The environment thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

This is a huge step if true. It's stepping over a gigantic roadblock.

very true. I am so excited to see wind and solar projects.

 

A few weeks ago when my wife and I were driving back from seeing her family in Iowa, we drove past a wind farm while going north in I-39 and I smiled.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Orange Peels Could Float Florida in Ethanol

Okay, not really float the whole state, but Dr. Henry Daniell, a professor of genetic engineering at the University of Central Florida, believes orange peels alone could be used to produce 200 million gallons of ethanol. His method would employ a mixture of plant-based enzymes to transform the peels into sugar, which then would be fermented to make ethanol. Currently the main source of material for making ethanol in the US is corn.

 

Florida’s enormous citrus output would make it a very viable candidate for ethanol production if Dr. Daniell’s ideas can be implemented. He remarked on the potential: “This could be a turning point where vehicles could use this fuel as the norm for protecting our air and environment for future generations.”

 

His research group created enzymes for breaking down the orange peels by cloning fungi and bacteria, and then growing their genes in tobacco plants. This new process reduced the cost of enzyme production (compared with making them in a lab) by one thousand times. Their enzyme conversion to sugar for ethanol process can also be applied to sugarcane, switch grass, and straw.

 

If successful, producing a large amount of ethanol within the state could be quite a boon for the local economy, providing jobs, and a lower emissions fuel to reduce air pollution. Of course it would also help to reduce consumption of foreign oil, a practice that is sensitive politically and economically.

[Cknolls]

This is a huge step if true. It's stepping over a gigantic roadblock.

 

 

The Kennedy Family?

[BigSqwert]

The Kennedy Family?

Nicely done.

 

Although I am giving you a 15 yard penalty for using your allotment of LOL emoticons for the year.

[Balta1701]

The Kennedy Family?

Without offense...I really wonder if this could have happened last year. I understand there were personal reasons for his opposition, but man, that pissed me off.

[Balta1701]

New oil leak found in the area of that drilling blowout, this one could be 5x the size of the one they knew about. That cuts the time for "1 Exxon Valdez" from a couple of months to a couple of weeks.

 

The western edge of the spill is now 10 miles from landfall.

 

Other estimates, based on satellite photos, are estimating that the spill could be happening at 20x the rate originally estimated, and that we could already have 60% of an Exxon-Valdez in the gulf.

[Balta1701]

I don’t agree with the notion that we shouldn’t do anything. It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore.

Barack H. Obama, April 2, 2010.

[NorthSideSox72]

Barack H. Obama, April 2, 2010.

I don't see anything wrong in what he said there. How many rig spills have we seen in recent history?

 

[BigSqwert]

I don't see anything wrong in what he said there. How many rig spills have we seen in recent history?

One is too many.

[NorthSideSox72]

One is too many.

Yeah, but that's not about Obama. That's about another good reason to get off oil ASAP, which Obama has so far been pushing harder for than some of the previous Presidents. Though really, none of them are pushing nearly hard enough.

 

[Balta1701]

I don't see anything wrong in what he said there. How many rig spills have we seen in recent history?

Well, he's 100% incorrect on the supposed lack of rig spills from Katrina/Rita as well. But considering that it took less than a month after that statement for him to be proven wrong by what is shaping up to be one of the biggest oil spills in U.S. history...from one of those supposedly safe rigs...that's the kind of thing that I'd expect to happen to W.

 

As a result of both storms, 124 spills were reported with

a total volume of roughly 17,700 barrels of total petroleum products, of which about 13,200

barrels were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 4,500 barrels were

refined products from platforms and rigs.

 

Pipelines were accountable for 72 spills totaling about 7,300 barrels of crude oil and condensate

spilled into the GOM. Response and recovery efforts kept the impacts to a minimum with no

onshore impacts from these spill events.

By the way, the first link is a 14 mb pdf file, if you're on a slow connection, just trust me on the text.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, he's 100% incorrect on the supposed lack of rig spills from Katrina/Rita as well. But considering that it took less than a month after that statement for him to be proven wrong by what is shaping up to be one of the biggest oil spills in U.S. history...from one of those supposedly safe rigs...that's the kind of thing that I'd expect to happen to W.

 

By the way, the first link is a 14 mb pdf file, if you're on a slow connection, just trust me on the text.

I think you're just doing the sound bite tactic here. Calling out Obama because he was wrong about the balance of where oil spills came from during Katrina, IMO, is subverting the important points here.

 

[BigSqwert]

Yeah, but that's not about Obama. That's about another good reason to get off oil ASAP, which Obama has so far been pushing harder for than some of the previous Presidents. Though really, none of them are pushing nearly hard enough.

I can definitely agree with your last statement.

[Balta1701]

I think you're just doing the sound bite tactic here. Calling out Obama because he was wrong about the balance of where oil spills came from during Katrina, IMO, is subverting the important points here.

The important point is...saying that spills from rigs don't happen is incorrect, and it's an incorrect argument in favor of a policy he's supporting. It was incorrect in Katrina/Rita, it was incorrect after a rig spill off California that was part of what spurred the offshore moratoria, and there's some well deserved ironic scorn in having him proved wrong 3 weeks later.

[NorthSideSox72]

The important point is...saying that spills from rigs don't happen is incorrect, and it's an incorrect argument in favor of a policy he's supporting. It was incorrect in Katrina/Rita, it was incorrect after a rig spill off California that was part of what spurred the offshore moratoria, and there's some well deserved ironic scorn in having him proved wrong 3 weeks later.

This is about compromise, and its about the only way to get things done. Give some room for more offshore drilling, and some nuclear plants. That gives back all kinds of money for the real, renewable future path. If you just stand there and say "nothing will be allowed except alt energy", you won't go anywhere, because the oil companies and the GOP have successfully convinced a wide swath of the American public that alt energy isn't ready and therefore shouldn't be used.

 

I don't like it, I'd rather not have it. But if a few more oil rigs go up, and a few nuke plants go up, in the next 10 years, and in exchange we see a big push towards solar/wind/geo/hydro/tidal/bio type stuff that will actually get us into a brighter future... then I am all for it.

 

[Balta1701]

because the oil companies and the GOP have successfully convinced a wide swath of the American public that alt energy isn't ready and therefore shouldn't be used.

And having the President say that oil rigs are to clean to worry about and never spill a thing I'm sure has nothing to do with the success of that marketing campaign.

[NorthSideSox72]

And having the President say that oil rigs are to clean to worry about and never spill a thing I'm sure has nothing to do with the success of that marketing campaign.

Yeah because that's what he said. Read the quote again.

 

[BigSqwert]

On a different note, I though this was a neat idea:

 

Maybe not as radical as square watermelons, but still quite progressive is Andrew Kim's square Coke bottle design. It definitely raised the question whether or not all bottles and containers should be square from an environmental point of view. Of course aesthetics, identity and function are also important, but it's surprising how much we could lower the environmental impact of distributing goods by stopping to transport air!

 

Andrew Kim proposed a bottle that is still 100% recyclable, and:

 

- with a 25% slimmer cap (saving lots of material)

- 27% more efficient (more bottles fit into a smaller space saving on packaging and transportation)

- collapsible design (for more efficient transportation after its use)

- 100% plant based (made from sugar cane byproducts)

- stackable design (even more efficient transport)

 

 

By making the bottle square, one can fit more Coke into a container, and less air! Kim calculated that a shipping container fits 3949 additional bottles if they are square, which is cost-saving too. Of course this is only a concept design at this stage (pretty impressive for a midterm project by an 18-year-old) and one has to look into costs, functionality and other issues with this new design, but we believe it is a good reminder to question the shape of things and to work on minimizing the environmental footprint of transportation in general.

 

via

[mr_genius]

On a different note, I though this was a neat idea:

 

 

via

 

it's a good idea.

[Balta1701]

Keith, Re: your facebook question.

 

Yes, the technology to prevent a blowout has improved. However, there are 2 things in this situation. First, BP supposedly wasn't using all of the automatic shutoff technology that is available and in use elsewhere. My guess is that it all isn't required by regulation, and thus some of it isn't installed there. Secondly, some of it has just seemingly flat-out not worked. There is supposed to be at least 1 shutoff system on there that they keep trying to trip using submersibles, but it just has failed.

[lostfan]

Keith, Re: your facebook question.

 

Yes, the technology to prevent a blowout has improved. However, there are 2 things in this situation. First, BP supposedly wasn't using all of the automatic shutoff technology that is available and in use elsewhere. My guess is that it all isn't required by regulation, and thus some of it isn't installed there. Secondly, some of it has just seemingly flat-out not worked. There is supposed to be at least 1 shutoff system on there that they keep trying to trip using submersibles, but it just has failed.

I haven't read anything in detail but it really looks like BP just f***ed up more than anything.

 

It's a pretty bad time to be a BP shareholder though. s***.

[lostfan]

Oh, something I found amusing. While I was shopping for cellphone chargers I saw some pretty blatant greenwashing. They were selling secondary chargers, the kind you charge and then plug in to charge your phone, but they were trying to market them as "green power" or "environmentally friendly" or some silly s***. I understand that the general public is made up of idiots, but geez, there's limits. You still have to plug the thing into the wall before you can use it!

[Balta1701]

Oh, something I found amusing. While I was shopping for cellphone chargers I saw some pretty blatant greenwashing. They were selling secondary chargers, the kind you charge and then plug in to charge your phone, but they were trying to market them as "green power" or "environmentally friendly" or some silly s***. I understand that the general public is made up of idiots, but geez, there's limits. You still have to plug the thing into the wall before you can use it!

I know a person who has a solar cell cell-phone charger. Made by Raytheon, even. They were giving them out to Caltech grads at job interviews.

[Balta1701]

It's a pretty bad time to be a BP shareholder though. s***.

Maybe I should have sold that BP stock.

[Y2HH]

Maybe I should have sold that BP stock.

 

BP pays a huge dividend (>6%), despite the recent fall in share price, they are currently trading at around a 9 multiple.

 

However, this can be VERY bad for them, as they will be on the hook for all the cleanup costs, and any/all fines incurred. This may decimate their stock as well as force them to cut that hefty dividend. Only time will tell.

 

But as it stands right now, even if the stock goes down, if they don't slash that dividend, that's a 6% annual return, try finding that in any money market, savings account or CD.