Customer Reviews

Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I have been researching the topic of oil depletion by reading (& buying!) many books. I was hoping that this small volume would provide a nice, condensed, well-argued version to hand to friends and family. I was wrong.

While Goodstein lays out the usual scenario regarding oil depletion and correctly explains differences between "remaining years" via the Hubbert's Peak method and the R/P method, much of the information is seemingly unconnected.

Yes, I know that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply. But I have read much clearer explanations of those laws in Freshman Physics in college. While "pithy", his explanations are not exactly clear or self-evident to the casual reader. And, once Thermodynamics are explored, the reader is left wondering WHY was all that explained? How does that connect to oil depletion? I know, because I have been studying this in other books, but this book does not link the theoretical explanations clearly with the problem of a shortage in oil production, available energy, etc.

I have read books that were longer and more clear on the subject; books that are a faster, easier and more understandable read than this brief volume. The first I would recommend is "The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies" by Richard Heinberg. This is an excellent well-rounded review of all issues regarding oil depletion.

For the reader who would like to explore the geological aspects in more depth (why can't we explore for more? what about making existing fields more productive? how is oil formed and where is it found?), I would recommend "Hubbert's Peak" by Kenneth Deffeyes, an associate of King Hubbert.

I'm sorry I paid so much for this slim little volume. Those books I recommended will cost you much less, are more clear, and easier to digest than this one.

Note: "Charts, graphs, photographs" in the Editors Review should be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, there are charts and illustrations, but they are simplistic. Some of the inserted illustrations are almost child-like.

Goodstein's book stands out from others about Peak Oil I've read because he emphasizes the thermodynamic aspects of the oil problem. Economic reasoning about energy resources can be misleading because economics arose in the 18th Century and implicitly assumed the Newtonian scientific worldview before it incorporated the concepts of heat and entropy developed in the 19th Century. In other words, economics presupposes the existence of perpetual-motion machines. In the physical reality we have to live in, however, the "energy returned on energy invested" (EROEI) determines the true value of an energy resource. The good old-fashioned gushing oil wells we had 50-60 years ago had EROEI's of 100:1 or better, whereas current oil extraction has an EROEI around 10:1 on average and falling. When the EROEI of an energy resource falls down to 2:1 or less, the game is over because you aren't yielding enough energy to maintain an industrial civilization, much less to grow it. However we keep seeing physically ignorant economic analyses of alternative energy "sources" like ethanol-from-corn, Canadian oil sands, hydrogen fuel cells etc. that are really pseudoscientific because they have unity or worse EROEI's, even if the author can assign some arbitrary "price" to the final product that makes them seem "competitive" with real energy supplies.

Once you understand and integrate the thermodynamic aspect of the energy problem, you realize that the seemingly colossal reserve of oil sands in Alberta is useless and irrelevant if you can't extract it with a high enough EROEI. Moreover, any physically plausible way to capture a form of energy to replace oil will require a massive investment from the current and struggling stream of fossil fuels supplies for its construction, and it will have to generate an EROEI thereafter that is not only sufficient for our current needs, but also leaves plenty for building its replacements and further expanding the supply without having to dip into additional fossil fuels. Solar panels and windmills can't do this; the factories which make them don't run off of sunlight and wind, but are plugged into the regular electrical grid powered by coal, natural gas and nuclear. Until we can find the thermodynamic trap door that frees us from fossil fuels, we face the prospect of the "Dieoff" plausibly argued on certain Websites, especially considering that modern agriculture burns about ten calories of fossil fuels energy to deliver one calorie of food energy to our tables. Goodstein deserves a lot of credit for trying to get out the truth about the energy emergency, despite the cognitive resistance he's encountering from people who claim to be knowledgeable about physics yet who have been hypnotized by "economics."

I have trouble understanding why so many people favor intellectual debate over meaningful action. We don't need longer books or more detailed technical explanations. Denser treatises won't heat our homes or transport us around the globe.

To me, the author's goal seems both simple and exceedingly well done: to paint an unvarnished picture of a world headed towards a disaster no one is taking seriously.

Like some other reviewers, I have been researching alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. At present, they are pitiful. This book explains why the alternatives are so bleak, and why finding better alternatives requires a huge undertaking for which we require a much stronger resolve than currently exists.

In my community, residents periodically "all" try to read the same book, and then discuss it. I wish everyone would read this book, not just in my town, but in towns and cities everywhere. It's understandable, direct, and extremely sobering. We don't need a better book on the subject; simply acting on this one would be a superb start.

Goodstein's small volume discusses the consequences of having passed the peak of oil discovery and soon reaching the peak of oil production. He makes the extreme but correct claim that civilization as we know it will not survive, but will revert to no better than an eighteenth century world, unless we can find a way to live without the oil, coal, methane, and other fossil fuels which are running our electrical generation plants and our transportation systems.

In the course of his discussion of the scientific basis for our fuel based society, he makes the useful distinction between energy conservation (That's the first law of thermodynamics, energy/mass is always conserved) and fossil fuel conservation (That would help postpone the crisis), briefly discusses heat engines and entropy (that's the second law - we need useful work not just energy).

Goodstein makes the telling observation that oil is valuable and essential as a raw material (feedstock) for the synthetic materials, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries. Once we don't have enough of it, it will be more valuable for these purposes than it ever was as a fuel source. A chapter, possibly a book, could be written on this neglected aspect of the oil as a fuel issue alone. Drilling for the Alaska oil should be postponed, if not forever, until at least it is the last resource for the petrochemical industries.

The alternatives to oil as the fuel source are examined. Goodstein identifies two as possible solutions to the problem.

One is direct conversion of sunlight to electricity. This is something that can be done now but at nowhere near the efficiency and cost needed to be practical. It will need to be done much better to be a solution.

The other is the feared and scorned nuclear power alternative. Nuclear power is not easy to discuss in a society that required NMR instruments to be renamed MRI instruments (magnetic resonance imaging instead of nuclear magnetic resonance) to avoid the dreaded word nuclear before introducing them into medical practice for diagnostic purposes, . People are frightened of nuclear fission power generation and there are issues to be resolved (safe disposal of long lived radioactive waste, safe operation of power plants). Goodstein has dismayed and offended people - see other reviews - for daring to raise nuclear power and identifying it as one of the two possible fuel source solutions.

Goodstein is optimistic even in the face of his "civilization as we know it will not survive" statement when he identifies the solution as one of engineering. This is a case where the trite "If we can put a man on the moon why can't we ... " works. We don't need a break through in fundamental science nor do we need to discover a perpetual motion machine to overthrow the second law. We need to recognize that we have a serious problem which will require significant resources and serious commitment from top to bottom. (a U.S. entropy law rather than a new U.S. energy bill?). It is difficult to be optimistic about that happening until there is more than $2 a gallon gasoline to focus the debate.

Goodstein isn't very optimistic that our present national and international leadership even recognizes the problem. Possibly this book will help.

David Goodstein does a good job of treating a flammable subject with the balance and seriousness it deserves. His conclusion is that there is no doubt that fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) will run out by the end of the century, but that we will be forced to begin dealing with the ramifications of falling supply long before that. Most estimates assume that the coming lack of oil will become a problem only when the wells have all dried up. Goodstein argues that the problems will occur much earlier - when production peaks at the half-way point of the planet's oil reserves. A point that is either here or will soon arrive.

The book avoids a long and detailed discussion of the geological forces behind the formation of fossil fuels - giving just a brief overview - and doesn't discuss the techniques of oil exploration, production and drilling at all. Goodstein's audience is the person who is unfamiliar with the science behind the controversy and a large portion of the book is devoted to an overview of energy, fuel, the science behind the discovery of the uses of oil and our rising dependence on it (with one or two brief forays into the related phenomenon of global warming).

I give the book 5 stars not for its fluid prose (although it is very readable) but because the author draws simple, firm and appropriate conclusions based on available evidence, while at the same time studiously avoiding hysteria and hyperbole to make his point. He also offers some alternative suggestions which, while unable to completely prevent economic and social dislocations that will be caused by falling oil production, do offer some hope.

Oil will soon begin to run out, and the magical "market" will not save us. Caltech physicist David Goodstein adds his voice to the growing chorus warning that official complacency is steering us like the Titanic straight for a massive iceberg. Global oil reserves are projected to hit the Hubbert Peak sometime between now (according to some oil geologists) and 2020 (the most optimistic estimates of the U.S. government and industry). After the peak, we will be on the downslope, and prices will rise as supplies diminish. Even a surprising discovery of a new 90 billion barrel/year field, the biggest ever found, would only postpone the peak by one year. Goodstein illustrates the consequences -- if there is a 5% gap annually after the peak between growing demand and diminishing supply, then in 10 years the gap will grow to 50%. In only 10 years after some point in the very near future, in other words, the world will see the available oil reduced by 1/2. Goodstein points out that the U.S., with 5% of the world's people, consumes 25% of global oil production. "Cheap gasoline is not the solution; it's a big part of the problem," he adds. This physicist is no polemicist, but it is clear he does not consider economics to be any sort of reliable science. If the market is supposed to magically set the right prices via supply and demand, then how can oil and gas possibly be so cheap when it is so crucially valuable and running out? Goodstein notes that oil companies do not produce oil. There are unspoken volumes behind some of his brief comments. Those volumes can be found in the work of Herman Daly, the ecological economist, who has been pointing out for years that mainstream economics sets itself against the basic laws of physics when it comes to natural resources and the environment, especially the second law of thermodynamics -- entropy.

Given the impending crisis as oil begins to run out, Goodstein says "the intent of this small book is to explain the relevant laws of nature." Small is right -- 122 apparent pages of text are actually only 90 when chapter divisions and graphics are subtracted. Much of this short text is devoted to introductory lessons in physics (from his many years of Caltech lectures no doubt) on topics including the the measurement of energy, the 1st Law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy), electricity, heat engines, and the 2nd Law of thermodyamics (entropy).

This leaves only some very brief comments and suggestions for what to do about the energy crisis. Natural gas is non-renewable, and will peak not too long after oil. The easiest alternative to oil is coal, but of course if we turn back to coal, we will hasten global warming, and as Goodstein notes, increase the likelihood of tipping the climate into a disastrous new steady state more like Venus than what we now enjoy. Mysteriously, he places some hope in methane hydrate, a potential source of methane, based merely on its existence -- it is currently totally unknown how much might be found under the ocean floors or anywhere else. He notes that plans for the "sequestration" of carbon from coal, upon extracting hydrogen, currently have no place to put the carbon, and most such schemes would run the risk of negative EROEI -- more energy invested than energy recovered.

This leads to the fork in the road where I take issue with Goodstein. Like many physicists, it seems, he continues to promote nuclear (fission) power, saying it is a proven technology and its risks are exaggerated. He also discusses photovoltaic solar cells -- PVCs -- another proven technology -- but seems half-hearted. These are the two main alternatives to oil, and either nuclear or solar power will have to be used to generate electricity to produce hydrogen, which can be used in fuel cells to replace gas-fueled internal combustion engines. Hydrogen is not an energy source, as it does not naturally exist like fossil fuels, but an energy carrier -- according to Goodstein, producing hydrogen with heat engines currently consumes six times as much energy as the resulting hydrogen will produce. I'm willing to compromise my opposition to toxic, radioactive nuclear power in order to provide energy in the transition to a solar future, but I do not understand why Goodstein seems to prefer nuclear. He even advocates breeder reactors, which produce bomb-grade plutonium, as a means to extend the limited supplies of uranium, a non-renewable mineral, and holds out hope for fusion, which it should be clear by now is nothing but a pipe dream.

In short, Goodstein is absolutely right to raise the alarm and push for a crash program for the development of alternative energy. He is right that "market forces" are not going to save us, although he does not propose any particular course of action such as the excellent Apollo Alliance plan for public sector R&D and construction. More questionable (a physics article of faith?) is his advocacy of nuclear power rather than getting behind solar power, which is surely the long-term answer.

For a better, more thorough book on the same subject, see Richard Heinberg's THE PARTY'S OVER (see my review). He too, though not a physicist, applies physics in the form of EROEI analysis to all the possible energy sources, and reaches a similar discouraging conclusion.

We have got to get our minds focused on this problem, and keep them focused -- if renewable energy does not become the top priority, the test of neomalthusian theory we are subjecting ourselves to will have a gruesome outcome. Let's not prove that Malthus was right after all.

See my list THE CLEAN/RENEWABLE ENERGY REVOLUTION for more on this topic.

This book should be required reading for all students in high school and college social studies courses. Anyone who is not yet well informed about how fossil fuels help define our economic and social culture should read it as well.

I began reading this book knowing next to nothing about energy and oil. In fact, I began reading the book feeling that its subject was "somehow important", and had little expectation of actually reading every word (which I did).

To my surprise, I discovered that Professor Goodstein, beyond being a foremost expert on his subject, is a master of the English language who is able to explain history, chemistry, and physics in a rarely encountered way which is both lucid and concise.

I especially liked how he introduced short, telling biographies of scientists and inventors into his narrative.

Forgotten science lessons came back to me in sharp relief. What is energy? What is "global warming"? What makes engines work? These are among many of the questions that are succintly and clearly answered.

The relevance of energy to history and current events also became more focused for me.

I imagined how ages passed that life sustained itself principally on the sun in a delicate ecological balance, and then how (with knowledge and resourcefulness) humans multiplied and prospered by exploiting their enviornment. Today, when persons protest against the War in Iraq by shouting, "No Blood For Oil!"-- are their insinuations that the United States is fighting an "energy war" to be believed?

The author does not look at or address this specific topic. However, I thought about it the whole while I was reading, and armed with the facts he presented I, upon finishing the book, came to my own definite conclusion.

Without revealing it here, I can unequivocably assert that the author (who reveals no partisanship) convinced me beyond doubt that the Energy Crisis itself is real and dire, and that it has immediate consequences for everyone. He also convinced me that wise and deliberate stewardship of our natural resources is imperative if civilization is to continue.

Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil could be made into an excellent educational documentary film for public television, in a format similar to those presented by Boston's WGBH in its Nova series.

This book's message is really too universally important to be left for just we readers.

Some of the reviewers are obviously confused. If the projections David Goodstein made are his own, then the book is obviously worthless. But all these projections are based on publicly available data, and all the projections are saying that we're running out of all known energy sources within decades, I mean decades! Not to mention problem will occur much sooner than that since we're already at peak oil supply and demand still growing (think China)!

It's especially evident in 2004, depite record profits of major oil companies reach ~$100 Billion, they're cutting back on oil exploration and R&D expenses. Why? Because they simply know there isn't more to be found! You can check the fact easily by looking at their 2004 annual reports.

Thermodynamic is critical in understanding the severity of this problem, and can help you see through the properganda from special interest groups. For example, it takes engery to make a fuel-cell, and that energy must come from somewhere else. If you don't understand thermodynamics and want to discuss energy issues, you might as well believe in free lunch while discussing economics.

The first impression I had when I bought the book and had it in my hand was that it is so thin and light. I have been reading a fairly large number of books on both sides of the aisle of the future in energy debate, the optimists "no problem at all") and pessimists (experts like Campbell et al), and I am used to thick books and long discussions. When I started to read Goodstein's book though I realized that his book is the most important scientific book I have been reading in a long time.

Goodstein's words are clear and convey his considerable knowledge in sharp and always precise ways - his words ring like a bell. He makes difficult issues clear and easy to grasp. The first paragraph of the introduction alone is worth every penny of the entire book.

The message that Goodstein brings is sobering. He indicates that we have to change our understanding of energy and we ought to change our way of using natural resources or face demise. There is urgency in his writing but not panic. Though it is hard to look up from his book without being depressed about the inevitable consequences, his book has given me reason to be hopeful, since with people of his stature attacking the problem there surely should be hope for all of us.

Goodstein dedicates the book to our children and grand-children, "who will not inherit the riches that we inherited". What a beautiful way to remind us that we have a significant responsibility to the generations who come after us.

I thank Goodstein for his contribution and I would like to encourage everybody to read the book and share it with a friend. If we could award more than five starts I would give it a 10.

For those of you who are just getting interested in the subject, David Goodstein's Out of Gas is the book you want to read first. I have read several books on the impending energy crisis, including:

Deffeyes, Kenneth S. Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak (2005)
Heinberg, Richard. The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (2nd Ed., 2005)
Huber, Peter W. and Mark P. Mills. The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy (2005)
Leeb, Stephen and Donna Leeb. The Oil Factor: Protect Yourself--and Profit--from the Coming Energy Crisis (2005)
Simmons, Matthew R. Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy (2005)

and I can say that Professor Goodstein's modest, short and very much to the point book is as good as, if not better than, any of those five. He introduces the subject in a clear and no nonsense way and includes a lot of background information essential to understanding how energy works and why we are about to face a crisis. For readers who are expert on the physics and technology of heat engines and entropy, this book will be a little too basic in part. But even for such experts, Goodstein is essential reading because not only does he understand the science of the energy crisis, he understands the politics. Especially edifying is the material in the Postscript. Let me reference a few ideas:

OPEC (a cartel, as Goodstein explains, patterned after the Texas Railroad Commission which was the cartel that controlled oil production in the US before our supply peaked) likes to maintain prices within a range, "partly in order not to discourage demand for oil, but also to prevent investment in alternative fuels." This we know, of course. But Goodstein adds, "The implied threat is, if you invest money to develop a competitor to oil, we will flood the market with cheap oil and wipe out your investment." (pp. 126-127)

This explains in part why we have been so slow to develop alternative sources. Investors are afraid. However, as Goodstein explains, if OPEC no longer has "excess pumping capacity" to flood the market, theirs becomes an empty threat. Notice another point here: not only are OPEC countries tempted to overstate capacity so that by OPEC rules they are allowed to pump more oil, they are induced to lie about their reserves to scare potential investors away from alternative energy sources. In fact the entire oil industry itself "has a very strong incentive to deny any looming shortage of oil." In other words, to overstate their reserves. Another reason they overstate their reserves "is to keep down the price of oil properties they would like to acquire." (p. 127)

Goodstein also explains why "reserves to production" (R/P) numbers have stayed about the same for many decades and why many experts say we still have forty years of oil left, same as we have had for most of the twentieth century. Quite simply "proven" reserves are reported as "whatever fits the current needs" of the company. (p. 128) It used to be the case that under-reporting was good since it kept the price of oil from plummeting. Now the real danger is to acknowledge that a company doesn't have much oil left. This will cause their stock price to plunge, which is what happened to the Royal Dutch Shell Group "when it was forced by outside auditors to reduce its claims of proven reserves..." (p. 129)

Goodstein's take on the various alternatives to oil, including coal, shale oil, nuclear energy, renewables, etc. is very much in concert with the opinions of other experts. We will be using more coal, dirty as it is, and more nuclear energy, and natural gas. These are the three main alternatives. Not long after we run out of oil we will run out of natural gas and then coal and then even nuclear power plants will grow cold for lack of uranium, which if used to supply energy at the current rate of consumption will be depleted in five to twenty-five years. (p. 106)

Goodstein explores wind and solar and makes it clear that in the long run--if we and civilization are going to make it to the long run--we will have to develop the technology to exploit these renewable sources. This will require a huge investment. We will need the political leadership and will to make the kind of commitment that President Kennedy made in putting a man on the moon. Goodstein believes that solving the energy problem will require the same sort of formidable and creative technology as did the space program. He adds that "Unfortunately, our present national and international leadership is reluctant even to acknowledge that there is a problem." (p. 123)

It is essential that we make the commitment to develop alternatives fuels and we make that commitment NOW because (1) we will need the oil we have left to make the thousands of petrochemical products we will continue to use; (2) we need to free ourselves from dependence on the oil producing countries; and (3) there is an outside danger that the continued burning of fossils fuels will trigger a runaway greenhouse catastrophe that could lead to sterilizing the earth as has happened on Venus. Note well this horrific downside--far worse than any "nuclear winter"--and note too we could go past the point of no return without even realizing it, and be left with no way to stop the meltdown.

Bottom line: "The challenge is enormous but the stakes are even larger. If future generations are to thrive, we who have consumed Earth's legacy of cheap oil must now provide for a world without it." (p. 131)