How is our world going to be re-shaped and why? The industrial revolution

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Emma,

I am surprised how people can believe the lie that fossil fuels can cause extinction of life on the planet.
I was being hyperbolic at least to some extent. Extinction of all life on the planet is a possibility according to some sources, but I agree it's not likely. My point is that the ANS comparison of nuclear safety to fossil fuel safety, is not necessarily a fair way to judge whether nuclear power is truly safe.

I'm a little puzzled about what sort of safety issues and accidents are associated with solar PV panels, if that's part of their comparison.

One obvious contradiction is that we are being told that fossil fuels are almost exausted, yet these same fossil fuels are posing a threat of extinction to the planet because of C02 emissions. I bet they are affirming that the disaster is so imminent that it will happen before they are exausted. How convenient to say so.
This is an evolving situation. With development of fracking technology, the exhaustion of fossil fuels has been postponed, but not indefinitely. The threat of extinction, if indeed it exists, would be the result of a cascade of positive feedback effects including polar ice melt, release of methane from polar permafrost and clathrates, desertification, and loss of human habitat leading to nuclear war. CO2 alone couldn't accomplish the job.

It's still hard to say whether fossil fuel exhaustion or climate change is more likely to put an end to industrial civilization. And I am agreeing with you, it would be possible to fix both problems by aggressively moving to renewable energy sources and/or major strides in energy conservation.

In Italy, to drastically limit the use of renewable energy, they even managed to nip macro hydroelectric energy by a planned accident to a giant dam.
This one? The Vajont Dam? The collapse does seem planned, at least in the sense that the engineers & the Italian government ignored obvious signs of trouble for three years leading up to the accident. They even went so far as to suppress the work of journalists who were attempting to bring public attention to the situation.
 
This one? The Vajont Dam? The collapse does seem planned, at least in the sense that the engineers & the Italian government ignored obvious signs of trouble for three years leading up to the accident. They even went so far as to suppress the work of journalists who were attempting to bring public attention to the situation.
Yes, that one. The ultimate revelation is that the engineers not only knew the landslide that was impending on the mass of water, but they caused its falling down which then resulted in a mass of mud falling on the underneath little town. They say they did it to get rid of the landslide, because the dam was about to be nationalized and the price would be affected by the known presence of the slide. They did it overnight, when people were sleeping, so nobody would notice, and they say they believed the water would not overflow from the dam, which was full.

In both cases (slide fallen by itself, slide aided to fall) the blaim of these revelations is on greed. Greed of the engineering company just wanting to make money, with the collusion of authorities. Nobody says that the dam itself was built (or better, extended in height) to the purpose of creating a disaster. On the contrary, indignation in the public is being fueled by these revelations to the purpose of preventing future constructions of dams, because of the equation big dams=greed=disasters. In the best case, the equation is big dams=human incompetence or human error=disasters.

The site of the disaster has been adjusted to become a tourist attraction, so that more people get to know what happened and can get convinced of the equation as well.
 
Last edited:
Here is another environmentalist calling for blowing up all dams:

"In a scary new book called Time’s Up – whose free online version titled A Matter Of Scale you can read here – author Keith Farnish claims: The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization.”[…]

He (Farnish) believes – as the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt does – that mankind is a blot on the landscape and that breeding (or for that matter, existence) should be discouraged: “In short, the greatest immediate risk to the population living in the conditions created by Industrial Civilization is the population itself. Civilization has created the perfect conditions for a terrible tragedy on the kind of scale never seen before in the history of humanity. That is one reason for there to be fewer people, providing you are planning on staying within civilization – I really wouldn’t recommend it, though.”

Among his proposed solutions to this problem are wanton destruction: “Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage.”

NASA scientist James Hansen seems to endorse book which calls for ‘ridding the world of Industrial Civilization’ – Hansen declares author ‘has it right…the system is the problem’

https://www.climatedepot.com/2010/01/22/time-for-meds-nasa-scientist-james-hansen-endorses-book-which-calls-for-ridding-the-world-of-industrial-civilization-ndash-hansen-declares-author-has-it-rightthe-system-is-the-problem/
 
ARE OIL SPILLS INDUCED?

Following in my line of thinking that the elite is looking for ways to make most sources of energy appear not desirable for the envinronment, so that energy production can be highly limited in the future, to keep the population limited in numbers and poor, without access to the benefits of modern technology, I noticed the numerous oil spills that have been occuring since oil has become our main source of energy and transported by oil tankers, and wondered if these spills are induced. I strongly suspect they are.

I used to get angry when seeing the pictures of those poor sea birds all dirty and dark after being washed in a bath of oil, but not anymore. That is exactly the reaction we are being induced to have in order to hate oil and wanting its use to cease.

Now some information has reached me that point exactly in the direction of my line of thinking, supporting my idea that oil spills are generally induced, or favoured:

a Swedish company has manufactured and patented an oil tanker that is much safer than those currently used, reducing the risk of accidental spills, but no way: it's not accepted, even though it's more economical than the ones currently in use. Nobody is endorsing its use, not even environmentalists, that should be in the first line to push for its adoption, and should be screaming out loud this scandal.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/professionnels.htm

The COULOMBI EGG tanker design was developed by
Heiwa Co and Mr Anders Björkman, M.Sc., Naval Architect, 1990-1997. Maritime administrations, tanker owners, environmental defence groups, underwriters, P&I Clubs, oil spill prevention interests, media and the public were highly encouraged to support the COULOMBI EGG concept in the joint effort to make oil transport at sea safer and to prevent oil spills and spreading alien marine species around the world. Nobody did it until now (2018). So I just struggle on. Nothing wrong with that?
The COULOMBI EGG oil tanker design is the only alternative to Double Hull tankers approved by the IMO in accordance with Marpol I/13F(5) since 1997.

The US Congress has adopted laws to the effect that first - a COULOMBI EGG tanker (or any IMO approved alternative but the Egg is the only one) cannot trade to the US and second - that the USCG shall evaluate alternative designs to the US OPA double hull. But the USCG has never evaluated the COULOMBI EGG - only told the Congress that the COULOMBI EGG may spill oil. Without having done a proper evaluation!


Oil spills due to structural failures and fire/explosions were not considered by the USCG/IMO, when mandating double hull 1990/1992. Single hull tankers are apt to fracture due to corrosion and fatigue due to age and thus spill oil (e.g. the Erika, Kristin, Castor, Prestige, etc.). Double hull tankers are even more apt to fracture as the double hull is thinner steel and higher stressed structure and will start spilling oils at a younger age than single hull. Future and correct accident investigations of oil tanker accidents will prove this.

The COULOMBI EGG tanker is much more robust than both single or double hull due to its two tiers midheight deck structure and is much more easy to inspect and maintain. The safety is increased at reduced cost. Therefore it is the only tanker design for the 21st century.

Economy - The simplest reason to use COULOMBI EGG tanker protection is money. The COULOMBI EGG costs less to build and to maintain than Double Hull as there is less structure and a weight saving, even if the deck and bottom plates are thicker than Double Hull, fewer penetrations of stiffeners, less welding and a 70% reduction in surface area in the ballast spaces. There is also less cargo piping.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I find myself wondering if perhaps Mr. Anders Bjorkman is his own worst enemy, promoting his rather unlikely 'nuclear weapons hoax' theory as well as this tanker design from the same website. He appears to understand the benefits of 'compartmentalization', and perhaps it would benefit him to erect some sort of firewall between his ship design and his politics.

If I were trying to market a relatively conventional industrial technology, I would not try to do it on the same site as my personal / political blog. Bjorkman is presumably trying to sell his design to gigantic shipyard enterprises, which are by nature highly conservative.

As to the claim that double hull tankers are inferior in safety to single hull tankers, where's the evidence? Bjorkman simply claims that future investigations will reveal this. But he doesn't mention a single example of a major spill involving a double-hull tanker.
 
But he doesn't mention a single example of a major spill involving a double-hull tanker.
All oil tankers are double-hull tankers. So every oil spill comes from them.
Anyway, here you have the examples you wanted; to find them it was enough to follow the links indicated in the parts of text I copied for your convenience: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/lloydsconference.htm

As to the claim that double hull tankers are inferior in safety to single hull tankers, where's the evidence?
It's the same IMO (International Maritime Organization of the United Nations) that have assessed that, and as a consequence of oil spills from double hull tankers. You can read at his link:
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/lloydsconference.htm

"The Coulombi Egg oil tanker would hardly have been approved by the IMO unless the Exxon Valdez had run aground in 1989. In 1989 the IMO considered that a hydrostatically loaded single cargo tank bottom and lower single sides and topside ballast tanks on a tanker provided no protection against oil spills. According to Marpol 1973 and its Protocol 1978 the Coulombi Egg had zero protection against oil spill. The IMO had simply not drawn the correct conclusions of the casualty investigations available at the time.
In 1997 the IMO however considered the same arrangement better protection than double hull as Marpol had been amended! The IMO had learnt about the result of 250 oil tanker collisions."



As to the claim that double hull tankers are inferior in safety to single hull tankers, where's the evidence? Bjorkman simply claims that future investigations will reveal this. But he doesn't mention a single example of a major spill involving a double-hull tanker.
The future investigations he is talking about do not refer to his oil tanker, but to what he just said: Double hull tankers are even more apt to fracture than single hull tankers, as the double hull is thinner steel and higher stressed structure and will start spilling oils at a younger age than single hull. That is not something that depends on him to assess, but on the States involved when accidents occur, including making their findings available to all, as an IMO resolution recommends. But the States are not applying the IMO resolution in that respect.

"IMO resolution A.637 (16) (and IMO resolution A.440 (XI) long before that) was about the free exchange of information and public hearings, etc., and about Cooperation of the Investigation of Marine Casualties. Resolution A.637 (16) had recommendations according to the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (art. 94(7), art. 217(5) and art. 223)). An investigation of a marine casualty should, e.g. be public."

"The above principles, especially paragraphs 7.8 liaisons with agencies, organizations and individuals not part of the investigating team and 13, are very good but unfortunately they are not applied fully, when a big accident occurs at sea.

It is not emphasized that the results shall be available to innovators trying to improve safety at sea. It would be very easy to provide a database on the Internet with maritime accident data - causes of and means to avoid accidents and improve safety in order to liase with agencies, organizations and individuals. It is also obvious that new evidence altering the findings in relation to its cause must be fully assessed in a separate, new investigation."
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/lloydsconference.htm



I wonder if your position concerning his claims on oil tankers would be different if you didn't know about his claims concerning the atomic bomb. It seems that you are taking everything he sais with hostility, as if you are assuming that everything he sais is just false.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
All oil tankers are double-hull tankers.
Emma, the link you listed (twice) describes three accidents: Exxon Valdez 1989 (which is described here as single hull, although I've seen claims that it did have some double hull features), Erika 1999 (said to be single hull), and Estonia 1994, which was not an oil tanker at all, but a passenger ferry.

In 1997 the IMO however considered the same arrangement better protection than double hull as Marpol had been amended! The IMO had learnt about the result of 250 oil tanker collisions."
But the IMO is not comparing the Coulombi Egg to single hull! They've decided that the Coulombi Egg would be superior to double hull. They didn't say that single hull is superior to double hull.

The safety of the Coulombi Egg looks very difficult to evaluate to me. It seems to be relying on transferring oil from one compartment to another within the ship, to prevent spills. My guess is that the effectiveness of that strategy would depend on a multitude of difficult-to-predict factors.

I wonder if your position concerning his claims on oil tankers would be different if you didn't know about his claims concerning the atomic bomb.
I've tried again to read his pages about the atomic bomb. It seems to me that he starts with the assumption that it doesn't work. Then he has many, many paragraphs reprising everyone who has ever supported the atomic bomb, and asserting (without any evidence) that they are liars, frauds & etcetera. It does in all honesty seem to me that he's suffering from some sort of logical disorder, that he can't see how unlikely it is that all these people would conspire this way.

Here at this site we believe that the official story of 911 is in fact a conspiracy theory, and that all the real evidence points to an 'inside job' conspiracy instead. But our view is based on evidence, not bombast. And it would have been a relatively small conspiracy: very few people needed to know what was going on.

"Ad hominem" is not always a fallacious argument. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Non-fallacious_types
 
Emma, the link you listed (twice)
I listed it three times, not twice, because it contains all the answers to your various objections. Now, for your new objections I give up. Readers are intelligent enough to find the answers to them. It seems to try to explain the obvious to somebody who just want to prove false what this man in saying.

I have read again his pages on the atomic bomb hoax and I agree that it is not easy to find his arguments that disprove the bomb among the mass of writing. But I found them, and they make a lot of sense to me, far from being the delirium of somebody with mental disorders.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The COULOMBI EGG tanker is much more robust than both single or double hull due to its two tiers midheight deck structure and is much more easy to inspect and maintain. The safety is increased at reduced cost. Therefore it is the only tanker design for the 21st century.
The Coulombi Egg tanker is discussed in a 2006 book about tanker safety by Jack Devanney, called "The Tankship Tromedy: The Impending Disasters in Tankers". The book contains a very interesting analysis of the various causes of oil tanker disasters and oil spills, and provides a great many recommendations for tactics & strategies to improve tanker safety.

Devanney says that the Coulombi Egg is a specific example of a general type of tanker called a "Mid-Deck Tanker". The concept is to split the oil load into an upper tank and a lower tank, with the oil in the lower tank exposed to air above. This causes the oil in the two tanks to have lower hydrostatic pressure than the water outside the ship. If the hull is breached, water flows into the breached tank from outside. The oil inside that tank can be released to an empty ballast tank with a simple check valve.

So my complaint above about the inscrutability and unpredictability of the system, is wrong. The design is simple & elegant.

Double hull tankers are even more apt to fracture as the double hull is thinner steel and higher stressed structure and will start spilling oils at a younger age than single hull.
Devanney also discusses problems with the double hull design. He says that environmentalists became enamored of the concept even though it does little to prevent mega-spills. Devanney says that a big enough accidental breach can easily punch through both hulls.

The double hull does tend to reduce the rate of small spills. Some environmentalists claim that many small spills can be more damaging to the environment than a single large spill of the same amount of oil. So, the requirement for double-hull ships is politically untouchable, even though it's technically debatable.

The possibility of fracture of aging double-hull tankers is also a real concern. Structural failure, even without any accident, is a significant cause of large spills. As a possible antidote, Devanney suggests that the ballast gap between the hulls should always be "inerted". "Inerting" is the practice of injecting engine exhaust gases into tanks, to lower the amount of oxygen in the tanks. Devanney says that this process dramatically reduces the rate of corrosion, as well as preventing explosive accidents.

Devanney discusses that after Exxon Valdez, the entire tanker industry was forced to become more concerned about safety. The Exxon Valdez accident cost billions to clean up, and caused a massive hit to the industry's reputation.

Judging from the record since then, it seems that tanker operators must be taking many of Devanney's and other safety experts' recommendations to heart. Some of the advice is quite simple: avoid hiring captains with drunk driving records. Use of "inerting", and position and heading alarms coupled directly to GPS systems, are equally straightforward. It's not clear whether anyone is taking advantage of "egg carton" multiple tank designs, or positive hydrostatic pressure (Mid Deck) designs, but these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive to double hull.

At any rate, if the International Tanker Owners' Pollution Federation LTD can be trusted, the number of spills has declined remarkably since 1970.

https://maritimecyprus.com/2018/09/26/oil-tanker-spill-statistics-2017-and-other-major-oil-spills-in-history/

 
At any rate, if the International Tanker Owners' Pollution Federation LTD can be trusted, the number of spills has declined remarkably since 1970.
I made a quick search on the Internet and that is what all sources say.

However, another website highlights the following:

It is an environmentalist website which calls readers to action https://oceanconservancy.org/action-center/

What Have We Learned from 50 Years of Offshore Oil Disasters?
As oil spills have gotten bigger, Congress’ responses have gotten smaller

Last week marked the 50th anniversary of the start of the Santa Barbara oil spill. The anniversary got me thinking about the three major oil spills in United States waters—Santa Barbara (1969), Exxon Valdez (1989) and Deepwater Horizon (2010).

The three spills evidence a clear and troubling pattern—a major offshore oil disaster occurs in the United States every two decades. Each spill is worse than the last, increasing from 3 million to 11 million to 210 million gallons spilled. And Congress’ response to the spills has diminished.

This alarming trend tells us that we can learn from our past and do better!

On January 28, 1969, a blowout occurred about six miles from the coast on an oil platform operated by Union Oil near Santa Barbara, California. Over the ensuing ten days, more than 3 million gallons of oil polluted the ocean waters, coastlines and island shores. The spill killed thousands of birds and marine mammals. It was the largest oil spill in U.S. history at the time.

Twenty years later, in March 1989, the Exxon Valdez—a tanker carrying more than fifty million gallons of Arctic oil—hit Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Eventually, nearly 11 million gallons of oil spewed into the ocean, fouling beaches, birds and marine mammals.

Twenty-one years after the Exxon Valdez disaster, in April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank while drilling a deep-water exploration well in the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven people lost their lives in the tragedy, and more than 210 million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf.

Unfortunately, as the spills have gotten worse, Congress’s response to them has diminished. The Santa Barbara spill led to some of the bedrock environmental laws in the U.S. and in California. For example, public outrage after the spill was a factor in the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act—often called the “Magna Carta” of federal environmental laws. In the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which, among other things, mandated double-hulled tankers and made parties responsible for oil spills strictly liable for the costs of removing the oil and remediating the damage caused.

After the Deepwater Horizon disaster—the most recent and largest of the three major spills—Congress did nothing to address the series of deficiencies exposed by that accident in the regime governing offshore oil and gas operations. The lack of congressional response certainly was not because updates and changes weren’t needed. The disaster prompted President Obama to create the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, which identified a series of significant statutory changes that could help prevent a disaster like the Deepwater Horizon in the future, including improving preparedness and response. Congress debated bills that would have taken steps like raising the cap on corporate liability and reforming insufficient reviews of spill response plans. Ultimately, Congress did not pass any of that legislation.

Under President Obama, the Department of the Interior, the agency charged with overseeing offshore oil and gas operations, did take some steps to improve preparedness and response. President Trump’s Department of the Interior, however, has already taken steps to roll back some of these important new protections and is considering additional changes.

At the same time it is rolling back preparedness and response rules, the Trump administration is considering a risky and unnecessary expansion of offshore oil and gas leasing. President Trump’s direction to review existing plans and rules resulted in the release of a 2019–2024 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Draft Proposed Program (DPP). The DPP (which included leases sales in virtually every ocean area in the U.S.) has drawn substantial opposition from many coastal communities and governors. And, while it’s unlikely that leasing will take place in all of those areas, the enormous scope of the Trump administration’s proposal raised serious questions about the government’s capacity to properly plan and evaluate impacts on such a scale. And once again, it prompted calls to amend the laws that govern offshore oil and gas activities.

Allowing oil and gas leasing in remote, risky places is dangerous and short-sighted. Rather than rushing ahead, we must do more to prevent the next spill from occurring.

We can take steps to protect important places and to prevent drilling and other operations in risky locations. We can also encourage Congress to take the needed action to strengthen existing laws. As an initial step, let’s tell President Trump that his efforts to expand offshore leasing are unnecessary and unwise. The Administration needs to hear from thousands of people like you from across the country that it’s not ok to put important places in our ocean at risk.

https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/2019/02/05/learned-50-years-offshore-oil-disasters/
 
Last edited:
Top