Editor's note: An earlier version of this story had incorrect information in calculations about energy production. The corrected statistics, including peak generation of the Alpa Ventus wind turbines and the number of electric vehicles that could be powered annually with a $10 billion wind investment, are in this version.
In my fact-digging on the now sunken Deepwater Horizon oil rig, I came across a stat about the construction and operational costs of
That got me thinking about just how much offshore wind could be bought for the equivalent $12 billion investment. Here, my back-of-the-envelope calculations:
What is the cost of offshore wind power?
We have a good comp in the form of Alpha Ventus, a recently completed 12-turbine project off the shores of Germany. The project was the first of its kind, and as might be expected, it ran over budget. According to the German publication Spiegel, the project cost $282 million (it was estimated at just under $200 million), including upkeep costs over 25 years. Alpha Ventus is a 60-megawatt array, enough to power about 50,000 U.S. homes at peak generation with a total of 216 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year.
How many turbines can $10 billion buy?
Assuming that the next few big offshore projects will drop in price as manufacturing and grid infrastructure improves, let's say a 60-megawatt project will go for $200 million. Divide that into $12 billion and you get 60 60-megawatt wind projects, or about 13 billion kilowatts of power capacity per year.
How many electric cars does that power?
A typical American drives 12,000 miles per year. The latest plug-in electric vehicles (like the much-anticipated Tesla sedan) use about 370 watt-hours per mile. The U.S. driver's 12,000 miles x .37 = 4,440 kilowatts per year. Divide 33 billion by 4,440 kilowatts and you get about 3 million electric vehicles that could be powered each year with a $10 billion wind investment.
How many cars could Deepwater Horizon have fueled?
Each barrel of crude produces 44 gallons of petroleum products--approximately 30 gallons of fuel for cars and trucks (including 19.7 gallons of gasoline and 10 gallons of diesel). Deepwater Horizon was to produce 7 billion barrels of crude over its 25-year life span. So, 7 billion x 30 = 210 billion gallons of gasoline divided by 25 years = 8.4 billions gallons per year. Let's say as cars and trucks become more efficient the average U.S. vehicle efficiency rises to an average 26 mpg; 26 mpg x 8.4 billion = 218 billion miles. Divide that by our 12,000 mile national average and you get 18.2 million vehicles per year from the $10 billion offshore drilling investment. This is a tricky equivalency, because crude produces a variety of fuels and other petroleum products, including jet fuel. For the sake of this comparison I included only diesel and gasoline products, which make up 68% of the net products from a barrel of crude.
What's the end cost for the consumer?
You can see why as a nation we like oil so much--it yields about two to three times more transportation power per dollar invested. But it's important to note that the cost of gasoline for the end user is considerably higher than electricity. In the end the consumer pays dearly for all that convenient fossil fuel. Right now gasoline is about $3 per gallon and the typical car gets 22 mpg. So the typical gasoline mile costs us about 13.6 cents, or $1,632 per year on oil. Grid electricity is about 10 cents per kilowatt, so one mile on electricity costs only 3.7 cents, or $444 per year (wind). If you figure that 7.4 million Americans would be saving $1,188 per year, that is about $8.8 billion going back into the U.S. economy rather than into the grubby hands of foreign oil companies like
What if you factor in environmental costs?
If we factor in the massive cleanup costs, it changes the game significantly. Current estimates are putting the BP cleanup bill at $22.6 billion. This figure will be matched (at least) by U.S. taxpayers in the form of government assistance programs. So that puts the total estimated Deepwater Horizon price tag at $55 billion ($10B + $22.5B + $22.5B), assuming it's even possible to clean up the spill.
Comparing apples and lemons.
Let's say that instead of sinking on day one, the Deepwater Horizon sunk halfway though its lifespan. It would have powered 9.1 million cars at a cost of $55 billion, about $6,000 per car (oil). Our wind turbines would have powered 3.7 million cars at $10 billion or about $2,700 per car (wind). Since "windspills" have never been known to cause any impact whatsoever and oil spills are quite frequent (according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, in one sample year there were 257 oil spills), this seems more than a fair comparison and puts wind in the lead, from the perspectives of both investment and consumer spending.
Of course this sad little numbers game will never make up for the incalculable losses to the fishing industry, the tourism industry, the health of wetlands, the survival of wildlife, the carcinogens that are now leaking into the water systems of Gulf residents--all things for which BP will never pay. We the American people will pay those prices for a very, very long time to come.
Karl Burkart blogs daily about green technology for the Mother Nature Network.
See Also: