The Myth of Energy Independence

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

That's a pretty bleak view. Don't you see any short-term solutions?
I have an idea that could be a silver bullet. Whether it can be achieved or not is another question. I call it the "Super Battery Prize." The problem with solar and wind is that they're incurably intermittent, but if we had a battery that could store multiple megawatt-hours of electricity, that's a complete game-changer. It would also be a game-changer for the electric utility business because their demand undulates during the day. If they had a battery that they could level out their load, it would save huge amounts of energy. So I propose a prize: Let's offer $1 billion to anyone who can create a compact, affordable machine that can store multiple kilowatt-hours of electricity, and $10 billion to anyone who can produce a machine with those qualities that can store multiple megawatt-hours. I'm not sanguine about this happening, but I'm hoping that maybe it might stimulate investors to take a look.

In the meantime, you're saying, basically, that we're stuck with the status quo. Do you think you have much of a chance against the politics of hope?
I think [my] argument is hopeful because it's realistic. The bigger danger in American politics today is not that we disagree over policy, it's that voters ultimately become disillusioned and don't believe in government. The biggest threat in America today is apathy. And I think lying to voters about energy and energy independence is far worse than being realistic and honest. Look, we live in a global economy. We're the originators of the ideas of free markets and free people. We need to promote that idea, and we need to do it all the time. Instead, voters are getting a steady diet of nonsensical, meaningless rhetoric that has no connection with reality. I think that's a betrayal of the voters' trust.