Energy Independence Isn't Mythical, Just Really Hard

Energy independence. For some it means drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). For others, it means the carbon-free green energy dream. Writer Robert Bryce argues that, no matter our viewpoint on the issue, the debate is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions. Bryce makes his case in an article on Popular Mechanics called, "7 Energy Efficiency Myths Debunked" and in the new book, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence. While interesting reading, I feel like his myths miss the mark. Before I begin, though, I should say that this is a critique of Bryce's PM article, not his book.

In the piece, he makes some good points. The ethanol standards set by Congress are not sufficient; energy demand continues to rise; policy decisions must take into account global markets. Unfortunately, in each of his efficiency myths, he seems to be saying, that if an individual technology or idea can't eliminate fossil fuel use, it's not worth doing.

For example, myth #3 is, "Federal mandates for higher-mileage cars will result in less fuel consumption, thereby reducing the need for imported oil." Bryce writes, "Even if Congress mandated that the domestic auto fleet boost its average fuel economy to 44 mpg...America’s motor fuel consumption will still grow by 3.7 million barrels per day by 2025" because the auto fleet keeps growing and owners are keeping their cars longer. Okay, but that doesn't mean that fuel efficiency isn't valuable. What would consumption grow by with no CAFE increases? To me, this isn't an case against efficiency, it's a clear call for doing more. Our thirsty transportation system is a serious problem and fixes will have to transcend fuel efficiency to include plug-in hybrids, public transit projects, and alternative fuels.

Each of his case studies follows the same pattern of taking isolated freeze-frames and drawing broad conclusions. The main thing that seems to be missing from Bryce's argument is a recognition that energy independence can't be solved with a single-pronged solution. Any one technology will only get us so far. It's going to take a coordinated, manifold effort to make our energy more secure and to head off global warming.

Another hole in Bryce's argument is that he seems frozen in time. Our alternative technologies are immature, but progressing quickly. Cutting carbon is a long-term strategy. Besides, moving to sustainable power and fuels is not a choice. The question is not if we do it, but how.

In the end, his myths aren't anything new. Rather, they are a list of well-known facts, challenges that must be overcome if the U.S. is to become sustainable. Interestingly, his solution appears to be an as-of-now fictional superbattery that can store megawatts of electricity. So while he cautions against the "myths" of energy independence, it sounds as if he prefers that we chase tomorrow's fairy tale to using the clean, available technologies of today.