Gulf Oil Slick

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

The thing is, nature *may* already have a solution. See below:



There are bacteria that have evolved--without interference from humans--the ability to break down oil naturally. These microbes exist *now*. They are soil bacteria but anywhere there are large collections of oil it is possible to find them in the soil. Now, admittedly, it would be ideal if nature had thought to make oil-eating bacteria that lived in salt water but since there are bacteria that DO live in salt-water (bacteria live everywhere) and since bacteria, over a billion years ago, hit on the very, very cool trick of simply trading genes across different species (as if that word means a lot to bacteria) it seems to me to be a relatively trivial exercise to introduce the oil-eating bacteria to some salt-water dwelling bacteria and, in a remarkably short amount of time* we'd have a salt-water dwelling bacteria that eats oil. Introduce them to the spill and let the feasting begin.

Now, I know that some folks are going to say "hold on, wouldn't this be just as dangerous" to which I say "not necessarily", here's why.

1) As far as introducing the gene although it would be more efficient to simply find the gene(s) for salt-water dwelling and insert it into a colony of oil-eating bacteria, we probably don't have to do that. Nature could probably get there *almost* as fast because of the really fast bacterial generation. (The average bacterial species will go through in a year the same number of generations as there have been homo sapiens generations--roughly 20,000 or so)

2) If we're *really* worried about it, then we could engineer in a 'kill-switch'. Give them N amount of time to live after which cell division stops or something else which causes the bacteria to become inert.

This isn't science fiction, folks. The bacteria already exist and nature hit upon the idea first. The genetic engineering (if any) that might be necessary is *well* within what we know how to do and know how to do safely (as opposed to, say, deep water oil drilling). It's a non-toxic solution. The byproducts are methanol (alcohol), water and carbon dioxide. The CO_2 would be in the ocean where it *doesn't* contribute to global warming (and tends to get locked up as a calcium carbonate in the shells of mollusks). This is a win-win solution that is viable now.

An example of how science can kick butt! Now, I ask, is there the funding for the scientists that can make headway here? We don't seem to pump $ into our educational and research arenas like we do into oil production!!

And, last night after watching stuff on TV about the spill, I opened a box of cereal. As I was pulling apart the plastic-based pouch the cereal is in, I thought.... Hummmm, petroleum based product.... I opened up some other cabinets in the kitchen and looked in the fridge... plastic containers, kitchen appliances with plastic parts, plastic handles on some of my cooking ware pots... And the best slap in my face are all the plastic parts involved in all of the solar products I have installed!

It just isn't a matter of conserving gas and oil in our vehicles..... or switching to hybrids and electric cars and trucks. Ummm... which have a shit-ton of petroleum-based plastics in them!

Oh, and then there are the plastic recycling bins .....

And all of these products can be manufactured green via our tech know-how, but costs prevent our doing so. Now, where the hell are our priorities. That's right, buying cheap products from Asia made by people treated like shit and paid shit!

Whenever I get on my personal eco high horse, I take a look around my home and try to figure out how I can actually change some things in my little world. Not easy at all, given what drives our economy in a global sense. When I think about a future remodel of my kitchen and bathroom, I have found recycled glass counter tops, cabinets made without harmful chemicals and a garbage disposal system that is actually a composter, toilets that are waterless and composting and made from new less harmful plastics, tankless water heaters, energy-star washer & dryers, etc. The costs involved are about 50% higher than the usual appliances. So, my saving-up for these projects has to be increased. Also, as appliances break (i.e., washer & dryer, water heater), I can replace them with more eco-friendly ones prior to the whole remodel job. When I insulated my home, I used eco-friendly material and guess what? It actually was less expensive!

In the last 2 years, I have cut my electric and gas bill by over 20% with very simple changes. I don’t need a scalding shower and the degree water needs to be for sanitizing dishes is not that high!

Rebate and loan programs are available to help cut costs with these kinds of things. it’s the thinking part that takes work in making changes. And we need to fund the science that develops alternatives.

[Toughy]

BP IS STILL CALLING THE SHOTS. How does that happen?

I see two parts to this question.

First concerning stopping the hemorrhage of oil and gas: The reason BP is calling the shots is they have the technology, expertise and equipment. In other words they have the capability and capacity, along with Haliburton and TransOcean. They just haven't done this at 5,000ft....and are failing miserably with 31 yr old technology that did not work in 1979 when this happened in the Gulf and that was in about 200ft of water. That hemmorage lasted 9 months until the relief well was completed. That capability and capacity does not exist within the state and federal governments.

Second concerning mitigating the environmental damage. BP should not be calling the shots. The US government should be in charge of that. Unfortunately........BP is calling the shots. I am truly pissed Obama didn't step up and declare a national emergency and take over this aspect. This should be a FEMA response.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I see two parts to this question.

First concerning stopping the hemorrhage of oil and gas: The reason BP is calling the shots is they have the technology, expertise and equipment. In other words they have the capability and capacity, along with Haliburton and TransOcean. They just haven't done this at 5,000ft....and are failing miserably with 31 yr old technology that did not work in 1979 when this happened in the Gulf and that was in about 200ft of water. That hemmorage lasted 9 months until the relief well was completed. That capability and capacity does not exist within the state and federal governments.

Second concerning mitigating the environmental damage. BP should not be calling the shots. The US government should be in charge of that. Unfortunately........BP is calling the shots. I am truly pissed Obama didn't step up and declare a national emergency and take over this aspect. This should be a FEMA response.

Good points.

Even though I would love some fantastical mega-boss in charge of this whole mess, it isn't possible.

BP (espeially the CEO) makes me sick. However, this just isn't a single-entity situation in terms of regulation and responsibility.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

An example of how science can kick butt! Now, I ask, is there the funding for the scientists that can make headway here? We don't seem to pump $ into our educational and research arenas like we do into oil production!!

A

This is why I am concerned for the direction our country is taking. We really *could* have a crash program along the lines of Apollo to get us largely off oil. SciAm about 2 years ago, devoted most of an issue to a plan to have the US off fossil fuels for heating and electricity generation in twenty years! Off it *entirely* and the beauty of this plan is that it didn't require building any new nukes just a combination of wind, solar and geothermal along with underground transmission lines (we actually lose quite a bit of power using overhead transmissions lines). We could realistically be off of fossil fuels for private transportation within that time frame and, quite honestly, if folks were willing to slow their pace of travel a bit we could largely eliminate jet aircraft and use dirigibles for long-distance air travel. Yes, it would take longer but it would be ecologically more sustainable. With maglev trains (already existing) we could have transcontinental rail travel that would also be far more ecologically sustainable and all of this is technology that we have in hand *now*.

Our problem isn't one of basic science--there are some longer term problems that ARE basic science problems but how to get our fossil fuel use down quite a bit isn't one of them--rather it's a matter of political will. There is just no will to actually *do* the things that we need to do and, unfortunately, we as a culture are so entirely in thrall to this idea that if we just wait long enough the market will take care of it that we can't actually do anything. The market isn't going to take care of this one though.

Cheers
Aj