Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence

by Robert Bryce

Book Overview

Everybody is talking about "energy independence." But is it really achievable -- or even desirable? In this controversial, meticulously researched book, Robert Bryce exposes the false promises and political posturing behind the rhetoric. 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...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 158648690X
• ISBN13: 9781586486907
• Release Date: March 2009
• Publisher: PublicAffairs
• Length: 416 Pages
• Weight: 0.95 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.0" x 5.5" x 8.3"

Customer Reviews

Gusher of Lies contains oceans of facts and great arguments

What I love about Gusher of Lies is that it's highly entertaining, educational and subversive, and it will appeal to readers across the political spectrum. I think so highly of the book that I have the hope -- perhaps naive hope -- that it will open the eyes of voters who have been subjected to the campaign rhetoric of energy independence. You don't have to consider yourself on the left or the right to enjoy Bryce's dissection of those "energy independence" claims. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on the ethanol scam, and if you don't think it is a scam, just check out the evidence. Broadly speaking, this is a one-of-a-kind book on the realpolitik of energy.

Energy Independence, Alchemy and Perpetual Motion

"A Gusher of Lies" is a must-read for those wanting the cold, hard facts on the current state and future prospects of worldwide energy dynamics. Written by Robert Bryce, a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research and energy journalist and author for the past twenty years, "Gusher of Lies" is meticulously researched and footnoted (60+ pages of bibliography and references). It relies on numerical facts, realistic forecasts and opinions of key members of the scientific community to dispel any notion that the United States will ever achieve "energy independence" until another energy source/application, that does not currently exist, is invented. The alarming truth is the United States, along with every other developed country on the planet, are inexorably dependent on fossil fuels and will be for the foreseeable future. While looking at the numbers, one should ask how "energy independence" has become such a dominant theme. Is it because the Middle East is evil and wants Westerners dead? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The oil behemoths of the Middle East need the West as much as, if not more than, we need them. Oil makes up ~7% of total U.S. imports but accounts for between 65 and 95 percent of Persian Gulf exports, depending on the nation. In the long term, economics tend to supplant all other factors. To claim energy independence will significantly reduce terrorism is a contrivance. While there is no denying that some Middle Eastern players have been linked to Islamic fundamentalists, most terrorist organizations are low-tech in nature and don't need oil dollars. Their financing has been found to come from drugs, human trafficking, weapons trading and other criminal activities. The cost to finance terrorist operations is a rounding error compared to the $5 trillion in annual energy revenues. Not to mention other, rapidly expanding economies will happily buy up much of what the U.S. doesn't in their laser-focused goal to enjoy what the U.S. has for many decades. Why aren't politicians and special interests clamoring for semi-conductor independence? Semiconductors are also a vital commodity, yet the U.S. imports ~80% of its total semiconductor needs compared to ~60% for oil. The U.S. is also dependent on others for many other crucial commodities - manganese for making steel (100% imported), bauxite for making aluminum (100%), graphite (100%), platinum (91%), tin (88%), titanium (85%)... The list of dependencies goes on and on. So why have so many people latched on to "energy independence" when a brief examination of worldwide energy sources and demand would reveal the absurdity of such a goal in a globally interdependent world? The answer might be found in the term, "energy independence" itself. In the year 2000, a news data base, Factivia, that tracks the use of terms and phrases in major periodicals counted 449 total stories using the phrase. Since 9/11, the use of the term has risen exponentially. In 2006 the term was used in 8,0

Countervailing Whiff of Reality

There is an adage in politics that perception is reality. Belief that something is true, no matter how preposterous, often results in pretentious public policy. The notion that volatile, intermittent "renewable energy sources" can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, make the air cleaner, shore up any shortage of electricity supply, and meaningfully abate CO2 emissions from fossil-fueled plants is now deeply entrenched in our political rhetoric. Such belief has the same basis in reality as the Wizard's glitzy illusions had for the Emerald City of Oz. Environmental history is the chronicle of how adverse consequences flowed from the uninformed decisions of the well-intentioned. When perception is wrong, reality will ultimately impose itself as itself, often with rude effect. Even in Kansas. In this work, Robert Bryce rather successfully portrays the reality about how we use energy to function in the modern world and how dependence on fossil fuels enables much that is desirable about modernity. Much of the next fifty years will devolve around the way the rest of the world insists upon the same level of energy reliability and comfort that characterizes Europe and much of the Americas--in ways that are not regressive and seek to mitigate the adverse thermal implications of fossil fuel use. In the production of electricity, for example, with its penchant for utter reliability at low cost, this will mean a significant increase in nuclear power plants to supply basic demand, hitched to many more natural gas facilities, which can flexibly respond to demand fluctuations while emitting low levels of carbon dioxide. In this manner, the world can somewhat lessen its heavy reliance upon coal, which is now by far the greatest contributor to human-caused carbon emissions in the production of electricity. Any other scenario is contrived nonsense. It is the kind of gibberish that attends propaganda made by a flotilla of supernumerary "renewable energy" technologies, each with their Enronesque retinue of lobbyists. It is more than strange (so strange that its omission weakens Bryce's otherwise formidable case) that the author fails to mention hydroelectricity, which has for more than a century been the very symbol of renewable energy. Hydro may be the single most effective power source for electricity, emitting no carbon and producing highly reliable energy that is both heavy duty and dispatchable. But it also is so environmentally destructive that few places outside China and some third-world countries are building new hydro dams. Bryce also makes the best case possible for wind power, in the process showing how little the technology can achieve. However, he keeps referring to wind technology's intermittency, as if this was the fundamental problem with it. He misses the real worms at its core: the random nature of its power source AND the highly fluctuating intensity of any power it delivers. This unpredictable variability means that wind energy can only be

Incredible eye-opener, a MUST READ for all our politicians and think tank people

Unlike Kenneth Malloy, I am not an energy policy guy, I'm an ordinary, retired, novel-reading woman living on a sailboat -- using wind and solar energy i might add, (in addition to diesel when required). So, i represent the other end of the knowledge spectrum from Mr. Malloy. This book was fascinating. Mr. Bryce's writing style and wit provide a good and easy read even for the novice. I hope it's a best-seller, because that would mean that LOTS OF PEOPLE read the book. Never having read anything serious about energy, I was probably like most Americans and just believed that ethanol and other alternative energy sources were good things to spend money on. Mr. Bryce certainly opened my eyes. He takes an incredible amount of raw data and turns it into a down-to-earth explanation of what's right and what's wrong with the whole gamut of energy sources. And he goes one step beyond by discussing our Energy Policies, and how screwed up they are. There's nothing wrong with having dependencies on other countries. We already do in so many things anyway! As a nation, we REALLY need to get beyond this Arab/Moslem phobia. I mean, really, in the 21st century, with the world getting smaller and smaller, how can we EVER think that we could or should be indepedent suppliers of something so vital as energy. Besides, trade is good; Commercial relations with other countries are good. If Americans are so worried about our supplies of oil, then let them start buying smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles like most of the rest of the world. You don't see many SUV's in Europe. I am less optimistic about our congressmen and senators doing the rigth thing, however. Where there is an opportunity for "pork"(corn subsidies in this case), the greed and slime will spill. I love Mr. Bryce's recommendations and suggestions. They make so much sense! Why aren't other people thinking about this? If this raw data is available, then why are so many people spouting the ethanol myth? so much money wasted! Yes, Mr. Bryce, let's hope that Washington could get the hell out of the energy business!!! Thank you for writing such an important book.