Oil is a global commodity, so oil drilled in the US would not have to stay
here (Photo courtesy of the Minerals Management Service)
There’s been a lot of talk lately
about drilling for more oil off the American
coasts. Rebecca Williams reports that oil
is not required to go to the US markets:
Transcript
There’s been a lot of talk lately
about drilling for more oil off the American
coasts. Rebecca Williams reports that oil
is not required to go to the US markets:
Oil is a global commodity. Oil drilled in the US would not have to stay
here.
But most of it probably would.
Alan Good is with Morningstar. He analyzes the oil and gas industries.
“It would generally go straight to America because it would incur the lowest
transportation costs to get to the United States refineries.”
But Good says it would be at least a decade before that oil would come
online. And even then it’s not clear how much offshore drilling here would
reduce imports from the Middle East.
“It will help somewhat with imports but it’s not likely to make a huge dent.”
And he says it’ll probably have little effect on the price you pay at the pump
because world demand drives oil prices.
The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants
Congress to lift its ban.
(Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)
President George Bush says Congress
should remove the ban on offshore drilling
because there might be a decade’s worth of
oil off the US coasts. Lester Graham
reports that might be an optimistic estimate:
Transcript
President George Bush says Congress
should remove the ban on offshore drilling
because there might be a decade’s worth of
oil off the US coasts. Lester Graham
reports that might be an optimistic estimate:
The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants
Congress to lift its ban.
At an Ohio factory, President Bush talked about wanting to find more oil in the U.S.
“One place where there is, the experts say is, a bountiful supply of oil, perhaps as much
as 10 years’ worth at current consumption rates, is the Outer Continental Shelf. That
would be offshore America.”
But the President’s numbers don’t add up.
The Energy Information Administration estimates off-shore there’s 18-billion barrels of
crude oil that are currently off-limits. The U.S. consumes more than seven-and-a-half
billion barrels a year. That means 18-billion barrels would only last the U.S. less than
two-and-a-half years – not the ten years the President suggests.
Some people find wind turbines unsightly, and would prefer them off-shore (Photo courtesy of the EPA)
There’s a lot of wind along coastal
areas… perfect for wind turbines. But a lot
of people don’t like the idea of windmills
ruining the view. So, why not put them out
in the water, just out of view from the beach?
Projects have been planned or proposed or just
rumored off the coast of places such as southern
Georgia, Delaware, Cape Cod, and Michigan out
in Lake Michigan. There are already some off-
shore wind turbines operating in Europe. Thijs
Westerbeek is the sustainable
development expert with Radio Netherlands. He
says off the coast turbines are more popular
than wind mills on the land:
Transcript
There’s a lot of wind along coastal
areas… perfect for wind turbines. But a lot
of people don’t like the idea of windmills
ruining the view. So, why not put them out
in the water, just out of view from the beach?
Projects have been planned or proposed or just
rumored off the coast of places such as southern
Georgia, Delaware, Cape Cod, and Michigan out
in Lake Michigan. There are already some off-
shore wind turbines operating in Europe. Thijs
Westerbeek is the sustainable
development expert with Radio Netherlands. He
says off the coast turbines are more popular
than wind mills on the land:
Thijs Westerbeek: “Actually, the public reaction is excellent, because the whole
‘nimby effect’ doesn’t occur. The thing where you like wind energy, as a
principle. You like this big mill turning around and producing clean electricity.
But you just don’t want it in your backyard. You don’t want the noise, you don’t
want the flickering effect of the sun shining through, you don’t want birds to fly
into this, and you certainly don’t want to see it. Now, if the wind turbines are off-
shore, and far enough off-shore, that problem just doesn’t exist.”
Lester Graham: “One of the concerns is that the windmills will be an eyesore.
Can you see them from shore, and does it disrupt the seascape for either folks
on the beach or boaters?”
Westerbeek: “Well, that just depends. The two small-ish windparks, they are in
front of the coast of the Netherlands, are pretty far-off. You can just see the tips
of the blades. So that isn’t really much of a disturbance. The two gigantic
windparks, off the coast of Denmark, are actually a tourist attraction. People go
to see them.”
Graham: “What kind of problems are they for marine animals and sea birds
when they’re off-shore?”
Westerbeek: “This has been tested by scientists in Denmark. And they counted
1.2 million birds passing through, and not one was hit. The birds just see the
turbines. That’s just not a problem.”
Graham: “What kind of problem do they pose for ship navigation?”
Westerbeek: “Until now, and I’ve checked this with the Maron Research Institute
– that’s the maritime research institute here in the Netherlands – there haven’t
been any accidents yet. And that’s mainly because windparks are typically built
on sandbanks where there can’t be any traffic. However, if they would be built in
sea-going routes, and a ship would bang into it, you have a possible disaster on
hand, because the turbine will collapse – hopefully not onto the ship – but if it
does fall onto the ship, that could be possibly disastrous. So the suggestion of
this scientist at Maron that I called was ‘don’t build any windmills in, for instance,
the North Sea, which is just too busy’.”
Graham: “How do they get the power from the windmills off-shore to shore? You
have to have some kind of cable, I assume.”
Westerbeek: “And that’s a problem. Because the further windparks are off-
shore, the more expensive it’s going to be to get that power on-shore. And with
rising prices for copper, that really is a problem. The cable could ultimately be
more expensive than the park itself. Off-shore windparks are definitely much,
much more expensive than on-shore windparks. That is a fact. But they are a
political solution. People who don’t want on-shore parks for the reasons I named
– unsightly things, noisy things – that is just solved, that problem, if you have an
off-shore park. So, yes, they are costly, and maybe too costly, but it’s a political
choice to have them built.”
While the tower is around 3 miles north of Cleveland's shore, a viable wind farm would need to be at least 6 times farther out in Lake Erie. The wind monitoring tower measures the speed, direction, and height of Lake Erie's wind to determine if wind power generation on the lake is economically viable. (Photo courtesy of Lisa Ann Pinkerton)
Godwin and crew install a small wind turbine on top of Cleveland's water intake "Crib." (Photo courtesy of Lisa Ann Pinkerton)
The small turbine tests preliminary wind data gathered by the tower and powers all operations on the "Crib." The size of the turbine was kept small as to not interfere with continual wind monitoring. (Photo courtesy of Lisa Ann Pinkerton)
Proposals for offshore wind farms, from the coasts of Texas to New England have the potential to generate more electricity than land turbines do. Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports these projects face various hurdles to becoming reality, but they’re not completely insurmountable:
Transcript
Proposals for offshore wind farms, from the coasts of Texas to New England have the potential to generate more electricity than land turbines do. Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports these projects face various hurdles to becoming reality but they’re not completely insurmountable:
Over the past few months, whenever the weather is favorable, Aaron Godwin of Green Energy Ohio rides a power boat several miles out into Lake Erie. Out on the on the city of Cleveland’s century old water intake structure he’s built a tall wind monitoring tower.
“The upper part of the tower is about 168 feet above the water, so we’re measuring at about 30, 40 and 50 meters, and dual instrumentation at each level, anemometers that measure wind speed and vanes that measure direction.”
Godwin’s got almost a year of wind data and today he’s installing a small wind turbine to confirm what he’s discovered: that the lake’s wind is roughly twice as strong as wind on land. So to Godwin offshore wind farms are inevitable, especially since 75 percent of the nation’s energy use is near coastal cities.
However, proposed projects everywhere face a number of hurdles. One of them is bird and bat migration. Some land turbines have killed creatures that flew too close. But in Denmark, where offshore wind is 15 years old, extensive water foul surveys show little change in bird behavior. Charlotte Boesen is an environmental planner for Dong Energy in Denmark.
“These birds, they do fly around the wind farm. They do not like flying over land you can say and maybe they in some sort they perceive the turbines or wind farm as a similar object.”
Even so, no wind project in the US will ever get off the ground without a full assessment of potential wildlife impacts. That’s why 60% of Lake Erie has already been ruled out by a preliminary study conducted by the wind consulting firm AWS True Wind. Its Executive Director Bruce Bailey says that leaves most of eastern Lake Erie still available, with the best wind about 15 miles northwest of Cleveland.
“That’s where the strongest winds would be found. With water depths still being under say 70 feet.”
Bailey adds the shallow depth of Lake Erie combined with its solid lake bottom and fresh water makes it more friendly to offshore wind generation than oceans.
“You wouldn’t have to deal with the corrosion or the extra cost to safeguard your hardware from corrosion if you’re sighted in a fresh water lake.”
Bailey adds designing against hurricanes makes ocean projects more expensive. On the flip side, Lake Erie’s been known to freeze.
“There are ways to deflect the ice from actually pushing too strongly against or lifting out a turbine foundation. Some of them have already been deployed already in offshore projects in Northern Europe, and some of them are located in locations where you might even get icebergs.”
Another concern is whether these turbines will ruin the natural beauty of America’s Coastlines, even though on the horizon a turbine might only look a big as a thumbnail. Walt Musel of the US Department of Energy says this worry is unfounded.
“It’s worth noting there are no projects in the United States, so most people who object to offshore wind have never seen one.”
Fifteen years ago, projects in Denmark faced the same prejudice. Today tourists rent boats to go see them.
Above all, perhaps the largest impediment to offshore wind power is its high cost. Installation in water is expected to be double the cost of on land construction. However, once farms are producing power, electricity companies are open to buying it.
Out on Lake Erie, Aaron Godwin is packing up his tools for the day. He says there is an up side to those high capital costs. He says in the future, turbines will be so large it’ll make more sense to manufacture the parts locally, giving America’s manufacturing industry a ray of hope.
“Energy is a guaranteed growth market. Wind power is the fastest growing energy sector in the entire world. Why would you not want to get involved in that guaranteed growth market? It just does not make sense.”
Godwin says if the US can clear these hurdles of public perception, engineering, and environmental impacts, he thinks the US economy might find a pleasant surprise: consistent, green energy, built and harnessed off the blue coasts of America.
For the Environment Report, I’m Lisa Ann Pinkerton.
Developers want to put wind turbines in offshore locations like Lake Ontario and off the coast of Massachusetts. (Photo by David Orsborne)
Already, several environmental groups are behind the idea of putting wind farms in waterways. (Photo by Lester Graham)
The U.S. Department of Energy wants 20 percent of the country’s electricity supply to eventually come from wind power. Some of that power could come from wind turbines located on the water. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports some power companies are hesitating:
Transcript
The U.S. Department of Energy wants 20 percent of the country’s
electricity supply to eventually come from wind power. Some of that
power could come from wind turbines located on the water. The
GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports some power companies are hesitating:
Until recently, the strength of the wind on the water was mainly of
interest to the shipping industry, anglers, and to people who like
to sail.
(Sound of sail ruffling and folding)
Lee Konczak is folding up the sail on a small sailboat that he often
takes out into Lake Michigan. Konczak says he likes the serenity of
riding on the wind and the beautiful view from offshore. Even so, he
says he wouldn’t mind if the view included a few wind turbines:
“With energy certainly being at the top of the news practically on a
daily basis right now, and with limited resources, I think an
experimental kind of thing with wind turbines would be excellent.”
Some wind power companies are planning more than a small
experiment. An effort is underway to put up 140 wind turbines in Lake
Ontario and another developer wants a wind farm off the coast of
Massachusetts. The industry would like to develop more projects. It
says the US is behind some European countries when it comes to
going offshore for wind. Compared to the US, European countries are
short on fossil fuel supplies and they don’t have as much land. So
they began placing turbines offshore a few years ago.
John Dunlop is with the American Wind Energy Association. He says the land-based
wind turbines in the US and Canada are important but often trigger local
disputes over new overhead transmission lines. Dunlop says lake-based
wind turbines would avoid some political squabbles by being close to
many cities:
“We enjoy living next to water, so consequently our population centers
tend to be close to the water which means a lake-based installation
may be no more than 10-20 miles away from that load center. Now, to get
that energy, that electricity from that wind project back to the city
you do need to have underwater cabling, but that’s a fairly common
technology so that’s not a huge impediment or a huge cost.”
Several environmental groups are getting on board with the idea of
putting wind farms in waterways. Charlie Higley is with the Citizens’
Utility Board in Wisconsin. He says there are already many coal and
nuclear plants near the water:
“Both of those have huge environmental and economic costs
associated with them, so we’re supportive of the development of
wind, not only on land but we really think the time is now to
start looking at developing wind resources on Lake Michigan.”
Higley acknowledges some people may not like the look of wind
turbines if they’re installed within view of the shoreline. Other
supporters concede there also needs to be more study of wind speeds
over the water. They also say there needs to be a cheaper way to fix
turbines that break down in waters dozens of feet deep.
Walt Musial helps oversee offshore wind projects at the National Renewable Energy
Lab. He says getting to a turbine in water is no easy task:
“You can’t drive a truck, so you have to drive a boat, or perhaps a helicopter like they do
in Europe. These add costs as well, and so these methods of accessing turbines have to be
developed and minimized.”
Still, Musial says because the Energy Department’s long-term goal is
to promote more wind production, he predicts some of that wind power
will come from offshore. But for now, the uncertainties have many
power companies rooted in inland turbines.
Kim Zuhlke is with Alliant Energy. He says his firm prefers a place
like Iowa, where there are already 800 wind turbines and a
desire from public officials to have more:
“You couple the acceptance, the economic growth, existing
transmission, all of those things together make it a logical place
for us to go.”
Still, Zuhlke says offshore wind turbines in the U.S. may become
a reality. He says engineers have to perfect a turbine that provides a big
enough payback for the additional expense of putting something way out in
the water.
New England often blames distant Midwest power plants for the air pollution that blows its way, but a new study shows some of the major air pollution in New England comes from cities a lot closer. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
New England often blames distant Midwest power plants for the air
pollution that blows its way. But a new study shows some of the major
air pollution in New England comes for cities a lot closer. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Most researchers agree that acid rain in New England is caused by
coal-fired power plants in the Midwest. So, many folks in New England
just assumed that ozone pollution drifted in from the same place.
Preliminary data from an intensive new study by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration indicates that’s not true. Instead,
ozone pollution appears to be coming from big east-coast cities. The
pollution drifts offshore for a while, and then is blown back over New
England by sea breezes. Jim Roberts is one of the researchers in the
study…
“This summer-time ozone problem is really going to be solved, I think,
in the New York-Boston area. It’s really not the responsibility of the Midwest.”
Roberts says the Midwest power plants are still contributing
some air pollution problems in New England… but they don’t appear to
be the chief cause of New England’s excessive ozone pollution.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Oil is a global commodity, so oil drilled in the US would not have to stay here (Photo courtesy of the Minerals Management Service)
