What do you think?
Rate this book
Energy Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate
There are many misconceptions about the future of global energy often presented as fact by the media, politicians, business leaders, activists, and even scientists―wasting time and money and hampering the development of progressive energy policies. Energy Myths and Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate debunks the most common fallacies to make way for a constructive, scientific approach to the global energy challenge. When will the world run out of oil? Should nuclear energy be adopted on a larger scale? Are ethanol and wind power viable sources of energy for the future? Vaclav Smil advises the public to be wary of exaggerated claims and impossible promises. The global energy transition will be prolonged and expensive―and hinges on the development of an extensive new infrastructure. Established technologies and traditional energy sources are persistent and adaptable enough to see the world through that transition. Energy Myths and Realities brings a scientific perspective to an issue often dominated by groundless assertions, unfounded claims, and uncritical thinking. Before we can create sound energy policies for the future, we must renounce the popular myths that cloud our judgment and impede true progress.
232 pages, Hardcover
First published August 16, 2010
110 people are currently reading
5661 people want to read
About the author
Vaclav Smil
71 books4,293 followersVaclav Smil Ph.D. (Geography, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences of Pennsylvania State University, 1971; RNDr., Charles University, Prague, 1965), is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and in 2010 was named by Foreign Policy as one of the Top 100 Global Thinkers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
December 12, 2014
The book is a clear analysis and critique of types of energy used, including coal, oil, natural gas, wind, and biofuels. There is lot of wisdom in Smil's presentation of the scope of the problem as we transition from fossil fuels. He takes a similar approach as Minoru Kyo in Already Extinct in that he delimits the ability of renewable alternatives to replacing coal, oil and natural gas.
My main complaint of the presentation is that he does not really take seriously the potential threats of climate change in his suggestions for government policy and in the decision making process.
He also tends to mock the idea of peak oil, though his own data does not contradict it - it seems he is responding more to what he considers to be 'catastrophism' proffered by some people (using the perjorative of 'environmentalist'). In the larger scope of things, it really doesn't matter if oil production peaks in five years, twenty years or the year before last. The reality is that civilization will have to address the replacement of liquid fuels or begin the transition to other energy-types for transporation. This leads me to the complaint that he has a technophilic mindset - that solutions will come because humans are so ingenious. This is unsupported by the last fifty years of innovation.
And, finally, Smil disguises our current energy position by positing that our 'energy intensity' is improving - that we use less fuel per $GDP than the past. He fails, however, to consider what makes up the GDP (of the United States) - certainly off-shoring energy intensive production to China and Korea might influence these numbers. A better approach might be material throughput including imported products.
Those are my complaints, and they are commonly found in most books like this: there is little context (eg. climate change, poverty, the energy needs of areas other than North America and Europe, 9 billion people on the planet by 2050 and, generally, political will); reduction in consumption is overlooked, as are any lifestyle changes; intergenerational equity is ignored; and an unteneble optimism based on technology and human ingenuity.
Energy is complex, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions complicates the speed at which change is required. Smil's book is useful but too limited in scope (i.e., energy in the real world rather than an exercise in engineering).
My main complaint of the presentation is that he does not really take seriously the potential threats of climate change in his suggestions for government policy and in the decision making process.
He also tends to mock the idea of peak oil, though his own data does not contradict it - it seems he is responding more to what he considers to be 'catastrophism' proffered by some people (using the perjorative of 'environmentalist'). In the larger scope of things, it really doesn't matter if oil production peaks in five years, twenty years or the year before last. The reality is that civilization will have to address the replacement of liquid fuels or begin the transition to other energy-types for transporation. This leads me to the complaint that he has a technophilic mindset - that solutions will come because humans are so ingenious. This is unsupported by the last fifty years of innovation.
And, finally, Smil disguises our current energy position by positing that our 'energy intensity' is improving - that we use less fuel per $GDP than the past. He fails, however, to consider what makes up the GDP (of the United States) - certainly off-shoring energy intensive production to China and Korea might influence these numbers. A better approach might be material throughput including imported products.
Those are my complaints, and they are commonly found in most books like this: there is little context (eg. climate change, poverty, the energy needs of areas other than North America and Europe, 9 billion people on the planet by 2050 and, generally, political will); reduction in consumption is overlooked, as are any lifestyle changes; intergenerational equity is ignored; and an unteneble optimism based on technology and human ingenuity.
Energy is complex, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions complicates the speed at which change is required. Smil's book is useful but too limited in scope (i.e., energy in the real world rather than an exercise in engineering).
November 26, 2013
A good overview of the inherent difficulties in meeting our carbon budget. Unfortunately, the book has little to no insight on how to actually address the climate crisis. Shooting down others ideas is easy, providing solutions is hard.
Read
March 7, 2016I liked the core idea, presented by Smil, that energy dreams are not properly connected to reality. He presents many cases to prove his beliefs and, I think, he fairly mentions many quantitative results to support his ideas; however, there are some failures in his book that should be discussed. Although he tries to think about problems scientifically, I would never name his book as ‘bringing science to the energy policy debate’ as his disagreements are not fully supported by science. In some parts he just reviews the history and based on that review argues an energy or technology forecast for the future.
I absolutely agree with Smil on the importance of timing and extend of future adoption of new energy sources but, I believe, he does not provide enough scientific evidence in many cases to make his conclusion. For instance, he only reviews the maturity durations of oil and natural gas in the US and tries to convince his audiences that any new source of energy needs to wait for at least half a century to be used in the country. I was also surprised that he does not discuss about solar energy as much as other energy sources in his book, it seems he just ignored it.
I believe he did a better job on the first part of the book (‘Lessons from the past’ on electric cars, nuclear electricity and soft-energy) than the second. Finally, his quick summation in the conclusion chapter notes some good advice that could be pretty useful for technical authors in the field of energy. Following such advice would reduce the number of publications that only play with mathematical/statistical models and try to produce some forecast on the use of energy.
I absolutely agree with Smil on the importance of timing and extend of future adoption of new energy sources but, I believe, he does not provide enough scientific evidence in many cases to make his conclusion. For instance, he only reviews the maturity durations of oil and natural gas in the US and tries to convince his audiences that any new source of energy needs to wait for at least half a century to be used in the country. I was also surprised that he does not discuss about solar energy as much as other energy sources in his book, it seems he just ignored it.
I believe he did a better job on the first part of the book (‘Lessons from the past’ on electric cars, nuclear electricity and soft-energy) than the second. Finally, his quick summation in the conclusion chapter notes some good advice that could be pretty useful for technical authors in the field of energy. Following such advice would reduce the number of publications that only play with mathematical/statistical models and try to produce some forecast on the use of energy.
June 29, 2022
This book had been in my list for a long long time. I took it up after a friend mentioned that Bill Gates had recommended Vaclav Smil's books. Having already read his Energy: A Beginner's Guide, I knew he's a reputable authority on the subject.
I identify myself as a person who is conscious about the environment, so it was a natural decision for me to read this book.
Here I present some major highlights from the book that stood out for me:
Electric Vehicles :
He begins by discussing whether the widespread adoption of electric vehicles is feasible or not.
He goes to explain that an increase in such vehicles would require a whole lot of extra power generation. Taking into account the losses, it would be a gigantic task. Not to mention the setting up of infrastructure, along with large scale battery production.
He also tells about how making improvements in existing gasoline engines (DiesOtto engine, need to read more about it) might be a more rational approach for the time being.
Nuclear Power :
Touted as the ultimate panacea for humanity's ever increasing demands for power. Not quite though.
High costs, and regulations out the wazoo restrict the possibilities of full realisation of its potential.
Public perception also seems to be more negative than it ought to be.
Carbon Sequestration :
I learnt about using biochar for carbon sequestration.
He explained why plankton proliferation can't be relied for sequestering carbon to the seabed.
One thing that really bugged me was the author shooting down each method for carbon sequestration explaining how that particular method cannot be the solution exclusively. Well how about employing each one of these methods in tandem?
He emphasises the point that instead of focusing on sequestration, efforts should instead be aimed at reducing our carbon output. This is because no matter how sure we are of our sequestering technologies, there always exists the possibility that that trapped carbon could escape back into the environment.
Biofuels :
He destroys the idea of using corn to make ethanol using various very valid arguments.
He does suggest that sugarcane is better suited for ethanol, but there are caveats.
He also points out the various drawbacks in using crop residues for ethanol production (by breaking down their cellulose).
He even discusses how using spent coffee grounds or human fucking fat (!) for biofuel production is a delirious idea.
Other Topics :
He also talks about the peak-oil theory and how nobody has successfully predicted its coming. I honestly can't think how anyone can believe that bullshit.
He also expounds on the topic of slow pace of energy transitions and technology adoption.
He explains in depth why PV cells won't experience the same growth as silicon chips (the cells are only a part of the total cost; batteries inverters, installation costs account for the majority of expenses).
Note: Since this book was originally published in 2010, I had to do quite some extra research to make sense of things.
So if you do choose to read this book, be prepared to see some of his ideas being proved wrong with the passage of time. For example, he was quite sceptical of the EV proliferation; but we see that the world is now looking up to its promises, and vast advances are being made by governments all over the world regarding their laws and infrastructure.
I identify myself as a person who is conscious about the environment, so it was a natural decision for me to read this book.
Here I present some major highlights from the book that stood out for me:
Electric Vehicles :
He begins by discussing whether the widespread adoption of electric vehicles is feasible or not.
He goes to explain that an increase in such vehicles would require a whole lot of extra power generation. Taking into account the losses, it would be a gigantic task. Not to mention the setting up of infrastructure, along with large scale battery production.
He also tells about how making improvements in existing gasoline engines (DiesOtto engine, need to read more about it) might be a more rational approach for the time being.
Nuclear Power :
Touted as the ultimate panacea for humanity's ever increasing demands for power. Not quite though.
High costs, and regulations out the wazoo restrict the possibilities of full realisation of its potential.
Public perception also seems to be more negative than it ought to be.
Carbon Sequestration :
I learnt about using biochar for carbon sequestration.
He explained why plankton proliferation can't be relied for sequestering carbon to the seabed.
One thing that really bugged me was the author shooting down each method for carbon sequestration explaining how that particular method cannot be the solution exclusively. Well how about employing each one of these methods in tandem?
He emphasises the point that instead of focusing on sequestration, efforts should instead be aimed at reducing our carbon output. This is because no matter how sure we are of our sequestering technologies, there always exists the possibility that that trapped carbon could escape back into the environment.
Biofuels :
He destroys the idea of using corn to make ethanol using various very valid arguments.
He does suggest that sugarcane is better suited for ethanol, but there are caveats.
He also points out the various drawbacks in using crop residues for ethanol production (by breaking down their cellulose).
He even discusses how using spent coffee grounds or human fucking fat (!) for biofuel production is a delirious idea.
Other Topics :
He also talks about the peak-oil theory and how nobody has successfully predicted its coming. I honestly can't think how anyone can believe that bullshit.
He also expounds on the topic of slow pace of energy transitions and technology adoption.
He explains in depth why PV cells won't experience the same growth as silicon chips (the cells are only a part of the total cost; batteries inverters, installation costs account for the majority of expenses).
Note: Since this book was originally published in 2010, I had to do quite some extra research to make sense of things.
So if you do choose to read this book, be prepared to see some of his ideas being proved wrong with the passage of time. For example, he was quite sceptical of the EV proliferation; but we see that the world is now looking up to its promises, and vast advances are being made by governments all over the world regarding their laws and infrastructure.
October 20, 2017
Nothing lasts forever, including coal and oil. Regardless of their environmental impact (as noxious fumes or released greenhouse gases), ultimately humanity will have to transition away from fossil fuels for want of supplies. Vaclav Smil warns in Energy Myths and Realities, however, that a shift to renewable energy is a long-term project, not something that can be done in a mere decade. In this brief on the intersection between science and public policy, Smil analyzes the prospects of various energy alternatives, and takes apart viral hopes and hysteria.
Immediately after the Fukushima disaster, Germany announced that it would be abandoning nuclear power and replacing it in toto with renewable energy. The fact that certain economic realities have instead forced the planning of new coal power plants is not surprising; historically, every transformation of the energy sector has taken decades, and at the early stages there’s no way of knowing which application of a technology will prove the best. Smil is therefore not optimistic about the prospects for an all-electric automobile fleet; it would require supporting infrastructure (networks of charging stations, for instance), and such an increase in energy that only doubling down on coal and oil could meet. Because wind and solar are still struggling to make inroads into the energy market, they can hardly be relied on to supply a greatly expanded electric fleet. An expansion of coal and oil to power these new cars would thus only transfer the pollution. The right approach to the cars themselves is still being tinkered with, from fuel cells to hybrids. A more recent approach, used by the Chevrolet Volt, is to use gasoline as a generator inside the car, recharging the battery.
Smil is more dubious about biofuels, which he argues are both inefficient and disruptive to food markets. He is ambivalent about wind and solar, either, at least at the national-grid scale proposed for them. In certain locales and markets, they can make sense and pull their weight, but the chances of their supplanting coal and oil in terms of reliability and affordability are remote in the extreme. Smil is more hopeful about hydroelectric (when geographically possible) and nuclear energy, though the latter has a serious public relations problem. Even so, there’s a chance for revival: even in Japan reactors are coming back online, with more scheduled for the future. In addition to analyzing the prospects for various alternatives, Smil also addresses popular misconceptions relating to energy, from peak oil to nuclear energy too cheap to meter.
Ultimately, the author says, the world will move away from fossil fuels, particularly oil; economics and technology may expand our current capacity, but it is a finite resource. He does not expect any drama, however, -- neither a sudden peak oil global collapse, or a sudden leap forward into the bright and happy carbon-clean future.
Immediately after the Fukushima disaster, Germany announced that it would be abandoning nuclear power and replacing it in toto with renewable energy. The fact that certain economic realities have instead forced the planning of new coal power plants is not surprising; historically, every transformation of the energy sector has taken decades, and at the early stages there’s no way of knowing which application of a technology will prove the best. Smil is therefore not optimistic about the prospects for an all-electric automobile fleet; it would require supporting infrastructure (networks of charging stations, for instance), and such an increase in energy that only doubling down on coal and oil could meet. Because wind and solar are still struggling to make inroads into the energy market, they can hardly be relied on to supply a greatly expanded electric fleet. An expansion of coal and oil to power these new cars would thus only transfer the pollution. The right approach to the cars themselves is still being tinkered with, from fuel cells to hybrids. A more recent approach, used by the Chevrolet Volt, is to use gasoline as a generator inside the car, recharging the battery.
Smil is more dubious about biofuels, which he argues are both inefficient and disruptive to food markets. He is ambivalent about wind and solar, either, at least at the national-grid scale proposed for them. In certain locales and markets, they can make sense and pull their weight, but the chances of their supplanting coal and oil in terms of reliability and affordability are remote in the extreme. Smil is more hopeful about hydroelectric (when geographically possible) and nuclear energy, though the latter has a serious public relations problem. Even so, there’s a chance for revival: even in Japan reactors are coming back online, with more scheduled for the future. In addition to analyzing the prospects for various alternatives, Smil also addresses popular misconceptions relating to energy, from peak oil to nuclear energy too cheap to meter.
Ultimately, the author says, the world will move away from fossil fuels, particularly oil; economics and technology may expand our current capacity, but it is a finite resource. He does not expect any drama, however, -- neither a sudden peak oil global collapse, or a sudden leap forward into the bright and happy carbon-clean future.
November 4, 2020
For someone excited about clean energy, carbon sequestration, electric cars, or nuclear power, this book sure was a downer. In Energy Myths and Realities, Smil systematically uses scientific studies to debunk the hype behind these massive trends.
Smil mainly covers five different prevalent energy myths surrounding electric vehicles, nuclear power, carbon sequestration, peak oil, and wind energy. His main takeaways: electric vehicles aren't a panacea to transportation pollution and won't comprise a significant auto market share, nuclear energy isn't going to power the whole grid, carbon sequestration is costly and unproven, peak oil won't happen (at least not how we think it will), and wind energy also can't power the whole grid due to reliability issues and a lack of high voltage transmission cables connecting grids across the US.
Smil used these myths to generate five key lessons (he really loves five).
1. Distrust any strong, unqualified claims regarding the pace, timing, and extent of future adoption of new energy sources or the diffusion and performance of new energy conversion techniques
2. Don't underestimate the persistence and adaptability of old energy resources and established prime movers, especially those that have been around for more than a century
3. Do not uncritically embrace unproven new energies and processes just because they fit some preconceived ideological mold
4. Be mindful or extensive and often very expensive, infrastructural requirements that must be put into place before any new ways of energy supply and use can be widely adopted
5. Remember that energy transitions are inherently prolonged affairs lasting decades, not years
Overall, I found Energy Myths and Realities to be an informative albeit cynical view of the future of our energy production and consumption. My main gripe was Smil sometimes deceptive use of statistics and percentages to further his agenda. When you make a point that US gasoline consumption is 80% of Japan's total energy consumption as a way to emphasize gas usage without also stating that Japan has a nearly 10x higher population density, 1/3 of the population size, and 1/26 of the same landmass, it distorts the point trying to be made. With that said, there were definitely some solid takeaways, and I would recommend for those interested in learning more about US energy policy.
Smil mainly covers five different prevalent energy myths surrounding electric vehicles, nuclear power, carbon sequestration, peak oil, and wind energy. His main takeaways: electric vehicles aren't a panacea to transportation pollution and won't comprise a significant auto market share, nuclear energy isn't going to power the whole grid, carbon sequestration is costly and unproven, peak oil won't happen (at least not how we think it will), and wind energy also can't power the whole grid due to reliability issues and a lack of high voltage transmission cables connecting grids across the US.
Smil used these myths to generate five key lessons (he really loves five).
1. Distrust any strong, unqualified claims regarding the pace, timing, and extent of future adoption of new energy sources or the diffusion and performance of new energy conversion techniques
2. Don't underestimate the persistence and adaptability of old energy resources and established prime movers, especially those that have been around for more than a century
3. Do not uncritically embrace unproven new energies and processes just because they fit some preconceived ideological mold
4. Be mindful or extensive and often very expensive, infrastructural requirements that must be put into place before any new ways of energy supply and use can be widely adopted
5. Remember that energy transitions are inherently prolonged affairs lasting decades, not years
Overall, I found Energy Myths and Realities to be an informative albeit cynical view of the future of our energy production and consumption. My main gripe was Smil sometimes deceptive use of statistics and percentages to further his agenda. When you make a point that US gasoline consumption is 80% of Japan's total energy consumption as a way to emphasize gas usage without also stating that Japan has a nearly 10x higher population density, 1/3 of the population size, and 1/26 of the same landmass, it distorts the point trying to be made. With that said, there were definitely some solid takeaways, and I would recommend for those interested in learning more about US energy policy.
October 24, 2022
A thoughtful, detailed, but at times snotty, diatribe against past attempts to overcome our fossil-fuel economy, that leaves me wanting equally thoughtful and detailed constructive suggestions for moving forward rather than accepting the status quo.
February 14, 2022
利用專業數字來替幻想不實的能源替代方案潑冷水，講白了，沒有人知道未來如何，但科技總是在一步一步發展，所有能源都有專業在背後支撐，普羅大眾急著跟風只會扯後腿而不會對世界有任何幫助的，天下本無事，庸人自擾之…
電動車在可預見的未來要全面取代燃油車並沒有太大的可能，而碳排放也只是轉嫁到發電廠而已；
核電也並非價格遠低於燃煤燃油，這也是為什麼燃煤燃氣仍佔有相當大的發電比例；
綠能至今只佔全球發電的一小部分，而且極不穩定；
取自植物的酒精燃料完全取代汽油需要大量的全球耕地，並且還會消耗大量的水資源與造成環境問題；
二氧化碳封存的技術困難與昂貴；
石油何時耗盡眾說紛紜沒有定案；
能源轉型本身就有緩慢的特性；
電動車在可預見的未來要全面取代燃油車並沒有太大的可能，而碳排放也只是轉嫁到發電廠而已；
核電也並非價格遠低於燃煤燃油，這也是為什麼燃煤燃氣仍佔有相當大的發電比例；
綠能至今只佔全球發電的一小部分，而且極不穩定；
取自植物的酒精燃料完全取代汽油需要大量的全球耕地，並且還會消耗大量的水資源與造成環境問題；
二氧化碳封存的技術困難與昂貴；
石油何時耗盡眾說紛紜沒有定案；
能源轉型本身就有緩慢的特性；
January 31, 2024
Interesting facts and numbers, but having it read 10+ years after it was written, in a fast paced changing world, don’t know how much of it still stands true
February 21, 2021
Interesting read for anybody curious about old and new/alternative energy sources. Although a little outdated at this stage (published in 2010), the book provides detailed explanations and data for most major types of energy sources (from coal, crude oil and natural gas, to wind, solar and nuclear energy). The author effectively covers controversial topics such as nuclear energy being an excellent option to fight climate change and/or why crop-based fuels will never become a major energy source. If it was not for the author's constant scepticism and harsh criticism of other experts (without actually proposing any solutions himself), I would have rated this book higher.
February 17, 2021
The author does a good job outlining challenges of current renewable energies as well as debunking myths around energy. At points, the author approaches certain items with a very pessimistic outlook (in my opinion). Good read overall, would love to read a 2021 update from him on this matter.
January 31, 2024
1. Civilization is not nearing its end. Peak oil theories claiming so are unsupported by evidence
“Humanity was depleting the world’s oil supplies at such a rate that a drastic shortage of oil was imminent” But in fact, these claims are completely unfounded and unjustified. A big part of the problem in peak oil theories is overly focused on the supply side of the equation, meaning global oil production, neglecting the demand side and how it is influenced by oil prices. It is believe that progressively lower oil production we’ve seen over the years is indicative of a physical shortage of oil, when in fact it’s merely due to a decrease in demand.
Also, our future need for oil will likely decrease thanks to our increasing use of alternative fuels as well as technological innovations, efficiency improvements and better resource management.
So while humanity will eventually transition away from oil due to depleted supplies and the rising cost of its extraction, our reduction in crude oil usage will not mean the end of civilization, rather just a gradual transition to something else.
2. Carbon sequestration (capturing and storing greenhouse gases so they don’t affect the atmosphere) is a costly, inefficient and risky way to tackle global warming
Sequestration would demand setting up approximately 160,000 CO2 capture towers, also known as “artificial trees” which would be very costly, not to mention the added expense of compressing, transporting and storing the gas.
Of course, plants are continuously sequestering carbon, as they inhale CO2. But to intervene in global warming with plant-driven carbon sequestration would demand a lot of land, resources and time for the plants to grow.
Storing the sequestered carbon is also difficult and risky. The acidity of the carbon could well eat away at the storage facility, eventually allowing the carbon to leak out again. Herein is the problem that people don’t want carbon storage sites near their homes because the sites are inherently hazardous: toxic metals could seep into the drinking water supply due to the stored carbon’s high acidity.
3. Replacing crude oil with biofuel is neither feasible nor efficient
Producing biofuel from plants is costly and environmentally damaging. It requires vast amounts of land to grow the crops. By 2050 the global population will reach nine billion, and we simply can’t devote so much land to producing biofuel when people also need to grow food crops to eat. Nor can we clear more land for the purpose, since deforestation is already a problem, and clearing forest on such a massive scale would have severe climatological consequences.
Also, biofuel does not represent a sensible solution in many oil-based vehicles. For example, in the US, many cars have such dismal fuel efficiency that from an environmental perspective, it would make more sense to improve this factor than to convert them to run on biofuel. Also, many of today’s road vehicles, ships and airplanes are built to use refined oil products that biofuel cannot replace.
Therefore before any kind of large-scale biofuel production is implemented, the overall transport system should be improved and optimized to address these issues.
4. Wind energy is too difficult to harness for it to power the world
Energy potential of the most powerful winds is difficult to harness because they blow in the jetstream, some eleven kilometers above the earth. Their location also tends to shift depending on the seasons, so utilizing them would be very inconvenient: it would require deploying massive amounts of flying generators tethered to the earth with aluminum lines.
Traditional wind farms also have their problems: require large amounts of land because the turbines need to be spaced apart from each other, and this means they produce relatively little power per square kilometer.
Locals may object to wind farms due to their appearance, feeling that the ugly things spoil their view of the countryside or waterfront. And turbines are also loud and pose a threat to local bird and bat populations.
Wind energy is dependent on the wind, which is notoriously fickle. Wind speeds vary depending on the time of year and geographic location, meaning that if wind was the world’s predominant power source, a vast network of intercontinental high-voltage transmission lines would be needed to even out the shifting imbalances in global production. The wind fluctuations would create great price fluctuations.
5. Be patient: any new energy innovation will take decades to be adopted
Remember these few rules of thumb when someone claims that the world’s energy landscape will change radically very quickly:
First, don’t underestimate how long the conventional energy sources will linger. Analysis has shown that established energy supply patterns can persist over generations. So rather than rushing to embrace a new energy source like biofuel on a large scale, we should first focus on optimizing efficiency in the production and use of the incumbent sources.
Second, be distrustful when someone claims a new energy source will be adopted very rapidly and enthusiastically on a global level. Even energy technologies that are clearly superior will be adopted only gradually. Various players in the energy debate have their own agendas, and therefore often deliberately use misleading arguments or misinterpret data from scientific studies to bolster their claim that something will happen quickly.
Third, remember that any major adoption of a new energy innovation will probably require extensive and very expensive changes to the infrastructure. These changes demand large investments as well as overcoming legal and environmental issues, which takes time.
6. Energy policy decisions should be objective, with a premium placed on avoiding environmental damage
First, there are many competing ideologies and interests at play, but energy policy decisions must be made based on a rational and objective cost-benefit analysis. For example, at the moment the oil and gas industry is lobbying powerfully for carbon sequestration as the answer to global warming, but they are hardly objective experts: the ability to store carbon would be a new revenue stream for them, while at the same time making them look less responsible for global warming.
Second, remember that there are vast regional differences in terms of energy demand and production. For example, it may be that some energy innovations are easier to implement in developing countries than in developed ones, because the latter already have fully fledged economies running on fossil fuels, and people used to having cheap power to charge their iPads.
Third, all decisions should adhere to the maxim that avoiding or minimizing environmental damage is always better than trying to neutralize it afterwards. Case in point: In 2005 and 2006, biofuels were promoted grandiosely, only for later analysis to reveal how harmful their production is for the environment.
Meanwhile, instead of fixating on ways to sequester the carbon already in the atmosphere, affluent nations should focus on managing their own energy use so they become less dependent on fossil fuels and can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
Insight-insight baru yang informatif dan fresh.
“Humanity was depleting the world’s oil supplies at such a rate that a drastic shortage of oil was imminent” But in fact, these claims are completely unfounded and unjustified. A big part of the problem in peak oil theories is overly focused on the supply side of the equation, meaning global oil production, neglecting the demand side and how it is influenced by oil prices. It is believe that progressively lower oil production we’ve seen over the years is indicative of a physical shortage of oil, when in fact it’s merely due to a decrease in demand.
Also, our future need for oil will likely decrease thanks to our increasing use of alternative fuels as well as technological innovations, efficiency improvements and better resource management.
So while humanity will eventually transition away from oil due to depleted supplies and the rising cost of its extraction, our reduction in crude oil usage will not mean the end of civilization, rather just a gradual transition to something else.
2. Carbon sequestration (capturing and storing greenhouse gases so they don’t affect the atmosphere) is a costly, inefficient and risky way to tackle global warming
Sequestration would demand setting up approximately 160,000 CO2 capture towers, also known as “artificial trees” which would be very costly, not to mention the added expense of compressing, transporting and storing the gas.
Of course, plants are continuously sequestering carbon, as they inhale CO2. But to intervene in global warming with plant-driven carbon sequestration would demand a lot of land, resources and time for the plants to grow.
Storing the sequestered carbon is also difficult and risky. The acidity of the carbon could well eat away at the storage facility, eventually allowing the carbon to leak out again. Herein is the problem that people don’t want carbon storage sites near their homes because the sites are inherently hazardous: toxic metals could seep into the drinking water supply due to the stored carbon’s high acidity.
3. Replacing crude oil with biofuel is neither feasible nor efficient
Producing biofuel from plants is costly and environmentally damaging. It requires vast amounts of land to grow the crops. By 2050 the global population will reach nine billion, and we simply can’t devote so much land to producing biofuel when people also need to grow food crops to eat. Nor can we clear more land for the purpose, since deforestation is already a problem, and clearing forest on such a massive scale would have severe climatological consequences.
Also, biofuel does not represent a sensible solution in many oil-based vehicles. For example, in the US, many cars have such dismal fuel efficiency that from an environmental perspective, it would make more sense to improve this factor than to convert them to run on biofuel. Also, many of today’s road vehicles, ships and airplanes are built to use refined oil products that biofuel cannot replace.
Therefore before any kind of large-scale biofuel production is implemented, the overall transport system should be improved and optimized to address these issues.
4. Wind energy is too difficult to harness for it to power the world
Energy potential of the most powerful winds is difficult to harness because they blow in the jetstream, some eleven kilometers above the earth. Their location also tends to shift depending on the seasons, so utilizing them would be very inconvenient: it would require deploying massive amounts of flying generators tethered to the earth with aluminum lines.
Traditional wind farms also have their problems: require large amounts of land because the turbines need to be spaced apart from each other, and this means they produce relatively little power per square kilometer.
Locals may object to wind farms due to their appearance, feeling that the ugly things spoil their view of the countryside or waterfront. And turbines are also loud and pose a threat to local bird and bat populations.
Wind energy is dependent on the wind, which is notoriously fickle. Wind speeds vary depending on the time of year and geographic location, meaning that if wind was the world’s predominant power source, a vast network of intercontinental high-voltage transmission lines would be needed to even out the shifting imbalances in global production. The wind fluctuations would create great price fluctuations.
5. Be patient: any new energy innovation will take decades to be adopted
Remember these few rules of thumb when someone claims that the world’s energy landscape will change radically very quickly:
First, don’t underestimate how long the conventional energy sources will linger. Analysis has shown that established energy supply patterns can persist over generations. So rather than rushing to embrace a new energy source like biofuel on a large scale, we should first focus on optimizing efficiency in the production and use of the incumbent sources.
Second, be distrustful when someone claims a new energy source will be adopted very rapidly and enthusiastically on a global level. Even energy technologies that are clearly superior will be adopted only gradually. Various players in the energy debate have their own agendas, and therefore often deliberately use misleading arguments or misinterpret data from scientific studies to bolster their claim that something will happen quickly.
Third, remember that any major adoption of a new energy innovation will probably require extensive and very expensive changes to the infrastructure. These changes demand large investments as well as overcoming legal and environmental issues, which takes time.
6. Energy policy decisions should be objective, with a premium placed on avoiding environmental damage
First, there are many competing ideologies and interests at play, but energy policy decisions must be made based on a rational and objective cost-benefit analysis. For example, at the moment the oil and gas industry is lobbying powerfully for carbon sequestration as the answer to global warming, but they are hardly objective experts: the ability to store carbon would be a new revenue stream for them, while at the same time making them look less responsible for global warming.
Second, remember that there are vast regional differences in terms of energy demand and production. For example, it may be that some energy innovations are easier to implement in developing countries than in developed ones, because the latter already have fully fledged economies running on fossil fuels, and people used to having cheap power to charge their iPads.
Third, all decisions should adhere to the maxim that avoiding or minimizing environmental damage is always better than trying to neutralize it afterwards. Case in point: In 2005 and 2006, biofuels were promoted grandiosely, only for later analysis to reveal how harmful their production is for the environment.
Meanwhile, instead of fixating on ways to sequester the carbon already in the atmosphere, affluent nations should focus on managing their own energy use so they become less dependent on fossil fuels and can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
Insight-insight baru yang informatif dan fresh.
September 22, 2014
In Energy Myths and Realities, Vaclav Smil brings a pragmatic view to popular ideas for our energy system of the last few decades: electric cars, nuclear, decentralized energy production, peak oil, carbon sequestration, biofuels, and wind power. His key message is that energy technologies are often over-hyped, often ignore environmental consequences or infrastructure requirements, and that transitions are slow. His analysis benefits from an extensive and current reference list, mostly journal articles.
While Smil rightly critiques excessive technological optimism, at times he overreaches. Selected facts are contorted to create an energy myth for Smil to debunk, dismissing those who made foolish claims as naive or incompetent.
As an example, when Smil constructs and estimated of land use requirements for wind power, he calls out wind capacity factors used by industry and academia as overly optimistic:
"Although the range of 20-25 percent has been frequently assumed in recent literature, the most complete examination of the actual record for the EU, the world's largest concentration of wind power, shows that during the five years between 2003 and 2007 the capacity factor amounted to less than 21 percent. This means that the cost of wind power is two-thirds higher and the reduction of CO2 emissions is 40 percent lower than was previously assumed", p.124.
Source: Boccard, N. 2009. Capacity factor of Wind Power Realized Values vs. Estimates. Energy 27:2679-88.
Smil's premises are wind capacity factors and power production per unit area estimates are overstated. From this he concludes that CO2 reductions potentials are much lower than often stated. His first premise is misleading. He spends the first part of the chapter mentioning how wind power has grown substantially in recent years, and that turbine size has increased. Turbine capacity factor estimates have improved along with turbine size:
[1]
[2]
Smil should have used estimates for new turbine installs, not the average over the several years. In the same paragraph, he cites capacity factors of >70% for coal and >85% for nuclear, while also citing data that total electric production capacity factor is 50%, of which nearly all is coal, nuclear, and gas. These figures are incompatible. The >70% and >85 figures are for newer plants, not average. Many plants are kept in reserve because they are older and less efficient. These older plants may have capacity factors in the range of 30-40%, thus the net 50% figure. The same comparison should be used for wind power - using new turbine capacity factors to calculate the space required for new turbines. Using the appropriate capacity factor erases Smil's claim of overstated reduction potential.
It's easy to pick out overly optimistic projections of certain energy technologies and dismiss them as such, which Smil does. But Smil doesn't do a great job of presenting the context. Were the majority of promoters overly optimistic, or was it a minority within the field? Did they wield any substantial wealth or political power, or were they just academic exercises or toothless celebrities? Jacobson's projections for all renewables by 2030 is a example of the analysis without much power. Even if there was power, was it used? Lots of presidents have made claims for energy independence, but none have expended substantial political capital to enact significant energy policy.
This context is important, because it gets at an important piece of the energy system which Smil ignores: political economy. Nuclear power has been somewhat successful, and has enjoyed continued, immense government support, greater than all end-use technologies combined, and in spite of substantial opposition in its early days. [3].
Fossil fuels have had even greater political influence, as evidenced by direct subsidies, geopolitical maneuvering, and military support. [4]. Even in its early days, the U.S. government was a key supporter of the coal industry despite union opposition [5]. And fossil fuels remain artificially cheap compared to their societal damages, largely as a consequences of industry lobbying. This is an essential part of the story of its dominance in our energy system.
Wind and other renewables have negligible political power compared to the fossil fuel industry. It's appropriate to view the development of wind in-spite of opposition from the fossil-fuel industry.
Seeing this full context of energy would have made the book stronger. It would also have helped to provide energy profiles and transition rates for other countries, especially developing countries. Citing historical rates of energy transitions is only partial evidence for the claim on the pace of energy transitions. There is good reason to believe that many developing countries will take much less time to uptake energy technologies that took a lot of time to penetrate in the U.S., China and India being prime examples. Also, given concerns about climate, energy infrastructure now enjoys special attention that is historically unprecedented, and it is unclear how much this attention can change the pace of energy transitions.
Smil appropriately places end-use efficiency and high U.S. per capita energy use as the priority before considering carbon sequestration, and rightly denounces the idea of biofuels as a major source of energy for the environmental and food vs. fuel issues. However, he advocates reducing energy intensity of the economy (is there anyone who doesn't?), but ignores the issue of the pace and limitations of energy intensity reductions and whether these are acceptable for climate reasons. Had Smil addressed this literature, he may have stumbled across Tim Jackson's "Prosperity Without Growth" piece and related articles that make a clear case why the developed countries may have to plateau or reverse economic growth, at least in several sectors, to stay within climate limits.
Lastly, Smil makes an appeal to readers to evaluate energy literature in an unbiased way. While I generally agree that dispassionate analysis is a good way to do research, I don't think Smil met that standard in Energy Myths and Realities. He missed the political economy piece of the energy puzzle. And he published through the highly partisan American Enterprise Institute, which has used claims that energy transitions take time to denounce or block much needed advancement on climate policy. Bias is inherent in any analysis; claiming it doesn't exist is an admission of adopting the dominant perspective, and in this case it means avoiding the immense ethical issues that arise around energy decisions.
While I look forward to reading other Smil books because of his reputation in the field, I hesitate to recommend Energy Myths and Realities. Instead, for those looking for a more technical analysis of energy transitions in the context of climate adaptation, I recommend L. D. Harvey's
“Energy and the New Reality”.
While Smil rightly critiques excessive technological optimism, at times he overreaches. Selected facts are contorted to create an energy myth for Smil to debunk, dismissing those who made foolish claims as naive or incompetent.
As an example, when Smil constructs and estimated of land use requirements for wind power, he calls out wind capacity factors used by industry and academia as overly optimistic:
"Although the range of 20-25 percent has been frequently assumed in recent literature, the most complete examination of the actual record for the EU, the world's largest concentration of wind power, shows that during the five years between 2003 and 2007 the capacity factor amounted to less than 21 percent. This means that the cost of wind power is two-thirds higher and the reduction of CO2 emissions is 40 percent lower than was previously assumed", p.124.
Source: Boccard, N. 2009. Capacity factor of Wind Power Realized Values vs. Estimates. Energy 27:2679-88.
Smil's premises are wind capacity factors and power production per unit area estimates are overstated. From this he concludes that CO2 reductions potentials are much lower than often stated. His first premise is misleading. He spends the first part of the chapter mentioning how wind power has grown substantially in recent years, and that turbine size has increased. Turbine capacity factor estimates have improved along with turbine size:
[1]
[2]
Smil should have used estimates for new turbine installs, not the average over the several years. In the same paragraph, he cites capacity factors of >70% for coal and >85% for nuclear, while also citing data that total electric production capacity factor is 50%, of which nearly all is coal, nuclear, and gas. These figures are incompatible. The >70% and >85 figures are for newer plants, not average. Many plants are kept in reserve because they are older and less efficient. These older plants may have capacity factors in the range of 30-40%, thus the net 50% figure. The same comparison should be used for wind power - using new turbine capacity factors to calculate the space required for new turbines. Using the appropriate capacity factor erases Smil's claim of overstated reduction potential.
It's easy to pick out overly optimistic projections of certain energy technologies and dismiss them as such, which Smil does. But Smil doesn't do a great job of presenting the context. Were the majority of promoters overly optimistic, or was it a minority within the field? Did they wield any substantial wealth or political power, or were they just academic exercises or toothless celebrities? Jacobson's projections for all renewables by 2030 is a example of the analysis without much power. Even if there was power, was it used? Lots of presidents have made claims for energy independence, but none have expended substantial political capital to enact significant energy policy.
This context is important, because it gets at an important piece of the energy system which Smil ignores: political economy. Nuclear power has been somewhat successful, and has enjoyed continued, immense government support, greater than all end-use technologies combined, and in spite of substantial opposition in its early days. [3].
Fossil fuels have had even greater political influence, as evidenced by direct subsidies, geopolitical maneuvering, and military support. [4]. Even in its early days, the U.S. government was a key supporter of the coal industry despite union opposition [5]. And fossil fuels remain artificially cheap compared to their societal damages, largely as a consequences of industry lobbying. This is an essential part of the story of its dominance in our energy system.
Wind and other renewables have negligible political power compared to the fossil fuel industry. It's appropriate to view the development of wind in-spite of opposition from the fossil-fuel industry.
Seeing this full context of energy would have made the book stronger. It would also have helped to provide energy profiles and transition rates for other countries, especially developing countries. Citing historical rates of energy transitions is only partial evidence for the claim on the pace of energy transitions. There is good reason to believe that many developing countries will take much less time to uptake energy technologies that took a lot of time to penetrate in the U.S., China and India being prime examples. Also, given concerns about climate, energy infrastructure now enjoys special attention that is historically unprecedented, and it is unclear how much this attention can change the pace of energy transitions.
Smil appropriately places end-use efficiency and high U.S. per capita energy use as the priority before considering carbon sequestration, and rightly denounces the idea of biofuels as a major source of energy for the environmental and food vs. fuel issues. However, he advocates reducing energy intensity of the economy (is there anyone who doesn't?), but ignores the issue of the pace and limitations of energy intensity reductions and whether these are acceptable for climate reasons. Had Smil addressed this literature, he may have stumbled across Tim Jackson's "Prosperity Without Growth" piece and related articles that make a clear case why the developed countries may have to plateau or reverse economic growth, at least in several sectors, to stay within climate limits.
Lastly, Smil makes an appeal to readers to evaluate energy literature in an unbiased way. While I generally agree that dispassionate analysis is a good way to do research, I don't think Smil met that standard in Energy Myths and Realities. He missed the political economy piece of the energy puzzle. And he published through the highly partisan American Enterprise Institute, which has used claims that energy transitions take time to denounce or block much needed advancement on climate policy. Bias is inherent in any analysis; claiming it doesn't exist is an admission of adopting the dominant perspective, and in this case it means avoiding the immense ethical issues that arise around energy decisions.
While I look forward to reading other Smil books because of his reputation in the field, I hesitate to recommend Energy Myths and Realities. Instead, for those looking for a more technical analysis of energy transitions in the context of climate adaptation, I recommend L. D. Harvey's
“Energy and the New Reality”.
July 7, 2018
This book, and indeed all Vaclav Smil’s books are recommended by Bill Gates in his “Gates Notes.” Smil is a scientist who examines policy issues critically and quantitatively by assessing the implications of policy solutions, implementation, the role of inertia, externalities, and replacement of existing infrastructure.
Smil examines the “myths” associated with:
• Electric cars
• Nuclear electricity
• Decentralized energy
• Peak oil
• Carbon dioxide sequestration
• Fuels from plants
• Wind-generated electricity
• Transformations in energy use
The discussions are thorough and provide a good background to the examination of other similar issues. Interestingly, unless electricity is generated by renewable sources, battery electric vehicles (BEVs, e.g. Tesla) would cause an increase in the consumption of fossil fuels; in the medium term, hybrids and plug-in hybrids, because of superior fuel economy, reduce consumption of non-renewables. The author was inconsistent in his application of Jevons’ paradox (energy efficiency leading to greater consumption because of cost reduction). He cited the paradox and yet advocated the fuel economy of hybrids. It turns out vehicle fuel efficiency improvements do reduce overall fuel consumption because there are many factors besides fuel price that determine vehicle miles travelled.
The book was critical of current policy solutions to climate change and energy challenges. There is a role for criticism, but there also one for optimism. With this caveat I recommend it.
Smil examines the “myths” associated with:
• Electric cars
• Nuclear electricity
• Decentralized energy
• Peak oil
• Carbon dioxide sequestration
• Fuels from plants
• Wind-generated electricity
• Transformations in energy use
The discussions are thorough and provide a good background to the examination of other similar issues. Interestingly, unless electricity is generated by renewable sources, battery electric vehicles (BEVs, e.g. Tesla) would cause an increase in the consumption of fossil fuels; in the medium term, hybrids and plug-in hybrids, because of superior fuel economy, reduce consumption of non-renewables. The author was inconsistent in his application of Jevons’ paradox (energy efficiency leading to greater consumption because of cost reduction). He cited the paradox and yet advocated the fuel economy of hybrids. It turns out vehicle fuel efficiency improvements do reduce overall fuel consumption because there are many factors besides fuel price that determine vehicle miles travelled.
The book was critical of current policy solutions to climate change and energy challenges. There is a role for criticism, but there also one for optimism. With this caveat I recommend it.
August 3, 2022
Smil's book brings a generalist view on the status of traditional energy sources(coal/oil) versus the cleaner replacements. In doing so, he attempts to highlight the challenges faced by alternative energy resources and set a middle of the road path for their adoption.
Key points are:
1. The myth of peak oil - that there is a supply of oil to fuel our needs for the forseeable future.
2. Carbon sequestering, biofuels, and even wind energy come with their own set of environmentl challenges that do no make them clear cut alternatives.
3. New energy sources are slow to be adopted and policy should be driven towards maximizing the efficiency of current sources while incentivizing (very objectively), the new sources.
It is hard to argue with most of these points, as the author is correct when you look through the single lens of energy production. The problem with the book lies in that it does not fully take in account the urgency of climatic change factors (ie - the warming earth, the changes in the ocean) that are forcing our hands. We do not have time to be patient, and adopt at a slower pace.
While the assertation that we cannot flip a switch is correct, and that we need to be scientific and thorough - there is an urgency to mitigate the environmental damage that cannot be achieved using the traditional resources that we have used for the past 150 years.
Key points are:
1. The myth of peak oil - that there is a supply of oil to fuel our needs for the forseeable future.
2. Carbon sequestering, biofuels, and even wind energy come with their own set of environmentl challenges that do no make them clear cut alternatives.
3. New energy sources are slow to be adopted and policy should be driven towards maximizing the efficiency of current sources while incentivizing (very objectively), the new sources.
It is hard to argue with most of these points, as the author is correct when you look through the single lens of energy production. The problem with the book lies in that it does not fully take in account the urgency of climatic change factors (ie - the warming earth, the changes in the ocean) that are forcing our hands. We do not have time to be patient, and adopt at a slower pace.
While the assertation that we cannot flip a switch is correct, and that we need to be scientific and thorough - there is an urgency to mitigate the environmental damage that cannot be achieved using the traditional resources that we have used for the past 150 years.
October 5, 2021
Read for class.
This book makes a lot of important points about energy evangelists who want to sell solar power or wind, for example, as the Cure All to climate change. Smil points out the flaws in their arguments and explains why changes in energy sources are so hard to make.
However, sometimes Smil reads as overly pessimistic, almost shutting down any hope for a new energy revolution. It is clear from his conclusion that he does not think things such as nuclear power, etc. are useless (rather that they have been overhyped) but he sometimes reads that way throughout which made this a tough read for me. Additionally, Smil’s writing is extremely dry and scientific.
A good balance to Gates’ extreme optimism though!
This book makes a lot of important points about energy evangelists who want to sell solar power or wind, for example, as the Cure All to climate change. Smil points out the flaws in their arguments and explains why changes in energy sources are so hard to make.
However, sometimes Smil reads as overly pessimistic, almost shutting down any hope for a new energy revolution. It is clear from his conclusion that he does not think things such as nuclear power, etc. are useless (rather that they have been overhyped) but he sometimes reads that way throughout which made this a tough read for me. Additionally, Smil’s writing is extremely dry and scientific.
A good balance to Gates’ extreme optimism though!
November 23, 2021
13 years later the book is still a necessary read. Smil debunks some of the myths surrounding the blue-sky claims about the feasibility of an immediate energy transition and provide a critical analysis of several myths with a realistic view. Having a realistic view is the best position to actually solve the problem that our society faces. As minor issues in the book, in some parts it might seem too academic and dense, and lacking some flow - nonetheless, this is compensated with the nice overview in the last chapter. It would also be nice if the author provided some potential alternative solutions, as the book is focused in criticizing why certain claims for addressing the energy crisis are not going to work.
June 9, 2025
Classic Smil in criticizing many shibboleths regarding energy, such as how efficiency has always led to more energy consumed, not less.
This is dated regarding electric vehicles and the graphs need to be updated but still good.
I learned a lot such as the Gigawatt hour needed for EVs and how difficult they are to be made sustainable due to the need to build renewable capacity. Smil actually reads the papers and tests their assumptions using simple algebra to see how reasonable the projections are.
He’s also right in his case studies on nuclear power, peak oil, and wind power.
Smil has a nice sense of humor that he uses sparingly but to great effect. His tone is a perennial “can you believe this?” And he’s unafraid of calling out people like Hollywood stars.
This is dated regarding electric vehicles and the graphs need to be updated but still good.
I learned a lot such as the Gigawatt hour needed for EVs and how difficult they are to be made sustainable due to the need to build renewable capacity. Smil actually reads the papers and tests their assumptions using simple algebra to see how reasonable the projections are.
He’s also right in his case studies on nuclear power, peak oil, and wind power.
Smil has a nice sense of humor that he uses sparingly but to great effect. His tone is a perennial “can you believe this?” And he’s unafraid of calling out people like Hollywood stars.
July 7, 2019
I picked up this book from Bill Gates' reading list and I really liked it. Vaclav Smil takes credible, well-constructed swipes at almost all forms of energy generation. This book examines basically all forms of electricity generation and even covers some engines or vehicles.
Dr. Gretchan Bakke in The Grid mentions that there is more than enough renewable sources of energy to power the world several times over. Vaclav Smil explains how difficult it is to site, construct, harness and maintain those wind turbines.
There are no silver bullets when it comes to energy generation and usage. Smil really got me thinking critically and I really enjoyed reading this book.
Dr. Gretchan Bakke in The Grid mentions that there is more than enough renewable sources of energy to power the world several times over. Vaclav Smil explains how difficult it is to site, construct, harness and maintain those wind turbines.
There are no silver bullets when it comes to energy generation and usage. Smil really got me thinking critically and I really enjoyed reading this book.
August 17, 2021
Nothing to say about the facts and the level of detail of all myths that are reported by Smith; I got a huge amount of important and meaningful information.
What drove me to the 3 stars (instead of 4) is the fact that everything is too much focused on the US market.
It's ok that this is the most challenging one and (speaking per-capita) it is drowning this planet, nevertheless I believe It would have been interesting to have a wider perspective in my opinion.
What drove me to the 3 stars (instead of 4) is the fact that everything is too much focused on the US market.
It's ok that this is the most challenging one and (speaking per-capita) it is drowning this planet, nevertheless I believe It would have been interesting to have a wider perspective in my opinion.
July 18, 2022
Written a little more than 10 years ago but it was still fun to read. The science & numbers don't really change with time so the observations still hold true.
Lays out the challenges with all the nonconventional/"renewable" energy and why it is impossible for them to dominate global energy production by 2050.
My takeaway from this is our best hope is probably nuclear power but the world leaders seems to have lost interest in it completely after disasters such as Chernobyl.
Lays out the challenges with all the nonconventional/"renewable" energy and why it is impossible for them to dominate global energy production by 2050.
My takeaway from this is our best hope is probably nuclear power but the world leaders seems to have lost interest in it completely after disasters such as Chernobyl.
October 2, 2019
if you believe that transition from coal and oil to alternative energy will be easy, then you should read this book. Unfortunately it will not be so easy as you might think, and ideas about generating 100% of electricity from wind for example, are not realistic. This book debunks some myths about energy without being ideological (the author is not climate change denier, or something like that)
March 6, 2020
This book is brutal, in a good way. It's just hard numbers on the viability of various renewable and non-renewable energy sources, and the US and global energy future. Short version:
All biofuels are a complete waste of time, at least with current fuel consumtion. We can generate electricity cheaply with renewables (this reader notes that onshore wind just dropped below natural gas, the former leader, for cheapest electricity generation cost), but using anything other than fossil fuels for things like the ICE and aircraft is just a non-starter.
-We'd have to cover the entire world in corn and stop eating it or growing anything else to have corn substitute for fossil
-Using biomass (crop leftovers, switchgrass, food waste products, human lipid tissue, etc) is even less viable. Not just at cost, but at scale.
-Solar and Wind: yep, these are acceptable ways to generate electricity, but of course do not answer the fuels question
The author is pretty ruthless, in an informative and well-supported way. He jokes about certain biofuels proponents breaking the laws of thermodynamics and physics to get to their results, and notes that some of these energy calculations are done in a vacuum and dont look at ancillary costs (e.g. transportation of biofuel source stocks from the ocean/farm/plastic surgery center to processing facilities).
A real eye-opener, close to 5 stars.
All biofuels are a complete waste of time, at least with current fuel consumtion. We can generate electricity cheaply with renewables (this reader notes that onshore wind just dropped below natural gas, the former leader, for cheapest electricity generation cost), but using anything other than fossil fuels for things like the ICE and aircraft is just a non-starter.
-We'd have to cover the entire world in corn and stop eating it or growing anything else to have corn substitute for fossil
-Using biomass (crop leftovers, switchgrass, food waste products, human lipid tissue, etc) is even less viable. Not just at cost, but at scale.
-Solar and Wind: yep, these are acceptable ways to generate electricity, but of course do not answer the fuels question
The author is pretty ruthless, in an informative and well-supported way. He jokes about certain biofuels proponents breaking the laws of thermodynamics and physics to get to their results, and notes that some of these energy calculations are done in a vacuum and dont look at ancillary costs (e.g. transportation of biofuel source stocks from the ocean/farm/plastic surgery center to processing facilities).
A real eye-opener, close to 5 stars.
April 7, 2024
as energy solutions and the future of global energy supply are constant headlines and political talking points, this books takes a no non-sense scientific approach to the legitimacy and feasibility of the most common claims. written in 2010 so may not include some of the most recent talking points
March 24, 2018
Lightning my understanding about energy
February 4, 2020
This work has not aged well
July 20, 2020
Slightly obvious, but good book. Better than the other one I read from him about meat consumption.
October 31, 2021
Jako vždy Václav Smil se spoustou čísel a úhlem pohledu, který dává smysl a je založený na faktech.
February 22, 2022
Very interesting to see some of the myths out there, with some numbers to back this up. Energy technology is not advancing that way Microchips have advanced. It is much slower.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews