100,000 Gallons of Oil Now Leaking Into Mississippi River!

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 

Dear Boncho,

Thanks, I can always count on you. By the way, where have you been? I need somebody to keep me on the straight and narrow.

One of, what I think are, the fundamental problems is that people take too narrow of a view. One of our Mid-East Generals was fired because he kept asking the civilians "What then?" It's fine to order something, but too many people ignore the side effects, and the results.

"Let's get rid of oil!" OK, what then? What do we replace oil with? What are the problems with adopting Magic Energy Source X? What does it cost? Are we making the problem worse by shifting to X?

A good estimate for the cost of complying with all federal regulations, financial, safety, everything, is $1.75 trillion a year. The cost of complying with EPA regulations go up by multiple billions each year (I'm too tired to get exact numbers.

Some voters tell the government "Let's do A, B, and C." If there are enough of them, it happens regardless of the consequences.

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I think I have the same general view as yourself. Although, I like to be abreast of exactly what we are doing, so many have their heads in the sand. "Stop oil!" "Stop nuclear", but who says, "Stop reproducing?"

Seems like we are at a level of population that is not going to work. I know this isn't a popular view, but depopulation is something needed. Perhaps that's what the destruction of the middle class is aimed at.

Check my sig for more on that, and how China plays into it (or so I think in my drunken delusions).

In any case, if we all decide we want to keep on the path we set, I have no problem with that either. But I am saddened that we can't all just accept what we are doing, and instead dress up a diseased donkey telling ourselves we're riding a thoroughbred.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   

JHumm
Everything oil does, Hemp does and does it better.



Wyatt Yerp

I'm guessing they have equipment to clean the spill up.
edit on 27-11-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Hemp is not Cannabis, Marijuana, Gunja or Weed, you can smoke as much of it as you would like to and all you are likely end up with is a headache!



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Utterly ridiculous.

Wind and solar are perfectly viable... especially solar which is increasing in efficiency and decreasing in cost all the time as well as improvements in being able to collect and store the sun's energy to be used after dark. The tragedy of windmills regarding our flying friends is an engineering problem that should be addressed immediately but the problems (including the other ones you mentioned) with wind are not as bad as they are being hyped to be... not nearly and if we're going to talk about energy related wildlife tragedies, there is no comparison to what fracking, coal and oil are doing to animals and the environment.

As far as refineries go, building them at the tar sands isn't an option, not because of the EPA or the President but because the energy barons don't want to build them there, they want this pipeline which by the way its kin pipelines are leaking all over the damn place too.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
abcnews.go.com...

Heres a update. Not as bad as first expected. Still a mess tho.



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Dear Kali74,

This will sound strange, but it's true. Thank you for the "Utterly ridiculous" introduction to your post. When I see something like that I prepare myself to learn of a colossal blunder which I won't make again. Thus, I leave better, wiser, happier and with, no doubt, a brighter smile.


Wind and solar are perfectly viable...
Here begins my confusion. If we are speaking about economic viability, I thought that meant that the operation could pay it's own expenses, make a little profit for the investors, and put aside a little something for growth and emergencies. If you meant something else, let me know.

[T]he feds will continue to subsidize the wind industry through a series of tax credits, subsidies and loan guarantees. Reason magazine columnist and Mercatus Center Economist Veronique de Rugy found, “Between fiscal years 2007 and 2010, annual wind subsidies grew from $476 million to nearly $5 billion.”

www.forbes.com...
In my mind, "viable" means the federal government could reduce wind power subsidies by $5 Billion next year. I don't think anyone believes that wind could survive that. Therefore wind is not economically viable.

The UK has also invested heavily in wind power. Remember that the UK has about one-fifth of the population of the US,

The full extent of the subsidies for wind farms received by the “big six” energy companies can be disclosed today.

An analysis of the industry’s figures shows that Britain’s largest energy firms received almost £900 million (About $1.4 Billion) last year through a consumer subsidy added to household bills.

The subsidy is worth £200 million more than the income from the electricity actually produced by Britain’s on and offshore wind farms. In total, the big six received more than £1.5 billion in revenues last year from wind farms they own. (Parenthetical material added)

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Did you notice that the windfarms are getting more money from the government subsidies than from the electricity they produce? That is not economic viability. They, also, would die if not for taxpayer money.

If solar was an economically attractive field to get into, and storage is improving all the time, why have there been such colossal bankruptcies in those fields after heavy government assistance?
----------------------------------------------------

Are the problems with birds overblown?

Wind turbines have a significant impact on this nation’s birds, especially birds of prey and other large species. The American Bird Conservancy even thinks it’s possible the golden eagle will end up on the endangered species list because so many are being killed by wind turbines. In fact, the Obama administration is so fixated on wind power that it recently gave a California-based wind company an exemption from prosecution if a turbine kills a California condor, one of the rarest birds in the world, with only around 400 alive today. And the administration is hoping to grant a similar exemption to all wind farms along the 1,500-mile Texas to North Dakota migratory corridor for the whooping crane, another of the world’s rarest birds.

Wind turbines kill around 600,000 birds annually according to a recently published scholarly article in the Wildlife Society Bulletin. But the number is likely higher. Consider that many wind companies do not have to make bird kill data public. The federal government has resisted releasing data under the absurd claim that doing so would divulge industry trade secrets.

Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, killing one bird carries fines ranging from $15,000 to $500,000 and prison terms of six months to two years. Yet, a recent Associated Press investigation found the federal government has never fined or prosecuted a wind farm owner for violating federal law by killing birds.

“What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces [with a wind turbine], that is OK,” Tim Eicher, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement agent, told the AP.

And by not fining or prosecuting wind companies for killing birds, the Obama administration’s friendly policies provide the industry with other hidden benefits. Wind companies avoid paying fines that other energy companies would face if they killed birds; they avoid hefty legal fees that companies incur when prosecuted by the feds; and they are allowed to build wind farms in areas others would not be allowed into.

Implicit in President Obama’s plan is the administration’s very clear signal to the wind industry: go ahead and carry on killing birds because the federal agencies that are supposed to be enforcing laws against killing them will give you a pass.

www.forbes.com...

Wind supplies 3.56% of our energy, according to Wiki. That's 1/28 of our energy production. I'm not surprised that they create fewer environmental problems, they should.
------------------------------------------------
Refineries. Sigh. Of course they want pipelines. How in the world are they going to get the oil or anything else from the middle of North Dakota to the world markets? Air mail? Yes they could build them at the tar sands, but there would still have to be pipelines to get the refined product out of there.

The pipelines built by the company doing Keystone has a great record of building secure pipelines and being receptive to any suggestions made by the state or federal government for even more improvements. Further, there may have been one pipeline leak in their system, or maybe it was none, I forget which. The others were at pumping stations and some spills were less than 5 gallons.

If I've misunderstood you, please get back to me, I have a lot to learn.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




Here begins my confusion. If we are speaking about economic viability, I thought that meant that the operation could pay it's own expenses, make a little profit for the investors, and put aside a little something for growth and emergencies. If you meant something else, let me know.


It's true that there isn't much profit in renewables, they aren't a finite resource and we need not invade other countries to obtain them. There won't be layer upon layer of agencies and corporations dependent on renewables, once they get a firm foothold the government piece can be reduced to pea sized.

But... do you really want to be comparing subsidies for energy anyway when fossil fuel subsidies outweigh renewable subsidies 6:1? Seems to me that fossil fuels with its trillions of dollars per year profits should be able to stand on their own. But I'm just a greenie weenie socialist, what do I know?

The bird problem is and isn't overblown... bird deaths are categorized as hunted, poisoning or accidental trauma. Accidental trauma can be be anything from wind turbines to power lines and flying into low altitude aircraft. When the uh... media you have a clear preference for sites turbines as a bird/bat hazard, they are counting all accidental trauma. That said, the issue needs to be addressed... the whole concept need not be scrapped when I'm sure there is an engineering solution. Harm to endangered avians isn't acceptable.

The companies involved with the pipeline have an abhorrent record, I suggest you search up spills, leaks and ruptures (hint Pegasus).





top topics
 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join