The Trouble With "Energy Independence"

People who need to run for office like to frame the trouble with America's oil consumption as not just part of the global warming puzzle, but part of a larger "energy security" problem whose solution is "energy independence." If framing the question this way helps win the climate change argument, I don't have a problem with that, but as Brad Plumer points out that's unlikely to be the case:

The coal industry has lately latched on to the "energy security" craze by billing itself as the answer to our oil-dependency woes. Specifically, Big Coal is teaming up with an array of Republicans and Democrats to tout liquefied coal as a substitute for gasoline in U.S. vehicles. The country is sitting on vast coal reserves, they reason, so why not use those instead of tossing money at the House of Saud? There's just one catch: Liquefied coal would do little to reduce carbon emissions and, in all likelihood, would make things worse. Nevertheless, the idea continues to gain currency in Congress, in part because "energy security" is a sales pitch few politicians can resist. [...]

Unfortunately for them, a recent analysis by the Energy Department found that coal-to-liquid fuel could generate roughly twice the carbon emissions that regular gasoline does. Coal backers counter that, if the carbon released during liquefication could be captured and permanently stored underground, the fuel would be comparable in carbon impact to gasoline--that is, the status quo. But the technology for storing carbon underground remains unproved [...]

It's ugly out there. But for a political party to position itself squarely as the party that's against coal is seen as too politically crazy for anyone to embrace.

Comments

Against coal? Well, yes, that's insane, but SUBSIDIES for that? Hell, why not just give the coal companies the PINs for our checking accounts and let them siphon off our excess cash.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 29, 2007 8:42 AM

A safer approach for a politician might be to say that they're not for reducing coal use in particular at this time, but that substantially increasing it adds to global warming, so that's no solution: what we really need to be doing is reducing our consumption of ALL carbon-based fuels, for the triple reasons of global warming, increasing scarcity, and energy security.

That way the politician points out the problem with increasing coal use, and then changes the subject in a constructive way that gets the focus off coal and onto carbon-based fuels in general.

Posted by low-tech cyclist (formerly RT) | May 29, 2007 9:06 AM

As production of oil peaks, we are entering a time when energy of all kinds is becoming increasingly expensive. As it happens, we have large amounts of domestic coal, which we can produce without subsidising extremist islamacists. For this reason alone it'll be highly tempting to produce and use more of it.

Gasification isn't the only way to use the coal. The greatest demand for oil comes from transportation, especially gasoline-burning vehicles. If you switched these over to electricity (i.e. plug-in hybrids and/or electric vehicles) you could power them using the coal, but without gasification. The carbon footprint of a battery vehicle, even charged from coal-burning power plants, is considerably less than an all gasoline vehicle, and much less than a vehicle powered by gasified coal.

Posted by jimBOB | May 29, 2007 9:06 AM

What JimBOB said. I don't really have anything to contribute, but it's important to note that the political issue of dependence of foreign oil should be distinguished as separate from the environmental issue of carbon emissions.

Posted by James Gary | May 29, 2007 9:25 AM

"But the technology for storing carbon underground remains unproved"

So? Then prove it.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 29, 2007 9:26 AM

what jimbob said.

Also liquidification = capital intensive + subsidies + centralization = profits/rents (including distribution grid) + easy transition for existing corps Exxon/Mobil. Who has the money to build the plants? Who can control prices by limiting plants/production and blaming regulation?

I can't find the link, but the deal on Solar Roofs when I researched it seemed unbelievably good.

Finally, in this age of globalization, "energy independence" is a horrible delusion. We are dependent on China & Chile having enough energy to produce & transport.

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 29, 2007 12:03 PM

I'm not quite up to the point of wholeheartedly embracing Jim Kunstler's prophecies of doom, but it'll take a brave politician to tell Americans that the era of 'Happy Motoring' is coming to an end.

And until energy policy is no longer presented to the public as a salve to keep all the cars and container trucks running, it's fucked.

Heck, if we're looking at batshit policies that will keep the coal states happy, then why not restore the passenger railway network and have it run coal-fired steam engines? You might find yourself covered in soot at the end, but it's a small price to pay.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 29, 2007 2:23 PM

Hmmm... I think the problem here is that subsidies for coal liquification do little or nothing to change the behavior that is at the root of our problem - high consumption of CO2-emitting energy sources. How will these subsidies improve our energy efficiency (the first step towards energy independence AND reduced atmospheric impact)? I agree with several of the commenters above that this is not a solution to anything - it is merely a powerful industry looking for handouts at the expense of some other powerful industry. Business as usual.

Posted by RBB | May 29, 2007 5:12 PM