Robert Bryce is an energy realist. So reading him is refreshing. First, because most people when discussing matters of energy are either ill- or misinformed, naive, liars, or have a personal stake in the policy outcomes. Second, because everytime I read something by Bryce, I learn something new — and I usually learn a new, persuasive, way to make points that I’ve tried to make previously.
In his 2008 book, Gusher of Lies, he showed that he brooks no fantasies, fairy tales, or pie-in-the-sky predictions or proposals about how the United State can (or should) become energy independent, as so many politicians and pundits claim is possible.
His latest book — and first in his new role as a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute — Bryce undertakes the same laser-like dismantling of the myth that so-called green energy can displace fossil fuels anytime in the near future. It’s called Power Hungry — and you should read it.
While Bryce warns the reader at the outset that to get the most out of his work, they will need to be conversant with math, don’t be scared off. Bryce provides all the units and measurements needed to do the math — simple multiplication, substraction, division, and addition are all the skills necessary. Of course, Bryce also does the calculations for you. And these calculations tell a powerful story.
For those who didn’t know it already, there is no way for all the wind power, solar power, or biomass fuels that the U.S. might possibly generate in next few decades to substantially reduce our nation’s reliance on the good old, abundant, inexpensive, compact (in terms of both power and energy per amount of space needed and volume of materials or input) fossil fuels that we know and rely on today. As Bryce states it, “We use hydrocarbons — coal, oil and natural gas — not because we like them, but because they produce lots of heat energy, from small spaces, at prices we can afford, in quantities that we demand.” And he could have added “with the on-demand reliability we’ve come to expect.”
In the most reader-friendly and engaging way possible, Bryce provides the reader with data — the inescapable, remorseless facts about our current use of energy and our future energy needs. For instance, he points out that a single coal mine in western Kentucky – the 35th largest in America — produces the equivalent of 75 percent of all the raw energy produced by every wind turbine and solar panel and solar cell in the country on a daily basis.
Bryce argues that four imperitives of energy rule the energy business: power density, energy density, costs, and scale. Understanding these four imperitives is critical to an accurate assessment of the viability of different sources of power and of the likelihood that public policies promoting some sources of energy over others will produce the desired results.
Early on, any reader sympathetic to the argument that we can or should replace fossil fuels with green energy will come to realize that they are in for a bumpy ride. While Bryce acknowledges that solar and wind power are growing at a phenomenal pace, when placed in context, the scale of their contribution is dwarfed by that of fossil fuels (though their use is growing at a fraction of the rate of that of wind and solar power). As evidence, from 1994 through 2008, America added the equivalent of three Spains worth of electric power output: Wind power increased by 1,500 percent, and solar power production from all sources increased by 69 percent — while coal power production increased by only 16.7 percent. Yet coal’s modest increase amounted to 5.8 times more electric power than was added by wind power and more than 823 times the increase of solar. Indeed, in 2008 the amount of energy in America produced by coal alone nearly equaled the total energy consumption, from all sources of power, of all Central and South American countries combined. When it comes to electric power production, coal is still king, and will be for sometime to come.
There is just too much critical and important information in this book to do justice to it in a short review.
Among the questions Bryce examines are the various economic and environmental drawbacks of different forms of energy — including pulling back the curtain on some of the environmental harms that flow from “green energy” sources.
He also examines the national-security implications of the push for more green energy. Because much of the oil that the U.S. imports comes from countries with whom we are more than occassionally at odds, security hawks have recently jumped on the green-energy bandwagon. As a result, even some conservatives are beginning to call for big-government programs to promote the switch from fossil fuels to wind and solar power. For me, this chapter was a real eye opener, making a case that I had not heard so clearly before: Our pursuit of green energy could make the U.S. less not more secure and independent.
Why? Even though we import a significant percentage of our oil from sometimes hostile foreign powers, every significant green energy technology — from wind turbines, to solar panels and cells, to the batteries and magnets needed for these and other products such as hybrid and/or electric cars — depends upon ”rare earth” elements. These elements are also critical to the many of the U.S.’s high-tech weapons. Unfortunately for U.S. security interests, due to geographic luck, China sits atop the vast majority of those elements. Indeed, China controls between 95 and 100 percent of the world market in those elements. And China has decided to take full advantage of this situation. It is rapidly withdrawing the raw elements from sale on the market, in order to become the dominant, if not sole manufacturer, of finished products requiring rare earths.
What becomes of the U.S.’s energy supply if we go green big time, but then have a conflict with China over Taiwan, or relations with India or Iran, or over problems on the Korean Peninsula? I’ll leave the foreign-policy and economic implications of this increasingly government-mandated or -encouraged energy dependence for the reader to ponder.
Though I greatly admire Bryce’s book, I do not agree with all of his conclusions. I disagree with his call to end mountain top mining, since the areas mined must, by law, be reclaimed, and more importantly, because below ground mining is much more dangerous. Almost certainly, the single biggest reason for the dramatic fall in coal mining deaths in the U.S. over the past half century is not due to government regulation or technological improvements but rather the shift from below ground mining to mountain-top mining.
In addition, few people are bigger boosters of natural gas or nuclear power than I. However, unlike Bryce, I have little confidence that the government at any level has the foresight to know that we should shift to those sources of energy — or that programs to promote the increasing use of natural gas or nuclear power (including subsidies, preferred tax treatments, direct mandates, or restrictions on other energy options) will produce better results for current or future generations than letting consumers and producers choose their energy sources in a free marketplace.
Much of Bryce’s support for government action promoting these fuels seems to stem from his view that the U.S. will soon be limiting — through regulation or law — the emission of greenhouse-gas emissions. And he may well be right in this, but until such laws are passed or such regulations go into effect, I’ll continue to support the market as a determiner of supply and demand rather than the government. Its messy, carries the risk of significant price fluctuations in the short term — but over the long-term, I think the evidence shows that the market does a better job supplying and anticipating people’s desires and needs than any government program.
Despite these disagreements, I have no — that is NO! — reservations in recommending this book. Putting my money where my mouth is, I have already given a copy as a gift — and that’s as strong a recommendation as I can make.