As new estimates show the Gulf oil spill to be the biggest in U.S. history, and images of birds and sea turtles covered in oil begin to surface, the call to end offshore drilling in this country is growing.
While images of oiled wildlife and beaches hit us in the gut -- and are part of the reason I got involved in ocean conservation decades ago -- there's another reason why it's time to stop drilling for oil in our oceans. It might not have a face or feathers, but it's just as important.
The reason is this: The stubborn push to continue drilling not only fouls our oceans and contributes to climate change, it weakens our ability to join the emerging market for clean energy -- specifically offshore wind.
There are several hundred offshore wind turbines installed in Europe, and even China has begun building offshore wind. In comparison, the U.S. is embarrassingly far behind when it comes to utilizing our ocean breezes. Fortunately, several offshore wind projects cleared some major hurdles this year, and it's possible that we have our country's first wind turbines off the coast of Delaware and New Jersey in the next few years.
But the industry is still in its infancy, and offshore rigs compete directly with the nascent U.S. offshore wind industry for the small number of specialized equipment, ships and marine engineers.
Driven by studies showing that offshore wind could provide enough electricity to power the entire country, the Obama administration has encouraged the growth of an offshore wind industry.
But if the government wants to do more than just pay lip service to clean energy, then it's time to stop pushing for more offshore drilling.
We cannot drill our way to energy independence. The United States holds an estimated 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, yet we generate about 25 percent of the world's demand. And according to the government's Energy Information Association, even once full production is achieved, which wouldn't be before 2030, new offshore drilling would have a negligible effect on oil prices.
This week Obama announced a moratorium on new permits to drill new deepwater wells, and he suspended the planned exploration in Alaska, canceled a planned August lease sale in the western Gulf of Mexico and canceled a proposed lease sale off the coast of Virginia.
This is a huge step forward, but a six-month moratorium is not enough. We need a complete moratorium on offshore drilling, like the one that protected most of the U.S. coastline for 25 years.
Join the more than 60,000 people who have already signed Oceana's petition to stop offshore drilling -- tell President Obama and Congress that you want clean energy, not more dirty, dangerous drilling.
Ted Danson is on the board of Oceana.
Bill McKibben: Missing the Real Drama of the Deepwater Horizon Blowout
Barbra Streisand: Corporations Won't Self-Regulate
Andrew Winston: Five Lessons from the BP Oil Disaster
Angela Perkey: Nashville: Singin' in the Rain
Wind energy is a destroyer of global wealth.... it effectively keeps poor people poor.... but my God, it makes narcissistic American actors feel sooooo good.
BP Oil Leak May Last Until Christmas in Worst Case Scenario
By Jessica Resnick-Ault and David Wethe
June 2 (Bloomberg) -- BP Plc’s failure since April to plug a Gulf of Mexico oil leak have prompted forecasts the crude may continue gushing into December in what President Barack Obama has called the greatest environmental disaster in U.S. history.
BP’s attempts so far to cap the well and plug the leak on the seabed a mile below the surface haven’t worked, while the start of the Atlantic hurricane season this week indicates storms in the Gulf may disrupt other efforts.
“The worst-case scenario is Christmas time,” Dan Pickering, the head of research at energy investor Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. in Houston, said. “This process is teaching us to be skeptical of deadlines.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-02/bp-oil-leak-may-last-until-christmas-in-worst-case-scenario.html
This doesn’t even factor blown well casing into the time line.
Just what are you people smoking?!?!
How can something that is creating waste that will last for millions and millions and years...
- What am I talking about? Nuclear waste is not "waste"! -
Nuclear waste is poison. Poison that has been man-made and engineered to stay around for millions of years... and for each of those millions of years has the potential to kill every human being on the planet hundreds of times over, just from it poisonous (not even the radiation) attributes!
Also, uranium is NOT an infinite source! It is a fossil fuel, that will run out in the very forseeable future. Possibly even before coal becomes too expensive to use as energy source!
This calling for nuclear energy is just more cowardly avoiding responsibility and shifting it on our descendants. Shame on everyone who thinks that we have the right to load that heavy a burden on our children!
Building 100's of new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technological advancement.
I have been working with nuclear power for 30 years, I would be glad to have a new Nuclear power plant or high level "waste" storage facility in my backyard. My family and I live in a home within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. (Where I work) I understand the risks involved and I’m completely comfortable with a plant "in my backyard". I have confidence that our kids will be smart enough to treat the nuclear "waste" as a valuable resource or at least to handle it safely. If the cavemen thought their children would be too stupid to use fire safely, where would we be now?
Using Chernobyl as a reason not to build is like saying because of the Hindenburg I will never fly in a commercial airliner.
Nuclear power has the smallest environmental impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced. One fuel pellet about the size of a pencil eraser produces the same energy as about 1 ton of coal, and if reprocessed most of what’s left can be reclaimed. Nuclear power is our best option for reliable, environmentally friendly base-load electrical power.
Bear in mind the time it takes to turn the Ship of State. If the numbers are correct (2% of reserves versus 25% of demand) then a total moratorium on US oil will be a coup de grace against the Republicans who believe we're holding out on drilling, without starting a revolution. As political sleight of hand, Obama has everyone looking at the moratorium as an environmental knee-jerk reaction, when in fact it's stalling the oil lobby while our environmental industry spins up. Even if BP et al double the price of gasoline to retaliate, it won't matter. The popular opinion will trend toward belief that we're getting the kinks worked out of the oil drilling process before we start again: even if that takes a decade.
Someone mentioned earlier about wind energy disturbing global wind patterns. Nothing to worry about. A building disturbs wind more than a windmill and we have no problem putting up buildings. Once these props get spinning the wind just keeps em moving through momentum.
Amazing how whoever created this place gave us everything free.
One 5 megawatt wind turbine can produce enough energy to power 1,400 households.
And it's clean and it's free. And the industry will create tons of clean jobs.
It's gonna happen. It's just a matter of how soon. Each one of us needs to get out and vote for leaders who get it and aren't going to try make excuses why it's not feasible.
We need to vote for Senators and Congress men and women that are strong supporters of the Clean Energy Bill which puts a price on pollution and provides incentives for clean energy.
Obama's pushing it. The Republicans are unanimously opposed. Some of the Democrats are dragging their feet and not supporting it. But I think the winds have changed.
We need a massive scientific and engineering effort to solve these technical problems. Then wind will be a viable option.
"Wind is a good source of energy, but it is a poor source of power."
nuclear plant to replace wind farm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/28/haverigg-turbines-nuclear-power-plant
The site was subsequently expanded to a total of eight turbines after £6m additional investment. Haverigg was still one of the most efficient wind farms with a 35% "capacity factor" - or efficiency - compared with an average of 30%, said Palmer.
"Its worth pointing out that we could build up to 3,600 megawatts of low or free CO2 power compared to the 3.5MW or so of wind power that we might replace.
cost per kWh: wind = 5.42p; nuclear = 2.8 p
lifetime wind = 15 yr; nuclear = 50 yr
lifetme carbon footprint (gC02 equivalent/KWh):
wind = 4.62(land)/5.25(sea); nuclear = 5.00