US energy independence is really anchored into the transportation sector.  Therefore, our huge domestically supplied electrical system can only help if that power somehow leaps into the fuel tank.  Electric cars with rechargeable batteries come quickly to mind.  But here is a twist:

” … Avoiding the ugly: Swapping coal for oil?
The biggest battle in the EPA’ s new rule was over how to treat electric cars. While the industry likes to use the term ‘zero emissions vehicle’, a plug-in car requires electricity from the grid. Several estimates I’ve seen put the amount of energy used in the range of 3 miles per kWH. If you’re connected to the hydroelectric-powered clean grid up in Washington, your plug-in would be six times less carbon intensive than a gas powered vehicle. But if you operate that same car in coal-dependent North Dakota, then your ‘zero emissions vehicle’ would actually be 20% more emissions intensive than if it used gasoline. Of course you can offset this electricity use by supporting wind farms in North Dakota, but the vehicle itself is far from ‘zero emissions’. …”

It’s a given despite agitation for cap and trade, climate change, ad nauseam, that coal plants will be around for a fair amount of time to come as touted alternatives are merely supplemental.  And the Waxman-Markey bill is only expected to help mitigate ‘warming’ by 0.05ºC, at best.  Therefore, what’s left?  Dare we say nuclear?

There are some other ideas kicking around for alternative (true substitute) transportation fuels.  But, these require thermodynamic chemistry reversals which require lots of energy.  Dare we say nuclear?