Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
167 of 185 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliant insight on energy markets from America's leading energy journalist, February 27, 2008
I no longer question my sanity. Robert Bryce's book, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of "Energy Independence," provides THE much needed voice of reason in a cacophony of idiocy, ignorance, ideology, and isolationism.
I have been an energy policy wonk in Washington, DC for over 25 years, even founding and running energy policy think tanks for the last decade. Yet I found myself perplexed by much of what I heard being bandied about regarding energy policy. None of the public dialogue made any sense to me. Both Republicans and Democrats favored senseless interventions into energy markets, albeit for different reasons (R's for national security and D's for environment). The only thing the two parties could agree on was doling out pork to favored constituencies. Nearly everyone in public life embraced the ridiculous mantra of "energy independence."
I searched in vain for a hard hitting, top-to-bottom analysis of energy policy from a market perspective. Something Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek might endorse. I searched feverously for a book that would represent my world view. I found mostly apocalyptic screeds with titles like the End of Oil or Blood and Oil or Powerdown or Carbon War (about 35 such "sky is falling" titles are available on Amazon.com since only 2000).
It is against this gloomy backdrop that I read Bryce's Gusher of Lies. It is by far the best energy policy book in the last decade and that is because I am too lazy to go back farther. Bryce is a journalist and he explains his views in the easy to understand, down to earth manner that we expect from journalists. But unlike many journalists, he is amazingly comprehensive and detailed in his analysis. He has an economist's command of the salient facts and interconnections but writes in a lucid and comprehensible manner. Given the complexity of energy, this is no easy feat.
Interestingly, Bryce is no market ideologue (I plead guilty) so I doubt I will run across him at the next meeting of the vast right wing conspiracy. His bona fides are left of center. As America's leading energy journalist, his last two books were Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego, and the Death of Enron, where he excoriates the Bush Administration for its cozy relationship with Enron, and Cronies: Oil, The Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate, where his words drip with venom for the abuses of Republicans, especially the Bush Clan.
Despite his leanings, he wholeheartedly accepts John Adams' admonition that "facts are stubborn things" and Daniel Moynihan's lament that "you're not entitled to your own facts" and Dragnet's Sergeant Friday's "just the facts, ma'am." Admittedly, ideological tracts on markets and the perniciousness of government intervention get my adrenaline spiking but it is refreshing to see your ideology vindicated by such a cogent marshalling of the facts.
He obliterates much of the idiocy that passes for main stream views of energy. A couple of his nuggets: oil imports are not a problem, they are a solution; even assuming that climate change is anthropogenic, many of the proposals are just silly money wasters; wind energy, solar, and ethanol are not going to solve any of our problems; let price play its legitimate role; and why lowering electric demand is folly.
His chapter 21 lays out a host of very common sense (based on the facts as they are not as we wish them to be) proposals: get government out of the energy business; accept interdependence of energy supplies, especially oil; accept increasing energy use and adapt to a changing global climate; develop technologies that use solar, nuclear, and encourage efficient consumption; increase domestic supplies and rely more heavily on natural gas.
My only lament is that many of the policy makers who pontificate on energy will not take the time to read such a comprehensive treatment of energy. We are the worse for that. Bryce, however, has restored my faith that there are some analysts that see the world clearly, instead of through green colored glasses or wrapped in the flag.
|
|
|
64 of 74 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Incredible eye-opener, a MUST READ for all our politicians and think tank people, February 29, 2008
Unlike Kenneth Malloy, I am not an energy policy guy, I'm an ordinary, retired, novel-reading woman living on a sailboat -- using wind and solar energy i might add, (in addition to diesel when required). So, i represent the other end of the knowledge spectrum from Mr. Malloy. This book was fascinating. Mr. Bryce's writing style and wit provide a good and easy read even for the novice. I hope it's a best-seller, because that would mean that LOTS OF PEOPLE read the book. Never having read anything serious about energy, I was probably like most Americans and just believed that ethanol and other alternative energy sources were good things to spend money on. Mr. Bryce certainly opened my eyes. He takes an incredible amount of raw data and turns it into a down-to-earth explanation of what's right and what's wrong with the whole gamut of energy sources. And he goes one step beyond by discussing our Energy Policies, and how screwed up they are. There's nothing wrong with having dependencies on other countries. We already do in so many things anyway! As a nation, we REALLY need to get beyond this Arab/Moslem phobia. I mean, really, in the 21st century, with the world getting smaller and smaller, how can we EVER think that we could or should be indepedent suppliers of something so vital as energy. Besides, trade is good; Commercial relations with other countries are good. If Americans are so worried about our supplies of oil, then let them start buying smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles like most of the rest of the world. You don't see many SUV's in Europe. I am less optimistic about our congressmen and senators doing the rigth thing, however. Where there is an opportunity for "pork"(corn subsidies in this case), the greed and slime will spill. I love Mr. Bryce's recommendations and suggestions. They make so much sense! Why aren't other people thinking about this? If this raw data is available, then why are so many people spouting the ethanol myth? so much money wasted! Yes, Mr. Bryce, let's hope that Washington could get the hell out of the energy business!!! Thank you for writing such an important book.
|
|
|
17 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Energy Independence, Alchemy and Perpetual Motion, September 23, 2008
"A Gusher of Lies" is a must-read for those wanting the cold, hard facts on the current state and future prospects of worldwide energy dynamics. Written by Robert Bryce, a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research and energy journalist and author for the past twenty years, "Gusher of Lies" is meticulously researched and footnoted (60+ pages of bibliography and references). It relies on numerical facts, realistic forecasts and opinions of key members of the scientific community to dispel any notion that the United States will ever achieve "energy independence" until another energy source/application, that does not currently exist, is invented. The alarming truth is the United States, along with every other developed country on the planet, are inexorably dependent on fossil fuels and will be for the foreseeable future.
While looking at the numbers, one should ask how "energy independence" has become such a dominant theme. Is it because the Middle East is evil and wants Westerners dead? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The oil behemoths of the Middle East need the West as much as, if not more than, we need them. Oil makes up ~7% of total U.S. imports but accounts for between 65 and 95 percent of Persian Gulf exports, depending on the nation. In the long term, economics tend to supplant all other factors. To claim energy independence will significantly reduce terrorism is a contrivance. While there is no denying that some Middle Eastern players have been linked to Islamic fundamentalists, most terrorist organizations are low-tech in nature and don't need oil dollars. Their financing has been found to come from drugs, human trafficking, weapons trading and other criminal activities. The cost to finance terrorist operations is a rounding error compared to the $5 trillion in annual energy revenues. Not to mention other, rapidly expanding economies will happily buy up much of what the U.S. doesn't in their laser-focused goal to enjoy what the U.S. has for many decades.
Why aren't politicians and special interests clamoring for semi-conductor independence? Semiconductors are also a vital commodity, yet the U.S. imports ~80% of its total semiconductor needs compared to ~60% for oil. The U.S. is also dependent on others for many other crucial commodities - manganese for making steel (100% imported), bauxite for making aluminum (100%), graphite (100%), platinum (91%), tin (88%), titanium (85%)... The list of dependencies goes on and on. So why have so many people latched on to "energy independence" when a brief examination of worldwide energy sources and demand would reveal the absurdity of such a goal in a globally interdependent world? The answer might be found in the term, "energy independence" itself. In the year 2000, a news data base, Factivia, that tracks the use of terms and phrases in major periodicals counted 449 total stories using the phrase. Since 9/11, the use of the term has risen exponentially. In 2006 the term was used in 8,069 stories. Power misers (no pun intended) and others seeking to influence behavior of the masses are always looking for issues that will appeal to, and even manipulate, people's emotions. It is worth mentioning that since "Gusher of Lies" was published in March 2008 the use of the phrase "Energy Independence" has dwindled and been altered. If one listens closely, phrases like "CLOSER to energy independence" and similar semantically adjusted phrases have become more common.
ETHANOL
In an effort to supplement energy needs with renewable and alternative energy, ethanol has garnered much attention in recent years. The current U.S. ethanol strategy uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize (at $0.51/gallon) fuel manufactured from the most subsidized ($51.3 billion between 1995 and 2005) crop in America - corn. What follows are the independently, peer reviewed claims of the scientific community and independent sources, which of course vary significantly from those of the likes of Archer Daniels Midland (the world's largest agribusiness), political recipients of its $7.9 million in campaign contributions and its Washington lobbyists:
1. To completely replace the U.S. consumption of gasoline, which accounts for less than half of our total current oil consumption, with corn ethanol would require 546 million acres dedicated specifically for its production. To put this in perspective, all farmland for every crop grown in America currently occupies 440 million acres.
2. The energy derived from gasoline, as measured in BTUs, is between 600 and 700% more than that required to extract, transport and refine the required crude oil to produce it. The energy available from corn ethanol is 71% of that required to grow, transport and process it from the required feedstock. This means the production of corn ethanol results in a net energy loss of 29%. Put another way, this is like investing a dollar and getting a 71 cent return. Cellulosic ethanol produced from switch grass and wood biomass is even worse with net energy losses of 50 and 57% respectively.
3. Ethanol is not the answer to global warming. It makes it worse. Taking the energy required to produce corn ethanol into account, the carbon dioxide emissions from corn ethanol fuel is on the order of 50% higher than those of traditional fossil fuels.
4. Ethanol-based fuel has less energy content and results in lower fuel economy. "Consumer Reports" magazine compared the fuel economy of a new Chevy Tahoe running on regular gasoline to E85 (85% ethanol blend). It's fuel economy dropped by 27% with E85.
5. Ethanol emits more pollutants than gasoline. In April 2007, Stephen L. Johnson of the Environmental Protection Agency issued a statement that the use of ethanol will result in major increases in the release of two of the worst air pollutants: volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides - 4 and 7% respectively. Using the ethanol mandates set by the government, this translates to up to 83,000 tons of additional annual air pollutants in the U.S.
6. It requires 880 gallons of water to produce one gallon of corn ethanol. Figuring 15% irrigation and 85% rain water, this translates to 132 gallons of water for one gallon of ethanol compared to 5 gallons for gasoline.
NATURAL GAS
The U.S. reached "peak gas" production in 1973. Peak gas is the point at which maximum extraction of known reserves has been reached and begins to decline, sometimes exponentially. The U.S. has been a net importer of natural gas for decades and, over the coming decades, those imports are expected to increase dramatically.
NUCLEAR POWER
While the U.S. produces ~4.7 million pounds of the uranium required for nuclear power generation each year, we are currently importing ~83% of the uranium required to power existing plants, a significant portion coming from Russia. Meanwhile ours and the world's demand for uranium continue to grow.
COAL
The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal. At our current rate of consumption, we have more than 200 years of reserves left. But because of emission standards, we still have to import "cleaner" coal from other countries. While we are currently a net exporter of coal, it is estimated we will become a net importer by 2015. In an effort to offset oil requirements, coal is being converted to motor fuel (coal-to-liquid) via the Fischer-Tropsch process. However a study conducted by Toyota of 23 different fuels found coal-to-liquid fuel to have the highest carbon dioxide footprint - ~50% higher compared to gasoline.
SOLAR
Residential solar power currently costs ~$0.37 per kilowatt hour. This takes into account the current cost of solar panels minus the offsets of government incentives and utility sell-backs (where utilities are required to buy back excess power generated by the homeowner) without which, the cost would be higher. The average cost of electricity from utilities is ~$0.10 per kW hour. If worldwide solar capacity increased at a rate of 25% a year, thereby reducing manufacturing and purchase costs, in the year 2020 solar power would account for 1% of global energy demand at a cost of ~ $0.22 per kW hour.
WIND POWER
1. Wind generated power, like solar, is dependent on the weather. And the cruel irony is that on the hottest days, when electricity demand is the highest, the wind doesn't blow.
2. Wind power must always have a backup energy source ready for when the air is stagnant. This means keeping a power plant running at a lower capacity called "spinning reserve" which burns fuel without creating electricity.
3. As a power plant's output varies, in order to meet the volatile demand caused by fluctuating wind patterns, it becomes significantly less efficient, using more fuel and costing more to operate.
4. A study conducted by the British Royal Academy of Engineering determined that the combined cost of wind power is more than twice that of Coal, natural gas or nuclear. Even taking into account proposed emissions trading scenarios, conventional methods of producing energy are still cheaper than wind.
5. In 2004, total energy produced by existing U.S. wind turbines was 14 billion kW hours. An aggressive campaign to add wind energy capacity has resulted in over 20,000 wind turbines installed by 2007. The Energy Information Administration predicts a four-fold increase to 64.5 billion kW hours by 2030. This means wind energy will be providing little more than 1% of America's anticipated electricity needs.
Calling for "Energy Independence" violates the second law of goal setting - the goal must be achievable. The phrase "Energy Independence" boils down to another gimmick employed to invoke mass emotion in pursuit of goals that frequently have...
Read more ›
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Roy Spencer
by Morgan Downey
by Lawrence Solomon
