Rating: 
Summary: Could Not Read More Than One Page
Review: Ezra Pound is famous for saying that the only morality in writing is accuracy. On the first page of this book, Rifkin says that the Enlightenment changed the way the world thought because people like Pascal, Newton, and Locke turned the world away from thinking that the world was created by a God to a world controlled by reason. A trial is in order on the accuracy of Rifkin's research.
Exhibit One: Pascal is famous for his claim to know God and wrote the Pensées, one of the most famous Christian treatises ever. Pascal believed God created the world. Exhibit Two: John Locke sought to express the reasonable limits of knowing God, and wrote his famous treatise: The Reasonableness of Christianity. Locke believed God created the world.
Exhibit Three: A high school student could tell you that Newton was a deeply religious man who did not think scientific pursuits contradicted God. Newton believed God created the world. The point here is not the Enlightment did not emphasize inductive thought from experiment, nor whether God created the world. The only point is that if a man is going set down his thoughts and call them a book, and if he is going to take such insufficient care as to be dead wrong on the first page of a book, why read it. I did not. I set it down. Such inaccuracy on page one is too likely to mean 200 or more pages of trashy or unexamined or unresearched thinking. Under Ezra Pound's law, the book is immoral.
Rating:
Summary: Could Not Read More Than One Page
Review: Ezra Pound is famous for saying that the only morality in writing is accuracy. On the first page of this book, Rifkin says that the Enlightenment changed the way the world thought because people like Pascal, Newton, and Locke turned the world away from thinking that the world was created by a God to a world controlled by reason. A trial is in order on the accuracy of Rifkin's research.
Exhibit One: Pascal is famous for his claim to know God and wrote the Pensées, one of the most famous Christian treatises ever. Pascal believed God created the world. Exhibit Two: John Locke sought to express the reasonable limits of knowing God, and wrote his famous treatise: The Reasonableness of Christianity. Locke believed God created the world.
Exhibit Three: A high school student could tell you that Newton was a deeply religious man who did not think scientific pursuits contradicted God. Newton believed God created the world. The point here is not the Enlightment did not emphasize inductive thought from experiment, nor whether God created the world. The only point is that if a man is going set down his thoughts and call them a book, and if he is going to take such insufficient care as to be dead wrong on the first page of a book, why read it. I did not. I set it down. Such inaccuracy on page one is too likely to mean 200 or more pages of trashy or unexamined or unresearched thinking. Under Ezra Pound's law, the book is immoral.
Rating: 
Summary: More like "The History of the Oil Industry"
Review: I bought this book based mainly on the title and the brief description of the book on the cover. It's a good book, but I think it would be more accurate to name the book "The History of the Oil Industry, and some stuff at the end about hydrogen". I guess I should have browsed through it more before I bought it, but the book doesn't really begin to focus on hydrogen (as opposed to oil) until the last two chapters.
My other complaint about the book is that it tries to explain very complex world issues/events in very simple cause/effect terms. While I agree that future of the oil industry will be closely intertwined with the various religions and cultures of the Middle East, it's a bit of a stretch for a book that is supposed to be about hydrogen to start *explaining* world religions and Middle Eastern social structures.
It also basically concludes that Rome fell because it couldn't support its energy needs. OK, that could have been one of the causes, but it's a lot trickier than that.
It seems to be a well-researched book, but if you're just looking for information about "The Hydrogen Economy", skip to the last two chapters.
Rating:
Summary: More like "The History of the Oil Industry"
Review: I bought this book based mainly on the title and the brief description of the book on the cover. It's a good book, but I think it would be more accurate to name the book "The History of the Oil Industry, and some stuff at the end about hydrogen". I guess I should have browsed through it more before I bought it, but the book doesn't really begin to focus on hydrogen (as opposed to oil) until the last two chapters.
My other complaint about the book is that it tries to explain very complex world issues/events in very simple cause/effect terms. While I agree that future of the oil industry will be closely intertwined with the various religions and cultures of the Middle East, it's a bit of a stretch for a book that is supposed to be about hydrogen to start *explaining* world religions and Middle Eastern social structures.
It also basically concludes that Rome fell because it couldn't support its energy needs. OK, that could have been one of the causes, but it's a lot trickier than that.
It seems to be a well-researched book, but if you're just looking for information about "The Hydrogen Economy", skip to the last two chapters.
Rating: 
Summary: The Hydrogen Economy
Review: I bought this book thinking that it would be somewhat different from what it actually is. This is more of an oil-history book until the last two chapters. The first seven chapters slowly build up to doomsday-esque scenarios. While they may never come true, it is certainly instructive to think about them because if we do nothing then they will come true. We need some scaring so that we can kick the H2 research into overdrive before it really is too late.
Rating:
Summary: Could the editor have messed it up?
Review: I enjoyed this book, but generally agree with most reviews posted so far. When Rifkin finally gets around to talking about hydrogen, logic falls apart, and he shoots way off into a fluffy left field. The change in flow was so significant, I had to wonder if Rifkin force-fit his astute observations of the demise of fossil fuels with the next energy trend and a book-selling title. Rifkin guardedly acknowledges Mitch Horowitz, editor at Penguin group "His editorial suggestions helped guide the direction of this book and his many contributions could be found throughout the finished work". mitchhorowitz.com gives some insight on what the editor is into - metaphysics, esoterica and world religion. All big sellers. Was Rifkin encouraged to draw a conclusion that made for a marketable title ? Did the publisher lend a heavy hand to the dramatic first chapter and highly suspect conclusion? I am not convinced that this is the book Rifkin set out to write. How can I get a copy of the first draft?
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding, except the part about the hydrogen economy...
Review: I thought this book was excellent and that everyone should read it. I found Rifkin's arguments about the role of energy in the rise and fall of civilizations and the thermodynamics of Rome to be extremely interesting and thought provoking. Also, anyone interested in a very readable yet detailed overview of the whole fossil fuel picture ' its history, future potential, and global impact on politics, humanity, and the environment ' would find this book enjoyable. These parts alone make the book worth buying. However, his eventual discussion about the hydrogen economy seems like it was written late at night after a few beers. In comparison with the very analytical earlier sections, he provides only a 'warm and fuzzy' vision of a hydrogen future. Three specific criticisms I had were: 1) Although he uses words like 'hydrogen' and 'fuel cell' a lot, Rifkin's vision really depends on the use of renewable energy technologies. And since most people don't live near a thermal vent or can easily dam a river, the fundamental question is whether solar and wind power can provide enough power to meet the high energy demands of 10 billion people. This issue was not addressed. 2) Although he makes a compelling and analytical argument against oil alternatives such as natural gas, coal, and tar sand, the potential role of nuclear power seems to have slipped his mind completely. This is a rather large omission, considering several European countries get more than two-thirds of their electricity form nuclear sources. This should have been a chapter, but was instead not discussed at all. 3) It is not clear that the costs and technical expertise required to build and maintain a distributed energy production network would be more efficient than having several elite companies manage mega-fuel cell facilities. Again, a little more analysis would help convince me that a global democratization of energy is actually possible. In summary, the weakness of the current energy regime is explained well, but one is left wondering if the bright and happy picture of the hydrogen economy that is presented is more than just a house of cards.
Rating:
Summary: Swiss Cheese Economics
Review: In "The Hydrogen Economy", Rifkin's analysis has more holes than Swiss cheese. The first seven chapters are used to construct a doomsday scenario for today's petrochemical-based economy by projecting past behavior unchanged into the future. Such linear regression techniques work well when applied to natural physical phenomena, but not human behavior. Many such studies were conducted in the 1960's and 1970's, predicting economic ruin for the western nations by the dawn of the 21st century. Unfortunately for their authors, human behavior adjusts to the changing conditions by reacting to higher energy prices with technology developments and the beginnings of alternate energy source exploration. Rifkin even notes this at one point, but then proceeds to completely ignore it. In doing so, Rifkin dismisses any further devlopment of petroleum production techniques, especially regarding the vast potential for oil sand production (at least he notes that oil sands represent an ultimate recoverable reserve equal at least to the entire Middle East). Also dismissed is the possibility that Islamic extremism may be moderated at some point in the future. Afterall, oil is only a useful tool to such nations as long as they ultimately do sell it to western consumers. The last two chapters (finally) deal with the book's title. Unfortunately, several holes here too appear. Rifkin glosses over traditional sources of electricity (and completely ignores nuclear power) to focus on solar and wind power to produce the needed hydrogen for his Utopia. Noting that heat and water vapor are the byproducts of hydrogen fuel cells, no further mention is made to this "pollution". Heat and water vapor released to the atmosphere mean much more cloud cover and rain (the cycle must be completed, afterall). How will this effect solar and wind power generation? Would this also greatly accelerate global warming? Maybe the effects are minimal or less than today's emissions they replace, but they at least deserve to be addressed if this subject is to be given fair treatment. What will be the impact of every home and every road vehicle containing a small bomb in the form of a pressurized hydrogen gas tank? The only mention of this issue was to say that the Hindenburg didn't actually explode and that hydrogen wasn't the cause anyway. Does that mean its OK to have small "Hindenburgs" periodically resulting from traffic accidents and house fires, because it wasn't "hydrogen's fault?" I was very disappointed with the economic and technical treatment given to what should be an exciting concept for future development. The summary dismissal of potential additional petroleum sources, and the complete ignorance of nuclear power as a potential energy source for hydrogen electrolysis, have convinced me that this book is really about a pre-conceived environmentalist "solution" at any cost, dressed up as "energy economics." I would only recommend this book to those who have already decided: "that's the solution....now tell me again how we're going to sell it."
Rating:
Summary: The Hydrogen Economy - Hard facts
Review: Jeremiah Rifkin's book "The Hydrogen Economy" does not give what its title promises.
Most of the book is devoted to historical, political, social considerations, most of which I find well written and even convincing, but which have nothing to do with hydrogen.
However, to me as an engineer, his recourse to thermodynamics to explain the fall of past civilizations appears ludicrous and unnecessary - there is no need to appeal to thermodynamics to make us understand that our world will collapse if it will run short of reasonably cheap energy.
Whether the production of liquid fuels and natural gas will peak within the time frames advocated by Rifkin, or at some other time, there is no doubt in my mind that it will peak, and that well before that time the world must start to convert to renewable energies (assuming that energy from nuclear fusion is still far away from being harnessed).
However Rifkin sees everything easy and cheap. In his chapter on Reglobalization from the Bottom up he advocates the installation of fuel cells in every household or neighbourhood or community, but he seems to forget that "upstream" of each fuel cell there must be a power generator (wind turbine or photo-voltaic cell), electrolytic cells to produce hydrogen and a hydrogen storage facility. Scale economies will certainly reduce the cost of these commodities, but in my mind it is difficult to think that with their combined cost, and the energy losses that will be incurred at each step (electricity to hydrogen gas, hydrogen gas to stored hydrogen, hydrogen to electricity) electricity generation will be cheaper than present day cost from fuel or gas fired power plants.
Also the numbers are staggering. Rifkin writes "Providing these 100 million (per year) new users with an average per capita consumption of electricity equivalent to what US consumers enjoyed in 195 would require the creation of 10 million megawatts of new electricity capacity globally by 2005". Should this capacity have to be provided entirely by renewable sources, as a rough order of magnitude this would require the installation of either:
-From 300 to 500 million 300 KW capacity wind turbines, or
-from 1 to 1.5 million square kilometres of photovoltaic cells
All the above seems to me quite sobering. Particularly the shift to renewable energy sources does not give many hopes to be a way "to lift billions of people out of poverty". Therefore I cannot be as optimistic as Rifkin does - however I share with him the conviction that the shift to these sources is inevitable, and that the world must brace itself to meet the challenges and sacrifices that it will entail. The sooner, the better.
Rating:
Summary: The Future of Energy
Review: Jeremy Rifkin's book _The Hydrogen Economy_ explains the current fossil-fuel economy and how it got to where it is today and how it's going to be replaced. One interesting aspect of our modern system Rifkin points out is that with the advent of fossil-fuels current farmers put in more energy into producing their crops then they get out of them. This fact points to a larger point that Rifkin makes in the book. The energy balance of a civilization must be maintained for that civilization to survive as such. When a civilization can no longer take in enough energy the civilization will collapse. Rifkin also argues that the more energy a civilization can get and use the more powerful the civilization will be. I'm don't think that energy alone is what makes a civilization more powerful but it is an integral part of power. With fossil fuels our civilization uses more energy faster then any civilization in history. Rifkin also points out that as civilizations mature more and more energy is needed to maintain a civilization and that civilizations have much more difficult energy problems growing and developing more infrastructure.
The book points out several problems with the current system. One problem or potential problem is the threat from Islamic Fundamentalists. This threat could come in the form of sabotage of oil and other fossil fuel infrastructure. The threat could also come from the outright revolt and overthrow of regimes friendly to the US and are major producers of oil. If an Islamic Fundamentalist regime took control of Saudi Arabia for example they could cut the world off from the oil there or raise the price enough to hurt the world economy significantly. Another problem with the current energy system pointed out in the book is the dwindling of oil in the world. This seems to be the biggest problem. As oil becomes scarcer the price will rise. This will create major problems for our society and the world.
The solution to these and other energy problems including global warming is hydrogen. Rifkin explains how hydrogen can be used to store energy generated by non-polluting renewable systems. The ability to store energy generated from renewable sources is essential if these systems are going to replace fossil fuel energy regimes. Hydrogen according to Rifkin will also give people control over their own energy. Hydrogen will allow people to become less or non-reliant on the current centralized energy system.
This book is easy to read and can be understood by everybody even if you have a minimal background in the sciences. The book doesn't get very technical and doesn't try to explain the technical aspects of a switch to hydrogen, which is a good thing for people like me who don't have much of a background in the sciences. Rifkin spends much of the book explaining how fossil fuels changed society and how the switch to hydrogen will change society again.
|
