SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (77618)6/7/2010 10:36:14 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Why the Oil Spill Won't End Gulf Drilling

10 hours ago Subscribe :ORLANDO, Fla. -- Suppose the United States did decrease drilling in the gulf, or discontinue it altogether. It's a tempting idea, but the question arises. Then what? What would be our alternatives?

For a nation where oil consumption surged 32 percent between 1970 and 2008 and production declined 40 percent, offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, along with Alaska, represents the new frontier. Some 30,000 to 40,000 rigs in the gulf are drilling deep and pumping oil that comprises more than a third of the nation's domestic supply, more than any other source. The technology employed to drill so deep and at such underwater depths is so cutting-edge it rivals that of space exploration, the industry says.

No one knows just how much oil is beneath the gulf. Forty years ago, the U.S. Geological Survey used seismic data to explore how much oil was there. Today's technology, through exploratory drilling, gives the United States a greater ability to determine how much really is there and where. Some say no matter how much is there, it is an unsustainable resource, but others say another Saudi Arabia could be in the gulf, said Charles Ebinger, director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution.

"Offshore drilling will continue," said Samuel Thernstrom, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former member of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "The Obama administration's position on drilling has not fundamentally changed, that the president seems to still support expanded offshore drilling accompanied, of course, with more stringent protections for the environment."

The spill in the gulf, which began more than a month ago when a rig exploded and sank, killing 11, has inspired an important national conversation on our dependence on oil and our need for cleaner energy sources. President Barack Obama has banned all new deepwater wells for six months, and he also has established a bipartisan national commission to investigate what caused the spill and recommend ways to improve federal regulations on offshore drilling. But he has not retreated from offshore drilling altogether.

"Because it represents 30 percent of our oil production, the Gulf of Mexico can play an important part in securing our energy future," the president said last month during his weekly radio address. "But we can only pursue offshore oil drilling if we have assurances that a disaster like the BP oil spill will not happen again."

More than 246 million vehicles are on the road today, and the truth is we still are at least 30 years away from electric cars on a scale that would have an impact, said Ebinger, who has served as an energy policy adviser to more than 50 governments. Even replacing a few million cars with electric vehicles is a "long way from getting our dependence on petroleum in the transportation sector ended," he said.

Domestic drilling is important to our national security and economy, generating jobs and tax revenue that, among other things, can be used in environmental preservation projects, Thernstrom said. It also is safer environmentally. Research shows that tankers transporting oil are more prone to accidents and spills than rigs. U.S. safety and environmental standards also are better than in countries such as Nigeria or Venezuela. All this means domestic drilling is less likely to produce spills, he said.

"There is a future where America will use less fossil fuels, and I think there are government policies that can help move us in that direction," Thernstrom said. "But the technologies are not as developed as the environmentalists would like us to believe."

The BP spill is the worst in American history and threatens the environment, seafood and tourism industries, and more across the Gulf Coast. Here in Florida, a Moody's Investors Service report asserted the spill's impact could be worse than that of the global recession, because any damage to the beaches would depress tourism and property values, jeopardizing state and local credit ratings and causing higher borrowing costs.

Hundreds of dead birds already have washed ashore in Louisiana, notes Eric Draper, executive director of Audubon of Florida. Draper was among the leading opponents of a legislative measure in Florida opening state waters to drilling, which now appears dead. The spill also has killed a California drilling project backed by environmentalists. Meanwhile Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has announced he will call a special legislative session to discuss a constitutional amendment banning drilling in state waters.

In this environment, a candidate for statewide public office (Crist is running for the U.S. Senate) could probably do no less. In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has backed away from a painstakingly forged compromise between environmentalists and the oil industry, and even pro-growth conservative Gov. Bob McDonnell acknowledges that the gulf oil spill has made Virginia's plans to lease offshore tracts more problematic – even before President Obama issued a moratorium on new leasing. "It's clearly a setback," McDonnell acknowledged. "It's going to take some time to sort out what happened, make the technological and regulatory fixes." .

But then, he believes, Virginia -- and the rest of the nation -- must get back up on the scary horse that is now symbolized by BP. He is not alone.

Even Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sens. Mary L. Landrieu and David Vitter don't want offshore drilling to end. This reflects the will of many of their constituents. Take Michael Ballay, manager of the Cypress Cove Marina and Resort in Venice, La., for example. Ballay expects to lose his entire summer's business to the spill, but he believes there is a bigger picture.

""Venice was built on oil," he said. "Ninety percent of the people down here make their living or have relatives who make their living off the oil rigs."

politicsdaily.com



To: koan who wrote (77618)6/7/2010 10:37:16 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 149317
 
People think fusion will save us.


Nuclear fusion dream hit by EU's cash dilemma

£1bn funding shortfall jeopardises hopes of producing cheap, non-polluting power

A £15bn international bid to harness the fusion process that powers the Sun is facing a major funding crisis. Scientists have revealed that the cost of the International Thermonuclear Experiment Reactor (Iter) has trebled from its original £5bn price tag in the past three years. At the same time, financial crises have beset all the nations involved in the project.

As a result, construction of Iter – at Cadarache in France – has already been pushed back from 2015 to 2019, and further delays are likely. Some scientists say there is a risk that the entire project could be cancelled.

Because it is hoped that fusion plants could one day supply the world with cheap, non-polluting power, the crisis facing Iter represents a substantial threat to plans to tackle the planet's energy and climate problems.

Much of Iter's difficulties stem from Europe, with the EU – which is struggling to prevent financial crisis spreading through its member states – having been warned last month that it will have to find an extra £1bn to plug a shortfall in construction funds by the end of next year.

An EU memo has called on the 27 member states to "provide the additional resources necessary" for the project, just as these nations are desperately trying to cut their own domestic budgets. "I think the momentum of the project may be in very deep trouble," one Iter scientist told the journal Nature last week. "Time is pressing."

Harnessing the process of nuclear fusion has been a scientific dream since the second world war. Unlike nuclear fission, which powers traditional nuclear reactors and which involves the splitting of uranium atoms, fusion involves combining atoms of hydrogen to create helium, a process that releases vast amounts of energy.

However, fusion occurs only at very high temperatures, and massive amounts of electricity are needed first to heat hydrogen isotopes – deuterium and tritium – to 100,000,000C so that fusion can take place. In addition, a powerful electromagnetic field has be generated to contain the superhot plasma that is created inside a fusion plant.

To date, all prototype fusion plants have consumed more energy than they have generated. Iter is intended to be the first that will actually make excess power and is intended to help scientists design a future generation of plants, each capable of generating as much electricity as a large nuclear reactor, but without producing large amounts of radioactive waste. Iter's chief executive officer, Kaname Ikeda, says: "It's an exciting project, the fruit of more than 50 years of research."

The Iter project is backed by most major industrial powers, including the US, Europe, Russia, China, South Korea and Japan. When plans were drawn up for its construction, two prospective sites were chosen, one at Cadarache and one at Rokkasho in Japan. To ensure that the project was built in Europe, the EU pledged to pay the largest slice of its construction – 45% – with the rest being shared among the five others. That move has now come back to haunt Europe.

"We need to build all the major buildings that will house the project and that money is needed now," said a spokesman for Iter. "The problem is that, when we looked at the detailed design of the project, it was found that costs had been badly underestimated. Now we are having to ask European Union member states to find that extra money at a time when they are having to cope with their own domestic financial problems. Yes, this is crisis, but I am sure that the project will still go ahead in the long run."
guardian.co.uk



To: koan who wrote (77618)6/7/2010 1:38:50 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 149317
 
>They will figure it out. People just needed to think about it.

Yes, and while they are thinking about it and figuring it out, they need to keep drilling.<<

So you feel the damage to the Gulf was worth the oil they got out;


No. Its not.

and are willing to take a chance on another blow out like this one?

You seem to think we have a choice. We don't. To wean us off oil, we need a lead time of at least 10 years. Had steps been taken going forward from Carter, we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, there was a great deal of lip service and very little done.

Have you really quantified how much we need that oil in relation to the damage?

Yes, you cut off the oil and we will experience an economic tailspin that will make last year's Great Recession look like child's play.

And, every right winger would sure agree with you. Not too many liberals would..

So in your mind, the right wingers "drill baby drill" is correct and the liberals are wrong about stopping deep water drilling?


For right now, yes. I don't adhere to any ideology that loses sight of reality. I would rather have some birds covered with oil than more people homeless and unemployed.