Hacker News Reader

Comment by nkh | Hacker News Reader

In light of this disaster, I hope we can have a more reasoned debate on the floor of congress than "Drill Baby Drill".

For the next few decades at least, there is no realistic replacement for oil. We need to understand why the safeguards that should have prevented this didn't work, and like with every disaster learn how to do it better the next time.

Actually there are plenty of realistic replacements for oil, the issue is more about lobbying and PR than anything else. IF we as Americans wanted to invest in things other than the military, it wouldn't be that hard to get things moving withing a decade. What if we spent $800 billion a year on implementing solar technology? Obviously that's an overstatement but the point stands. The oil companies have payed hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby congress over the years to keep their dominance in the energy market. I'm not naively suggesting we could go solar tomorrow, but I think it's amazing when people so blindly accept the status quo. This is a willpower issue, not a technological one.

The OP might be referring to the necessity of oil in fabricating all sorts of things, a main focus being plastic and transporting all our Stuff worldwide.

But with respect to simple energy, I agree it's a matter of motivation and diversion of funding that keeps us from utilizing solar, wind, etc. energy efficiently.

I'm not suggesting that we should not pursue nuclear, wind, solar, or other sources of energy. But even building out a nuclear electric generating capacity sufficient to replace our current oil needs would take decades. Wind and solar have theoretical potential but are certainly far from proven on that scale. And not without environmental impact of their own.

In the meantime, we need oil. We should understand what went wrong here, and try to prevent it from happening again.

Actually, this reminds me of another reason to stop using oil as energy. We use oil for many things that haven't been replaced yet- plastics, synthetics, and so on.

Logically, the best course of action would be to switch energy sources as soon as feasible to preserve as much oil as possible for such fabrication, to give us time to find a replacement for that as well. Or, buy us time to figure out a good way to recycle 100% of plastics.

And why is it that the word nuclear never comes up?

Nimbyism. People want it. Just not near them. Near someone else is fine. The word "nuclear" has too many negative connotations for it to be near them.

A perfect example of this is the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Long Island in the 70's. LILCO (local power company/monopoly) spent around $6 billion building a nuclear power plant that could generate 820MW of power on the edge of the Long Island Sound.

And then decommissioned the plant without so much as generating any commercial electricity. Why? NY Governor Mario Cuomo refused to approve any evacuation plans. Reason for that? To prevent the plant from opening due to public pressure after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Result of all this? $6 billion in building costs passed off from LILCO to the public. And instead of generating its own power, Long Island had to lay out a 330MW submarine power cable to obtain extra power from Connecticut after that big blackout a few years back. And a 100MW Gas Turbine plant was built on the site instead. Also after the blackout.

Oh. And can't forget about the 50 kilowatts of power generated by the two 100ft wind turbines were built. Really.

I have no idea. I can't stand the attitudes in this country towards nuclear. I'm a vegan, ultra-left, hippy and I think the left has it's head so far up it's ass when it comes to nuclear power. I have no idea why they are so against it as a whole. Again, I think a lot of it has to do with lobbying and the existing power structure so it doesn't get the PR something as horrible and destructive as 'clean coal' gets.

Also with all that money it would be possible to research and developer the nuclear technology that Bill Gates mentioned in his TED talk.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ex-microsoft-sci...

This is the attitude many have had for decades. We had a recent debate about drilling in Alaska and many said "things are different now, and the ecological impact would be small." We don't need to drill in these places. We aren't going to run out of our current sources for decades. In time prices are going to rise and people will be forced to drive smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, but it is about time.

True, and nor can we can conserve our way out of the problem. I'm not opposed to offshore drilling - we can apply lessons from this tragedy to future projects. but I do think that partial improvements have great potential when considered in aggregate. wind is constantly improving, the energy itself is free, and capital costs are falling to be competitive with those of fossil fuel installations. The same is true of solar.

I'm strongly in favor of adding more nuclear power too - both for its large generation capability, and because the US badly needs to recover erstwhile technological and industrial lead in this area. South Korea recently snatched a big contract to build a nuclear station in the Middle East, and it's a depressing fact that the world's only steel plant capable of manufacturing the large single-unit containment chambers for a reactor is in Japan.

American have to learn to consume less. Otherwise they are fucked anyway (That goes for oil, food and pretty much everything else).

see: http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_u...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com