To what extent do we deserve the blame?

[PokerGuy]

Anything that means more money going to the very same government that screwed this mess up to begin with (oversight anyone? enforce penalties anyone? hold companies accountable for not adhering to regs anyone?) is stupid.

No, this "curb the addiction to oil" nonsense is just political cover for "jack up taxes some more". Once the sources of oil become so difficult to reach as to jack up the prices through supply and demand, the technology to create viable alternatives will take care of itself. We don't need the stupid government involved.

 

[Daedalus685]

That doesn't account for any advances in efficiency. It is certainly possible to reduce our thermal footprint in many ways, everything from increasing population density to better engineered materials/systems.

Power is power. I account for efficiency. Computers are a good example as the PSU size has been steady increasing, albeit at a slower rate than the performance.

If we need more power than we can get on the earth then we will be producing that much more heat where we use it.

We are always increasing efficiency, but we are also always increasing power requirements. We may be able to do 4 times as much for only twice the power, but we are still requiring twice the power.

The point is, that if we reach a point were solar is not 'enough' it is because our power requirements are above and beyond what is naturally sustainable. We either have to bring energy in from elsewhere thus increasing the heat of the planet, slow down advancement to allow efficiency to catch up, or leave the planet.

Solar is the best place to point as it is a constant X Watts and is for all purposes constant. We can advance up to that limit but anything above that requires introducing heat into the earth system (accounting for how we couldn't possibly collect all of it it would be far less than peak before we needed to introduce heat). We are introducing heat now, just at a slow rate and primarily from sources that are merely stored solar energy.

 

[Patranus]

What renewable alternatives exist?

Nuclear is the only alternative and while it has been embraced by Europe (France gets something like 75% of their power from nuclear) the "progressive" has shut nuclear out of America for 30+ years.

How exactly do the "progressives" expect to power their electric cars if there is no nuclear power? Coal? Natural Gas? LOL.

 

[her209]

Nuclear is the only alternative and while it has been embraced by Europe (France gets something like 75% of their power from nuclear) the "progressive" has shut nuclear out of America for 30+ years.

How exactly do the "progressives" expect to power their electric cars if there is no nuclear power? Coal? Natural Gas? LOL.

Everyone wants nuclear power plants... just not in their back yard. Everyone knows this.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's all my fault guys.

I'm going to go cut my own face off now. Its the only way to show the world how sorry I am.

 

[her209]

huh? the gov't deserves 99% of the blame... they have complete control over who, where and how drilling is done... it barry wants to kick someone's ass http://www.cnbc.com/id/37567205 he should start at the top of his admin...

Is this a serious post?

Of course it is. The next time I have a car accident, I'm going to blame it on the government because the government has control over who, where, and how driving is done.

 

[CLite]

Everyone wants nuclear power plants... just not in their back yard. Everyone knows this.

Some people enjoy living near an existing Nuke, it usually results in lower electrical prices, and reduced home prices (i.e. less taxes). I had a field assignment at Arkansas Nuclear One for their outage and reading the local paper's classifieds made me extremely jealous of their home prices.

Now I could see someone not wanting a nuke to open near their $500K house plummeting the value to $250k or whatever. This is why the main focus of Nuclear expansion is on existing sites which are seeking to increase the number of reactors.

 

[Daedalus685]

Nuclear is the only alternative and while it has been embraced by Europe (France gets something like 75% of their power from nuclear) the "progressive" has shut nuclear out of America for 30+ years.

How exactly do the "progressives" expect to power their electric cars if there is no nuclear power? Coal? Natural Gas? LOL.

I'll be sure to tell all of the progressive liberals that I work with how you feel.... /sigh

"progressives" have had nothing to do with the state of the US nuclear industry... an accident occurred and since people are stupid they ran with it. It sure wasn't the average environmental progressive that lobbied for more coal being that it is "safer." People don't understand radiation, this is absolutely not limited to the left or right.

It is also not the only alternative... at all...

 

[Schadenfroh]

Everyone wants nuclear power plants... just not in their back yard. Everyone knows this.

Please build one in my backyard, the added jobs during the construction would be awesome and it would bring electricity prices down.

Then again, I live less than a half-hour drive from a national security complex that the government uses to manufacture nuclear weapons, so it is all good.

 

[Munky]

We, as in I, deserve exactly 0% blame. There is a small number of people in charge who made the risky decisions to ignore safety protocols, decisions which directly caused the disaster. These are the same people who should be held responsible. I'm tired of the blame-shifting nonsense.

 

[cubeless]

Of course it is. The next time I have a car accident, I'm going to blame it on the government because the government has control over who, where, and how driving is done.

and the gov't hugely regulates that your tires conform to x and your airbags and bumpers and door braces conform to y... things that 'everybody knows' make the cars safer... why didn't the gov't make them drill a relief hole when they drilled the primary? other countries do...

and even i am having a little trouble believing that you really equate the two situations... but since the gov't is willing to let 40k people a year die in cars then maybe it's right that they let a couple barrels of oil spew now and then...

 

[artikk]

I'll be sure to tell all of the progressive liberals that I work with how you feel.... /sigh

"progressives" have had nothing to do with the state of the US nuclear industry... an accident occurred and since people are stupid they ran with it. It sure wasn't the average environmental progressive that lobbied for more coal being that it is "safer." People don't understand radiation, this is absolutely not limited to the left or right.

It is also not the only alternative... at all...

1. Are you talking about fusion or something else? The former isn't viable for at least 30 years or so, as someone already mentioned. On the other hand, fission is possible to implement but an average US person thinks it too dangerous.
I agree with your statement that our increasing energy requirements might endanger the heat and energy balance on Earth, although that seems far off to apply yet. As of now to combat our growing energy demand there are two possibilities that I see. Either to continue to grow, albeit more slowly as the currently developing countries become industrialized and find another energy source, like fusion to satisfy our energy demands. Building colonies off other earth-like planets or death(in Malthusian terms) -all are eventualities if the growth rate isn't sustainable.
A second, more economical approach would be to start limiting our population growth in the near future while still advancing technologically increasing the quality of life for all remaining at the end. Definitely not the most popular idea politically.
2. As for the BP crisis, I don't agree that the US population deserves any blame for the incident. One might as well start blaming every private sector disaster onto the public. I think it was a combination of lax regulations and inspections by BP and lack of oversight by the government. It all depends on how much responsibility BP given in its drilling implementation. The more independence it was possibly allowed and thus it abused, the more blame it deserves. The gov't isn't blameless either and should have known better, although one doesn't want it to become a copy of Venezuela either and control the industry as well. A moderate level of state control is key.
Just like it regulates the pollution and environment through the EPA, it should have done the same in this case. A free market without proper controls is dangerous to the public to the extent that pure capitalism always seeks the most profit without regards to the safety of the public in most cases. For example, see China.

 

[MrEgo]

and the gov't hugely regulates that your tires conform to x and your airbags and bumpers and door braces conform to y... things that 'everybody knows' make the cars safer... why didn't the gov't make them drill a relief hole when they drilled the primary? other countries do...

and even i am having a little trouble believing that you really equate the two situations... but since the gov't is willing to let 40k people a year die in cars then maybe it's right that they let a couple barrels of oil spew now and then...

I don't think anyone would debate that the US Government dropped the ball by not requiring a relief well "just in case", but the fact that you place 99% of the blame on the government is completely ridiculous. You've said that you think only 1% of the blame goes to BP. That's just completely idiotic.

 

[Daedalus685]

1. Are you talking about fusion or something else? The former isn't viable for at least 30 years or so, as someone already mentioned. On the other hand, fission is possible to implement but an average US person thinks it too dangerous.
I agree with your statement that our increasing energy requirements might endanger the heat and energy balance on Earth, although that seems far off to apply yet. As of now to combat our growing energy demand there are two possibilities that I see. Either to continue to grow, albeit more slowly as the currently developing countries become industrialized and find another energy source, like fusion to satisfy our energy demands. Building colonies off other earth-like planets or death(in Malthusian terms) -all are eventualities if the growth rate isn't sustainable.
A second, more economical approach would be to start limiting our population growth in the near future while still advancing technologically increasing the quality of life for all remaining at the end. Definitely not the most popular idea politically.

For that statement I was referring to fission. It is not held back by a political group.. but by ignorance of everyone. It is scary and bad when it doesn't work, since folks don't understand the difference they hate it, right and left alike. I was merely pointing out it is ridiculous to blame a group like progressives for it as it was a group effort.

While I am referring to very large time scales.. the point I'm trying to get across is that no 'renewable' energy is without side effects. It is silly to think we can simply grow without bound and leave those of us around when we hit that bound to clean up after us. It makes me quite upset that forward thinking was not used before we got eyeball deep in fossil fuels and I don't wish to impart that sort of feeling on my great grand children. It is easiest to prevent a disaster in the planning stages.. though for some reason we seem better at trying to pick ourselves from the brink after it happens.

Unless we do actually go the star trek route the only 'sustainable' means of energy production is to curb our energy growth and grow via efficiency alone and live off of primarily solar power that would otherwise be wasted by the presence of our homes anyway. There are places on the earth were the solar energy can be claimed without messing things up too badly.. within reason.

The vast majority of 'renewable' energy is not at all renewable.. it just comes from a bigger bucket. This is not to say we need to avoid it... only that we have to be careful if we do end up using 100 time as much energy in a few dozen years.

I agree that curbing population growth will go a long way in sustainability of the species... as creepy as that may sound.

 

[cubeless]

I don't think anyone would debate that the US Government dropped the ball by not requiring a relief well "just in case", but the fact that you place 99% of the blame on the government is completely ridiculous. You've said that you think only 1% of the blame goes to BP. That's just completely idiotic.

i have to ask again, why? the gov't was supposed to be watching out for the country and providing regulation and oversight to make the company conform... they were asleep at the wheel... they let the company get away with things that they should have shut them down for...

what the company did must be ok if the gov't allowed them to do it... i don't dispute that the company is responsible for fixing damage that is caused by this, but that's not the topic... if bp really cared they could have gone over and above the set regulation and either not had, or greatly reduced the damage from, this problem... so they took the risk to avail themselves of lax regulation and lost the bet...

but i can't see how the regulating authority doesn't get the lions share of the grief here...

 

[charrison]

I don't think anyone would debate that the US Government dropped the ball by not requiring a relief well "just in case", but the fact that you place 99% of the blame on the government is completely ridiculous. You've said that you think only 1% of the blame goes to BP. That's just completely idiotic.

And relief well drilled in tandem is not the answer. Blowouts are quite rare,so doing this overkill and still does not guarantee a blow out not happening. We do need to make sure we understand what has happened so it can prevented in the future. And the industry does not to have much better containment plans for the future.

 

[Modelworks]

Some people enjoy living near an existing Nuke, it usually results in lower electrical prices, and reduced home prices (i.e. less taxes). I had a field assignment at Arkansas Nuclear One for their outage and reading the local paper's classifieds made me extremely jealous of their home prices.

I get all my power from a nuclear power plant. I like the 9 cent/KWH price. Really if you did not know it was a nuclear power plant you wouldn't know it is there Looks like a factory of some sort

 

[Modelworks]

The point is, that if we reach a point were solar is not 'enough' it is because our power requirements are above and beyond what is naturally sustainable. We either have to bring energy in from elsewhere thus increasing the heat of the planet, slow down advancement to allow efficiency to catch up, or leave the planet.

Solar is the best place to point as it is a constant X Watts and is for all purposes constant.

They better do some serious improvements on solar panel efficiency if solar is the future. Right now it would take me 52 years before I would recover the cost of using solar. Wind is no better since it would take over 12 windmills where I live based on the average wind speed.

Go here and it is a calculator that will determine based on where you live and where in your yard you would place either solar or wind and what the cost and output are likely to be.
http://www.nrel.gov/eis/imby/

 

[K1052]

They better do some serious improvements on solar panel efficiency if solar is the future. Right now it would take me 52 years before I would recover the cost of using solar. Wind is no better since it would take over 12 windmills where I live based on the average wind speed.

Go here and it is a calculator that will determine based on where you live and where in your yard you would place either solar or wind and what the cost and output are likely to be.
http://www.nrel.gov/eis/imby/

The payback is going to be highly variable based on location and what rebates are available. Payback is 23 years for me with my specific data.

 

[rchiu]

i have to ask again, why? the gov't was supposed to be watching out for the country and providing regulation and oversight to make the company conform... they were asleep at the wheel... they let the company get away with things that they should have shut them down for...

what the company did must be ok if the gov't allowed them to do it... i don't dispute that the company is responsible for fixing damage that is caused by this, but that's not the topic... if bp really cared they could have gone over and above the set regulation and either not had, or greatly reduced the damage from, this problem... so they took the risk to avail themselves of lax regulation and lost the bet...

but i can't see how the regulating authority doesn't get the lions share of the grief here...

Heh, have you heard of this MMS unit under Interior Department? (read about it here http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1995137,00.html) Other than sex and drug exchange between the officials and the oil companies, they bring in $13 billion in revenue for the US treasury. It's a big money making business between the gov and the oil companies, why do they regulate their golden goose and reduce the stream of cash coming in. Yeap of course the agency gets a lion share of the blame but the system is flawed anyway.

 

[werepossum]

SNIP

Anyway, where am I going with all this? I know I should turn in my "libertarian" card for this, but I believe we should have a $4/gallon gas tax on regular car gasoline and a $2/gallon gas tax on Diesel (truck) fuels. A $1/gallon tax would also be added to JET-A/A1 sales. 75% of all tax proceeds would go to paying down the national debt; 25% would go to a "Gulf Preservation" fund. No exceptions!

SNIP

LOL 75% would go to government programs helping "the poor" afford the expensive gasoline, 75% would go to expensive public transportation with all the class and cleanliness of public restrooms, and 50% would go to pet projects such as studies to find out why gasoline is so expensive (Hint: It's evil oil companies, not the $4/gallon gas tax.) We'd be going broke even more quickly than we are now.

You should indeed turn in your "libertarian" card and get a "socialist with legalized drugs" card. This is the polar opposite of libertarianism, like a cannibal professiing that he's otherwise a vegetarian.

 

[werepossum]

They better do some serious improvements on solar panel efficiency if solar is the future. Right now it would take me 52 years before I would recover the cost of using solar. Wind is no better since it would take over 12 windmills where I live based on the average wind speed.

Go here and it is a calculator that will determine based on where you live and where in your yard you would place either solar or wind and what the cost and output are likely to be.
http://www.nrel.gov/eis/imby/

The payback is going to be highly variable based on location and what rebates are available. Payback is 23 years for me with my specific data.

This illustrates the problem with solar - it only works if someone else pays you to do it. You can't built an alternative energy society by robbing Peter to subsidize Paul. Efficiencies are good enough now to approach or even meet break-even power on an average one or two-story home or retail space, it's the cost that's screwed. Should someone manage to develop a cheap manufacturable solar panel, we could take a load off the grid as well as make a big dent in CO2 emission.

 

[Rebel44]

LOL 75% would go to government programs helping "the poor" afford the expensive gasoline, 75% would go to expensive public transportation with all the class and cleanliness of public restrooms, and 50% would go to pet projects such as studies to find out why gasoline is so expensive (Hint: It's evil oil companies, not the $4/gallon gas tax.) We'd be going broke even more quickly than we are now.

You should indeed turn in your "libertarian" card and get a "socialist with legalized drugs" card. This is the polar opposite of libertarianism, like a cannibal professiing that he's otherwise a vegetarian.

Nice to see you spend 200% of that tax income

If 7$ per gallon is so devastating, why we in europe can pay these prices without much of a problem? Maybe its because we dont have 3 cars (2 of them SUVs) per family and we have reliable, clean and reasonably cheap mass transport...

 

[rudder]

To what extent do we deserve the blame?

95% BP
4% Gubment
1% Consumer Ignorance (is bliss)

I think the government should shoulder 25% of the blame since they were in charge of oversight of BP operations. The ones tasked to do that were more interested in porn and free trips. Although it was not actually BP that caused the leak, they contracted with the company that did the work. There were clear signs that something was amiss and yet those signs were ignored leading to the disaster. I give them 74.99% of the blame.

The consumer gets the remaining .01%. Oil is what it is. When gas prices rose to nearly $4... people cut back in usage.. I noticed people driving down the interstate at 68 mph instead of the normal 80mph. SUV sales tanked. Yes consumers drive the demand for oil, but they will pay for its safe and clean extraction from the earth.

 

[werepossum]

Nice to see you spend 200% of that tax income

If 7$ per gallon is so devastating, why we in europe can pay these prices without much of a problem? Maybe its because we dont have 3 cars (2 of them SUVs) per family and we have reliable, clean and reasonably cheap mass transport...

Spending 200% of any new income is an established government precedent here.

You answered your own question - Europeans have a lower standard of living than do Americans. You are less likely to own an automobile (or a color television), drive fewer miles, live in smaller homes, spend less on disposable consumer goods. You live where government says you may live, travel where government decides to provide mass transit, and government spends more of your income for you. Frankly it's not a direction in which I am eager to travel.