"Beyond Oil", by Kenneth S. Deffeyes

This sounds like a book very much worth reading. See the following review from Amazon.com
Peter




Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak (Paperback) by Kenneth S. Deffeyes (Author) (36 customer reviews)
List Price:
$13.00
Price:
$10.40 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
You Save:
$2.60 (20%)
Availability: In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.



A fine introduction to fossil fuels and the consequences of their depletion., September 27, 2006
By
Donald Wulfinghoff "author, Energy Efficiency... (Wheaton, MD USA) - See all my reviews For everyone who wants a quick and credible answer to the question, "Are we really running out of fossil fuels?", this is the book. Kenneth Deffeyes explains why your life and the lives of your children may soon become unimaginably different from what our comfortable generation expects. His book will make you a better citizen and a cocktail party expert, while providing you with a few evenings of top quality entertainment.

For most of the book, Deffeyes talks about what he knows best, which is predicting the availability of fossil fuels. He covers all of them: oil, gas, and coal, including their strange variations and hopeful new sources. Included is the history and technique of fossil fuels - especially oil - and its astounding political effects. A petroleum geologist who began his career working with M. King Hubbert, Deffeyes provides the easiest interpretation of Hubbert's method of predicting the depletion of resources. Deffeyes doesn't explain Hubbert's underlying rationale, which was murky, but he clarifies the "Hubbert curve" in a wonderful way. This analysis, along with its limitations, should be understood by every educated citizen.

The big question is whether Hubbert's analysis could be wrong or irrelevant, so that we may be saved by new sources of hydrocarbon energy. Deffeyes covers the known and conjectured alternatives. A few proven alternatives are not big enough to make much difference. One huge resource, methane hydrates, is tentatively estimated to contain many times more energy than all fossil fuels combined. The trouble is, nobody knows how to extract it. Tar sands, another huge resource, consume precious natural gas to extract the oil, and they are an environmental horror. Oil shale ("neither oil nor shale") is a vast store of organic material that has defied attempts to extract it with a significant energy profit.

Deffeyes deals briefly with Thomas Gold's conjecture of deep supplies of primordial methane, and he is unconvinced. He then gives a brief gloss on uranium, perhaps the most important alternative to fossil fuels. His main contribution is to clarify how much uranium is actually available. Deffeyes himself played a role in making this information public. The last of his topics is a genuflection to the "hydrogen economy." While suggesting a variety of applications for this less-than-zero-sum game, his telling adds little hope that hydrogen will help much in the long run.

He ends with a few pages of musing on the future, where unfortunately he steps outside his expertise. Like most experts on the supply side of energy, he seriously underestimates the potential and necessity of energy efficiency. This common error doesn't seriously tarnish an otherwise exemplary exposition. As the author of a book on energy efficiency that is eight times longer than Deffeyes', I envy his ability to cover so much in a book that can be read over a weekend.

While sharing the lecture circuit with Deffeyes, I saw him as a Falstaffian figure with a jolly sense of humor about a grim subject. Retired as a Princeton professor, he is proud of having spent most of his career working with roustabouts. His personality shines through in his writing style, which is a hoot. The one major flaw is a misleading title. This book says essentially nothing about the period "beyond oil," when civilization must be fully converted to new energy sources and extreme efficiency. Its main focus is the present declining period of fossil fuels, when we may still be able to make the transition successfully. As Deffeyes makes clear, that transition must be made quickly.

Michael Crichton: Our Environmental Future

I wish I could post this entire speech, but I can only quote parts of it and encourage you to read it all here: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/npc-speech.html

In the speech given January 25, 2005 before The Press Club, in Washington, D.C., Mr. Crichton talks about our environmental history, our perception of the present state of the climate, global warming, and the future. His insight, understanding, and interpretation are profound. It is unfortunate he is dismissed in some sectors as a "just" a fiction writer.
Peter


After his introduction, he says this about global warming:

"Okay. With this as a preparation, let’s turn to the evidence, both graphic and verbal, for global warming. As most of you have heard many times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. "

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. "

"So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

He summarizes by saying:

"The idea of spending trillions on the future is only sensible if you totally lack any historical sense, and any imagination about the future. "

"If we should not spend our money on Kyoto, what should we do instead?"

and........

"Second, and most important—we can’t predict the future, but we can understand the present. In the time we have been talking, 2,000 people have died in the Third World. A child is orphaned by AIDS every 7 seconds. Fifty people die of waterborne disease every minute. This does not have to happen. We allow it. "

and finally,

"What is wrong with us that we ignore this human misery and focus on events a hundred years from now? What must we do to awaken our phenomenally rich, spoiled and self-centered society to the issues of the wider world? The global crisis is not 100 years from now—it is right now. We should be addressing it. But we are not. Instead, we cling to the reactionary and anti-human doctrines of outdated environmentalism and turn our backs to the cries of the dying and the starving and the diseased of our shared world."

"And if we are going to remain too self-involved to care about the third world, can we at least care about our own? We live in a country where 40% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Where schoolchildren pass through metal detectors on the way to class. Where one child in four says they have seen a murdered person. Where millions of our fellow citizens have no health care, no decent education, no prospects for the future. If we really have trillions of dollars to spend, let us spend it on our fellow human beings. And let us spend it now. And not on our impossible fantasies of what may happen one hundred years from now."