Energy policy
Clean coal and biofuels and subsidies, oh my

Alternative energy from an alternative universe, where crop fuels and coal are cheap and green

American politics
Democracy in America

SPEAKING with America's governors yesterday, Barack Obama focused on two of my least favourite alternative-energy sources. The first is biofuels, which virtually everyone on earth knows have an awful record. Maize-based ethanol, when all costs including inputs and land-use changes around the world are reckoned in, is worse than petrol. (Brazil's sugar-based ethanol is rather better.) "Second-generation", cellulosic, ethanol is just around the corner—but it may always be.

The second is carbon abatement through "clean coal" (carbon capture and storage, or CCS in the chart below), which has been reckoned by McKinsey to be just about the single most expensive form of emission-reduction out there, even in 2030.

I was encouraged to hear Mr Obama break a green taboo and speak up for nuclear power in his state-of-the-union address. I think he takes this business seriously. But talk of biofuels and CCS just goes to show how much godawful subsidy money must be wasted on ineffecient carbon-reduction in order to grease the wheels of a possible emissions bill. Wishes for CCS and biofuels rely on a rosy view of resources America has in virtually unlimited supply: coal and land. But that doesn't mean they really work at cost.

(Nuclear-phobes, don't get me wrong. Nuclear is expensive and requires huge subsides too, especially to get plants going. But we know it works.)

Reuse this contentThe Trust Project