The Myth of Energy Independence

Workers in Iowa stand by a mound of distiller's grain, a byproduct of ethanol.

What about cellulosic ethanol, made from switch grass or corn stubble?
Here again, switch grass or cornhusks or sawdust have been held up for years as the magic bullet. But that same Science magazine study I just mentioned figured the greenhouse gas emissions from switch grass were higher than those of gasoline, too. Then there's the vast amount of land that would be required just to grow enough switch grass to make a relatively modest amount of ethanol. I cite an analysis that was done by former CIA Director John Deutsch, who's now a professor at MIT. If his estimates are correct, producing enough cellulosic ethanol to displace just half of America's daily consumption of 20 million barrels of oil would require the U.S. to plant an area approximately equal to 1.5 times the size of Texas. That's a big area.

It is, indeed. I'd bet there's an agricultural lobby that's for it, though.
Milton Friedman had it right. There's no such thing as a free lunch. It's particularly true in the energy business, which is ruthlessly policed by the first and second laws of thermodynamics. You can't get something for nothing. That's another reason why people are so seduced by this whole idea of energy independence. Amidst all these other issues, the bottom line for me is drought: Do we really want to stake our economy on the vagaries of the weather? I don't think that's a good idea.

So that leaves wind or solar power, but you're not optimistic about those, either, in the short term.
I was at this corporate briefing this morning. There was a guy there for Exxon Mobil, who quoted a number from their energy outlook. They project that biofuels are growing at 8 percent a year, and wind and solar are growing at 10 percent a year. Even if you assume that growth rate on an annual basis through 2030, those two sources will still only provide 2 percent of world primary energy production.

It could be decades, then, before the United States can even begin weaning itself off oil. Are any alternative fuels worth pursuing?
If we could get the efficiency of the photovoltaic panels high enough, solar, ultimately, has more applicability. There are a whole lot of rooftops in this country you could put them on. Researchers are having better luck at converting larger parts of the light spectrum into energy. One research group has been able to turn part of the infrared spectrum into electricity. That's a very positive development. But the problem with wind and solar is storing it. Because of their intermittency, they have to be backed up by traditional fossil fuels plants.

What about nuclear energy?
As I look at the market, and I look at the political rhetoric, it's clear that politicians are deciding that carbon dioxide is bad. We can argue whether or not global warming is happening, what the cause is. If we decide CO2 is bad, then what are we going to do? It seems to me that nuclear power is the only energy source that can provide fairly large increments of new electrical capacity and do so in a fairly short time period at a fairly reasonable cost.

What are your views on global warming? Would you describe yourself as a skeptic?
I understand the science of global warming. I understand both sides. I've read the U.N. reports, I've seen Al Gore's movie, I've read what the so-called skeptics say. I no longer care about the science, because to me the science doesn't matter. The question that is most important in discussing global warming is, "Then what?" If you look at the six most populous countries on the planet: China, India, the U.S., Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan, there are 3 billion people. The U.S. population is one tenth of that number, and yet on a per capita basis, we use 10 times more energy than the rest. Our energy consumption is growing at 1 percent per year or less. The energy consumption of the big five is growing 5 percent a year. What do we say to those 3 billion people about their energy consumption, "No, you can't?" Energy is like sex, horsepower, and bandwidth—the more we get, the more we want.