The Myth of Energy Independence

George W. Bush says he's for it. So do Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Nancy Pelosi. On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama promise they'll work toward it. What has inspired all of this bipartisan enthusiasm? Energy independence, the notion that by turning to greener energy sources like ethanol and wind power, we can not only help the environment—and slow global warming—but create millions of new jobs and, most important, wall ourselves off from the murderous petro states of the Middle East.

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

If it all sounds too good to be true, that may be because it is, argues Robert Bryce in Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence, published this week. Bryce, managing editor of Energy Tribune magazine, lays out the case against the short-term viability of all of today's renewable energy darlings: ethanol, wind, and solar power. No matter what the pols say, he insists, for the foreseeable future, oil, coal, and natural gas are here to stay. U.S. News spoke with Bryce about fossil fuels, global warming—and the promises of politicians.

Where did this notion of energy "independence" come from?
Energy independence is not a new idea in American politics. Richard Nixon first started talking about it in 1974. The problem is it's no more feasible today than it was then. We live in an interdependent world, from jet fuel and gasoline to fresh flowers and iPods. In 2005, the U.S. imported crude oil from 41 countries. Virtually every cellphone and running shoe Americans use is imported. And yet, all the presidential candidates are touting the same line. In December, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The American people are simply being lied to. Energy independence is neither doable nor desirable.

Why has it become so popular?
In my book, I cite a memo that was put out in 2006 by James Carville, the political strategist. He said energy independence is the one issue out there that gives people hope. It's a two-word phrase that trumps all these other issues, that gives people a sense that we can somehow address all their biggest fears—the Iraq war, peak oil, global warming, and terrorism—in one shot. But it is a false hope.

Why?
The best analogy I've seen of this is one put forward by Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. He said the global oil market is like a giant bathtub. All the producers dump their oil in the bathtub and all the consumers pump their oil out of the same bathtub. And the level in the bathtub is the price. So yes, we could consume less oil by finding something else—we don't know what yet. But in the meantime, we're still going to be tapping into that same bathtub and paying that same price that the rest of the world's global consumers do. This idea that we can detach from this market is craziness.

As long as the United States is buying oil, in other words, it will be vulnerable to political upheaval in the Middle East. But isn't it worth investing in alternative fuels now, so we can be more self-reliant later?
I suppose energy independence could be possible within a century, but that's not what we're being sold. We're being sold energy independence here and now. And that's just a lie. There's no polite way to put it.

What is possible here and now?
We'll only find a replacement for fossil fuels if we can come up with something that's cheaper, cleaner, and more convenient. I'm all for renewables and alternatives. I think that's great. I have 3,200 watts of solar panels on my house in Austin. But I'm also very clear about the economics, and that is the challenge. How do we move to something else that's cheaper than what we're using now? I don't know the answer to that.

What about ethanol?
Let me be clear. The corn ethanol scam is one of the longest-running robberies of American taxpayers in this country's history. We are making subsidized motor fuel out of the single-most subsidized crop in America. It's fiscal insanity. That's the only way to say it. It's causing dramatically higher food prices, worsening air quality, increasing consumption of water resources. Irony of ironies, there's increasing evidence, including a report in last month's Science magazine, that shows that greenhouse gas emissions from corn ethanol are higher than those from regular gasoline. Corn ethanol is worse for the environment than gasoline.

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.

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.