#41
|
|||
|
|||
Oil cap
On Jun 14, 4:16*pm, LSMFT wrote:
Somebody on the news said it's a shame we can go to the moon but can't cap on oil well. Now that I've though about that; *we CAN'T go to the moon any longer. The country has gone stupid and is no longer capable. -- LSMFT I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months. I don't like to interrupt her. Perhaps we can charge them Rothschilds and their Queen with wrongful deaths (humans as well as countless other species), holding them fully accountable because there's no way the BP corporate offshore (tax avoidance) piggy bank is going to last, unless the artificial value of all crude goes back up past the $150/barrel mark. Once the Corexit modified crude oil that's also laced with sulfur and a fair number of known carcinogens gets storm blown and deposited inland 1000 miles, and otherwise global distributed by ocean currents, perhaps not even those trillions held by them Rothschilds and their Queen are going to help. The good news, is that this BP fiasco will finally make their Bhopal gas tragedy via Union Carbide (UCC) seem insignificant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster According to our CDC, anything above the 2.6 ppm level of Corexit all by itself is potentially toxic (not to mention secondary reactions with the raw oil and gas that's spewing out of their dysfunctional BP well), so it'll certainly be interesting to see how far reaching this known brew of toxins manages to get. The Chesapeake Bay summer-only dead zone of 1.5e9 m2 for example, is not 0.1% of what the new and improved BP Gulf area hypoxia plus otherwise artificially toxic laced dead zone has to offer as a nearly year round environment of toxic hypoxia, is made worse because of previous spillage and certainly future contributions by Big Energy (US as well as Mexican) that obviously doesn’t have to survive by having to eat anything that comes out of those polluted waters that were previously used to economically feed us “small people”. How exactly do we “small people” test our water, food and surrounding property where adults, children, pets plus other biodiversity need to live, for any measurable signs of BP’s oil and its Corexit? Our CDC and FEMA needs to hand out chemical test kits, so that individuals and families can verify throughout each and every day, as to whatever they are about to drink, eat or touch is safe. How about handing out portable technology/devices for continually testing the air we breath? ~ BG |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Oil cap
On Jun 27, 1:00*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 14, 4:16*pm, LSMFT wrote: Somebody on the news said it's a shame we can go to the moon but can't cap on oil well. Now that I've though about that; *we CAN'T go to the moon any longer. The country has gone stupid and is no longer capable. -- LSMFT I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months. I don't like to interrupt her. Perhaps we can charge them Rothschilds and their Queen with wrongful deaths (humans as well as countless other species), holding them fully accountable because there's no way the BP corporate offshore (tax avoidance) piggy bank is going to last, unless the artificial value of all crude goes back up past the $150/barrel mark. Once the Corexit modified crude oil that's also laced with sulfur and a fair number of known carcinogens gets storm blown and deposited inland 1000 miles, and otherwise global distributed by ocean currents, perhaps not even those trillions held by them Rothschilds and their Queen are going to help. The good news, is that this BP fiasco will finally make their Bhopal gas tragedy via Union Carbide (UCC) seem insignificant. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster According to our CDC, anything above the 2.6 ppm level of Corexit all by itself is potentially toxic (not to mention secondary reactions with the raw oil and gas that's spewing out of their dysfunctional BP well), so it'll certainly be interesting to see how far reaching this known brew of toxins manages to get. The Chesapeake Bay summer-only dead zone of 1.5e9 m2 for example, is not 0.1% of what the new and improved BP Gulf area hypoxia plus otherwise artificially toxic laced dead zone has to offer as a nearly year round environment of toxic hypoxia, is made worse because of previous spillage and certainly future contributions by Big Energy (US as well as Mexican) that obviously doesn’t have to survive by having to eat anything that comes out of those polluted waters that were previously used to economically feed us “small people”. How exactly do we “small people” test our water, food and surrounding property where adults, children, pets plus other biodiversity need to live, for any measurable signs of BP’s oil and its Corexit? Our CDC and FEMA needs to hand out chemical test kits, so that individuals and families can verify throughout each and every day, as to whatever they are about to drink, eat or touch is safe. *How about handing out portable technology/devices for continually testing the air we breath? *~ BG The next really big thing of environmental contributors to our global doom and gloom may involve even bigger Big Energy players, along with even better spin-masters to boot. SHELL’s Perdido is certainly much deeper and having 22 BOPs plus loads of seafloor manifolds and piping infrastructure that’s 200 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico. Their daily energy output of hydrocarbons is supposed to equal something like 14e6 gallons worth of gasoline, or roughly what 2.75e6 of us use per day (I believe that’s not including whatever Shell Perdido vents and flares off). However, their blowout risk is also potentially worth at least 22 fold worse than BP’s Deepwater Horizon single BOP malfunction. SHELL’s Perdido (27.5% BP owned) is also so potentially much worse than their Niger fiasco: “according to a report by the independent Niger Delta Stakeholder Democracy Network, the company is illegally flaring 256m cubic feet of natural gas a day – which, apart from polluting the surroundings, adds considerably to climate change, and is one of the most wasteful practices on earth.” Perdido’s raw natural gas at perhaps 2.8e6 m3/day (100e6 cf/day) that’s only partially ch4, goes on and on because of the relative surplus of commercial natural gas and the lack of having a suitable method of bulk capture, storage plus transporting such natural gas that started off as LNG while under pressure, is simply not a high priority consideration. “The Perdido platform peak production will be 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day, enough to meet the energy needs of about 2.2 million US households. The oil and gas fields beneath the platform lie in a geological formation holding resources estimated at 3-15 billion barrels of oil equivalent*. Shell has a 35% share of the facility and operates the project on behalf of its partners Chevron (37.5%) and BP (27.5%).” Their suggested 200,000 cf or 5,634 m3 of natural gas/day is perhaps less than 0.25% of what that system of extremely deep wells is actually making available as raw atmospheric (1 bar) gasses that get vented or flared on location. If in fact this number from Shell refers to their wellhead LNG volumes (because that makes it seem a whole lot less problematic or simply less wasteful), then you should be aware that such wellhead raw LNG expands by roughly 500 fold as it decompresses and phase shifts from liquid to vapor, so as to invisibly displace and pollute the atmosphere along with packing several known toxins, as well as wherever the local inland rains shall fall is not exactly going to be any better off. It seems Big Energy is always informatively careful, or lets call it selective and/or sensitive about interpreting relevant matters as to their shielding its fellow industry and investors in order to properly confuse or keep us outsider “small people” snookered and/or dumbfounded past the point of no return. It’s called obfuscation, so perhaps there’s no obvious reason(s) to believe much of anything touted or otherwise getting PR spun by most of these hydrocarbon suppliers. Clearly, they as a collective cabal/cartel do not interpret their vented or flared gasses as worth any hoot, as they sure as hell refuse to take proper responsibility before, during or after whatever unfortunate events, as well as whatever future consequences are for the next generations to figure out on the usual need-to-know and pay-as-you-go basis. The lack of any good Gulf area news has gotten so obscure (harder to find than Muslim WMD or OBL), in that as of 6:13 AM on Friday is when our public Google Groups version of Usenet/newsgroups “alt.astronomy” stopped updating for the next 5 hours. Go figure, as sometimes this stoppage occurs the instant after I’ve updated or posted something. Perhaps we need to revise our CDC standards by a factor of allowing 100 fold greater exposure as being within reasonable spec, and perhaps that way the 200 mile radius as only an advisory should apply instead of a FEMA mandatory evacuation. http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/153055.html “”The “dead zone” created by a combination of methane gas and Corexit toxic rain, Madsen continues, will ultimately result in the evacuation and long-term abandonment of cities and towns within the 200-mile radius of the oil gusher.”” “Plans are being put in place for the mandatory evacuation of New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Mandeville, Hammond, Houma, Belle Chase, Chalmette, Slidell, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pensacola, Hattiesburg, Mobile, Bay Minette, Fort Walton Beach, Panama City, Crestview, and Pascagoula,” Madsen writes. “How the ultimate BP Gulf disaster could kill millions” http://www.helium.com/items/1864136-...-kill-millions This might be a good time for the rest of us to invest in motels and trailer parks, that which BP and taxpayers are going to have to pick up the tab. ~ BG |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Dunce Cap [was Oil cap]
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.policy message , Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:42:53, Alain Fournier posted: Yes, it is the rates actually encountered by wind turbine farms. Quebec is a large area. Imagine a million 3MW wind turbines, that has a theoretical capacity of 1,000,000*365*24*3 MWh or 26,280,000,000,000 kWh. That is less than one turbine per km^2 and a theoretical output about seven times the North American electricity consumption. In practice we can have much more than one turbine per km^2, but there is lots of places where it isn't windy enough, so 1 per km^2 is about right. I agree that wind turbine farms should not be considered a core power source, there are some days when the wind levels are not appropriate, and because weather systems are rather large things, those days can be so for large areas. ISTM that if the level of Lakes Huron & Michigan were lowered by one millimetre, the water going via hydroelectric plants into James Bay, enough energy would be generated to power the whole of North America (does that include Mexico, Cuba, etc.?) for the order of a day; and Lake Superior would give over 50% more. Check that arithmetic. So if the Quebec and Ontario wind-farms were to pump their local river water into the Lakes whenever the wind was blowing, a steady and substantial electricity supply would be obtained. Dwr Cymru may be able to advise. Put a floating barrage in James Bay, to separate the river-water from the sea-water, and the clean water could be re-used by the system. Yes hydro power and wind-farms can be paired up together very well. In Quebec, our hydro power plants can generate electricity at power levels way beyond what would be sustainable. If the wind is low on a day of high energy demand the water level behind the dams go down. We then let the water levels rise again when the wind is more favourable. Alain Fournier |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Dunce Cap [was Oil cap]
In sci.space.policy message
, Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:06:14, Alain Fournier posted: Dr J R Stockton wrote: In sci.space.policy message , Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:42:53, Alain Fournier posted: Yes, it is the rates actually encountered by wind turbine farms. Quebec is a large area. Imagine a million 3MW wind turbines, that has a theoretical capacity of 1,000,000*365*24*3 MWh or 26,280,000,000,000 kWh. That is less than one turbine per km^2 and a theoretical output about seven times the North American electricity consumption. In practice we can have much more than one turbine per km^2, but there is lots of places where it isn't windy enough, so 1 per km^2 is about right. I agree that wind turbine farms should not be considered a core power source, there are some days when the wind levels are not appropriate, and because weather systems are rather large things, those days can be so for large areas. ISTM that if the level of Lakes Huron & Michigan were lowered by one millimetre, the water going via hydroelectric plants into James Bay, enough energy would be generated to power the whole of North America (does that include Mexico, Cuba, etc.?) for the order of a day; and Lake Superior would give over 50% more. Check that arithmetic. So if the Quebec and Ontario wind-farms were to pump their local river water into the Lakes whenever the wind was blowing, a steady and substantial electricity supply would be obtained. Dwr Cymru may be able to advise. Put a floating barrage in James Bay, to separate the river-water from the sea-water, and the clean water could be re-used by the system. Yes hydro power and wind-farms can be paired up together very well. In Quebec, our hydro power plants can generate electricity at power levels way beyond what would be sustainable. If the wind is low on a day of high energy demand the water level behind the dams go down. We then let the water levels rise again when the wind is more favourable. That's only part-way. When the wind is high at a time of low demand, the water should be pumped back up again. That is what an upper reservoir, such as the Lakes, is useful for. -- (c) John Stockton, near London. Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (RFC5536/7) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (RFC5536/7) |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Dunce Cap [was Oil cap]
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
Alain Fournier posted: Yes hydro power and wind-farms can be paired up together very well. In Quebec, our hydro power plants can generate electricity at power levels way beyond what would be sustainable. If the wind is low on a day of high energy demand the water level behind the dams go down. We then let the water levels rise again when the wind is more favourable. That's only part-way. When the wind is high at a time of low demand, the water should be pumped back up again. That is what an upper reservoir, such as the Lakes, is useful for. At Niagra Falls there is a large reservoir. At night the demand for electricity is low and the amount they can take from the river is high, so they use electricity from a few shoots to drive pumps to fill the reservoir. During the day they take less from the river for better tourism and drain the reservior of the extra electricity. The same concept could be used for either wind or solar but the price of the construction is very high and it wouldn't be a useful option in arid zones. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|