Book Reviews
Tough talk about America’s oil addiction
A new book questions dreams of energy independence.
By Todd Wilkinson | May 14, 2008 edition
PublicAffairs 371 pp. $26.95
Book reviewer Todd Wilkinson talks with author Robert Bryce.
Book reviewer Todd Wilkinson
Thomas Edison altered the course of civilization by helping to pioneer a reliable, affordable, and mass-produced incandescent bulb. But, as author Robert Bryce points out, there was a breakthrough that escaped Edison’s grasp: How to build a hyperefficient, long-lived, electric battery capable of powering homes, industry, and transportation – smoke free.
In his new book, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of ‘Energy Independence,’ Bryce, a freelance journalist who specializes in the fossil-fuel industry, tosses out a bold idea: Launch a global competition, called “the Superbattery Prize,” that would award $1 billion to the inventor who successfully produces such a battery.
Better yet, he says, give $10 billion to the modern Edison who develops a revolutionary energy grid based on batteries that can store multiple-kilowatt hours of electricity and eliminate the need to burn vast quantities of oil and coal.
The paradox of the high premium is that it would actually be a bargain, given the world’s current energy-related challenges.
Bryce considers himself an optimist but his book throws cold water on the current rush to embrace alternative energy sources.
As his title suggests, he believes that arguments for swift curtailment of oil consumption on the premise that it will enable America to achieve “energy independence” are grossly misinformed or deliberately deceptive.
Readers who think they know a cure for oil addiction, be they neoconservatives or liberals, will find this book maddening. Bryce’s line of argument, however, is not one that can be easily dismissed. Indeed, his treatise ought to be required for not only members of Congress, but environmentalists, military commanders, CEOs, and investors betting the farm on ethanol.
His analysis, that the world is nowhere near phasing out oil, is provocative. He calls ethanol subsidies a costly “scam” that enables automakers to distort purported gains in fuel efficiency. He notes that ethanol production drives up food costs for a hungry world while it barely delivers a viable, lower-carbon fuel than oil.
He dismisses wind power as unreliable. He disparages environmentalists – Al Gore and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman included – and the war in Iraq.
But to withdraw from Middle Eastern oil producers, which anchor the largest and most vital industry in the world, is pure folly, Bryce suggests. The author insists it would jeopardize, not bolster, national security; do nothing to diminish the threat of Islamic terrorism; and weaken US economic might in the face of a rising China and India. Bryce uses Iran as an example of the harm that can be done when the US demonizes a country sitting on an ocean of black liquid gold.
“Indeed, for all of the Bush administration’s piety about the need to isolate Iran, the outcome of Bush’s policies appears to be exactly the opposite of what was intended: The one being isolated on the energy front isn’t Iran; it’s the U.S.”
America’s thirst for oil is so insatiable, and society’s infrastructure so inextricably dependent upon oil, that the prudent course from Capitol Hill should be securing as much from the Persian Gulf as possible and aggressively tapping into all known domestic reserves to keep the economy afloat, he says.
Bryce is no fan of the war in Iraq. China, he says, is buying all the oil it can from the Persian Gulf without deploying troops. “The Chinese, by not fighting elective wars, are growing strong and richer,” he writes.
“Meanwhile, America, by fighting an elective war has dug itself into a quagmire that has made it weaker and poorer.”
Agree or disagree with Bryce’s call to maintain the oil status quo (promoted in conjunction with expanding natural gas drilling and constructing more refineries), what’s not debatable is the depth of his research and ability to crunch numbers.
Yet “A Gusher of Lies” downplays the impact of soaring oil prices and unfortunately does not address the rippling current impacts of $125 per barrel crude on working-
class families. His suggestion for keeping costs down is to pump more out of the ground, even if it means sending plumes of carbon dioxide pouring into the atmosphere. And this premise leads one to the major conceit of his book. Bryce deliberately stays out of the global warming fray, claiming he has not yet formulated a firm position on the science.
His refusal to engage on that issue, when climate change is the preeminent impetus for society investing in alternative fuels, leaves one wondering: What is the author’s real agenda?
One thing is clear: Without China and India being induced to reduce their carbon emissions, it makes no sense for the US and the rest of the developed world that met at Kyoto and held recent talks in Bali to impose limits, he says. He makes a compelling case for investing in nuclear power (because its waste is more manageable than carbon dioxide) and he sees merit in expanding arrays of solar power.
In the 19th century, society was wiping out whales and other sea creatures in the oceans, based upon the belief that the oil from their bodies provided necessary fuel for lamps. Then came the sudden advent of electricity, copper wire in homes, and Edison’s paradigm-shifting bulbs. Bryce believes that humankind can rescue itself with the proper economic motivation for its deepest thinkers. Until that happens, however, society must accept that it depends on the black stuff coming out of the ground. No dreaming about alternatives is going to make that fact go away.
Todd Wilkinson is a freelance writer in Bozeman, Mont.
Comments
2. D.R. McDaniel | 05.16.08
I agree most heartily with Msr.Bryce’s observations. the U.S. Policy has been short-sighted and non-creative because of heret0fore,cheap, black gold! Gone are the days, it seems, when innovation and creativity was always working. The Republican leadership has been myopic in its projections of the Nation’s future needs. The Democrats have offered absolutely nothing, but added confuion, foolishness and a complete lack of understanding of even the basic principles of life. We are in a quandary with an effeminate, wimpish approach to reality - of for another Teddy Roosevelt !
3. Robert McNease | 05.17.08
No one says it will be easy, but it can be done. Solar thermal and wind can provide a 75 percent solution. Large trucks and airplanes will need oil for a long time and our domestic production of 5 million barrels a day can do it.
I’m not opposed to drilling as long as it’s part of the transition to solar thermal and wind.
He needs to look at the EIA’s stats; we already produce enough electricity to charge 80% of our cars if they were electric.
4. zqahtt | 05.17.08
Transitioning away from oil is not a choice. It is a finite resource. The natural processes that create operate very slowly and we use it very rapidly. At some point in the near future, if we haven’t already reached it, we will have used up the easily accessible stuff and getting more will be more and more difficult and expensive. Long before we physically exhaust the oil it will simply be too expensive to get. We are going to have to scale way back on everything we do in the not too distant future.
5. Miriam | 05.17.08
Bryce’s book comes at just the right time!..however, thermal, geothermal, wind etc are not going to provide the means to travel from point a to point b for work, school and other local transport needs that Americans have been habituated into using their personal vehicles for. What we need in this country is a massive rethinking and overhaul of our outdated, outmoded public people moving vehicles. Most of this problem is due to the landdevelopers and real estate community that has pushed URBAN SPRAWL to the extreme…the more land available the more it was wasted to build isolated suburban distant communities. Thus putting off until we are nearly desperate, facing facts…cost and dependency on oil–an oil based economy thanks to the greedy ******* in OilBidnez who dominated fuel efficiency and national highway discussion for decades. now that they are making their ZILLIONS it will be pushed onto the backs of the contemporary “serf” workingclass to pay for the next major future shift..improving the infrastructure of MASS TRANSIT. Travelling from my home to downtown should not require 2 hours of waiting and transfers onto stinky gas guzzling diesel buses and inadequate planning into central city. This problem is repeated in nearly EVERY single city WEST of the Mississippi. This is not a MOON launch…merely simple local transit. Surely this will be repaired and soon??? New Mexico
6. betty | 05.18.08
Haven’t read the book but it sounds from this review that it hits most of the points.
But anyone following the issue of rising prices in the last year knows this for sure: It is not a supply problem, and it is does not reflect the slowly rising trajectory of peak oil, it is Bush’s massive mismanagement of the economy. Besides fluctuations of a dollar a barrel here or there supposedly due to this incident or that (a pipeline problem, a refinery down for maintenance) the main drive up on futures price for barrel of oil is a financial market phenomenon.
As to the corn ethanol thing — it is a complete scam. Yeah you can make fuel from corn, that’s not the scam, the scam is how many square miles you need to make a dent — all corn ethanol is doing is making food cost more.
7. betty | 05.18.08
Dear Miriam - I hear you on that - I know the city you are talking about and transit there is terrible. The sprawling west - its worst enemy is all that space. everyone just keeps spreading out more and transit coverage for such sprawl is the most expensive of all.
here in the NE, or in landlocked cities like san francisco, transit is a success. that means some lines actually turn a profit - like the connecticut-NYC train.
But don’t the buses out there run on natural gas? They should. Out here, the high gasoline prices are almost a blessing — not only are more people using mass transit, but the cost of mass transit hasn’t increased because a lot of it doesn’t run on gas or diesel. The trains run on electric overheard wires until they get out of the grid area, where they switch to diesel. The buses run on natural gas.
8. T. Traub | 05.19.08
Memo to Americans: capitalism works. As oil prices rise, and gasoline prices begin to influence people’s driving habits and choice of vehicles, technologies and policies will naturally alter to adapt to the changing times.
Suddenly, buses look like a reasonable idea, even out here in the sprawling Southwest. That people who choose to drive larger vehicles would pay more in gasoline tax and road tax seems fair and just.
Windmills and solar energy are looking better each day. Buildings are utilizing geothermal cooling techniques. Thousands of homeowners are looking into insulation, evaporative cooling, solar hot water systems, and the like. The Toyota Prius gasoline/electric vehicle is selling very well and GM and Ford are committing heavily to similar hybrid technologies. The public transportation networks in the Eastern cities have record ridership.
Also, the discoveries of record oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and the coast of Brazil suggest that oil is far from depleted. At current oil prices, U.S. shale oil and Canadian tar sands are becoming a profitable alternative and these enormous sources of fossil fuels dwarf the Middle East reserves in its potential.
In other words, Americans are not as stupid as Robert Bryce appears to believe. The “elective” wars (presumably, Iraq and Afghanistan) are not optional; they are a necessity. Afghanistan was a necessary war. The Gulf War was necessary. The 2nd Iraq War was questionable in its premise, yet ultimately historians will regard it as simply the completion of the first war, marred in its execution by the intervention of thousands of Islamic militants, which has provided the U.S. military with a (costly) opportunity to improve its urban counter-insurgency skills. Today’s U.S. Army is vastly more efficient and deadly than ten years ago, by virtue of this bloody experience.
9. dave watkins | 05.19.08
Idiots in the US complaining about the price of gas, but no one carpools, no one slows down.. I came up with a new tshirt Idea a couple days ago, Save Some Gas, Get off My ***… Seriously though, the speed limit on my road is 25 and the average person drives 50, as well, at night they hit you with their high beams, intimited by someone walking in the road, where there are no sidewalks, but if the idiots were doing the speed limit, they’d be less afraid of causing an accident. Would also be nice if car makers, amongst other manufacturing companies, started making more efficient cars and building stuff that is meant to last, unlike most **** produced these days, designed to break after limited use, so that company makes more and more money… sad, it is.. there is no intelligent life on our planet.. aliens just cruise right past…
10. Ron Williamson | 05.19.08
I make a living selling equipment to reduce energy costs for large entities (not households). The more energy Americans use, the higher energy costs become, and I sell more and earn more.
While I am in favor of pursuing alternative energy sources, they are all just a drop in the bucket in comparison to our total use. Even though energy conservation means that I personally may earn less, conservation is the most important issue at hand for Americans. We have to drive smaller, more fuel efficient automobiles and build smaller houses… Good luck !!
11. Kendra Nordin | 05.19.08
I believe the article that Kay Deaves is referring to, “that recent article about using the example of a whale’s fin to produce more efficient wind power,” is this one: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0516/p13s01-stgn.htm
12. GMessier | 05.21.08
The markets DO work. Finally, FINALLY, high energy prices have got peoples’ attention. The oil challenge is real, not contrived.
China and India are rising, and we no longer dominate the world marketplace.
NOT a bad thing, it nevertheless entails adjustment on our part. We’ve been on “cruise control” too long.
Recent conventional oil discoveries are mere puddles. Brazil’s 8 billion new bbls would satisfy global demand for roughly 3 months; hardly a big deal. Unconventional oil(Alberta tar sands & Colorado shale) are an environmental disaster.
The US is held hostage not by Middle East predominance in oil reserves, but by domestic politics. Environmental extremists have for decades stymied any and all new development. Unfortunately, RE is not yet “up and running” in amounts sufficient to meet the needs of a growing nation.
Current US population: 303 million. Forecast for 2050: 400 million.
It will be necessary to develop new US oil fields to offset declining production both here, and overseas.
There are NO silver bullets. We need to make progress on ALL fronts:
efficiency & conservation, wind, solar, PHEVs, nuclear, biofuels, and cleaner FFs.
1. Kay Deaves | 05.16.08
I am very much in favour of going all out for renewable sources of energy, such as solar, wind and hydro electric. Why not pour more money and thought into better ways of harnessing nice, clean, renewable options? Nuclear power as well as oil and coal are nasty, dirty and dangerous and aught to be phased out. I believe we have a duty to our children to show them a better way. Note that recent article about using the example of a whale’s fin to produce more efficient wind power.