Much of the world is watching in horror as a growing blanket of oil spreads onto the pristine beaches and marshes of our Gulf Coast. One of the most serious threats to the environment in decades is putting great pressure on governments to ‘do something.’ But in their rush to respond, officials can ignore science and embrace dubious solutions.
Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is pressing for 45 miles of artificial berm, 300 feet wide at its base and rising six feet out of the Gulf, in an attempt to protect delta wetlands from the encroaching oil. President Barack Obama endorsed the plan in his speech on Tuesday.
But since the Louisiana berm will not be continuous, there is a strong likelihood that oil will flow in through the gaps, then possibly become trapped in wetlands as the berms block tidal ebb. The Interior Department suggests the costs for these berms are likely to be close to $500 million. Coastal geologists also suggest that the berms will not be effective and will erode with the first storm.
President Obama has suspended 33 ongoing deep-water drilling programs in the Gulf of Mexico for at least six months. Some are near completion. All of them are by operators with a long record of thousands of safe drilling programs, seeking oil we won’t have to import. Now those wells likely will be written off as dry holes, and the rigs moved to opportunities outside the United States.
These hasty responses remind me of the cancellation of 51 ongoing American nuclear-reactor builds after the 1979 Three Mile Island (TMI) partial core meltdown in reactor No. 2. Some of those new reactors were also near completion, resulting in billions of write-offs. There were no injuries at TMI and no release of dangerous radiation. Incidentally, the adjacent reactor (No. 1) at Three Mile Island has just set a record of nearly two years of continuous operation without incident, and it has been granted a 20-year license extension.
Those 51 additional nuclear reactors could now be producing low-cost carbon-free power like the 104 U.S. reactors that did go on line. Instead we need 51 more large, polluting, coal-fueled plants.
Reasoned judgment and action are needed when political pressures mount. Let’s hope we get it.
Rolf Westgard is a professional member of the Geological Society of America and teacher of energy subjects for the University of Minnesota College of Continuing Education. He is a member of the American Nuclear Society.
While you make it clear that additional nuclear reactors would replace coal-fired plants, Rolf, talking about nuclear-generated electricity in a commentary about reactions to the Gulf oil spill does mix the apples with the oranges.
It is important to note that petroleum is primarily used as a transportation fuel (although it is also used in many, many other products). Nuclear power is used to generate electricity. Very little petroluem is used to generate electricty in this country.
So, if our national goal is to ‘end our addiction to oil,’ more nuclear power is not the answer to that particular problem.
(Moffitt is the communications director of the American Lung Association in Minnesota)
If you read my letter, you will note that the theme is about panic political reactions to problems, not that nuclear can directly replace as gasoline. As a geologist I am aware of the chemistry.
Although as plug in vehicles proliferate, nuclear energy will be needed to charge those batteries and thus directly replace gasoline.
And your much beloved corn ethanol is no good as as a gasoline substitute. It requires too much fossil fuel to grow the corn.
Keep up the good work at the ACS.
Regards, Rolf
The long-term environmental damage (as opposed to short term problems with fishing and the like) will probably be minimal, and the clean-up effort will quite likely be found to have done more harm than good.
In this there is an analogy to 3 mile island – the public and political reaction in both cases is both depressingly ill-informed and likely to make everything worse. The penalization and thus avoidance of nuclear power, for largely PR/political reasons, has done vast environmental and economic damage and made us all more dependent on oil. People are irrationally terrified of nuclear power plants, but everyone is familiar with oil products and unafraid.
Will there be a similarly damaging political response to the spill? Well so far nothing helpful (such as raising the price of gas to limit oil dependence) has happened – so the potential is certainly there. Until the price of oil reflects the true costs of bringing it to market, the public will not have the economic and market incentives to conserve oil.
My last comment should have referred to Bob Moffit’s work at the ALA, not the American Cancer Society, although both group’s have the same objective, and I tend to think of them together.
Richard, we all love to drive, but we want somebody else to pay for it.
People get the ALA and the ACS confused all the time, Rolf. While I once served on the local ACS Board of Directors, I have not been involved with them for awhile. We do indeed share common goals to reduce tobacco use and prevent lung cancer.
As for plug-in electric vehicles, they have barely started to show up on America’s roads, much less “proliferate.” Still, that may change. We will know in a couple years if these vehicles are a success with the American consumer.
Saw an electric vehicle (a GEM utility truck) in action at Split Rock Lighthouse State Park last week. It was pretty nifty!