Pickleloaf.com : Books : Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence


Books : Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence In association with Amazon.com Rating: - A sound rebuke to a flawed idea Gusher of Lies gives a cogent convincing rebuttal to the idea that America should be energy independent. Robert Bryce is a journalist and author who has been writing about energy issues for awhile. He is thoroughly knowledgeable about the topic and explains the issues clearly. Gusher of Lies starts with three chapters describing the idea of energy independence in American politics. This sections is a good summary of the politics and press behind the idea. In part two Bryce gives an overview of energy markets over the past thirty years. I found a lot of new information in this section, and good explanations of a complex subject. Part three covers in detail why the idea of American energy independence is so flawed. There is a lot of data in this section, and it is presented well. This is obviously an area of strong interest to Bryce. I found the arguments through and convincing. Part four is were Bryce explains how interdependent we really are, and offers some advice on what we should do. This section is fairly weak. He made the crux of this argument throughout the book, and this sections devolves into show and tell. He describes his visit to Saudi Arabia and Dubai. There was little new in this section. The last two chapters offer some advice about what to do. They mostly seem to say stay the course. Gusher of Lies is well written thoroughly researched book on an important topic. I learned a lot from reading it. The author is strongest in parts two and three were he leans most heavily on real data. His proscriptive section is weak, in my view. Rating: - Energy Independence, Alchemy and Perpetual Motion "A Gusher of Lies" is a must-read for those wanting the cold, hard facts on the current state and future prospects of worldwide energy dynamics. Written by Robert Bryce, a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research and energy journalist and author for the past twenty years, "Gusher of Lies" is meticulously researched and footnoted (60+ pages of bibliography and references). It relies on numerical facts, realistic forecasts and opinions of key members of the scientific community to dispel any notion that the United States will ever achieve "energy independence" until another energy source/application, that does not currently exist, is invented. The alarming truth is the United States, along with every other developed country on the planet, are inexorably dependent on fossil fuels and will be for the foreseeable future. While looking at the numbers, one should ask how "energy independence" has become such a dominant theme. Is it because the Middle East is evil and wants Westerners dead? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The oil behemoths of the Middle East need the West as much as, if not more than, we need them. Oil makes up ~7% of total U.S. imports but accounts for between 65 and 95 percent of Persian Gulf exports, depending on the nation. In the long term, economics tend to supplant all other factors. To claim energy independence will significantly reduce terrorism is a contrivance. While there is no denying that some Middle Eastern players have been linked to Islamic fundamentalists, most terrorist organizations are low-tech in nature and don't need oil dollars. Their financing has been found to come from drugs, human trafficking, weapons trading and other criminal activities. The cost to finance terrorist operations is a rounding error compared to the $5 trillion in annual energy revenues. Not to mention other, rapidly expanding economies will happily buy up much of what the U.S. doesn't in their laser-focused goal to enjoy what the U.S. has for many decades. Why aren't politicians and special interests clamoring for semi-conductor independence? Semiconductors are also a vital commodity, yet the U.S. imports ~80% of its total semiconductor needs compared to ~60% for oil. The U.S. is also dependent on others for many other crucial commodities - manganese for making steel (100% imported), bauxite for making aluminum (100%), graphite (100%), platinum (91%), tin (88%), titanium (85%)... The list of dependencies goes on and on. So why have so many people latched on to "energy independence" when a brief examination of worldwide energy sources and demand would reveal the absurdity of such a goal in a globally interdependent world? The answer might be found in the term, "energy independence" itself. In the year 2000, a news data base, Factivia, that tracks the use of terms and phrases in major periodicals counted 449 total stories using the phrase. Since 9/11, the use of the term has risen exponentially. In 2006 the term was used in 8,069 stories. Power misers (no pun intended) and others seeking to influence behavior of the masses are always looking for issues that will appeal to, and even manipulate, people's emotions. It is worth mentioning that since "Gusher of Lies" was published in March 2008 the use of the phrase "Energy Independence" has dwindled and been altered. If one listens closely, phrases like "CLOSER to energy independence" and similar semantically adjusted phrases have become more common. ETHANOL In an effort to supplement energy needs with renewable and alternative energy, ethanol has garnered much attention in recent years. The current U.S. ethanol strategy uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize (at $0.51/gallon) fuel manufactured from the most subsidized ($51.3 billion between 1995 and 2005) crop in America - corn. What follows are the independently, peer reviewed claims of the scientific community and independent sources, which of course vary significantly from those of the likes of Archer Daniels Midland (the world's largest agribusiness), political recipients of its $7.9 million in campaign contributions and its Washington lobbyists: 1. To completely replace the U.S. consumption of gasoline, which accounts for less than half of our total current oil consumption, with corn ethanol would require 546 million acres dedicated specifically for its production. To put this in perspective, all farmland for every crop grown in America currently occupies 440 million acres. 2. The energy derived from gasoline, as measured in BTUs, is between 600 and 700% more than that required to extract, transport and refine the required crude oil to produce it. The energy available from corn ethanol is 71% of that required to grow, transport and process it from the required feedstock. This means the production of corn ethanol results in a net energy loss of 29%. Put another way, this is like investing a dollar and getting a 71 cent return. Cellulosic ethanol produced from switch grass and wood biomass is even worse with net energy losses of 50 and 57% respectively. 3. Ethanol is not the answer to global warming. It makes it worse. Taking the energy required to produce corn ethanol into account, the carbon dioxide emissions from corn ethanol fuel is on the order of 50% higher than those of traditional fossil fuels. 4. Ethanol-based fuel has less energy content and results in lower fuel economy. "Consumer Reports" magazine compared the fuel economy of a new Chevy Tahoe running on regular gasoline to E85 (85% ethanol blend). It's fuel economy dropped by 27% with E85. 5. Ethanol emits more pollutants than gasoline. In April 2007, Stephen L. Johnson of the Environmental Protection Agency issued a statement that the use of ethanol will result in major increases in the release of two of the worst air pollutants: volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides - 4 and 7% respectively. Using the ethanol mandates set by the government, this translates to up to 83,000 tons of additional annual air pollutants in the U.S. 6. It requires 880 gallons of water to produce one gallon of corn ethanol. Figuring 15% irrigation and 85% rain water, this translates to 132 gallons of water for one gallon of ethanol compared to 5 gallons for gasoline. NATURAL GAS The U.S. reached "peak gas" production in 1973. Peak gas is the point at which maximum extraction of known reserves has been reached and begins to decline, sometimes exponentially. The U.S. has been a net importer of natural gas for decades and, over the coming decades, those imports are expected to increase dramatically. NUCLEAR POWER While the U.S. produces ~4.7 million pounds of the uranium required for nuclear power generation each year, we are currently importing ~83% of the uranium required to power existing plants, a significant portion coming from Russia. Meanwhile ours and the world's demand for uranium continue to grow. COAL The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal. At our current rate of consumption, we have more than 200 years of reserves left. But because of emission standards, we still have to import "cleaner" coal from other countries. While we are currently a net exporter of coal, it is estimated we will become a net importer by 2015. In an effort to offset oil requirements, coal is being converted to motor fuel (coal-to-liquid) via the Fischer-Tropsch process. However a study conducted by Toyota of 23 different fuels found coal-to-liquid fuel to have the highest carbon dioxide footprint - ~50% higher compared to gasoline. SOLAR Residential solar power currently costs ~$0.37 per kilowatt hour. This takes into account the current cost of solar panels minus the offsets of government incentives and utility sell-backs (where utilities are required to buy back excess power generated by the homeowner) without which, the cost would be higher. The average cost of electricity from utilities is ~$0.10 per kW hour. If worldwide solar capacity increased at a rate of 25% a year, thereby reducing manufacturing and purchase costs, in the year 2020 solar power would account for 1% of global energy demand at a cost of ~ $0.22 per kW hour. WIND POWER 1. Wind generated power, like solar, is dependent on the weather. And the cruel irony is that on the hottest days, when electricity demand is the highest, the wind doesn't blow. 2. Wind power must always have a backup energy source ready for when the air is stagnant. This means keeping a power plant running at a lower capacity called "spinning reserve" which burns fuel without creating electricity. 3. As a power plant's output varies, in order to meet the volatile demand caused by fluctuating wind patterns, it becomes significantly less efficient, using more fuel and costing more to operate. 4. A study conducted by the British Royal Academy of Engineering determined that the combined cost of wind power is more than twice that of Coal, natural gas or nuclear. Even taking into account proposed emissions trading scenarios, conventional methods of producing energy are still cheaper than wind. 5. In 2004, total energy produced by existing U.S. wind turbines was 14 billion kW hours. An aggressive campaign to add wind energy capacity has resulted in over 20,000 wind turbines installed by 2007. The Energy Information Administration predicts a four-fold increase to 64.5 billion kW hours by 2030. This means wind energy will be providing little more than 1% of America's anticipated electricity needs. Calling for "Energy Independence" violates the second law of goal setting - the goal must be achievable. The phrase "Energy Independence" boils down to another gimmick employed to invoke mass emotion in pursuit of goals that frequently have little to do with energy. Only the ignorant or deceitful use the phrase with a straight face. The fact is the world is becoming increasingly interdependent and energy independence won't be possible until some great discovery or invention, to which no one is currently known to be close, presents itself. China's and India's populations are over 1.3 and 1.1 billion, respectively. Both economies are growing at a voracious rate and will continue to do so. There are currently 6.7 billion people on this planet and there are expected to be over two billion MORE in the next 40 years. A significant percentage of this growth will be in the middle class - people who like to use energy. Do the math. This is a grim message indeed. There is no pleasure in its dissemination. But ignorance and futility are even more painful. Stephen Hawking may have been right when he said the only way the human race will survive will be if we figure out how to colonize other planets. Growth cannot continue in a confined space. Something has to give. If we can't figure out how to travel across space and terraform, we better figure out how to stabilize the population on this planet. Otherwise the ever increasing struggle for resources will trigger an "event" that will undoubtedly reduce our numbers to a level this planet can support... at least until an asteroid hits us or our sun burns out. I hope that invention comes in time or I'm wrong about the rest. Carpe Diem! Rating: - Food for thought Certainly, this book is not perfect, as some other reviewers have alleged. What book is? To me, the arguments presented make sense. One reviewer mentioned that he didn't attack subsidies...he roundly attacks corn subsidies, and the politicians on both sides who kowtow to Big Corn. The tie-in with the election cycle is especially intriguing. Among the other arguments against the ridiculous way we currently have of electing people to our highest offices, the most ridiculous is allowing Iowans so much power. Yes, he should address methanol; perhaps he will in a future edition. For now, though, we should all think about the consequences of pouring billions of dollars into alternate fuels that will, ultimately, condemn millions to starvation. We are already reaping the dubious benefits of rushing so much of our grain into ethanol in the way of higher food costs. What will happen to the rest of the world when we can no longer provide them with grain because all of our major grain crops are destined to go into our cars? How sustainable is ethanol when two years of drought occur (as it most certainly will)? Then, not only will we not have enough food, we won't have enough fuel, either. It's called robbing Peter to pay Paul, people, and it's never a good idea. Rating: - Finally Time To Debunk The Energy Myths In this book Bryce deftly details the fallacies of depending on alternative means of energy, at least for the immediate future. This is a topic that most liberals prefer to ignore. Those who justify huge subsidies for wind, solar, ethanol don't like to discuss the actual costs and challenges involved with those so-called alternatives. While an alternative to fossil fuels needs to be found in the future, you're not going to find it by just throwing money at it. If that was the case we'd have had a cure for cancer long ago. By the way, wasn't the fuel cell supposed to solve all of our problems? The truth is that in our world today we are all interdependent on each other for goods and services. Bryce is not a lackey for the oil industry; he is merely saying that it is the best fuel available for our transportation needs especially, and let it take its place in the free market along with unsubsidized alternatives. It's not a popular suggestion, but it sure beats the heck of all the meaningless political rhetoric we're hearing. Rating: - missing some aspects of the problem 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.