I agree entirely. Most people don't even realize that the Chernobyl reactor didn't even have a containment building around it, much less that there was no nuclear engineer in charge. It's like allowing a dentist do your brain surgery. Nuclear energy is safe, efficient and produces very little pollution.

 

 

I love that comparison!

I read that the moratorium shut down 33 deepwater operations in the Gulf but that represented less than 1% of the total wells in the Gulf. There are still 5100 wells including 591 in the deep water.

 

So how do less than 1% of the wells being halted cause a crisis?

Given the fact that nuclear disasters on U.S. soil have been minimal and the worst of the lot released radiation measured in millirads which was right about the amount of background radiation we receive in a year anyway (you know from all those wonderful technological devices we love so much) I think it is safe to say it has a better track record than oil. IN FACT. I seem to recall posting something a few months ago that showed in a 30 year span nuclear was actually kinder to the environment than any other method of power generation.

 

I know you are probably thinking Chernobyl when nuclear comes up but the fact of the matter is that it was Soviet technology and Soviet methods of manpower/staffing which left a civil engineer in charge of a nuclear plant. On top of the fact that the Soviets were notorious for having minimal safety standards on everything they did.

 

On top of all that there are types of reactors out there now that instead of melting down if the go critical can just go inert. No steam no nothing to cause a pressure buildup. Nuclear is the only answer if we want to use "clean" energy for the future.

 

I am more for that than I am weaning our transportation off of oil. As far as I am concerned all the coal going to power plants could be diverted to coal gassification plants to then be turned into fuel for our vehicles among other useful side products.

 

I agree entirely. Most people don't even realize that the Chernobyl reactor didn't even have a containment building around it, much less that there was no nuclear engineer in charge. It's like allowing a dentist do your brain surgery. Nuclear energy is safe, efficient and produces very little pollution.

 

Thanks for the info. I honestly haven't read enough about it to know all the particulars. I have always been in favor of the nuclear option but even more so now.

 

Let me ask this, what is the hold up?

 

Let me ask this, what is the hold up?

 

Even if we said "yes" to a nuclear plant today it would be close to 20 years before it was functional/operational.

I read that the moratorium shut down 33 deepwater operations in the Gulf but that represented less than 1% of the total wells in the Gulf. There are still 5100 wells including 591 in the deep water.

 

So how do less than 1% of the wells being halted cause a crisis?

How will less than 1% of the wells being halted avert a crisis? Sounds to me like the moratorium is purely symbolism over substance.

Thanks for the info. I honestly haven't read enough about it to know all the particulars. I have always been in favor of the nuclear option but even more so now.

 

Let me ask this, what is the hold up?

 

Public perception and environmental lobbies in my opinion. After Three Mile Island there was a HUGE negative backlash against nuclear power in the U.S. and the fact that Chernobyl occurred right around when we would have been moving beyond Three Mile didn't help. Now we are faced with a generation of people who don't look at nuclear in a favorable light at all without knowing a darn thing about it.

Even if we said "yes" to a nuclear plant today it would be close to 20 years before it was functional/operational.

 

No saying you are wrong but what little I could find on this suggested 10 years from start to finish. Even if it was 10 years, why the heck does it take so long.

 

Do you have a link to the 20 year number?

How will less than 1% of the wells being halted avert a crisis? Sounds to me like the moratorium is purely symbolism over substance.

 

Even if your assumption is correct it still doesn't answer my question.

 

My guess is that due to the recent history of the MMS and the industry working together (ie the industry writing the rules) that the administration decided to take a look at the deepwater rigs as a result of the current situation. Could it be politics? Of course it could. However, its hard to argue with the risk/reward equation. I don't care if these rigs recently did pass a safety inspection. When the group inspecting them is in bed (in some cases literally) with the industry and we see what happened with BP it has to be looked at again.

 

But back to the point. Its still only 1%.

 

Why the outcry?

 

Do you have a link to the 20 year number?

 

It was in a book by Jeff Rubin called "Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller."

 

He also said that at any one time nearly half of the UK's nuclear reactors are offline.

No saying you are wrong but what little I could find on this suggested 10 years from start to finish. Even if it was 10 years, why the heck does it take so long.

 

Do you have a link to the 20 year number?

 

 

The thing is that coal plants could be converted into the modular pebble bed style plants much sooner and they would already be tied into the grid.

I read that the moratorium shut down 33 deepwater operations in the Gulf but that represented less than 1% of the total wells in the Gulf. There are still 5100 wells including 591 in the deep water.

 

So how do less than 1% of the wells being halted cause a crisis?

 

Clyde, I think it was on NPR this morning that I heard someone saying that with the moratorium in place and the uncertainty on future deep water operations (and the new rules that will be imposed), a lot of rig owners will move their rigs to Brazil and other countries moving ahead with deep water operations. There is evidently a limited supply of deep water rigs and operators with a large demand for them, and if they focus on Brazil and the other countries, when operations do commence in the US, there is going to be a shortage of rigs and people drained to drill and operate them, thus increasing costs and supply. Don't know about the percentages you referenced, but I'd think that even a minimal decrease in supply can have significant impact on gas prices when you look at the huge quantities of gas consumed by the US. Is it the percentage of wells that determines supply or the amount of oil brought up out of those wells? No one would be incurring the cost of deep water wells if there was adequate supplies of oil coming out of the shallow ones. Thus shutting down the deep water wells may have a greater impact that shutting down one percent of the wells would indicate.

Clyde, I think it was on NPR this morning that I heard someone saying that with the moratorium in place and the uncertainty on future deep water operations (and the new rules that will be imposed), a lot of rig owners will move their rigs to Brazil and other countries moving ahead with deep water operations. There is evidently a limited supply of deep water rigs and operators with a large demand for them, and if they focus on Brazil and the other countries, when operations do commence in the US, there is going to be a shortage of rigs and people drained to drill and operate them, thus increasing costs and supply. Don't know about the percentages you referenced, but I'd think that even a minimal decrease in supply can have significant impact on gas prices when you look at the huge quantities of gas consumed by the US. Is it the percentage of wells that determines supply or the amount of oil brought up out of those wells? No one would be incurring the cost of deep water wells if there was adequate supplies of oil coming out of the shallow ones. Thus shutting down the deep water wells may have a greater impact that shutting down one percent of the wells would indicate.

 

 

My first question is this: Isn't this a temporary moratorium? I believe it's only 6 months. To my knowledge, it hasn't been decided that it was permanent.

Given the fact that nuclear disasters on U.S. soil have been minimal and the worst of the lot released radiation measured in millirads which was right about the amount of background radiation we receive in a year anyway (you know from all those wonderful technological devices we love so much) I think it is safe to say it has a better track record than oil. IN FACT. I seem to recall posting something a few months ago that showed in a 30 year span nuclear was actually kinder to the environment than any other method of power generation.

 

I know you are probably thinking Chernobyl when nuclear comes up but the fact of the matter is that it was Soviet technology and Soviet methods of manpower/staffing which left a civil engineer in charge of a nuclear plant. On top of the fact that the Soviets were notorious for having minimal safety standards on everything they did.

 

On top of all that there are types of reactors out there now that instead of melting down if the go critical can just go inert. No steam no nothing to cause a pressure buildup. Nuclear is the only answer if we want to use "clean" energy for the future.

 

I am more for that than I am weaning our transportation off of oil. As far as I am concerned all the coal going to power plants could be diverted to coal gassification plants to then be turned into fuel for our vehicles among other useful side products.

 

 

Something we can agree on.

Judge blocks drilling ban.. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill

Clyde, I think it was on NPR this morning that I heard someone saying that with the moratorium in place and the uncertainty on future deep water operations (and the new rules that will be imposed), a lot of rig owners will move their rigs to Brazil and other countries moving ahead with deep water operations. There is evidently a limited supply of deep water rigs and operators with a large demand for them, and if they focus on Brazil and the other countries, when operations do commence in the US, there is going to be a shortage of rigs and people drained to drill and operate them, thus increasing costs and supply. Don't know about the percentages you referenced, but I'd think that even a minimal decrease in supply can have significant impact on gas prices when you look at the huge quantities of gas consumed by the US. Is it the percentage of wells that determines supply or the amount of oil brought up out of those wells? No one would be incurring the cost of deep water wells if there was adequate supplies of oil coming out of the shallow ones. Thus shutting down the deep water wells may have a greater impact that shutting down one percent of the wells would indicate.

 

I can always count on my man LN to bring observations that have bearing.

 

Here's my question based on your post about the rigs going elsewhere: Disregarding the fact that jobs are lost (and I'm not making light of that) how does oil gathered in Brazil impact us here in KY vs oil that was gathered in the Gulf?