What do you think?
Rate this book
Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil
Science tells us that an oil crisis is inevitable. Why and when? And what will our future look like without our favorite fuel? Our rate of oil discovery has reached its peak and will never be exceeded; rather, it is certain to decline―perhaps rapidly―forever forward. Meanwhile, over the past century, we have developed lifestyles firmly rooted in the promise of an endless, cheap supply. In this book, David Goodstein, professor of physics at Caltech, explains the underlying scientific principles of the inevitable fossil fuel shortage we face. He outlines the drastic effects a fossil fuel shortage will bring down on us. And he shows that there is an important silver lining to the need to switch to other sources of energy, for when we have burned up all the available oil, the earth's climate will have moved toward a truly life-threatening state. With its easy-to-grasp explanations of the science behind every aspect of our most urgent environmental policy decisions, Out of Gas is "a handbook for the future of civilization" ( Booklist ).
148 pages, Paperback
First published February 17, 2005
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
May 14, 2016
The condensed version of the isuue, at 123 pages of actual content. More optimistic than I am, but not goofily so. (He thinks that we can solve the problems of nuclear power, while I think we must go to nuclear power but accept that there will be a Chernobyl per year worldwide, and we just have to suck it up and live with the risk. He has hope people will act before it is too late, while I'd say "ha!" to that.) Otherwise matches what I have read elsewhere.
You know what this would be great for? A senior high school class in science or world issues.
You know what this would be great for? A senior high school class in science or world issues.
July 30, 2019
Succinct, focused, readable
For those of you who are just getting interested in the subject, David Goodstein's Out of Gas is the book you want to read first. I have read several books on the impending energy crisis, including:
Deffeyes, Kenneth S. Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak (2005)
Heinberg, Richard. The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (2nd Ed., 2005)
Huber, Peter W. and Mark P. Mills. The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy (2005)
Leeb, Stephen and Donna Leeb. The Oil Factor: Protect Yourself--and Profit--from the Coming Energy Crisis (2005)
Simmons, Matthew R. Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy (2005)
and I can say that Professor Goodstein's modest, short and very much to the point book is as good as, if not better than, any of those five. He introduces the subject in a clear and no nonsense way and includes a lot of background information essential to understanding how energy works and why we are about to face a crisis. For readers who are expert on the physics and technology of heat engines and entropy, this book will be a little too basic in part. But even for such experts, Goodstein is essential reading because not only does he understand the science of the energy crisis, he understands the politics. Especially edifying is the material in the Postscript. Let me reference a few ideas:
OPEC (a cartel, as Goodstein explains, patterned after the Texas Railroad Commission which was the cartel that controlled oil production in the US before our supply peaked) likes to maintain prices within a range, "partly in order not to discourage demand for oil, but also to prevent investment in alternative fuels." This we know, of course. But Goodstein adds, "The implied threat is, if you invest money to develop a competitor to oil, we will flood the market with cheap oil and wipe out your investment." (pp. 126-127)
This explains in part why we have been so slow to develop alternative sources. Investors are afraid. However, as Goodstein explains, if OPEC no longer has "excess pumping capacity" to flood the market, theirs becomes an empty threat. Notice another point here: not only are OPEC countries tempted to overstate capacity so that by OPEC rules they are allowed to pump more oil, they are induced to lie about their reserves to scare potential investors away from alternative energy sources. In fact the entire oil industry itself "has a very strong incentive to deny any looming shortage of oil." In other words, to overstate their reserves. Another reason they overstate their reserves "is to keep down the price of oil properties they would like to acquire." (p. 127)
Goodstein also explains why "reserves to production" (R/P) numbers have stayed about the same for many decades and why many experts say we still have forty years of oil left, same as we have had for most of the twentieth century. Quite simply "proven" reserves are reported as "whatever fits the current needs" of the company. (p. 128) It used to be the case that under-reporting was good since it kept the price of oil from plummeting. Now the real danger is to acknowledge that a company doesn't have much oil left. This will cause their stock price to plunge, which is what happened to the Royal Dutch Shell Group "when it was forced by outside auditors to reduce its claims of proven reserves..." (p. 129)
Goodstein's take on the various alternatives to oil, including coal, shale oil, nuclear energy, renewables, etc. is very much in concert with the opinions of other experts. We will be using more coal, dirty as it is, and more nuclear energy, and natural gas. These are the three main alternatives. Not long after we run out of oil we will run out of natural gas and then coal and then even nuclear power plants will grow cold for lack of uranium, which if used to supply energy at the current rate of consumption will be depleted in five to twenty-five years. (p. 106)
Goodstein explores wind and solar and makes it clear that in the long run--if we and civilization are going to make it to the long run--we will have to develop the technology to exploit these renewable sources. This will require a huge investment. We will need the political leadership and will to make the kind of commitment that President Kennedy made in putting a man on the moon. Goodstein believes that solving the energy problem will require the same sort of formidable and creative technology as did the space program. He adds that "Unfortunately, our present national and international leadership is reluctant even to acknowledge that there is a problem." (p. 123)
It is essential that we make the commitment to develop alternatives fuels and we make that commitment NOW because (1) we will need the oil we have left to make the thousands of petrochemical products we will continue to use; (2) we need to free ourselves from dependence on the oil producing countries; and (3) there is an outside danger that the continued burning of fossils fuels will trigger a runaway greenhouse catastrophe that could lead to sterilizing the earth as has happened on Venus. Note well this horrific downside--far worse than any "nuclear winter"--and note too we could go past the point of no return without even realizing it, and be left with no way to stop the meltdown.
Bottom line: "The challenge is enormous but the stakes are even larger. If future generations are to thrive, we who have consumed Earth's legacy of cheap oil must now provide for a world without it." (p. 131)
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
For those of you who are just getting interested in the subject, David Goodstein's Out of Gas is the book you want to read first. I have read several books on the impending energy crisis, including:
Deffeyes, Kenneth S. Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak (2005)
Heinberg, Richard. The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (2nd Ed., 2005)
Huber, Peter W. and Mark P. Mills. The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy (2005)
Leeb, Stephen and Donna Leeb. The Oil Factor: Protect Yourself--and Profit--from the Coming Energy Crisis (2005)
Simmons, Matthew R. Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy (2005)
and I can say that Professor Goodstein's modest, short and very much to the point book is as good as, if not better than, any of those five. He introduces the subject in a clear and no nonsense way and includes a lot of background information essential to understanding how energy works and why we are about to face a crisis. For readers who are expert on the physics and technology of heat engines and entropy, this book will be a little too basic in part. But even for such experts, Goodstein is essential reading because not only does he understand the science of the energy crisis, he understands the politics. Especially edifying is the material in the Postscript. Let me reference a few ideas:
OPEC (a cartel, as Goodstein explains, patterned after the Texas Railroad Commission which was the cartel that controlled oil production in the US before our supply peaked) likes to maintain prices within a range, "partly in order not to discourage demand for oil, but also to prevent investment in alternative fuels." This we know, of course. But Goodstein adds, "The implied threat is, if you invest money to develop a competitor to oil, we will flood the market with cheap oil and wipe out your investment." (pp. 126-127)
This explains in part why we have been so slow to develop alternative sources. Investors are afraid. However, as Goodstein explains, if OPEC no longer has "excess pumping capacity" to flood the market, theirs becomes an empty threat. Notice another point here: not only are OPEC countries tempted to overstate capacity so that by OPEC rules they are allowed to pump more oil, they are induced to lie about their reserves to scare potential investors away from alternative energy sources. In fact the entire oil industry itself "has a very strong incentive to deny any looming shortage of oil." In other words, to overstate their reserves. Another reason they overstate their reserves "is to keep down the price of oil properties they would like to acquire." (p. 127)
Goodstein also explains why "reserves to production" (R/P) numbers have stayed about the same for many decades and why many experts say we still have forty years of oil left, same as we have had for most of the twentieth century. Quite simply "proven" reserves are reported as "whatever fits the current needs" of the company. (p. 128) It used to be the case that under-reporting was good since it kept the price of oil from plummeting. Now the real danger is to acknowledge that a company doesn't have much oil left. This will cause their stock price to plunge, which is what happened to the Royal Dutch Shell Group "when it was forced by outside auditors to reduce its claims of proven reserves..." (p. 129)
Goodstein's take on the various alternatives to oil, including coal, shale oil, nuclear energy, renewables, etc. is very much in concert with the opinions of other experts. We will be using more coal, dirty as it is, and more nuclear energy, and natural gas. These are the three main alternatives. Not long after we run out of oil we will run out of natural gas and then coal and then even nuclear power plants will grow cold for lack of uranium, which if used to supply energy at the current rate of consumption will be depleted in five to twenty-five years. (p. 106)
Goodstein explores wind and solar and makes it clear that in the long run--if we and civilization are going to make it to the long run--we will have to develop the technology to exploit these renewable sources. This will require a huge investment. We will need the political leadership and will to make the kind of commitment that President Kennedy made in putting a man on the moon. Goodstein believes that solving the energy problem will require the same sort of formidable and creative technology as did the space program. He adds that "Unfortunately, our present national and international leadership is reluctant even to acknowledge that there is a problem." (p. 123)
It is essential that we make the commitment to develop alternatives fuels and we make that commitment NOW because (1) we will need the oil we have left to make the thousands of petrochemical products we will continue to use; (2) we need to free ourselves from dependence on the oil producing countries; and (3) there is an outside danger that the continued burning of fossils fuels will trigger a runaway greenhouse catastrophe that could lead to sterilizing the earth as has happened on Venus. Note well this horrific downside--far worse than any "nuclear winter"--and note too we could go past the point of no return without even realizing it, and be left with no way to stop the meltdown.
Bottom line: "The challenge is enormous but the stakes are even larger. If future generations are to thrive, we who have consumed Earth's legacy of cheap oil must now provide for a world without it." (p. 131)
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
November 5, 2007
This slim volume (131 pp) contains some interesting science background, but is poorly organized. The author's claim is that all energy (except for wave power) is nuclear, either from the sun or from the Earth's core and that we will soon change our collective tune about nuclear power plants - this, despite that he admits that uranium supplies are also finite. Didn't he have an editor at W.W. Norton?
June 28, 2013
I thought this was interesting. I already knew about Hubbert's peak theory, so this may have been preaching to the choir, but it's also hard to expect a book published in 2004 to have any new information for 2013. Also a brief course on heat engines and thermodynamics. Only 123 pages, and there are probably worse things one could be reading.
July 29, 2011
This is the shortest, most concise and easy to read book for anyone not familiar with the topic of oil, peak oil or energy. Its easy-to-understand description of difficult concepts makes it a great tool. Straight forward. The way it is. Read it.
July 27, 2020
Note: I read this book in 2020. It was published in 2004. It's not that wise to read a book about energy reserves and climate change 16 years later, when the situation is continuously evolving.
This is a book by a physicist about the energy crisis caused by "peak oil" with some discussion of climate change. Because the book is written by a physicist, it is well-grounded in science, and informative in that regard. But, because it's not by a geologist or a climatologist, there are parts that feel like they are lacking.
Goodstein excels at explaining the basic science behind energy, why we need it and how we use it (and how we might use it). If this book was just an introduction to thermodynamics it might be excellent. (I suspect his tv show - um, I mean "telecourse" is pretty good even though it likely somewhat out of date 35 years later.) He writes clearly and it's obvious he's a good teacher.
The organization of the book is a little weird. We jump around a lot between current problems and brief anecdotes of historical discoveries of scientific principles. Goodstein is not Bill Bryson and the historical bits feel a little odd. I suspect this is a device he uses in class, but in this very short book they feel cursory and are not anywhere near as entertaining as he seems to imagine.
I think the bigger issue with the book is that it was published in 2004 and I'm reading it in 2020. (I don't know if there is a new edition but I can only read the book I have.) Some of what Goodstein is talking about is just plain out of date. He couldn't have known that at the time, but that is the problem with a book like this. Here are a couple of examples:
I don't know anything about Hubbert's peak, but a quick Google shows there's reason to doubt the claim that it's here already. Technological changes have rendered past predictions inaccurate at best. The theory might still be sound - it sounds reasonable to me, but I am not an economist nor am I a geologist - but the principal fact that is supposed to support it in the US has erased as of 2017. So, um, that's a problem for the specifics of the theory, if not the theory in general.
Also, his discussion of LED lights - and, to a lesser extent, other technologies - is hilariously out of date. In 2004 I guess they were just being introduced. Now, of course, they are everywhere. And there are all sorts of other technologies that have come in, as well, to make energy use more efficient. Now, Goodstein acknowledges that unknown technologies are coming. But the problem with writing a book like this is that, inevitably, your book will be rendered out-of-date pretty quickly if you are making claims about current and future technologies.
Then there's Goodstein's hedging over climate change. He doesn't come across as a denier but he also doesn't commit to much beyond "change". This might be the rigorous but it comes across as meek and overly cautious now. My guess is that he wanted to focus on his primary topic of "peak oil" and so didn't want to commit to making claims about climate.
Am I glad I read it? I think so, yes. Certainly as a summary of humanity's energy problems at the general level, it's very good. It's the specifics of 2004 which are problematic for a contemporary audience, as things have changed, rather a lot. Still, the message that we are running out of fossil fuels is still true, and we still haven't solved the problem, even if we have delayed that specific problem more than Goodstein thought we'd be able to when he wrote this book.
This is a book by a physicist about the energy crisis caused by "peak oil" with some discussion of climate change. Because the book is written by a physicist, it is well-grounded in science, and informative in that regard. But, because it's not by a geologist or a climatologist, there are parts that feel like they are lacking.
Goodstein excels at explaining the basic science behind energy, why we need it and how we use it (and how we might use it). If this book was just an introduction to thermodynamics it might be excellent. (I suspect his tv show - um, I mean "telecourse" is pretty good even though it likely somewhat out of date 35 years later.) He writes clearly and it's obvious he's a good teacher.
The organization of the book is a little weird. We jump around a lot between current problems and brief anecdotes of historical discoveries of scientific principles. Goodstein is not Bill Bryson and the historical bits feel a little odd. I suspect this is a device he uses in class, but in this very short book they feel cursory and are not anywhere near as entertaining as he seems to imagine.
I think the bigger issue with the book is that it was published in 2004 and I'm reading it in 2020. (I don't know if there is a new edition but I can only read the book I have.) Some of what Goodstein is talking about is just plain out of date. He couldn't have known that at the time, but that is the problem with a book like this. Here are a couple of examples:
I don't know anything about Hubbert's peak, but a quick Google shows there's reason to doubt the claim that it's here already. Technological changes have rendered past predictions inaccurate at best. The theory might still be sound - it sounds reasonable to me, but I am not an economist nor am I a geologist - but the principal fact that is supposed to support it in the US has erased as of 2017. So, um, that's a problem for the specifics of the theory, if not the theory in general.
Also, his discussion of LED lights - and, to a lesser extent, other technologies - is hilariously out of date. In 2004 I guess they were just being introduced. Now, of course, they are everywhere. And there are all sorts of other technologies that have come in, as well, to make energy use more efficient. Now, Goodstein acknowledges that unknown technologies are coming. But the problem with writing a book like this is that, inevitably, your book will be rendered out-of-date pretty quickly if you are making claims about current and future technologies.
Then there's Goodstein's hedging over climate change. He doesn't come across as a denier but he also doesn't commit to much beyond "change". This might be the rigorous but it comes across as meek and overly cautious now. My guess is that he wanted to focus on his primary topic of "peak oil" and so didn't want to commit to making claims about climate.
Am I glad I read it? I think so, yes. Certainly as a summary of humanity's energy problems at the general level, it's very good. It's the specifics of 2004 which are problematic for a contemporary audience, as things have changed, rather a lot. Still, the message that we are running out of fossil fuels is still true, and we still haven't solved the problem, even if we have delayed that specific problem more than Goodstein thought we'd be able to when he wrote this book.
October 19, 2023
I read this first in 2008, and was impressed by the science and the rationality of the overall warning in the book. Even then, I felt that he was focused too much on peak oil (i.e. running out) and not focused enough on the environmental and climate problems of oil.
Now, 15 years later in 2023, it is apparent to most of us that, though his theories and science are sound, technologies have changed the specifics of the science somewhat and we now KNOW that the environmental and climate impact of burning oil (as well as coal, natural gas, and other petroleum products) is the more urgent than the issue of running out.
Is the book still interesting? Yes, though I would take the general conceptual theories and science and leave the specifics.
It would be interesting if he published an update to his theories and science with current technology and the now certain knowledge about the environmental and climate impact of burning oil used in his calculations.
Now, 15 years later in 2023, it is apparent to most of us that, though his theories and science are sound, technologies have changed the specifics of the science somewhat and we now KNOW that the environmental and climate impact of burning oil (as well as coal, natural gas, and other petroleum products) is the more urgent than the issue of running out.
Is the book still interesting? Yes, though I would take the general conceptual theories and science and leave the specifics.
It would be interesting if he published an update to his theories and science with current technology and the now certain knowledge about the environmental and climate impact of burning oil used in his calculations.
July 19, 2023
It didn't take too long reading this in 2023 that it was two decades old. It is in need of an update after fracking (but it is true that just slid the dates, but the premise is still true)
There was quite a bit of looking at alternatives, but at times it almost moved more into a science class going into details that didn't seem to me all that important in fixing the issue.
But the book is good about a huge problem.
There was quite a bit of looking at alternatives, but at times it almost moved more into a science class going into details that didn't seem to me all that important in fixing the issue.
But the book is good about a huge problem.
January 18, 2019
Decent collection of information. Mainly statistical knowledge.
September 9, 2019
This book written by David Goodstein explores the possibilities of the future for humanity when all crude oil provided by mother nature runs out. What if the source of power linked to our cars, vehicles, and several other devices and forms of transportation vital to our current lifestyle just...ran out? What then? David Goodstein illustrates all the possibilities, including best-case and worst-case scenarios and scientific formulas calculating alternate solutions and the source of our issues involving this inevitable crisis. The author paints a clear picture of what would happen after the said "Hubbert's Peak", the time when half of all crude oil was used, marking a sudden rise in demand for oil. Because of the rising demand, oil would be produced at an exponential rate to satisfy the needs of the consumers until eventually, we are left with no oil, caught off guard. I recommend this book to people interested in climate change and science.
October 4, 2011
I'm concerned about oil dependency: it's a limited resource, and the faster we consume it the sooner we'll run out. So, I'm keen on encouraging alternatives (e.g. cycling) so that we can eke out our supply for a bit longer; we also need to plan ahead for when it's all gone. I expected this book to cover those topics in more detail, but it only touched on them briefly.
Instead, this is similar to The Science of Discworld: it covers a lot of "history of science". Some of it was familiar to me from A level Physics, but I had to struggle to keep up. It was interesting, and if you've been to university then you should be able to handle it, but I can't honestly describe it as a book that everyone should read. Goodstein explains what the problem is: in particular, it's a "fuel crisis" rather than an "energy crisis". He also describes various ways to generate energy, along with their pros and cons. For instance, switching to nuclear fission wouldn't be a long term solution; even if you ignore the problems of toxic waste, there's only a limited amount of fuel to power those stations, so it would simply delay the inevitable. He's not very optimistic about nuclear fusion, so he seems to advocate solar power as our best bet, possibly from satellites.
The key principle of the book is Hubbert's peak. This basically says that we'll be in trouble when we've used up half of the total oil that was ever available, because after that we'll be consuming it faster than we can pull it out of the ground. However, this book doesn't describe why that is the case; it simply says that Hubbert made this prediction for the "lower 48 states" in the USA, and he turned out to be correct, so he's probably right about the rest of the world too. The bibliography refers to Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage and I think I'll need to read that. If that the theory is correct, we're due to hit the peak very soon, i.e. within 5-10 years.
I've assumed that moving to electric power is a good idea, because that makes us "fuel agnostic", e.g. our computers and cars could be powered by oil today and then nuclear fusion later, without needing to change any wiring. However, Goodstein says that batteries are very inefficient, so it takes six times as much oil to power an electric car as it would for a petrol car. Using electricity immediately doesn't have that problem, so electric trains/trams are more efficient than battery powered buses.
I wouldn't recommend this book to everyone, but I'd hope that our elected MPs are aware of these issues. (Whatever else you say about Margaret Thatcher, she had a degree in Chemistry, and I think we need a few more influential scientists now.)
Instead, this is similar to The Science of Discworld: it covers a lot of "history of science". Some of it was familiar to me from A level Physics, but I had to struggle to keep up. It was interesting, and if you've been to university then you should be able to handle it, but I can't honestly describe it as a book that everyone should read. Goodstein explains what the problem is: in particular, it's a "fuel crisis" rather than an "energy crisis". He also describes various ways to generate energy, along with their pros and cons. For instance, switching to nuclear fission wouldn't be a long term solution; even if you ignore the problems of toxic waste, there's only a limited amount of fuel to power those stations, so it would simply delay the inevitable. He's not very optimistic about nuclear fusion, so he seems to advocate solar power as our best bet, possibly from satellites.
The key principle of the book is Hubbert's peak. This basically says that we'll be in trouble when we've used up half of the total oil that was ever available, because after that we'll be consuming it faster than we can pull it out of the ground. However, this book doesn't describe why that is the case; it simply says that Hubbert made this prediction for the "lower 48 states" in the USA, and he turned out to be correct, so he's probably right about the rest of the world too. The bibliography refers to Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage and I think I'll need to read that. If that the theory is correct, we're due to hit the peak very soon, i.e. within 5-10 years.
I've assumed that moving to electric power is a good idea, because that makes us "fuel agnostic", e.g. our computers and cars could be powered by oil today and then nuclear fusion later, without needing to change any wiring. However, Goodstein says that batteries are very inefficient, so it takes six times as much oil to power an electric car as it would for a petrol car. Using electricity immediately doesn't have that problem, so electric trains/trams are more efficient than battery powered buses.
I wouldn't recommend this book to everyone, but I'd hope that our elected MPs are aware of these issues. (Whatever else you say about Margaret Thatcher, she had a degree in Chemistry, and I think we need a few more influential scientists now.)
November 11, 2015
A great, albeit very short overview of Peak Oil from a technical stand point. Don't worry it is written for a general non-scientific audience, in fact I would say most of the scientific principles of energy, electromagnetism and thermodynamics are basic high school stuff. Still, to hear this coming crisis of humanity reaffirmed by a physicist lends the whole idea more credence.
In just a few chapters, the author examines the basics of energy, how combustion engines, electric motors and batteries work, then proceeds to outline the challenges in finding alternatives to the energy dense, low entropy fossil fuels we so flagrantly burn to power our industrial civilization. It is not completely bleak, he claims, as we already know the general principles of nuclear power that could theoretically replace fossil fuels some time in the future, when combined with exponentially more efficient batteries and motors to power electric vehicles. But he is not optimistic that it would save us in time because of the long lead times and massive scaling up required. I concur, and the situation is aptly summed up in the book's dedication "To our children and grandchildren, who will not inherit the riches that we inherit."
In just a few chapters, the author examines the basics of energy, how combustion engines, electric motors and batteries work, then proceeds to outline the challenges in finding alternatives to the energy dense, low entropy fossil fuels we so flagrantly burn to power our industrial civilization. It is not completely bleak, he claims, as we already know the general principles of nuclear power that could theoretically replace fossil fuels some time in the future, when combined with exponentially more efficient batteries and motors to power electric vehicles. But he is not optimistic that it would save us in time because of the long lead times and massive scaling up required. I concur, and the situation is aptly summed up in the book's dedication "To our children and grandchildren, who will not inherit the riches that we inherit."
August 24, 2010
I think I've just read too much of the green literature, because I'm getting very picky, and this wasn't a winner for me. It seems like a "for the love of sanity, listen to me!" plea written during George W. Bush's first term, before the oil price spike, before "An Inconvenient Truth." The author is very knowledgeable but doesn't frame his argument particularly well. More than 50% of the book is basic science, which is important but which isn't sufficient support for the argument he's trying to make. If you start off with the structure of the atom, proceed through the development of the steam engine, and then jump straight to peak oil, you haven't actually said much about where we are today or where we need to go.
Mostly, this book is just outdated, even though it was published in 2004. Much of what the author says about unconventional oil sources and about renewable energy technologies is not accurate today. (For example, tar sands and shale oil are more economically feasible than Goodstein allows.) Unfortunately, updated information would significantly change some of the conclusions of the book.
Mostly, this book is just outdated, even though it was published in 2004. Much of what the author says about unconventional oil sources and about renewable energy technologies is not accurate today. (For example, tar sands and shale oil are more economically feasible than Goodstein allows.) Unfortunately, updated information would significantly change some of the conclusions of the book.
April 9, 2016
2.5 stars. We will run out of oil in the near future. In this book, Goodstein looks at the history and future of energy and alternatives to keep our lifestyle as is, once the oil is gone.
I am a bit mixed on this one. There were parts that I found interesting, but there were other parts that had a little too much science for me and lost me! A lot of it, he explained so that I could understand, but in some places, I just couldn't concentrate enough on what he was saying and my mind would wander. I think the parts I found most interesting were those in which he was talking about global warming and talking about the world running out of oil. I kind of got lost in the parts where he was explaining alternative energy sources and how they all work, and really getting into the details of it.
It might be slightly more interesting for those a little more science-minded.
I am a bit mixed on this one. There were parts that I found interesting, but there were other parts that had a little too much science for me and lost me! A lot of it, he explained so that I could understand, but in some places, I just couldn't concentrate enough on what he was saying and my mind would wander. I think the parts I found most interesting were those in which he was talking about global warming and talking about the world running out of oil. I kind of got lost in the parts where he was explaining alternative energy sources and how they all work, and really getting into the details of it.
It might be slightly more interesting for those a little more science-minded.
April 19, 2008
I’m not sure why this particular title is getting so much attention, given that Rifkin’s Hydrogen Economy is better documented and comes to the slightly less insane conclusion that renewables/alternative energies are the path to salvation while Goodstein argues that nuclear energy is the only way to prop up our energy regime. While I don’t agree with his solution, he does undertake a layman’s explanation of thermodynamic principles that should be of utmost importance to us all. But again, I think Rifkin tops him on this area as well. Worth a glance, but it shouldn’t be the basis of a decision on where to take our society from where we are right now.
July 22, 2008
If you know nothing about "peak oil" or the reality hitting us in the face of 4 dollar/gal gas and rising due to global demand-driven oil scarcity and its prevasively chronic geo-political problems then read this. Dr. Goodstein is a physicist at Caltech and former Vice Provost of the institution. He knows what he is talking about.
February 9, 2010
Goodstein outlines the implications for reaching Peak Oil i.e. where (ever increasing) demand is not met by (historically ever increasing but from now on diminishing) supply. This is the point at which lifestyle choices on fuel consumption change forever. What will those uncomfortable about this do about it?
November 13, 2013
I found this book very interesting as it sends out a very true and worrying warning. That without change our day-to-day lifestyle can not be sustained. I also enjoyed its clear descriptions of key physics theory's for example the law of thermodynamics, and also the range of possibilities for the future. Overall this is definitely something i can recommend especially for a A-level student.
April 27, 2007
The entire book revolves around the Hubbert Peak Theory, a theory which has no merit when used to analyze oil production on a global scale. Another attempt for oil pessimist to make us believe that oil will deplete in 10 days. Not recommended.
January 12, 2010
whether it's completely valid or not, this little volume is a good reminder of the damage we've already done to the planet, and projects dim prospects for the future, unless we do something soon. fact or fiction, it's food for thought.
June 21, 2008
Great short book on the impending oil crisis, how oil is formed, and potential alternative energy sources.
July 20, 2008
Interesting. Recommended by my college-age daughter as an eye-opener.
Want to read
January 12, 2009Not universally agreed to, topic is crucial, and so: interesting!
March 26, 2009
Scary.
September 2, 2008
Need to read on where our earth is going!
Read
December 17, 2008good short book for basic science information! a good companion to the long emergency.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews