Should we replace offshore oil with offshore wind?

An interesting calculation finds that with current offshore wind and electric vehicle technology, a $10 billion investment in offshore wind will power 7.4 million electric vehicles. A $10 billion investment in offshore oil will power 26.7 million gas cars, assuming it doesn't result in a major... show more An interesting calculation finds that with current offshore wind and electric vehicle technology, a $10 billion investment in offshore wind will power 7.4 million electric vehicles. A $10 billion investment in offshore oil will power 26.7 million gas cars, assuming it doesn't result in a major spill.
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-i...

But in the Gulf of Mexico alone there are 5 spills per year of at least 10,000 gallons, and 20 such large spills per year worldwide.
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/top...

Obviously offshore wind can't create spills or the associated environmental impacts. Then of course there's the contribution to global warming from offshore oil, which is negligible from offshore wind.

What do you think - when you combine the economic and environmental costs, is it worth it to replace offshore oil with offshore wind?
Update: Correction - there was an error in the first article mistaking gallons of oil with gallons of gasoline. A $10 billion investment in offshore oil will actually power 11.8 billion gasoline cars, not 26.7 billion.
Update 2: yank - the BP disaster has already spilled about 7 times more oil than the Santa Barbara spill. And needless to say, offshore wind and electric cars weren't options 40 years ago.
Update 3: Yes I meant 11.8 million, not billion.
Update 4: CO2 expeller - offshore wind is in the range of 10 cents per kWh or less.
http://www.offshore-wind.de/page/index.p...

Due to rising construction costs, the capital costs alone of new nuclear power plants are about 20 cents per kWh.
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/up...
Update 5: CO2 - your first link is at odds with reality. Just look up the costs of any recent nuclear power plant construction project. Second link is 4 years old and refers to Progress Energy. I refer you to this more recent news about the company, detailing how they tripled their cost estimate for a Florida nuke... show more CO2 - your first link is at odds with reality. Just look up the costs of any recent nuclear power plant construction project.

Second link is 4 years old and refers to Progress Energy. I refer you to this more recent news about the company, detailing how they tripled their cost estimate for a Florida nuke plant.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/05/nu...

Third link only looks at power production cost and ignores the capital construction cost, which is the driving factor.
Update 6: Hopefully the final word on nuclear - as stated above, the main cost is in the construction. It has little to do with 'red tape', but I would hope that the recent BP disaster shows us what happens when there's not much 'red tape' involved. Sure nuclear power *could be* made cheaper, but... show more Hopefully the final word on nuclear - as stated above, the main cost is in the construction. It has little to do with 'red tape', but I would hope that the recent BP disaster shows us what happens when there's not much 'red tape' involved.

Sure nuclear power *could be* made cheaper, but I'm talking about current costs. Offshore wind *will be* cheaper as it becomes more widespread, but again, I'm using current costs.
17 answers 17