====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
I didn't raise nuclear energy once in my reply to the good doctor from Oregon. The posting of such tripe, as well intentioned as the poster meant, I'm sure, demeans the general standards of Marxmail when discussing issues of science. This is why I only addressed the issue of energy as a 'heat source' and other nonsense. Mark and others clearly agree. But Louis raises an interesting question...meant as sort of a 'jab' at more quite public position of advocating more, not less, nuclear energy, specifically to address the climate crisis. The answer, however, may not be the one expected by him since when I wrote "interesting", I quite meant that. To wit...first, the oil companies are perniciousness in their lust for oil and the revenue it generates for the stock holder owners. Oil companies, as well, like all fossil fuel enterprises, but most notably the "gas" part of the oil business, are quite anti-nuclear as well. This is one reason you see oil and gas companies touting things like solar and wind but never, ever, it seem anyway, nuclear. Wonder why? But that too is a digression...here is my main point and answer to Louis: If BP *WAS* a nuclear reactor builder or operator, it would be quite a different state of affairs in the Gulf. Namely, it is like to have never happened in the first place. This has to do with the way components for nuclear reactors are built and, as importantly, the way they've been run. Unlike BP and the government 'regulator' the "Bureau of Mineral Management", nuclear is held to a quite higher standard. I wrote this the wake of the Gulf disaster for several other blogs and mailing lists. It is short and I believe it will answer Louis' question: We need to apply nuclear standards to oil drilling!June 28th, 2010 The Gulf is slowly in it's death throws. Maybe if "they" get it capped in time, it will not be destroyed. Unlike many on the political Left, I don't rush to argue that drilling needs to be stopped altogether. [I do support it being stopped for the time being, however, or at least the exploratory side of drilling as opposed to existing wells]. This helps no one. What does need to happen, is that BP ought to be expropriated with no compensation. This is not *only* the socialist inside me arguing this. It's what they deserve. Secondly, we need to start taking back OUR resources from those that ruthlessly, and carelessly, exploit them. How many people know that much/lots/most of that oil they pump out is sold on the *world* market and is not directed toward the U.S.? This gives a lie to the idea that supporting off shore oil drilling "helps Americans". Hardly. An interesting factoid me thinks... But more to the point. The political-economy of this disaster aside for a bit, part of this issue is why they drill in deep water and under what kind of regulations. We know now that the "Build oil refineries in Yellowstone Park party" Interior Sect'y under Regean, James Watts, built this fake regulatory committee to 'oversee' the oil companies so they wouldn't be stymied by real regulations like the NRC does with the nuclear industry. So...what does this all mean? Well, for starters, we ought to have a serious open ocean regulatory authority like the NRC has with nuclear: completely financed by fees levied on oil extraction (a national oil excise tax to start wouldn't be bad). Secondly, they would have the right to stop, inspect, throw-in-jail, anyone in the industry that could potentially cause harm to people first and then the environment...exactly as the NRC does today. This means WELL PAID inspectors who live under constant auditing provisions of their income. It means a top-level Commission, not a small committee buried in the Interior Dept. Thirdly, all drilling equipment would have to be "N-stamped". The "N-Stamp" on a piece of equipment means that it was produced at a facility designated as modern enough, precise enough, with enough exacting standards to make nuclear equipment for our nuclear power plants. There are only about 50 facilities in the US with "N-Stamp" approval. This stamp is issued by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers <http://www.asme.org/> is recognized not only by the NRC but also nuclear regulatory agencies around the world. The Nuclear Component Certification Program<http://www.asme.org/Codes/CertifAccred/Certification/Nuclear_Accreditation.cfm>of ASME is extremely tough and covers everything from component design to component alloys to tolerances to installation. It is a *higher* standard than that which NASA and the FAA applies to aerospace. This is the reason there are no catastrophic *equipment* failures in the US and most of the worlds nuclear industry that uses ASME certification. If the blowout preventer had been built to NCCP/ASME specs, it simply would not of failed. Yes it would cost BP and every oil drilling company money...but so what? NRC application to oil drilling *procedures* would insure the huge miscommunication and BP's insistence on short cuts would of been...short cutted right off the rig. This would of included the right of "Right of Line Stop" by *anyone* on the rig if they suspected anything was amiss. This means anyone could shut down the process for an immediate investigation with no questions asked and liabilities put on the company for any harassment of any employee engaging in a line stop call. D. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
