DailyDirt: Drill, Baby, Drill!
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
Hindsight makes it easy to criticize decisions that were made that, in retrospect, seem foolish. The word 'tsunami' was coined by the Japanese, and yet a nuclear power plant apparently wasn't designed to fully withstand one (and an associated earthquake). Lots of folks have asked: "How could they not see this coming?" But it's not that simple, and a nuclear power plant isn't the only energy facility that can devastate the environment. Let's not forget the BP Oil Spill. As a reminder, here are some interesting links about the Gulf of Mexico and the still-unfolding aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.- The full effect of the BP Oil Spill may not be known for about a decade...? It also took several years to determine the environmental effects of the Exxon Valdez spill, and there's a lot of oil on the seafloor even though the surface oil has dissipated. [url]
- The Gulf's seafloor seems to be covered in "microbial spit" and oil -- a combination of bacterial slime that helps microbes digest the oil. This slime has also been described as an "invertebrate graveyard." [url]
- Here's a map of the Gulf of Mexico and where all the active offshore oil well platforms are located. There are thousands of wells and about 43,000 miles of pipeline in the Gulf. [url]
- Earlier this year, over 70 dead dolphins (including baby dolphins) washed up along the Gulf Coast. Autopsies might point to a cause, but it seems suspicious that the baby dolphins were conceived just before the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.... [url]
- As a nice gesture, BP has created a very pleasant (perhaps too pleasant?) photo gallery of the US beaches around the Gulf of Mexico. Interestingly, BP also includes some altered images in its gallery, for transparency sake. [url]
- To discover more stuff on alternative energy, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bp oil spill, deepwater horizon, dolphins, gulf of mexico, microbial spit
Companies: bp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They THINK' you dont care.
Even as residual bacteria eats up the oil, it offsets other chemicals, as well as the dispersion and break down of the oil in salt water. ITS A CESSPOOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair, this isnt true of every fisherman, but it happens enough for it to be common knowledge and generally accepted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I write an Examiner column for New Orleans - pls email me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I write an Examiner column for New Orleans - pls email me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, it is safe if done ACCORDING TO BEST PRACTICES. However, companies have a history of ignoring best practices in order to try and make a buck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The unadulterated bullshit comment is based on the effects of radiation. The half life of radioactive material is measured in millions of years. Comparing the two as if they are of equal value is inappropriate at best. Please rethink your comment and provide an intelligent response or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think we both can agree that radioactive materials can have extremely long half-lives and are extremely bad for biological organisms like ourselves. But these facts alone don't seem to me to be sufficient to eliminate nuclear power from our options of energy technologies.
The offsetting fact is that highly radioactive materials can also be contained (albeit indefinitely). Chernobyl's temporary sarcophagus is expected to be replaced with another, more permanent structure... and I'm optimistic that containment is a viable solution (though the new sarcophagus may also someday need to be replaced). There's an argument to be made that perhaps the costs of vigilant monitoring should be (and are not currently) incorporated into the plans of any nuclear power facility. But that's a different discussion....
If wind or solar energy seemed more competitive and scalable, then I'd be inclined to agree that nuclear power shouldn't be used. But for the current available technologies, I think nuclear has to be included in the energy mix (as it already is) and its share of energy generation increased. We just need to learn from past mistakes. There will never again be a Chernobyl-like design. And the "Generation II" reactors should be phased out as "Generation III & IV" reactors are introduced (or retrofitted with even more safety features). Perhaps these older reactor designs should be decommissioned faster, but then replacing them with newer facilities in a timely fashion doesn't seem very likely.
The current disaster in Japan will not be as bad as Chernobyl by many accounts -- which is proof that engineering designs are improving! So the evidence actually points in a good direction.... If more advanced reactor designs actually performed worse than older designs, then I'd have less (or a complete lack of..) confidence in nuclear engineering's ability to create safer nuclear power plants.
Hopefully, this is an intelligent response.. :D
mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your entire response is debating nuclear power as an energy source. Your hidden agenda is transparent therefore, allow me to redirect your process. I worked as a contract instrument engineer for the majority of corporations. My works included nuclear, oil, gas, refineries, chemical, etc and this is absolutely the most inefficient fail safe emergency response in my career. Are their hospitals and other emergency centers backup generators built at ground level. The entire facility is designed for efficiency; small foot print, shared resources, spent fuel rods storage, etc. However, the design disregards safety with regards to well known possible natural events.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I didn't realize I had an obligation to be unbiased about my opinion of nuclear power... :P
I think we agree that the energy companies are notoriously bad about meeting AND exceeding the necessary safety precautions for their facilities. I'm not at all against requiring nuclear facilities to implement fail safe procedures that would prevent catastrophic events.... But your previous statements seemed to suggest that there might not be any possible way to prevent nuclear power disasters, and on that, I disagree. Already, the events in Japan demonstrate that safety precautions can prevent a Chernobyl-sized disaster. There's a good deal more that can be done, but we shouldn't kill nuclear power because one company cuts corners on safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]