will become Obama's Katrina.

That will be unfair, because Obama is no more responsible for the damage caused by this than Bush was for the damage caused by Katrina. But that's the nature of American politics and its presidential cult of personality: We expect our presidents to play Superman. Helplessness, however undeniable, is no defense.

Moreover, Obama has never been overly modest about his own powers. Two years ago next week, he declared that history will mark his ascent to the presidency as the moment when "our planet began to heal" and "the rise of the oceans began to slow."

Well, when you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustn't be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides.

Excellent points, facts I hadn't considered or known about.

I give him bonus points for strapping it to barry in the last paragraph.

[Tallpine]

The federal government can ... conduct a census

Not very well 

[BridgeRunner]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but all of this could be well on its way to being a non-issue if we would embrace the cleanest, safest, lowest-impact source of energy on the planet: nuclear.

[Perd Hapley]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but all of this could be well on its way to being a non-issue if we would embrace the cleanest, safest, lowest-impact source of energy on the planet: nuclear.

Why do you hates the planet, and all the tiny childrens?   

[MechAg94]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but all of this could be well on its way to being a non-issue if we would embrace the cleanest, safest, lowest-impact source of energy on the planet: nuclear.

Unless you are going to have a bunch of nuclear cars and trucks, you would need a whole of bunch of electric vehicles to put a big dent in the oil demand.  I would say you might put a dent in the natural gas use, but I personally think the coal plants would more likely be replaced, not the natural gas systems.  

[erictank]

Why do you hates the planet, and all the tiny childrens?   

Where's the hate?  She just wants to see the tiny childrens become superhuman, like the Hulk and the Fantastic 4 and the X-Men! 

[alex_trebek]

Unless you are going to have a bunch of nuclear cars and trucks, you would need a whole of bunch of electric vehicles to put a big dent in the oil demand.  I would say you might put a dent in the natural gas use, but I personally think the coal plants would more likely be replaced, not the natural gas systems.  

I assumed that she meant utilizing nuclear energy for electric powered public transportation systems

Generally those systems arent cost efficient, yet at least.

[RevDisk]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but all of this could be well on its way to being a non-issue if we would embrace the cleanest, safest, lowest-impact source of energy on the planet: nuclear.

I once asked a lady I know who has "hippy ish" leanings about her thoughts on nuclear power.  "It's evil."   Pardon?   Safety record, virtually no emissions, minimal impact on the environment, etc.  None of those mattered.  "I feel it is evil, so it should not be allowed" was the entire justification.

I have a funny feeling that said justification is very widespread among the environmentalists, who are generally not known for diligent research and informed opinion. 

[sanman]

I once asked a lady I know who has "hippy ish" leanings about her thoughts on nuclear power.  "It's evil."   Pardon?   Safety record, virtually no emissions, minimal impact on the environment, etc.  None of those mattered.  "I feel it is evil, so it should not be allowed" was the entire justification.

I have a funny feeling that said justification is very widespread among the environmentalists, who are generally not known for diligent research and informed opinion. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

A couple have come around, but not many. Properly recycled, the eventual waste after re-use only needs to be stored for 30 years or so (need to look up the source on that). Funny thing, the recycling technology used successfully elsewhere was developed in the US in the 70's, but a certain peanut farmer decided we shouldn't use it.

[tyme]

Unless you are going to have a bunch of nuclear cars and trucks, you would need a whole of bunch of electric vehicles to put a big dent in the oil demand.  I would say you might put a dent in the natural gas use, but I personally think the coal plants would more likely be replaced, not the natural gas systems.  

Biosynthesis of oil is one of the main areas Craig Venter is interested in.  Given his track record, I'd say it won't take him and his team very long to create bacteria that will make usable hydrocarbons out of more readily available organics + CO2.  He's already got a partnership with Shell and BP if I recall... so he's not hurting for funding.

[BridgeRunner]

I assumed that she meant utilizing nuclear energy for electric powered public transportation systems

Generally those systems arent cost efficient, yet at least.

Yep.

Of course, if things were different, they'd be different.  Electric car technology could be a lot better than it is, if y'know electric x
cars made any kind of sense.  Personally, I don't want a coal- powered car.

[alex_trebek]

Yep.

Of course, if things were different, they'd be different.  Electric car technology could be a lot better than it is, if y'know electric x
cars made any kind of sense.  Personally, I don't want a coal- powered car.

My understanding is that even in places in Europe these systems depend strongly on subsidies, even though cars are harder to buy and gasoline/diesel is more expensive compared to the US.

It would be wise to have systems in place, because eventually electric cars will have a decent range and petroleum fuels will be restrictively expensive.

We both mostly agree on this issue, I just think it will take longer be truely competetive than you seem to think.

Biosynthesis of oil is one of the main areas Craig Venter is interested in.  Given his track record, I'd say it won't take him and his team very long to create bacteria that will make usable hydrocarbons out of more readily available organics + CO2.  He's already got a partnership with Shell and BP if I recall... so he's not hurting for funding.

This option has always intrigued me, especially since it is kind of related to my career field. I consistently hear doubts about the thermodynamic efficiency of these processes. IMO the have the highest chances of being thermodynamically efficient, of other methods of making our own fuel.

If we had a cheap plentiful source of energy, the thermodynamic efficiency wouldn't matter so much. Many solutions to this problem always seem to return to using nuclear power.

[Ben]

I once asked a lady I know who has "hippy ish" leanings about her thoughts on nuclear power.  "It's evil."   Pardon?   Safety record, virtually no emissions, minimal impact on the environment, etc.  None of those mattered.  "I feel it is evil, so it should not be allowed" was the entire justification.

I have a funny feeling that said justification is very widespread among the environmentalists, who are generally not known for diligent research and informed opinion. 

Yeah, I've already seen mainstream articles on the spill comparing it to Three Mile Island, so I'm sure if nuclear is brought up, dredging up Three Mile Island will be a response from some of the enviro crowd. It'll be interesting to see, since Obama, in theory at least, is pro-nuclear. It seems many enviro orgs have somewhat flip-flopped on their stance to somewhat support him on that. BP = Three Mile Island may be a media tool they use to get back to being anti-nuke.

[longeyes]

The Middle Ages, despite a lack of most things we'd call necessities, were a very holy time.  Ask Nancy Pelosi.  The sooner we get back there the more social justice there will be.

[alex_trebek]

Yeah, I've already seen mainstream articles on the spill comparing it to Three Mile Island, so I'm sure if nuclear is brought up, dredging up Three Mile Island will be a response from some of the enviro crowd. It'll be interesting to see, since Obama, in theory at least, is pro-nuclear. It seems many enviro orgs have somewhat flip-flopped on their stance to somewhat support him on that. BP = Three Mile Island may be a media tool they use to get back to being anti-nuke.

They would have better luck with Chernobyl. IIRC a unquantifiable amount of radiation was released in the nations worst nuclear "disaster." Unquantifiable because it was low. The effects were undeterminable because they were so minor.

This was the resultof human, design flaws, and lack of training. I don't want to say it was a non-incident, but it would be if there wasn't the stigma against nuclear power and the PR wasn't handled so poorly.

I think now that it has been 30 years with no noticable ill effects, the TMI incident would fail in a rational debate.

[Ben]

I think now that it has been 30 years with no noticable ill effects, the TMI incident would fail in a rational debate.

I would normally agree with you on that. If for instance, the BP spill didn't happen, I don't think anti-nuke people would as quickly use TMI as an example against new nuke plants. But now they can say, "see, industry can't be trusted! It's just like Three Mile Island! It's just like the BP spill!"

The position is difficult to argue logically, but the right PR can trigger comparative emotions in those easily swayed, which, sadly, is a decent sized segment of the population.

[MechAg94]

On biofuel, I have always wondered how big of a plant or vats would be needed to really make a whole bunch of biofuel.  It seems to me that you would need a whole lot of space to make enough to make a difference.  Also, is it done in batches?  What sort of systems are required to separate the fuel from everything else? What sort of waste is generated? 

I have my doubts that any form of public transportation beyond buses will accomplish much.  They are not cost effective and the infrastructure is huge.  You might say roads are also, but roads won't be replaced.  I like the idea of electric and I think they will get there someday, but I don't know if they will ever completely replace fossil fuels or some substitute.  Of course, if you pull a lot of big city commuters out of the gas market, that would make a dent. 

[RevDisk]

They would have better luck with Chernobyl. IIRC a unquantifiable amount of radiation was released in the nations worst nuclear "disaster." Unquantifiable because it was low. The effects were undeterminable because they were so minor.

This was the resultof human, design flaws, and lack of training. I don't want to say it was a non-incident, but it would be if there wasn't the stigma against nuclear power and the PR wasn't handled so poorly.

I think now that it has been 30 years with no noticable ill effects, the TMI incident would fail in a rational debate.

I grew up about half a mile from TMI.  Saw it nearly every day for almost a decade.   Hippies screaming about TMI obviously never spent any time nearby.   I agree with alex, no detectable increase in radiation or health effects.  None.  Not even any radscorpions, raiders or Super Mutants combing the wastelands of Conoy Township.  As school kids, we played with Geiger counters.  No difference between background noise on TMI property or dozens of miles away.  Now, take that Geiger counter down the river a bit to downwind of the coal plant about 10 miles down the river.   THAT'S some noticable rads.  Enough that I wouldn't want to

The area that held the reactor has been cleared.  You can walk around the exact spot that had the incident without even a moon suit.

[longeyes]

I'd prefer nuclear when they downsize 'em (I think Toshiba has this tech already).  Who has the power has everything else by the shorthairs.

[taurusowner]

None.  Not even any radscorpions, raiders or Super Mutants combing the wastelands of Conoy Township.

  Sounds like a ripoff to me.

[dm1333]

MechAg94,

If you google algae biofuel, algal fuel or anything like that you get lots of articles about making biofuels from algae and some of the other efforts to start making fuels from bacteria, etc.  Solazyme is one company that comes to mind but there are something like 15 start ups in the US that are working on this.  There is also a bio fuel forum but I can't think of the URL right now.  Between those articles on biofuels and the web forum you should be able to find answers to the questions you were asking.  Some of them are hoping to start producing and selling fuel in the next year or two.

One guy in New Jersey has come up with a way to turn algae into lumps of stuff that burn just like coal and can be substituted in coal fired plants.  I'm sure it has occurred to a lot of people that coal plants could supply a lot of CO2 for growing algae and producing fuel.

[roo_ster]

What sort of waste is generated? 

Unicorn farts.  And radon.

[BridgeRunner]

I'd prefer nuclear when they downsize 'em (I think Toshiba has this tech already). 

Yep.  My spouse, on more than one occasion, has suggested to various state and local officials that they park one in our garage for a very reasonable rent.   

Sometimes it is fun to live next door to the state capitol.

[MechAg94]

I'm sure there are answers out there.  I was just thinking about say the oil refineries in the area and wondering how big a biofuel plant would have to be to get the same production.  

On the waste question:  What bi-products are there after the fuel is separated out, and can they be recycled and all that.  

I think the biofuel stuff is a bit new to answer all the questions just yet.  We'll see how it falls out down the road.

[seeker_two]

None of those mattered.  "I feel it is evil, so it should not be allowed" was the entire justification.

I have a funny feeling that said justification is very widespread among the environmentalists, who are generally not known for diligent research and informed opinion. 

Fortunately enough, this is how I justify my opinion against the whole environmental movement in general.... 

Drill, baby, drill.......and glow, baby, glow!....