Customer Reviews

The Hydrogen Economy

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Jeremiah Rifkin's book "The Hydrogen Economy" does not give what its title promises.
Most of the book is devoted to historical, political, social considerations, most of which I find well written and even convincing, but which have nothing to do with hydrogen.
However, to me as an engineer, his recourse to thermodynamics to explain the fall of past civilizations appears ludicrous and unnecessary - there is no need to appeal to thermodynamics to make us understand that our world will collapse if it will run short of reasonably cheap energy.
Whether the production of liquid fuels and natural gas will peak within the time frames advocated by Rifkin, or at some other time, there is no doubt in my mind that it will peak, and that well before that time the world must start to convert to renewable energies (assuming that energy from nuclear fusion is still far away from being harnessed).
However Rifkin sees everything easy and cheap. In his chapter on Reglobalization from the Bottom up he advocates the installation of fuel cells in every household or neighbourhood or community, but he seems to forget that "upstream" of each fuel cell there must be a power generator (wind turbine or photo-voltaic cell), electrolytic cells to produce hydrogen and a hydrogen storage facility. Scale economies will certainly reduce the cost of these commodities, but in my mind it is difficult to think that with their combined cost, and the energy losses that will be incurred at each step (electricity to hydrogen gas, hydrogen gas to stored hydrogen, hydrogen to electricity) electricity generation will be cheaper than present day cost from fuel or gas fired power plants.
Also the numbers are staggering. Rifkin writes "Providing these 100 million (per year) new users with an average per capita consumption of electricity equivalent to what US consumers enjoyed in 195 would require the creation of 10 million megawatts of new electricity capacity globally by 2005". Should this capacity have to be provided entirely by renewable sources, as a rough order of magnitude this would require the installation of either:
- From 300 to 500 million 300 KW capacity wind turbines, or
- from 1 to 1.5 million square kilometres of photovoltaic cells
All the above seems to me quite sobering. Particularly the shift to renewable energy sources does not give many hopes to be a way "to lift billions of people out of poverty". Therefore I cannot be as optimistic as Rifkin does - however I share with him the conviction that the shift to these sources is inevitable, and that the world must brace itself to meet the challenges and sacrifices that it will entail. The sooner, the better.

I thought this book was excellent and that everyone should read it. I found Rifkins arguments about the role of energy in the rise and fall of civilizations and the thermodynamics of Rome to be extremely interesting and thought provoking. Also, anyone interested in a very readable yet detailed overview of the whole fossil fuel picture  its history, future potential, and global impact on politics, humanity, and the environment  would find this book enjoyable. These parts alone make the book worth buying. However, his eventual discussion about the hydrogen economy seems like it was written late at night after a few beers. In comparison with the very analytical earlier sections, he provides only a warm and fuzzy vision of a hydrogen future. Three specific criticisms I had were: 1) Although he uses words like hydrogen and fuel cell a lot, Rifkins vision really depends on the use of renewable energy technologies. And since most people dont live near a thermal vent or can easily dam a river, the fundamental question is whether solar and wind power can provide enough power to meet the high energy demands of 10 billion people. This issue was not addressed. 2) Although he makes a compelling and analytical argument against oil alternatives such as natural gas, coal, and tar sand, the potential role of nuclear power seems to have slipped his mind completely. This is a rather large omission, considering several European countries get more than two-thirds of their electricity form nuclear sources. This should have been a chapter, but was instead not discussed at all. 3) It is not clear that the costs and technical expertise required to build and maintain a distributed energy production network would be more efficient than having several elite companies manage mega-fuel cell facilities. Again, a little more analysis would help convince me that a global democratization of energy is actually possible. In summary, the weakness of the current energy regime is explained well, but one is left wondering if the bright and happy picture of the hydrogen economy that is presented is more than just a house of cards.

I put this book down probably quicker than any other book I can think of in recent memory. It's simply awful.

I can't agree with even the paltry 2 or 3 star reviews who say that the first half of the book was good, but that it misses the point (as well as basic physics, thermodynamics, economics, . . . etc.)

Even the first half of this book is awful. The first chapter was the first sign that you're in trouble. It basically just lists a bunch of "stuff" that's going on: Globalization, Protesters in the streets against it, Telecommunications, Biotech, and . . . err . . . oh yeah, let's not forget 9/11 . . . and . . . Barbara Streisand isn't as good as she used to be, blah, blah, blah. I guess this is supposed to count for serious analysis because after just listing a bunch of trends he decries how there's been no serious analysis about Globalization. (Does this guy live under a rock!?!? Maybe an ivy covered one at Wharton where he apparently teaches . . . note to self: Don't get accepted to Wharton.) The rest of the first chapter describes the oil industry in terms starker than Orwell described Big Brother. But don't despair! The Hydrogen Energy Web will save us all! It will be like what the internet was for communications but for like energy or something like that, and it will destroy the evil oil companies, and it'll make everyone rich, we'll all be able to move back to countryside (I'm serious, he's basically claiming that), it will lay golden eggs, make your first born smarter and prettier, make your hair grow back, etc. Where will get the hydrogen? Oh it comes from stars or something, it's the most abundant element in the universe! OK, who will set up this web? (I'm not kidding here, again) Well, big corporations stole the internet before VOLUNTEER GROUPS could set it up, so we'll have VOLUNTEER GROUPS create the hydrogen energy web this time around. Oh, err, big companies will still be needed to, like, make all the hardware, and all the software (he actually concedes this point in a dismissive sentence), will be needed to send people out to fix any problems, to coordinate it, to, well, actually build it, but somehow it will be made by volunteer groups anyway and big companies won't really be a part of it. Even though they will be. But they won't. LOOK OVER THERE! A giant ball of oil company induced global warming is heading straight for us!!!

The second chapter is even better. He complains about how many classifications of oil reserves there are. With completely non-sensical names like "identified reserves", "non-identified reserves", and whatnot (boo-hoo, boo-hoo, there's just soooo many of them) he concludes that they can only have been created to confuse people so that the big oil executives and politicians can manipulate, confuse, and deceive the stupid masses into believing something or another about oil. (I was never quite certain what that was supposed to be. Oh well.) But not Mr. Rifkin! He's beaten them. He's defined "conventional oil" all himself, which excludes all oil that has been found but is currently uneconomical to extract and sell, all oil in polar regions, and all oil underneath the oceans. He does this to prove that we're running out of oil, and that the big oil companies are cooking the books. Tonight I'm going eat "conventional food" which will exclude all food in two thirds of the Kitchen, and all food in, say, the Living Room, to prove to my family that we're all going to starve to death. Don't tell me I'm wrong son! You're cooking the books!! Don't you see we're all going to DIE!

This book is not only awful, it's duplicitous. One of the few mentions of nuclear power is to say in two sentences basically: Utilities put a lot money into nuclear in the '60's and '70's. In the '80's the utilities made the consumer bear the brunt of a lot cost overruns and power plant shutdowns. The idea is to imply that nuclear power was a giant failure with a bunch of cost overruns and power plants that couldn't keep running. Both sentences might be technically true (because there's no mention of nuclear power in the second), but they're crafted to make you imply a conclusion without any specific evidence or argument.

Let's be clear: This book is a political diatribe. Big oil bad, Hydrogen good because it will do all these wonderful things. How will it do all these wonderful things? Some unconvincing arguments, red herrings, and incomplete and inconclusive examples and complete hypotheticals.

One of the biggest flaws is how it handles (or, more accurately, fails to) where hydrogen will come from, since it is not a primary energy source the way oil, coal, or nuclear is. It will take more energy to extract hydrogen from either natural gas or water than we will ever be able to get from the extracted hydrogen, thanks to the second law of thermodynamics. This is the critical question of what will replace oil, period, and only four pages are dedicated to it. The author's answer is solar. His argument for solar? Well, basically, solars's getting cheaper. That's not a complete argument! Is it FEASIBLE to power the world off solar? To power the United States off solar today would require a solar array the size of a small state! And you'd have to make another state size solar array to handle the growth in energy demand. God forbid the sun not shine one day. (Or maybe we'll have to invade the Middle East still because they have like 364 sunny days a year over there, leaving us at the mercy of the islamist anyway. Norway will probably invade Southern California too.) Solar by itself is getting cheaper, great, what about it's cost RELATIVE to other sources? There's zero discussion about using coal, or nuclear to power electrolysis of hydrogen.

This book is mostly a political posture. He puts forward a fantasy political vision, and tries to scare you into thinking it's the only thing that will save us from impending doom with some false techno-babble in lieu of any actual coherent plan or argument.

There are only two possible ways this book could help solve energy problems. One, you could burn it instead of heating oil this winter. Or two, if some magical invention could tap into all the hot air this author blows out his pipe we could use it to turn a turbine. Probably forever. I'm hoping for this latter option, but planning on the first.

I bought this book based mainly on the title and the brief description of the book on the cover. It's a good book, but I think it would be more accurate to name the book "The History of the Oil Industry, and some stuff at the end about hydrogen". I guess I should have browsed through it more before I bought it, but the book doesn't really begin to focus on hydrogen (as opposed to oil) until the last two chapters.
My other complaint about the book is that it tries to explain very complex world issues/events in very simple cause/effect terms. While I agree that future of the oil industry will be closely intertwined with the various religions and cultures of the Middle East, it's a bit of a stretch for a book that is supposed to be about hydrogen to start *explaining* world religions and Middle Eastern social structures.
It also basically concludes that Rome fell because it couldn't support its energy needs. OK, that could have been one of the causes, but it's a lot trickier than that.
It seems to be a well-researched book, but if you're just looking for information about "The Hydrogen Economy", skip to the last two chapters.

This book does a great job of defining the energy dilemma especially the upcoming "Peak Oil" issues. It also does a great job of providing a historical context of our energy usage patterns, showing how energy use is intimately tied to material progress.

The uses of hydrogen as a fuel and its effectiveness is defined well.

So what is wrong?

Well, most people who have even taken high school chemistry have a passing acquaintance wiht hydrogen, its cleanliness and its simplicity. So, this is not a great strength in my opinion.

The real problem is Rifkin does not define how hydrogen can be produced or distributed efficiently, and without that, there is no real hydrogen vision at all. He uses a scant 8 pages to define alternatives for generation of hydrogen for instance. Yet, this is the essential mystery, and he does not resolve it! If hydrogen just becomes an energy transfer medium, like electricity, then it does nothing to resolve the scarcity or environmental problems of fossil fuels. I also found Rifkin's uses of some units of measurement showed him to be an amateur. Several times he mixed up units of work with power, a common enough error, but a dead giveaway against someone who purports to be an energy expert.

This book did a great job of spelling out the problems with oil and the history of the oil industry and the USA's success linked to oil. This was very informative and interesting. Then Rifkin quickly mentions renewable energy will become available to make hydrogen. It's almost unnoticeable how quickly he skips this step, however this is the critical step. Without cheap electricity from a renewable source we might as well use fossil fuels. He never mentions and I don't think he understands how a substitute for fuel cells could do the same thing.

I can't believe how many copies this book sold and how the public blindly believes everything in this book. Now I have to spend my time correcting people and arguing with uninformed newspaper editors as to where our public funds and attention should be directed. They should be focused on the production of cheap electricity through renewable resources. The EU leaders understand this, it's obvious or president doesn't, and it's pretty obvious that the general public in the US doesn't understand it either.

If you want nuts and bolts and some interesting discussion of a modern Manhattan Project.. this book covers about 30 years of progress in Hydrogen related energy research.
Fuel from Water: Energy Independence with Hydrogen, 11th Edition (Paperback). My highlighter just about ran out of ink! ;-)

Another good one was "HYDROGEN - Hot Stuff Cool Science 2nd edition: Discover the Future of Energy".. It is very entertaining (imagine that), and suitable as a robust primer to much of the existing knowledge base.

Elsewhere, these reviews of Hydrogen Economy seem to touch upon the same meme.. The book is a 1- History lesson on global energy 2- Skips discussion of nuclear 3- Polly anna ideas about hydrogen without presenting any real advice about where all the Hydrogen will be derived.

What many have failed to highlight is this author is a well-connected individual, apparently teaching at Whartons EMBA program and chairing a major public policy energy think tank in Washington. The idea that someone who can ignore, in a book about the Hydrogen economy, the importance of Nuclear power and how Hydrogen is produced from a primary power source, and THEN be allowed to TEACH budding young executives at Wharton AND pontificate energy policy.. all for meager 100's of thousands per year in salaries and perks..

When you watch CNBC tonight.. just imagine this character as just one of a legion of slack dilberts ensconced with too much power and too little intelligence.. being rewarded for their vaunted efforts.

With incompetent leadership like this, no wonder we are embroiled in a global recession.

I enjoyed this book, but generally agree with most reviews posted so far. When Rifkin finally gets around to talking about hydrogen, logic falls apart, and he shoots way off into a fluffy left field.

The change in flow was so significant, I had to wonder if Rifkin force-fit his astute observations of the demise of fossil fuels with the next energy trend and a book-selling title.

Rifkin guardedly acknowledges Mitch Horowitz, editor at Penguin group "His editorial suggestions helped guide the direction of this book and his many contributions could be found throughout the finished work". [...] gives some insight on what the editor is into - metaphysics, esoterica and world religion. All big sellers.

Was Rifkin encouraged to draw a conclusion that made for a marketable title ? Did the publisher lend a heavy hand to the dramatic first chapter and highly suspect conclusion?

I am not convinced that this is the book Rifkin set out to write. How can I get a copy of the first draft?

Jeremy Rifkin is known for being a radical visionary and much was expected of him when he embraced hydrogen as our energy panacea. However, this book recycles a lot of old ideas and basically presents more historical material on peak oil than it does on hydrogen. Rifkin also succumbs to fearmongering tactics in the post-9/11 world by having a full chpater on "The Islamist Wild Card." He could have just as well considered the "Venezuelan" wild card. This book fails to deliver any plausible scenarios on how a hydrogen economy is viable when fuel cells require tremendous material usage. As Rifkin admits himself, fuel cells are not a new invention and predate the internal combustion engine. However, they have not been economically viable because hydrogen production is still the big problem. If we use methane to produce hydrogen we are stuck with the nonrenewability issue and if we use electrolysis, the only sensible way would be to use renewables such as wind, solar, geothermal and small-hydro to carry out the electrolysis. How such a transition will be made is missed in the analysis. The most promising feature of fuel cells is that they can be used to feed back into the grid if the infrastructure exists. Only one chapter is devoted to brushing through these intractable issues. Amory Lovins is far more astute in his writings on this matter.

No one can accuse Jeremy Rifkin of thinking small. The Big Picture has been his purview whether contemplating labor, diet, genetic engineering, voting or electronic communication. In THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY he looks at three global factors that are colliding today, and offers a way out of both the immediate crisis and the business model that has dominated human activity for two centuries. The three forces that Rifkin sees shaping our imminent future are the absolute peak in oil production which will occur in three to 30 years; global warming; and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. On the first matter the author offers extensive research findings, supported by all of the major players in the oil industry, that we are nearing a peak in oil production. After that peak is reached we will enter a period of permanently declining supplies and permanently increasing prices. The sort of temporary crisis that occurred in the 1970s will become the norm. No authorities, worldwide, disagree about that fact. There is narrow disagreement about timing. By some accounts oil production peaked in 2003 (a peak is never immediately visible). No credible expert believes the peak is more than 30 years away. The petroleum economy will end. Global warming is underway. How fast, how hot, the human impact, how it might play out -- all are hotly debated: that it is happening is beyond question. Depending on human production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the extent of the effects will be more or less catastrophic, bu "t the process is already underway. Islands will disappear together with parts of Florida and other coastal regions. (All of Florida, by some accounts.) To the degree that we cut our emissions, the worst effects will be mitigated. Islamic fundamentalism is booming. A religion which promotes heaven on earth as an attainable goal is pitted against Christianity's promise of heaven after death, and the former is finding adherents worldwide -- particularly in the Mideast. At the same time, Mideast countries are hurting. The massive wealth that flowed to the oil sheiks two decades ago has dwindled. Arab societies accustomed to zero taxes, cradle to grave social welfare programs, free education, and more are facing 25 percent unemployment and shrinking national budgets. Huge numbers of disaffected youth are joining Islamic groups. Osama bin Laden is a hero on the Arab street. As global oil supplies dwindle the percentage of proven reserves in Islamic hands is rising dramatically, an incalculable pot of gold waiting at the fast approaching end of the petroleum rainbow. Many Arabs believe that this is their destiny, the fulfillment of Mohammed's promise of earthly paradise. If we don't have a plan in place soon: 1. The oil crash will shred the modern industrial world. 2. Global warming will wreak havoc as drought, super storms, rising sea levels, and migration of tropical diseases and pests (to name the most obvious calamities), escalate. 3. A transfer of wealth far beyond anything seen heretofore will occur: from every industrial society to the folks with the keys to the oil rigs. Rifkin sees a solution that could completely rewrite the plot. Hydrogen. Hydrogen is everywhere, it is a completely democratic resource. You can generate it at home with a solar panel and a jar of water. Hydrogen fuel cells are a proven technology, in use for decades, and the only waste product is pure hot water. The prospect Rifkin holds out is for a World Wide Energy Web, modeled on the Internet. Every node on such a Web can be a producer as well as a consumer. He makes a convincing case that hydrogen is the only energy source that can work into the future, and that it will occur one way or another (unless we contrive mass suicide via nukes or biotech). How painful the transition might be is the only serious question, and the author offers scenarios for a timely shift by choice versus a calamitous shift by default. In some respects this new regime is already moving ahead: major automakers are introducing hydrogen fuel cell cars, the Chicago Transit System (among several others) is buying hydrogen buses, industries are investing in hydrogen fueled backup generators, and production of hydrogen cells is ramping up. On the other hand, our national policy is weighted heavily toward oil, with billions being poured into warfare and armaments in the Mideast and negligible federal investment in alternatives. It appears that most politicians are hell-bent on riding the fossil fuel horse until it dies instead of looking for another mount. A book full of promise and doom, Jeremy Rifkin has once again delivered a visionary text. One can only hope it serves as a rich catalyst in the transition we now face.