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

by Robert Bryce

The promise of "green jobs" and a "clean energy future" has roused the masses. But as Robert Bryce makes clear in this provocative book, that vision needs a major re-vision. We cannot -- and will not -- quit using carbon-based fuels at any time in the near future for a simple they provide the horsepower that we crave. The hard reality is that oil, coal, and natural gas are here to stay.

Fueling our society requires more than sentiment and rhetoric; we need to make good decisions and smart investments based on facts. In Power Hungry , Bryce provides a supertanker-load of footnoted facts while shepherding readers through basic physics and math. And with the help of a panoply of vivid graphics and tables, he crushes a phalanx of energy myths, showing why renewables are not green, carbon capture and sequestration won't work, and even -- surprise! -- that the U.S. is leading the world in energy efficiency. He also charts the amazing growth of the fuels of the natural gas and nuclear.

Power Hungry delivers a clear-eyed view of what America has "in the tank," and what's needed to transform the gargantuan global energy sector.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Science, Economics, Business, Environment, Technology

448 pages, Paperback

First published March 30, 2010

About the author

Robert Bryce has written three books, his newest being Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence. He was hailed as a 'visionary' by the New York Times, a fact he often repeats to his children and his dog, Biscuit.

Reviews

[Amora · Rating 4 out of 5]

The energy debate is full of platitudes and misinformation, nobody can deny that. Energy journalist Robert Bryce takes apart these platitudes and counterfactual claims and shows that nuclear energy and fracking is the way to reduce pollution and keep the environment clean while also increasing prosperity. Bryce also offers solutions to solve the problem of nuclear waste. The mathematics and graphs included in this book might overwhelm some but the content here is too good to ignore. I liked the addition of humor Bryce added to this book as well.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent book that gives the facts on our dependency on coal and oil. Bryce recommends natural gas as an interim solution that leads to nuclear.

In the light of Fukashima, I doubt that any democratically-elected government is brave enough to launch nuclear power plant construction, and in most countries, the population will be highly sceptical of shale gas extraction, which involves pumping water, sand and chemicals into the area where there might be aquifers.

I did not agree with him on two points: He talks about the power density of nuclear. Yes, the power plant and waste occupy small spaces, but the uranium mines involve vast areas of strip-mined land. He says that wind power needs lots of land, but the only part connected to the ground is the tower - a very small amount of real estate. And does it matter in the ocean?

He says that renewables cannot be used for base-line electricity production, but the introduction of the smart/super grid will address this problem.

If Thorium-based nuclear plants are sanctioned now, we will have to wait 20-30 years for the electricity. A huge amount of pollution and C02 will be released in the meantime, plus the "life-cycle cost and CO2 released in construction and fuelling/reprocessing. Building wind farms offshore will not take near as long.

Bryce does not mention tidal or wave power. The potential for tidal power is immense, and a good dollop of research investment will solve the technical problems.

Perhaps energy is proportional to prosperity, but I think the world has to redefine what prosperity really is and stop measuring in terms of GDP growth.

A great book, all the same - everyone should read it!

[E · Rating 4 out of 5]

Few subjects carry as much doomsday weight as the battle over the future of global energy. Climate-change Cassandras and deniers, offshore-oil advocates and their opponents, all jostle for position amid a general consensus that the nations of the world need to move sooner rather than later to renewable sources of energy. But energy expert Robert Bryce, in more than 400 heavily footnoted, graphics-packed pages, simply whips out his calculator and does the math, with devastating results for that basic assumption. The modern industrialized world is utterly reliant on abundant supplies of affordable energy, he writes, and hydrocarbons – oil, coal and natural gas – are far and away the best sources for the cheap juice people want for their Macbooks and Maseratis. Forget wind and solar energy; they are simply too diffuse under current technology to make much of a dent in the world’s thirst for power. So what’s a worrier about melting ice caps to do? Bryce makes a very good case that a two-step plan is the only way out for the U.S.: America has enormous reserves of natural gas, so the nation should start with that, and use it until it can build an adequate number of nuclear reactors. Bryce tries a little too hard to make his point, including cracking lame jokes, but you’ll never think about this issue with anything less than clarity again. getAbstract recommends this book to IT managers, heavy-industry executives, politicians and other big-picture planners seeking a real understanding of how to keep the lights on, long term.

Read more about this book in the online summary:
http://www.getabstract.com/zusammenfa...

[Zack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Inconsistent feeling writing and tone and rhetoric. It often felt like he was making one point, and then later he would say something else that seemed to go against or strongly qualify the implications of what he was saying. Also there was a significant lack of discussions about solar.

But the fundamentals of his thesis ring true and the details were thought provoking and informative. I had already started to suspect the idea that wind/solar just can't be enough through graphs/charts/maps I've seen.

The takeaways that come to mind are:
- We need to help impoverished countries get coal, because it is better than wood for the human burners and the wildlife.
- We likely could have better political success taxing the toxins in coal than the carbon. It would have the same effect, but it is about human health instead of the 'controversial' climate change.
- Gas has amazing power density. It's not going away any time soon.
- Oil is needed for many things besides gasoline.
- Wind is expensive and inefficient, with controversial effects on wild life and large area per power requirements.
- Wind/Solar are unreliable so after a certain market penetration they have to be backed up with generators that can be ramped up quickly to absorb load. This means if you install 1MW of wind, then energy providers also install 1MW of gross coal generation because it is cheap and agile enough to act as backup. The result is less environmentally friendly than you expected from wind.
- All the other alternative energies like "corn ethanol" are total malarkey.
- Natural gas is super abundant now, and is our best hope for getting off of coal in the short term.
- Nuclear is super awesome but expensive as fuck and our best hope for getting off coal in the long term.

[Daniel Cunningham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Okay, so right out of the gate I'm going to admit that I am giving a 5-star rating to a book that I have a number of issues with and that a part of me really thinks deserves a 4-star rating. More on that below.


First, the issues.

1.) The author describes himself as a climate-science agnostic. This bothers me because even ~10 years ago (assuming he was writing this in 2009) it was pretty obvious that the science on climate change was solid (enough.) Sure, we do not know all the actual climactic effects; how those will play out with politics and investment and technology; how people, individually and collectively, will react; etc. But to describe yourself as agnostic as to whether climate change is a big deal is... hard for me. If you're betting money, you'd bet on "some shit is gonna happen." If not, you're betting on a prayer. This signals to me a certain level of intellectual or emotional conflict (which is reflected elsewhere; the author clearly *does* that climate is going to be an issue, on some level.)

2.) The author makes a convincing (series of) argument(s) for why wind will never (ie.g. in the next ~50 years) be a major energy factor (primarily, from context, in the US.) Part of that is that wind has issues with e.g. low-frequency noise. I'm not sure on what basis Mr. Bryce grants the reality of that issue but dismisses the claims about fracking (e.g. groundwater contamination.) If he has a basis, he doesn't detail it.

3.) Mr. Bryce argues that wind, and solar as well, will face serious issues because of e.g. environmentalist groups protesting/suing to stop the massive land footprint that those two energy sources take, including new transmission lines that will be needed. I completely agree that, in different ways, wind and solar both have serious issues with "energy/power density". But making that argument and then saying that nuclear is the future... well, right or wrong, people have all sorts of environmental (and other) issues with nuclear. Again, not sure about the double standard here.

4.) While the author comes down much less hard on solar, he does (temporarily, near-term) dismiss it because it's just not there yet, though it will be one day. But then he makes arguments for using nuclear reactor designs that are technically proven but politically/administratively/regulatorily unapproved. Less than a complete double standard, but worth flagging.


Now, the things I like.

1.) I'm now 41. I've been a liberal for my entire adult life; I still am; hell, I've even voted Green here and there. I've also been told ethanol/biomass (more generically)/algae/fuel cells/wind/solar/wave power/and-probably-a-few-I'm-forgetting are just around the corner, poised for a takeoff, almost ready, etc. for 25+ years now. And, you know, at *some* point solar will get there, with enough battery and/or fuel cell advances in tandem. But it's not ready today, nor is it ready tomorrow, nor is it ready next year. The left/environmentalists/punditry needs to *stop that.* Stop issuing grand proclamations about the wonderful infrastructure that we must build now (else you're a heathen and ignorant and have sold your soul) using technology that doesn't exist and/or is 10 years from being proven.

2.) Let me stress: *Proven* ready. Because when you build infrastructure, you build it with what you have. You don't build infrastructure based on what you "will" or "should" or "are just about to" have working.

3.) *AND* let me stress: look at the downsides. If you're going to push e.g. wind, look at places that have built up considerable wind-power bases and understand the "cons" and actually take those into consideration. We have wind in California. It's not super-awesome-fun-times. Denmark does, too. While Mr. Bryce might overstate the issues (I'm not sure, but in my bit of research it seems that he might), there is also the "voting with their feet" measure: after this book was published, Denmark has moved most new wind generation off-shore. 20% was (as of 2012) to be built on-shore, 20% "near-shore", and 60% off-shore. Given the expense of off-shore generation, clearly the people of Denmark do have some issues with wind power.

4.) Things like wind (and solar) really do lack energy density. *No amount of technology will fix that.* Even some future windmills operating at theoretical maximum efficiencies will not address that. Wind and solar really do lack consistency; you'll have to either (a) backups in the form of fossil-fuels, running at lower-than-optimal efficiency and/or (b) conveniently located sources of e.g. hydropower and/or (c) nuclear power and/or (d) a massive network of new transmission lines with massive over-supply built-in. All of which incurs (a) additional massive cost and (b) land-use environmental, property, and economic issues.

5.) Nuclear really is the red-headed step-child of the energy industry, at least in the US. That is a whole other book, but I am definitely in the "pro-nuclear" camp.


Okay, so how is all this 5-stars instead of 4- or maybe even 3-stars? Because, honestly, I do feel like much of the climate/environmental movement and, by extension, the left has "made perfect the enemy of good." We really could decrease -though, yes, not by enough- our carbon footprint by aggressively building gas power plants and shutting down coal plants (and that would prevent a crap-load of heavy metals and other toxins from entering the environment, too); and we could, with that cleaner base, transition to a mix of solar, nuclear, and even, yes, wind in the medium to long term. We can build gas plants *today.* We can build nuclear plants *today.* We can plan on solar and wind and whatever else if we've accounted for, pulling numbers out of my butt, 80% of future power needs *at costs that people will actually agree to pay* rather than demanding that we build the perfect "green" grid and people shut the fuck up and deal with it, because the Earth is worth it.

This book, imperfect as it is, makes a compelling case for that, and serves as a wake-up for those of us who are wondering why, yet again, our promised green future has not materialized and, in our dotage, have heard the catch-all explanation "because people are stupid and selfish and The Corporations don't want you to have XXX" one too many times.

Mr. Bryce is a reporter, and it seems (again, from my little bit of research) at least a decent one. I take this book like another great environmental book written by a reporter, Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water: imperfect, written by an educated amateur (and that is not the insult it is so often taken to be), with a definite POV, but in the important way that investigative reporters can and do, calling out the BS. I wish there were a single book that "had the answer," a plan for an energy mix/pathway to a "green" future. But no such thing exists. One useful approximation to that is to look at e.g. IPCC report (Chapter 2). Studying that shows a mix of hard conservation, increasing nuclear, increasing solar, CCS (carbon capture and sequestration), and large future dependence on biomass. The most constant factors: increasing nuclear, solar, and biomass. Of those 3, we're furthest from having solved biomass-based energy (which, aside from the technical issues, also depends on exchanging current pasture land for biomass cropland, a whole social/cultural/political issue on its own.) CCS is a dream at this point, as much as it was in 2009. And that leaves... solar and nuclear. Add in Mr. Bryce's argument that we toss coal as fast as we can and use natural gas until we can get enough nuclear (backing solar off in some multi-decades from now future), and the two are in "agreement."

So go read the IPCC report, read this book (and/or another couple of "green utopia" contrarians) and stop letting social advocates, economic "theorists", and such do your energy thinking for you.

[Bojan Tunguz · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Green energy," "climate change," "environment," "sustainability" are some of the very prominent buzzwords that that pup up with some frequency in the media these days. The planet is in grave peril, and unless we do something drastic about it we are all going to die. Or something to that effect. And the drastic measure almost always means abandoning fossil fuels, and replacing them with "sustainable" sources of energy, such as biomass, wind, solar, etc. Putting aside the validity of the danger that the environmental pollution may be causing, the notion that there are easy fixes in the form of alternative energy sources laying around are just not valid. After decades of subsidies, media coverage and promotion, the simple fact remains that these alternative sources of energy are far inferior to whatever we are using right now and no amount of additional funding will change that. And this has nothing to do with our efforts - this is all based on simple laws of physics. The mainstream sources of energy - primarily fossil fuels - are by far the most readily available, portable, and concentrated sources of energy that we have.

"Power Hungry" is a great source of information on some of the basic principles that underlie any energy considerations. Robert Bryce provides considerable background on many of the more popular "alternative" energy solutions - wind, solar, ethanol - and why they are all based on hype that is well beyond anything that is reasonable to expect, either now or with any future technology. I was particularly shocked to find out how much additional "dirty" energy infrastructure needs to be built for the purpose of backing up some of the renewable power sources - wind and solar in particular. These sources of power are very inconsistent and unsuitable for providing sustained energy needs of any modern society. These considerations are, unfortunately, almost never discussed in the media.

This is a very important book that goes well beyond the hype and the usual sanctimonies about the need for "clean" energy. Regardless of where you stand on the whole issue of climate change and the need to combat it, this book could provide you with some clear understanding of very real and very physical limits of what "clean" energy can provide. It's an important book that can add a lot of value to our public policy debates.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic, funny, realistic view of the well-intended but hopelessly unscientific energy ideas put up by politicians, energy people, hucksters and environmentalists. Dense high energy sources are coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. Period. Solar, wind, ethanol, saw grass, etc. will never handle much more that niche power. Nothing is a free lunch either. From the huge land mass footprint for wind turbines to the carving up of food growing resources for the god awful ethanol lobby (an incredibly inefficient, destructive use of farm land). N2N is Bryce's mantra (and since the book was published in 2010, evident now via the Fracking revolution) which stands for Natural Gas (as a transition) to Nuclear. Coal and oil are not going away in our lifetimes as they rationally pack far more energy per unit than the alternatives. Nuclear takes a long time to start up, but should be our national goal. Global Warming and CO2 problems will not go away no matter how much the government squeezes the coal and oil industry, because the developing nations of the world all go to dirty energy first. That's not to say he doesn't believe technological improvements in energy use won't help, they will. But even with that the rule is, the more efficient and less expensive energy sources are, the more we use of it. A few years ago I read Mark Mills and Peter Huber's excellent "The Bottomless Well" and became more hopeful for our energy outlook. Much of their prescience is already in motion, including the many new ways to find and remove oil and natural gas. This book is a continuation of that thought process. A very good read.

[Carolyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid defense of the oil and gas industry with a well-argued pitch for nuclear power. Good use of calculations and graphs to explain the comparative energy density of each fuel source. Strong use of end notes make it easy to find and refer to source material.

What I like about "Power Hungry" is that it is firmly rooted in practicality - we need energy. Too often I think the "green" movements hurt their cause by not acknowledging the real-world strictures on their visions for ending the primacy of carbon-based fuels. Rigorous environmental stewardship is crucial to the quality of our continuing survival on earth - I don't think there is any doubt about that - but most conservation efforts rely on power of some kind too. So the choice becomes, what trade-offs are you willing to make in order to turn on lights, computers, refrigerators, etc.?

Bryce argues that there is no solution which absolves us from making these decisions - every form of energy has it's negative effects, which he details as he examines each common energy source. If you would like to understand more about energy usage and policy, "Power Hungry" is a good place to start.

[Luca Bertagnolio · Rating 5 out of 5]

Power Hungry is an excellent primer on energy, specifically for all those who have been led to believe that there is a future by only using the "green" renewables that modern day propaganda seem to like so much.

First and foremost, it clarifies the difference between energy and power, and why we should not really care about energy per se, but rather focusing on power.

The introduction of the "Four Imperatives" then becomes a measuring scale to understand why we must have a mixed balance in our energy sources portfolio, and why certain sources are better than others.

The main reason is clearly spelled at the beginning of chapter 8: "Density is green". The denser an energy source, the denser the power generated, the better.

Power density relates to how much real estate is needed in order to harvest the same amount of energy using different sources. Fossil fuels and nuclear are kings here.

Energy density is about how much energy is contained in the same amount of mass or volume. Here nuclear beats by far all other sources, because of simple physics. Fossil fuels come next, while renewables rank very low on this scale.

Cost is fairly self-explanatory to most people, though one should always consider all the factors when calculating costs, something that the supporters of "green" renewables seldom do. It would be unfair to compare solar (which produces power at best 50% during a 24 period), wind (maximum 30-40% on average) to fossil fuels and nuclear (with power generated very close to 100% of the time). If we do not add the additional gas-fired plants and infrastructure to the cost of "green" renewables, we are not making things any clearer, we are rather muddling the waters.

Scale is the last of the Four Imperatives, also very important. It relates to power density and energy density, clearly, and is probably the biggest issue in the "green" renewables field. I have always wondered how could solar PV produce enough for a medium to large city, day and night. This is still very much an open question.

The book is a must-read for all those who would like to cut thru the propaganda and get down to hard facts and figures. Granted, this book is now somewhat out-of-date, it was written before March 2011 when the tragic earthquake and tsunami which put the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP out of service with much media coverage of a non-event (not one person died from the little radiation spewed out from the damaged reactors, yet a lot of people died from unreasonable acts including evacuation of an elder people housing complex in the middle of night).

Some figures today might be different, as the push toward more "green" renewables is ongoing, using a lot of taxpayer's money all around the world.

But politicians cannot change the hard facts of physics, and this book will clearly show you why.

[Tom Cross · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a refreshing change to read a thoroughly researched, fact-based and logic filled book on a topic hyped and filled with propaganda. The author strikes down all the dangerous and misleading lies about green power, carbon dioxide doom and gloom and nuclear power gloom. We will always have a mix of hydrocarbon, wind, solar and nuclear power sources for our energy use. That hydrocarbon and nuclear will continue to be our primary sources is rightfully noted in this book.

[Carole · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting, informative discussion of energy and energy sources. Explains why wind and solar are unable to meet the needs of today's world, and how they are not all that green, and also very expensive. Also discusses third-world, and developing nations energy needs and how low-cost energy is essential to improving their economies and bringing people out of poverty.

[Jon]

A couple of years ago, I read an article on C-Net, Can Renewable Energy Make a Dent in Fossil Fuels?, which I babbled about to anyone who would stand still long enough. Go read it. I'm waiting... Much of the information in it was taken from a paper written by Crane, Kinderman and Malhotra called A Cubic Mile of Oil (since expanded into book form). Bryce has been a journalist writing about energy issues and policy for two decades, and he appears to have done his research quite thoroughly, reaching some conclusions shared by the authors mentioned above.
I'm definitely a numbers-oriented person, and Bryce really does a great job of laying out the numbers involved in global energy production and consumption - really big numbers!! Bryce talks about the Four Imperatives of the energy business: power density, energy density, cost, and scale. He debunks many of the myths about energy that everyone knows are "true" about energy and hydrocarbon use in the world today.

Did you know that the United States actually exports an average of 1.9 million barrels of oil per day? Most of the exports are in the area of refined products, because U.S. refineries are among the best in the world, producing what the global market demands.

Biodiesel is a big buzzword these days. Did you know that if the United States converted all of its soybean production into biodiesel, it would provide less than ten percent of our diesel needs, or if it could be made into jet fuel (a process as yet uninvented), it would only provide about twenty percent of our jet fuel needs? That's just the U.S. Worldwide, the demand is much much larger.

To listen to some polititicians talk (a futile quest if ever there was one), you would think that the U.S. didn't produce much energy from nuclear power. Did you know that the U.S. ranks first in the world in total number of megawatts of electricity from nuclear power plants. France is second place, although they produce a higher percentage of their total electricity that way than we do. Interestingly, the United States actually produces domestically about 74 percent of the primary energy it consumes, despite all the rhetoric about our being overly dependent on foreign oil. We also have more proven hydrocarbon reserves than any other country in the world.

Before I go any further, let me mention that Bryce is in favor of reducing overall carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, although he's sceptical that climatologists can predict with any certainty the actual effects of CO2 emissions on global climate change. He doesn't propose giving up on "green" power altogether, but he demonstrates prettty thoroughly, by the numbers, that wind and solar are not the panacea that their fans would have us believe.

He says, "the carbon dioxide reduction targets being advocated by the U.s. Congress and the Democratic leadership in Washington are pure fantasy...Obama has 'set a goal for our nation that we will reduce our carbon pollution by more than 80% by 2050.'" Bryce asks, first, what are we going to substitute for hydrocarbons that will provide us with the energy required, with as small of an environmental impact and as low a cost, and second, if (as he shows in this book) higher energy usage results in higher living standards and better health for people worldwide, how can we expect all 6.7 billion of them to use less energy?

The Holy Grail of carbon strategies is CCS, Carbon Capture and Sequestration. The idea is that we capture all of the CO2 from our power plants, cars, trains and planes, and keep it from entering the atmosphere, then store it somewhere harmless. While it's "technically feasible", no one has figured out how to do it in an economically viable way. Just 10 percent of global carbon dioxide emitted annually is about 3 billion tons. What do you do with 3 billion tons of CO2?

While we can all agree that the production and use of hydrocarbons for energy has its downside, with problems like oil spills, air pollution, refinery accidents, mine collapses, environmental degradation from mining collapses, encouraging corruption in governments worldwide, financing terrorism and so forth, the less technologically sophisticated alternatives are far worse.

In Virunga National Park in the Congo, the mountain gorillas are endangered. The reason for this is that the nearly 1 million people in the area use charcoal to cook their food. The charcoal is made by burning the trees in the gorillas' forest. If we were able to provide butane (a hydrocarbon) stoves to these residents, they'd quit burning the trees and the gorillas might be saved. The use of other biofuels (wood, dung, in third world nations also causes indoor air pollution, which kills thousands of people there. The quest for biodiesel in Europe led to the increased production of palm oil in Indonesia. To grow more palm oil, farmers there cut down the lowland tropical forests, endangering rare species such as the Sumatran Tiger and orangutans.

Cellulosic ethanol has a number of enthusiasts in politics today. Made from wood chips or other biomass, one of the best of which is switchgrass, it is touted as being able to replace gasoline in our fleet of vehicles. But when you run the numbers, you find that its low energy density requires that you need 48.5 billion gallons of ethanaol to replace 32 billion gallons of oil mde into gasoline for our automobiles in the U.S. each year.

One acre of switchgrass can produce, in theory, 11.5 tons of biomass for ethanol each year, so to replace our gasoline, you would need to put 42.1 million acres, or 65,800 square miles of farm land into switchgrass production, an area the size of the state of Oklahoma. I'm sure the Sooners are up for that. Doing so, by the way, would require taking 10% of the land in this country currently under food production out of play.

I'm always interesting in the old adage, "follow the money" when it comes to people's motivations. We all know that Al Gore has been a tireless promoter of stopping global warming and reducing carbon emissions. I'd read elsewhere that Al had some controlling financial interests in companies that trade carbon credits, but here's a new little bit. In the pantheon of companies in the U.S. that are trying to produce electric cars, "In September 2009, Fisker Automotive received a $529 million loan from the U.S. government to cover its startup costs. One of Fisker's main financial backers is...a Silicon Valley firm where Al Gore is a partner."

Bryce believes that the long term solution lies mostly in what he calls N2N, Natural Gas to Nuclear. Natural gas is a cleaner, more plentiful, less costly method of producing electricity than most of what we're doing today. Nuclear is by far more effective, and he feels we should eventually move much further in that direction, while phasing out the more "dirty" methods, such as coal-fired power plants. There are some issues with disposing of nuclear waste (mostly political, really), but the total volume of coal ash produced in the U.S. in a single year is 2200 times larger than all of the nuclear waste produced in this country in 4 decades! The existing global fleet of nuclear reactors prevents the emission of 2 billion tons of CO2 annually, about 7 percent of world output.

Listen, there's just so much information in this book that you're never going to learn about on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS, or even the Discovery Channel. I seriously believe you need to read this book, so you can be well-informed about global energy issues, the myth and the reality. I don't agree with everything he has to say, but I sure can't argue with the numbers.

[Ryan Rommann · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ultimately, I found myself in agreement with many of Bryce's remarks. Alternative energy is definitely hyped and when compared on a cost-density basis, can't compete against typical hydrocarbons. He brings some of the bitter truths of our energy landscape to light and should be required reading for those thinking wind, sun and water will be next year's power supply. And I think he's spot on about the N2N future.

However, Bryce's flippant consideration of the competing opinions of green activists is annoying. He doesn't consider externalized costs - a huge omission that would make his much maligned wind energy competitive against oil and coal. He spends very little time discussing solar (a source he claims to be "bullish on.") And he glances over global warming.

Overall, the book is worth reading, but could have been much better if Bryce had approached it with some professionalism.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

As with this author's other volume (Gusher of Lies), I didn't agree with all of his opinions/conclusions. He is a bit inconsistent in that regard, in that he first says we should get government out of the energy business, but then goes on to recommend that government incentivize gas and nuclear. Those are great energy sources, but government shouldn't be incentivizing or otherwise meddling with energy choices at all. Otherwise, the book is well researched and I enjoyed the facts and statistics.

[Jani-Petri · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting stuff, but lots of idiotic statements about climate change suggesting controversy among scientists when there is none...beyond isolated contrarians and crackpots. Favors natural gas and nuclear power and the only way he can square the support for gas is by downplaying climate change risks.

[Scott Lenhart · Rating 1 out of 5]

Which is it? Innovate or don't innovate. Arguments inconsistent throughout. In the end, I needed a shower after this oil bath.

[Jaegar · Rating 5 out of 5]

I believe it is our duty to be good stewards of the wealth and beauty this world gives us. There are many ways we fail. Strip mining, plastic pollution, dumping toxins, and countless other things that are done because it pads people's pockets. However, I'm all about real fixes. You say electric cars are going to save the world...prove it. You say windmills will decrease a country's emissions...show me. This is what Bryce does in this book. He gives you the numbers, shows you the graphs, points you to the charts. Oil products aren't going anywhere anytime soon because they are too cheap and fit our needs too well. Oil products are what drives progress and the world's economy...like it or not. Until we can find something that can replicate the energy potential at a similar price or better, oil is the fuel we will continue to rely on.
Wind and solar are the darlings of "green energy," Bryce takes a look at those (mainly wind...very little on solar, maybe because the book is older...2010) and their short-comings. What many people don't realize is that both solar and wind, at this time, cannot provide large amounts of consistent, dependable energy. Not only are large tracts of land required to provide the same energy compared to denser energy options (nuclear, natural gas, oil) they are not dependable.
Think about it. Here in the northern U.S. it is dark half of the time (roughly). Then you have rainy days. Cloudy days. Snowy days. What happens to solar when a two foot blizzard dumps its snow? How about the turbines when the wind stops blowing or it is blowing in the wrong direction? The point is if you need 1,000 megawatts of power, and you put in a solar field or a wind field capable of producing that energy, you'd better put in a supplementary system like gas, coal, hydro, etc. to be able to produce the entire 1,000 megawatts for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. Unless we can figure a way to store the excess energy from when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing the hype about solar and wind will remain just that...hype.
I would have been interested to see Bryce look deeper into solar and hydro. He didn't really look into either. I thought his view on global warming and the difference emissions are making was spot on. Whether or not the globe is warming significantly and whether or not oil products are exacerbating that, we are not going to get rid of them in the near future because we don't have a replacement for them, and we are not willing to suffer without them. We'll deal with the consequences if they come rather than sacrifice what we have today. Right or wrong...that's the reality.
We need to be as energy efficient as reasonably possible. Look to improve our energy options, and invest in options that are going to be capable and effective in real world applications going forward. We can only do that by taking a hard look at reality and not getting caught up in the political machinations of the energy debate. We need to be good steward's of this creation God's given us.

[Michael Combs · Rating 5 out of 5]

Power, the ability to perform work, not the ability to control others, is directly correlated to prosperity. At the moment and for the foreseeable future, prosperity will be powered by fossil fuels. Electricity is not going to effectively move airplanes, ships, and large vehicles, but electricity is vital for performance of all other productive functions. In that regard, the author illustrates the world-wide innumeracy that results in policies that depend on wind, solar, and biofuels (renewables) to replace fossil fuels and nuclear energy. When the rapidly increasing world need for power is examined in terms of the scope of the need, it is obvious that renewables cannot do the job; "There ain't no way to get there from here." Using wind generation as an example, an enormous area of land and sea is required to generate what is in essence a tiny amount of world energy requirements which requires huge quantities of steel, concrete, fibrous materials, and rare earth resources to erect ecological eyesores that have very short lives. In addition, since wind is erratic and intermittent, it requires fossil fuel backup generation and/or power storage, the methods of which are 1. currently nonexistent and 2. uneconomical if ever developed. I can only highlight the excellent analyses that Robert Bryce develops and communicates clearly and effectively. As applies to many of the books I've reviewed recently, this book should be read by everyone, but especially by those who thing a Green New Deal is possible. Many a foolish thought or decision is a result of the innumeracy that prevents understanding relevant information.

[Kathy · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars
Useful for:
- understanding the difference between power and energy, and why it matters
- recognizing the gap between well-intentioned power-related goals (e.g. reduce carbon emissions) and the unintended consequences of choices (e.g. subsidizing wind generation) made in pursuit of those goals
- easy-to-grasp representations (tables and graphs) showing magnitudes and proportions of the relevant numbers (e.g. energy consumption by source)
- numerous notes to substantiate what is said, many of which contain links to websites, more accessible to the average reader than books or journals.
Although the book is more than a decade old (copyright 2010), many of these websites allow you to check more recent facts and figures, and explore how trends have changed and whether predictions were accurate.

[Justin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Author seems highly biased. Then again I am biased in the opposite direction so the author would have had some inertia to overcome. That being said, the author doesn't seem to ever acknowledge counter points so it is hard for me to trust him. He also says the oil market is the most transparent one, and while that might be true its hard for me to imagine Saudi Arabia and the US being honest about their levels of oil production publicly.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good facts about overall energy issues. I do not agree with all the conclusions, however getting the facts is always a good thing. Even if you question the authors facts at least you know what to ask.

My take away energy=transportation=standard of living=commerce. All energy sources have pros/cons that must be dealt with. There is no magic bullet.

[Jaan Liitmäe]

I totally missed initially that this book was issued in 2010 (seriously outdated) but it was fascinating to read this in hindsight. Some thing have moved much quicker than author predicted but overall "down-to-earth" practical concept is probably still the same = natural gas for now and nuclear for the future.

[Tyson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant and still accurate analysis of the US and global energy systems. Although a little too opinionated and jaded to start with I understand and sympathize with his frustration. So much of the “discussion” around energy policy is devoid of any facts, reality, or attempt at a solution. This should be required reading for any politician or voter for that matter.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Power Hungry" is fantastic. It clearly gives the facts about our energy needs and the best ways to fill those needs. I really think it would be a good thing if everyone read this book. I very rarely say that.

[Thomas Strawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written and researched. Supported a lot of my already existing ideas about natural gas and nuclear but also enlightened me more on the suspicions I've had about biofuels and farm subsidies for years. I felt it was a rational approach to energy conversation.

[E.R. Yatscoff · Rating 3 out of 5]

This read will make technical and lay people happy as it proves its point with science and math. It is ten years old since it was published but much still riings true.,

[Joe McHale · Rating 4 out of 5]

interesting and informative might add a couple more options

[Gilverton Oliveira · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting and insightful.

[Andrew Silvestri · Rating 3 out of 5]

Out of date on a lot of the technical details, misrepresents some details on ethanol/cellulose variants and solar, but the crux of his argument makes sense.

[Kyle Sala · Rating 4 out of 5]

Robert Bryce definitely does his research and provides a "this is the reality whether or not you (we) want to believe it."

Everyone may not agree with his mentality, but with an open mind, this book is very illuminating and a good starting point for further research.

People may dismiss him as a "climate change denier" because he writes off wind and solar, which is unfair. The point he makes is that, we cannot, with current technology, run the US off solar and wind, and have the same standard of living we do today given cost constraints. And that's hard for some people to hear. He advocates for continued development and research in renewables to help bring the cost down, and improve on the drawbacks (intermittent, storage) while still maintaining a strong economy.