Whether you are for or against the Trump Administration’s promise to increase energy resources, it is hard to argue that they haven’t taken action to increase the production of natural resources across the US. After finally passing the pipeline that was blocked by the Obama Administration for nearly a decade, it isn’t going to be smooth sailing going forward for oil workers or the oil industry.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe won a battle in court at the beginning of this year that sought to block a pipeline built near their reservation. The reason for the diversion was that the Army disallowed the pipeline to be drilled on a section of the Missouri River that is dammed.
The Army began looking for alternative routes for the pipeline that, to date, has cost more than 3.7 billion dollars for the Dakota access. The construction plans that had the pipeline running right through the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation have continued to be a point of major contention since their proposal. The site of the pipeline would leave many on the reservations displaced and thousands of Sioux people with nowhere to relocate their camps. That would lead to a personal injury lawsuit against the construction of the pipeline.
The only way to address the situation, according to Jo-Ellen Darcy, who was the Army’s assistant secretary for civil works, is to find an alternative route for the pipeline. However, that could lead to a hold up that costs millions and puts millions who are currently working on the pipeline at a standstill. It is estimated that rerouting the pipeline could lead to halting construction for anywhere from months to years.
President Trump tried to overturn the provision for relocation initiated by the Obama Administration, believing that it was more important to complete the nearly two thousand mile pipeline that spans four states. Proclaiming that it is for the greater good, President Trump tried to push through the plans to reroute and stay the course through the reservation.
The Army’s decision through the Obama Administration was to have an environmental study initiated to find an alternative route that would be more “environmentally friendly.” Whether Trump will go with the measure to relocate the pipeline through commissioning an environmental investigation or not is anyone’s guess. His administration has failed to comment.
A sticking point is that Trump’s holdings own stock in the building of the pipeline, which may cause a conflict of interest. His involvement with the Energy Transfer Partners alignment, he maintains, has nothing to do with whatever the Administration intends to do or not do regarding the rerouting alternatives.
Energy Transfer Partners, however, has maintained that they are unwilling to reroute the pipeline, which seeks to transport over 550,000 barrels a day of oil to supply from North Dakota all the way to Illinois. Protesters from Greenpeace are very happy with the court’s decision to disallow the pipeline to destroy the reservation land, while those who want progress and energy to flow, as well as jobs, believe that it is a poor decision.
A spokesman for the MAIN Coalition, which is a pro-infrastructure group, has condemned the decision as being nothing more than politically motivated and in no way good for the common welfare of those people that the oil piping would service. Not based on any real rule of law, they maintain, it was a decision guided by politics and should not stand.
According to an oil field injury attorney, the legal challenges to the pipeline were made on the demonstration that the tribe was not only not consulted about the pipeline or the problems that it might create for the reservation, but that it would severely negatively impact their quality of life. If the pipeline were to run under the Missouri River reservoir, it would jeopardize the water source that is primary to the reservation. If the water is contaminated by oil, that could lead to a personal injury lawsuit. It was also argued that the construction itself would disrupt the sacred sites that rest near the lake, which would be violating tribal treaty rights.
The fight continues to wage over the legalities of the pipeline and its route through the reservation. As of April, the US Army Corps of Engineers maintained that there are no such historical properties that would be affected by the routing of the pipeline as was previously argued. There are no recorded cultural sites anywhere along the pipeline according to the Army, and the construction would not pose a threat to any drinking water.
Likely, the battle will wage on for quite a while between the Trump Administration and environmental groups. In the meantime, the government is shelling out millions for a project that is at a standstill until the legalities can be ruled on. A matter of personal injury and tribal treaties, there are many hurdles in sorting through it all.
Nuclear Power and Other Power Sources: How Do They Stack Up?
Most everyone dreads the idea of nuclear war because of the abject devastation it would inflict on planet Earth. Yet few connect the dots between nuclear weapons and nuclear power — the same energy that makes atomic bombs and nuclear missiles so threatening is also harnessed to power electrical grids and other forms of infrastructure. When properly contained, nuclear power is the cleanest and most abundant energy source available. With all the concern over climate change and environmental degradation, it begs a huge question: why is the United States of America not generating more — much more — nuclear energy?
Capital Investment vs. Production Costs
Looking at it from one angle, a larger nuclear energy capacity is a no-brainer. Making electricity from nuclear sources is cheaper than using coal, gas or petroleum, i.e. fossil fuels. On average, using 2011 cash value, electricity cost 21.56, 3.23 and 4.51 cents per kilowatt-hour from petroleum, coal and natural gas, respectively. Nuclear power came in at 2.10 cents per kW according to data received by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Yet these simple ongoing production costs fail to tell the full story.
To up the power generating capacity of nuclear sources, additional plants are necessary. Some argue that the savings in electricity production means the nuclear utilities pay for themselves. What, though, are they paying for…and how long until the payoff? Engineering and constructing a nuclear power plant is very expensive. In fact, 74 percent of the cost of nuclear-sourced electricity is in the capital costs of creating the physical facility and technology for that purpose. Some estimates range drom six-billion to nine-billion dollars. Others estimate over $5,300 per kW before it begins paying for itself…in 20 to 30 years. These figures make the prospect cost-prohibitive to many decision makers in government and business.
Plentiful Energy at Low Costs without Nuclear Power
Were we living back during the oil shocks and embargoes of the 1970s, the urgency factor would be much higher concerning nuclear power in the US. The abundance of discoveries and advancement of technology have made fossil fuels more available at modest prices. Coal and petroleum are each low compared to their peaks. With the advent of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” natural gas is ever more accessible and affordable. Though people may worry about the environmental effects of burning these substances, they are likely to continue usage to maintain a decent househild cash flow.
Lack of Knowledge
The absence of urgency mentioned above relates to a third factor about why Americans are not expanding their nuclear production capacity. Generations have passed that are not well-informed about the potential and reality of nuclear power. A dangerous accident at Pennsylvania’s Three-Mile Island facility in the 1970s scared public officials and policy makers into backing off of a pro-nuclear agenda. The improvements and replication found in today’s safety protocols have been ineffective in re-booting a national conversation. Granted, the United States operates 97 nuclear reactors, more than any other country. Yet only four more are under design and/or construction compared to 20 for China.
Furthermore, France relies on nuclear for three-quarters of its electricity; several eastern European nations, half; South Korea, in excess of 30 percent; while the U.S. can claim around 20 percent. Clearly, the public knowledge regarding how clean and abundant atomic energy is meager; awareness of past accidents — including the Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl meltdowns of recent decades were, by contrast, reported widely by media outlets.
Advocates of nuclear power have work to do to bring Americans on board. Otherwise, dirtier, cheaper sources will continue to reign.
Francisco Reynés: “We have to consider gas as the energy source with the most potential in the future”
Francisco Reynés, executive chairman of Naturgy (formerly Gas Natural Fenosa), has talked about the role of gas in the world as the energy source with the greatest potential in the future, at the 6TH IEF-IGU Ministerial Gas Forum celebrated in Barcelona, Spain.
Francisco Reynés has explained that the world “needs to talk about the different uses of natural gas and the gas technologies and innovations towards a sustainable energy future. We have to address the role of gas in the world as a future energy source, not only as a transition source of energy”.
“The uses of gas are, as we all know, well beyond those of power generation. Gas provides sources for non-energy uses, such as petrochemicals or fertilizers, which have no clear substitute”, he added.
About this possibility, Francisco Reynés has explained that “all of this will benefit and service the economic growth and development of the countries and economies around the globe. It is, indeed, a joint effort which we must all face with the utmost priority and the maximum care”.
Reynés has also insisted on the cooperation between governments, producers and even consumers to strengthen the security of gas supply on international markets. “The challenge for the future is how energy systems will evolve to meet greenhouse gas emission goals, and more stringent fuel quality standards while at the same time they respond to growing demand for affordable access to reliable energy services”, he concluded.
The 6th IEF-IGU Ministerial Gas Forum aims to sharpen a collective focus on energy policies, market trends, and technology options that enable the gas industry to deliver inclusive growth and successful transformations for a secure, inclusive and sustainable energy future. Energy and climate policies, gas technologies and innovations as well as market fundamentals are ever more co-dependent but also vary across geographies.
You can’t fight nature, but you can be ready for whatever she throws at you
The human race has got used to being in control of its surroundings, and yet we will never be able to truly prevent some of the most devastating catastrophes that our planet can throw our way. Yet we still strive to protect all the things we have built and worked hard for, and technology is helping us to do that on a day to day basis.
Tsunamis are a reality and we need to be prepared for them
Despite all the advances in our technology, we have not yet found ourselves able to avert the most fatal of natural disasters. The fact remains that our planet is far larger than we can possibly control and despite being considerably safer than several million years ago in the early days of the Earth’s life, it still has the capacity to be volatile and terrifying.
Some of the most devastating tsunamis in recent history have taken place in the last 60 years, with catastrophic loss of life and billions needed in humanitarian aid and reconstruction. The effects will last a lifetime for many areas as they try to recover and rebuild.
It is impossible to forget the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent tsunami in 2011. The consequences were absolutely devastating.
Striking Japan on the 11th March the earthquake reached an eye watering 9.0 magnitude, and generated a 33 feet high wall of water travelling as far as 6 miles inland. Some reports even record waves as high as 133 feet, with a 97-foot wave smashing into the city of Ofunato.
Around 25,000 people were killed or reported missing, and 125,000 buildings damaged or destroyed. But more worryingly the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant was also struck causing a nuclear meltdown. The disaster is recorded at the highest level of International Nuclear Event Scale. The impact of this event is still being fully understood, and radiation from the plant has been detected as much as 200 miles away, with many areas remaining uninhabitable and will be for many years to come.
The loss of human life can be staggering due to a tsunami that hits with no warning. Take for example the Boxing Day Tsunami of 2004 in the Indian Ocean. An unbelievable death toll of 230,000 was recorded across 14 countries including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and Thailand. The earthquake under the ocean was recorded at 9.3 magnitude, generating waves up to 93 feet high. Some waves hit land within 15 minutes, but some took as much as 7 hours.
Even those with time to evacuate were hard hit, mostly due to the complete lack of a tsunami warning system which meant very densely populated coastal areas being taken by surprise.
Early warnings save lives
By comparison, although damage to buildings and general destruction was widespread, the 2009 Samoa earthquake and tsunami saw a considerable lower death toll.
With an earthquake of 8.1 magnitude and waves reaching 45 feet high, that travelled up to a mile inland there were 189 casualties recorded. The loss of life would have been far higher if it wasn’t for the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre which gave people time to evacuate and reach higher ground.
There are several ways in which a tsunami can be detected. From recognition of symptoms, an earthquake can be quite hard to miss, to technological warnings from tsunami detection and forecasting. These are based on a combination of data collected by environmental sensors and using that data for tsunami modelling.
For example monitoring seismic activity and the magnitude of an earthquake can give an excellent warning of tsunami potential. However, it cannot be taken in isolation. For larger earthquakes it is easier to underestimate the size of the quake, and therefore miscalculate the tsunami potential.
Rapid sea level monitoring will give the best warning
When managing the data collected, those carrying out the analysis have a hard decision. Declare a tsunami imminent, and risk a costly unnecessary evacuation, or make the decision to issue the warning to the public so that emergency plans can be activated.
They also need to be able to indicate clearly from the modelling how large the waves will be and when they will strike. Importantly they need to know when the danger will be over so that people can return safely to the evacuated areas.
The issue is that tsunami detection and forecasting requires near-real-time observations from both coastal sea level instruments and open-ocean sensors. Fundamental gaps in coverage still exist, especially in open-water. This puts at risk the ability to give warning, and the ability to learn more about the behaviour of tsunamis after the fact which will further refine the accuracy of the modelling in the future. More coverage is needed, and the durability of the equipment a key factor.
New technology paramount for the detection of tsunamis
The installation of new tsunami buoys is without doubt the next step for addressing the coverage issue, and these buoys need to be smart with built in Tsunami Early Detection and Warning System. It needs to be able to detect an event and send that information to be centrally analysed.
Pressure sensors deployed in a water depth up to 7,000 meters can detect height variations on the water surface, and in order to resist the effect of the harsh elements and environments must be of the highest quality. It is now possible to obtain floats manufactured with a closed-cell polyethylene foam sheet that prevents water absorption.
In terms of positioning and communication, all can be managed through GPS, and redundancy in place for communications via satellite, with a reaction time of less than one minute and powered by a double solar power system. These buoys are so durable they can provide much better confidence that there will be no failure of service in remote locations.
They are able to transmit a NOAA Tsunami Warning System compatible message and monitor the sea level column changes to within 1mm. This kind of monitoring will be paramount for buying enough time for evacuation and prevent the loss of life seen previously.
Business6 months ago
Gutemberg Dos Santos and Robert Kiyosaki share their vision of leadership
Blog10 months ago
Easy, Safe and Without Ads: the Best Websites to Watch Movies Online in 2019
Technology12 months ago
Concerns and Limitation of Cyber Warfare
Europe9 months ago
The Best Handmade Souvenirs from Spain are Just a Click Away
Politics12 months ago
Strategic transport fleet: Achilles heel of French armed forces
Travel11 months ago
New Luxury Resort at Playa Mujeres, Mexico – Discover The Unknown
War and Military12 months ago
Is Damen’s MCM vessels offer a smokescreen for Belgium?
Travel10 months ago
How to Pack for Air Travel – Tips & Suggestions