Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence | 
 enlarge | Author: Robert Bryce
Publisher: PublicAffairs
Category: Book
List Price: $26.95
Buy New: $7.56
You Save: $19.39 (72%)
New (37) from $7.56
Avg. Customer Rating:  31 reviews
Sales Rank: 18277
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 384
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.2
Dimensions (in): 9.2 x 6.6 x 1.4
ISBN: 1586483218
Dewey Decimal Number: 333.790973
EAN: 9781586483210
ASIN: 1586483218
Publication Date: March 3, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: New Book. Fast Shipping. May have small remainder mark.
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Everybody is talking about "energy independence." But is it really achievable? Is it actually even desirable? In this controversial, meticulously researched book, Robert Bryce exposes the false promises behind the rhetoric while blasting nearly everybody— Republicans, Democrats, environmentalists, and war-mongering neoconservatives—for misleading voters about our energy needs.
Gusher of Lies explains why the idea of energy independence appeals to voters while also showing that renewable sources like wind and solar cannot meet America's growing energy demand. Along the way, Bryce eviscerates the ethanol scam. Whether the issue is cost, water consumption, or food prices, corn ethanol is one of the longest-running robberies ever perpetrated on American taxpayers.
Consumers concerned about peak oil and the future of global energy supplies need to understand that energy security depends on embracing free markets and the realities of interdependence. Gusher of Lies is illuminating, vital reading.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 26 more reviews...
 missing some aspects of the problem August 27, 2008
This is an excellent book and well written. It is slightly out of date in that the price of oil has risen so quickly, but that is more a problem with a jittery oil market and not the date on the book. The arguments are clear and timely. My one and only problem with the book is that it may underestimate the problem that global warming poses in the very near future.
Global warming as described by biologists may not be just another problem to which the economies of the world will sensibly adjust. Rather it may be an extinction event that will cause the deaths of many hundreds of millions in this century. I hate to talk like a catastophist but this possibility is a "game changer" in the oil debate. I am a big fan of Bjorn Lomborg and his rational economic view of global warming. And this book is very much in line with his thinking. Both agree that global warming is real, it is happening, it is too late to do much about it, but we will have to adjust through rational economic policies. But if global warming is truely an extinction event that will change the fundamental characteristics of the planet as described by biologists and computer modelers who ought to know, then all this careful economic analysis gets thrown out the window. ( I would suggest "Under a Green Sky" by Peter Ward for this biological perspective. ) But if you want to read a great book on energy policy this is the one to start with. Without being a spoiler I should mention that the author is in favor of nuclear, photovoltaics, wind, compressed natural gas and algae grown diesel. But none of these no matter how quickly developed will replace our growing need for oil imports in this century. Forget ethanol, this was a scam from the beginning.
 "Earth verses the Flying Saucers", meet "Robert Bryce verses the Straw Men" August 13, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Coming to a b-movie theater near you. O.k., but in all seriousness...
Yes. Solar, wind, and geothermal are niche energy production methods.
Yes. We need more Nuclear plants in the areas people are willing to have them in their back yards.
Yes. We need more clean coal technology.
Yes. We need more natural gas innovation and exploration.
Yes. We can always use more offshore drilling near the states that want it.
Yes. We will eventually need to move over to electric-powered cars, especially in urban areas.
HOWEVER. Bryce is up against a whole army of straw men when he attacks Energy Independence and alcohol fuels. His main opponents in this field are not promoting independence from the ENTIRE WORLD, but rather from the OPEC cartel and terrorist-sponsoring states like Saudi Arabia. They in fact are embracing interdependence in alcohol and petroleum fuel competition from around the world, allowing every country, even third-world ones, to be included in such a market.
He doesn't like to bring up bad subsidies (all, in my opinion) or bad tariffs. He also doesn't like to talk about methanol or IndyCar. Bryce applies free market justifications for allowing oil to continue to skyrocket, which he hopes will cause people to use less of it, but is hypocritically uninterested in having choice on which fuel you put into your car through any sort of cheap capability-mandate...a mandate that would be no different than the IEEE-stipulated Firewire standard port on your computer or the tuner in your new TV.
Bryce also routinely confuses innovation & investment in energy production for the power grid with auto fuel, which is fine if you're buying a new Tesla electric-powered sports car or a plutonium-powered time-traveling Delorean, but completely fallacious in every other respect. Auto fuel right now is a very immediate concern affecting the price of food, the American economy, and the War on Terror. If you want to talk about Global Warming, then I'm all ears when it comes to more Nuke plants and everything else he has to say about The Grid.
Yet, I find it perplexing that an otherwise smart guy like Robert Bryce is at odds with Robert Zubrin and Anne Korin on the Flex-Fuel Mandate issue. Here is something potentially simple and cheap that could allow the free market to deflate fuel prices and end OPEC's monopoly. I am convinced this is the answer for some of our generation's most pressing security, fuel, and economic issues.
In my opinion, Bryce is looking incredibly foolish and uninformed going up against two such stellar minds with such a confused rationale and cherry-picked statistics without giving good reasons why he's disregarding contradictory ones. Zubrin and Korin have quite scholarly given exemplary justifications for embracing certain data and have thoroughly addressed the counter-data. In contrast, Bryce seems to simply avoid the real counter-arguments and counter-data, again, in favor of attacking straw men.
 Interesting but there are omissions August 6, 2008
Bryce states energy independence is a political construct reiterated by every President since 1973. It is promoted by everybody including Bush, Obama, McCain, Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, and Thomas Friedman in The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. Energy independence is used as an argument for fighting terrorism, reforming the Middle East, enhancing energy security, insulating us from oil embargos, getting us out of Iraq, and lowering oil prices. But, it is utopian.
Energy independence does not achieve its objectives. Even if we did not import oil, we'd be vested in the Middle East stability as oil prices are set globally. Any disruption in supply anywhere causes oil prices to spike on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Despite the energy independence mantra, US oil imports have risen from 38% of U.S. oil consumption in 1973 to 60% currently. This is despite our economy being 40% more energy efficient. This is the Jevons Paradox explained in The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy: "Efficiency fails to curb demand because it lets more people do more... faster - and more/faster invariably swamps ... efficiency gains." Terrorists fund themselves with crime, drug, but not oil. The Middle East has never reformed itself despite long stints of low oil prices.
"The Ethanol Scam" chapter is excellent. If all U.S. corn was converted into ethanol, it would supply only 5% of U.S. oil needs. Ethanol production is inefficient consuming 100% of the energy it generates vs only 5% for gasoline. Ethanol government subsidies amount to $1.50 per gallon. One company ADM controls 29% of U.S. ethanol and is the main beneficiary of such subsidies. The corn conversion to ethanol causes food price increases of $3.72 per gallon. Over full production cycle, ethanol emits 50% more CO2 than gasoline. It also emits toxic nitrous oxide. E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) causes vehicles mpg to drop by a third. Large scale ethanol production would deplete U.S. aquifers. It requires 880 gallons of water for irrigated corn or 170 gallons for non-irrigated corn to generate a gallon of ethanol vs less than 5 gallons of water for gasoline. Ford and GM build flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) because the Fed counts only estimated gasoline consumed when figuring out fleet efficiency. Thus, a 15 mpg FFV turns into a 29 mpg rating. The only beneficiaries of ethanol are ADM, Ford, GM, and corn growers.
Bryce explains why alternative fuels will not dent fossil fuels dominance. Coal-to-liquids (CTL) technology has remained economically unfeasible despite massive subsidies. The CTL conversion emits 50% more CO2 than gasoline. Solar and wind power are uneconomical. They are both intermittent. And wind is intermittent at the worst time (peak electricity demand on hot days with no wind). To guarantee an adequate electricity load to avoid black outs, utilities have to keep burning coal, natural gas, etc... at all times. The EIA projects solar and wind will generate less than 1% of U.S. electricity by 2030.
Many of Bryce recommendations make sense.
a)U.S. Government should eliminate most subsidies. This would curb the ethanol scam among others.
b)The U.S. should reduce the number of gasoline fuel blends dictated by State regulations. Those increase gas costs, reduce gas supply, and have unproven environmental impact.
c)U.S. to redefine energy security as functional energy interdependence supported by a diversified portfolio of energy suppliers within an efficient global energy market.
d)Accept increasing energy use and adapt to changing climate. The prospective boost in China's coal consumption to support its economic growth guarantees CO2 emissions will keep growing. Also, most Kyoto Protocol member countries have failed their CO2 reduction targets by 20% or more.
e)Embrace nuclear power, natural gas, and pursue energy efficiency.
f)Increase domestic oil production. Open up the ANWR and the coasts to offshore exploration. There are tons of oil and gas in those areas.
Some of Bryce recommendations are contradictory. He recommends pursuing solar energy backed by government funds. Meanwhile, earlier he explained why solar will amount to less than 1% of electricity generation by 2030; and that the government should get out of the energy business.
Other recommendations are somewhat controversial. He recommends we engage the Middle East as trading partners. He believes rational trading partners do not fight wars. He recommends we leave Iraq and trade with Iran. Iran has no problem selling its oil to anyone else anyway. The U.S. should share the military burden of stabilizing the Middle East with China, Japan, and the E.U. Readers will interpret these through their own political filter. When Bryce crosses over into foreign policy, I would supplement it with The Post-American World and The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.
Just months after this book publication several facts are outdated. He mentions oil is cheap at $2.82 per gallon in August 2007; but it rose to $4.00 recently. He also states that in the future crude oil could reach $100 to $150 per barrel. It already has in July 2008! He also stated we love big SUV gas guzzlers. But, SUVs are sitting on dealers lots at huge discounts.
When developing his long term energy prospect, Bryce omitted tar sands. Tar sands hold oil reserves are twice regular worldwide oil reserves. And, Canada holds half those reserves. Canada has already bypassed Saudi Arabia as the main crude oil exporter to the U.S. (17.6% of total for Canada vs 14.3% for Saudi Arabia).
Bryce dismissed oil shale as the government spent billions in the 1980s without generating any fuel. Since, oil prices have increased and technology prospects are encouraging. Western U.S. oil shale has estimated recoverable reserves nearly triple Saudi Arabia oil reserves.
Tar sand and oil shale have implications that contradict Bryce. First, the concept of Non-OPEC Peak Oil (declining production) is obsolete (chapter 7). Second, the U.S. will be less dependent on Middle East and more reliant on Canada and domestic resources.
 No mention of technologies that weaken author's argument lowers value of this "complete energy independence treatise" July 11, 2008
6 out of 7 found this review helpful
Bryce positions the book as a comprehensive treatise on energy independence, and it's not. Which for me knocks the book down to 1 star.
Bryce doesn't just select his sources (as would any author), he problematically also selects within his sources, and in so doing at least twice misrepresents the message of the source (one misrepresentation described by me below, and another by an earlier reviewer).
So be informed if you read this book (as several earlier reviewers have said). Bryce has his theme, and he can't be bothered to name and then debunk some "facts" that might discredit it.
The main technology Bryce ignores is the coal-to-liquid (CTL) transformation of coal into methanol (wood alcohol, NOT ethanol (grain alcohol)). A major proponent of CTL methanol claims the technology is "clean" and costs the gas equivalent of $1/gallon (50c/gallon methanol, with methanol having 50% the energy of gas). If true, Bryce's theme that energy independence is a fantasy is DOA, so Bryce must debunk the claim. Yet Bryce doesn't even mention it, even though he must know about it (see below).
(Methanol is a mature fuel technology for the internal combustion engine (ICE), as the ICE was invented with methanol in mind and the Indy 500 was run on it until very recently (when ethanol, via a marketing agreement, replaced it). For a fast and interesting read on methanol fuel technology and how it might be able to break imported oil's monopoly of the transportation energy market, see:
-"Energy Victory" (Robert Zubrin, Prometheus Books 2007).
For a drier but more technical read on how methanol could replace oil, see:
-"Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy" (George Olah (a Nobel Prize winner), WILEY-VCH 2007).)
The major CTL methanol proponent referred to above is the Set America Free coalition (SAF), a lobby group pushing for energy independence that Bryce trashes by name (either the group or its prominent members) at least 20 times (I stopped counting), for its (supposed) politics and its (actual) support for ethanol. I assume (hope?) Bryce is well-versed in SAF's policy platform.
In Chapter 12 ("The Ethanol Scam") Bryce quotes a SAF statement on ethanol sourced from SAF's policy platform document as part of his argument to show that ethanol is a scam. (Source is on page 176, Chapter 12, note 131.) A fair use of a source.
My problem is that Bryce ignores SAF's claim that CTL methanol is clean and economic, even though that position is in the paragraph following the one Bryce's ethanol quote comes from, so he must know about it. (Bryce quotes from page 3, paragraph 3, of the SAF document, the paragraph outlining SAF's position on ethanol, while page 3, paragraph 4 outlines SAF's position on methanol.)
The lesser technology Bryce ignores concerns the problem of the volume of biomass needed to produce cellulosic alcohol. Bryce says the volume that needs to be moved to fuel plants requires far more trucks than it's worth (p. 178), while Zubrin says on-site "flash pyrolysis" reduces the volume and solves the problem ("Energy Victory", Robert Zubrin, Prometheus 2007, p. 155).
So are SAF and Zubrin wrong? I have no idea. Bryce doesn't mention their most intriguing ideas, so he doesn't need to debunk them in his "complete energy independence treatise".
(Robert Zubrin is listed as a member of SAF on its website, George Olah is not listed on the website. I have no relation to SAF, and had not heard of the organization before reading Zubrin's book.)
 Every LIBERAL should read this book July 5, 2008
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
He makes many good points and provides much needed facts about the reality of worldwide energy inTERdependence, the inadequacies of the alternatives and the fallacy of giving up fossil fuels.
Liberals will be shaking their heads in delight as he rips Bush, Cheney, the war in Iraq, etc. I'm convinced he is one of your own - even though he claims to be neutral.
But he is a pragmatist when it comes to the main topic of this book - our energy needs. We simply have to quit lying to ourselves about what can be done about the challenges we face. Wind power, solar and biofuels cannot provide even a fraction of the overall energy needs of the nation. This book does a nice job of proving that beyond any shadow of doubt.
I say liberals should read this because in my opinion they are the ones that are standing in the way. (And yes McCain is a liberal too) And they are also the ones poised to take over every branch of government January 2009. As I say, this is one of your own talking...maybe you will finally listen.
|
|
|
