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, [b:Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water|56140|Cadillac Desert The American West and Its Disappearing Water|Marc Reisner|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388189076l/56140._SY75_.jpg|814198]: 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. ( )

Didn't read all of this , just enuogh to get the general argument. The picture of the Wastsila diesel engine was the best part. ( )

Very thought provoking book if you are at all interested in "green" energy. ( )

Didn't read all of this , just enuogh to get the general argument. The picture of the Wastsila diesel engine was the best part. ( )

The Four Imperatives--don't forget them; Energy Density, Power Density, Scale and Cost. Bryce hammers these points home, and analyzes all current and proposed major sources of energy in light of them. Sad to say for Al Gore and his acolytes, the popular "green" choices, notably solar and wind power, don't pass the test to be practical as substantial answers to our need for energy. N2N, or Natural Gas to Nukes, is Bryce's answer to our energy needs into the future. Lots of scientific discussion, statistics, but still accessible to thoughtful lay people. Copious end notes. Spend some time with this book..you might not agree, but it will make you think. ( )