What do you think?
Rate this book
給未來總統的能源課：頂尖物理學家眼中的能源真相
The author of Physics for Future Presidents returns to educate all of us on the most crucial conundrum facing the nation: energy.
The near-meltdown of Fukushima, the upheavals in the Middle East, the BP oil rig explosion, and the looming reality of global warming have reminded the president and all U.S. citizens that nothing has more impact on our lives than the supply of and demand for energy. Its procurement dominates our economy and foreign policy more than any other factor. But the energy question is more confusing, contentious, and complicated than ever before. We need to know if nuclear power will ever really be safe. We need to know if solar and wind power will ever really be viable. And we desperately need to know if the natural gas deposits in Pennsylvania are a windfall of historic proportions or a false hope that will create more problems than solutions. Richard A. Muller provides all the answers in this must-read guide to our energy priorities now and in the coming years.
The near-meltdown of Fukushima, the upheavals in the Middle East, the BP oil rig explosion, and the looming reality of global warming have reminded the president and all U.S. citizens that nothing has more impact on our lives than the supply of and demand for energy. Its procurement dominates our economy and foreign policy more than any other factor. But the energy question is more confusing, contentious, and complicated than ever before. We need to know if nuclear power will ever really be safe. We need to know if solar and wind power will ever really be viable. And we desperately need to know if the natural gas deposits in Pennsylvania are a windfall of historic proportions or a false hope that will create more problems than solutions. Richard A. Muller provides all the answers in this must-read guide to our energy priorities now and in the coming years.
First published January 1, 2012
107 people are currently reading
892 people want to read
About the author
Richard A. Muller
47 books154 followersRichard A. Muller is professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a past winner of the MacArthur Fellowship. His popular science book Physics for Future Presidents and academic textbook Physics and Technology for Future Presidents are based on his renowned course for non-science students. He lives in Berkeley, California.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews
July 9, 2013
This book is good if you want a comprehensive overview and justification of current energy policies. It's also good for a detailed description of the mechanics of fossil fuel technologies and nuclear. I learned a lot from this book.
That said, I hated this book. Muller acknowledges that there's an inherent tension between short term economics and long term climate change. Without going through climate change models, or mentioning the number of degrees of warming that scientists think we can sustain without disastrous effects, Muller consistently chooses current economics over climate change. His wait and see approach means that we won't solve climate change until it's too late. Natural gas won't reduce emissions enough to prevent catastrophic climate change. A 50% reduction in carbon emissions won't be enough, particularly if you consider methane leaking from fracking, and increasing energy consumption.
Muller discredits electric cars saying that “if the electricity [fueling the car] was generated by coal, the CO2 produced is much higher for the electric ‘zero emission’ auto,” (257) conveniently neglecting to mention that less than half of the energy in the US power grid currently comes from coal. It is possible that the CO2 generated by electric vehicles is still higher than that generated by cars with internal combustion engines if you do the same calculation using our current power grid, but since he has chosen to power his imaginary electric vehicle with only the dirtiest fossil fuel, the reader has no way to know.
The most insidious metric Muller cites is that American cars have contributed 1/40°C to global warming so far, and are likely to contribute “only another 1/40°C over the next 50 years.” (249) He chooses this metric because it makes the warming sound small, while giving us readers no basis for understanding this metric. He doesn’t state how many degrees of warming most scientists think we can sustain without catastrophic effects, and he doesn’t break down where the rest of the warming is coming from. Furthermore, he is intentionally choosing a metric that divides American contributions by the warming on a global scale, to make it seem small.
I had to read this book in small, 20 page chunks, because it upset me too much to read in bigger chunks.
That said, I hated this book. Muller acknowledges that there's an inherent tension between short term economics and long term climate change. Without going through climate change models, or mentioning the number of degrees of warming that scientists think we can sustain without disastrous effects, Muller consistently chooses current economics over climate change. His wait and see approach means that we won't solve climate change until it's too late. Natural gas won't reduce emissions enough to prevent catastrophic climate change. A 50% reduction in carbon emissions won't be enough, particularly if you consider methane leaking from fracking, and increasing energy consumption.
Muller discredits electric cars saying that “if the electricity [fueling the car] was generated by coal, the CO2 produced is much higher for the electric ‘zero emission’ auto,” (257) conveniently neglecting to mention that less than half of the energy in the US power grid currently comes from coal. It is possible that the CO2 generated by electric vehicles is still higher than that generated by cars with internal combustion engines if you do the same calculation using our current power grid, but since he has chosen to power his imaginary electric vehicle with only the dirtiest fossil fuel, the reader has no way to know.
The most insidious metric Muller cites is that American cars have contributed 1/40°C to global warming so far, and are likely to contribute “only another 1/40°C over the next 50 years.” (249) He chooses this metric because it makes the warming sound small, while giving us readers no basis for understanding this metric. He doesn’t state how many degrees of warming most scientists think we can sustain without catastrophic effects, and he doesn’t break down where the rest of the warming is coming from. Furthermore, he is intentionally choosing a metric that divides American contributions by the warming on a global scale, to make it seem small.
I had to read this book in small, 20 page chunks, because it upset me too much to read in bigger chunks.
December 11, 2019
I'm thinking everyone should read this—not just future presidents! This is the book to read to understand the issues of today in regard to energy. It’s got it all—oil, nuclear, climate change, alternative energy, natural gas, everything. Though there are several science-y things in here that I don’t really understand, it is mostly intelligible to me. It is the most reasonable and transparent view of these issues that I have ever read. It really tries to teach rather than pontificate. So refreshing. It would be good to use in a class where you can go into greater detail in understanding the science-y stuff—really looking at the equations and numbers and the whole section on what energy is.
January 11, 2019
This book is already somewhat dated. Some predictions and assumptions have proven untrue (i.e. the cost of a Kw/hr of batteries). The implication of predictions based on assumptions that are no longer true detracts from the conclusions. I am glad that the reality significantly outperformed the predictions.
There were many valid and solid points. With an updated version it would get four stars.
There were many valid and solid points. With an updated version it would get four stars.
January 25, 2022
Richard Muller è lo scienziato per eccellenza. Prima di sostenere una teoria vuole dimostrarla. Per questo quando la commissione di Al Gore ha attribuito un aumento della temperatura globale dovuta alle attività dell’uomo, Muller è rimasto scettico. Non era convinto della metodologia usata dalla commissione e ha quindi deciso di elaborare i dati a modo suo con l’aiuto di alcuni brillanti scienziati. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project era il nome del progetto. Sorprendentemente per Muller le conclusioni del suo team corrispondevano a quelle ufficiali. Da allora anche lui appoggia la tesi del riscaldamento globale.
Muller ha un ottimo modo di vedere le cose. Cerca di ragionare con distacco senza pregiudizi, guardando i dati. In particolare, è contro i falsi allarmismi che riguardano l’ambiente. Una stima troppo prudente sul piano ambientale potrebbe compromettere delle decisioni importanti sul piano economico. Alle stime prudenti preferisce le stime precise.
Un esempio su tutti è il tema del nucleare. Secondo Muller, l’incidente a Fukushima è stato amplificato. Un centinaio di persone sono morte a causa delle radiazioni nucleari contro quindici mila causate dallo tsunami di dieci metri che ne ha causato il malfunzionamento. Fa notare inoltre che gli attuali reattori nucleari sono molto più sicuri e non utilizzano acqua esterna (ad esempio dell’oceano) per raffreddarsi. L’ingiustificato allarmismo ha portato ad un passo indietro riguardo al nucleare a favore del carbone.
Secondo Muller, la grande concentrazione di Co2 non sta causando problemi nel presente, ma causerà problemi in futuro. L’attuale riscaldamento nei centri urbani, ad esempio, non è da imputare alla Co2 ma alle isole di calore, cioè all’uso più diffuso di energia e di superfici che assorbono la luce solare (per esempio l’asfalto). Non crede neanche che il numero di uragani in America sia aumentato. Semplicemente oggi abbiamo la tecnologia per osservarne di più.
Quali sono le soluzioni proposte per combattere il riscaldamento globale?
- È importante passare quanto prima dalle centrali a carbone a quelle a gas naturale. Seppur quest’ultimo provochi il rilascio di Co2, a parità di energia la quantità rilasciata è metà rispetto al carbone.
- Produrre meno energia isolando gli edifici. Il libro è stato scritto nel 2012 eppure solo dal 2021 in Italia sono stati emanati importanti incentivi sull’efficientamento energetico.
Ogni fonte di energia viene descritta in dettaglio: dai biocombustibili, ai combustibili sintetici, alle fonti rinnovabili.
Riguardo alla mobilità, ho trovato interessante la conclusione di Muller che non sempre conviene puntare gli trasporti pubblici. In ambienti urbani densamente popolati questa soluzione è giusta, ma rappresenta uno spreco se applicata alle periferie e alle campagne.
Nel libro ci sono diverse previsioni, molto spesso azzeccate: “prevedo che tra un decennio o poco più il costo delle celle solari diventerà del tutto trascurabile, nel senso che qualora si decidesse di costruire un intero impianto a energia solare, o di installare dei pannelli sul tetto di una casa, sarà una voce di costo irrisoria.” E ancora: “mi aspetto che entro un decennio o due praticamente tutte le auto saranno ibride.”. Ha invece sovrastimato l’importanza del gas naturale “l’era del gas naturale è alle porte. Questa fonte prevarrà sulla maggior parte delle energie alternative, sebbene l’eolico, il solare e il nucleare abbiano comunque qualche possibilità.”
Non do il massimo dei voti solo perché il libro è un po' datato. Contiene comunque un sacco di informazioni utili.
Se volete una panoramica aggiornata sul tema delle fonti di energia e sul riscaldamento globale vi consiglio il libro di Bill Gates Clima: come evitare un disastro. Le soluzioni di oggi, le sfide di domani.
Muller ha un ottimo modo di vedere le cose. Cerca di ragionare con distacco senza pregiudizi, guardando i dati. In particolare, è contro i falsi allarmismi che riguardano l’ambiente. Una stima troppo prudente sul piano ambientale potrebbe compromettere delle decisioni importanti sul piano economico. Alle stime prudenti preferisce le stime precise.
Un esempio su tutti è il tema del nucleare. Secondo Muller, l’incidente a Fukushima è stato amplificato. Un centinaio di persone sono morte a causa delle radiazioni nucleari contro quindici mila causate dallo tsunami di dieci metri che ne ha causato il malfunzionamento. Fa notare inoltre che gli attuali reattori nucleari sono molto più sicuri e non utilizzano acqua esterna (ad esempio dell’oceano) per raffreddarsi. L’ingiustificato allarmismo ha portato ad un passo indietro riguardo al nucleare a favore del carbone.
Secondo Muller, la grande concentrazione di Co2 non sta causando problemi nel presente, ma causerà problemi in futuro. L’attuale riscaldamento nei centri urbani, ad esempio, non è da imputare alla Co2 ma alle isole di calore, cioè all’uso più diffuso di energia e di superfici che assorbono la luce solare (per esempio l’asfalto). Non crede neanche che il numero di uragani in America sia aumentato. Semplicemente oggi abbiamo la tecnologia per osservarne di più.
Quali sono le soluzioni proposte per combattere il riscaldamento globale?
- È importante passare quanto prima dalle centrali a carbone a quelle a gas naturale. Seppur quest’ultimo provochi il rilascio di Co2, a parità di energia la quantità rilasciata è metà rispetto al carbone.
- Produrre meno energia isolando gli edifici. Il libro è stato scritto nel 2012 eppure solo dal 2021 in Italia sono stati emanati importanti incentivi sull’efficientamento energetico.
Ogni fonte di energia viene descritta in dettaglio: dai biocombustibili, ai combustibili sintetici, alle fonti rinnovabili.
Riguardo alla mobilità, ho trovato interessante la conclusione di Muller che non sempre conviene puntare gli trasporti pubblici. In ambienti urbani densamente popolati questa soluzione è giusta, ma rappresenta uno spreco se applicata alle periferie e alle campagne.
Nel libro ci sono diverse previsioni, molto spesso azzeccate: “prevedo che tra un decennio o poco più il costo delle celle solari diventerà del tutto trascurabile, nel senso che qualora si decidesse di costruire un intero impianto a energia solare, o di installare dei pannelli sul tetto di una casa, sarà una voce di costo irrisoria.” E ancora: “mi aspetto che entro un decennio o due praticamente tutte le auto saranno ibride.”. Ha invece sovrastimato l’importanza del gas naturale “l’era del gas naturale è alle porte. Questa fonte prevarrà sulla maggior parte delle energie alternative, sebbene l’eolico, il solare e il nucleare abbiano comunque qualche possibilità.”
Non do il massimo dei voti solo perché il libro è un po' datato. Contiene comunque un sacco di informazioni utili.
Se volete una panoramica aggiornata sul tema delle fonti di energia e sul riscaldamento globale vi consiglio il libro di Bill Gates Clima: come evitare un disastro. Le soluzioni di oggi, le sfide di domani.
August 3, 2012
Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines by Richard A. Muller
"Energy for Future Presidents" is the educational, informative and accessible book on energy. The book covers popular topics on energy: energy disasters, energy landscape (modes of transportation), and "new" technologies. Professor of physics and author, Richard A. Muller, succeeds in providing the public a wonderful topical book that covers the most important topics on energy. The author uses a cleaver approach in the book; he plays the role as an energy advisor to you the future President. This enlightening 368-page book is broken out in five parts: I. Energy Catastrophes, II. The Energy Landscape, III. Alternative Energy, IV. What Is Energy? and V. Advice for Future Presidents.
Positives:
1. Engaging, well-researched and well-written book. Accessible for the masses.
2. An important and interesting topic that is handled with integrity and fairness. Muller uses sound logic and provides compelling arguments to back his points. One of my favorite attributes of the author is the courage to be critical while remaining objective. Kudos.
3. Does a wonderful job of remaining objective. There is always an innate predisposition to head in a direction that one desires. The author cautions the readers of falling into the extreme traps of optimism and skeptical biases. "Claims based on conviction are not as valid as those based on objective analysis."
4. Effective use of charts, stats and facts that add value to the narrative of the book.
5. An interesting look at recent energy disasters: the disasters of Fukushima and the Gulf oil spill. Very unique and compelling arguments. Really does a wonderful job of keeping things in perspective. A welcomed approach.
6. One of the best and balanced treatments of global warming that I have come across. I really learned some new things here. Excellent!
7. Not afraid to be an equal-opportunity critique. As far as I can tell, Muller is not driven by a political agenda but on the proper objective scientific analysis.
8. As a good educator should, Muller does a great job of summarizing each chapter.
9. Focusing on the two largest issues in the energy landscape: energy security and climate change.
10. Exciting news for future US energy security.
11. A look at "alternative fuel" like natural gas. The technology, the potential...
12. Great quotes that capture the reality of our situation, "We don't have an energy crisis; we have a transportation fuel crisis. We don't have an energy shortage; we have an oil shortage. We're not running low on fossil fuels; we're running low on liquid fuels". Too good not to share but many others.
13. Great practical advice for improving energy usage in your home. "Energy productivity". Implementations that work and an interesting look at public transportation.
14. Very interesting findings. Here is an example: Do microwaves cause cancer? Find out.
15. A lot of good information on the different energy sources. What works? Why? Cost?
16. An educational look at nuclear power. Great stuff.
17. A discussion of five methods to produce controlled fusion.
18. What constitutes biofuels and what does not.
19. A critical look at electric autos.
20. A very interesting look at batteries. The different varieties, how they work, how practical they are and what the future holds.
21. A look at "clean coal".
22. A section defining key energy terms. More "sciency".
23. A wonderful job of wrapping it all up. Sound advice.
24. Links to notes worked great and bibliography provided
Negatives:
1. Some conclusions will cause cognitive dissonance. Some findings went against my preconceived notions but I'm one that can be persuaded with objective information.
2. Some topics may still be beyond the comprehension of the layperson. The topic of controlled fusion comes to mind.
3. Some findings may irk some folks.
4. No formal bibliography.
In summary, this turned out to be a very enlightening book. It's a very topical and interesting book that covers all the main energy issues of our time. Muller does a wonderful job of establishing early on his approach to science and how he applied it to matters of energy. His courage and candor and his focus to remain objective won me over. His fair and objective treatment of global warming is what good science should always be about. This is an informative and practical book backed by good accessible science. I highly recommend it!
Further recommendations: "Winner Take All: China's Race for Resources and What It Means for the World" by Damisa Mojo, "The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality" by Richard Heinberg, "The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future Of Our Economy, Energy, And Environment" by Chris Martenson, "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity" by James Hansen, "The Weather of the Future: Heat Waves, Extreme Storms, and Other Scenes from a Climate-Changed Planet" by Heidi Cullen, "Crude World: The Violent Twilight of Oil (Vintage)" by Peter Maass,"Good Strategy Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters" by Richard Rumelt, "Beyond Terror" by Chris Abbott, and "The Post-American World: Release 2.0" by Fareed Zakaria. I have reviewed all the aforementioned books; look for my tag, "Book Shark Review".
"Energy for Future Presidents" is the educational, informative and accessible book on energy. The book covers popular topics on energy: energy disasters, energy landscape (modes of transportation), and "new" technologies. Professor of physics and author, Richard A. Muller, succeeds in providing the public a wonderful topical book that covers the most important topics on energy. The author uses a cleaver approach in the book; he plays the role as an energy advisor to you the future President. This enlightening 368-page book is broken out in five parts: I. Energy Catastrophes, II. The Energy Landscape, III. Alternative Energy, IV. What Is Energy? and V. Advice for Future Presidents.
Positives:
1. Engaging, well-researched and well-written book. Accessible for the masses.
2. An important and interesting topic that is handled with integrity and fairness. Muller uses sound logic and provides compelling arguments to back his points. One of my favorite attributes of the author is the courage to be critical while remaining objective. Kudos.
3. Does a wonderful job of remaining objective. There is always an innate predisposition to head in a direction that one desires. The author cautions the readers of falling into the extreme traps of optimism and skeptical biases. "Claims based on conviction are not as valid as those based on objective analysis."
4. Effective use of charts, stats and facts that add value to the narrative of the book.
5. An interesting look at recent energy disasters: the disasters of Fukushima and the Gulf oil spill. Very unique and compelling arguments. Really does a wonderful job of keeping things in perspective. A welcomed approach.
6. One of the best and balanced treatments of global warming that I have come across. I really learned some new things here. Excellent!
7. Not afraid to be an equal-opportunity critique. As far as I can tell, Muller is not driven by a political agenda but on the proper objective scientific analysis.
8. As a good educator should, Muller does a great job of summarizing each chapter.
9. Focusing on the two largest issues in the energy landscape: energy security and climate change.
10. Exciting news for future US energy security.
11. A look at "alternative fuel" like natural gas. The technology, the potential...
12. Great quotes that capture the reality of our situation, "We don't have an energy crisis; we have a transportation fuel crisis. We don't have an energy shortage; we have an oil shortage. We're not running low on fossil fuels; we're running low on liquid fuels". Too good not to share but many others.
13. Great practical advice for improving energy usage in your home. "Energy productivity". Implementations that work and an interesting look at public transportation.
14. Very interesting findings. Here is an example: Do microwaves cause cancer? Find out.
15. A lot of good information on the different energy sources. What works? Why? Cost?
16. An educational look at nuclear power. Great stuff.
17. A discussion of five methods to produce controlled fusion.
18. What constitutes biofuels and what does not.
19. A critical look at electric autos.
20. A very interesting look at batteries. The different varieties, how they work, how practical they are and what the future holds.
21. A look at "clean coal".
22. A section defining key energy terms. More "sciency".
23. A wonderful job of wrapping it all up. Sound advice.
24. Links to notes worked great and bibliography provided
Negatives:
1. Some conclusions will cause cognitive dissonance. Some findings went against my preconceived notions but I'm one that can be persuaded with objective information.
2. Some topics may still be beyond the comprehension of the layperson. The topic of controlled fusion comes to mind.
3. Some findings may irk some folks.
4. No formal bibliography.
In summary, this turned out to be a very enlightening book. It's a very topical and interesting book that covers all the main energy issues of our time. Muller does a wonderful job of establishing early on his approach to science and how he applied it to matters of energy. His courage and candor and his focus to remain objective won me over. His fair and objective treatment of global warming is what good science should always be about. This is an informative and practical book backed by good accessible science. I highly recommend it!
Further recommendations: "Winner Take All: China's Race for Resources and What It Means for the World" by Damisa Mojo, "The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality" by Richard Heinberg, "The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future Of Our Economy, Energy, And Environment" by Chris Martenson, "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity" by James Hansen, "The Weather of the Future: Heat Waves, Extreme Storms, and Other Scenes from a Climate-Changed Planet" by Heidi Cullen, "Crude World: The Violent Twilight of Oil (Vintage)" by Peter Maass,"Good Strategy Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters" by Richard Rumelt, "Beyond Terror" by Chris Abbott, and "The Post-American World: Release 2.0" by Fareed Zakaria. I have reviewed all the aforementioned books; look for my tag, "Book Shark Review".
September 20, 2012
Very interesting and relatively non-technical survey of energy solutions. Though Muller famously changed his mind about global warming, I'm not sure he chnaged his mind all that much. The book's greatest asset is that it provides a fair and realistic assessment of different solutions, revealing what's real, what's hype, and what's exaggerated.
February 14, 2013
My full review is here: http://berc.berkeley.edu/dr-richard-m...
It's well written. Many will disagree with his thoughts on EV's and natural gas though. He is very pro-nuclear, but his arguments are very convincing, I have to admit.
It's well written. Many will disagree with his thoughts on EV's and natural gas though. He is very pro-nuclear, but his arguments are very convincing, I have to admit.
January 9, 2020
A brilliant book about energy that everyone should read.
Although written in 2012, some of the views are still valued until today:
- Why Solar, Wind are not effective
- Why energy disasters are overreacted
- Why nuclear is not as serious as it is
- Why biodegradable products are bad (yes they are)
- Why electric and hybrid cars are expensive and ineffective
And more
Although written in 2012, some of the views are still valued until today:
- Why Solar, Wind are not effective
- Why energy disasters are overreacted
- Why nuclear is not as serious as it is
- Why biodegradable products are bad (yes they are)
- Why electric and hybrid cars are expensive and ineffective
And more
October 29, 2018
I will start by admitting that I am a fan of Richard Muller. Before I even went to university I watched every lecture in his "Physics for future presidents" course at UC Berkeley, which was one of the first courses to become available online as a free webcast. I would describe Muller as an honest and rigorous scientist who is not afraid to speak his mind even when his views are controversial. He is also very critical of the way that different energy issues are portrayed in the media, something which you will realize if you read this book.
One good example of what can only be called overblown media reporting is what followed the BP oil spill in the Mexican gulf. When it happened the media was reporting on little else and many high standing politicians described it as one of the worst (sometimes the worst) environmental disasters in the history of mankind. What happened next? Suddenly the media moved on and I was surprised to learn (from this book) that though the initial explosion killed 11 workers, the subsequent oil spill only caused 6000-30.000 bird deaths. "Only" is indeed the appropriate term here, considering that glass windows kill 100.000.000 birds annually and power lines kill many million more. The BP oil spill was unfortunate, and it cost human lives, some birds and a lot of money to fix it, but it is clear that the media and the politicians got a bit carried away with this one.
Another so called " disaster" which got an unfair treatment in the media was the Fukushima power plant accident. To date not a single person have died from the radiation released and the prognosis is that a few hundred extra cancers, some of which could have a fatal outcome, will be the result of this “disaster”. My Fukushima headline would have read: “No deaths from breakdown of old nuclear power plant even though it was hit with an 8.0 earthquake and a tsunami”... (also see my pre-fukushima post on the irrational fear of nuclear power as well as my Review of the book “Radiation”).
Richard Muller spends a good deal of this book discussing the ever controversial topic of Global Warming. He was at a point very critical of the methodology used by climate researchers when they calculated the rate of global warming. For example it is not appropriate to use weather stations in populated areas because as population grows so does temperature. He also found some of the mathematics used... funky...
For this reason he did his own study, and unlike IPCC researchers this study was/is completely transparent with all data freely available for anyone who desires to make their own calculations. What did Muller find? Basically he says that the IPCC, despite their sometimes flawed methods, are correct. In other words, according to Muller the globe has warmed, and this warming has been due to human caused increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. While backing their overall conclusions about the temperature increase on earth Muller does not seem to share many peoples sense of pending disaster due to this warming. Models that predict the future climate of earth tends to have a lot of uncertainty associated with them, and it is almost impossible to know if we are able to come up with technologies that will significantly alter the future climate.
He also says that if we really want to prevent increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere we should turn our efforts to China. For quite a long time they have been building one coal plant per week spewing out not only CO2, but also huge amounts of other pollutants such as lead and arsenic. Convincing them to use clean energy sources such as solar or nuclear power (by paying them if necessary), makes a lot more sense than going for expensive alternatives in the west. That is, if you aim to achieve the maximal reduction of CO2 release per dollar, that dollar should be invested in China. Muller also reiterates several times throughout the book that energy conservation will be a huge part of the future. Proper isolation of houses, driving efficient cars etc can drastically reduce energy expenditure.
I have really only touched upon some of the issues that are discussed in this book. Muller offers a perspective on many other energy related issues such as Shale gas/oil, electric cars, fusion, wind/solar/water energy, etc etc. All in all this book is both very educational and at the same time a page turner (keep in mind though that I am kind of a nerd). If you are even just a little interested in the technologies and politics related to energy issues this book is a terrific buy!
One good example of what can only be called overblown media reporting is what followed the BP oil spill in the Mexican gulf. When it happened the media was reporting on little else and many high standing politicians described it as one of the worst (sometimes the worst) environmental disasters in the history of mankind. What happened next? Suddenly the media moved on and I was surprised to learn (from this book) that though the initial explosion killed 11 workers, the subsequent oil spill only caused 6000-30.000 bird deaths. "Only" is indeed the appropriate term here, considering that glass windows kill 100.000.000 birds annually and power lines kill many million more. The BP oil spill was unfortunate, and it cost human lives, some birds and a lot of money to fix it, but it is clear that the media and the politicians got a bit carried away with this one.
Another so called " disaster" which got an unfair treatment in the media was the Fukushima power plant accident. To date not a single person have died from the radiation released and the prognosis is that a few hundred extra cancers, some of which could have a fatal outcome, will be the result of this “disaster”. My Fukushima headline would have read: “No deaths from breakdown of old nuclear power plant even though it was hit with an 8.0 earthquake and a tsunami”... (also see my pre-fukushima post on the irrational fear of nuclear power as well as my Review of the book “Radiation”).
Richard Muller spends a good deal of this book discussing the ever controversial topic of Global Warming. He was at a point very critical of the methodology used by climate researchers when they calculated the rate of global warming. For example it is not appropriate to use weather stations in populated areas because as population grows so does temperature. He also found some of the mathematics used... funky...
For this reason he did his own study, and unlike IPCC researchers this study was/is completely transparent with all data freely available for anyone who desires to make their own calculations. What did Muller find? Basically he says that the IPCC, despite their sometimes flawed methods, are correct. In other words, according to Muller the globe has warmed, and this warming has been due to human caused increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. While backing their overall conclusions about the temperature increase on earth Muller does not seem to share many peoples sense of pending disaster due to this warming. Models that predict the future climate of earth tends to have a lot of uncertainty associated with them, and it is almost impossible to know if we are able to come up with technologies that will significantly alter the future climate.
He also says that if we really want to prevent increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere we should turn our efforts to China. For quite a long time they have been building one coal plant per week spewing out not only CO2, but also huge amounts of other pollutants such as lead and arsenic. Convincing them to use clean energy sources such as solar or nuclear power (by paying them if necessary), makes a lot more sense than going for expensive alternatives in the west. That is, if you aim to achieve the maximal reduction of CO2 release per dollar, that dollar should be invested in China. Muller also reiterates several times throughout the book that energy conservation will be a huge part of the future. Proper isolation of houses, driving efficient cars etc can drastically reduce energy expenditure.
I have really only touched upon some of the issues that are discussed in this book. Muller offers a perspective on many other energy related issues such as Shale gas/oil, electric cars, fusion, wind/solar/water energy, etc etc. All in all this book is both very educational and at the same time a page turner (keep in mind though that I am kind of a nerd). If you are even just a little interested in the technologies and politics related to energy issues this book is a terrific buy!
November 20, 2019
This book kind of fell off the shelf into my hands, so I took it home and read it. Only later did I realize it is a 2012 book and already a bit dated. My 4-star rating is based on what I would have given it in 2012; if I were to take time into account, it would be a 3-star book.
Author Richard Muller takes a novel approach with his book on energy, taking the position that he is briefing you on the basics of energy in order to prepare you for your presidential run and all the decisions you'll need to make once you win the election.
Overall it was a very solid work with a rundown on various energy sources and methods of energy storage along with his evaluation of which of those hold any water. It was a tad technical in places, but those who are not interested in the details can skim through that without losing the big picture.
I thought it was interesting that his main conclusions matched those of energy analyst Robert Bryce: natural gas and nuclear are our best bets for reducing carbon emissions. Both authors did a good job of allaying concerns over dangers associated with nuclear.
A couple of points of disagreement. When comparing the cost per mile driven of battery electric vehicles with that of tradition gasoline powered vehicles I was pleased that the author took into account the necessity of replacing dead batteries in battery electric vehicles. However, the author entirely neglected the higher maintenance costs of combustion engines. These maintenance costs probably vary quite widely from vehicle to vehicle, but it at least deserved a passing mention.
I thought the author was unnecessarily harsh on hydrogen. While Muller is eager to point out that improving technology can make efficiency and cost differences in other areas, he seems to downplay any possibility of similar improvements in hydrogen. And he takes this stance despite the fact that he even states towards the end of the book that we can't begin to guess at the technology that will be available to us 20 to 40 years down the line. However, it has only been just recently that real research and development has taken aim at making hydrogen a reality. For example, the cost of producing a fuel cell vehicle can now match that of internal combustion engine vehicle.
There are still problems with hydrogen to be solved, but I am optimistic that these challenges can be met. So am I guilty of optimism bias or is the author guilty of skepticism bias?
Two final notes:
First, this book lacked a bibliography and the notes almost exclusively elaborated on his point as opposed to providing a reference. Although I believe the information provided was accurate at the time, it really bugs me when there are no references in a a nonfiction book.
Second, the author expressed concern over China's growing carbon dioxide emissions and speculated that China's emissions may eventually be double what the U.S. produces. His prediction was correct. According to the CIA World Factbook,
China produces 11.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the consumption of energy per year, which is 1) the most in the world, 2) more than double the 5.2 billion metric tons produced by the U.S., and 3) more than the combined amount produced by the U.S., India, Russia, Japan, and Germany.
Overall, this was a very informative read but I recommend you find something published more recently.
Author Richard Muller takes a novel approach with his book on energy, taking the position that he is briefing you on the basics of energy in order to prepare you for your presidential run and all the decisions you'll need to make once you win the election.
Overall it was a very solid work with a rundown on various energy sources and methods of energy storage along with his evaluation of which of those hold any water. It was a tad technical in places, but those who are not interested in the details can skim through that without losing the big picture.
I thought it was interesting that his main conclusions matched those of energy analyst Robert Bryce: natural gas and nuclear are our best bets for reducing carbon emissions. Both authors did a good job of allaying concerns over dangers associated with nuclear.
A couple of points of disagreement. When comparing the cost per mile driven of battery electric vehicles with that of tradition gasoline powered vehicles I was pleased that the author took into account the necessity of replacing dead batteries in battery electric vehicles. However, the author entirely neglected the higher maintenance costs of combustion engines. These maintenance costs probably vary quite widely from vehicle to vehicle, but it at least deserved a passing mention.
I thought the author was unnecessarily harsh on hydrogen. While Muller is eager to point out that improving technology can make efficiency and cost differences in other areas, he seems to downplay any possibility of similar improvements in hydrogen. And he takes this stance despite the fact that he even states towards the end of the book that we can't begin to guess at the technology that will be available to us 20 to 40 years down the line. However, it has only been just recently that real research and development has taken aim at making hydrogen a reality. For example, the cost of producing a fuel cell vehicle can now match that of internal combustion engine vehicle.
There are still problems with hydrogen to be solved, but I am optimistic that these challenges can be met. So am I guilty of optimism bias or is the author guilty of skepticism bias?
Two final notes:
First, this book lacked a bibliography and the notes almost exclusively elaborated on his point as opposed to providing a reference. Although I believe the information provided was accurate at the time, it really bugs me when there are no references in a a nonfiction book.
Second, the author expressed concern over China's growing carbon dioxide emissions and speculated that China's emissions may eventually be double what the U.S. produces. His prediction was correct. According to the CIA World Factbook,
China produces 11.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the consumption of energy per year, which is 1) the most in the world, 2) more than double the 5.2 billion metric tons produced by the U.S., and 3) more than the combined amount produced by the U.S., India, Russia, Japan, and Germany.
Overall, this was a very informative read but I recommend you find something published more recently.
March 13, 2022
I think an important question that one must ask when picking up this book is “why would you read a 10 year old book about energy policy and technology?”
I think there are lots of reasons to do so, but most notably, to give yourself a baseline as to how much has changed in just 10 years, additionally, as someone who loves technology, it is always interesting to see “the impossible” become the possible.
I want to be very clear — my knowledge on the subject of energy is limited — while I have been interested in alternative forms of energy since 2009, my knowledge is much more casual than any proper education in a relevant field (my degree is in Computer Science).
I found that this book was written in an approachable manner with a very interesting style — the book assumes that you will be the President and it is Mullers’ goal to brief you on current energy policy, the various forms of alternative energy and the implications of each and his predictions in the coming years regarding energy.
I’d like to start off by explaining what this book does right, but then, explain (10 years later), what this book got wrong.
In terms of what the book did right:
1. I would say that Muller does provide a very good high level summary of the basic concepts of energy and alternative forms of energy.
2. Muller also does a good job explaining the misunderstandings, and often time, deliberate misinformation surrounding nuclear power, most notably, the safety of reactors and the unwarranted fear surrounding them. The “Denver Dose” argument presented was incredibly compelling in my opinion.
3. Muller correctly acknowledges the complexities of switching from a coal and petroleum-based energy — overzealous, bright-eyed, Twitter like-hungry politicians proposing new deals grossly misunderstand what these switches entail. It isn’t just a light bulb to switch on.
4. Muller argues that Natural Gas is the best intermediary transitional fuel since it results in reduced CO2 compared to coal and petroleum.
There are definitely some “OOF”-level predictions, most notably surrounding EVs and batteries.
1. There were lots of assumptions being made about EVs and innovations in batteries. Muller assumed that battery innovation had peaked and there wasn’t much room remaining. Battery technology over the last 10 years has been steadily improving and EVs are becoming significantly more attractive to many buyers.
2. Muller’ take on EVs, which was based on the technology at the time is so completely laughable when you look at the current landscape:
“[…] I expect in a decade or two virtually all of our automobiles will be hybrids. It is the all-electric cars like the Tesla Roadster and the Nissan Leaf, and even the Chevy Volt and the plug-in hybrids when operated in all-electric mode, that are part of this fad. I expect the interest in such cars to be short-lived.”
As of the time of this review, Tesla is now the company with 6th highest market cap in the world (ahead of even giants like Facebook, Walmart and Visa), only behind companies like Apple, Amazon and Saudi Aramco.
3. There were parts that felt apologist — notably the BP Oil Spill. I felt that Mullers’ position was that it while it was a bad thing, it wasn’t necessarily a disaster or catastrophe.
So, 10 years later… does this book matter?
If your goal is to see how alternative energy advanced in the last 10 years, this is definitely a great book to read because you’ll be able to compare it to current innovations, but I’m really not sure I’d recommend it for anything beyond that due to how much has changed.
If your goal is to be President, perhaps this book is best left dusty on the shelves as a relic of history.
I think there are lots of reasons to do so, but most notably, to give yourself a baseline as to how much has changed in just 10 years, additionally, as someone who loves technology, it is always interesting to see “the impossible” become the possible.
I want to be very clear — my knowledge on the subject of energy is limited — while I have been interested in alternative forms of energy since 2009, my knowledge is much more casual than any proper education in a relevant field (my degree is in Computer Science).
I found that this book was written in an approachable manner with a very interesting style — the book assumes that you will be the President and it is Mullers’ goal to brief you on current energy policy, the various forms of alternative energy and the implications of each and his predictions in the coming years regarding energy.
I’d like to start off by explaining what this book does right, but then, explain (10 years later), what this book got wrong.
In terms of what the book did right:
1. I would say that Muller does provide a very good high level summary of the basic concepts of energy and alternative forms of energy.
2. Muller also does a good job explaining the misunderstandings, and often time, deliberate misinformation surrounding nuclear power, most notably, the safety of reactors and the unwarranted fear surrounding them. The “Denver Dose” argument presented was incredibly compelling in my opinion.
3. Muller correctly acknowledges the complexities of switching from a coal and petroleum-based energy — overzealous, bright-eyed, Twitter like-hungry politicians proposing new deals grossly misunderstand what these switches entail. It isn’t just a light bulb to switch on.
4. Muller argues that Natural Gas is the best intermediary transitional fuel since it results in reduced CO2 compared to coal and petroleum.
There are definitely some “OOF”-level predictions, most notably surrounding EVs and batteries.
1. There were lots of assumptions being made about EVs and innovations in batteries. Muller assumed that battery innovation had peaked and there wasn’t much room remaining. Battery technology over the last 10 years has been steadily improving and EVs are becoming significantly more attractive to many buyers.
2. Muller’ take on EVs, which was based on the technology at the time is so completely laughable when you look at the current landscape:
“[…] I expect in a decade or two virtually all of our automobiles will be hybrids. It is the all-electric cars like the Tesla Roadster and the Nissan Leaf, and even the Chevy Volt and the plug-in hybrids when operated in all-electric mode, that are part of this fad. I expect the interest in such cars to be short-lived.”
As of the time of this review, Tesla is now the company with 6th highest market cap in the world (ahead of even giants like Facebook, Walmart and Visa), only behind companies like Apple, Amazon and Saudi Aramco.
3. There were parts that felt apologist — notably the BP Oil Spill. I felt that Mullers’ position was that it while it was a bad thing, it wasn’t necessarily a disaster or catastrophe.
So, 10 years later… does this book matter?
If your goal is to see how alternative energy advanced in the last 10 years, this is definitely a great book to read because you’ll be able to compare it to current innovations, but I’m really not sure I’d recommend it for anything beyond that due to how much has changed.
If your goal is to be President, perhaps this book is best left dusty on the shelves as a relic of history.
February 8, 2013
The name of the book is, "Energy for Future Presidents" written by Richard A Muller. I became aware of this important book while watching the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. Richard Muller was Rachel's guest and he was discussing his new book with her. This author had become a news item worth reporting on the show because he had changed from being a skeptic about global warming into a convinced scientist. He stated that global warming is real and that 99% of it is due to human causes. Moreover, there is an exact correlation with the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The author himself did not think he had changed his mind but had had an opportunity to thoroughly investigate the data on global warming in a scientific manner so that he could make an informed decision. Nonetheless, I think it is important that a renowned scientist has convinced himself that global warming is real. The controversy has become a political divide between Democrats and Republicans. It did not used to be that way. In fact, Republicans originally fostered the idea of " Cap and Trade". This concept had proven itself in solving the problem of acid rain due to coal fired generators. It allowed the free enterprise system to solve the problem in the most economical way. As of late however, it seems as though every Republican to a man swears that global warming is a hoax and a cap and trade is an onerous concept.
The book itself is a review of what scientists know about the energy problem not only in the United States but worldwide. In Part I of the book, entitled "Energy Catastrophes", Mr. Mueller discusses two recent energy disasters using a non-emotional analysis. One of the disasters is the tsunami in Japan that damaged the nuclear reactor site as well as homes and factories and human lives. He feels that the nuclear part of the disaster has been grossly overstated and he gives his reasons for that conclusion. Many people around the world wanted to completely disassociate themselves from nuclear energy after the Fukushima disaster. However, Muller believes that nuclear energy is still a safe energy source and it is important that we not give up on it. He also discusses the Deep water Horizon accident in the gulf, which spurted oil into the sea for seemingly endless days. He also felt that the damage was grossly exaggerated and attempted put it in perspective. He felt the cleanup activities worked well.
In the third chapter, he discusses global warming and climate change. He provides enough background on the problem, that we can see its complexity, multiplicity of causes, cases of polar warming, sea level rise, and the difficulty in evaluating historical data.
In Part II of the book entitled "The Energy Landscape", he educates us regarding the different kinds of energy which include: natural gas, ocean methane, shale oil, etc. He also comments on recycled energy, energy security, fracking, liquid energy security and energy productivity. In Part III of the book entitled "Alternative Energy", discusses solar energy, photovoltaic cells, wind, energy storage, nuclear power, nuclear waste storage, fusion, biofuels, synfuels, hydrogen, geothermal, tidal power, and wave power. He also discusses electric automobiles in depth. Part IV entitled "What Is Energy?", Muller offers an optional chapter which would delight a physics major but is likely to lose the common reader. Part V entitled "Advice for Future Presidents", is a condensation of what was covered in the book previously and is directed to whoever the president might be in the future. The author has taken the view that a president cannot rely strictly on advice from his energy sector but must understand the basic concepts of energy technology so that combined with other considerations, can make the most intelligent decision.
Throughout the book, Muller has repeated his premise that natural gas the cheapest, most practical, most available, and most desirable form of energy available to the United States today. All other forms of energy should be compared to natural gas as a standard. Admittedly, it does generate carbon dioxide and water as byproducts of combustion. However, it is far cleaner than coal or oil. Moreover, United States has enormous reserves of natural gas which can be harvested by a process known as fracking. Muller advocates strong environmental laws with stiffer penalties governing this process of extraction because there are dangers to our drinking water and other resources.
Here are some of my personal thoughts as I read this book: overall the author did a good job of avoiding politics or being influenced by corporate interest. I didn't think so in the early chapters where he discussed the Gulf oil spill. He strongly stated that the dangers were over exaggerated. He may be right about that but I was bothered during the disaster by the lack of government oversight to this industry, the lack of preparedness by both the government and the industry to react to the disaster, and the smell of corporate greed throughout the whole affair. I learned a lot in reading this book, but I also had many preconceived ideas verified by the authors rigorous analysis. I agree with him that natural gas is the answer to many of our problems in the United States. It can free us from importing billions of dollars worth of Arab oil and free us from military and diplomatic activities in that region. It is very inexpensive and is likely to stay that way as the fracking activities expand. The author seems confident that adequate regulations and protect us from the hazards of fracking. I do not have the same faith in our Government as it switches back and forth between Democratic and Republican Administrations. The D's institute regulations and the R's undo them once again in power. The Republican presidential candidates in their 2012 debates wanted to do away with the Environmental Protection Agency, which is the only tool available to control natural gas production activities. Muller also strongly advocates more nuclear power facilities, especially those with the modern designs, which make them safe to operate. However he said little about terrorists activities at these sites. In my opinion, they would be prime targets for terrorists. I do not think there is a danger of a nuclear explosion, but explosives could be used to blow radioactive material into the atmosphere and contaminate wide area.
Do I recommend this book to you? The answer is yes because I believe we all should be informed citizens in a democratic society so that we can vote intelligently and so that we can guide public opinion towards practical solutions to important problems. The author is very knowledgeable and is definitely an expert on the topic of this book. Moreover, it is obvious to me that he has worked very hard to make these complex concepts understandable to the common man and specifically to future presidents.
Ralph Hermansen, August 12, 2012
The author himself did not think he had changed his mind but had had an opportunity to thoroughly investigate the data on global warming in a scientific manner so that he could make an informed decision. Nonetheless, I think it is important that a renowned scientist has convinced himself that global warming is real. The controversy has become a political divide between Democrats and Republicans. It did not used to be that way. In fact, Republicans originally fostered the idea of " Cap and Trade". This concept had proven itself in solving the problem of acid rain due to coal fired generators. It allowed the free enterprise system to solve the problem in the most economical way. As of late however, it seems as though every Republican to a man swears that global warming is a hoax and a cap and trade is an onerous concept.
The book itself is a review of what scientists know about the energy problem not only in the United States but worldwide. In Part I of the book, entitled "Energy Catastrophes", Mr. Mueller discusses two recent energy disasters using a non-emotional analysis. One of the disasters is the tsunami in Japan that damaged the nuclear reactor site as well as homes and factories and human lives. He feels that the nuclear part of the disaster has been grossly overstated and he gives his reasons for that conclusion. Many people around the world wanted to completely disassociate themselves from nuclear energy after the Fukushima disaster. However, Muller believes that nuclear energy is still a safe energy source and it is important that we not give up on it. He also discusses the Deep water Horizon accident in the gulf, which spurted oil into the sea for seemingly endless days. He also felt that the damage was grossly exaggerated and attempted put it in perspective. He felt the cleanup activities worked well.
In the third chapter, he discusses global warming and climate change. He provides enough background on the problem, that we can see its complexity, multiplicity of causes, cases of polar warming, sea level rise, and the difficulty in evaluating historical data.
In Part II of the book entitled "The Energy Landscape", he educates us regarding the different kinds of energy which include: natural gas, ocean methane, shale oil, etc. He also comments on recycled energy, energy security, fracking, liquid energy security and energy productivity. In Part III of the book entitled "Alternative Energy", discusses solar energy, photovoltaic cells, wind, energy storage, nuclear power, nuclear waste storage, fusion, biofuels, synfuels, hydrogen, geothermal, tidal power, and wave power. He also discusses electric automobiles in depth. Part IV entitled "What Is Energy?", Muller offers an optional chapter which would delight a physics major but is likely to lose the common reader. Part V entitled "Advice for Future Presidents", is a condensation of what was covered in the book previously and is directed to whoever the president might be in the future. The author has taken the view that a president cannot rely strictly on advice from his energy sector but must understand the basic concepts of energy technology so that combined with other considerations, can make the most intelligent decision.
Throughout the book, Muller has repeated his premise that natural gas the cheapest, most practical, most available, and most desirable form of energy available to the United States today. All other forms of energy should be compared to natural gas as a standard. Admittedly, it does generate carbon dioxide and water as byproducts of combustion. However, it is far cleaner than coal or oil. Moreover, United States has enormous reserves of natural gas which can be harvested by a process known as fracking. Muller advocates strong environmental laws with stiffer penalties governing this process of extraction because there are dangers to our drinking water and other resources.
Here are some of my personal thoughts as I read this book: overall the author did a good job of avoiding politics or being influenced by corporate interest. I didn't think so in the early chapters where he discussed the Gulf oil spill. He strongly stated that the dangers were over exaggerated. He may be right about that but I was bothered during the disaster by the lack of government oversight to this industry, the lack of preparedness by both the government and the industry to react to the disaster, and the smell of corporate greed throughout the whole affair. I learned a lot in reading this book, but I also had many preconceived ideas verified by the authors rigorous analysis. I agree with him that natural gas is the answer to many of our problems in the United States. It can free us from importing billions of dollars worth of Arab oil and free us from military and diplomatic activities in that region. It is very inexpensive and is likely to stay that way as the fracking activities expand. The author seems confident that adequate regulations and protect us from the hazards of fracking. I do not have the same faith in our Government as it switches back and forth between Democratic and Republican Administrations. The D's institute regulations and the R's undo them once again in power. The Republican presidential candidates in their 2012 debates wanted to do away with the Environmental Protection Agency, which is the only tool available to control natural gas production activities. Muller also strongly advocates more nuclear power facilities, especially those with the modern designs, which make them safe to operate. However he said little about terrorists activities at these sites. In my opinion, they would be prime targets for terrorists. I do not think there is a danger of a nuclear explosion, but explosives could be used to blow radioactive material into the atmosphere and contaminate wide area.
Do I recommend this book to you? The answer is yes because I believe we all should be informed citizens in a democratic society so that we can vote intelligently and so that we can guide public opinion towards practical solutions to important problems. The author is very knowledgeable and is definitely an expert on the topic of this book. Moreover, it is obvious to me that he has worked very hard to make these complex concepts understandable to the common man and specifically to future presidents.
Ralph Hermansen, August 12, 2012
March 25, 2019
This book is quite informative on topics like nuclear fusion, but sidesteps many aesthetic and pollution concerns with wind power and oil & gas development. Utilitarianism is the main theme, and there's more to quality of life than obtaining energy.
The author is also somewhat of a global warming denier, insisting that he isn't. Despite his "Berkeley Earth" findings, he oddly claims that polar ice-melt isn't conclusively due to temperature. I also think he's far too optimistic about gas fracking ERoI and total recoverable reserves (no real mention of "Red Queen effect" and frenetic drilling schedules). Calling kerogen a pragmatic resource is also odd, along with little mention of its physical impact on landscapes.
It's too bad his chapter called "The Energy Landscape" isn't more literal. The chapter on wind energy starts out with the honest statement, "Wind turbines are ugly and noisy" but then calls it a "a matter of taste" and shows limited concern for their vast acreage needs and replacement of natural with industrial scenery. Similarly, in the fracking section, he fails to cover land-use scars and downplays the pollution risk by calling it "one of the easiest to address,"as if oil companies haven't neglected it before. Fracking without pollution hazards is no more likely than wind turbines not killing birds and bats (bats go entirely unmentioned) if we just throw more technology at the problem.
Of course, given the wide subject matter, he didn't have time to go into every issue, so despite the above flaws this is a good source of get-to-the-point information that you'll rarely find all in one place.
The author is also somewhat of a global warming denier, insisting that he isn't. Despite his "Berkeley Earth" findings, he oddly claims that polar ice-melt isn't conclusively due to temperature. I also think he's far too optimistic about gas fracking ERoI and total recoverable reserves (no real mention of "Red Queen effect" and frenetic drilling schedules). Calling kerogen a pragmatic resource is also odd, along with little mention of its physical impact on landscapes.
It's too bad his chapter called "The Energy Landscape" isn't more literal. The chapter on wind energy starts out with the honest statement, "Wind turbines are ugly and noisy" but then calls it a "a matter of taste" and shows limited concern for their vast acreage needs and replacement of natural with industrial scenery. Similarly, in the fracking section, he fails to cover land-use scars and downplays the pollution risk by calling it "one of the easiest to address,"as if oil companies haven't neglected it before. Fracking without pollution hazards is no more likely than wind turbines not killing birds and bats (bats go entirely unmentioned) if we just throw more technology at the problem.
Of course, given the wide subject matter, he didn't have time to go into every issue, so despite the above flaws this is a good source of get-to-the-point information that you'll rarely find all in one place.
January 30, 2018
I had come across Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines by Richard A. Muller in a bookstore about a year and a half ago and immediately put it on my to-read list. Assuming I would be able to pick it up the next time I was in the store, I did not buy it that day and ended up not finding it in any bookstore I went to for the next year. However the concept of the book, giving an overview of every type of energy technology and policy that might be relevant in the coming years to future leaders with non-scientific backgrounds, is so important to me that I finally ended up caving and buying it off Amazon.
All-in-all this book provides an excellent overview of the landscape of the energy industry and associated public policies, doing so in a way that is accessible and easy enough to grasp for people who are completely unfamiliar with the topics but also goes in depth in a way that still provides useful and new insights to those who are immersed in the energy world. If there’s one main gripe I have with Energy for Future Presidents, it’s that it was published in 2012 and thus a number of its analyses and conclusions are based on data and technology from even before that year. Obviously that’s not Muller’s fault, and it only got exacerbated by my own delay in finally reading the book, but it’s worth bringing up for anyone who is seeking the latest and most up to date information.
To read the rest of my review, check out my blog post about the book here: tinyurl.com/y9559rbl
All-in-all this book provides an excellent overview of the landscape of the energy industry and associated public policies, doing so in a way that is accessible and easy enough to grasp for people who are completely unfamiliar with the topics but also goes in depth in a way that still provides useful and new insights to those who are immersed in the energy world. If there’s one main gripe I have with Energy for Future Presidents, it’s that it was published in 2012 and thus a number of its analyses and conclusions are based on data and technology from even before that year. Obviously that’s not Muller’s fault, and it only got exacerbated by my own delay in finally reading the book, but it’s worth bringing up for anyone who is seeking the latest and most up to date information.
To read the rest of my review, check out my blog post about the book here: tinyurl.com/y9559rbl
June 9, 2020
This is an excellent primer on the physics of energy, energy policy, and sustainability, written by a physicist. Energy is a sensitive issue, and contains a lot of public discussion, fear, and hype. This book presents a rational and scientific approach to analyzing these issues, navigating the trade-offs, and ultimately helping to solve energy-related issues like climate change. It is information-dense and contains and plenty of charts and data, but is written in an approachable way.
A few negatives:
1. Although I found most of the book practical, some sections - such as the discussion around nuclear fusion technologies - I felt went a bit too far and are not really necessary for a casual reader.
2. This was written in 2012, and some of what is presented is out of date. Energy prices have changed significantly, and some predictions haven't quite panned out. The chapter on electric cars, while still mostly relevant, has not aged well (battery costs have gone down much faster than the author predicted).
3. For not being an economist, the author exhibits surprisingly good "thinking like an economist" in the area of trade-offs, price thresholds, and marginal analysis. But he does step a bit outside his expertise when casually bringing up the trade deficit - several times. I regard this to be a mostly nonsense issue, rooted in mercantilist fallacies and a confusion over the current account vs. capital account in balance of payments analysis.
A few negatives:
1. Although I found most of the book practical, some sections - such as the discussion around nuclear fusion technologies - I felt went a bit too far and are not really necessary for a casual reader.
2. This was written in 2012, and some of what is presented is out of date. Energy prices have changed significantly, and some predictions haven't quite panned out. The chapter on electric cars, while still mostly relevant, has not aged well (battery costs have gone down much faster than the author predicted).
3. For not being an economist, the author exhibits surprisingly good "thinking like an economist" in the area of trade-offs, price thresholds, and marginal analysis. But he does step a bit outside his expertise when casually bringing up the trade deficit - several times. I regard this to be a mostly nonsense issue, rooted in mercantilist fallacies and a confusion over the current account vs. capital account in balance of payments analysis.
July 5, 2017
Informative, non-partisan and a quick read. A lot of basic facts of economics and physics that help clarify the directions we should take. The author is successful in being impartial and just discussing the facts. The biggest drawback to the book is that it is a few years out of date and I wonder if recent developments would have altered some of his conclusions. One of the biggest developments over the last few years has been the growth of Tesla, and I wonder if the greater production of batteries and recent battery technology improvements may make him a little less negative toward electric cars. The other big development, which only proves the author right, is the substantial growth of CO2 emissions in China since the book was written (now 2X greater than the US) and the rest of the third world- all showing how challenging the Greenhouse gas problem is. However the "Presidential" solutions are pretty obvious when he walks you through the issues - in priority order... use natural gas for everything you can (half the emissions of coal), build a lot of nuclear reactors, and build solar and wind farms.
I wish more authors, journalists, and politicians would be less emotional and more like him.
I wish more authors, journalists, and politicians would be less emotional and more like him.
February 6, 2021
This book is a bit dated as it was published in 2012. However, it is an excellent primer on the various sources of energy and greenhouse gases. Regardless of what America and other developed countries do regarding greenhouse emissions, unless China starts reducing its dependence on coal, those efforts will be less impactful on the environment. Author discuss how our entire infrastructure is based upon the use of petroleum and that we need to build a different infrastructure that will aid in the use of other energy sources. However, it made me feel more hopeful about the environment, the possibilities of alternative energy sources but also that increasing the use of natural gas should be a priority (especially in fleets such as city buses). The two things that I felt were important about this book is that he provides the economics of each type of energy source, which explains why most Americans won't like solar, wind, etc. unless they live in areas that are most amenable to those types of energy making it cheaper. Secondly, he repeatedly discusses what he considers proven facts around all types of energy and suggests we stop listening to the extremists and temper our own biases when considering energy sources.
August 25, 2020
So great if you want an overview of all things energy! One of the greatest benefits of the book is that it encourages you to cast a critical eye to what the media portrays and what you learn from school and society about energy and the environment. There was so much I didn’t know, including the things I thought I did! I also liked that he talked about sustainability in a way that also recognizes economics and politics as pieces that must be considered to find real solutions. Would have liked a bit more about climate change and the research that’s been done to better supplement my comprehension of his work. An understanding of basic physics definitely enhanced my understanding of the book but is also definitely not necessary. This book tries to make these topics accessible in the way they should be to get the general public educated and on-board important energy movements (including myself). This book makes me excited and worried and so curious. I’ll be researching these topics on my own soon both because it’s been a few years since it was published and because Mueller does a great job of making me want to read further, deeper, and question more.
November 28, 2021
In general this book is a great introduction to some topics that impact the energy industry, primarily with a focus on the United States perspective. The author does not provide much consistency in depth across the book, as the topics he feels are not important are somewhat glossed over in a few pages. I do however think the main take away for me is the balance between energy security and the fight against global warming. It is important to weigh both sides when considering any future energy industry topics. Somewhat surprising as well is the author's complete lack of faith in full EV's. Seeing how much they are growing in scale since this book was written, our battery technology must be making huge leaps in comparison to what the author suggested in this book. This is a good overview on energy from a technology policy side but it is quickly becoming outdated.
October 5, 2017
The author explains global warming in such a clear and non-alarmist manner. He recognizes that it is a problem and that it is human caused but he doesn't say "We're all going to die!!!" Better yet, he provides clear and reasonable solutions including nuclear! I used to think that nuclear was the only solution. However, and partly with the help of this book, I now recognize that wind and solar do have the potential to play a key role. Surprisingly enough he explains how natural gas will also help solve global climate change simply because it is cheap, readily available, and better than coal. So if we, and especially China, were to convert all coal plants to natural gas we would be better off.
February 4, 2018
If you can get past the title, this is a helpful and quantitative overview of the U.S. energy landscape with regards to CO2 emissions and energy security. The simple-to-understand analysis of Fukushima provides a concrete basis for the layman to discuss pros and cons of nuclear power. As the founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, Muller’s skeptical perspective, regarding human-caused climate change, sets the stage for a fairly convincing argument that human activities are causing a substantial increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. I would recommend this book to anyone looking to get a baseline understanding of feasible and responsible energy sources for the U.S. and the world.
August 13, 2019
A nice intro to the energy sectors, covering the main traditional and alternative energy sources (both how they work and their costs and future possibilities), discussing the (lower than you'd think) impact of more recent energy catastrophes like Fukushima, and nicely reviewing energy policy options through the contrasting perspectives of energy security and environmental/global warming concerns.
The main two downsides are (1) that the book was published seven years ago and is already in some respects out of date, and (2) that the author (in my opinion) errs a bit too much on the side of being conservative/skeptical/preferring energy security above environmental concerns. Still a good intro to the sector.
The main two downsides are (1) that the book was published seven years ago and is already in some respects out of date, and (2) that the author (in my opinion) errs a bit too much on the side of being conservative/skeptical/preferring energy security above environmental concerns. Still a good intro to the sector.
November 25, 2021
Professor Richard Muller emphasizes that he is, above all, a scientist, and he comes at the subject of energy—which is often suffocated by emotion and misinformation—armed with scientific knowledge and experiments that lead to surprising conclusions. His policy suggestions might not be implemented, but they are certainly worth considering. I think this book is for people who want to understand: (1) how to realistically address global warming; (2) how economically-viable alternative sources of energy can be utilized; and (3) how energy security can be bolstered.
(Read more at www.pithysummary.com)
-Carlen
(Read more at www.pithysummary.com)
-Carlen
June 19, 2020
Imperfect and sometimes irritating, now bit out of date but an important book to understand energy policies in the US. The author does a good job to focus the key decisions ahead and their complexity. The opportunities and costs of different technologies and what to expect from them going ahead.
The incredible aspect of this is how unlikely any future president might read and actually understand the claculations here.
I would love to read a critique of this text by another as brilliant physicist.
The incredible aspect of this is how unlikely any future president might read and actually understand the claculations here.
I would love to read a critique of this text by another as brilliant physicist.
October 21, 2017
Despite the fact that Muller doesn't seem to prioritize environmental impact *minimization* as a primary goal of energy policy, and seems to prefer the energy sources that would win in a free-market/unsubsidized system (he's very pro natural gas), I still found this book to be incredibly useful in distilling and understanding a wide variety of energy and alternative energy topics. Accessible and well-written.
March 22, 2018
Very informative, an easy read for a heavy topic. Strongly recommend for anyone interested in future energy sources.
Very informative and an easy read for such a heavy topic. Recommend to anyone interested in the future of energy. Also reviews global warming and what everyone should know about it.
Very informative and an easy read for such a heavy topic. Recommend to anyone interested in the future of energy. Also reviews global warming and what everyone should know about it.
November 15, 2019
Absolute dog shit.
I get the whole jovial expository shit is meant to make the subject of global energy policy along with its historical corollaries more accessible/relevant to a quotidian readership but it comes across so fucking infuriatingly: making histrionic baby talk out of it, it’s insulting.
🚮
I get the whole jovial expository shit is meant to make the subject of global energy policy along with its historical corollaries more accessible/relevant to a quotidian readership but it comes across so fucking infuriatingly: making histrionic baby talk out of it, it’s insulting.
🚮
August 14, 2021
I loved reading Muller on Quora. So, this book was in my bucket list for many years. Maybe, there are a numerous data and analyses that need to be updated. Maybe, a new edition is needed now.
I learned a lot about existing energy sources, and possible limitations and opportunities. And I have a Ph.D. in CO2-sequestration. I am sure that you will learn a lot by reading/listening to this book.
I learned a lot about existing energy sources, and possible limitations and opportunities. And I have a Ph.D. in CO2-sequestration. I am sure that you will learn a lot by reading/listening to this book.
January 4, 2018
Love this book and Author. This book really gives you a good breakdown of energy current and future. The author does a great job breaking things down so that you don't need a PhD to read. I would love to see an updated version of the book.
August 8, 2021
I appreciate the book for what it attempts to do (and does it quite well, all things considered) but in 2021 it is already dated. An energy transition needs to transcend Western capitalist norms, rather than simply supplanting one technology for a new one.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews