Reviews for Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of "Energy Independence"

The average rating for Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of "Energy Independence" based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2019-07-14 00:00:00 Marte Eyre Central thesis absolutely correct plus many sharp observations Science writer Robert Bryce is a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, which (for what you may want to make of it), is characterized (by The Center for Media and Democracy) as advocating "positions on environmental issues which happen to suit the energy industry: climate change denial, claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless, and the deregulation of utilities." However that may appear, I want to say that Gusher of Lies is an outstanding book that is utterly convincing in its central thesis, namely that we will not, and should not, become energy independent. In fact, virtually no country on earth is likely to become energy independent. In today's globally interconnected world such a goal is simply a foolish pipe dream and/or a politician's blather to a largely ignorant populace. Having said this, I want to caution both you and myself by noting that Bryce is a member of the school of economics that celebrates the late Julian Simon who famously espoused a belief in endless resources and unlimited population growth made possible by scientific and technological progress. Furthermore, Bryce quotes favorably and uses graphs from the book The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy (2005) by Peter W. Huber, and Mark P. Mills. Bryce even reprises one of their glittering (and misleading) pronouncements, to wit: "As energy use rises, people get richer." (p. 19) This Panglossian slogan is backwards as is evident with a little reflection, such as realizing that you can't get the energy to run a factory or a household or a vehicle without paying for it first. Bryce shows he realizes this when he quotes Fatih Birol, Chief Economist for the Paris-based International Energy Agency: "We cannot simply sit back and wait for the world's poorest regions to become sufficiently rich to afford modern energy services….Access to energy is a prerequisite to human development." (p. 262) Or more directly, there's this from page 41: "The average American can afford to consume the equivalent of nearly 3 gallons of oil products per day because residents of the U.S. are among the wealthiest citizens on the planet. For comparison, the average Pakistani uses just 0.08 gallons of oil per day, not because that Pakistani doesn't want to use more oil; it's that he or she can't afford to." Also disconcerting to this reader is the mantra "More Efficiency, More Fuel" (title of Chapter 11). Bryce argues that what has happened historically is that the more efficient we have gotten, the more fuel we ended up using. True. But had we not gotten more efficient, we would have either used even more fuel or gotten less in return. The mantra is called the "Jevons paradox" in economics and really isn't a paradox. What happens is that "In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given output, improved efficiency lowers the cost of using a resource--which increases demand" (to quote Wikipedia). I would add that efficiency of manufacture leads to lower production costs which leads to cheaper goods which leads to more people being able to afford them which leads to more manufacturing, etc. This incidentally is a kind of pyramid scheme that will eventually crash. Neocons and unlimited growth advocates will of course not be around to experience the crash, so they needn't worry, but our grandchildren might. What Bryce does in an engaging and incisive style is to make abundantly clear that no matter what we do we are not going to become "energy independent." Furthermore, if somehow we did become energy independent, we would regret it. Bryce spells out in exacting detail just how nothing, but nothing, is going to replace our dependence on fossil fuels, not until those fuels run out, simply because nothing else'solar, wind, biomass, ethanol, nuclear, etc.'is anywhere near as efficient as an energy source. "Efficient" means in terms of price, in terms of not polluting the environment, in terms of abundance and availability. Bryce shows that the use of ethanol, for example, as a replacement for gasoline would require the cultivation of more cropland than we have, along with prohibitive amounts of water to grow and process the biomass. Surprisingly he argues that such a nearly impossible endeavor would also lead to more pollution. We would regret our energy independence because the price in terms of our ability to influence and trade with the world would be greatly diminished. We would simply dethrone ourselves as the leading economic and political power on the planet. (We'd still have our nukes, of course.) We would lower our standard of living and to no purpose since we do not need energy independence for national security reasons (as the neocons and Bush would have us believe). By the way, one of the nice things that Bryce does is debunk the Bush administration's fear-mongering about a supposed link between terrorism and our appetite for oil and natural gas. Only the tiniest percentage of the billions we spend on importing fossil fuels goes (indirectly) to terrorists. Most of their money comes from the drug trade, extortion, kidnapping for ransom, smuggling, and other illegal activities. What is a bit off-putting about this book (especially for those who do not read all the way through) is that Bryce seems to denigrate not only every sort of energy source other than fossil fuels, but even seems to make fun of conservation. It isn't until Chapter 21, "A Few Suggestions," that he admits that alternate sources of energy and conservation (including perhaps even wearing Jimmy Carter's cardigan) should supplement oil, coal, and natural gas. Two salient quotes: "[W]e likely have no choice but to adapt to the changing global climate for the simple reason that curbing carbon dioxide emissions to any significant degree appears hopeless." (p. 268) "[T]he real risk to America's security and prosperity isn't terrorism. Instead the danger comes, largely, from the war on terrorism." (p. 266) --Dennis Littrell, author of "The World Is Not as We Think It Is"

Review # 2 was written on 2008-03-25 00:00:00 Paul Janowiak Meh. An interesting take on energy politics, and a level of detail that's cool, but there are some giant holes in his arguments. It was good to hear the critiques that people have towards various forms of alternative energy, but the idea that we have no viable alternative to oil seemed based on unnecessarily sketchy math. All he ever did was point out how existing technology wouldn't scale sufficiently by itself, when no one's proposing an all-wind or all-ethanol approach to anything.