So build it smarter. Put the tank below the water line, thus using the sea itself to equalize the pressure. Your won't have to pressurize the pipes much at all. May not even need the pipes if you suck the water directly into the chamber.
You take Kevin Costner out of the story and the story is about some kind of cool oil separating centrifuges, not Kevin rushing in to save us from the oil which, we had in the meantime, been twiddling our thumbs and staring at.
Well, to be fair, the pipe has been pouring oil out for 3 months.
The dispersants make it easier for bacteria to get at and metabolize the oil. Yes, this has the effect of making the oil mix better with the water, which is a downside if you're trying to collect the oil. But the reality is, bacteria will do far more to clean up this oil spill than thousands of skimmers trying to collect some tiny fraction of it up ever will.
Which is great if they had spilled a few thousands of gallons...but not 60 thousand gallons every day. It doesn't take a large brain to realize that will overwhelm the ability of the ecosystem. Instead, we have an administration intent on dragging its feet, keeping sensible solutions at by, in order to create an even large natural disaster which can be used as a political pawn in the campaign for a cap-and-trade tax fiasco.
You've got an environment being destroyed, and the EPA blocks help because it only solves 97% of the problem? WTF? Then you've got the President shaking down the oil company and "kicking ass" (that is what we have courts for in the US), shutting down the rest of the industry (6% of the US GDP, and which has a good safety record), then going on TV to give a speech that everyone is hoping will be a plan on how to clean up, but is instead a promotional speech for a cap-and-trade tax regime.
Dispersants in this case are as dumb as the President that is getting in the way of the cleanup.
* the oil is not spread out over the entire Gulf, and most of the oil WILL be in that first three inches of water. They won't have to process the entire volume of the Gulf.
* if left to its own course, most of the oil will flow to the surface in a small area. If these sort of measures were put into service right after the blowout, 90% of the oil would have been picked up and reprocessed.
I also read the article thinking "Yet Another Hydrocyclone!" Which is a very well established technology for cleaning up produced water from an oil well.
Well, it will work well unless BP keeps dumping those dispersents into the mix.
How is a problem separating the heavy stuff and excuse to block the skimmers from separating the light stuff?
Is the Gulf of Mexico so small that 50 or so skimmers would block any other solution?
I thought the main point of the article was that the administration and BP have drug their feet for so long while dumping toxic dispersents in the water that the centrifuges won't work as well now.
The whole thing has been completely politicized. The media has turned it into some kind of circus.
You mean, like they did with Katrina? The were beating the hell out of Bush for not sending troops to take over a city in a matter of hours. Yet, here we have a slowly motion disaster where the current administration has actively worked against remediation steps. For pete's sake. Three friggin' MONTHS before a centrifuge can be "tested". Put one of the stupid things out there, and pay them for the oil collected. Sheesh!!
Instead, the current administration encourages BP to keep putting toxic dispersents into the water that do nothing but make it more difficult to clean the mess up. Dispersents would be great for a 100gal spill. It would disperse and spread thin enough to be non-lethal. It fails with 60,000 gallons every day. There isn't enough clean water to disperse into.
Instead of clearing the red tape to allow such conceptually simple devices to go to work, we have an administration that goes to court to shut down 6% of the nations economy, threatens arrest for reporters that take pictures of the disaster, and uses the bully-pulpit to campaign for a new and oppressive cap-and-trade tax regime.
Yeah. It was the press that was politicizing this.
Bodybuilders are some of the most unhealthy people I know. Your body does not store that much muscle and that small a percentage of supporting fat without an extremely abnormal diet (and hormonal supplements).
As always, the problem with big government is the requirement to oversimplify the world in order to make it manageable. Body weights, like so many other things, do not necessarily fall within a 'normal' range. Big government can't work without a systematic way to handle the abnormal.
It's good that the First Lady is raising the issue and making noise about childhood obesity. It's even better that she doesn't have the power of government to shove broccoli down all our throats ('cause I detest the taste of broccoli! Ugh!!)
Yeah, but if the head guys adopted this way of thinking, they would have to come in and support the direction the last guy was heading. When it is all said and done, the first guy will get all the credit, 'cause it was "his" program (even though "she" was the one that did all the work).
The DoE has managed the energy policy for decades.
I seem to remember something about the electric power going out in the entire north east section of the United States. Glad that DoE is on the job. BTW, how are we doing with reducing our dependence on foreign oil?
Since the Federal Reserve is selected by Congress, they've run the banking system for forever.
And the fundamentals of our economy are strong. Thank you Federal Reserve!!
Since the FDA controls the supply of meds and the CDC controls the demand, they've also had control of the parts of the health care system that really matter.
You mean the health care system that is constantly denigrated as being the most expensive in the world. I bow to the preeminent intelligence of such great bureaucracy.
We're about to rely on a foreign country as our sole source supplier for manned access to the ISS for at least several years.
Which begs the question, "So?" Really, what is there at the Space Station that is so critical to access? Jelly-fish in space? (Was watching a talk about that experiment on the cable access NASA channel a few nights ago.)
If Russia sent up a capsule and said, "Heh, Americans, this is your last chance for a ride home", and then refused to take any more American up, what exactly would we have lost?
Bolden said: “When I became the NASA administrator – or before I became the NASA administrator – he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering,”
Quit trying to rewrite history. It is what it is, and it ain't what you're claiming.
So what your saying is that Obama Care does exactly jack squat to reduce health care costs. Something I've was saying from the very start. It is all about shifting money around, and changing who pays for what.
Now, if Obama (or any of those Congressmen who are actually supposed to be writing the laws) had proposed building new medical schools, reducing the power of doctor groups to block out new doctors (to increased the use of nurse practitioners), removed the tax break for employer provided health insurance (so it would be the same if you bought it yourself, or went to a doctor that doesn't accept insurance), or anything that would actually reduce the COST of health care...then I might have found some desire to support the system. But at no point was there any measures introduced to actually reduce the cost, just shift the cost.
Your logic is confused. Small-governments in some of the various countries of Africa are ineffective. The one in Afghanistan is basically powerless, and has been for a very long time. Neither has anything to do with the US.
The model for the US should be more along the lines of the European Union. Independent states joined together with common goals. Instead, we've moved more toward the model of the former Soviet Union, with more and more power being centralized, to the point where the President can shakedown a private company for $20B, and the opposing party shuts down any dissent within their ranks, because they'll want to use that same power when their turn comes back around.
A strong central government has given the US nothing but more taxes, social manipulation, and foreign meddling.
At some point in the past, business owners found it profitable to install huge tanks and multiple pumps to sell gasoline. Running some wires to install a charging station is cheap in comparison.
The answer to the "plugging it in" problem also has a simple solution. Make the plug "drive-in". It would require some standardization, but basically a phalus extends from a charging device, with a cover that requires considerable force to drive back. Steel rails guide the vehicle as the drivers steers it into the plug. Less work than today's filler up procedure.
There have been some studies that indicate a restricted will extend life expectancy. It has been stated over and over that the biggest health concern among the American poor is obesity. Our poor people eat to damn much according to the staticians. It could be that Cubans don't eat themselves to an early grave.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're saying that it is 1.1 Library of Congresses hot?
They're all different ....now...., but give them time. Power likes to consolidate.
Keep in mind, the government was involved with directing the engineers on which solution to try when.
So build it smarter. Put the tank below the water line, thus using the sea itself to equalize the pressure. Your won't have to pressurize the pipes much at all. May not even need the pipes if you suck the water directly into the chamber.
You take Kevin Costner out of the story and the story is about some kind of cool oil separating centrifuges, not Kevin rushing in to save us from the oil which, we had in the meantime, been twiddling our thumbs and staring at.
Well, to be fair, the pipe has been pouring oil out for 3 months.
The dispersants make it easier for bacteria to get at and metabolize the oil. Yes, this has the effect of making the oil mix better with the water, which is a downside if you're trying to collect the oil. But the reality is, bacteria will do far more to clean up this oil spill than thousands of skimmers trying to collect some tiny fraction of it up ever will.
Which is great if they had spilled a few thousands of gallons...but not 60 thousand gallons every day. It doesn't take a large brain to realize that will overwhelm the ability of the ecosystem. Instead, we have an administration intent on dragging its feet, keeping sensible solutions at by, in order to create an even large natural disaster which can be used as a political pawn in the campaign for a cap-and-trade tax fiasco.
You've got an environment being destroyed, and the EPA blocks help because it only solves 97% of the problem? WTF? Then you've got the President shaking down the oil company and "kicking ass" (that is what we have courts for in the US), shutting down the rest of the industry (6% of the US GDP, and which has a good safety record), then going on TV to give a speech that everyone is hoping will be a plan on how to clean up, but is instead a promotional speech for a cap-and-trade tax regime.
Dispersants in this case are as dumb as the President that is getting in the way of the cleanup.
But:
* they are talking about 50 machines, not 3
* the oil is not spread out over the entire Gulf, and most of the oil WILL be in that first three inches of water. They won't have to process the entire volume of the Gulf.
* if left to its own course, most of the oil will flow to the surface in a small area. If these sort of measures were put into service right after the blowout, 90% of the oil would have been picked up and reprocessed.
Kudo's Joce640k.
This oil spill has been used political pawn to push a cap-and-trade agenda.
I also read the article thinking "Yet Another Hydrocyclone!" Which is a very well established technology for cleaning up produced water from an oil well.
Well, it will work well unless BP keeps dumping those dispersents into the mix.
How is a problem separating the heavy stuff and excuse to block the skimmers from separating the light stuff?
Is the Gulf of Mexico so small that 50 or so skimmers would block any other solution?
I thought the main point of the article was that the administration and BP have drug their feet for so long while dumping toxic dispersents in the water that the centrifuges won't work as well now.
The whole thing has been completely politicized. The media has turned it into some kind of circus.
You mean, like they did with Katrina? The were beating the hell out of Bush for not sending troops to take over a city in a matter of hours. Yet, here we have a slowly motion disaster where the current administration has actively worked against remediation steps. For pete's sake. Three friggin' MONTHS before a centrifuge can be "tested". Put one of the stupid things out there, and pay them for the oil collected. Sheesh!!
Instead, the current administration encourages BP to keep putting toxic dispersents into the water that do nothing but make it more difficult to clean the mess up. Dispersents would be great for a 100gal spill. It would disperse and spread thin enough to be non-lethal. It fails with 60,000 gallons every day. There isn't enough clean water to disperse into.
Instead of clearing the red tape to allow such conceptually simple devices to go to work, we have an administration that goes to court to shut down 6% of the nations economy, threatens arrest for reporters that take pictures of the disaster, and uses the bully-pulpit to campaign for a new and oppressive cap-and-trade tax regime.
Yeah. It was the press that was politicizing this.
Case in point....
The girl my son is dating claims to want to be a lawyer and a wedding planner. BTW, she idolizes the Kardashians.
Also, have a class that teaches kids how to cook.
It's called "English Class". If they can't read the directions on the side of the box....
(I jest, sir. I jest.)
I don't know. If the idea is to go around beating up on the fat kid, most high schoolers will love it.
Bodybuilders are some of the most unhealthy people I know. Your body does not store that much muscle and that small a percentage of supporting fat without an extremely abnormal diet (and hormonal supplements).
As always, the problem with big government is the requirement to oversimplify the world in order to make it manageable. Body weights, like so many other things, do not necessarily fall within a 'normal' range. Big government can't work without a systematic way to handle the abnormal.
It's good that the First Lady is raising the issue and making noise about childhood obesity. It's even better that she doesn't have the power of government to shove broccoli down all our throats ('cause I detest the taste of broccoli! Ugh!!)
Yeah, but if the head guys adopted this way of thinking, they would have to come in and support the direction the last guy was heading. When it is all said and done, the first guy will get all the credit, 'cause it was "his" program (even though "she" was the one that did all the work).
Can't have that, now can we?
The DoE has managed the energy policy for decades.
I seem to remember something about the electric power going out in the entire north east section of the United States. Glad that DoE is on the job. BTW, how are we doing with reducing our dependence on foreign oil?
Since the Federal Reserve is selected by Congress, they've run the banking system for forever.
And the fundamentals of our economy are strong. Thank you Federal Reserve!!
Since the FDA controls the supply of meds and the CDC controls the demand, they've also had control of the parts of the health care system that really matter.
You mean the health care system that is constantly denigrated as being the most expensive in the world. I bow to the preeminent intelligence of such great bureaucracy.
We're about to rely on a foreign country as our sole source supplier for manned access to the ISS for at least several years.
Which begs the question, "So?" Really, what is there at the Space Station that is so critical to access? Jelly-fish in space? (Was watching a talk about that experiment on the cable access NASA channel a few nights ago.)
If Russia sent up a capsule and said, "Heh, Americans, this is your last chance for a ride home", and then refused to take any more American up, what exactly would we have lost?
Bolden said: “When I became the NASA administrator – or before I became the NASA administrator – he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering,”
Quit trying to rewrite history. It is what it is, and it ain't what you're claiming.
Is this a recipe for success?
Yes. If you define "success" correctly?
8*)
or is that 8*(
personally I think NASA will be deader than Dixie in 5 years
Nah! It'll be doing just fine at its new mission of making Muslim nations feel better about their contributions to science and the maths.
So what your saying is that Obama Care does exactly jack squat to reduce health care costs. Something I've was saying from the very start. It is all about shifting money around, and changing who pays for what.
Now, if Obama (or any of those Congressmen who are actually supposed to be writing the laws) had proposed building new medical schools, reducing the power of doctor groups to block out new doctors (to increased the use of nurse practitioners), removed the tax break for employer provided health insurance (so it would be the same if you bought it yourself, or went to a doctor that doesn't accept insurance), or anything that would actually reduce the COST of health care...then I might have found some desire to support the system. But at no point was there any measures introduced to actually reduce the cost, just shift the cost.
Your logic is confused. Small-governments in some of the various countries of Africa are ineffective. The one in Afghanistan is basically powerless, and has been for a very long time. Neither has anything to do with the US.
The model for the US should be more along the lines of the European Union. Independent states joined together with common goals. Instead, we've moved more toward the model of the former Soviet Union, with more and more power being centralized, to the point where the President can shakedown a private company for $20B, and the opposing party shuts down any dissent within their ranks, because they'll want to use that same power when their turn comes back around.
A strong central government has given the US nothing but more taxes, social manipulation, and foreign meddling.
At some point in the past, business owners found it profitable to install huge tanks and multiple pumps to sell gasoline. Running some wires to install a charging station is cheap in comparison.
The answer to the "plugging it in" problem also has a simple solution. Make the plug "drive-in". It would require some standardization, but basically a phalus extends from a charging device, with a cover that requires considerable force to drive back. Steel rails guide the vehicle as the drivers steers it into the plug. Less work than today's filler up procedure.
How does Cuba have a longer life expectancy?
There have been some studies that indicate a restricted will extend life expectancy. It has been stated over and over that the biggest health concern among the American poor is obesity. Our poor people eat to damn much according to the staticians. It could be that Cubans don't eat themselves to an early grave.