Politicians who make “energy independence” a target of US governance say much about themselves. They either know little about US energy realities or stand to gain some advantage from policies motivated by unachievable goals. Neither condition provides a solid basis for policy-making.
“Whereas, energy independence can be achieved by innovation, diversifying energy sources, creating energy efficient products, and promoting conservation measures,” the Democratic National Committee Resolutions Committee asserted on Feb. 1 while declaring support for “Democratic elected officials in Congress and in states and local communities across the country who are working toward energy independence, security, and diversity as well as a safe, clean environment.” Voters can decide which condition-ignorance or special interest-is at work here.
No monopoly
Democrats can claim no monopoly of the politics of energy independence. At a solar-energy company in Merrimack, NH, Feb. 23, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican presidential contender, promised a plan to induce the US to produce as much energy as it uses in 20-30 years. Energy independence in his vision will come from wind, solar energy, coal, and nuclear energy.
In the same month that these appeals for energy independence came forth from political quarters, the US Energy Information Administration produced an enlightening forecast. During 2005-30, EIA said in its Annual Energy Outlook 2007, the average reference-case growth rate for gross US imports of energy will be 1.2%/year. This is not, by historic standards, gangbuster growth. But any import growth indicates, by definition, movement away from the achievement of energy independence.
Indeed, energy independence means no imports. Zero. None. It means what Romney said: domestic production equivalent to consumption.
To use figures from the EIA’s long-term projection again: The US will consume 131.16 quadrillion btu (quads) of energy in all primary forms in 2030. It will produce 88.63 quads, requiring imports totaling 46.37 quads before negligible exports and small balancing quantities. To become energy-independent, the US must lower consumption and raise production enough to turn that import number to 0.
The challenge is considerable. EIA’s import projection for 2030 represents a lot of energy. It’s more than the amount of energy that EIA expects the US to produce in that year in the forms of crude oil and lease condensate plus natural gas plant liquids plus dry natural gas plus nuclear power. It’s slightly less than the amount of energy that EIA expects the US to consume in that year as coal plus nuclear power plus hydropower.
It’s this wide gap between consumption and domestic production that the Democratic National Committee thinks can be closed by “innovation,” “diversifying energy sources,” “conservation,” and all the rest. The favorite place to begin “innovation” these days is US agriculture and nearly anywhere else that doesn’t involve oil, gas, or coal. In these areas, EIA projects healthy average growth rates over the next 25 years of 2.7%/year for biomass, 2.6%/year for other renewable energy, and 6.8%/year for other energy forms such as liquid hydrogen, methanol, and otherwise unaccounted-for refinery inputs. Total energy production from those sources: 7.82 quads. That’s 9% of total domestic production and 6% of projected consumption-up impressively from 2005 shares for these energy forms of 5% of total production and 4% of consumption.
What it takes
So what would it take to raise production of the nonfossil energy forms politicians like and lower total energy consumption enough to eliminate imports and achieve independence? In a word: money. To be more precise about it: astronomical amounts of money. To put that into perspective: more money than taxpayers and energy consumers would tolerate. Because exotic energy sources cost more than conventional sources do, production depends on subsidies. And conservation beyond levels encouraged by the market can come only from officially imposed costs. Eliminating energy imports this way means raiding the national treasury and punishing consumers. Americans will figure out what’s happening to them long before then.
Energy independence is an unrealizable dream. It’s a pretense on which the government wastes money. Politicians who promote it are fooling themselves or trying to fool others.
