BajaNomad - Baja to Export Wind Powered Electricity

Baja to Export Wind Powered Electricity

Pages: 1 2

k-rico - 5-18-2010 at 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
K-pobre y cabra:

Boy, I sure can get a rise out of some of you... If anyone else said the same thing, would you bother taking the time to read and respond?

You guys really need to take a drink and chill out... :lol:

So what do you think about wind power now? Did you learn something from my post?

[Edited on 5-19-2010 by k-rico]

David K - 5-18-2010 at 06:28 PM

Yah, wind power? IT BLOWS!

:spingrin:

monoloco - 5-18-2010 at 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Sorry goat. But although I could get aboard the nuke thing eventually, I really have to step back and question how long it will take to achieve truly green nuclear power. The scientists have been touting fusion for decades, but have not come close to realizing their dream. Current nuclear technology still provides us with an abundance of toxic leftovers, much like my mother-in-laws Thanksgiving dinners. While I truly hope that we are able to produce benign nuclear energy in the foreseeable future, and hope that we invest enough capital to support it, currently, I believe that wind and solar deserve much more investment than they are currently receiving.

According to a new comprehensive study by the New York Academy of Sciences the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl has killed 985,000 people and caused 500 billion dollars damage in the Ukraine and Belarus alone, yet congress has set the maximum liability of the nuclear industry at 22 billion for accidents. What do you think the damages would run if we had a Chernobyl in SoCal? Liability limits for industry are just another subsidy or form of corporate welfare on top of all the other government subsidies that the nuclear industry receives.

David K - 5-18-2010 at 10:43 PM

There was a major difference in the type of reactor used in the Soviet Union vs. America... apples and oranges.

monoloco - 5-19-2010 at 06:36 AM

The point is that companies like Duke Energy and Exelon stand to make billions on nuke power while the taxpayer is on the hook for trillions if something goes wrong. Just look at the Hanford Res. in Wa., I'm sure that General Electric made millions running the program there for the DOE, now we the taxpayer have spent billions, with no end in sight, trying to mitigate the mess they left. Nuclear power seems cheap until you amortize in the cost of baby sitting the byproducts for thousands of years or the cost of one catastrophic failure or act of terrorism. IMO, the money is better spent on conservation rather than subsidizing multi-national corporations.

k-rico - 5-19-2010 at 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco
The point is that companies like Duke Energy and Exelon stand to make billions on nuke power while the taxpayer is on the hook for trillions if something goes wrong. Just look at the Hanford Res. in Wa., I'm sure that General Electric made millions running the program there for the DOE, now we the taxpayer have spent billions, with no end in sight, trying to mitigate the mess they left. Nuclear power seems cheap until you amortize in the cost of baby sitting the byproducts for thousands of years or the cost of one catastrophic failure or act of terrorism. IMO, the money is better spent on conservation rather than subsidizing multi-national corporations.

You've mentioned Chernobyl and Hanford. You can't judge the modern nuke power industry by those sites. Chernobyl was a carbon moderated reactor that I think was used to produce plutonium for bombs and OBTW they generated some electricity with the heat produced. It had no containment building.

Hanford was built during the Manhattan project (1943) to make plutonium for bombs. More reactors were added later. Those reactors were among the first ever built and were built real fast with no prior experience no real understanding of safeguards. There is widespread contamination there and it is costing a fortune to clean up. The DOE was real lax in enforcing NRC rules during its operation. NRC rules probably didn't even apply to Hanford. National security priorities ya know.

The messiest part of nuclear power is in the fuel cycle including the initial step of mining uranium and the final step of reprocessing spent fuel to get the "unburned" fissile material out for reuse. Spent fuel rods are not "waste". There's much more to worry about than just the reactors.

Interesting read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

[Edited on 5-19-2010 by k-rico]

David K - 5-19-2010 at 08:12 AM

That was refreshing k-rico... thank you.

k-rico - 5-19-2010 at 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
That was refreshing k-rico... thank you.

I didn't say that nuclear power is not dangerous.

monoloco - 5-19-2010 at 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico

Quote:

I am only comparing them in the sense that at the time they were built the consequences weren't foreseen. The fact is we don't know what the future holds, especially when considering a time frame of thousands of years. A terrorist attack, major earthquake, sabotage by a disgruntled employee or any number of things could lead to a catastrophe that could cost society trillions of dollars and leave a large area uninhabitable for a very long time. Remember the government and the oil industry told us that off shore drilling was safe too. A nuclear accident would eclipse the gulf oil spill exponentially. When people say that wind and solar is not economically competitive with nuclear energy, they just aren't looking at all the potential costs, when they complain that alt. e. is heavily subsidized they need to examine the large subsidies that fossil fuels and nuclear energy receives, and not just the direct subsidies but the back door subsidies. If you look at the big picture, the cost of nuclear energy doesn't reflect the cost to the taxpayer to store the waste for thousands of years,or mitigate accidents (I wonder how much the small accident at 3 mi. island cost the taxpayer?). The best solution is conservation, it could employ millions of Americans to weatherize homes, build efficient appliances, utilize photovoltaic, solar heat, and energy efficient lighting.

David K - 5-19-2010 at 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
That was refreshing k-rico... thank you.

I didn't say that nuclear power is not dangerous.

Neither did I... but more people die from coal mine disasters than uranium mines. :light:

k-rico - 5-19-2010 at 09:43 AM

I think everyone pretty much is in agreement that all approaches including conservation is the solution. Solar and wind are great but there's the nagging problem that our whole system is based upon generating electricty where and when it's needed. Solar and wind generators are built where there is sun and wind and generate when there is sun and wind. Different ballgame. Changing the rules will take a lot of time and money. I doubt anything will significantly change until oil and coal become scare/expensive. Now, they're just too cheap and easy.

Hmmmmm, it's getting warmer outside.

Hands Across the Border ?

MrBillM - 5-25-2010 at 10:10 AM

I heard that one of the latest ideas for sharing Mexico's Wind Energy with the Nortes is to use that energy to charge small batteries which will be given to those making their clandestine crossings. Arriving North, they'll turn the cells over to Utility Providers as a "Token" of their desire to contribute to the Economy of the United States. Given the numbers, our dependence on oil should be dramatically reduced. Of course, transporting all of those batteries back for repeat use might be a bit difficult and energy intensive.

Worth a try, though.

"It's one small step for a man, but one giant leap for mankind"

Or not.

Del Mar firm signs deal for Mexican wind farm

BajaNews - 5-25-2010 at 03:55 PM

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/20/del-mar-firm-...

By Onell R. Soto
May 20, 2010

A Del Mar company said Wednesday it plans to spend up to $1 billion to build as many as 500 wind turbines on the mountains between Tijuana and Mexicali to provide power to the United States and Mexico.

Cannon Power Group said it signed a 10-year deal with Spanish wind giant Gamesa for the wind turbines, technical support and additional work on the 1,000-megawatt Aubanel Wind Project.

If built as planned beginning next year, the project will dwarf wind farms proposed for the mountains of San Diego County and will put towers as high as 25-story buildings with blades bigger than the wings of a Boeing 747 on desert ridges in a region of striking wind-carved rock formations spread over 140 square miles.

The wind farm is planned southeast of the town of La Rumorosa, about 75 miles from downtown San Diego. The first phase of the project, between 70 and 100 megawatts, will put its power on the Mexican grid about three months after construction begins, said Gary Hardke, president of Cannon, which has developed wind projects for 30 years.

Hardke said his company is working out who will buy the power and how it will get to market.

“There’s plenty of demand for power, green power, in the region,” Hardke said.

Cannon has built wind farms in California, he said, but getting permits got so difficult that it is focused on building elsewhere. It still sells power into the state to take advantage of California rules that require a certain percentage of electricity to come from the sun, the wind and other renewable sources.

In a move by state officials to fight global warming, California utilities are required to get 20 percent of their power from such sources by the end of the year, and one-third by 2020.

“We intend for this project to be an environmental cross-border model,” said Gamesa spokesman Michael Peck.

Major components for the wind turbines will be made in Gamesa’s Pennsylvania factories, including the blades and the covers, or nacelles, for the mechanical workings.

Gamesa, founded in Spain 34 years ago, is one of the biggest developers of wind turbines and wind farms in the world, and its windmills can generate more than 18,000 megawatts worldwide.

Over the past few years, Cannon has been developing a 500-megawatt wind farm on the Columbia River Gorge in Washington state and selling the power it produces to California buyers. That project is about 80 percent done.

“The Baja project has the potential of being twice as big,” Hardke said.

Such projects typically are financed and built in phases as Cannon signs contracts known as power-purchase agreements with electricity buyers, Hardke said.

The Aubanel project is separate from the nearby Energía Sierra Juárez, another 1,000-megawatt wind project Cannon began developing and then sold to Sempra Generation, which is owned by the same company as San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

Wind studies indicate the region has some of the best conditions for wind generation near large population centers in the border region.

“Let them bring hundreds, thousands of turbines,” Baja California Gov. José Guadalupe Osuna Millán told The San Diego Union-Tribune earlier this year.

Both projects await permits from Mexican environmental regulators.

Environmentalists worry about the effects of wind turbines on wildlife, including bats, birds and sheep. Mexican officials said their environmental laws are as tough as California’s.

Cannon and Sempra Generation said their developments depend on new transmission lines to get the power they produce in the rural region to customers.

“The transmission is the big issue,” said energy consultant Nicolas Puga, who has studied Mexico’s wind industry.

A line connecting Sempra’s project to the California grid, along with a substation in a corner of San Diego County for several other wind projects, is undergoing environmental review.

That power will be put on the Southwest Powerlink, a major transmission line connecting San Diego to Arizona. SDG&E said it needs another big line, the Sunrise Powerlink, to help make room on the Southwest Powerlink for the wind power.

Unlike Sempra’s project, which is being built exclusively to supply California, Cannon’s project will supply customers in Mexico and the United States.

Because such projects depend on the wind, they don’t generate power all the time. The wind in local mountains blows strongest and most steadily at night, when power demand is low.

If fully built, the two projects will generate nearly as much power as the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

That measure is slightly misleading because a typical wind project makes about 30 percent to 40 percent of the energy it would make if it ran at full capacity all the time. A nuclear plant runs at closer to 90 percent capacity.

To be fully developed, Cannon’s wind farm will have to land long-term contracts with big power users, Puga said.

“They’re going to have to export the vast majority of it,” he said.

That is a challenge Cannon can take on, he said.

“Cannon Power is a formidable developer,” Puga said. “These guys are not naive or young or new. … They are pretty capable.”

Construction will create up to 400 jobs, most of which will pay U.S.-level wages and will go to people from the region, including Tijuana, Mexicali and San Diego, said John Prock, director of Cannon’s Mexican operations.

“The impact to the community here in Mexico is a huge story in itself,” Prock said. “We’re going to have needs for restaurants and hotels during the construction project.”

TMW - 5-26-2010 at 07:45 AM

The areas where wind and solar can be installed effectively are limited. Even those who want them are against just putting them anywhere. One of the biggest problems is getting them connected to the grid from some remote location like the middle of the desert. Solar panels are not that efficient and without government tax breaks most people would not buy them for their homes. For a commercial system they take up large amounts of land. Wind mills are high maintenance systems and must be placed in specific areas of constant wind. I view both as a supplement and nothing more.

Nuclear power is as safe an energey sourse as we want it to be, the navy has shown that. But it takes strict control and training. One thing the government has to do is setup a waste dump site and quit BSing about it. NIMBY is BS. I've listened to experts who say the total amount of nuclear waste used in the U.S. will fill a cube the size of a football field and when recycled a room 12ftx12ftx12ft. It's the containment of such waste in small amounts that's takes so much space.

Pumping out Power

MrBillM - 5-26-2010 at 08:42 AM

Awhile back, there was an interview with a researcher and author (pimping his book) IN FAVOR of Wind and Solar Energy who also said that the current price of producing Electricity from Wind or Solar was approx $0.38 per KW while power produced from Oil, Coal or Natural Gas was $0.05 KW. For that economic reason, he said, there was little incentive (none economic) for the country which holds the largest supplies of Natural Gas to lead the way in alternative power production.

Concerning Nuclear Waste, it's interesting that the Naysayers ALWAYS refer to the waste in terms of WEIGHT rather than physical volume. It makes the problem sound so much worse.

Nuclear IS the answer. Stict regulation and strict conformity along with a waste disposal and retainment program. Even the author in the "The Warning" about the Three-Mile Island accident pointed out that one of the root problems was the "Competitive" Free-Market philosophy extended to Nuclear Power production resulting in units from different manufacturers resulting in layouts and control systems with too many variances and too many revisions.

If the Navy can put hundreds of men underwater living next to a nuclear reactor, it IS possible to operate safely.

k-rico - 5-26-2010 at 02:46 PM

The spent fuel rods are not waste, there's considerable fissionable material (U235 and Pu239) in rods that are no longer useful for power generation. The recovery of that material, if they decide to do it, is a very nasty, highly radioactive chemical process, but you can wait a loooong time for the fission fragments to decay off before doing it, or not do it at all.

The repository at Yucca Flats, NV, which is an already contaminated area from weapons testing is being built, I read about some recent permitting action for some part of the task. Getting the spent fuel to the repository will require shipment through populated areas so many folks will be against it and of course there is resistance in Nevada.

Plus decommissioned reactors can't simply be taken apart and disposed of like other types of power stations. There are many old reactors in the US that are reaching the end of their lifespan. Constant neutron bombardment of the materials that compose the reactor vessel takes it toll and the very large primary to secondary coolant heat exchangers are highly radioactive. When San Onofre is finally shut down because of age (the first reactor is already permanently off-line) the whole facility is going to be off limits and will sit there for decades. It's the same fate for other power reactors.

Mill tailings from uranium mines are radioactive because radium and other radioactive elements are co-located where there is uranium. Utah and Colorado are dealing with this.

There are a lot of radioactive problems and waste materials when you consider the whole fuel cycle from mining, fabrication, reprocessing to disposal.

Navy reactors are small, and use highly enriched weapons grade fuel. Therefore the Navy spends a fortune building them. Building a power reactor the same way the Navy builds a propulsion reactor would be cost prohibitive. Also, Navy reactors have an unlimited, easily tapped supply of emergency coolant if they need it, the ocean. The Russian Navy has experience with that.

There are all types of fission machines, from the small, pulsed, research reactors built by General Atomic to fisson fuses that trigger fusion bombs to large fission bombs.

Just like with fire, there are matches to light your oven and there are firestorms that consume cities and forests.

Careful about the comparisons you draw.

[Edited on 5-26-2010 by k-rico]

Blah, Blah, Blah ............

MrBillM - 5-26-2010 at 03:44 PM

More of the same anti-nuke Nutcase Nattering.

I'm not advocating ANY particular approach, but the technology is available to produce the energy and control the risks.

AND, it is inevitable. Perhaps, later than we'd like, but eventually it will be the ONLY way we can produce enough energy without degrading our lifestyle choices. Those who think we can live in Green Caves WILL be, at some point, outvoted.

Probably too late, though.

In the meantime, we've got plenty of Natural Gas, Coal and even Oil.

Mine, Drill and keep that A/C running.

Bajahowodd - 5-26-2010 at 03:49 PM

k-rico said:

Plus decommissioned reactors can't simply be taken apart and disposed of like other types of power stations. There are many old reactors in the US that are reaching the end of their lifespan. Constant neutron bombardment of the materials that compose the reactor vessel takes it toll and the very large primary to secondary coolant heat exchangers are highly radioactive. When San Onofre is finally shut down because of age (the first reactor is already permanently off-line) the whole facility is going to be off limits and will sit there for decades. It's the same fate for other power reactors."

Just reminds me of the "legacy" people are complaining about with respect to debt and deficit for future generations. In a big picture context, is there much difference?

Irrelevent Even If True.

MrBillM - 5-26-2010 at 04:13 PM

What happens with the OLD Nuclear Plants such as San Onofre means NOTHING to the argument. Their circumstance remains the same whatever we do with NEW technology.

Given the LONG History of the San Onofre plant, even without any more advanced Technology, we could expect a service life from any NEW plants to have a productive life that would outlast our children.

AND, So ?

MrBillM - 5-26-2010 at 04:42 PM

The ANSWER is to ASSUME that some revolutionary and UNKNOWN technology is going to appear at some point ?

That is, of course, Absurd, but it's not an argument I haven't seen before from the Blue-Tilters. Reading scientific articles in popular publications, the "Break-through just around the corner" thinking appears now and then.

As far as "Nuke Makes Steam" being a primitive way of doing things, the theory of Electrical production itself goes a long way back, too, but it works. Economics, resources and (relative) safety should ALWAYS dictate the best approach.

Until the great "Unknown" Blessing arrives, that is.

I read today where they're trying to build (with an 80 percent subsidy from the taxpayers) a series of Mirrors covering TEN SQUARE MILES to harness the sun and drive Stirling engines to generate Electricity in the SoCal Desert. Pretty "Primitive", don't you think ?

[Edited on 5-26-2010 by MrBillM]

TMW - 5-26-2010 at 06:14 PM

I guess we could all wait for the Star Ship Enterprise to come and save us. The problem is we have people who want us to live in the stone age. If they want to fine go ahead, I don't.

GrOUper-GAr - 5-28-2010 at 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by "Nuclear IS the answer" MrBillM
I'm not advocating ANY particular approach, but the technology is available to produce the energy and control the risks.

how's the controlled risks of that BP Oil rig going?

Who's gonna controL the Risks?

the Future (Actual Footage):
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/767091/

.

Barry A. - 5-28-2010 at 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GrOUper-GAr

Quote:

Originally posted by "Nuclear IS the answer" MrBillM
I'm not advocating ANY particular approach, but the technology is available to produce the energy and control the risks.

how's the controlled risks of that BP Oil rig going?

Who's gonna controL the Risks?

the Future (Actual Footage):
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/767091/

.

Lets see, one major accident in about 40 years in the Gulf waters--------seems a lot safer than flying, or much worse---driving on the highways. Lets give those 2 things up, what do you think?

Very little in the modern world is accomplished without "risks". We do the best we can.

Barry

So Far So Good

MrBillM - 5-28-2010 at 03:20 PM

As they say "Excrement Occurs". In different words.

The Oil "Risks" should add impetus to Nuclear Power Efforts.

Aside from the Fiasco at Three-Mile Island, we haven't seen any problems with Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. and even there the situation was controlled without any loss of life. They seem to be doing fine in France. We think. I'll grant that the Frogs are pretty strange, but they were strange before they went Nuclear.

As the old saw goes "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's Car than have died as a result of Nuclear Power".

I spent a lot of time swimming and surfing in sight of the San Onofre plant. People still do. Nobody's been harmed.

No Problema.

k-rico - 5-28-2010 at 04:53 PM

'"As the old saw goes "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's Car than have died as a result of Nuclear Power".

Well, not if you include experimental military reactors.

"The SL-1, or Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One, was a United States Army experimental nuclear power reactor which underwent a steam explosion and meltdown on January 3, 1961, killing its three operators."

They buried the dead guys in lead caskets after they let them decay in more than the usual way, for a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

I measured the radiation fields using gamma spectrometry around the reactor from the fallout and decontamination efforts, which weren't very effective, about 20 years after the "rapid disassembly accident".

I glow at night now. :spingrin:

[Edited on 5-28-2010 by k-rico]

k-rico - 5-28-2010 at 05:33 PM

"I spent a lot of time swimming and surfing in sight of the San Onofre plant. People still do. Nobody's been harmed."

Maybe not in the general public, maybe, but there are radiation workers that go into radioactive areas of the plant to perform maintenance tasks. They wear dosimeters to ensure that they don't exceed the annual and lifetime maximum permissible dose. The problem is there is no threshold dose below which ionizing radiation exposure is 100% safe. I bet some of these guys have developed cancer as a result. But no one really knows. The more nukes, the more radiation workers, the more the likelihood someone will be injured.

Those domes around the San Onofre reactors are pre-stressed steel and concrete structures. The fact that they use these elaborate containment structures points to the danger involved.

They dodged a bullet at TMI. It came real close to a BIG problem. Big enough that it ended the nuclear industry in the US. No permits have been issued since.

TMW - 5-28-2010 at 07:26 PM

There are risk with everything we do, so what. You got your head in the sand about nuclear power. You and the other enviro wackos are the reason the US lags the rest of the world in building nuclear power plants and why we are using oil we don't need to. Instead of working with the people that want to build them to make them safe you put up road block after road block with your democrat liberal friends. Windmills NIYBY.

Danger Danger. Three Dead, Hug ?

MrBillM - 5-29-2010 at 09:22 AM

That Green energy can be Bad Stuff, too.

Down in the Palm Springs area, they've had that many people (and more ?) die in accidents on those Giganto Wind-Beaters.

Bet there have been a few deaths on those Solar Arrays, too.

Does any of that prove a point ?

IF we were to add up all the deaths and injuries and then factor them in terms of Energy produced, it's likely that the Greenies would be the worst.

wiltonh - 5-29-2010 at 09:53 AM

A guy was killed in Oregon working on a new wind farm. Here is the OSHA report:

http://www.taproot.com/wordpress/2008/02/27/oregon-osha-rele...

Working with large amounts of power is dangerous. When things go wrong, they go wrong in a big way.

Wilton

Let There Be LIGHT ?

MrBillM - 5-29-2010 at 10:07 AM

The proposed MASSIVE array of HUGE parabolic mirrors covering Ten Square Miles driving Stirling Engines in the SoCal desert to produce 750 MW (the output of ONE Gas-Fired Plant) is likely to be a pretty dangerous place, too. Wanna Bet ?

But, it may never happen since the Greenies in FAVOR are being opposed by the ECOS who are not because it may endanger some Thorned, Spotted, Humpbacked Dwarf Rat, Gnat, Lizard or Toad. Don't remember which one, but it doesn't matter. The loss (or even reduction) of that Rat, Gnat, Lizard, Toad will likely imbalance the earth to such an extent that we'll go spinning into the Sun in short order.

Or, off to Jupiter.

One of the two, I think.

wiltonh - 5-29-2010 at 10:21 AM

These solar thermal power generation plants are not new. One was built in the 1980s and is now shut down.

http://N-zish.freewebsites.com/solarscan.html

Wilton

mtgoat666 - 5-29-2010 at 10:31 AM

fossil fuel combustion kills many thousands of people per year, and nukes do not.

you may think that fossil fuel combustion is risk free, but the degraded air quality causes many shortened lives (many, many thousands per year) and uncounted health problems such as respiratory problems.

mtgoat666 - 5-29-2010 at 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
The proposed MASSIVE array of HUGE parabolic mirrors covering Ten Square Miles driving Stirling Engines in the SoCal desert to produce 750 MW (the output of ONE Gas-Fired Plant) is likely to be a pretty dangerous place, too. Wanna Bet ?

solar power is a very inefficient use of land area. it may be OK for roof tops, as it at least puts roof space to use, but it is insane to covers many miles of desert to get a couple hundred MW capacity. the desert has better uses as open space, and nukes would have much smaller land footprint.

Cypress - 5-29-2010 at 11:31 AM

Regarding the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. There were several warning signs that bad things could happen if they continued with the procedure in progress. The order to proceed was given in spite of objections by the people onsite. The results of ignoring the warning signs, horrific. :no:

Mexitron - 5-29-2010 at 12:07 PM

We need all the energy sources we can get, including nukes. There are some great new designs out there, including the pebble type reactor which by design can't melt down and is more efficient in using up fuel (less waste); also that design is now incorporating a cogenerative application by using the hot water left over in the nuke process to aid in a lower delta t in hydrolizing water (for hydrogen power).

TMW - 5-29-2010 at 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666
fossil fuel combustion kills many thousands of people per year, and nukes do not.

you may think that fossil fuel combustion is risk free, but the degraded air quality causes many shortened lives (many, many thousands per year) and uncounted health problems such as respiratory problems.

Goat for once I agree with you on this and your next post. What is this world coming to?

TMW - 5-29-2010 at 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
Regarding the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. There were several warning signs that bad things could happen if they continued with the procedure in progress. The order to proceed was given in spite of objections by the people onsite. The results of ignoring the warning signs, horrific. :no:

That's usually the problem that has to be corrected. The people that know whats going on have to have an overriding ability to make the final decision on what to do from a safety standpoint, not some manager that only considers what the cost is or is only doing what the home office wants done.

The TRUTH is out there !

MrBillM - 5-30-2010 at 09:39 AM

Unfortunately, Fox Mulder is NOT on the case. It MIGHT have been Aliens, after all. Either kind. It IS the Gulf of MEXICO.

Seriously, though.

Although it's a tiny portion of the information, Having watched hours of the investigation testimony, principally from the BP senior engineer (Hafle), the adversarial lawyer game-playing and misrepresentations (including the MMS) made it clear that the details of the story are not going to be covered objectively in short news segments.

During that testimony, it was apparent that a lot of "so-called" warnings ignored were simply technical problems that were analyzed, discussed and addressed. There were differences of opinion between different experts versed in the subject. Whether the options taken were the best in any given case simply cannot be proven AT THIS TIME. I do know from watching that testimony that a lot of "supposed" questionable actions were simply a part of the Normal routine approved and followed during this type of Exploratory Drilling. Some things may never be known, including the actual failure cause and sequence of events.

SOMETHING (Unknown) went wrong. Critical MISTAKES may have occurred as they do in ALL Dangerous activities, but this tendency to make villains everybody concerned BEFORE the facts are known doesn't accomplish anything other than pander to the Blood-Lust of the uninformed.

Which, of course, is the motivation, especially among the Eco-Loons that see this as an opportunity to drive another stake into Oil-Drilling ANYWHERE.

Mexitron - 5-30-2010 at 12:21 PM

I tend to agree MrBill...I figure everytime I get in the car I'm part of the good and bad consequences of using oil...better to use this disaster as motivation to find other energy sources rather than finger pointing.
The one possible bright spot is that the gulf waters are warm, especially now, which will aid in faster microbial processing of the oil...the gulf recovered from Pemex's Ixtoc I blowout in the 70s (spewing for ten months!) and it will recover again, despite the short term effects to fish and wildlife, which are horrific.

Pages: 1 2