Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Twelve days later, the oil spill is now the size of Puerto Rico, with over 200,000 gallons more coming in a day.

I smell some lawsuits.

Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
Twelve days later, the oil spill is now the size of Puerto Rico, with over 200,000 gallons more coming in a day.

I smell some lawsuits. I hate this side of the gulf. it is probably the most polluted water in our planet.

I hope this puts a complete end to offshore drilling

i just bought some tempura sushi rolls from HEB. they kinda taste a little different now

Nobody worry, humans are incapable of harming the environment.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nobody worry, humans are incapable of harming the environment. of course not this is damn mother natures fault. ALL OF IT

Definately. Mother nature is hurting herself!

DRILL BABY DRILL!

The tourism industry is already being affected in the Florida panhandle. They're making early layoffs in some of the food and merchandise industries.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I hope this puts a complete end to offshore drilling

You're being sarcastic, I hope.

Ultimate corporate responsibility. It was also BP's own safety analysis that said there was virtually no risk of an environmental issue.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ultimate corporate responsibility. It was also BP's own safety analysis that said there was virtually no risk of an environmental issue.

Obama said the same thing regarding offshore drilling overall about 2 weeks prior to this incident, as he signed in legislature to open up the US to more offshore drilling.

Great example of foot-in-mouth.

Doh!

Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
Twelve days later, the oil spill is now the size of Puerto Rico, with over 200,000 gallons more coming in a day.

I smell some lawsuits.

And it smells like crude oil.











Our children's children will look back on this and wonder why we used fossil fuels when the sun provided so much absurd amounts of energy.

our childrens children probably wont care tbh, just like how we dont care about our parents' parents 313

maybe im just spiteful

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
our childrens children probably wont care tbh, just like how we dont care about our parents' parents 313

maybe im just spiteful

Maybe.


But I do.

Surely you thought about some of the silly things people did the in the 40s and 50s? Or just the dumb things...

kinda! mostly i just write it off as human stupidity though ermm

I also understand that BP actively lobbied against tighter safety legislation on the grounds that the risk was minimal...

They're paying a number of states a lot of money in order to minimize the damage.

Call me crazy, but imo, I think when companies ****-up and do damage on this scale, the top execs of the company should be held liable and executed via hanging or firing squad.

Certainly be a motive for them to care more about their company/products while they're raking in millions a year in salary and bonuses.

they do that in japan. its awesome

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
they do that in japan. its awesome

As silly and sad as I think the Japanese are, those Execs at least have the balls to off themselves, usually by jumping off a building. Though I wish they'd still to tradition and disembowel themselves.

One notable exception, the President of Toyota Motor Corp., coward still hasn't.

Dam these BP are ****ing idiots, this marks the (iirc) FIFTH attempt they've made to try and stop the leak, so far all they can boast is that some of the oil is now going into ships. Well given that expert estimates are that the oil is actually leaking TEN TIMES more than BP is claiming, that just makes it pretty obvious BPs total refusal to actually say what PERCENTAGE of the oil is getting caught.

The blowout protectors (three different levels of them!) are on EVERY oil well there is! Well given how they haven't done one damn thing here, after SEVERAL attempts by BP to get them to work, well WTF is going to happen the next time this happens? Can they give any proof these things even work in the first place?!

It's funny, if the government were the ones doing this everyone would blame it on "government inefficiency". I guess we're getting a good look at free market efficiency, wondrous.

****. I hope BP gets their ass fined into bankruptcy, this kind of failure is just plain not acceptable from anyone.

we did it on purpose. to have an explantion of our vast presence in the gulf mmm

or to pollute the waters of nearby countries to kill off there population and take over

i have some hazmat training from the marines one teaspoon of oil can be diluted enough for it to be save with 1oo gallons of water.. irrc or is it 10 gallons of water..hmm..

all they need to do is stir it up in the ocean and it will be fine..

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i have some hazmat training from the marines one teaspoon of oil can be diluted enough for it to be save with 1oo gallons of water.. irrc or is it 10 gallons of water..hmm..

all they need to do is stir it up in the ocean and it will be fine..
Oil rises to the top.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oil rises to the top. light it on fire problem solved... i should be getting paid for this sh@# as an out source for the company

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oil rises to the top.

Not all of it, some elements of crude are heavier than water; another reason why people are questioning BP's claim that "only this much" is being expelled each day.

Personally, I think it's far worse than we're being led to believe.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
light it on fire problem solved... i should be getting paid for this sh@# as an out source for the company
Yeah your ideas are about as good as theirs...

Originally posted by Robtard
Not all of it, some elements of crude are heavier than water; another reason why people are questioning BP's claim that "only this much" is being expelled each day.

Personally, I think it's far worse than we're being led to believe.
Yeah... I heard expert estimates. BP says something like 5,000 barrels a day, but it could be even ten times that much.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
light it on fire problem solved... i should be getting paid for this sh@# as an out source for the company

They are doing that, however that's not a large scale solution.

That pollutes the air incredibly, as well...

There's nothing that should be done to destroy what has been spilled... the only clean thing they can do in that regard is clean up the coasts and let the rest degrade naturally from bacterial action.

One thing they DO need to do though, is stop the leak that's causing the damn thing... and you could hardly get more incompetent than BP in that regard.

finish the rest using a special material cloth used to catch oil but let water through due to its molecules composition we use them in hazmat they are small round wipes but they need to make a giant one and drag it in the ocean to absorb it,,,

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
finish the rest using a special material cloth used to catch oil but let water through due to its molecules composition we use them in hazmat they are small round wipes but they need to make a giant one and drag it in the ocean to absorb it,,,
Stop. Just stop. I know you're smarter than this.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
finish the rest using a special material cloth used to catch oil but let water through due to its molecules composition we use them in hazmat they are small round wipes but they need to make a giant one and drag it in the ocean to absorb it,,,

If they start that today, the spill (on the grounds it's plugged up today) should be cleaned up by 2042, give or take a few.

while simultaneously using kitty litter to absorb the rest..

http://www.hulu.com/watch/149644/saturday-night-live-bp-oil-spill-cold-open

Originally posted by King Kandy
Stop. Just stop. I know you're smarter than this.

No worse than Limbaugh saying it's natural; shouldn't be cleaned up and it will sort itself out.

Originally posted by Robtard
No worse than Limbaugh saying it's natural; shouldn't be cleaned up and it will sort itself out.
The difference though is I have respect for Wild Shadow, but none for Rush Limbaugh.

Originally posted by Robtard
No worse than Limbaugh saying it's natural; shouldn't be cleaned up and it will sort itself out. are you shi@#ing me?!

i think that fat f@#@ just says crap to get attention and doesnt actually believe it himself.truthfully though not much we can do but shut off the flow of oil which really shouldnt have bn that difficult and should have had shut off methods and emergency plugs prior.. i am thinking a free flooding ball bearing inside the pipe but it wouldnt be as efficient because i know how they like to squeeze every drop as fast as possible..corportate thinking.. and having a ball bearing would take up space and volume..

anyways all they can do is do their best by siphoning the oil via a tanker and a processing equipment and pump back out the water in a perpetual cycle.. clean the beaches

also pay off fines and ppl who have bn effected by the oil spill like fishermen..

seriously some ppl should be looking at criminal charges and massive fines and shut down of the company aint goint to happen though it only applies to the average ppl not rich and corporate ppl

Originally posted by Robtard
No worse than Limbaugh saying it's natural; shouldn't be cleaned up and it will sort itself out.

Well actually it should sort itself out if left alone, but there's no chance it will sort itself out in a way that's good for us.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
shut off the flow of oil which really shouldnt have bn that difficult and should have had shut off methods and emergency plugs prior..
They did, three in fact. None of them worked in the slightest, they were all totally unresponsive.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
anyways all they can do is do their best by siphoning the oil via a tanker and a processing equipment
That's what BP is trying now and failing completely.

Probably because for every gallon of crude them skim off the water and process, a few hundred are freshly released.

i said it should have not that it would or it did,,, but if these guys had planned appropriately yrs prior with emergency methods it should have worked..imo..

In the end, shit happens, even the best precautions can fail. Not saying that excuse frees the corp from blame, but it is what it is.

Maybe some good will come of this, maybe this will drive the US (larger consumer of oil) to tear itself away from the petroleum-nipple and seek other ways to power our cars and whatnots. Okay, that's a pipedream.

you know ships and even water lines and even places like niagra falls have like a drop wall to stop flooding.

an underwater pipeline should have had key areas like small square rooms where the pipe needs to go through but that also acts like a shut off point in case of emergencies.. this isnt thinking outside the box but straight common sense.. most important transportation pipes have these types of areas.

also exec should be fined out of their own pocket as well individually not just the company..

Why do you hate America!?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
an underwater pipeline should have had key areas like small square rooms where the pipe needs to go through but that also acts like a shut off point in case of emergencies.. this isnt thinking outside the box but straight common sense.. most important transportation pipes have these types of areas.
They DID have those. Three of them. They didn't work.

Originally posted by Robtard
Why do you hate America!? what?! i love my country at least what was once the embodiment of its core values.. hard work, prosperity and equality for all.. i love its once fundamental beliefs.. truth justice and the American way.. wait the last one sounds right but somewhat different.. hmm..

what caused the oil spill in the first place?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
what caused the oil spill in the first place? creed. illuminati.. or russia

also can oil evaporate and rain on nearby cities?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
what caused the oil spill in the first place?

" hardcore environmentalist wackos." -Rush Limbaugh circa May 2010

so they just found the pipes busted?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
what caused the oil spill in the first place?

BP says that the dill hit a bubble of methane and sucked it up toward the platform where it exploded.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
BP says that the dill hit a bubble of methane and sucked it up toward the platform where it exploded.

ie, the Earth fought back with a fart.

There is one:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t530394.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10174861.stm

new information released. Strange, there were no problems in this occurance...

Anyways, it's only the first step in the procedure and luckily things seem to be moving smoothly. Hopefully now, after they officially lower the pressure to be of no concern they will find a solution to cleaning the mess they made up.

Originally posted by Liberator
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10174861.stm

new information released. Strange, there were no problems in this occurance...

Anyways, it's only the first step in the procedure and luckily things seem to be moving smoothly. Hopefully now, after they officially lower the pressure to be of no concern they will find a solution to cleaning the mess they made up. I just saw the news (1 minute ago) and it's not sure till now that it's really closed there's still "brown stuff" blowing out and it's not sure if it's mud or oil. And one expert said that the chances to plug the leak that way are only 1-10% and not 60% like BP claims.

Merged. Please check carefully to see if your thread already exists.

Fail baby fail!!!!!!


Way to go Americans!





Now stay the Hell away from the Arctic.

Originally posted by The Nuul
Fail baby fail!!!!!!


Way to go Americans!





Now stay the Hell away from the Arctic.


It was the Wingin' Poms that failed. The US failed to regulate, better.

I'm all about alternative (Solar) energy sources, so this only helps my position.

Okay, it's really time from Obama to step in.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay, it's really time from Obama to step in.

You think so? Maybe he should wait a month or two?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You think so? Maybe he should wait a month or two?

What exactly is Obama going to do besides fine BP and waste time getting another oil group/s out there (which would take weeks to months)?

Originally posted by dadudemon
What exactly is Obama going to do besides fine BP and waste time getting another oil group/s out there (which would take weeks to months)?

I think he should go on vacation. The States don't need their planes to protect the coast line approved.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think he should go on vacation. The States don't need their planes to protect the coast line approved.

Huh?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Huh?

Why let a good disaster go to waist?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why let a good disaster go to waist?

There has to be a joke in there somewhere...

Originally posted by dadudemon
There has to be a joke in there somewhere...

No. We want to get the US off of oil dependency, right? No better way to do this then cover all of the gulf coast with oil. If you make a big enough disaster, then we will never drill in the gulf again.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. We want to get the US off of oil dependency, right? No better way to do this then cover all of the gulf coast with oil. If you make a big enough disaster, then we will never drill in the gulf again.

all other drilling in the gulf has gone on uninterupted since this spill

Originally posted by inimalist
all other drilling in the gulf has gone on uninterupted since this spill

Well, we will have to do something about that...

i cant imagine what is going to be done

tree hugging aside, we need that oil

Originally posted by inimalist
i cant imagine what is going to be done

tree hugging aside, we need that oil

What are you, a Republican? We have all the sunshine we need.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. We want to get the US off of oil dependency, right? No better way to do this then cover all of the gulf coast with oil. If you make a big enough disaster, then we will never drill in the gulf again.

While this will help that transition I don't think that allowing the disaster to keep spreading is necessary. There was a poll that suggested a lot of people already think it's the worst disaster in 100 years.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What are you, a Republican? We have all the sunshine we need.

so we have an integrated system for delivering solar power to all those who need it?

or, do we have an infrastructure built on oil that we are dependant upon, which means, yes, in fact, we do need the oil from the Gulf?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
While this will help that transition I don't think that allowing the disaster to keep spreading is necessary. There was a poll that suggested a lot of people already think it's the worst disaster in 100 years.

If you cap it and clean it up, we will just drill more. You have to get people involved, and no better why to get them involved then to destroy their livelihood. After all, the gulf will eventually return to normal, but without any drilling. The people will have government health care, and welfare.

Originally posted by inimalist
so we have an integrated system for delivering solar power to all those who need it?

or, do we have an infrastructure built on oil that we are dependant upon, which means, yes, in fact, we do need the oil from the Gulf?

President Obama will do it. His brilliant intellect will find the answer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
President Obama will do it. His brilliant intellect will find the answer.

wtf are you talking about?

obviously your sarcasm is lost here, so why not explain

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you cap it and clean it up, we will just drill more. You have to get people involved, and no better why to get them involved then to destroy their livelihood. After all, the gulf will eventually return to normal, but without any drilling. The people will have government health care, and welfare.

I don't see where you're going with this. Obviously there are ways to shift the US energy infrastructure that don't involve destroying people's livelihood, in fact that's probably the worst possible method.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't see where you're going with this. Obviously there are ways to shift the US energy infrastructure that don't involve destroying people's livelihood, in fact that's probably the worst possible method.

I would agree.

Its now officially the biggest spill in US history.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37353392/ns/gulf_oil_spill/?GT1=43001

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you cap it and clean it up, we will just drill more. You have to get people involved, and no better why to get them involved then to destroy their livelihood. After all, the gulf will eventually return to normal, but without any drilling. The people will have government health care, and welfare.




I know you're pissing people off, here, but you humor was appreciated on ths end.

Sorry I didn't see this thread when I posted mine up.

The operation was a success as far as I heard about the 'plugging of the hole'



Peoples lives are in ruins though, and species of animals will become extinct. Not to mention good honest working people got killed in the process as well. I hope this wakes a lot of people up to the corruption in the corporate machine.

sarcasm aside shaky is right only way ppl will get involved and change things is if it effects them personally.. its the american apathy that is the problem.. ppl should be losing their jobs going to jail, being fined we need to show all the animals that have died.. we dont even see this crap on tv anymore if we showed what is really happening maybe ppl will act.. a few dozen whales, dolphins washing up on the beach might help stir us up from our apathy.. maybe raise gas prices traumatically i say 4 or 5 dollars a gallon oughta do it

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
maybe raise gas prices traumatically i say 4 or 5 dollars a gallon oughta do it

The problem with those type of solutions is the toll it takes on the poor.


I hate to say it, but...


Maybe we should create FREE energy systems?


We should be working on bots and AI that can maintain/sustain a massive solar system.

We asdlkfj askl;fja;dlfjk asdl;


Spasm.


I would want to talk on this stuff for hours.

fact: there are no vehicle fuel stations that don't run on petrolium

the changes that need to occur in the economy and infrastructure to enable any type of renewable system is going to take huge top-down control of development. Having access to other types of energy is going to do little to fundamentally change the appearance of American society.

Everyone can say "oh look, here is what we should do", but the unfortunate fact is that we don't have those options immediatly.

Originally posted by inimalist
fact: there are no vehicle fuel stations that don't run on petrolium

the changes that need to occur in the economy and infrastructure to enable any type of renewable system is going to take huge top-down control of development. Having access to other types of energy is going to do little to fundamentally change the appearance of American society.

Everyone can say "oh look, here is what we should do", but the unfortunate fact is that we don't have those options immediatly.

Or it could all be done by not having any oil.

or a billionaire or two could just say F$#@ it and put their money to develop new tech same for companies and the american ppl.. the problem is they are afraid to fail and not see fast return in the immediate future.. also creed of losing money in other investments and companies that would impact them..

it really comes down to how much are we as a ppl willing to sacrifice and how much work we are willing to put in.. the answer is really very little

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or it could all be done by not having any oil.

well, yes, but that, in turn, would cause a global economic collapse that, even if you think environmental damage is bad, you probably want to avoid.

An abrupt end to the oil which powers the economies and societies of all of the integrated and globalized nations, ie the world, would be akin to us jumping, technologically, back to before the age of rail. Every aspect of our economy and society would fail, and the necessary local infrastructure that could support a non-globalized economy is non-existant. It would almost certainly be another dark age, but with no Baghdad to send all of our books to this time.

I think they just have the word "oil" as the definition for "necessary evil" in Webster's now.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
or a billionaire or two could just say F$#@ it and put their money to develop new tech same for companies and the american ppl.. the problem is they are afraid to fail and not see fast return in the immediate future.. also creed of losing money in other investments and companies that would impact them..

it really comes down to how much are we as a ppl willing to sacrifice and how much work we are willing to put in.. the answer is really very little These technologies already exist but most of them are bought by oil sheiks and thrown into a safe that they can still sell their oil.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
or a billionaire or two could just say F$#@ it and put their money to develop new tech same for companies and the american ppl..

what tech?

"magic free energy infrastructure" is not an actual technology

Originally posted by Parmaniac
These technologies already exist but most of them are bought by oil sheiks and thrown into a safe that they can still sell their oil.

no, alternative energy sources are normally too expensive or not powerful enough to replace oil. Many have much higher environmental impacts (biofuel, soalr panels, electric batteries) in their construction, and the lack of infrastructure to supply this power to people makes them little better than pipe dreams.

You really think a corporation would turn down the ability to monopolize all energy on the planet? if this conspiracy really exists, the people who are hiding these paneceas are in fact acting opposite to the way you are saying they would. A Saudi Sheik (really? that steryotypical?) would jump at the chance to, forever, own the source of all American power. Thats why they like oil in the first place.

ever heard of algae or how about actually investing to find new technology and ways to replace oil? do i really need to give you different ideas and things that are in the workds just so you dont have to research crap on your own and can simply post smart@$$ comment like magic free tech?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
ever heard of algae?

we have a photosynthetic energy infrastructure ready to support the energy needs of America set up?

We have cars and other products that now run on bio-batteries?

we have fueling stations set up at regular intervals throughout the roadways of the nation ready to supply people with this fuel?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
or how about actually investing to find new technology and ways to replace oil?

this is being done across the world. With the exception of nuclear, there is no technology mature enough to replace oil. Further, many proposed environmental problems are equally problematic as the hydro-carbons from oil, and even further, none are as efficent as oil.

it would be wonderful to replace oil, but just going "gee, greedy rich bastards don't want to make money from monopolizing new sources of energy because they are stupid" is pretty inadequate as a proposition for how such a change might occur.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
do i really need to give you different ideas and things that are in the workds just so you dont have to research crap on your own and can simply post smart@$$ comment like magic free tech?

is your position really that I don't know what I'm talking about?

You think I'm wrong to say alge fuel isn't a mature power source that could reasonably replace oil in the forseeable future?

Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, but that, in turn, would cause a global economic collapse that, even if you think environmental damage is bad, you probably want to avoid.

An abrupt end to the oil which powers the economies and societies of all of the integrated and globalized nations, ie the world, would be akin to us jumping, technologically, back to before the age of rail. Every aspect of our economy and society would fail, and the necessary local infrastructure that could support a non-globalized economy is non-existant. It would almost certainly be another dark age, but with no Baghdad to send all of our books to this time.

I think they just have the word "oil" as the definition for "necessary evil" in Webster's now.

It will be bitter tasting medicine indeed, but when all is said and done, we will be off oil. Sometimes cold turkey is the only answer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It will be bitter tasting medicine indeed, but when all is said and done, we will be off oil. Sometimes cold turkey is the only answer.

damn, you are hardcore

edit: hardcore like this:

naZ7BgUNspI

Originally posted by inimalist
damn, you are hardcore

I swear, it sometimes look like that is what is going on in some people's minds.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I swear, it sometimes look like that is what is going on in some people's minds.

yes, we call these people "bad asses"

because, you know, they don't give a ****

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, we call these people "bad asses"

because, you know, they don't give a ****

Well, at least we have finally filled the hole, and we have canceled all future drilling. See the progress you can make from just one disaster? Imagine if we had two or three. We could get ride of all oil.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, at least we have finally filled the hole, and we have canceled all future drilling. See the progress you can make from just one disaster? Imagine if we had two or three. We could get ride of all oil. That's just for now, same with the high security at airports after 9/11. Everything will turn back to "normal" in a few days/weeks/months. As sad as it is...

Originally posted by Parmaniac
That's just for now, same with the high security at airports after 9/11. Everything will turn back to "normal" in a few days/weeks/months. As sad as it is...

as sad as what is?

ok, here, your perfect world: All oil has been removed from the planet. What do we do now?

Its a 30 min walk to the nearest grocer, where the fresh food is rotten and not arriving anytime soon since there are few, if any, real local farms, the closest being probably a couple of days by horse. I might have water, I certainly have no ability to communicate to the police or family if Im in trouble, the police are back to horseback and foot patrol, and their is an ever decreasing supply of bullets to control population densities unheard of in a time before the modern one.

like, convince me here (forgetting the fact that oil funds my nations economy) that no oil on the planet is good for me and my life?

Originally posted by Parmaniac
That's just for now, same with the high security at airports after 9/11. Everything will turn back to "normal" in a few days/weeks/months. As sad as it is...

Then someone has to do something before its too late.

Originally posted by inimalist
as sad as what is?

ok, here, your perfect world: All oil has been removed from the planet. What do we do now?

Its a 30 min walk to the nearest grocer, where the fresh food is rotten and not arriving anytime soon since there are few, if any, real local farms, the closest being probably a couple of days by horse. I might have water, I certainly have no ability to communicate to the police or family if Im in trouble, the police are back to horseback and foot patrol, and their is an ever decreasing supply of bullets to control population densities unheard of in a time before the modern one.

like, convince me here (forgetting the fact that oil funds my nations economy) that no oil on the planet is good for me and my life?

We need to reduce the worlds population anyway.

not in canada

Originally posted by inimalist
as sad as what is?

ok, here, your perfect world: All oil has been removed from the planet. What do we do now?

Its a 30 min walk to the nearest grocer, where the fresh food is rotten and not arriving anytime soon since there are few, if any, real local farms, the closest being probably a couple of days by horse. I might have water, I certainly have no ability to communicate to the police or family if Im in trouble, the police are back to horseback and foot patrol, and their is an ever decreasing supply of bullets to control population densities unheard of in a time before the modern one.

like, convince me here (forgetting the fact that oil funds my nations economy) that no oil on the planet is good for me and my life? It was more meant that the industrial world is not investing enough in new tech imo and maybe sees this event as a wake-up-call. And oil WILL run out sooner or later, of course some stuff will still requiere oil even in the future but we should start reducing the need of oil as much as possible. You seem to keep on wanking on oil like it's the holy grail and an infinity energy source. Of course our current world completely relies on it, does that mean we should be that wasteful till it completely ran out and there's nothing left? No.

Hopefully ITER will be a succes in the next years for the energy of countries that would be a big step forward.

Originally posted by inimalist
not in canada

Is that the Canadian motto?

Originally posted by Parmaniac
It was more meant that the industrial world is not investing enough in new tech imo and maybe sees this event as a wake-up-call. And oil WILL run out sooner or later, of course some stuff will still requiere oil even in the future but we should start reducing the need of oil as much as possible. You seem to keep on wanking on oil like it's the holy grail and an infinity energy source. Of course our current world completely relies on it, does that mean we should be that wasteful till it completely ran out and there's nothing left? No.

Hopefully ITER will be a succes in the next years for the energy of countries that would be a big step forward.

but, with populations polorized against nuclear and nothing else at maturity, what do you want?

environmental tests are already underway for wind and solar, but as I said before, there are no new technologies that have zero downsides.

ITER is nice, but the downside of that is that we have to start building fusion stations where gas stations are. It is awesome to have that power in a single place (though it still costs far too much to run the machine), but how does that fix the problem of cars? or of lawn mowers? sure, these are insignificant compared to industry costs, but is every building that requires power going to build their own fusion plant?

ok, so then we need some sort of high tech batteries that hold a charge from these fusion generators. At this point, batteries are way more harmful to the environment, in construction and disposal, than is gas. Also, how many compeating battery companies do you think there will be? Fusion is not going to open up free energy, because it is almost certainly going to be controlled by a small cabal of energy companies, I'd imagine many of them the same ones who control energy today.

So, in a fusion world, we have born the brunt of a transition to a much more expensive power source that requires us to buy polluting and expensive batteries (likely controlled by a select group of corporations), and might require the installation of high energy fusion reactors as ubiquetous as gas stations are today. This ignores the fact that most of the hydrogen on earth is stuck in water, meaning, with fusion, we are essentially saying that our oceans are our new fuel supply, unless we now have to add an aditional infrasctucture of people who synthesize hydrogen from evaporation or whatever, either way, we disrupt the balance of the water cycle.

see the problem here is that some ppl here as simply being dismissing ppl'ss post and in a condescending attitude.... is it a fact that oil is a finite source? yes. are we looking to replace it in our foreseeable future? yes.

is anyone saying we will stop using oil right away? no.. no one is saying we need to go to the dark ages if we stop using oil.. that is just being disingenuous and dismissinve of ppl's arguments.. and it needs to stop.

ppl are simply saying we havent invested enough in alternative fuels.. do we have small companies and research working on it? yes.. can we increase funding? most definitely.

the problem with oil that it will be gone in the next couple 100 yrs if not sooner. it is destructive to our environment..

their are plenty of alternative fuel source if things came to worse it may not be as efficient but we sure are not going back to the dark ages over night if we stop using oil... water, hydro electricity, geo thermo, algae, corn, vegetable oil can all be used as fuel .. some ppl here need to grow up and stop straw mannings ppl's arguments and opinions..


overall jobs will always be lost due to progress and if today or tomorrow some one invented cold fusion or cheap and possibly even free energy alternative then ppl's jobs should be lost and it shouldnt be used as an excuse to keep progress from happening ppl can always find new work it may not be what they want but if they have to go back to farming and picking fruit then suck up the pride and get to it.. b/c sooner or later things will once again stabilize look at the industrial age how many jobs open and failed overnight.. how many companies now remain b/c of it.. transition isnt always smooth but ppl shouldnt fear it or try to stop it..

the problem isn't that there are no other energy sources

it is that they are ineffective and not mature enough to meet the needs of modern nations

EDIT: or in the case of nuclear, it scares the shit out of people

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is that the Canadian motto?

I'll see if I can make it stick

Originally posted by inimalist
is every building that requires power going to build their own fusion plant?

The answer to that is a very firm maybe.

At the moment there is a company working on designs for 100+ MW nuclear fission generators about the size of standard door and a less than a meter deep. They plan to sell bundles by 2012 and single units by 2015, I think. Someone could come up with a way to do fusion on the same scale (hopefully it won't take 50+ years).

Originally posted by inimalist
So, in a fusion world, we have born the brunt of a transition to a much more expensive power source that requires us to buy polluting and expensive batteries (likely controlled by a select group of corporations)

But why would we need more batteries than before?

Originally posted by inimalist
ITER is nice, but the downside of that is that we have to start building fusion stations where gas stations are. It is awesome to have that power in a single place (though it still costs far too much to run the machine), but how does that fix the problem of cars? or of lawn mowers? sure, these are insignificant compared to industry costs, but is every building that requires power going to build their own fusion plant?

ok, so then we need some sort of high tech batteries that hold a charge from these fusion generators. At this point, batteries are way more harmful to the environment, in construction and disposal, than is gas. Also, how many compeating battery companies do you think there will be? Fusion is not going to open up free energy, because it is almost certainly going to be controlled by a small cabal of energy companies, I'd imagine many of them the same ones who control energy today.

Well I only would use ITER (or it's cncept) as an alternative for houses (stationary stuff) etc. of course not cars, planes & ships. But this alone would already be a big leap into the right direction.

I disagree with the point who controls these reactors, a country could build them from taxes and run them on their own, that would in fact save money for a lot of working people. Instead of paying their electricity bill they pay a bit more taxes to finance the reactor/s.

Well I agree with you that we can't just go and say "Hey from now on we don't use oil anymore, cause it sucks"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The answer to that is a very firm maybe.

At the moment there is a company working on designs for 100+ MW nuclear fission generators about the size of standard door and a less than a meter deep. They plan to sell bundles by 2012 and single units by 2015, I think. Someone could come up with a way to do fusion on the same scale (hopefully it won't take 50+ years).

interesting...

What do they plan to do with the waste though?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But why would we need more batteries than before?

because they would now be the primary source of power in vehicles than a secondary source. They would have to hold a much bigger charge.

Its like why electric battery cars aren't really an ecological replacement to gas powered ones.

Then there is the highly relevant issue that, as your fuel empties, gas powered cars run more efficently (less weight), whereas there is an exponential loss in function as a battery loses charge. Obviously this can be accounted for if need be, but I'd say we should probably be looking for a better alternative than "battery car". Even an exhaustive gas powered public transportation system...

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Well I only would use ITER (or it's cncept) as an alternative for houses (stationary stuff) etc. of course not cars, planes & ships. But this alone would already be a big leap into the right direction.

I disagree with the point who controls these reactors, a country could build them from taxes and run them on their own, that would in fact save money for a lot of working people. Instead of paying their electricity bill they pay a bit more taxes to finance the reactor/s.

Well I agree with you that we can't just go and say "Hey from now on we don't use oil anymore, cause it sucks"

actually, as it stands now, fusion power is so expensive that any nation which built a generator would run at a huge loss unless they increased the cost of power relative to the cost of the technology, driving up the price of fusion fuel to a point where most people would probably choose to go back to gas.

for as much as people ***** about it, gas is awesome.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
At the moment there is a company working on designs for 100+ MW nuclear fission generators about the size of standard door and a less than a meter deep. They plan to sell bundles by 2012 and single units by 2015, I think. Someone could come up with a way to do fusion on the same scale (hopefully it won't take 50+ years). That's most unlikely.

ITER already is (if they get the thing to work) the smallest fusion reactor possible, if you would turn the thing smaller the process just can't go without putting more energy into it than you could draw from it.

Originally posted by inimalist
interesting...

What do they plan to do with the waste though?

Collect it every ten years or so. They say it can be used for nuclear recycling like in France.

Originally posted by inimalist
because they would now be the primary source of power in vehicles than a secondary source. They would have to hold a much bigger charge.

Its like why electric battery cars aren't really an ecological replacement to gas powered ones.

I see, that's a good point. However it doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from fusion power, only that its applications would be just as limited as electricity is today.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
That's most unlikely.

ITER already is (if they get the thing to work) the smallest fusion reactor possible, if you would turn the thing smaller the process just can't go without putting more energy into it than you could draw from it.

Is that a fundamental limit or a practical limit? Because practical limitations get bypassed with some frequency.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is that a fundamental limit or a practical limit? Because practical limitations get bypassed with some frequency. As far as I know it's a fundamental, I could be wrong though but I'm pretty sure.

Nikola Tesla

he proved that electricity could be transmitted through the air without wires.. we can also use the earth's atmosphere to do it now.. the only reason it didnt become commercial is due to creed and inability to regulate it so the man who funded him pulled out on him b/c he realized even then that it would replace oil which the man happen to be heavily involved in..

also like to point out now with all the stuff we have everywhere probably not be a good idea to broadcast electricity through the air.. but imagine if that was our power source foundation instead of electricity how much different our society would have bn..


anyways this who thing about how much it would cost for infrastructure is a poor excuse to not do it.. how many roads, rail roads powerlines, channels and every conceivable infrastructure were made in the name of progress even though it cost millions if not billions to build within a 100 yr period all for progress if not then then for us in the now..in the long run its worth it...

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
anyways this who thing about how much it would cost for infrastructure is a poor excuse to not do it.. how many roads, rail roads powerlines, channels and every conceivable infrastructure were made in the name of progress even though it cost millions if not billions to build within a 100 yr period all for progress if not then then for us in the now..in the long run its worth it...

How about it costing trillions? Yeah, that much.






Also, what inimalist said about the infrastructure cost is mostly true, but not completely (his point should not be faulted for his one exception that I'm thinking about...as he is absolutely correct in what he is saying with ony a few excetions). It would cost about $14 billion dollars to put a hydrogen fueling station, on average, every 2 miles, of all highways and major roads. The math has been done, the technology made. That cost is only as much as some of the pure profits from Exxon Mobile in one QUARTER!


I've posted on this, before, in the GDF. I could revive that post and put that shit, here.

I think I am gonna lay off seafood for a while.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I think I am gonna lay off seafood for a while.

And continuing contributing to the unemployment problems? How dare you.



(For you dodo heads, the joke is "lay off".)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, what inimalist said about the infrastructure cost is mostly true, but not completely (his point should not be faulted for his one exception that I'm thinking about...as he is absolutely correct in what he is saying with ony a few excetions). It would cost about $14 billion dollars to put a hydrogen fueling station, on average, every 2 miles, of all highways and major roads. The math has been done, the technology made. That cost is only as much as some of the pure profits from Exxon Mobile in one QUARTER!


I've posted on this, before, in the GDF. I could revive that post and put that shit, here.

The problem with hydrogen is that there isn't much hydrogen just lying around to collect and getting it out of water takes a lot power.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
Nikola Tesla

he proved that electricity could be transmitted through the air without wires.. we can also use the earth's atmosphere to do it now.. the only reason it didnt become commercial is due to creed and inability to regulate it so the man who funded him pulled out on him b/c he realized even then that it would replace oil which the man happen to be heavily involved in..

The main reason his method didn't become commercial was because it's so incredibly difficult, energy intensive and short range. Cheap wireless energy transfer would be very valuable to anyone who develops and is being studied by many groups; to date the world record for beamed power (worth 900 thousand dollars) was to send 1kW a few hundred meters.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And continuing contributing to the unemployment problems? How dare you.



(For you dodo heads, the joke is "lay off".) Avoid.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The problem with hydrogen is that there isn't much hydrogen just lying around to collect and getting it out of water takes a lot power.



The main reason his method didn't become commercial was because it's so incredibly difficult, energy intensive and short range. Cheap wireless energy transfer would be very valuable to anyone who develops and is being studied by many groups; to date the world record for beamed power (worth 900 thousand dollars) was to send 1kW a few hundred meters. i just wanted to bring his name up.. not really make a case either way

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The problem with hydrogen is that there isn't much hydrogen just lying around to collect and getting it out of water takes a lot power.

That's already been addressed like...a decade ago.

And, no, hydrogen is literally 75% of the universe's elemental mass: it's everywhere.


Besides, the method was those vending machine sized systems that use plain old freshwater, some electrolysis, and badda-boom: O2 and H2.

Did you know that there are working hydrogen "stations" that work from solar power?

Also, there are tons of hydrogen fueling stations all over the world.

The idea that it takes a lot of power (to the point of infeasibility) is a myth perpetuated by the opposition to alternative fuels.


Pretty soon, here, we will have hydrogen fueling stations in our own home, for a mere $500, run completely by solar power.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/02/01/8398988/index.htm


Isn't that awesome? We could literally have a fueling station in every home of America. That has GOT to have the oil companies shitting themselves. Wait, it's not, because we lived in a ****ed up world.

i think we should pass some type of housing law or standard for new constructions and homes.. with at least having sun panels and a electrical port for future possible alternatives like windmills..

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's already been addressed like...a decade ago.

And, no, hydrogen is literally 75% of the universe's elemental mass: it's everywhere.

But its elemental form is incredibly rare on Earth

Originally posted by dadudemon
Pretty soon, here, we will have hydrogen fueling stations in our own home, for a mere $500, run completely by solar power.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/02/01/8398988/index.htm


Isn't that awesome? We could literally have a fueling station in every home of America. That has GOT to have the oil companies shitting themselves. Wait, it's not, because we lived in a ****ed up world.

Hey now, that's pretty neat.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But its elemental form is incredibly rare on Earth

Pure H2, sure. But it's not hard to obtain. I thought we were just talking about H, period.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hey now, that's pretty neat.

Indeed. I wonder why the employees of entire company have not turned up, completely dead and all facilities burned to the ground? AHA! Oil companies are not that evil...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Collect it every ten years or so. They say it can be used for nuclear recycling like in France.

cool. Canada's CANDU reactors can also used recycled nuclear materials, iirc...

what about security though? I know nuclear waste isn't the most ideal material for weaponization, but if it becomes so ubiquetous, it might pose realt security threats. Also, potential nuclear failures? I know modern reactors are built with fail-safes, but I don't trust humans to be 100% accurate on that stuff.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I see, that's a good point. However it doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from fusion power, only that its applications would be just as limited as electricity is today.

I'm not saying we wouldn't benefit

my position is more that, look, oil ****ing rocks, as far as efficancy in terms of use and how little it costs to use it, we, as a society, are going to have to put a huge amount of time and effort into changing to something, and it is likely whatever we switch to is going to pose at least as great of a problem. Whether this problem is in the polution generated in the production/destruction of this medium, its inefficency compared to gas, or just the fundamental costs associated with it, it still will be there.

I'm basically just arguing against panaceas

Originally posted by dadudemon
Pure H2, sure. But it's not hard to obtain. I thought we were just talking about H, period.

yes, but then the problem is we have changed from gas to oceans and water as our primary fuel source. It would be very difficult to use hydrogen as a fuel without disrupting the water cycle.

Not immediatly, mind you, but humans have a tendency to get comfortable with stuff, and only change when it is problematic.

actually... we might be talking about very different things here... Are you talking about vehicles that, themselves, use hydrogen as fuel, or are you talking about cars that have a bettery which is charged at a station where hydrogen fusion is occuring. The former, while probably the most ideal, afaik, is really science fiction at this point. Modern fusion ideas, that I'm familiar with at least, pose the latter.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Pretty soon, here, we will have hydrogen fueling stations in our own home, for a mere $500, run completely by solar power.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/02/01/8398988/index.htm

you don't deny the excessive environmental costs associated with the production of solar pannels though, right?

Originally posted by inimalist
you don't deny the excessive environmental costs associated with the production of solar pannels though, right?

There's nothing excessive about it.

Originally posted by Robtard
As Bill Maher said in a recent showing, time to call in Bruce Willis, or something like that.

Before Prince Namor or some other ocean dwelling, now unhappy chappies decide to bump off the human race.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Before Prince Namor or some other ocean dwelling, now unhappy chappies decide to bump off the human race. Then the whole event would turn out to be good for the planet in the end

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Before Prince Namor or some other ocean dwelling, now unhappy chappies decide to bump off the human race.

Cthullhu is still sleeping in his sunken city of R'lyeh, what if this were to awaken him?

http://rpggamer.org/uploaded_images/hasbro_cloverfield_monster_toy_1.jpg

It makes sense now before the movie came out they made that "viral propaganda thingy" and said that an oil rigg got destroyed

So we have 2 options:

1. Clover is real
2. Clover isn't real but they plan a part 2 and want to make it even more realistic

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's nothing excessive about it.

http://green.venturebeat.com/2009/01/14/solar-panels-pose-an-environmental-hazard-claims-report/

excessive is a relative thing

im not arguing against them though, just saying, nothing is close to perfect

indeed, but later in the article he talks about the fact that many of these necessary precautions wont be cost effictive.

So, much like in this BP spill, we are going to see companies campaign for self regulation as opposed to real environmental guidelines, and the nature of capitalism will probably mean that the profit motive outweighs the environmental motive, especially considering that the public is pretty much self assured that solar power has no environmental impact.

the idea that some type of top down planning of the implementation of new systems is necessary has been my point from the beginning.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
friggin hell I was only joking!!!!

News Link


Or here at 3:20

4whiKQgnp4w Wasn't that the first idea of the russians? <- No stereotype intended

Originally posted by Parmaniac
http://rpggamer.org/uploaded_images/hasbro_cloverfield_monster_toy_1.jpg Looks-wise, this was a disappointment...

Originally posted by Robtard
Cthullhu...Better.


Likely...

http://harmanonearth.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/smog_monster.jpg