This is an extremely in-depth look at what our energy landscape looks like today. It also reviews where we stand, as a world, with regard to resources and options as well as politics and policies that are driving the future. In addition, it looks at where we are headed.  As I look at our country, I’ve felt for a long-time that we are “energy illiterate” and need to become better students of energy education. While Montgomery agrees to some degree, he feels the problem lies more in lack of curriculum and the inability for people to learn about energy in a nonpartisan setting.

Montgomery writes, “Energy matters are critical to understand because they are fundamental to our way of life and because they are the subject of endless misconception, misrepresentation, and, as already noted, myth.”

Throughout the book, Montgomery takes an approach that many other authors have not and that’s the view that he doesn’t categorize energy as “dirty or clean” or necessarily “evil versus good.”  He explains that fossil fuels help build and transport renewable sources and also reminds us that every type of energy has an impact on the environment. Yes everyone, there is no “renewable” energy source that is developed, produced or transported without a fossil fuel.

So what does the future look like? Montgomery notes that in the future we’ll see great, more varied use of electricity. Despite “efforts” at energy efficiency, globally energy use will increase as countries such as China and India come online as well as other developing countries seek to emerge from poverty though tools such as electricity.

Montgomery believes that our current energy sources: natural gas, coal, nuclear energy, and petroleum will continue to play a vital role in our energy future and their use will even grow over the next few decades. He also believes that all other sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, and more will have a role moving forward. However, he does advocate that not all sources will become winners.

He writes, “Today natural gas, uranium, biomass, solar, wind, and geothermal energy all provide power, and millions of diesel, hybrid, and flex-fuel vehicles roam the roads, with all-electric species soon to arrive. Multiplicity has its limit: some technologies will likely cancel out; others may come to be dominant. Yet the grand pattern is clear: no single wonder-source lies in our future, but instead a portfolio of options demanding thoughtful balance. Progress in energy means technological diversity.”

Also unlike other authors, Montgomery does not predict the future or lay out how to get there. He does give us 20 things to contemplate as we diversify our energy future and leaves it up to us to follow a path (or three or four). While this was an educational read, it was not easy and is not for someone who wants a quick overview of the energy landscape of yesterday, today or tomorrow. However, this is a good book for the serious energy student and one that should help to craft our thinking.

The authors write, “What is little recognized is that the twin threats, to the climate and to the economy, are linked in both cause and cure. Unless nations move aggressively to implement energy efficiency and renewable energy, key elements of the transition away from fossil fuels and necessary to save the climate, it is difficult to see how our economy can lift itself from recession or avoid further crises. Solving the climate crisis IS THE WAY OUT of the economic crisis,” (authors’ emphasis).

Now that the stage is set, Lovins and Cohen begin providing case studies of sorts of different companies that have improved their bottom line by investing in energy efficiency and sustainable technologies. For example, Toyota became the largest auto maker in the world through the production of hybrid vehicles and fuel efficient cars while U.S. automakers continued to churn out oversized SUVs when a consumer green shift was taking place.

Conventional thinking around the issue of reducing green house gas emissions has held that averting climate catastrophe will cost the world trillions of dollars during a time countries can’t afford to invest due to the financial crisis. However, the authors argue that climate capitalists will seek out economic opportunities in the context of averting runaway climate chaos that will both mitigate climate change as well as offer profits.

Climate capitalists will be successful, the authors write, because they follow the principles of natural capitalism. The first principle is buying time by using all resources as efficiently as possible. The second principle is redesigning how we make and deliver all products and services using approaches such as cradle-to-cradle concepts, Biomimicry, the circular economy, Design for the Environment, and others.

While the information was interesting, and arguably relevant to supporting the authors’ argument, I found it to be a bit difficult to digest – the cause appeared to be information overload. But I still managed to grasp hold of the big takeaway – if you believe that the world is in fact threatened by climate crisis, then can you afford to not do anything? Lovins and Cohen say no. Those who choose not to plan and invest in a future based on sustainable practices will fail miserably.

The documentary travels to nine different countries including Germany, Sweden, China and the U.S. to take a look at actions taken to solve global warming. The film features green building projects, renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar and highlights energy efficiency strategies. Briggs interviewed several environmental “who’s who’s” including Lester Brown, the founder of the Earth Policy Institute; David Suzuki, Co-Founder of The David Suzuki Foundation; James Woolsey, former CIA Director and founding member of Set America Free Coalition; Michael Pollan, author of Omnivore’s Dilemma; and Amory Lovins, Co-founder, Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute.

The documentary was well done and beautifully produced and did an excellent job on intertwining commentary, with interviews, with animated shorts, and solutions. And Brigg’s solutions are not presented as once and done, a strategy often undertook. He continues to lay out solutions over, and over so that you walk away with some solid personal actions you can take to mitigate your own personal carbon footprint.

So what are some of these strategies?

1. 1. Reforesting the world.
2. 2. Supporting sustainable agriculture that does not depend on fossil fuels.
3. 3. Lifestyle changes like unplugging vampire electronics.
4. 4. Telecommuting.
5. 5. Working without motors.
6. 6. Eating less meat.
7. 7. Purchasing maximum energy efficient appliances and electronics.
8. 8. Integrate green building technologies.
9. 9. Live locally.
10. 10. Use renewable transportation.
11. 11. Convert to 100 percent renewable or truly clean energy in the next few years.
12. 12. Empower politicians to make the best equitable laws for long-term environmental and economic health.

While these are all worthwhile goals, I believe some of them are a bit lofty and unrealistic. But if what many of the experts say is true, especially Amory Lovins who has been preaching for more than a decade that going green will make you money, just adopting some of the solutions or part of the solutions, should help you save money and along the way, you’ll be helping the environment also. That can’t be a bad thing even if global warming turns out to be a bit overblown.

However, at the end of the day, if you don’t buy into the theory that global warming is going to wreck havoc on our lives, the movie will not convince you – nothing probably will. But if you are personally willing to make a commitment to reduce your carbon footprint, than this movie will definitely help get you on your way.

This idea has really captured my fancy and got my head spinning around all the ways it could be carried out. But let me take a step back. Today, our food travels on average 1,500 miles from field to table. Crazy. Much of our produce and fruits come from places like Mexico and South America. Wouldn’t it be cool if they could come from your own city?

That is exactly what Despommier is promoting. In the middle of an urban area could be a “vertical farm” that grows produce, fruits and grains and houses things such as fish farms. These future farms would grow our food year round while the excess waste, or biomass could be used to produce bioelectricity and biofuels. In fact, Despommier says that in some cases, a vertical farm could have up to five harvests per year.

He writes that ideally, they would be cheap to build, modular, durable, easily maintained, and safe to operate. A vertical farm would mitigate external influences on crops such as too much rain or drought and disease along with the need for fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides. Vertical farms would provide well-paying jobs and improve economics. He also believes they should be independent of economic subsidies and outside support once they are up and running and they should be profitable.

Other advantages include:

• • allowance for ecosystem restoration
• • use of 70-95 percent less water (70 percent of all water used globally is for agriculture and 20 percent of all fossil fuels are used in the ag sector)
• • no agricultural runoff
• • greatly reduce food miles
• • more control of food safety and security
• • purification of grey water to drinking water
• • animal feed from postharvest plant material

While today no one has actually built a vertical farm, designers around the world have provided concepts of what they would look like. Despommier writes that there are four major themes that designers and engineers must include: capture sunlight and disperse it evenly among the rocks (one way to capture sunlight is through solar energy); capture passive energy for supplying a reliable source of energy (could be wind or geothermal); employ a good barrier design for plant production; and maximize the amount of space devoted to growing crops.

With land and water at a premium, increased environmental concerns, growing concerns over energy,  and the need to grow more food throughout the world, Despommier’s vertical farm may just be one viable part of the solution. It is well-worth the read.

Johnson says the real purpose of the book is to present many different ideas about the generation, transport and use of energy. “The study of these ideas and the efforts to make them into realities can result in excellent and viable solutions in years, instead of decades. Creative solutions are sure to be found that require few and inexpensive infrastructure changes and by using both new and existing technologies.”

Now, before I continue, some of you will accuse me of being in the pockets of Big Oil. I’m not. I’m simply reviewing the author’s book and the thoughts contained therein. What makes the diversity of energy books so compelling is the fact that each author has his or her own ideas, predictions and solutions.

Speaking of predictions, Johnson outlines a few in his book. First, he notes that the largest energy growth sector is expected to be in electricity and the largest growth product will be nuclear energy followed by geothermal. He believes there will be a decline in coal-fired power plants unless carbon sequestration technologies come a reality, and also believes wind and solar energy will require long-term substantial subsidies to compete, and even so, may never be cost competitive. In addition, he predicts hydropower will stay fairly stagnant due to environmental concerns and finally believes electric vehicles will dominate and vehicles fueled by liquids (such as gas or biofuels) will be phased out. Needless to say, like so many others, Johnson does not believe first generation biodiesel or ethanol is a solution but does have hope for things such as algae-based biofuels.

After Johnson defines the various forms of energy, and then makes predictions about the success or failure of each, he presents his Optimal Energy Economy. “The Optimal Energy Economy consists of many viable systems to replace fossil fuels with renewable fuels that add no net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. In the end, it will be cheaper, quicker, and far more practical than any other system,” explains Johnson.

So what are the best solutions as part of his plan? Geothermal energy is at the top of his list. His ultimate energy combination though is geothermal energy, coupled with plug-in electric vehicles (PHEV) that are liquid fueled by advanced biodiesel. Short-term, other energy sources that will contribute include nuclear energy as well as domestically produced oil and natural gas.

Johnson says that fossil-fuels will play a role in our energy paradigm for many years to come. He believes that we are missing important opportunities to develop our domestic oil industry by inhibiting offshore drilling and drilling in areas such as Alaska. He believes there is an orchestrated “Big Oil hate campaign” led by extreme environmentalists and this campaign is causing animosity toward oil companies as well as covering up the “gross failures of government efforts in virtually every government-fun project, especially energy.” He writes, “This and other similarly imaginary factors add to the price and subtract from the available supply of petroleum, in addition to the real problem of diminishing oil reserves.”

While this book provides an interesting accumulation of information, ideas and solutions, it doesn’t deliver in the area of a well-laid out energy plan for the future. So if this is what you are looking for, I would pull a different book off the shelf. But if you’re open to random predictions and theories interwoven with the energy sources Johnson believes will prevail, then this book may be for you.

The premise of the book is that the world is running out of oil while at the same time depleting itself of its natural resources. These two issues can combine to cause destruction and complete collapse of a society. The book begins by highlighting some of the societies that have disappeared due to lack of resources whether it be water or trees or others. One of the most famous case studies he uses is that of Easter Island, now owned by Chile, and the irony that although the people knew their future was in jeopardy due to diminished resources, they used them all anyway. Will this be society today?

Hallett is not a fan of biofuels as a solution to our problems. He also believes renewable energy, such as wind or solar, will only become mainstream when it is the only option. He also doesn’t think we will be laughing 30, 40, 50 years from now about how peak oil and climate change were myths.

In terms of the future energy sources, Hallett believes it will be one in which nuclear and hydrogen play major roles. He says that we need a multitude of effective solutions to the problem of transportation. “…Trains, planes, and automobiles all run on liquid fuels, which are refined directly from oil, and it is extremely difficult to develop versatile transportation systems that use alternative systems. If our new energy model is based on the generation of electricity, the problem remains of putting this into vehicles. Electric vehicles will play a role, but I believe that the only viable, long-term solution to this problem is hydrogen.”

He continues, “Hydrogen has as distinct disadvantage that it cannot be simply pumped out of the ground or sucked out of the atmosphere. There is no source of free hydrogen, so first, it has to be made. Hydrogen, then, is not a source of energy at all but merely a carrier of energy. Consequently, the future of energy generation does not rest with hydrogen, but the future of energy delivery might.”

Hallett takes us much beyond oil and forgone society and takes an in-depth look at other issues including agriculture, water, aquaculture and how all of these things intersect. You can’t effect one without effecting the other and often times the consequences are unintended, but happen all the same. While at times his views seem dire and without hope, at the end of the book he lays out a new foundation for the world to move forward. One that is not overpopulated, based on dirty fossil fuels, or over uses natural resources. His world is one where people once again learn how to interact and sustainably live with the land rather than live on the land.

The students created a patented, cylindrical contraption that cost effectively and efficiently converts water to hydrogen with no emissions. Rather than paying the $1 million plus for a real hydrogen car (the hydrogen fuel cell cars are less), the students’ discovery can be put on any car or truck for less than $10k. For all things oil, this game changer must be quashed at all costs.

Hydrogen is one of the most common and combustible elements known to man and many believe that someday technology will be able to manipulate it in a means that is could save the world. Great premise for a senior thesis deducted the two main characters, students Marc and Gerri who had this discussion to kick off their project.

“Anything that requires oil-based fuel today needs to be replaced by some other energy source, or a combination of sources. There’s no question about it, and H could be the starting point for us,” said Marc.

“Can you imagine not being dependent on foreign oil…oil that produces the billions of dollars that militant Islam is trying to use to destroy our country?” asked Gerri.

Sound familiar? This is the battle cry of the renewable energy industry.

Well needless to say, evil oil wants the world to be dependent on its products and the lengths the oil companies and foreign regime make for some high drama that hits very close to home. While this was a fun, fictional read, lets hope that Indianer is not a clairvoyant, at least in the sense that a silver bullet would be welcome, but not the war that comes with it.

I have to admit that reading books on energy, environment and ag can be a bit dry regardless of the veracity of the information. But Johnstone broke the mold with his engaging story telling, compelling information and insights on the solar industry. It probably helps that he is a journalist, but he takes us through the history of solar weaving through Europe and taking a stop in Germany and coming back to the States – a country that was winning and now is losing, the solar technology race to countries overseas such as China.

There are several issues that are discussed in the book that are of special importance to the solar industry: rate of conversion, subsidies/tariffs, industry viability, legislation, and technology. He also talks about overcoming utility resistance to renewable energy and their adoption to both energy efficiency strategies and the adoption of renewable energy. Two areas he didn’t discuss in detail are the challenges with storage and transmission lines/ smart grid issues.

He writes, “For utilities, promoting energy efficiency was an unnatural act. Thus far, their entire rationale had been to encourage customers to use more energy, not less. their rate structure was designed to reward consumption, by charging customers less for the additional kilowatt-hours they used. Their domestic sales departments came up with promotional gimmicks to encourage usage. Utility salespeople gleefully handed out free hair dryers to their customers.”

See this ladies. It’s the utility companies’ fault that we’re contributing to global climate change with our old school hairdryers.

Just kidding folks. Seriously though, this mentally was, and in some cases, continues to be a problem when consumers who install solar power systems try to sell their excess power to the utility company. A point well discussed in the book.

I want to focus for a minute on Germany’s and subsequently other countries use of feed-in tariffs. Many people are opposed to this route, especially in the U.S., but the book shows that love ‘em or hate ‘em they spur a much more aggressive rate of adoption. Ironically, when people want to put a solar success story on the pedestal, they use Germany, and when people want to show the worst example of solar gone wrong, they use Germany.

“Why has the German feed-in tariff model been so successful? In large part, because it is simple to understand,” writes Johnstone. “Especially compared to the confusing melange of bureaucratic mechanisms employed elsewhere. With feed-in tariffs the utilities are responsible for paying for the provision of clean energy.”

And that my friends lies one of the biggest problems with adding renewable energy, such as solar power, to the grid. No one, especially utilities, want to pay for it. Consumers want the utilities to pay for it and the utilities want the government to pay for it, and while everyone argues round and round the circle, the smart grid fails to materialize and the growth of solar power stalls.

Let me jump down from my stump and say, yes, Johnstone’s book got me fired up a bit, but in a good way. He discusses challenges and opportunities without passing judgement on what’s right or wrong and leaves us thinking about the future technology of solar panels – and if he is correct, an exciting one it will be.

For example here is one myth that he demystifies: Electric cars will replace conventional cars in the near future. The reality according to Smil: Electric cars are expensive, their adoption rate will be slow, and internal combustion engines will dominate the market for decade to come. He also believes that EVs will not provide much, if any, energy savings.

So why does it matter if there is discourse among energy advocates? Because, says Smil, these incorrect facts and fallacies are hampering the development of effective new energy policies and wasting time and money that could be better used in pursuit of a constructive, scientific approach to the global energy challenge.

Here are some other myths that Smil addresses, all dished up as solutions, or part of a solution for our energy woes.

• The world will soon run out of oil.
• Carbon sequestration is the solution to global climate change.
• Ethanol will replace gasoline as a significant source of automobile fuel.
• Wind power will soon become the world’s leading source of electricity.

I’ll play my hand here and agree with Smil that carbon sequestration is not a solution. In fact, I believe it is a multi-billion dollar farce. Yet where I diverge with Smil is while he believes various forms of alternative energy should have no role, or will only play a small role, I think it’s shortsighted to ignore parts of the energy portfolio that are right in front of us. But I digress.

Let’s take a moment to review in more detail how Smil presents biofuels. He hates them. All forms of them – first gen, advanced, cellulosic, algal, you name it. For algae in particular he writes, “In this ‘gold rush for algae,’ their authors extrapolate bench-scale experiments under perfectly controlled growing conditions to massive outdoor ponds, some advocates even suggesting yields that are thermodynamically impossible. This only confirms that the contest between energy myths and realities never ends.”

He concludes, “More important than the fact that liquid biofuels cannot displace refined oil products in transportation is that they should not.” {Emphasis the author’s.}

Smil is less harsh when he discusses wind and does believe it could play a role, just not to the extent people claim. He writes that expect for relatively small regions, wind energy cannot become the single largest source nor the dominant role of generation.

I suppose a book about energy myths doesn’t have to offer up any solutions. Regardless of whether or not I believe he is perpetuating new myths, there is interesting information about various forms of energy and some insights on the proper course of action to take for a successful energy transition. I’ll share one with you here. “First, 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 conversions techniques.”

While I have never denied that I am a supporter of alternative energy, I do agree with Smil’s last point. Over exaggerating product claims is in no ones best interest and the renewable energy industry has engaged in this practice numerous times. This tactic actually hurts the cause. And as support for renewable energy and the programs that support it are under fire, the industry needs to do everything possible to maintain its credibility.

In the first part of the book, Brown lays out the problems at hand including falling water tables and shrinking harvests, eroding soils and expanding deserts and finishes with a discussion about the effect of rising temperatures including the melting of ice and glaciers and food security. He notes that several researchers conducted a study whereby they aggregated the use of earth’s natural resources including CO2 and discovered that we first surpassed the earth’s regenerative capacity around 1980. In 1999, global demands on the earth’s natural systems exceeded sustainable yields by 20 percent and today it would take 1.5 Earths to sustain our current consumption.

Next Brown begins a discussion of the consequences as a result of our foundation in peril. He discusses rising food prices and food scarcity, environmental refugees (think Hurricane Katrina where more than 300,000 people were displaced and many never went back) and failed states such as Somalia and Iraq. During the first part of the book, the big link, or the big disaster, is failed agriculture. He notes that many archeologists have determined that many civilizations that disappeared did so because of food shortages and he believes this is the weak link for today’s civilization.

He uses the 2008-2009 “food bubble” as an example. This was when energy prices hit record highs and food prices also hit record highs. He explained that with countries producing fuel from food crops, such as the U.S. producing ethanol from corn, energy prices/fuel prices are now directly tied to food prices.

“The question is not whether the food bubble will burst but when,” says Brown. “While the U.S. housing bubble was created by the overextension of credit, the food bubble is based on the overuse of land and water resources. It is further threatened by the climate stresses deriving from the excessive burning of fossil fuels. When the U.S. housing bubble burst, it sent shockwaves through the world economy, culminating in the worst recession since the Great Depression. When the food bubble bursts, food prices will soar worldwide, threatening economic and political stability everywhere. For those living on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder, survival itself could be at stake.”

Now, understanding the role food plays in our future, Brown offers up a response that he calls Plan B – what the Earth Policy Institute believes needs to be done to save civilization. “It is a monumental effort to be undertaken at wartime speed,” writes Brown.  The plan has four components: stabilizing climate, restoring the earth’s natural support systems, stabilizing population, and eradicating poverty. The plan calls for a 80 percent reduction in CO2 by 2020. This, Brown says, can be achieved through three actions. First raise the efficiency of the world energy economy while restructuring transportation. Second, cut emissions in the energy sector by replacing fossil fuels with wind, solar and geothermal. Third, end deforestation while engaging in a massive campaign to plant trees and stabilize soils. (I wonder if he is a fan of biochar?)

When Brown offers up ways to achieve the goals, for the transportation sector, he is not a fan of biofuels. Rather, he would like to see a movement to vehicles run with electricity (aka electric vehicles), that is created from wind, solar and geothermal energy. He is also a proponent of pubic transportation such as rail and advocates for conservation.

In the end, Brown answers the question, “What can I do?” While recycling and conservation are good places to start, he says for success people need to become more politically active and concludes, “Saving civilization is not a spectator sport.”

But Bates believes the real value of biochar lies in that it has a unique ability to condition soil. Bates explains that if it is turned in a nutrient pile and then tilled into the ground, it immediately becomes colonized by soil microbes. These microbes attract fungi, which connect to the roots of the plants, carrying nutrients to the place they are most needed. Biochar is also a water solution – it provides a reservoir and conduit for soil moisture, soaking up water from oversaturated areas and moving it to dyer areas (it can also be used to purify water). Bates says that one gram of charcoal has the surface area of one small house, or 1,000 to 2,500 square meters, because of all its micropores. In terms of soil health, after several years, biochar helps soil return to its natural state and eliminates the need for inputs such as nitrogen or phosphorous – another major environmental benefit.

There is also a connection between biochar and biofuels. When converting biomass to biofuels, not all of the biomass is consumed. At this point, the remaining biomass can be burned and turned into biochar and then the biochar can be tilled into the biomass fields to aid in soil sustainability. In this example, biochar becomes both a biofuels and agriculture solution.

There are several views of biochar one being those who truly believe that biochar alone can reduce CO2 emissions faster and more completely than any other solution. Bates writes, “…humans can alter the atmosphere to take us back to pre-industrial carbon levels – without risky, short-lived, and costly geoengineering gambits such as space mirrors, sulfur aerosols, and fish-suffocating plankton blooms. All we have to do is plant trees, build terra preta soils, and organically store carbon in our planet’s terrasphere instead of in its atmosphere.” Terra preta soils are very dark, fertile soil found in the Amazon Basin that were created using a mixture of charcoal, bone and manure.

It sounds so simple doesn’t it? Bates defends his view through a historical look at terra preta soils and biochar through the ages. He then provides research and offers a plan to begin sequestering carbon through carbon farming. Oh, and I should mention that biochar supporters believe one ton of biochar can sequester 3 tons of CO2 for at least 1,000 years or more.

Ultimately Bates believes that at this late hour there is still hope and his solution, “It would likely involve some combination of biochar, carbon farming, tree planting, and redesign of the built environment and energy systems to be carbon-negative. I cannot imagine any alternative that excludes those strategies that would remain viable for very long.”

So there you have it. It’s Earth Day on Friday and many people like to plant trees. This year, when you plant your tree, add a little biochar. Who knows. If enough people plants trees using biochar, it just might save the world.

He writes, “Understand that the real impetus behind the cooked numbers and doomspeak of the global warmers has little to do with the state of the environment and much to do with shackling capitalism and transforming the American way of life in the interests of global wealth redistribution (“social justice”).

Bell acknowledges that climate change is real – only that it is not man-made- and says that no one can reliably predict what Earth’s global climate will be in a decade or longer. What he sees as the real problem is the global energy supply dilemma, one that he believes has no simple solution.

Throughout the book, Bell lays out his case for his way of thinking beginning with “outing” those who are “cooking the climate books.” This includes Al Gore as well as the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In other words, he “sets the record straight.” From there, he highlights those that he believes are political hijackers of science – meaning policy makers who have molded climate science research to support their own agenda – mainly cap and trade. (I fondly call this crap and raid.) Bell argues that all forms of cap and trade are scams.

Next, he helps us get a real grip on “green energy.” Bell believes that the world’s readily accessible oil and gas deposits are dwindling and the the world must exploit all reasonable alternatives. However, “alternative energy sources” such as wind, solar and corn-based ethanol, are in his view, not reasonable alternatives. Bell argues that as the public has been hoodwinked by climate change and they have also been hoodwinked by the promises of green energy. He writes, “Many are beginning to realize that most green expectations are oversold and color-blind.”

So what’s the problem with green energy? First, Bell says it is currently uncompetitive, especially when compared to current energy sources. Second, he argues that green energy is actually browner than people realize. Third, they will not present a major supply-side solution to our energy challenges. Rather than support these types of energy sources, Bell supports nuclear power and the creation of technologies that will produce cleaner energy from coal and other fossils.

If you could pull out an overall message in the book, its that the public needs to be better informed; yet, he struggles with who should we trust to give us the truth. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Bell, if you learn one thing from the book it’s that you shouldn’t take any information about climate change or energy solutions at face value.

In 2006, McNeff was contacted by one of his former undergraduate college professors, Arlin Gyberg, at Augsburg College located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on behalf of one of his chemistry students, Brian Krohn. Krohn, a sophomore at the time, and now Rhodes Scholar, was going to conduct a 10-week summer research project on biodiesel. Krohn wanted to pursue producing biodiesel using a catalyst after his research uncovered some relatively unknown papers relating to the subject. As McNeff explains, a catalyst is something that speeds up a reaction and does not get consumed in a chemical reaction.

At the time, current biodiesel production was done by a chemical process called “based catalyzed transesterification.” In this process, oil and alcohol are chemically combined to produce esters (biodiesel) in a batch process where the reactants are put in a large tank, heated an stirred vigorously.

Krohn wanted to try using zirconia particles to catalyze the biodiesel reaction and although his experiments didn’t work, he sent along some papers to McNeff and that got his mind working in overtime – to the point where he called a meeting during which he suggested they try the very experiment that led to the Mcgyan Process discovery. The name came about after the research team that created it – Clayton McNeff, Arlin Gyberg and Dr. Ben Yan.

So how is this process different? It’s a continuous process where you combine an alcohol like ethanol and an oil like corn oil and run it through a reactor filled with a metal oxide catalyst. Then you add heat and pressure to the reactor and in a few seconds contact time the reaction is complete and you have biodiesel. This is all done without chemicals or water. And the Mcgyan Process has yet to meet an oil feedstock it couldn’t covert to ASTM standard biodiesel.

If you can shorten a less than four year story even more, after thousands of experiments to understand the chemistry of what they had, the team built a pilot scale facility and from there, a commercial scale 3 million gallon plant called Ever Cat Fuels (Ever Catalyst). In the middle of all of this, McNeff published papers about the findings, raised money, visited Washington, D.C., applied for DOE Loan Guarantees (which are nearly impossible to get for cutting edge, first-time technologies) and did all of this during the worst recession that this country has seen in 80 years.

While McNeff talks about how he believes this discovery and the consequent journey was “meant to be” it was not without its hardships. That’s in part what led he and his family to donate 5 cents from every gallon of biodiesel produced from Ever Cat Fuels to go to build a new science building at Augsburg College – the place where it all began.

I would be remiss to say that there are hundreds, if not thousands of researchers and entrepreneurs out there looking for the next breakthrough. It’s easy to get frustrated. The next time you do. Take a moment to read The Green Miracle. It won’t take long to inspire you and along the way, you’ll be reassured that America does in fact possess the willpower and the ingenuity to bring solutions to market to address our energy crisis today.

You can hear the story of The Green Miracle in Clayton McNeff’s own words in an excerpt of my interview with him: The Green Miracle

On that note, here is what I found most interesting about the information in the book. The same issues that the industry is fighting today, food versus fuel, indirect land use, net energy, and more, are the same issues that the industry was fighting 40 years ago. In fact, some of these issues date back more than 60 plus years ago. The petroleum industry has been using the same arguments against using ethanol in fuel since the 1930s. So what I find most disturbing is that the ethanol industry has not been able to successfully fight these issues in literally 80 years, and therefore the oil industry has had no need to change its game.

The authors write that the first backlash from the oil industry came in 1933 when Iowa proposed a mandatory blending of ethyl alcohol in gasoline. The Iowa Petroleum Council printed a pamphlet headlined, “The alcohol-gas scheme outrages common sense.” The pamphlet warned that blending what today is known as E10 would constitute a raid on Iowa motorists’ pocketbooks. As the campaign progressed, the media began writing articles, perpetuated by the American Petroleum Institute (API) that “farmers would make motorists pay for farm relief.” In essence, with the debate going on today surrounding VEETC (the blender’s credit) and other ethanol incentives, the anti-ethanol movement is still attacking farmers and telling American drivers they are subsidizing American farmers.

Another interesting element of the book was to learn about the continual rise and falls of ethanol. With those rise and falls, the industry enthused optimism about how much fuel they would produce using what types of feedstocks. Researchers have had high hopes for aquaculture (kelp, algae, etc.) for more than 40 years. They have also been researching the potential for biomass. Needless to say, none of the optimism has come to fruition, but I do believe that now more than ever, the industry is truly on a breakthrough with advanced biofuels.

I believe that the industry needs to go back and read this book. Not for the science per say, but for the history of ethanol. The industry is fighting a very difficult battle and will learn a great deal from this book. If anything, you’ll take away what has worked and not worked in ethanol’s public communication battles.

In the book, Mandelbaum takes on the challenge of laying out why America’s expansive foreign policy is coming to an end and the consequences of such an action. Let’s face it, America needs to tighten it’s purse strings – the country has phenomenal deficits, is still trying to recover from a financial crash and its entitlement programs such as Social Security, are running out of money. So what should go by the wayside? America’s underwriting of global security that dates back to the 1940s.

Mandelbaum is not naive to what could happen when the U.S. stops fighting the wars of others, but he is also very aware of what will happen if the U.S. continues to fight all the wars of others. It will put our “Superpower” status in more jeopardy. Whereas realigning our foreign policy could actually strengthen our position.

The war in Iraq is over oil – a commodity that our country cannot live without.

Mandelbaum writes, “Because the United States accounts for so much of the world’s oil usage, a major reduction in American consumption could lower overall consumption enough to reduce the global price of the commodity. This would decrease the money accruing to the governments that depend heavily, in some cases almost exclusively, on the sale of oil to finance their operations. Iran is one such country. The sale of oil account for 80 percent of its annual revenue. Reducing the income of the Islamic Republic would give its rulers less money to spend on the policies that threaten the rest of the region and the world….Restricting the stream of Iranian oil revenue would have an even more powerful effect on the regime: It would undermine its internal stability.”

Mandelbaum continues by explaining another benefit of reduced oil on Middle Eastern policies – the less the world relies on oil, and therefore the less it relies on oil from that region, the less important to the rest of the world the region will be. Ultimately, he concludes that the reduction of oil qualifies as the single most important thing the U.S. can do to achieve its international goals.

So what should happen in this new age of scarcity? Mandelbaum lays out a strategy of containment that includes moving to renewable energies in addition to oil and lobbies for a substantial tax on gasoline. This tax would lessen oil use, spur growth in renewable energy so it can be economically competitive and demonstrate that America has the wherewithal to address a major problem.

He concludes, “It would demonstrate, finally, that the United States is capable of taking steps to deal with an issue that affects the entire world. It would offer, that is, a vivid example of American global leadership.”

This book offers the best case I have ever seen that oil is a major risk to American security and presents it in a way that a true politician, worried about foreign relations, cannot deny why our country needs to move to renewable energy.

One of the things that I found interesting was that Scorse explained that one of the first principles of free markets is that for them to work effectively, the full costs of an activity must be borne by the involved parties. For example, many types of air and water pollutants exact a significant price on human health and or degrade ecoysytems, but these costs are not factored in the cost of production or at the consumer level. These costs are known as externalities and these lead to market failure. This is a common argument you hear when people talk about the “true cost of oil.”

Scorse notes that if we lived in a world where prices fully captured environmental costs, our entire economies would look vastly different. He writes, “…we would have different modes of transportation, different layouts for our cities and towns, different dietary habits, and consumer goods would likely contain much less toxic material. Prices of environmentally harmful goods would rise and much more R&D would go into alternatives, thereby decreasing their price. In such a world society’s resources would be invested in those things which bring the greatest social value.”

In a section of the book, Scorse discusses in detail how two current proposed U.S. environmentally polices would work: cap and trade or an environmental tax. While people are inherently opposed to either scenario, he does a great job explaining how each scenario would work, the pros and cons, and the possible outcomes of each. I should note that cap and trade is already at work in the utility industry so the mechanism is already in place for cap and trade for GHG emissions, or as I like to call it, crap and raid.

From there, he puts some of these economic theories to test on climate change, forest and biodiversity conservation, agriculture, chemical pollution and the fisheries and marine environment. I can’t help but take a moment to point out that in his section on agriculture, he examines ag subsidies and comes to the “economic” conclusion that they result in huge environmental damage, one of which is the Dead Zone, an area of the ocean that has died off due in part to exorbitant amounts of fertilizers used in farming.

At the end of the book, he touches on subsides for corn ethanol production. He says that ethanol is a terrible substitute for oil and results in a host of externalities, including increased GHGs. He writes, “This means that the end result of this expensive government program is more environmental degradation, more greenhouse gases, and less incentive for truly “green” energy alternatives, which are at an economic disadvantage since they do not receive subsidies.”

He continues, “For the next decade, the example of ethanol subsidies should be environmentalists’ ‘Exhibit A’ of how not to craft government policy.”

Scorse then goes on to explain why the policy failed and how to avoid a similar situation in the future.

All in all, there are unintended consequences of every action and this book does address how some of them can be factored into the “true cost” of an environmental activity or product. It’s a good place to start learning about economics, but if you really want to delve into the discipline, you’ll need to supplement your library.

Despite my story lead, I was not a cheerleader in another life but I couldn’t get that cheer out of my head while I read this week’s book, “Why We Hate The Oil Companies Straight Talk From An Energy Insider,” by John Hofmeister. I recently gave Mr. Hofmeister some ink when he predicted that the country would see $5 per gallon of gas within the next 10 years so I thought, hey, I should read his book. See what’s he’s all about. He is, after all, the former president of Shell Oil Company.

What is Hofmeister all about? Bringing affordable, clean and sustainable energy to all Americans. He writes, “The truth is that affordable energy is essential for American economic growth. It is essential for our national security and position in world leadership. And it is necessary to maintain our quality of life.” He continues by saying affordable energy and environmental sustainability are challenges that require immediate attention.

Who is in charge of leading the way to affordable energy?  The oil and utility companies? Government? American Citizens? The answer is not so black and white as Hofmeister explains. No one believes the oil companies – they are ranked 24 out of 24 in the industry “Who do you trust” poll and the government is ranked at 22. Not swell by any standards. Then we have American citizens who have been fed “information, misinformation and no information” and they are still electing politicians who have spent 40 years not making good energy policy decisions. We Americans have bad voting histories.

So what do we have? Hofmeister says “there is an energy shortage, but there is no shortage of energy.”

Like so many others, Hofmeister is not an outright fan of biofuels but he does not dismiss them entirely. He writes, “There are sound reasons for investing in biofuels research and development. We should not be naive, however, about the cost, barriers, and obstacles to commercial biofuels production. Nor should we overestimate their potential.”

He continues, “Biofuels are not about to replace classic fossil fuels as the primary source of engine power in the lifetime of anyone alive today. In fact, before we develop the capability for biofuels to replace fossil fuels, internal combustion engines will mostly disappear, and with them the need for massive quantities of biofuels.”

It just so happens that he’s banking on electric vehicles and hydrogen fuels cells as the transportation mode of the future.

That’s a good segue to briefly touch on electricity and his views on alternative energy such as solar and wind. Also, in the vain of many before him, he doesn’t believe they can compete without subsidies. In the case of wind, it doesn’t blow all the time, and for solar power, where we have ample sun, we have little water. But, like biofuels, he believes they should still be pursued.

Ultimately, Hofmeister believes that the future energy mix will still be primarily fossil fuel, or carbon based, albeit cleaner, with alternative energies filling in the gaps when needed. However, this will never happen, he says, with current policy and with all the fighting between energy industries. Therefore, his solution: “Now is the time for Congress to legislate and the president to sign a bill to create and implement an independent regulatory agency, the Federal Energy Resources System, to manage the nation’s energy and energy-related environmental footprint.”

Needless to say, this idea has gone on deaf ears in the oil and utility industries along with politicians and other energy groups. However, Hofmeister says that the general public has been receptive to the idea, and it will take a massive grassroots effort to induce major energy policy change. Therefore, he created the nonprofit Citizens for Affordable Energy to do just that.

I have read hundreds of energy and environmental books and I must say that Hofmeister has offered one of the most unique, achievable and comprehensive solutions to our energy woes that I have ever seen.

With those thoughts, now onto the real purpose of this blog: my top books of 2010.

Best Economic Book: The Economics of Food by Patrick Westhoff

Best Environmental Book: Green Gone Wrong by Heather Rogers

Best Energy Book: The End of Energy Obesity by Peter Tertzakian

Best Global Warming Conspiracy Book: Energy & Climate Wars by Peter C. Glover and Michael Economides

Most Fun to Read: No Impact Man by Colin Beavan

Best Book of 2010: The Boy who Harnessed the Wind: by William Kamkwanba

If you have an idea for a book that you would like me to review in 2011, please send me an email at altenergyblogger@hotmail.com. Happy Holidays, thanks for reading DomesticFuel and may 2011 bring you much health and happiness.

The authors write, “The warming signs include the six-year long plateauing of world oil production, the escalation of oil prices, and the analyses of a number of highly trained professionals and competent organizations.”

They authors don’t use the term “peak oil” because world oil production, they say, has been and is likely to stay on the current fluctuating world oil production plateau for a few more years before the onset of production decline.

So what’s the problem you ask? We have hoards of alternatives? According to the authors, the realities of these alternatives are that they are “very costly and insufficient to satisfy our overall energy needs, let alone our liquid fuel needs.” The energy sources they discuss are numerous including biofuels, solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas, hydrogen, electric vehicles, oil shale, coal to liquids, and more. But let’s delve into this deeper using biofuels, more specifically, corn ethanol as an example.

When determining the validity of an energy source, the authors used two measurements: Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) and Liquid Fuel Return on Investment (LFROI). In terms of EROEI of corn ethanol, the authors write that it is poor and that some even claim it is negative.

Here is an example the authors use: “Ethanol advocates describe ethanol production in billions of gallons per year. That measure yields a very large number, which is impressive in marketing and politics. For example, the U.S. has mandated production of 35 billion gallons of ethanol per year by 2017, which is a seemingly huge number until it is translated to millions of barrels per day, which is the measure used in dealing with oil production and consumption.”

“Do the calculation. There are 365 days in a year and 42 gallons in a barrel, and the energy content of ethanol is about 60 percent of gasoline, when properly compared. This means that 35 billion gallons of ethanol per year translates to about 1.4 million barrels per day of oil on an energy equivalent basis. Since the U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels per day of oil, that seemingly huge ethanol target boils down to about a 7% contribution in the U.S. We need what we can get, as long as it makes energy, economic and environmental sense, which corn-ethanol does not.”

The authors are more causistically optimistic about biomass-to-liquids and they ultimately write that in the case of renewable energy as a solution, “We hope that current and future research will bring forth attractive renewable electric power and liquid fuel production options. They are just not here today.”

Throughout the book, the authors take us through the research of how they know oil production is on the decline and what we do have is getting harder to drill, and then they take us through the current alternative technologies from oil to alternative energy, walk us through government intervention/mitigation strategies and then predict the winners and losers.

So, now that we know all of this what is the ultimate solution? Preparation now for a future will less oil.

Weaved throughout the book is the message of renewable energy. One of the sub-characters in the book, who is tasked with helping the crime scene investigators, is the genius from Algonquin who is tasked with working on renewable energy projects for the company. Ironically, the company’s CEO, Andi Jessen, is against renewable energy so while you read, you are unwittingly exposed the pros and cons of renewable energy or continuing down the path of the status quo.

In one scene of the book Jessen says, “Sure, the renewables will be growing but very, very slowly. For the next hundred years, they’ll be a drop in the bucket of juice, if I can quote myself.” The president was growing even angrier. “The start-up costs are obscene, the gadgets to create the juice are ridiculously expensive and unreliable, and since the generators’re usually located away from major load centers, transportation is another huge cost. Take solar farms. The wave of the future right? Do you know they’re one of the biggest users of water in the power business? And where are they located? Where there’s the most sun and therefore the least water.”

I have to give some kudos to Deaver and commend him on his research into the power grid. From what I’ve learned over the past year and how the smart grid is changing the game and how renewables are also changing the game, it seemed like Deaver really created some eerily real scenarios for murder by electricity. I just hope that people don’t take his “insights” into energy as “truths” and continue to explore the pros and cons of renewable energy outside of fiction.

He also has some amazingly in-depth characters. From his hero – the quadriplegic Lincoln Rhyme whom some may remember from The Bone Collector – to his partner in the sense of both professional and personal Amanda Sachs, and all the supporting characters, he has created both a winning book as well as a winning series.

So if you’re looking for a last minute gift for the energy enthusiast, book loving friend or family member, definitely add this one to your gift list.

Now before you start clicking the button to post a comment, these are the views of the authors, not me. With that reminder, let me regale you with the overarching premise of the book. According to the authors, the book was written to give the reader a grasp on “the power politics of energy” or more specifically on the social ideology that increasingly influences and impacts you.

What is real, they say, is the threat on your energy security, but not for the reasons you believe (we’re running out of oil/peak oil, or that alternative energies will substitute for ‘dirty’ hydrocarbons). The REAL threats to your energy security are numerous one being alternative energy. In other words, our lifestyle as we know it (military, cars, homes, gadgets, etc.) is predicated on energy, energy that grew out of the Industrial Revolution. If we scale back on fossil-fuel based energy sources, oil, coal, natural gas, we are going to lose our way of life, our military will suffer, and ultimately, our energy security will be at risk.

The authors write, “Now let’s be clear before we go any further. Nobody is against research into new energy technologies, or demurs from the small-scale, purely supportive value of renewable energy sources from wind power (it may help keep your out-house lit) to solar power (expensive but it might give you hot or tepid bathwater) to geothermal use (maybe, but only in really cold countries). The problem is not the pin-prick, ad hoc uses to which they may be put, but the harnessing of larger projects on a commercially viable basis. On an industrial scale, they amount to nothing more than incredibly uneconomic business propositions that require the constant lifeline of government intervention and tax subsidy. The stark reality is that current technology offers no realistic replacing hydrocarbons for decades to come, if ever.” (All emphasis are those of the authors.)

Energy and Climate Wars reads a little like a Michael Crichton book (scientific thriller) dropped into the the plot of a John Le Carré global spy thriller, mixed with controversy of WikiLeaks adapted for the screen by the producer of the movie Wag the Dog.

If you question the whole global climate change movement, then you should consider reading this book. If you are one who believes that global climate change exists and that these two are the “alarmists” distracting us from the real crisis, you might want to read this book to. Why? It’s always easier to fight your enemies if you have their playbooks. Well, for the rest of you, consider a less controversial read…this one may give the weak of heart a stroke.

While America has the means to be the leader in electric vehicle development and manufacturing, Billmaier notes that this lead is under threat, especially by China. He writes, “Today the United States faces a new threat to its national security. This time the threat is one of economic dominance, and it comes in the form of the electric car.”

He continues, “The EV industry us certain to become a technological juggernaut. Any society that masters it will enjoy an economic bonanza and enormous world power. For our own security, that society needs to be us.”

While the major hurdles to EV development have been or or close to being overcome, there are still challenges that need to be addressed. Ballmaier notes that these include lack of substantial private and federal investments to develop the industry and manufacture the cars and components in the states, as well as battery development and charging infrastructure. Cost is a major factor, and as an example, the Chevy Volt, that is launching in 2011, will cost more than $40K. In addition, the EVs range is still a concern among most drivers – true EVs are just getting to the 100 mile range.

However, Ballmaier explains that as EVs come of age and consumers purchase them in droves, battery costs will come down, range will go up and the cars will become even less expensive and more attractive.

In the beginning of the book, Ballmaier gives an overview of the industry, that is followed by interviews with some of the major players. The book concludes with his take on the future of EVs in America. While this was interesting, what I felt was missing was a real examination of some of the drawbacks of EVs including the precious metals needed for the batteries, battery replacement and recycling, the needs of the electrical grid and the move to the smart grid, and the true impacts of plugging into a dirty grid. In addition, I felt he missed an opportunity to talk more about hybrids (PHEV), electric vehicles with a gas backup that can run on E85. If his vision comes true, it won’t happen without a transmission that will require hybrids to travel long distances.

In the end, Ballmaier outlines his “JOLT! Program for America” which calls for 100 million plug-in cars on American roads by the end of the decade and asks for America to take charge.

I must admit that I don’t know much about the utility industry but I do have fond memories of living in Texas when the state approved deregulation and all the rolling brownouts as a result of that decision. But according to experts, these could be more commonplace if the grid is not improved. Yet what is the best way to do this and who should pay? Most conversations about these issues involve in some capacity a discussion about the smart grid. However the first thing we need to understand is what exactly is the smart grid?

Penner writes, “As the industry shifts its supply sources, builds transmission, and increases its energy efficiency efforts, the technologies at the core of its operations will shift dramatically. Over the next thirty years, the industry will adopt the so-called Smart Grid, and the architecture of the system will shift from one based exclusively on large sources and central control to one with many more smaller sources and decentralized intelligence. The Smart Grid will mark a total transformation of the industry’s operating model–the first major architectural change since alternating current became the dominant system after the Chicago World’s Fair in 1893.”

This shift will cost more than $2 trillion dollars, and the jury is still out on whether the best option is large sources (nuclear, coal with sequestration, natural gas, etc.) or smaller sources that include solar and wind energy or a combination of the two.

In the book, Penner progresses the reader through a history of the grid, explains where we’re at today and where we need to be in the future. He discusses the intricacies of pricing and how energy conservation plays a role for saving consumers money while at the same time making utility companies money. He discusses privacy issues related to the smart grid (that is being developed and monitored in part by third party companies). Penner also addresses issues and challenges and offers solutions. In addition he presents scenarios of what could happen if certain paths are taken.

This is a very complicated issue with dozens of moving parts and while I understand it much better, the book is not for the newcomer. It is best suited for those working directly for utility companies or those working for companies that are providing products and services that will move the country to the smart grid. And because Penner gives very detailed future scenarios including electricity scenarios and detailed charts detailing large scale power generating technologies including costs associated with each technology relating to carbon emissions, I believe it could become a very valuable resource for high-level utility executives.

I felt pretty good for years to come but that enthusiasm has waned as I’ve learned that recycling programs are barely effective and we still generate too much stuff. “The Story of Stuff” came of out the internet movie sensation by the same name. Author Annie Leonard has been traveling around the world for more than 20 years learning about the world’s obsession with “Stuff.”. Not only do we have too much, but its too toxic. According to Leonard, we’re also using our natural resources far faster than the Earth can replenish them.

Leonard explains that the expanding economic system is about to hit a wall. It is running up against the limits of our planet’s capacity to sustain life. Economists predict that with the rate of growing populations, especially those in countries like China and India, coupled with the amount of CO2 emissions created from the production and transportation of our Stuff, we’re in trouble.

“Put it simply, if we do not redirect our extraction and production systems and change the way we distribute, consume, and dispose of our Stuff – what I sometimes call the take-make-waste-mold-the economy as it is will kill the planet,” writes Leonard.

While I don’t agree with her wholeheartedly, I do agree that she is on to something. I can’t tell you how many times in the past few years I’ve purchased something I usually don’t even need and it has a crazy amount of wasteful packaging. I am now even more aware as Leonard takes you through the entire process of Stuff from extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and disposal.

One area I found particularly interesting was when she discussed the new movement of waste-to-energy plants, which are essentially incinerators. Leonard explains that incineration is horrible because it “liberates the toxics contained in products into the air.” As she is explaining why this method is so horrible, she says that waste-to-energy plants should be called waste of energy plants.

She writes “the little bit of energy recovered from burning trash is a very dirty energy, releasing far more greenhouse gases than burning natural gas, oil, or even coal. According to the EPA, waste incinerators produce 1,355 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, coal produces 1,020, oil 758, and gas 515.”

After reading this section, I will be digging more into the waste-to-energy plants that are in production or construction.

There were a few times that I felt Leonard was preachy, but there were other times I felt energized to take stock of my “Stuff” and make changes to help reduce not only my Stuff, but encourage companies who are producing products to do the same (and remove the numerous unneeded toxic chemicals).

She ends to book by offering four individual actions: redefine progress, do away with war, internationalize externalities, and value time over stuff. She also includes example letters that you can send to manufacturers who produce products with toxic chemicals or too much waste. While I did not embrace all of her recommendations, all in all, this is an interesting book.

Most ethanol advocates understand that today’s engines are not manufactured to optimize ethanol; they are manufactured to optimize gasoline or diesel. Yet for nearly 100 years, there have been major technological breakthroughs using ethanol blends that have been “hidden” from consumers and never brought to market. In this technical overview, author Aureon Kwolek highlights all of these advancements, explains how they work and gives us the low-down on what companies are working on what technologies and their plans, if any to bring them to market.

But what may have been most interesting about the e-book, is that Kwolek presents a very compelling case on why E-100-4 should be the fuel of the future – not E85. The major difference between E-100-4 is that is contains water and is known as hydrous ethanol. In Brazil, all of their flex-fuel vehicles run on hydrous ethanol (which is less expensive to produce and offers better fuel efficiency that anhydrous ethanol according to Kwolek). In America, we remove all the water before it is sold and blended with gasoline adding an extra step and extra expense.

Kwolek writes, “ We can also optimize that engine for hydrous ethanol. Our next assignment is converting water vapor into steam, and then into hydrogen, inside the combustion chamber. Adding the water component adds a quantum leap to fuel efficiency.”

So if the technology is there to fuel vehicles with E-100-4 hydrous ethanol, and for them to get better gas mileage than all other fuels and fuel blends, why isn’t it coming to market? Kwolek surmises the problem lies with the relationship between the petroleum industry and the auto industry. He says it’s “Because automakers have a lucrative alliance with petroleum and a conflict of interest with fuel efficiency.”

This is a great overview of ethanol engine technology and one that I highly recommend. Kwolek cites all of his resources and gives links so that readers can get more information on all of the technologies that he features in the summary. You can purchase a copy of the e-book, E-100-4: The New Revolutionary Fuel,” here.

Bryce has four imperatives that he has created to measure the value of a particular form of energy. The four imperatives include power density, energy density, cost, and scale. Let me quickly tell you what forms of alternative energy don’t make the grade: biofuels, wind, solar or electric vehicles. What does make the grade? Natural gas to nuclear and Bryce lays out his N2N plan to support the growth of both of these forms of energy.

He writes, “It may be fashionable to promote wind, solar, and biofuels, but those sources fail when it comes to power density. We want energy sources that produce lots of power from small amounts of real estate. And that’s the key problem with wind, solar, and biofuels. They require huge amounts of land to generate meaningful amounts of power. And although the farm lobby loves biofuels such as corn ethanol, that fuel fails on two counts: power density and energy density. Corn ethanol production requires vast swathes of land, and the fuel that it produces is inferior to gasoline because it is corrosive, it is hydrophilic, and it contains just two-thirds of gasoline’s heat content.”

In an entire section of the book, Byrce lays out the reasons why renewable energy is not in America’s best interest. However, prior to that he does at least dismiss coal as an option for the future, and he does portray carbon sequestration as a farce.

At the end of the book, Byrce “rethinks green” and offers a few suggestions for the future. He also lays out the steps of his N2N Plan:

1. 1) Promote natural gas and nuclear power through targeted use of tax incentives.
2. 2) Encourage oil and gas production in the United States.
3. 3) Continue Promoting energy efficiency.
4. 4) Continue working on renewables and energy storage technologies such as batteries and compressed-air energy storage.

I’ll let Bryce’s N2N plan speak for itself and with that my friends, if you’ll learn one thing from this book, is that you’ll understand, in great detail, all the cards being played by the anti-renewable energy movement.

On April 20, 2010, BP’s Macondo well blew in the Gulf of Mexico killing 11 workers. By the time the well was capped, 87 days later, the well spewed hundreds of millions of gallons of toxic oil into the Gulf making this the worst oil spill the globe has ever known. Lehner writes, “The Macondo blowout is another national wake-up call, a sobering plea for action on the greatest environmental challenge of our time: finding a way out of the economic and social model we’ve built around fossil fuels, and forging a future built instead around the clean energy technologies of tomorrow.”

The quest for oil has encouraged oil companies to drill deeper and deeper into the ocean. According to the latest government and industry estimates, nearly 40 billion barrels of oil lie in American waters in the Gulf, much of it buried miles and miles deep in the Earth.  At $75 a barrel, the oil is worth $3 trillion.

Unfortunately, Lehner writes, the lack of proper government oversight and the embellishments of the oil companies in their ‘environmental plans’ in case of oil spills, highlighted technology that doesn’t exist. A reality that became difficult to bear as the world watched in horror the inability of BP to cap the well. The spill, explained Lehner, also highlighted the failure of policy, one that existed well before the catastrophe.

So what happens now? According to Lehner, a Natural Resources Damages Assessment (NRDA) is currently being undertaken and is a critical document as the conclusions it contains will provide the basis for a larger body of federal actions, legal decisions and restoration plans.

Lehner concludes by highlighting that we consume 800 million gallons of oil per day. “If we could tap every barrel of oil known or thought to be lying beneath the entire U.S. portion of the Gulf of Mexico- all 1.7 trillion gallons of it – we could use up every drop, under current consumption rates, in just under six years.” This is a sobering statistic.

Finally, Lehner offers solutions to curb our fossil fuel use and cautions that the book is just the first draft of an ongoing study of the crisis.

This is definitely a set of questions that aren’t often asked in context with the smart grid. More often, there is a disagreement of who is going to pay for the smart grid or whether the smart grid will save consumers money or cost consumers money. However, Rosen has a definite opinion of the smart grid. He writes that privacy will be at risk (utilities will literally be able to ‘see’ into your house with the new technologies) but he also writes that utilities will make billions more in profits with this move.

Rosen explains that based on the track record of utilities, “…the smart grid is not in the country’s best interest nor are they concerned with Secretary Chu’s carbon-reduction targest when they enthuse about rolling out the smart grid. They are concerned with market dominance and profits.”

He continues by anticipating that smart technologies will eliminate the need for meter readers and many call centers, thus reducing the number of jobs in the space while making even more profits (most people estimate that utilities will pass along the costs of developing the smart grid to consumers in the form of higher energy costs).

I must say that while I do not disagree with Rosen as a whole, he does fall into a growing number of Americans who want less government and more individual control. Many of these people who are “anti-government” already live off the grid; however, it is unfair to say that all people who live off the grid are those who are hiding for some reason or other. Many people are looking for ways to become “energy independent” to save money, to have a back-up in case of a major electricity shortage or outage, or to just get-away from technology in general for a while.

For those people who are curious about what living off the grid would be like, or learning how to go “Off The Grid,” this is a very interesting book to read. It is also educational for those who are not convinced that the smart grid is all that smart.

In this case, I’m going to focus on Bello’s explanation of how biofuels contributed to rising food costs. Bello states that biofuels have been blamed for the food price increases over the past few years, but continues by saying while they were a contributing factor, they were not the cause of the volatility of food prices.

He writes, “More central as root causes have been structural adjustment, free trade, and policies extracting surplus from agriculture for industrialization, all of which have destroyed or eroded the agricultural sector of many countries. No one factor can be pinpointed as the cause of the global food crisis. It is the confluence of these conditions that has made the contemporary food price crisis so threatening and difficult to solve.”

But despite this concession, he is still not a supporter of biofuels, at least in the context of environmental benefits, and he says, “Indeed agrofuels contribute to global warming and certainly do not provide a solution to climate change.”

So, Bello takes us through a very brief discussion U.S. and EU agrofuels policy (such as the Renewable Fuels Standard created under President Bush) and then claims, “The triad of strict mandates and standards, import tariffs, and subsidies make for a strong agrofuels policy that is skewing the marketplace in a negative direction, driving up the price of food, and harming the environment.”

One report that he uses in support of biofuels driving up food prices is The World Bank report that came out last year. Needless to say, the ethanol industry attacked the report and then this year, The World Bank actually came out with a new report that contradicted its own claims and said that biofuels did not heavily contribute to food price increases.

The irony with reports, including those cited by Bello, are that they can be presented to match your personal views on an issue. In this case, Bello makes no point to hide his distaste for biofuels and the worldwide policies that have been passed to develop them.

Despite my obvious disagreement on how he presented that chapter, Bello does a good overall job of trying to address all the factors that contribute to the rise and fall of food prices. In his conclusion, he offers some ways to help people take control of their food security and points to small farmers or peasant-based farming as a good model to develop local or regional sustainable alternative economies.

While the mainstream media continues to report that global climate change is real and caused by man, Spencer argues that it is in fact real, but not manmade. He says that global warming is just part of a natural cycle. In fact, he said that cloud cover is one of the “feedbacks” (i.e. causes) of warming and cooling trends.

Spencer is not the first scientist to speak out against the theory that global climate change is manmade. Climate physicist Henrik Svensmark and award winning science writer Nigel Calder also believe that clouds are a cause of global warming. They lay out their theory in “The Chilling Stars A New Theory of Climate Change.”

Spencer argues that scientists who take a risk and offer other ideas for the cause of climate change, are not often published in scientific journals nor are their theories covered by the mainstream media who likes stories that bring the message of doom and gloom.

“Why am I willing to stick my neck out on an issue where there is so much momentum running in the opposite direction? Because the United States is making decisions on energy policy that will literally lead to death and suffering. The environmental lobby, activist news media, opportunistic politicians–and even a few Big Oil interests–have led the public to believe that we can “go green” in generating energy,” writes Spencer.

The truth, Spencer continues, is that there are still no long-term replacements for fossil fuels that are going to make much of a difference to global carbon dioxide emissions in the foreseeable future. It is important to note that by Spencer presenting a theory that global warming is not caused by man, he is thus saying that it is not caused by excessive amounts of carbon dioxide. Therefore, this rush to create policy around greenhouse gas emissions is premature. (Chris Horner argued the same thing in Power Grab which I reviewed last week.)

Although Spencer is a scientist, he does a great job of presenting examples that draw on everyday activities that people engage in, to help explain how clouds and weather patterns affect the Earth’s warming and cooling trends. He also created a “global climate model” that anyone can use on his or her computer. You can check it out at www.drroyspencer.com.

If you are interested in global climate change and are open to delving into alternatives to the cause of climate change other than excessive CO2, then this book is a good resource.