You’ve heard the drum beat of “energy independence”.
You are aware that public opinion is fiercely opposed to nuclear energy.
Now ask yourself a question.
What could help steer public opinion towards nuclear?
… now don your tin foil hat…(go on, it easy to make)
Read the following:
“One of BP’s corner-cutting decisions was deciding against using a 9- to 12-hour procedure known as a “cement bond log,” which would have tested the integrity of the concrete. Although BP had a team from a leading oil services firm on board the rig, the team was sent home and told its services were not needed.”
Here’s the thing. The Deep Water Horizon was drilling at unprecedented depths – 5000ft of water and 30000ft of earth’s crust. I am told that the technology used in this type of operation is brand new and is being developed as we go along. The temperatures and pressures at this depth are something we’ve never dealt with before. So, in light of this, one wonders why BP should have chosen to willingly cut so many corners. One could understand overlooking one procedure. Two would be acceptable. Three procedures might be considered simply routine. But deliberately disregarding a series of procedures whilst operating in an environment we know very little about is at best irresponsible. The question is why?
And this is the “leading oil services firm” that left the rig. Not exactly Joe Blows’ shop around the corner.
In the recent past, there appears to be renewed interest in uranium mining around the world. Some of the majors (Areva) have struck deals in little fringe countries to mine an element that, I am reliably informed, is not exactly rare.
Then there is this:
“The Swedish Parliament on Thursday narrowly approved government plans to replace aging nuclear power plants with new ones, overturning a 30-year-old ban on new nuclear reactors and marking a change in the country’s policy of phasing out atomic power.”
We want energy independence but we don’t want to pay the real cost of energy. Oil is the one single product that permeates our entire lives either as energy input or as direct input in materials (plastic, fabric, alloys, fibers). However, although oil is not running out yet, it is getting more expensive and more dangerous to locate and recover from more extreme environments.
On the other hand, although renewable energy is today viable it is not yet scalable and probably will not be in the near future.
When you eliminate the impossible, what remains, however improbable, is the truth.
If we want energy independence on the cheap in our life time, we need nuclear energy.
But public opinion being so averse to the idea, how can we soften the stand of the masses?
One way to do it would be to create a devastating environmental accident involving the production of oil.
But as in all the best laid plans, if this indeed should be a false flag, it looks like it got out of hand.
Spare a thought for the people directly affected by what may well turn out to be a global environmental disaster and an event that has the potential to become life changing to more than just Gulf Coast residents.
Also note here that this disaster is taking place right at a time of great global financial stress that in many respects can be fatal to a number of sovereign countries not least of which some Western industrialized ones.
As far as politicians are concerned, a crisis or a tragedy is always a God send of an opportunity. But tragedy during a time of fatal financial stress is just what the doctor ordered. You may find me cynical but history is on my side on this. With the excuse of the tragedy, politicians and public officials now can freely ask and will obtain great sums to be disbursed for sundry relief projects and campaigns. We have started with a BP escrow fund of US$20B that will be partly borrowed from the banks.
But, by now, both you and I know that US$20B is really only a drop in the ocean to remedy what is going on in the Gulf of Mexico. I venture to say that this disaster will engender much greater sums that will be borrowed from banks and spent on projects of “public utility”. And of course, at this point how can anyone object to spending money to bring relief to those whose lives have been devastated? Of course, now that we are here, money must be spent with little regard to the how, why or what. This is an emergency. We spend first and ask questions later.
And that is a politician’s wet dream.