Customer Reviews

Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future

5 star:		(35)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

With Power Hungry, energy journalist and Austin apiarist Robert Bryce marshals lots of accurate numbers in context to make plain how modern culture exacts power from energy to save time, increase wealth, and raise standards of living. He also dispenses common sense to citizens and policy makers for an improved environment, a better, more productive economy, and more enlightened civil society. Inspired by the environmental economics of Rockefeller University's Jesse Ausubel and the University of Manitoba's prolific Vaclav Smil, he makes the case for continuing down the path of de-carbonizing our machine fuels--a process begun two hundred years ago when we turned from wood to fossil fuels and huge reservoirs of impounded water. As the world's population continues to urbanize, people will inevitably demand cleaner, healthier, environmentally sensitive energy choices.

Today, the world uses hydrocarbons for 90 percent of its energy, getting a lot of bang for its buck. Bryce offers convincing evidence that, over the next several generations, particularly since broad energy transformations require much time and financial investment, relatively cleaner burning natural gas will provide a bridge to pervasive use of nuclear power--" the only always-on, no-carbon source than can replace significant amounts of coal in our electricity generation portfolio." And if nuclear ultimately becomes the centerpiece for the electricity sector, which constitutes about 40 percent of our total energy use, this development would accelerate the de-carbonization of the transportation and heating sectors as well.

His narrative transcends the current climate change debate. He thinks the evidence on either side is equivocal, at best provisional, and, even if it could be proven conclusively that humans were responsible for precipitously warming the earth by producing a surfeit of carbon dioxide, there is little that could be done about the situation now that would be consequential or practical, except embrace imaginative adaptation approaches.

Bryce organizes his ideas around four interrelated "Imperatives" that serve as a prime motif for human history and explain much contemporary circumstance: power density, energy density, scale and cost. He shows that, although energy is the ability to do work, what people really crave is the ability to control the rate at which work gets done--power. Performing work faster means more time to do something else. This begets an appetitive feedback loop, where more power unleashes more time to produce more power. As the scale of this process increases, costs are reduced, making what power creates more affordable.

In terms of economic efficiency and improved ecosystems, producing the most power in the smallest space at a scale affordable by all is what present and future enterprise should ensure.

The power density of fossil fuels, expressed in watts, BTUs, or horsepower, has been the lynchpin of our modernity, although they will eventually become depleted, perhaps over a few centuries or much sooner, as various peak oil and coal scenarios suggest. (Bryce shows that worldwide oil's marketshare has fallen over the last 35 years and the rate of decline will likely continue.) And they do have negative environmental consequences. Particularly coal, with such environmentally treacherous extraction techniques as strip mining/mountaintop removal, and toxic emissions. But their overall benefits at present outweigh the negatives in a comprehensive cost benefit analysis. Which is why they're so popular.

Hydrocarbons lift people out of poverty, literally empowering them to better health, wealth, and productivity. "The key attribute of hydrocarbons is their reliability," a precondition for coordinated economic and social convergence, which is the very hallmark of modern life. Planning to replace their capacity successfully will demand great ingenuity and the most advanced technology--not hyped-up premodern gadgetry like industrial wind technology.

Over the first seven chapters of his book, Bryce lays out the gargantuan scale of our energy consumption, bound on the one side by the existence of nearly seven billion people and the thirst for increasingly denser power supplies on the other. He shows why, if oil didn't exist, we'd have to invent it. Deploying helpful charts and graphs throughout, he demonstrates that we will not, indeed cannot, quit using hydrocarbons any time soon, since our daily consumption is equivalent to 226 million barrels of oil, equal to the total daily output of twenty-seven Saudi Arabias.

The world consumes nearly 7 billion horsepower a day, albeit unevenly, since Americans consume energy at 18 times the rate of people in Pakistan and India. America leads the world in reliable horsepower and produces about 74 percent of the primary energy it consumes. Moreover, it has more hydrocarbon reserves than any other nation. Yet, despite all this power, the United States leads the world in energy efficiency and per capital carbon emission reductions over the last fifteen years.

So why are so many willing to trade the high power density of coal, natural gas, and oil for such unreliable, low-power-density sources as wind and solar? Part II, The Myths of Green Energy, attempts to answer this question. Bryce looks closely at the claims for wind especially and debunks them all as mainly the result of snake oil, a too-gullible public suffused in scientific illiteracy, "happy talk" from media (viz, Thomas Friedman), and self serving bombast from industry pundits like T. Boone Pickens. Thinking that wind technology, for example, could put a dent in the use of fossil fuels as an "alternate" energy source is just plain goofy, akin to believing that a book of matches could melt a glacier. Believing that corn and cellulosic ethanol are friends of the environment and consumers is downright Orwellian. In truth, they reduce efficiency and performance while damaging machine engines, and raise the cost of food by shrinking food supply while depleting millions of acres of soil and siphoning off a sea of water. For shame.

Bryce reinforces the theme of his previous book, Gusher of Lies. The energy business is so vast and intricately global that it dooms any nation's quest for energy independence. Those who think more hybrid cars, wind machines, and solar cells will free the United States from its dependence on imports will be shocked to discover that those technologies hinge on rare earth elements obtainable almost exclusively in China. Which fact largely explains why the Chinese are rapidly becoming a dominant manufacturer and exporter of "green" technologies.

Bryce relishes challenging flimflam. Power Hungry demolishes the notion that oil is dirty; that carbon capture/sequestration schemes can be globally effective; that cap-and-trade/taxation/renewable energy credit ideas for reducing carbon dioxide emissions can do anything but worsen the situation, at the expense of tax and ratepayers; that plug-in electric cars will soon revolutionize the transportation sector; and that efficiency, desirable as it is as a means of conservation, can change the world.

Bryce's conclusions about better policy follow the logic of Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." By eliminating the imposters and exposing the disingenuous, he is then able to engage in rational discourse about the genuinely probable technologies that will in future slake our ginormous craving for power.

He states the problem in a way that suggests solutions. If society seeks cleaner air and water, if consumers seek cheaper energy, if environmentalists seek open vistas and large swaths of untrammeled nature, if politicians seek a significant reduction of greenhouse gasses while maintaining, even expanding, the power requirements of modernity--then the future of energy conversion for electricity must hinge on increased use of natural gas in the near term while the world prepares for nuclear power over the long haul. Given the magnitude of the situation, anything else is hope. And prayer.

Recounting the sorry recent history of natural gas supply, Bryce explains how pandering politics and the coal industry combined to reduce its availability, making the public think the resource had been exhausted, However, new discoveries of extensive shale deposits in the United States, along with improvements in extraction technologies, now make natural gas much more available. That it burns 50 percent cleaner than coal, emits no toxic particulates, and is so versatile, make it the ideal transitional fossil fuel for the next generation or so. As more supplies become available, costs will continue to drop, making natural gas more appealing to consumers. To protect against damaging the ground water and pollutant leakage through gas lines, the industry would have to be carefully regulated, particularly in remote areas during the extraction process.

Still, as good as they are, carbon-based fuels, even those as beneficial as oil and natural gas, continue to put us at odds with our potential for informed stewardship of the planet. Our best scientists tell us we must do better in achieving goals of sustainable biodiversity and healthier ecosystems. To do so, we should sooner than later move beyond sloganeering and heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

As Bryce says, "nuclear goes beyond green." It provides two million times the power density of fossil fuels and can be contained in a small area, preserving the countryside. Concerns about its safety because of exaggerated news accounts of the damage inflicted by the Three Mile Island/Chernobyl accidents, along with the dramaturgy wrought by Hollywood, have allowed fear mongering to prevail over sound science. Despite not building a single nuclear plant in thirty years, the US still has more nuclear facilities than any nation in the world. US nuclear plants have a capacity factor of 92 percent, significantly better than any other generating system. Even though nuclear has only 11percent of the nation's installed capacity, it nonetheless satisfies 20 percent of demand. The nation's largest grid, the PJM, uses nuclear for 35 percent of its generation, and has done so safely for over twenty years.

For the last thirty years, France has employed nuclear for 80 percent of its electricity consumption. The French reprocess most of the spent fuel, capturing the uranium and other materials so that they can be sent through the reactors again, reducing "the volume of waste by a factor of two or three." Moreover, Bryce highlights the prospects for a fusion-fission transmutation system in the near future that would create additional fuel for electricity and medical applications. It would also substantially reduce radioactive half-life time--while preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The potential for newer, smaller, safer nuclear power plants is enormous, and Power Hungry explores a range of what is probable. Today, the capital costs of large nuclear plants are very high, but they can run continuously without interruption day and night year after year. Their long-term maintenance costs are relatively low. Compared with building a large hydro dam, however, which has enormous negative environmental consequences for entire watersheds, construction costs for nuclear are a bargain. Contrasted with the incredibly high capital costs of wind projects, which provide only sporadic energy and no modern power performance, nuclear is incomparable, for there is no apples-to-apples comparison to be made with wind. How can one compare the best performing car ever made with a clunker that never works as desired?

Bryce brings his narrative sweep to a conclusion by calling for rethinking what the notion of green should mean. In particular, he urges that environmentalism return to the days when those commanding the movement revered hard facts, treasured good science, and understood that culture was part of nature, not mystically outside of it. They knew the "hard truth" that "energy production is not pretty, cheap, or easy." Although they may have been initially seduced by the allure of "renewable energy," they would have finally understood that the whole concept of renewables is problematic, since nothing is continually renewable; they only appear that way from the short perspective of human time. As many have discovered about the only widely effective renewable, impounded hydro, simply because a source of power is clean-burning does not make it "green." Informed environmentalists should know that the current push for wind technology is based on the mistaken belief that wind is greener than hydrocarbons such as oil and natural gas.

Power Hungry also urges renewed support for the International Atomic Energy Agency; putting the skids on the ethanol boondoggle by short-circuiting Iowa's stranglehold on presidential primaries; pushing for greater scientific/engineering literacy and less political grandstanding in public policy; banning mountaintop removal coal extraction techniques; and imposing coordinated reality on national energy policy. The policy goal should be to promote "cheap abundant energy" consistent with the protection of sensitive habitat, vulnerable species of flora and fauna, and a more diverse and empowered planet.

The book covers so much ground across so many topics that it is unfair to quibble about details that are not fully accounted for. Bryce gets the important ideas right. He spends much time trimming the sails of the industrial wind fandango, in part because he knows it is inconsequential as an energy source but also because public dollars invested in it represent dollars not spent on effective power. He couldn't find a shred of empirical evidence that wind has been responsible for offsetting greenhouse gas emissions in the production of electricity--or that it has contributed to any reductions in fossil fuel use. Even in the wind poster nation of Denmark. Instead, he found only "projections" offered up by industry trade organizations or government agencies beholden to wind success that were uncontaminated by reality--much like college football polls.

Most importantly, he tells why wind can't offset meaningful CO2 emissions or replace fossil fuels. To do this, he introduces the work of engineers like Australian Peter Lang, Canadian Kent Hawkins, and Britain's Jim Oswald, who demonstrate how wind's existential volatility and unreliability must make everyone and everything involved with wind integration work much harder just to stand still, in the process greatly increasing both cost and thermal activity. Wind is a fuel supplement that requires a lot of supplementation, since no one can be sure how much of its capacity will be available for any future time. A wind plant's output unpredictably bounces around between zero and its maximum possible yield.

The challenge is how to reconcile the square peg of firm reliability with the round hole of wind's fluttering caprice. Since it must match supply perfectly with demand at all times, no grid can allow wind volatility to be loosed by itself: It must be entangled with proactive, highly dynamic conventional generation to make its capacity whole. More than 70 percent of any wind project's maximum capability must come from reliable, flexible conventional generation, typically natural gas units working inefficiently to do so. These inefficiencies accumulate quickly, eventually consuming more fuel in the same way that an automobile does in stop-and-go traffic.

As Lang shows, even the best possible thermal entanglement with wind, comprised of several types of natural gas systems, can save only 15 percent more CO2 than can be achieved with the natural gas systems alone, without any wind. Inefficient use of natural gas systems with wind, such as responsive open cycle units normally used only at peak demand, would save no net carbon dioxide emissions. As Hawkins shows, using a combination of coal and natural gas for wind balancing results in more carbon emissions than would be the case without any wind. Any fossil fuel saved when it is sporadically displaced by wind is often consumed in even greater volume as it is called upon to compensate for wind's relentless skittering.

More than 2500 skyscraper-sized wind turbines, spread over 500 miles of terrain, and a passel of natural gas units at 90 percent of wind's maximum output--and hundreds of miles of new transmission lines/voltage regulation--would be required to provide parity with the capacity of a 1500MW nuclear facility.

Bruce makes vividly clear that wind is neither clean nor green--and is in the hunt solely because of massive government support, which is 23 times the per kilowatt-hour subsidy given for fossil-fired plants that produce copious reliable capacity. It provides only sporadic energy--not modern power performance. Wind is not only inimical to all the primary goals of modern electricity production--reliability, affordability, security; it also actively subverts them. It is not cutting edge, effective, and progressive; rather, it is antediluvian, dysfunctional, and uncivil.

In many ways, wind resembles the character Major Major Major Major, made so indelible by Joseph Heller in his immortal Catch-22. Like wind, even when the Major was in, he was out. Even more apropos is the connection with Major Major's father, a Calvinist alfalfa farmer who received a public subsidy for every acre of crop he did not grow, using the money to buy more land on which not to grow alfalfa. He thought such practice was divinely ordained, proclaiming, "You reap what you sow," while maintaining that federal aid to anyone but farmers was "creeping socialism." With only a few word changes, this is the line trumpeted by the American Wind Energy Association on behalf of its limited liability companies.

Spawned, then supported, by government welfare measures at considerable public expense, wind produces no meaningful product or service yet provides enormous profit to a few wealthy investors, primarily multinational energy companies in search of increased bottom lines through tax avoidance. Wind does reap what it sows, masquerading as a power source to hide its real identity as an Enronesque tax shelter generator.

Power Hungry sets the stage for an inquiry about why wind has become so politically attractive. Gullibility and dimwittery are surely part of the explanation, as Bryce suggests. But the real causes may have more to do with the nefarious acquiescence of our regulatory and government agencies--combined with how the power industry itself has embraced wind. Why aren't utilities in general, and regulatory agencies and grid controllers in particular, being held accountable for what they're doing to ratepayers by supporting generation that must destabilize the electricity supply/transmission system? To what extent are corporations that are heavily involved with coal, natural gas, and oil also involved with wind? The bipartisan dive to the bottom now enabling the wind scam is worthy of another book.

As it is, Power Hungry provides a grand tour of our energy landscape in the best journalistic tradition of serving the public good, exposing the cant of received wisdom and using the authority and weight of good numbers to put ideas into proper perspective. Bryce's numbers provide giant shoulders upon which to stand, allowing us to see farther and better, increasing our knowledge and improving the odds for institutional wisdom. There are few things more important to the world's life, liberty, and happiness than an enhanced ability to convert abundant energy into high power at affordable cost. Robert Bryce, with buoyant bonhomie, marks the way.

You just have to feel sorry for the advocates of global warming. They've had a bad year. First it was the continuation of a decade of stable or slightly cooling weather, completely unpredicted by the climate models. Then it was the devastating scandals, not only in the Climate Research Unit but in NASA and the IPCC as well. To add insult to injury, there was the jarring failure of Copenhagen. Then the failure of Congress to adopt a cap and trade scheme when they had a Democratic President and overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. Now the coup de grâce, Robert Bryce hits yet another home run by completely demolishing the argument for renewables in his new book Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.

Bryce is really pissing me off. I am an energy policy expert. His earlier book Gusher of Lies was an excellent rebuttal to the demagoguery on oil imports. But oil wasn't my thing so I gave him a pass and enthusiastically supported his book. But now he writes Power Hungry about the idiocy of many of the arguments supporting "green energy." This is my field and so I am truly in awe of his ability to so cogently skewer mindless advocates of green.

Bryce is addicted to numbers. He is ruthless in presenting numbers that make his points. His main weapon is the tyranny of big numbers. Many ideas sound good in the abstract--e.g., wind power, electric cars, cellulosic ethanol--but fail miserably when put into the context of US energy demographics.

I marvel that Bryce could deliver a nugget of new insight on literally every page. (I realize I am leaving myself open to abuse.) But he does. The list would be too long of all the fascinating nuggets that Bryce has so artfully strung together in an altogether gripping story of our modern day energy dilemma. A few will suffice to make the point:
* He presents the Four Imperatives of energy supply: power density, energy density, cost, and scale;
* He describes the technology advances that allow us to access huge natural gas shale resources;
* He discusses modular nuclear units (some as small as 25 megawatts);
* He absolutely skewers T. Boone Pickens and Amory Lovins;
* He devastates the argument that Denmark is an exemplar for relying on renewable energy; and
* He catalogues China's dominance in the "natural earth" resources essential for wind and solar.
It goes on and on.

Given all the attention given to literature that paints false pictures of green energy, I hope Bryce's book takes off like a rocket. The country very much needs this splash of cold water on the phony claims made for green energy.

Few science books are worth reading each and every page. Climatism, by Steve Gorham (reviewed here in March), is an exception. Power Hungry is not, but without doubt it contains more than enough great information to make it a terrific buy for anyone with a strong interest in the nation's energy supply.

I recommend reading only about 20 pages a day, as it is very heavy on the numbers, but it's well worth a fun 15-day investment.

Comprehensive Research
Robert Bryce spent four years researching every aspect of American energy from a fairly objective point of view. As one currently under contract to compile a four-volume encyclopedia of energy for John Wiley & Sons, I can tell you Bryce has done an outstanding job.

From time to time he throws in his personal politics--which too many authors are inclined to do--and he has too much respect for the global warming alarmists for my comfort, but these do not detract too much from the excellent analysis of various energy technologies.

A full 54 pages devoted to references illustrate the comprehensive research Bryce has done, as well as the quality of his sources. He is at his best destroying many of the myths regarding renewable energy, providing powerful mathematical proofs that anyone can understand.

He is also excellent on nuclear energy, and I will use one of his chapters as the basis for a future article on small-scale nuclear power generation in a future issue of Environment & Climate News.

Useful Information
To convince you of the value of the book, in the remainder of this review I will simply offer a surfer's list of some of the wonderful nuggets of information this 394-page text contains:

* Natural gas supplies are bountiful, with a known 280 years of resources available at our present rate of consumption.

* The next time someone says we are addicted to oil, substitute the word "prosperity" for oil.

* Nearly 3 billion people relying on biomass energy would love to trade places with us.

* Power density is the key to all energy sources. Oil, gas, coal, and nuclear have high power density, whereas wind, solar, and other renewable power sources have terribly low density.

* Humans cannot live near wind farms because of the low-level noise produced by their massive blades, which has palpable physical impacts.

* Each megawatt of deliverable wind energy requires 870 cubic meters of concrete and 460 tons of steel, whereas a gas-fired plant requires only about 3 percent as much.

* In order for the Chinese to build a planned 12,700 megawatts of new wind power, they will have to add 9,200 megawatts of new coal power as back-up.

* Denmark's perceived leadership in successful wind power is a mirage. Denmark has not reduced carbon emissions, energy costs have tripled there, and the nation must export most of its wind power at below-market rates.

* The American Bird Conservancy estimates between 75,000 and 275,000 birds are killed each year by wind turbines.

* The United States, without strict government mandates, is already leading the world in reducing its carbon intensity and its energy use without doing any of the things environmental activist groups dictate.

* Each year, hundreds of thousands of people die in Third World nations from indoor air pollution caused by the burning of biomass. Power from coal, natural gas, and oil would improve living conditions and reduce pollution-related deaths.

* Although environmental activist groups strongly hype cellulosic ethanol, it is no closer to technological and economic viability than it was when first described in 1921.

* Ethanol cannot significantly reduce the demand for oil, because many products other than automotive fuel are extracted from oil.

* Batteries have improved, but not by the orders of magnitude required to enable battery-powered cars to compete with other forms of transportation.

* 2,000 tons of uranium can release as much energy as 4.2 billion tons of oil.

* Measured in units of output, wind and solar power are getting 15 times as much federal subsidy money as nuclear power.

Power Density the Key
The primary theme of this book is the importance of power density. As Bryce thoroughly documents, coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power provide such power density while wind, solar, and biofuels do not.

You will not find a book on energy that makes this important point more strongly than this one.

Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (jlehr@heartland.org) is science director of The Heartland Institute.

For Bryce much of the book is like shooting fish in a bucket. The green world arguments ( or lack of arguments )are so poorly supported by real facts as to be a joke. However, the sad joke is that national policy is being made, not on facts, but on what feels good and benefits the lobbyists' clients.

The book starts in a coal mine where the energy equivalent of 66 thousand barrels of oil a day is produced. In short, but informative chapters it explores the foundation of our energy demand,the world energy demand, the economics and practicality of alternate sources and the foundation of a rational energy policy.

In 30 easy to read chapters Bryce takes one topic at a time and brings much needed facts and thought to the subject at hand. One of the examples which I appreciated, because the county where I live wants to build wind farms in the area, is the discussion of the double standard. Private companies have been fined millions for the inadvertent loss of protected species at their facilities while the wind farm in the Altamont Pass (east of Oakland) kills ten times as many protected animals every year, but without fines or bad press.

For some reason we want to believe that "green energy" is a brain flash of the Algorian Era. However, I still have pictures from our partner's efforts to generate solar power in the California desert from the 1970's. The PR photos are always on clear, still mornings. If they stayed for the afternoon dust devils and days of blowing dust they would better understand the challenges.

The ratios of solar vs conventional energy costs are about the same 30 years later. Power at the solar facility costs about 300%- 400% of what the utility charges its customers to deliver power to their door. We can hide part of the cost in taxpayer subsidies or mandatory utility subsidies of these producers, but the end result is the same. We are spending money to do something (generate power) in an economically inefficient manner. If you are having trouble with the impact of this concept find last month's electrical bill, imagine that you received three of them for the rest of your life.



Bryces's writing is reinforced with many charts covering a wide range of energy related topics. He has done his homework in gathering the data, analysis and writing up the results in a highly readable text. This should be required reading for those who make policy..

In the end Bryce delivers recommendations in his N2N formula. A shift to natural gas in the short run and a long range strategy involving extensive development of nuclear power. Decades ago the United States lead the world in development of reactors for power generation. Largely in response to well orchestrated attacks, we have junked this important industrial asset base and the hundreds of thousands of true green jobs associated with it. We are told that we should look to Europe for guidance. In Europe nuclear power plays a major role in producing clean power and minimizing oil imports. Even if you hate nuclear power you need to read this book.

As an interim strategy Bryce advocates a much larger commitment to natural gas. We have lots of it and it burns cleaner than coal, gasoline or diesel. Here's an area where he might have spent more time explaining the differences in the combustion products.

Concern about CO2 emissions is a relatively new phenomena. Bryce notes that US production of co2 has actually declined but that on a worldwide basis it (the production of CO2) is bound to rise as some of the worlds poorest populations begin to prosper.

It's hard to find fault with this book. It's easy to read, informative and thoughtful.


Highly recommended.

The book cover - "POWER HUNGRY" on a V8 engine - attracted my attention. Thinking to be about that hungry engine (engines are my field), I picked it up and couldn't put it down, staying up the whole night reading it. This is a "must-read" for anybody who wants to really understand the energy issues on both sides of the coin, especially politicians, policy makers/administers, educators, and anyone who have real good-intentions. It covers the human quest for energy, myths on "green" energies (13 of them), and reliable energy sources for the future.

The book uses data - no-nonsense - to discuss this energy mess we are all in today and potential solutions for the future. Like it or not, we are in this mess together and paying the ever-higher energy prices personally, nationally, and globally. The future of our planet may also hinge on this mess. Since our ancient ancestors started that first fire in the cave, we have been sliding progressively deeper toward this energy abyss. We see no end to this process as more and more global populations want to share the energy pie. We need solutions, and soon!

Everybody should be aware of the beloved not-so-green "green" energy myths touted and hyped in the public, but exposed in the book with data. It concludes that America's "cheap abundant energy" lies not in the "green", but in N2N (Natural gas to Nuclear) which may be hated or feared. Natural gas is the stop-gap, while nuclear is the salvation. Judging from both sides of the energy issues, nuclear can be thinkable as our energy goal when properly managed.

America should have an energy policy, but none at this moment. It should (or at least attempt to) spell out the path from current mess to future attainable and sustainable goal. Blindly following public hype in policy-making will lead us to eventual panic. By that time the window of opportunity may be closed. Please read the book and judge for yourself to reduce your own energy cost burden. It will add up to global savings.

N2N may still be decades away. Currently, there are 2 ways for an individual to save - conservation and efficiency. Conservation, such as smaller cars or less heat consumption, may be cost effective, but may not be desirable. Efficiency, such as higher MPG or energy saving light bulbs, can be the best bet right now. We should try to influence the national policy on energy efficiency, not letting special interest groups hijack it. Can we do that for the country, for our own energy bills, and for the planet?

By Miin J. Yan, PhD, PE

By Steve Goreham, author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century's Hottest Topic.

Power Hungry is an excellent book written by an energy industry expert, Robert Bryce. Bryce uses the dual-edged sword of fact and economics to skewer the myth that renewable energy can power our modern society. In a market flooded by dozens of books proclaiming the benefits of wind, solar, and biofuel energy, Power Hungry crushes these proclamations with cold hard logic, bringing energy reality to the reader.

The book opens with a scene at the Cardinal Mine in western Kentucky. The reader is able to picture the mining operation, as a huge mechanical vehicle rips tons of rock from a coal seam and deposits the coal on conveyors for a journey to the surface. Bryce points out that this one mine produces coal with an energy output approaching that of all installed U.S. wind and solar plants.

The book is divided into three parts, followed by two concluding chapters. In Part I, Bryce provides the basics on energy and power for the reader, including a discussion on coal and oil, and a lesson on the huge scale of world energy usage. He points out that the world consumes the equivalent daily output of "27 Saudi Arabias." He describes the wind and solar hype as "happy talk" and shows how the media-generated faith in these energy sources is badly misguided.

Part II consists of a discussion of the Myths of "Green" Energy, where the author refutes 13 of these myths, including the myth that "wind and solar are green" and another that "oil is dirty." At one point he argues: "The world isn't using too much oil. It's not using enough." All of this is well written, dispelling much of the world's energy misconceptions, if the reader approaches the book with an open mind.

In Part III, Bryce makes excellent arguments in favor of natural gas and nuclear as the fuels of the future. He points out that the recent techniques for hydraulic fracturing of shale rock have added decades of available gas to the U.S. supply. New technologies for building of nuclear reactors make nuclear an affordable and safe power source, if regulatory obstacles can be streamlined. Part of his argument for these two fuels is built on the current global delusion that man-made greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming, with which I disagree. Climate science increasingly shows that global warming is due to natural cycles of Earth, not man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, the potential is strong that natural gas and nuclear will become our primary energy sources over the medium term.

Bryce concludes with the assertion that the United States must pursue cheap and abundant energy as a primary goal. The current mandates and subsidies for wind, solar, and biofuels are contrary to this assertion. In summary, Power Hungry is an excellent read and education for the serious reader who wants to learn the real story about our energy choices.

The author explores the current state of the U.S. energy economy and many of the commonly-held perceptions about it. Using facts and data from official sources, he explodes many of these perceptions which he (correctly, it turns out) characterizes as myths. Having set the record straight, he then proposes a common-sense and technically viable way to move forward with appropriate national energy policies.

Even though this expose' of the truth surrounding the nation's current energy situation is filled with facts, numbers and graphs, it is well-written and can be understood clearly by any intelligent person regardless of technical background. Some readers may be put off by an occasional political comment, but these do not detract from the central value of the book.

It would be good if our policy makers would read and heed the advice offered in this book. Absent that unlikely event, it would be good if many people would read this presentation and pressure their government officials to follow more-sane energy policies, such as those proposed here.

In my 40 years as (among other things) an engineering professor, a utility company research director, and an engineering magazine editor, I have come to appreciate works such as this which combine technical correctness and readability.

I found most of the assertions in the book to be well documented and well-founded. Most of those I have already seen expressed by others but his book is useful by putting such information together into a fairly comprehensive look at the energy issue in its entirety.

I put tabs throughout the book to mark most of the points that were worth commenting on:

1). Page 4, he introduces the four imperatives: power density, energy density, cost, and scale. This seems pretty reasonable to me although power density and energy density are not so clearcut. As one commenter pointed out, energy density of an energy supply is critical to keeping weight down in a transportation application (especially aircraft), less so for ground applications.

Power density can have a couple meanings- the author seems to use it quite a bit in the context of the power obtained from a given amount of land for an energy generating source, but it is also often used to quantify the rate at which you can extract energy from a source- e.g. how fast can you draw power from a battery or at what rate can you produce natural gas from a well. So a little more precision in terminology here would be desirable.

2). On page 19 the author seems to express major skepticism about peak oil, and also indicates that peak oil advocates say we need to make a rapid transition to renewables.

As a believer in peak oil I strongly disagreed with his dismissive attitude toward peak oil advocates. However, a lot of material later in the book led me to the conclusion that he is pretty much open to the contentions of the peak oil advocates, so I concluded that his comment on page 19 didn't very well reflect his overall view.

His contention on page 19 that peak oil advocates are believers in a quick transition to renewables I do take issue with- I would say most peak oil advocates totally agree with Bryce that large-scale use of renewables in the near term is a pipe dream. However, most peak oil advocates would differ from Bryce in that they are much less optimistic than Bryce (to say the least) about the potential for conventional energy sources to meet our energy needs in the next several decades. Thus, my contention would be that for the most part peak oil advocates do not claim that renewables will save us energy-wise in this century, their contention rather is that we are screwed.

Now, if the core of Bryce's optimism were based on difficult fossil fuel sources like oil shale, I would argue to the contrary because of cost and EROI issues. However, as he delineates toward the end of the book, his optimism is based on natural gas and nuclear, and I think he makes a reasonably defensible case.


3). Bryce extensively argues the pitfalls of renewables and I for the most part I think he makes a good case. I greatly appreciate him expressing his disdain for energy "happy talk" about renewables from the media and politicians, there is a desperate need for more people to challenge the blind optimism of scientifically illiterate renewable energy boosters.

One specific point on page 41: One argument he invokes heavily in his skepticism about renewables is the massive land requirement for renewables because of their low "watts per acre". However, that is too simplistic. Wind towers take a large area of land but their environmental impact per acre is certainly far less than that of let us say a nuclear power plant and associated parking lots, etc. If it is agricultural land you can still grow crops under the towers. Bryce is quite correct to point out there are environmental issues with all these sources- the noise of windmills for example. But the argument based on power density per land area is not a strong argument.


4). Page 75, he says we need "23.5 Saudi Arabias per day". Actually, I believe the accurate statement would be we need "23.5 Saudi Arabias". This is an example of mixing up power and energy which Bryce points out in the book is an error often made by the scientifically illiterate. But no need to belabor the point, even those of us with a science background may occasionally make that mistake.

5). Around page 85, the real estate footprint of solar may or may not be a major environmental issue, I don't have a strong opinion on that, but I don't think it is a given, and it should also be pointed out that when the solar is generated on land already in use by humans (e.g. rooftop of a house), that issue becomes largely moot.

6). Where the power per real estate issue really is a strong argument is with regard to biofuels. Bryce does a decent job of giving biofuels the slam they deserve, although I wouldn't have minded if he had slammed even a bit harder. He does do a good job of pointing out the environmental atrocities associated with biofuels (e.g. rainforest destruction), and also the fact that cellulosic ethanol has so far been a perpetual pipedream of renewable energy techno boosterism.

7). On wind power he is really harsh, I'm not sure it is quite as dismal as he makes it out to be but his discussion of the issue is certainly food for thought. This is perhaps the first point in the book where there were things he pointed out that I was not so familiar with- the arguments as to why Denmark has not reduced its carbon despite being the poster boy for wind power were dismaying and seemed to me to have some substance behind them. The 9.7% capacity factor of Texas wind power was also dismaying.

I live in the Pacific Northwest and we have a lot of wind power and I have had the impression it has so far integrated fairly well with our hydropower, but if one "gives it the benefit of the doubt" on that score then it does still mean that wind power may not necessarily accomplish much except when you happen to have an abundant source of existing dispatchable electrical energy, e.g. hydro.

He seems to be contending that in most places wind generators require an equal amount of natural gas generation. And of course if you use the natural gas generator as backup to the wind then you need less natural gas, but his contention is that the carbon impact of having to build both wind and natural gas generators outweighs the energy you save by not having to run the natural gas generator all the time.

Now of course using smart grid to pool disparate intermittent sources has also been touted as a way to mitigate the intermittency of sources like wind, Bryce points out the objections to landowners of siting new transmission lines. Now that is perhaps more a political than scientific objection, although certainly some power lines have some clear adverse impact, e.g. power lines that run through forest that preclude growing trees under the lines.

Bottom line, Bryce has convinced me that wind may be even more problematical than I had previously thought. If so, then my view would be that it makes me feel more strongly that a renewables-based economy cannot happen until and unless we find a low-cost method for mass energy storage. A Scientific American article a couple years ago gave a roadmap for a renewables economy where they took the closest thing they could find to a low-cost mass energy storage method- underground compressed air, and built a hypothetical renewables economy around that. That may have some potential but I would say right one can't say there is a renewables solution.

8). Bryce's writing style is a bit lame- he has a few jokes in there that even I could probably have come up with better ones. But he does have a great line on page 100:


"Since Edison, entrepeneirs and inventors have achieved a host of amazing feats, including putting a man on the Moon, building nuclear power plants, and figuring out how to deliver pornography to pocket-sized computer-phones."

By the way, he is discussing batteries there. I think I am a bit more optimistic about electric cars than he, despite the low energy density they have achieved so far, I suspect we will start seeing a mass market for them for the urban and commuter market, especially since, as a peak oil guy, I believe the price of gasoline is going to skyrocket. But, he does a decent job of making the case of the electric car skeptics, especially the point that even when you have a viable new vehicle it is a process of many many years to get that to mass production and swap out the fleet of vehicles using the old technology to the new.

9). Bryce is pretty critical of coal. He emphasizes the emission of mercury and other toxics. This is something I have not really looked at before. Considering there is a lot of concern about mercury levels in, for example fish, and that coal power plants seem to be a major cause, it would appear that this is indeed something to be concerned about.

He also mentions Rutledge's analysis of coal resources that predicts coal will run out much sooner than expected.

I am really glad he brought that up, I happened to have looked at Rutledge's work on that before simply because I was acquainted with Rutledge since he was a colleague of my professor. He is a conscientious guy, and when he predicts that peak coal may hit sooner than conventional wisdom, I have to believe there is substance behind his assertion.

This gets into the interesting matter of the relation of the global warming guys to the peak oil guys. The most vociferous global warming advocates generally seem to be dismissive of peak oil (or more generally peak fossil fuels), and as a peak oil guy I would figure that peak fossil fuels are viewed by some global warming advocates as an inconvenient truth, because it implies that our carbon generation is going to ratchet down even if we aren't forced to do so, because there simply will not be the fossil fuels available to generate carbon at the levels that the global warming advocates fear we will if we are not forced to cease and decist.

On the other hand, some global warming advocates are also strong believers in peak fossil fuels.


10). The contention that we have been on a long path toward "decarbonization" is something I haven't given a great deal of thought to, although it is an interesting observation.

Bryce says the preferred sources right now are nuclear and natural gas. As to natural gas, I do agree with him that there has been a great deal of new resource opened up due to fracking. I think unfortunately many of my fellow believers in peak oil tend to be somewhat closed minded just like renewables boosters and global warming activists, and seem to be always grasping for arguments why the fossil fuel supply situation is dismal. Although I do believe fossil fuels are dwindling fairly rapidly, I also do believe that the new unconventional sources of natural gas are a major development, to the point where I believe they will forestall a severe energy shortage for at least a couple decades, provided we aren't so clueless as to not be able to switch over some of our energy use from oil to natural gas. I also believe the case is pretty strong for more nuclear. I think the environmental issue of radioactive waste is way overblown, although I do think the weapons proliferation issue is a major concern, a bigger concern than I think one can conclude based on the arguments to the contrary that Bryce made.


All in all I think this is a very constructive contribution to the dialog on energy. I think for the most part Bryce has reached rational conclusions. I am somewhat more upbeat on renewables than he is but I recognize that there are still some major breakthroughs that are needed before we can go to a renewables economy. The fact is that while they should buy us some time, natural gas is only a medium term solution because at best it tides us over for a couple decades or so, and nuclear is still a finite resource. Nuclear could help tide us over for perhaps hundreds or a couple thousand years but that is dependent on more complete use of uranium and/or thorium involving reactor and fuel processes that are largely unproven.


One important point I think Bryce does touch on but represents a strongly-held view on my part: The energy future will largely be based on electricity. The most promising sources of energy both medium and long term are ones that provide electricity, not hydrocarbons. As we evolve our energy sources we also need to evolve our energy consumption toward more reliance on electricity and less on hydrocarbon fuels.

As to biofuels in a post fossil-fuel world, I think they will primarily be an environmentally unattractive product that we will use on a small scale for those applications where you absolutely need a hydrocarbon- plastics, industrial chemicals, aviation fuel, etc.

"Power Hungry" by Robert Bryce is an updated and popularized sequel to his earlier book "Gusher of lies". Using a large amount of humour, sarcasm and plain common sense, Bryce debunks the myths plaguing the U.S. energy debate. The same myths are peddled in the European Union as well, including my native Sweden. Indeed, I used to believe in many of them myself. After all, "everyone" claims that fossil fuels (or at least oil and coal) and nuclear power can be swiftly replaced by solar, wind and biofuels. (In Sweden, we also have those magnificent peat bogs.)

Bryce points out that fossil fuels in general and oil in particular are more efficient than "alternative" sources of power, that world reserves of fossil fuels are still relatively abundant, and that consumption of oil, gas and coal will increase no matter whether we like it or not - especially in the developing countries. There's an exact correlation between a high standard of living and high energy use. It's not very likely that China, India and other large, developing nations will give up their attempts to attain a Western standard of living. But even if all nations would suddenly decide to abolish dependency on fossil fuels, it would take between 30 and 50 years to revamp the entire energy infrastructure. "Energy transitions" have always been slow, protracted affairs, and there's no reason to believe that the current one will be any different.

Bryce takes no position on climate change. Instead, he attempts to instil some political realism: even if climate change is real, there simply isn't anything we can do to stop it within the next decades. Instead, the world community should adapt to climate change if and when it happens, for instance by providing funding to the nations hardest hit by it. (I might add that such adaptation would presumably also involve GM crops that are resistant to drought, DDT to fight malaria in regions where it doesn't exist today, and better air conditioning - which takes more energy!)

The most interesting part of "Power hungry" debunks various "green" fuels. Ethanol and other biofuels may be feasible in a purely technical sense, but their power density is smaller than that of oil, and it takes vast amounts of arable land to grow the corn and other plants from which ethanol is produced. This would lead to a sharp increase in food prices, something which would threaten the poorest people in the Third World with starvation. Solar and wind are hardly even technologically feasible. Since they are intermittent, power grids dependent on solar or wind need back up from other power sources (read: coal, hydro or nuclear) in order to assure a steady, cheap delivery of electricity.

Some facts mentioned by the author are almost fascinating. Thus, it turns out that wind power plants have a special kind of components made of neodymium, a very rare metal. China has a virtual monopoly on neodymium, so even if the United States would replace all of its oil with wind, there would be no "energy independence". The Chinese would control the U.S. energy supplies through their neodymium monopoly. Bryce also points out, somewhat sarcastically, that wind power plants kill a lot of birds, including Golden Eagles and Bald Eagles, and that some environmentalist groups actually *oppose* them for this reason (so does Bryce himself, who is a bird-watcher in his spare time. Ever seen a European Blackbird in Texas, Mr. Bryce?). The idea of "green" wind power plants massacring the U.S. national symbol is, I suppose, richly ironic. Our author has even managed to find an obscure group called Bat Conservation International, which has sued a wind project in West Virginia, fearing that it might endanger the Indiana bat (a federally protected species).

It's obvious that "Power hungry" is to a large extent based on Vaclav Smil's books. I recently reviewed his "Energy myths and realities". In contrast to Smil, however, Bryce actually presents an alternative: N2N, Natural Gas-to-Nuclear. Over the next 30 to 50 years, coal and oil should be gradually phased out, and replaced by natural gas and nuclear power. The reserves of natural gas are enormous, and their greenhouse emissions are substantially lower than other fossil fuels. As for nuclear power, I might add that there seems to be some room for development of this (admittedly controversial) energy source, such as thorium reactors. (Thorium is more abundant than uranium.)

I don't agree with everything the author says. While claiming to be an independent centrist, he is at bottom a "conservative" free marketeer. I'm more into Chinese state monopolies, LOL. Still, I warmly recommend both "Power hungry" and Bryce's earlier book "Gusher of lies" to those who want some common sense truths about our energy supplies.

Power Hungry was by far the easiest book to read and understand regarding the current state of energy and power production in the US today. Bryce took an early stand saying that the book was not written to prove or disprove man's contribution, or not, to global warming. Rather, the book was all about comparing current power and energy supplies to "green" energy supplies and what a conversion from fossil fuels to green energy would mean.

The reason I like the book so much was that it neatly wrapped most, if not all, of the current sources of energy into neat, easily understandable chapters. Bryce did not get into the weeds of the topic, which many experts in the field tend to do and thereby lose 90% of the audience. Instead, Bryce hit the high points, addressing many pros and cons of each fuel less the emotional baggage usually attached to each. Bryce also introduced two new units, to me, in order to compare the different types of energy in a more meaningful way: energy and power density. This new unit was extremely easy to understand and even easier to visualize, which really helped to keep my interest. Getting a mental picture of the ballpark size of a nuclear power plant and comparable size of a windmill farm that produces the same power was really eye-opening.

All in all an exceptional book on a typically tough topic. One critique I would make would be that there was no mention of fusion as a future "green" energy. I understand it is still a net energy negative, but given enough time like with all the current green energy technology (except nuclear fission), it is simply a matter of time until it becomes both energy profitable and monetarily profitable.