Customer Reviews

Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(16)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

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.

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.

"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 little to do with energy. Only the ignorant or deceitful use the phrase with a straight face. The fact is the world is becoming increasingly interdependent and energy independence won't be possible until some great discovery or invention, to which no one is currently known to be close, presents itself. China's and India's populations are over 1.3 and 1.1 billion, respectively. Both economies are growing at a voracious rate and will continue to do so. There are currently 6.7 billion people on this planet and there are expected to be over two billion MORE in the next 40 years. A significant percentage of this growth will be in the middle class - people who like to use energy. Do the math.

This is a grim message indeed. There is no pleasure in its dissemination. But ignorance and futility are even more painful. Stephen Hawking may have been right when he said the only way the human race will survive will be if we figure out how to colonize other planets. Growth cannot continue in a confined space. Something has to give. If we can't figure out how to travel across space and terraform, we better figure out how to stabilize the population on this planet. Otherwise the ever increasing struggle for resources will trigger an "event" that will undoubtedly reduce our numbers to a level this planet can support... at least until an asteroid hits us or our sun burns out. I hope that invention comes in time or I'm wrong about the rest.

Carpe Diem!

There is an adage in politics that perception is reality. Belief that something is true, no matter how preposterous, often results in pretentious public policy. The notion that volatile, intermittent "renewable energy sources" can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, make the air cleaner, shore up any shortage of electricity supply, and meaningfully abate CO2 emissions from fossil-fueled plants is now deeply entrenched in our political rhetoric. Such belief has the same basis in reality as the Wizard's glitzy illusions had for the Emerald City of Oz. Environmental history is the chronicle of how adverse consequences flowed from the uninformed decisions of the well-intentioned. When perception is wrong, reality will ultimately impose itself as itself, often with rude effect. Even in Kansas.

In this work, Robert Bryce rather successfully portrays the reality about how we use energy to function in the modern world and how dependence on fossil fuels enables much that is desirable about modernity. Much of the next fifty years will devolve around the way the rest of the world insists upon the same level of energy reliability and comfort that characterizes Europe and much of the Americas--in ways that are not regressive and seek to mitigate the adverse thermal implications of fossil fuel use. In the production of electricity, for example, with its penchant for utter reliability at low cost, this will mean a significant increase in nuclear power plants to supply basic demand, hitched to many more natural gas facilities, which can flexibly respond to demand fluctuations while emitting low levels of carbon dioxide. In this manner, the world can somewhat lessen its heavy reliance upon coal, which is now by far the greatest contributor to human-caused carbon emissions in the production of electricity. Any other scenario is contrived nonsense.

It is the kind of gibberish that attends propaganda made by a flotilla of supernumerary "renewable energy" technologies, each with their Enronesque retinue of lobbyists. It is more than strange (so strange that its omission weakens Bryce's otherwise formidable case) that the author fails to mention hydroelectricity, which has for more than a century been the very symbol of renewable energy. Hydro may be the single most effective power source for electricity, emitting no carbon and producing highly reliable energy that is both heavy duty and dispatchable. But it also is so environmentally destructive that few places outside China and some third-world countries are building new hydro dams.

Bryce also makes the best case possible for wind power, in the process showing how little the technology can achieve. However, he keeps referring to wind technology's intermittency, as if this was the fundamental problem with it. He misses the real worms at its core: the random nature of its power source AND the highly fluctuating intensity of any power it delivers. This unpredictable variability means that wind energy can only be considered a minor ingredient in a much larger fuel mix. The fact that any power grid must balance demand with supply on a less than second-by-second basis means that reliable conventional generators, in most cases fossil-fired, must follow and balance the wind volatility--with substantial thermal implications. It's not just that wind technology produces no capacity value; it is also that the balancing required system-wide for integrating wind flux suggests that the technology cannot offset significant carbon dioxide emissions, which is its raison d'ętre.

Bryce's breezy style should help the book's popularity. The more people read it, the more informed our energy debate will be. As it now stands, there is a powerful odor of mendacity encircling this issue in the United States, with candidates for national and state political office emitting scientific gibberish instead of illumined policy prescriptions. Gusher of Lies should clear the air by providing a countervailing whiff of reality, which could provide the basis for much more effective policy, saving billions of dollars, not to mention sparing people from an endless stream of political bromide and self-serving, unsubstantiated industry claims on behalf of feckless, environmentally treacherous technologies.

What I love about Gusher of Lies is that it's highly entertaining, educational and subversive, and it will appeal to readers across the political spectrum.

I think so highly of the book that I have the hope -- perhaps naive hope -- that it will open the eyes of voters who have been subjected to the campaign rhetoric of energy independence. You don't have to consider yourself on the left or the right to enjoy Bryce's dissection of those "energy independence" claims.

I particularly enjoyed the chapter on the ethanol scam, and if you don't think it is a scam, just check out the evidence.

Broadly speaking, this is a one-of-a-kind book on the realpolitik of energy.

Bryce states energy independence is a political construct reiterated by every President since 1973. It is promoted by everybody including Bush, Obama, McCain, Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, and Thomas Friedman in The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. Energy independence is used as an argument for fighting terrorism, reforming the Middle East, enhancing energy security, insulating us from oil embargos, getting us out of Iraq, and lowering oil prices. But, it is utopian.

Energy independence does not achieve its objectives. Even if we did not import oil, we'd be vested in the Middle East stability as oil prices are set globally. Any disruption in supply anywhere causes oil prices to spike on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Despite the energy independence mantra, US oil imports have risen from 38% of U.S. oil consumption in 1973 to 60% currently. This is despite our economy being 40% more energy efficient. This is the Jevons Paradox explained in The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy: "Efficiency fails to curb demand because it lets more people do more... faster - and more/faster invariably swamps ... efficiency gains." Terrorists fund themselves with crime, drug, but not oil. The Middle East has never reformed itself despite long stints of low oil prices.

"The Ethanol Scam" chapter is excellent. If all U.S. corn was converted into ethanol, it would supply only 5% of U.S. oil needs. Ethanol production is inefficient consuming 100% of the energy it generates vs only 5% for gasoline. Ethanol government subsidies amount to $1.50 per gallon. One company ADM controls 29% of U.S. ethanol and is the main beneficiary of such subsidies. The corn conversion to ethanol causes food price increases of $3.72 per gallon. Over full production cycle, ethanol emits 50% more CO2 than gasoline. It also emits toxic nitrous oxide. E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) causes vehicles mpg to drop by a third. Large scale ethanol production would deplete U.S. aquifers. It requires 880 gallons of water for irrigated corn or 170 gallons for non-irrigated corn to generate a gallon of ethanol vs less than 5 gallons of water for gasoline. Ford and GM build flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) because the Fed counts only estimated gasoline consumed when figuring out fleet efficiency. Thus, a 15 mpg FFV turns into a 29 mpg rating. The only beneficiaries of ethanol are ADM, Ford, GM, and corn growers.

Bryce explains why alternative fuels will not dent fossil fuels dominance. Coal-to-liquids (CTL) technology has remained economically unfeasible despite massive subsidies. The CTL conversion emits 50% more CO2 than gasoline. Solar and wind power are uneconomical. They are both intermittent. And wind is intermittent at the worst time (peak electricity demand on hot days with no wind). To guarantee an adequate electricity load to avoid black outs, utilities have to keep burning coal, natural gas, etc... at all times. The EIA projects solar and wind will generate less than 1% of U.S. electricity by 2030.

Many of Bryce recommendations make sense.
a)U.S. Government should eliminate most subsidies. This would curb the ethanol scam among others.
b)The U.S. should reduce the number of gasoline fuel blends dictated by State regulations. Those increase gas costs, reduce gas supply, and have unproven environmental impact.
c)U.S. to redefine energy security as functional energy interdependence supported by a diversified portfolio of energy suppliers within an efficient global energy market.
d)Accept increasing energy use and adapt to changing climate. The prospective boost in China's coal consumption to support its economic growth guarantees CO2 emissions will keep growing. Also, most Kyoto Protocol member countries have failed their CO2 reduction targets by 20% or more.
e)Embrace nuclear power, natural gas, and pursue energy efficiency.
f)Increase domestic oil production. Open up the ANWR and the coasts to offshore exploration. There are tons of oil and gas in those areas.

Some of Bryce recommendations are contradictory. He recommends pursuing solar energy backed by government funds. Meanwhile, earlier he explained why solar will amount to less than 1% of electricity generation by 2030; and that the government should get out of the energy business.

Other recommendations are somewhat controversial. He recommends we engage the Middle East as trading partners. He believes rational trading partners do not fight wars. He recommends we leave Iraq and trade with Iran. Iran has no problem selling its oil to anyone else anyway. The U.S. should share the military burden of stabilizing the Middle East with China, Japan, and the E.U. Readers will interpret these through their own political filter. When Bryce crosses over into foreign policy, I would supplement it with The Post-American World and The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.

Just months after this book publication several facts are outdated. He mentions oil is cheap at $2.82 per gallon in August 2007; but it rose to $4.00 recently. He also states that in the future crude oil could reach $100 to $150 per barrel. It already has in July 2008! He also stated we love big SUV gas guzzlers. But, SUVs are sitting on dealers lots at huge discounts.

When developing his long term energy prospect, Bryce omitted tar sands. Tar sands hold oil reserves are twice regular worldwide oil reserves. And, Canada holds half those reserves. Canada has already bypassed Saudi Arabia as the main crude oil exporter to the U.S. (17.6% of total for Canada vs 14.3% for Saudi Arabia).

Bryce dismissed oil shale as the government spent billions in the 1980s without generating any fuel. Since, oil prices have increased and technology prospects are encouraging. Western U.S. oil shale has estimated recoverable reserves nearly triple Saudi Arabia oil reserves.

Tar sand and oil shale have implications that contradict Bryce. First, the concept of Non-OPEC Peak Oil (declining production) is obsolete (chapter 7). Second, the U.S. will be less dependent on Middle East and more reliant on Canada and domestic resources.

This is, sadly, a somewhat important book with a consequential and true bottom line, but one that is terribly marred by the author's idiosyncrasies.

The main point of the book is that geology, agriculture and economics just don't afford us the feasibility or even the desirability to be energy independent. Furthermore politics has latched on the popular desires and dreams of what energy independence would achieve to actually make matters worse.

As an energy journalist Mr. Bryce is clearly familiar with the technical details of his subject. He lays out convincingly that essentially all the popularly offered alternatives to oil at best don't work, and can sometimes actually make matters worse. Solar and wind technology are currently such that they can not provide anything beyond mere percentages of energy grid power, do so at enormous cost, and are of such an inherent nature to not be solutions at all even in the best case scenarios since solar and wind power can't provide baseload power. Since you don't know when the sun will shine and when the wind will blow you'll still need another primary power source to provide that baseload power, and since energy storage technology is inefficient solar can't provide power at night.

He holds his most vehement arguments against Ethanol, a basically horrible idea driven by politics and the Iowa caucuses far more than rationality. By turning cropland from food to energy production you are attempting to take an already tapped out resource and make it do a double duty there's not enough land in America for it to do, and which it does extremely inefficiently relatively to oil. It also has next to no actual advantages in reducing pollution, consumes far too much water, and reduces food production thus increasing prices and starvation. He convincingly shows it is a political kickback/subsidy to the corn ethanol industry and not an energy policy.

The author also thoroughly explains just how interdependent global energy markets are. Not only are oil alternatives unavailable to the US (and the world) should the US somehow achieve energy independences (which it couldn't unless energy demand and hence standards of living and national power declined precipitously) the rest of the world would still buy oil and enrich Arab countries that fund terrorism, and the world would still pollute tremendously. And they would quickly overtake America economically and militarily by continuing to use the most economic fuel to boot. It would be a lose-lose situation for us.

He further decries the politics involved in energy markets and how government intervention has, through both the law of unintended consequences and ignoring what people knew would happen anyway for political gain, made our energy (and our food!) more expensive, and sometimes even more polluting.

I will not attempt to repeat all the author's analyses, but suffice it to say renewable energy is a non-starter. Oil, coal and nuclear are the only primary energy sources that can actually provide the energy human civilization demands. The author suggests that it is best for government to get out of energy policy and let the free market decide. His main thrust is not solutions (although paradoxically in violation of his own suggestion that the free market for decide he calls on government to push more nuclear power), but that the Utopia of energy independence is more of a poisonous lie than something that can be achieved, and which should be abandoned in favor of more sober, rational and realistic assessments of energy options.

Where the author goes off base is in his writing and argumentative style. He is a man of the left, but one who has come to the conclusion that all the green technologies pushed by so many on the left (as well as some on the right) are Chimeras and false illusions at best. This seems to unsettle him, so he falls back on a safety: Blame it all on Bush and the Neocons. He tries desperately to convince the reader that solar, wind, especially ethanol, and many other energy independence movements are primarily the result of an evil neocon cabal that is trying to wreck America. For good measure he also concludes, by induction and without evidence, that all neocons are racist and primarily motivated by that. It's completely out of place and feels like the author is pushing a round peg through a square hole. He also has the debate style of a high school senior and it gets tedious to read quick. Every argument follows the same pattern: so and so say X, BUT according to such and such think tank Y is actually true. He has many facts at his command but doesn't do a good job tying them together, he instead just shotgun blasts them at the reader. Often times you get the impression he just relays any info from the first few links he finds on google, and as such he'll go into depth on energy consumption from source A in France, India, and Nebraska or something. It neither focuses on the forest or the trees. It also frequently has an angry and perturbed tone that is very off-putting. In one particularly egregious moment he calls Valero the US's largest refiner on one page (in context it would seem like he's talking about in terms of market capitalization but he doesn't say so) and two pages later declares a completely different company the US's largest refiner (although in context it would appear he's talking about actual refining capacity.)

Important data and conclusions that people should know, but someone needs to write a more readable and less emotional/political book.

If you wish to understand an issue, you must understand the history of that issue. His information is interesting because it has the type of in-depth historical information that is needed to understand this issue. However, there were some areas that I felt he didn't fully explain and some of his conclusions may be questioned. I highly recommend this book, if for no other reason, it gives a different perspective than you have been used to. It clarifies so much of what has gone on in the last 50 years. After reading this book you will feel that you have a much better grasp of this issue and will unlikely to be fooled easily.

Some time ago, I decided to stop buying books, having every shelf in the home overflowing, and having endured the chore of moving books when there was far fewer of them. But I broke my resolve when I finished the library copy of the Gusher of Lies and went to buy me a copy. It will probably stay right on my desk for some time. It is an exceptional book among the others on the same topic that discuss the issues instead of analyze and draw conclusion as the Gusher does so thoroughly.

Bryce writes clearly and persuades easily with plausible facts supported by numbers. The plethora of references provides a testimony to the wide breath of material covered. Bryce digests the material well and presents it in an easily readable style. I found it enjoyable to go back and seek sections and pages where there was information that caught my eye earlier but did not quite register then.

Sharing with the reader his own experience with the solar panels on his house was enlightening, exceptional, and a treasure in the book. It is rare to obtain trustworthy data for such installations for the owners often exaggerate their energy and monetary savings, even to themselves, to justify the effort and expense. I took the liberty and tabled Bryce's data in a table format. They show the cost of a unit of PV electricity from a home installation, and it is horrendous when compared with what utilities charge.

Installed name-plate power . . . . 3.24 kW
Power actually measured over a year . . . 0.44 kW
Utilization (capacity) factor on 24/7 basis . . 13.6 %
Useful life of the structure . . . . 20 years
Electricity produced in that life span . . . 280 GJ
Sale (savings) of electricity in that life span will bring $7,700
Note: Supported by the net-metering law, the kWh rate is the utility rate.
Purchasing price, installed . . . . $22,500
Note: This cost was subsidized whereby the owner paid only 1/3 of that amount.
Net gain (loss) at the end of the useful life: $(14,800) or (66) %
That percentage is based on the assumption that the repair and maintenance cost will be zero, insurance premiums zero, net-metering will last, and taxes forgiven.

Notice that if the owner had invested his purchase amount (that 1/3) at a reasonable interest, say 5.5 %, he would have $22,000 by that 20th year. On the basis of investing all three thirds he would have $67,000. Instead, in addition to the loss (mostly to the taxpayers as of now), the owner will be facing the pain of financing the dismantling and disposal of the plant, or replacing the PV panels and some electric/electronic components should he decide to continue making his own electricity.

The bottom line is: This "free" PV electricity would have to sell at 240 $/GJ to brake even instead of the 28 $/GJ (10 ˘/kWh) the owner enjoys from the utility. In other words, a solar kWh costs almost nine times more than the utility rate is, and the utility operates at a profit, provides dividend payment, covers operating labor cost, etc.

I am very grateful to Mr. Bryce, a distinguished journalist, for having the courage to say "the way it is" in his book on topics many are afraid to differ from the norm. And he does it with subjects ranging from energy generation to energy diplomacy. I am optimistic that his writing will bring some sanity to the green and self-sufficiency dreaming public and politicians.

Certainly, this book is not perfect, as some other reviewers have alleged. What book is? To me, the arguments presented make sense. One reviewer mentioned that he didn't attack subsidies...he roundly attacks corn subsidies, and the politicians on both sides who kowtow to Big Corn. The tie-in with the election cycle is especially intriguing. Among the other arguments against the ridiculous way we currently have of electing people to our highest offices, the most ridiculous is allowing Iowans so much power.

Yes, he should address methanol; perhaps he will in a future edition. For now, though, we should all think about the consequences of pouring billions of dollars into alternate fuels that will, ultimately, condemn millions to starvation. We are already reaping the dubious benefits of rushing so much of our grain into ethanol in the way of higher food costs. What will happen to the rest of the world when we can no longer provide them with grain because all of our major grain crops are destined to go into our cars? How sustainable is ethanol when two years of drought occur (as it most certainly will)? Then, not only will we not have enough food, we won't have enough fuel, either. It's called robbing Peter to pay Paul, people, and it's never a good idea.