Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence | 
| Author: Robert Bryce
Publisher: PublicAffairs
Category: Book
List Price: $26.95
Buy New: $11.59
You Save: $15.36 (57%)
New (34) Used (11) from $11.59
Avg. Customer Rating:  29 reviews
Sales Rank: 9502
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 384
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.2
Dimensions (in): 9.2 x 6.6 x 1.4
ISBN: 1586483218
Dewey Decimal Number: 333.790973
EAN: 9781586483210
ASIN: 1586483218
Publication Date: March 3, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: New Book. Fast Shipping. May have small remainder mark.
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Everybody is talking about "energy independence." But is it really achievable? Is it actually even desirable? In this controversial, meticulously researched book, Robert Bryce exposes the false promises behind the rhetoric while blasting nearly everybody— Republicans, Democrats, environmentalists, and war-mongering neoconservatives—for misleading voters about our energy needs.
Gusher of Lies explains why the idea of energy independence appeals to voters while also showing that renewable sources like wind and solar cannot meet America's growing energy demand. Along the way, Bryce eviscerates the ethanol scam. Whether the issue is cost, water consumption, or food prices, corn ethanol is one of the longest-running robberies ever perpetrated on American taxpayers.
Consumers concerned about peak oil and the future of global energy supplies need to understand that energy security depends on embracing free markets and the realities of interdependence. Gusher of Lies is illuminating, vital reading.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 24 more reviews...
 Interesting but there are omissions August 6, 2008
Bryce states energy independence is a political construct reiterated by every President since 1973. It is promoted by everybody including Bush, Obama, McCain, Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, and Thomas Friedman in The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. Energy independence is used as an argument for fighting terrorism, reforming the Middle East, enhancing energy security, insulating us from oil embargos, getting us out of Iraq, and lowering oil prices. But, it is utopian.
Energy independence does not achieve its objectives. Even if we did not import oil, we'd be vested in the Middle East stability as oil prices are set globally. Any disruption in supply anywhere causes oil prices to spike on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Despite the energy independence mantra, US oil imports have risen from 38% of U.S. oil consumption in 1973 to 60% currently. This is despite our economy being 40% more energy efficient. This is the Jevons Paradox explained in The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy: "Efficiency fails to curb demand because it lets more people do more... faster - and more/faster invariably swamps ... efficiency gains." Terrorists fund themselves with crime, drug, but not oil. The Middle East has never reformed itself despite long stints of low oil prices.
"The Ethanol Scam" chapter is excellent. If all U.S. corn was converted into ethanol, it would supply only 5% of U.S. oil needs. Ethanol production is inefficient consuming 100% of the energy it generates vs only 5% for gasoline. Ethanol government subsidies amount to $1.50 per gallon. One company ADM controls 29% of U.S. ethanol and is the main beneficiary of such subsidies. The corn conversion to ethanol causes food price increases of $3.72 per gallon. Over full production cycle, ethanol emits 50% more CO2 than gasoline. It also emits toxic nitrous oxide. E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) causes vehicles mpg to drop by a third. Large scale ethanol production would deplete U.S. aquifers. It requires 880 gallons of water for irrigated corn or 170 gallons for non-irrigated corn to generate a gallon of ethanol vs less than 5 gallons of water for gasoline. Ford and GM build flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) because the Fed counts only estimated gasoline consumed when figuring out fleet efficiency. Thus, a 15 mpg FFV turns into a 29 mpg rating. The only beneficiaries of ethanol are ADM, Ford, GM, and corn growers.
Bryce explains why alternative fuels will not dent fossil fuels dominance. Coal-to-liquids (CTL) technology has remained economically unfeasible despite massive subsidies. The CTL conversion emits 50% more CO2 than gasoline. Solar and wind power are uneconomical. They are both intermittent. And wind is intermittent at the worst time (peak electricity demand on hot days with no wind). To guarantee an adequate electricity load to avoid black outs, utilities have to keep burning coal, natural gas, etc... at all times. The EIA projects solar and wind will generate less than 1% of U.S. electricity by 2030.
Many of Bryce recommendations make sense.
a)U.S. Government should eliminate most subsidies. This would curb the ethanol scam among others.
b)The U.S. should reduce the number of gasoline fuel blends dictated by State regulations. Those increase gas costs, reduce gas supply, and have unproven environmental impact.
c)U.S. to redefine energy security as functional energy interdependence supported by a diversified portfolio of energy suppliers within an efficient global energy market.
d)Accept increasing energy use and adapt to changing climate. The prospective boost in China's coal consumption to support its economic growth guarantees CO2 emissions will keep growing. Also, most Kyoto Protocol member countries have failed their CO2 reduction targets by 20% or more.
e)Embrace nuclear power, natural gas, and pursue energy efficiency.
f)Increase domestic oil production. Open up the ANWR and the coasts to offshore exploration. There are tons of oil and gas in those areas.
Some of Bryce recommendations are contradictory. He recommends pursuing solar energy backed by government funds. Meanwhile, earlier he explained why solar will amount to less than 1% of electricity generation by 2030; and that the government should get out of the energy business.
Other recommendations are somewhat controversial. He recommends we engage the Middle East as trading partners. He believes rational trading partners do not fight wars. He recommends we leave Iraq and trade with Iran. Iran has no problem selling its oil to anyone else anyway. The U.S. should share the military burden of stabilizing the Middle East with China, Japan, and the E.U. Readers will interpret these through their own political filter. When Bryce crosses over into foreign policy, I would supplement it with The Post-American World and The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.
Just months after this book publication several facts are outdated. He mentions oil is cheap at $2.82 per gallon in August 2007; but it rose to $4.00 recently. He also states that in the future crude oil could reach $100 to $150 per barrel. It already has in July 2008! He also stated we love big SUV gas guzzlers. But, SUVs are sitting on dealers lots at huge discounts.
When developing his long term energy prospect, Bryce omitted tar sands. Tar sands hold oil reserves are twice regular worldwide oil reserves. And, Canada holds half those reserves. Canada has already bypassed Saudi Arabia as the main crude oil exporter to the U.S. (17.6% of total for Canada vs 14.3% for Saudi Arabia).
Bryce dismissed oil shale as the government spent billions in the 1980s without generating any fuel. Since, oil prices have increased and technology prospects are encouraging. Western U.S. oil shale has estimated recoverable reserves nearly triple Saudi Arabia oil reserves.
Tar sand and oil shale have implications that contradict Bryce. First, the concept of Non-OPEC Peak Oil (declining production) is obsolete (chapter 7). Second, the U.S. will be less dependent on Middle East and more reliant on Canada and domestic resources.
 No mention of technologies that weaken author's argument lowers value of this "complete energy independence treatise" July 11, 2008
6 out of 7 found this review helpful
Bryce positions the book as a comprehensive treatise on energy independence, and it's not. Which for me knocks the book down to 1 star.
Bryce doesn't just select his sources (as would any author), he problematically also selects within his sources, and in so doing at least twice misrepresents the message of the source (one misrepresentation described by me below, and another by an earlier reviewer).
So be informed if you read this book (as several earlier reviewers have said). Bryce has his theme, and he can't be bothered to name and then debunk some "facts" that might discredit it.
The main technology Bryce ignores is the coal-to-liquid (CTL) transformation of coal into methanol (wood alcohol, NOT ethanol (grain alcohol)). A major proponent of CTL methanol claims the technology is "clean" and costs the gas equivalent of $1/gallon (50c/gallon methanol, with methanol having 50% the energy of gas). If true, Bryce's theme that energy independence is a fantasy is DOA, so Bryce must debunk the claim. Yet Bryce doesn't even mention it, even though he must know about it (see below).
(Methanol is a mature fuel technology for the internal combustion engine (ICE), as the ICE was invented with methanol in mind and the Indy 500 was run on it until very recently (when ethanol, via a marketing agreement, replaced it). For a fast and interesting read on methanol fuel technology and how it might be able to break imported oil's monopoly of the transportation energy market, see:
-"Energy Victory" (Robert Zubrin, Prometheus Books 2007).
For a drier but more technical read on how methanol could replace oil, see:
-"Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy" (George Olah (a Nobel Prize winner), WILEY-VCH 2007).)
The major CTL methanol proponent referred to above is the Set America Free coalition (SAF), a lobby group pushing for energy independence that Bryce trashes by name (either the group or its prominent members) at least 20 times (I stopped counting), for its (supposed) politics and its (actual) support for ethanol. I assume (hope?) Bryce is well-versed in SAF's policy platform.
In Chapter 12 ("The Ethanol Scam") Bryce quotes a SAF statement on ethanol sourced from SAF's policy platform document as part of his argument to show that ethanol is a scam. (Source is on page 176, Chapter 12, note 131.) A fair use of a source.
My problem is that Bryce ignores SAF's claim that CTL methanol is clean and economic, even though that position is in the paragraph following the one Bryce's ethanol quote comes from, so he must know about it. (Bryce quotes from page 3, paragraph 3, of the SAF document, the paragraph outlining SAF's position on ethanol, while page 3, paragraph 4 outlines SAF's position on methanol.)
The lesser technology Bryce ignores concerns the problem of the volume of biomass needed to produce cellulosic alcohol. Bryce says the volume that needs to be moved to fuel plants requires far more trucks than it's worth (p. 178), while Zubrin says on-site "flash pyrolysis" reduces the volume and solves the problem ("Energy Victory", Robert Zubrin, Prometheus 2007, p. 155).
So are SAF and Zubrin wrong? I have no idea. Bryce doesn't mention their most intriguing ideas, so he doesn't need to debunk them in his "complete energy independence treatise".
(Robert Zubrin is listed as a member of SAF on its website, George Olah is not listed on the website. I have no relation to SAF, and had not heard of the organization before reading Zubrin's book.)
 Every LIBERAL should read this book July 5, 2008
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
He makes many good points and provides much needed facts about the reality of worldwide energy inTERdependence, the inadequacies of the alternatives and the fallacy of giving up fossil fuels.
Liberals will be shaking their heads in delight as he rips Bush, Cheney, the war in Iraq, etc. I'm convinced he is one of your own - even though he claims to be neutral.
But he is a pragmatist when it comes to the main topic of this book - our energy needs. We simply have to quit lying to ourselves about what can be done about the challenges we face. Wind power, solar and biofuels cannot provide even a fraction of the overall energy needs of the nation. This book does a nice job of proving that beyond any shadow of doubt.
I say liberals should read this because in my opinion they are the ones that are standing in the way. (And yes McCain is a liberal too) And they are also the ones poised to take over every branch of government January 2009. As I say, this is one of your own talking...maybe you will finally listen.
 Bryce can't deal with Hubbert's Peak June 27, 2008
9 out of 11 found this review helpful
The major problem with this book is that it attempts to sidestep the overwhelming empirical and statistical analysis that M K Hubbert presented in 1969 showing that the world's oil production would reach its peak in 2000.A minor correction was made by K S Deffeyes showing that ,due to a minor error made by Hubbert,the world's peak would occur in the year 2005.On pp. 33-35 Bryce mentions Hubbert's and Deffeyes's results without telling the reader that the logistics model applied by Hubbert(Deffeyes) fits the data to A BELL SHAPED CURVE WITH AN ACCURACY OF 99.9 %.Bryce attempts to rewrite the conclusions of Hubbert and Deffeyes by claiming that they are claiming that the world is running out of oil(p.35).Hubbert and Deffeyes,contrary to Bryce ,are stating that all of the empirical and statistical data show that the world is running out of low to medium priced oil.Nowhere in his book does Bryce challenge the fundamental results produced by Hubbert and Deffeyes.The fundamental conclusion of Hubbert and Deffeyes is that the price of a barrel of oil will continue to rise,be it slowly or quickly, in real terms from 2005(2000) on . This is exactly what has been happening since mid 2005 with a major exponential increase from September,2007 through June,2008.The rise has been exacerbated by Ben Bernanke's(aided by a number of other foreign central banks)attempted 1.2 trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street's, and their private commercial banker allies,speculative behavior.The result has been the decimation of the value of the dollar and massive inflationary increases in the cost of food and energy .
The rest of the book deals with a number of non related issues that only serves to cloud the main point of the book,which was to supposedly demonstrate that the goal of energy independence was fatally flawed.I can find little support for Bryce's claim .
 The Gusher of Lies June 27, 2008
2 out of 4 found this review helpful
The Gusher of Lies by Robert Bryce is a voice of reason amid an abundance of ignorance, anxiety and political rants. With each passing day it is becoming obvious to more Americans that we must demand a common sense energy plan. He debunks the lies, gives clarity of purpose and leaves the reader with a call to action. There are a number of books on energy history. Some help us understand how we went from "whale oil" to today. However, "Gusher" does the best job of thinking through what problems we are really trying to solve. American's are already taking action to reduce demand. Bryce has set the table to help build an energy supply plan. A plan with immediate, midrange and longterm solutions. The three questions he asks are, will the action increase energy supply? Will it reduce energy costs? What is the environmental impact? The answers to these questions are the foundation of a necessary energy plan. The author identifies the lies and distractions from ethanol to frivolous lawsuits which need to be exposed to prevent further time and money wasted. The book doesn't support a political position. It supports the American energy customer.
If Gusher of Lies effects you as it did me, you will demand and want to contribute to a call to action.
|
|
|
