R. James Woolsey comes clean on energy

R.James Woolsey, former director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, drives a Toyota Prius with a bumper sticker that reads, “Bin Laden hates this car.” The sticker is a testament to Woolsey’s irreverent approach to American foreign policy and what he has called “defeating the oil weapon.”

While some of his suggestions are perhaps facetious (he has, for example, recommended in a Senate committee hearing that Comedy Central’s “South Park” could be an effective tool in the war on terror), others are in equal measure serious.

Woolsey has said repeatedly in Senate testimonies, commentaries, journal articles and interviews that American dependence on foreign oil is one of the most significant threats to national security. But unlike many energy-independence advocates, Woolsey says he opposes much of the hype around hydrogen, preferring solutions that are easily adopted and no more than a few years away.

“Moving toward hydrogen for driving cars requires a complete restructuring of the world’s two largest industries, energy and automotive, whereas the infrastructure you need once there are plug-in hybrids on the road is that every family would require an extension cord,” he told SIJ.

In addition to plug-in hybrids, Woolsey says cellulosic ethanol, butanol (an emerging biofuel) small-scale wind, and thin-film solar have potential to radically transform American energy use.

Woolsey is a vice president for global resilience at consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, an advisor to Vantage Point Venture Partners, and a principal at Paladin Capital Group. The two latter investment funds invest in clean energy technologies. He spoke with SIJ by phone from his solar-powered farmhouse.

SIJ: How seriously does climate change play a role in your thinking, alongside national security issues?

Woolsey: A substantial amount. I’ve been concerned about it for some time. I think there’s a legitimate argument about the degree, but I think the direction is clear. … The key thing there, I think, is that since it’s pretty clear there’s an effect we may as well go ahead and deal with it — and not just argue about the degree.

[Author] Greg Easterbrook points out we have several times in recent American history where industry has said, ‘Oh my gosh. This is going to cost huge amounts to clean up these emissions,’ and it was wrong. … I think that will happen if we put a cap and trade system in effect for CO₂, or global warming gasses generally. People will figure out how to make money by using technology to reduce emissions.… So I think it’s a matter of insurance. I think the premium will be relatively small, but even if the premium is larger, we insure against a lot of things we don’t think are likely, like lightning striking our house, because it’s possible. … We’ve got to get going.

SIJ: Does the fact that more electricity generation would be required to support plug-in hybrids turn your attention to the electrical grid?

Woolsey: It would be a while. The numbers I’ve seen is that there could be millions and millions of plug-in hybrids on the road before you needed to add any base load. ... The thing that’s key about plug-in hybrids is that even in coal-heavy parts of the electricity grid, such as Pennsylvania, one is still improving the global warming gas situation by maybe 10 or 20 percent if you go from a gasoline to a plug-in hybrid vehicle.

On the West Coast, which is heavily hydro and gas, and nuclear in California — and almost no coal — you are improving global warming gas emissions by probably 60 to 80 percent by going to plug-in hybrids. It’s a plus from the point of view of reducing global warming gases, especially in really clean parts of the grid.

SIJ: One solution to climate change that’s been talked about is nuclear power. The Bush administration has supported it, and it has gained some acceptance. Do you support the expansion of nuclear power, especially with an eye towards national security?

Woolsey: I think the national security debate is centered really around transportation fuel … We only use oil to produce 2 percent of our electricity now. You could put a nuclear power plant on every hill and it wouldn’t affect our oil use. … I regard the electricity debate as largely a global warming and cost debate. And my view is, of the clean ways to produce electrical power — hydro, wind, other renewables, carbon sequestration with coal — that nuclear may well have a place. But it wouldn’t be my first choice.

I do think, however, that the nuclear safety issue is one that is solvable for the United States. But we’re not going to make much of a dent [with global warming] … unless it’s done in other countries. And if a nation, like Iran has done, if it decides to get into the business of enriching uranium for fuel for power plants, it’s essentially the same business as enriching uranium for nuclear weapons, and the nonproliferation treaties do not effectively bar that.