Political Mythology of Energy Independence
Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:53:10 PM PDT
The argument of Gusher of Lies is that "energy independence" is a ruse to fool the rubes, a delusion used by demagogues to gull the public purse. It may just be correct.
(x) Each time Congress or the White House gets too involved in the energy business, supplies get tighter or prices increase, or both. Of course, politicians always want to "help." And the energy sector provides a perfect venue for demagogues to bash the evils of Big Oil, or Big Coal, or Bad Arabs, of Evil OPEC. Unfortunately for consumers, history has repeatedly shown that congressional meddling usually ends in a muddle. It also shows that the less regulation imposed on the energy sector, the better usually, for consumers.
Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of "Energy Independence" by Robert Bryce
NY: Public Affairs, 2008
ISBN 978-1-58648-321-0
(288) On that same road toward energy independence lurks the graveyard of military hegemony, the idea that the US can dominate the world and do so based solely on its military might. The concept of energy independence is closely tied to the neoconservatives' belief that any type of engagement and interchange with the Arab and Islamic worlds must be avoided at all costs. The unfortunate truth about the drive for energy independence is that it is, at its most fundamental level, a xenophobic and - dare I say it? - racist response to a complicated world that has grown beyond America's ability to control.
As Robert Bryce makes clear, "energy independence" is probably not possible and may not even be desirable, at least as it is currently conceived. For instance,
(40) London-based BP is now the single biggest crude oil producer in the US. In 2005, BP produced about 825,000 barrels of crude per day, or about 16 % of all US crude output.
It becomes ridiculous when W proclaims that the solutions to this season's high oil prices is drilling in ANWAR, a project that is estimated to produce only three months of the US oil budget and will take five years or more to produce one drop of usable oil from the date that legislation makes drilling possible.
As for ethanol, we are beginning to see how wrong-headedly we've gone about that option. Making food crops into energy crops is not a winning proposition. For one thing, ethanol has a little more than half the energy density of gasoline.
(61) 1 gallon of ethanol = 0.66 gallons of gasoline
1 gallon of ethanol = 0.59 gallons of jet fuel
(62) 1 bushel of corn - 2.7 gallons of ethanol = 1.8 gallons of gasoline
(154) In 1995, James Bovard of the Cato Institute published a study estimating that every $1 that ADM earns from ethanol costs taxpayers $30... Bovard went on to estimate that "at least 43% of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the US government." ...Given ADM's history as a price-fixing-influence-buying company that has shown little regard for antitrust laws and fair competition, why are the environmentalists and farmers and labor unions so pro-ethanol?
And then there's Jeavons Paradox: increasing conservation does not necessarily decrease overall consumption.
(138-139) In 1980, the US was using about 15,000 btus per dollar of GDP. By 2004, the energy intensity of the US economy had improved dramatically so that just over 9,000 btus were required for each dollar of GDP. The EIA expects those efficiency gains to continue. The agency projects that by 2030, energy intensity will fall from about 9,000 btus per dollar of GDP to about 5,800 btus per dollar of GDP. But even with that dramatic increase in efficiency, overall energy consumption in the US will rise by more than 30%, from 100.1 quadrillion btus in 2005 to 131.1 quadrillion btus in 2030.
Fact is, we lie to ourselves all the time where energy is concerned.
(195) In the real world, the Suburban [SUV] gets less than 15 miles per gallon. But thanks to the [Flex Fuel Vehicle] credits, the E85-capable Suburban is magically transformed into a vehicle that gets more than 29 miles per gallon. Of course, that mileage occurs only on paper not on the highway.
(258) America has the most balkanized motor fuel market on earth. Refiners are now producing about 45 different blends of gasoline and multiple blends of diesel fuel. And thanks to the new ethanol mandates, the mix of fuels - and the infrastructure needed to support them - has grown even more complicated. All of these regional blends of motor fuel increase the cost of production and transportation for motor fuel. In 2005, the Government Acocuntability Office found that there are 11 special blends of gasoline, which "are often used in isolated pockets in metropolitan areas, while surrounding areas use conventional gasoline." This proliferation of different types of gasoline is largely due to state-based efforts to address air quality issues. And while that may be a laudable goal. the result, according to the Government Accountability Office, has been higher costs for consumers. It studied gasoline prices in 100 cities and found that "the highest prices tended to be found in cities that use a special gasoline blend that is not widely available in the region, or that is significantly more costly to make than other blends." And consumers are paying those higher prices even though the agency determined that the air quality benefits of the myriad gasoline blends are "uncertain."
This is a habit that is not confined to the oil sector.
(126) Wind power advocates always prefer to talk about the total generating capacity of their wind farms, which are usually measured in megawatts. But the key measure for electricity is kilowatthours.
Bryce does have some recommendations, not all of which I'd agree with:
(255) While reducing energy regulations, state and federal governments should also eliminate subsidies. There is no need for the federal government to be giving tax breaks to Big Oil for offshore drilling. Given current crude prices, the oil industry has plenty of incentive to drill. Nor is there any need for federal subsidies for ethanol, or for wind, or solar power. If the government wants to encourage renewable energy production, that's fine. Offer incentives that encourage low- or no-carbon energy sources, but don't give preferential treatment to any of them. If the government wants to provide improved energy efficiency. it should set benchmarks and let private industry and the marketplace decide which technologies should prevail.
(253-285)
Get Government the Hell out of the energy business
Stop obsessing over prices and reduce the number of fuel blends
Reject the culture of fear and engage the Arab and Islamic worlds
Redefine energy security - from scarcity to globally stable market
Accept increasing energy use and adapt to a changing global climate
Embrace solar and nuclear, and pursue new technologies and efficiency
Create the superbattery prize
Increase domestic oil production
Embrace natural gas
All of our conversation about "energy independence" has missed the point, according to Bryce. We concentrate on price rather than supply, which is increasingly the issue when world oil production seems to have stagnated for the last couple of years and demand keeps growing.
(237) The Chinese never ask us about price. They only want to know about supply - Prince Saud, Chairman, Saudi Basic Industries Corp, 2006
(241) The concept of energy security, he [Ibrahim al-Muhanna, a top advisor to the Saudi Oil Ministry] declared, is quite simple. It means, he said, that "you have spare capacity in crude oil production and refining."
(267) There can be no US energy security without global energy security - National Petroleum Council report
In the course of his presentation, Bryce also reiterates the core truth that has been buried for the last eight years:
(263) [Ohio State Univ Professor John] Mueller then quoted Frantz Fanon, a 20th-century revolutionary, who said that "the aim of terrorism is to terrify.' Given that truth, Mueller declared that "terrorists can be defeated simply by not becoming terrified - that is, anything that enhances fear effectively gives in to them."
I also appreciate his bringing up the Carter administration's response to that era's "energy crisis."
(101) Carter plan: "...a major conservation effort, important initiatives to develop solar power, realistic pricing based on the true value of oil, strong incentives for the production of coal and other fossil fuels in the United States, and our Nation's most massive peacetime investment in the development of synthetic fuels."
It is a useful comparison to remind people that Carter's policy was to produce 20% of our annual energy budget from renewables by the year 2000. Imagine what the world would look like today if we had continued on that path, a path that was abandoned when Reagan was elected. Reagan killed us.
Permalink | 40 comments