More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

I was relaxing at the beach a few weeks ago, and it struck me: thousands of people in the Gulf can't visit the beach this summer because of the oil spill. Beaches are soiled, wildlife is under siege and livelihoods have been ruined.

So when are we going to do something to make sure a disaster like this doesn't happen again?

Big Oil is like a pusher who wants to sell us one more hit, and who wants us to believe that the alternative isn't worth it.

Well, it's time to tell the pusher we're going clean. Our oil addiction is preventing us from finding clean energy solutions that could stimulate our economy and make us world leaders in clean energy technologies.

Yes, the pusher is going to continue to propagate the myths we've been hearing about offshore drilling: that it will lower the price of gasoline; that it will make us energy independent; that it's safe; that we need the energy; that its jobs are irreplaceable.

We shouldn't believe the sales pitch, instead let's look at the facts.

The Energy Information Agency (EIA) showed that allowing drilling on all of our coasts would only lower gas prices about three cents per gallon, and not until 2030. The EIA has also shown that we only reduce imports from about 60% to 58% if we open the remainder of our coasts. That's not even close to energy independence.

Building a clean energy manufacturing base in the Gulf of Mexico could provide even more jobs than offshore drilling, and this technology can be exported globally, to strengthen our economy. And it doesn't spill.

Instead of listening to the pusher, we should be asking ourselves: Do we need the energy offshore drilling provides, or could we get it another way, and alleviate the risks of drilling?

Here's the deal -- the Gulf of Mexico provides about 8% of our oil. That amount could be replaced through conservation, energy efficiency programs and clean energy. If we stop offshore drilling now, ongoing production in the Gulf of Mexico could serve as a bridge, while these new programs get underway.

What would it take to cut our oil use by 8%, or 1.6 million barrels of oil per day? Here's one example of a way to do it in five-steps:

  1. Using fuel more efficiently in shipping could save 108,000 barrels of oil each day. Studies from the International Maritime Organization show that operational and technical changes available today could achieve these reductions and more.
  2. Shifting 25% of homes from oil heat to more efficient electrical heat could save 213,000 barrels of oil each day.
  3. Replacing oil in power plants with clean energy such as offshore wind could reduce demand by 210,000 barrels of oil each day.
  4. Replacing about 10% of the cars on the road today with electric ones could save 576,000 barrels of oil each day.
  5. Advanced biofuels derived from non-food sources like algae and switchgrass could ultimately replace all of the oil we get from the Gulf of Mexico. But even if we used just 15% of that projection that could supplant oil demand by another 600,000 barrels per day.

These five steps can be varied to emphasize one or the other more or less to get us an energy plan that would make Gulf drilling unnecessary. The additional electricity demands it creates could be satisfied by clean, carbon-free energy. We could have 20 Gigawatts of offshore wind capacity installed by 2020. Together with solar power, land-based wind and other solutions, we can get more than enough clean energy to cover the additional demands on the power grid.

Although innovation is a powerful force, those that benefit from the status quo have the resources to influence public opinion and public policy. But we, the people, still have the final say. Let's stop listening to the myths and start taking common sense steps to break our oil addiction.

Join the more than 135,000 people who have signed the petition to stop offshore drilling.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:16 PM on 07/31/2010
Natural gas burns clean, and is produced in America, where we have enough reserves within our borders to provide all energy needed in the US for 200 years if it were to replace oil in cars and coal in power plants.

Why is this administration battling against natural gas???
02:39 PM on 07/31/2010
Thank you Jackie! You are right:
“Big Oil is like a pusher who wants to sell us one more hit, and who wants us to believe that the alternative isn't worth it. Well, it's time to tell the pusher we're going clean. Our oil addiction is preventing us from finding clean energy solutions that could stimulate our economy and make us world leaders in clean energy technologies.â€
The human cost of the oil spill and BPs corruption is huge, not only with this oil spill disaster, but with many other losses of life on other BP rigs.

Everyone please take a look at the following tribute by Steve Joynt to the 11 men who died on the Deepwater Horizon, “Oil spill Day 100: The 11 men who died on the Deepwater Horizonâ€

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/oil_spill_day_100_the_11_men_w.html

We can never lose sight of the human cost of BP’s and others’ malfeasance.

And be sure to read Robert Reich’s article, “The Final Lesson of BP†here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-final-lesson-of-bp_b_662963.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
08:26 AM on 07/31/2010
Wind electric generation happens when the wind blows, not when I need power, nuclear power plant electricity on the other hand, can be produced on demand, when I need it most.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sheldon101
sheldon101blog.blogspot.com Wakefield transcripts
03:07 AM on 08/02/2010
I'm under the impression that nuclear power plants are happiest when they run at constant power and that you want to use them for base load. Natural gas plants are better at meeting peak demand.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
05:29 AM on 08/02/2010
Nuclear power plants are entirely capable of load following, but as fuel is a small % of total cost, it is much more economical to run at 100%. Using numbers which are for example only; it costs $100,000.1 per day to run a nuclear power plant at 100% or 1,000 Mwe, it costs $100,000.0 per day to run a nuclear power plant at 10% power or 1 Mwe. Any time you can produce something for less, you improve profit, that is the main reason they do not load follow. That being said, nuclear power plants are designed to run at 100% and work best at that constant power level, systems can be "tweaked in" for maximum efficiency.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
05:38 AM on 08/02/2010
Conversely, a natural gas fired power plant has a huge portion of it's total cost in fuel. Again just for example; it costs a natural gas power plant $200,000 per day to run at 100% or 1,000 Mwe., it costs $20,000 per day to run at 10% or 1 Mwe., making the cost per megawatt stay fairly constant.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
08:21 AM on 07/31/2010
Electric heat in most cases just adds a layer of inefficiency, if natural gas is used to turn the turbine to make electricity then that electricity is sent to be converted to heat in an electric heater how can that be more efficient than using the natural gas to heat the home directly? Unless that electricity is produced by safe, clean nuclear power, it just doesn't help.
10:38 AM on 08/02/2010
The "efficiency" of oil heat does not take into account the inefficiencies of drilling for oil (i.e. oil spills) or climate change. The benefits of shifting to clean energy are broader than just a straight efficiency comparison.

And yes, the power should be supplied by clean energy, that is the point. Offshore wind would also be a good option, but it's not the only option.
10:58 AM on 07/30/2010
I think there's a general perception that doing all those things you outline to reduce dependency on oil will cost lots and lots of money. What we really need, I think, is to demystify this process. As you note, lots of organizations (governmental, private, and NGO) have spent years mapping out processes. In fact, a clean energy summit just met to lay out a road map for how to stimulate the economy, create clean energy jobs, and reduce our dependency on fossil fuels:
http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/CEMSM.pdf
Thing is- what they're saying in this piece isn't new. We've been saying this all along!

I think in general, the sustainability movement needs to communicate and market its goals better, in a way that attracts folks from all spectrums. Perhaps the general public also needs to take a few more seconds to consider the science, instead of just listening to brief soundbites. These issues are compex.

How can we better communicate? By provide the facts like you do above, by having sexy ad campaigns that discuss the job potential of different non-fossil energy sources, by having financial and energy people perform robust life cycle costing of both fossil- and non-fossil energy sources to more honestly inform the public of the costs of each.

Keep up the good work!!
photo
Paul Horton
Social Entrepreneur - Championing Creative
09:10 PM on 07/29/2010
Hemp for Fuel

One estimate claims that if just 6% of the land in America was dedicated to growing Hemp,
we could produce enough biofuel to cover our energy needs.

When it comes to deriving fuel from organic matter the key words are biomass & cellulose
and when it comes to the percentage of biomass – cellulose and the tonnage per acre,
Hemp beats out all other plants. Depending on the reports cited Hemp provides from 4 to 50
even a 100 times the cellulose of corn, sugar cane and other matter used for fuel.

Hemp biomass is a sustainable, annual farm crop that is free of sulfur and other contaminants,
and therefore burns relatively cleanly. Hemp is the single most productive, practical and
profitable biomass farm crop on Earth: 10 tons or more of raw product per acre in
temperate climates over approximately four months.

Every year, throughout the growing season, hemp produces enough oxygen to balance all
the CO2 it will later put into the atmosphere if burned as an energy source. A cleaner
environment means fewer health problems, which benefits the insurance and health
care industries, as well as the individual and society as a whole.
03:42 PM on 07/29/2010
Big Oil will be so disapointed to here that.