What do you think?
Rate this book
Powering the Future: How We Will (Eventually) Solve the Energy Crisis and Fuel the Civilization of Tomorrow
In Powering the Future, Nobel laureate Robert B. Laughlin transports us two centuries into the future, when we’ve ceased to use carbon from the ground—either because humans have banned carbon burning or because fuel has simply run out. Boldly, Laughlin predicts no earth-shattering transformations will have taken place. Six generations from now, there will still be soccer moms, shopping malls, and business trips. Firesides will still be snug and warm.
How will we do it? Not by discovering a magic bullet to slay our energy problems, but through a slew of fascinating technologies, drawing on wind, water, and fire. Powering the Future is an objective yet optimistic tour through alternative fuel sources, set in a world where we’ve burned every last drop of petroleum and every last shovelful of coal.
The Predictable:
Fossil fuels will run out. The present flow of crude oil out of the ground equals in one day the average flow of the Mississippi River past New Orleans in thirteen minutes. If you add the energy equivalents of gas and coal, it’s thirty-six minutes. At the present rate of consumption, we’ll be out of fossil fuels in two centuries’ time.
We always choose the cheapest gas. From the nineteenth-century consolidation of the oil business to the California energy crisis of 2000-2001, the energy business has shown, time and again, how low prices dominate market share. Market forces—not green technology—will be the driver of energy innovation in the next 200 years.
The laws of physics remain fixed. Energy will still be conserved, degrade entropically with use, and have to be disposed of as waste heat into outer space. How much energy a fuel can pack away in a given space is fixed by quantum mechanics—and if we want to keep flying jet planes, we will need carbon-based fuels.
The Potential:
Animal waste.If dried and burned, the world’s agricultural manure would supply about one-third as much energy as all the coal we presently consume.
Trash. The United States disposes of 88 million tons of carbon in its trash per year. While the incineration of waste trash is not enough to contribute meaningfully to the global demand for energy, it will constrain fuel prices by providing a cheap supply of carbon.
Solar energy.The power used to light all the cities around the world is only one-millionth of the total power of sunlight pouring down on earth’s daytime side. And the amount of hydropump storage required to store the world’s daily electrical surge is equal to only eight times the volume of Lake Mead.
PRAISE FOR ROBERT B. LAUGHLIN
“Perhaps the most brilliant theoretical physicist since Richard Feynman”
—George Chapline, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
“Powerful but controversial.”
— Financial Times
“[Laughlin’s] company … is inspirational.
242 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2011
21 people are currently reading
213 people want to read
About the author
Robert B. Laughlin
10 books23 followersRobert Betts Laughlin (born November 1, 1950) is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Stanford University. Along with Horst L. Störmer of Columbia University and Daniel C. Tsui of Princeton University, he was awarded a share of the 1998 Nobel Prize in physics for their explanation of the fractional quantum Hall effect.
Laughlin was born in Visalia, California. He earned a B.A. in Mathematics from UC Berkeley in 1972, and his Ph.D. in physics in 1979 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Between 2004 and 2006 he served as the president of KAIST in Daejeon, South Korea.
Laughlin shares similar views to George Chapline, doubting the existence of black holes.
Laughlin was born in Visalia, California. He earned a B.A. in Mathematics from UC Berkeley in 1972, and his Ph.D. in physics in 1979 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Between 2004 and 2006 he served as the president of KAIST in Daejeon, South Korea.
Laughlin shares similar views to George Chapline, doubting the existence of black holes.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
October 30, 2011
While there are certainly interesting bits to this book, mostly, he repeats his primary thesis (we will use fossil fuels until they run out and then use what's cheapest) over and over and over again. Perhaps most aggravating is his almost total dismissal of the implications of climate change while expecting us to take seriously some ideas about energy storage and harvesting that, at the moment seem rather far-fetched. This isn't to say we shouldn't take them seriously, but that he makes plenty of assumptions in this book that may or may not hold true. This would have been much more interesting with more insights into the future production of energy and less of highly problematic economic guessing games he plays.
April 1, 2019
Such a crazy cool book. Laughlin uses first principles thinking as well as common-sense benchmarks to describe in laymen’s terms how we are likely to create and store energy as our fossil fuels run out (in about 200 years).
For energy generation, his bet is on our creating synthetic petroleum, thanks mostly to its superior energy density and our civilization’s existing capital investments. Synthesis will require carbon sources, hydrogen sources (likely water electrolysis) as well as other energy sources for its creation. Carbon sources will have to come from biomass, and perhaps trash.
Unfortunately, biomass has some big hurdles to overcome before it outcompetes burning coal, namely domestication of salt-water micro algae (the biggest bio carbon sink today, but notoriously difficult to grow) and the decomposition of plant cellulose into useable carbon, probably with microbes (also notoriously difficult, which is why our cotton, paper, and forests don’t all disintegrate). Cellulose decomposition is needed for efficiency’s sake, as even 20% of algae is cellulose.
All the same, the amount of biomass we would need to replace petroleum is enormous. It if were to come from corn, we would need to devote an area the size of Texas to it. Algae may take 2x that area. Obviously, there’s no way it will be allowed to compete with food agriculture for resources. Ocean production would avoid resource competition with food crops. The US Congress has already mandated that the Air Force secure a supply of green jet fuel at any price, which means this problem is likely to be solved eventually as enough money is getting thrown at it.
Trash will be an interesting source of carbon, just due to its enormous mass. In fact, Laughlin points out we can remove all of the carbon dumped into the air by civilization thus far plus all destined to go into the air from future fossil fuel consumption by banning recycling and burning of trash all, and then burying it in such a way that the carbon is never released.
Of course, by growing biomass, we are ultimately relying on solar energy. Another generation alternative will be solar cells, but the square footage requirement is enormous – an area the 1/6th size of the Sahara Desert could power the entire planet’s civilization (assuming today’s 3% solar panel power conversion efficiency)
Laughlin suspects there will be a place for nuclear, but it will be complicated. He estimates we will run out of uranium at current consumption rates between 100-200 years from now, but we can change this through a fast breeder reactor. However, breeding is hard to convince the world to start because it that process is easy to convert to nuclear weapon production.
For storage, Laughlin is convinced we will continue to scale up hydropumping. We already have enough hydropumping to handle ~20% of US daily surge demand, and conversion is 80% efficient, which is better than even the best steam engines. When Lake Mead is full, it’s upper meter of water stores half the surge requirement of the entire US, were we to use it that way. It also scales enormously and is very durable and safe. The only reason why it isn’t used more today is it’s ~2x the capital cost of just building a gas turbine plant.
Laughlin rejects most other energy storage methods at scale. Magnetics are unfeasible as the largest magnet energy storage device today, the LHC, only stores $360 retail value of energy, despite costing ~$9bn to build.
Batteries won’t scale either. If the entire world’s estimated supply of lithium was made into lithium ion batteries, it would store the present-day energy flow of the world for 1.5 days. Replacing lithium would all the world’s lead would be 2.5 days. And batteries require too many exotic metals that are poisonous and we don’t want leeching into the water table. Even lithium, which is not very poisonous probably is at scale, since it doesn’t occur at scale and is very soluble into water.
Other interesting energy storage ideas are storing as heat in molten solar salt or in compressed air tanks at the bottom of the ocean. Molten solar salt is being attempted today, and pairs nicely with solar panels. It’s safe, cheap, and scalable. The amount of accessible energy stored in molten solar salt by raising its temperature 100 degrees Celsius in a 100 cubic meter tank is enough to power all of LA metro for 8 hours. The cost today is ~1-3x that of hydropumping.
Storing energy in compressed air tanks below the ocean is also possible. LA could be powered for a day with a field of 6 tanks at ocean bottom with tanks of “present day dimensions” (not sure what that means)/ A year’s supply of electricity for the entire world could be stored in 300,000 tanks at ocean bottom (in a field that’s 50 km on each side). If a tank explodes, it would just make a lot of bubbles and ice
Laughlin doesn’t spend much time talking about climate, beyond pointing out how much bigger energy levels are from earth climate than our own energy use, as evidenced by the amount of solar energy dumped on the earth every minute. It’s ultimately beyond the scope of the book, aside from a brief mention that the earth will take about 1000 years to dissolve into the ocean all of the carbon we have unleased since we started burning fossil fuels. After that, the carbon will likely be transferred into the carbonate rocks (e.g., limestone) in the sea, getting things back to where they started relatively quickly (in geological time)
For energy generation, his bet is on our creating synthetic petroleum, thanks mostly to its superior energy density and our civilization’s existing capital investments. Synthesis will require carbon sources, hydrogen sources (likely water electrolysis) as well as other energy sources for its creation. Carbon sources will have to come from biomass, and perhaps trash.
Unfortunately, biomass has some big hurdles to overcome before it outcompetes burning coal, namely domestication of salt-water micro algae (the biggest bio carbon sink today, but notoriously difficult to grow) and the decomposition of plant cellulose into useable carbon, probably with microbes (also notoriously difficult, which is why our cotton, paper, and forests don’t all disintegrate). Cellulose decomposition is needed for efficiency’s sake, as even 20% of algae is cellulose.
All the same, the amount of biomass we would need to replace petroleum is enormous. It if were to come from corn, we would need to devote an area the size of Texas to it. Algae may take 2x that area. Obviously, there’s no way it will be allowed to compete with food agriculture for resources. Ocean production would avoid resource competition with food crops. The US Congress has already mandated that the Air Force secure a supply of green jet fuel at any price, which means this problem is likely to be solved eventually as enough money is getting thrown at it.
Trash will be an interesting source of carbon, just due to its enormous mass. In fact, Laughlin points out we can remove all of the carbon dumped into the air by civilization thus far plus all destined to go into the air from future fossil fuel consumption by banning recycling and burning of trash all, and then burying it in such a way that the carbon is never released.
Of course, by growing biomass, we are ultimately relying on solar energy. Another generation alternative will be solar cells, but the square footage requirement is enormous – an area the 1/6th size of the Sahara Desert could power the entire planet’s civilization (assuming today’s 3% solar panel power conversion efficiency)
Laughlin suspects there will be a place for nuclear, but it will be complicated. He estimates we will run out of uranium at current consumption rates between 100-200 years from now, but we can change this through a fast breeder reactor. However, breeding is hard to convince the world to start because it that process is easy to convert to nuclear weapon production.
For storage, Laughlin is convinced we will continue to scale up hydropumping. We already have enough hydropumping to handle ~20% of US daily surge demand, and conversion is 80% efficient, which is better than even the best steam engines. When Lake Mead is full, it’s upper meter of water stores half the surge requirement of the entire US, were we to use it that way. It also scales enormously and is very durable and safe. The only reason why it isn’t used more today is it’s ~2x the capital cost of just building a gas turbine plant.
Laughlin rejects most other energy storage methods at scale. Magnetics are unfeasible as the largest magnet energy storage device today, the LHC, only stores $360 retail value of energy, despite costing ~$9bn to build.
Batteries won’t scale either. If the entire world’s estimated supply of lithium was made into lithium ion batteries, it would store the present-day energy flow of the world for 1.5 days. Replacing lithium would all the world’s lead would be 2.5 days. And batteries require too many exotic metals that are poisonous and we don’t want leeching into the water table. Even lithium, which is not very poisonous probably is at scale, since it doesn’t occur at scale and is very soluble into water.
Other interesting energy storage ideas are storing as heat in molten solar salt or in compressed air tanks at the bottom of the ocean. Molten solar salt is being attempted today, and pairs nicely with solar panels. It’s safe, cheap, and scalable. The amount of accessible energy stored in molten solar salt by raising its temperature 100 degrees Celsius in a 100 cubic meter tank is enough to power all of LA metro for 8 hours. The cost today is ~1-3x that of hydropumping.
Storing energy in compressed air tanks below the ocean is also possible. LA could be powered for a day with a field of 6 tanks at ocean bottom with tanks of “present day dimensions” (not sure what that means)/ A year’s supply of electricity for the entire world could be stored in 300,000 tanks at ocean bottom (in a field that’s 50 km on each side). If a tank explodes, it would just make a lot of bubbles and ice
Laughlin doesn’t spend much time talking about climate, beyond pointing out how much bigger energy levels are from earth climate than our own energy use, as evidenced by the amount of solar energy dumped on the earth every minute. It’s ultimately beyond the scope of the book, aside from a brief mention that the earth will take about 1000 years to dissolve into the ocean all of the carbon we have unleased since we started burning fossil fuels. After that, the carbon will likely be transferred into the carbonate rocks (e.g., limestone) in the sea, getting things back to where they started relatively quickly (in geological time)
January 30, 2019
This book is only for people that know a lot about energy, and it is out of date. The author has a bias against PV solar and wind power which are rejected as expensive, but goes on to praise other expensive expensive forms that will be chosen once fossil fuels get expensive. There is good information here on energy uses and limitations, but realize this is not an evenhanded discussion.
April 3, 2012
This is weird overall. You could skip chapters 2 and 3 entirely. Not really of much help except for the part about fast breeding nuclear reactors.
June 22, 2014
Interesting, yet partially overkill of information paired with a lack of knowledge about the future.
July 26, 2020
Dies ist ein Buch, das verspricht, die Energieproduktion in 200 Jahren unter die Lupe zu nehmen, wenn die fossilen Brennstoffe verbraucht sind. Dafür überträgt der Autor den Lebensstil von heute unverändert in die Zukunft, und deckt uns mit Zahlen, Berechnungen und fremden Begriffen zu. Man kann ja nichts anderes von einem Physiker mit Nobelpreis erwarten oder?
Ein Beispiel wie Robert B. Laughlin mit den Zahlen umgeht: "Ist man bereit, den Speicher ganz zu leeren und nicht nur den obersten Meter, lässt sich der gesamte Strombedarf der Welt für einen Monat in ungefähr 60 Seen der Grössenordnung des Lake Mead speichern. Die für diese Seen benötigte Fläche würde etwa 2 Prozent von Mexiko und ein halbes Prozent Kanadas oder der Sahara ausmachen." Alles klar?
Ganz ehrlich gesagt, wenn einer sich vor nimmt, die Energieproduktion in 200 Jahren anzuschauen, sollte er schon mal mit dem Energieverbrauch anfangen: wofür wird man in der Zukunft Energie brauchen, wenn vielleicht weniger zur Verfügung steht? wie wird die Mobilität aussehen (als Amerikaner kann er sich vom individuellen Auto (fast) nicht lösen, wie werden Städte gebaut sein (auch hier bleibt er im American Dream mit dem Einfamilienhaus in Suburbia gefangen), was wird die Klimakrise alles bis dahin verändert haben? (das letzte Kapitel scheint sich 1980 abzuspielen, und nicht etwa in 2220: "Dieser Winter war besonders schlimm, einer der heftigsten seit Langem. Immer wieder heulten von Kanada her Blizzards wie Güterzüge herein, leerten die Winterdienstbudgets der Bezirke schon sehr früh in der Saison...". Ein Klimaleugner hätte das nicht anders geschrieben.
Diese 200 Jahre in der Zukunft sind aus meiner Sicht nur ein Alibi, damit er seine Energie-Theorien für heute (vorwiegend Atombrutreaktoren) profilieren kann. Diese können ja quasi als Deus ex Machina jedes Energieproblem lösen.
Schliesslich noch dies: bei einigen Reviews erstaunt mich, dass der Autor bewundert wird, wie er gut vulgarisiert. Ich finde, das ist ihm nicht gelungen. Hier ein kleines Zitat: "Die bislang erfolgreichste Technik sind Parabolrinnen, die das Sonnenlicht in Röhren mit einer Flüssigkeit zur Wärmeübertragung konzentrieren - üblicherweise ist das eine EUTEKTISCHE Mischung aus BIPHENYL und DIPHENYLOXID -, die dann zu den Dampferzeugern fliesst."
Ein Beispiel wie Robert B. Laughlin mit den Zahlen umgeht: "Ist man bereit, den Speicher ganz zu leeren und nicht nur den obersten Meter, lässt sich der gesamte Strombedarf der Welt für einen Monat in ungefähr 60 Seen der Grössenordnung des Lake Mead speichern. Die für diese Seen benötigte Fläche würde etwa 2 Prozent von Mexiko und ein halbes Prozent Kanadas oder der Sahara ausmachen." Alles klar?
Ganz ehrlich gesagt, wenn einer sich vor nimmt, die Energieproduktion in 200 Jahren anzuschauen, sollte er schon mal mit dem Energieverbrauch anfangen: wofür wird man in der Zukunft Energie brauchen, wenn vielleicht weniger zur Verfügung steht? wie wird die Mobilität aussehen (als Amerikaner kann er sich vom individuellen Auto (fast) nicht lösen, wie werden Städte gebaut sein (auch hier bleibt er im American Dream mit dem Einfamilienhaus in Suburbia gefangen), was wird die Klimakrise alles bis dahin verändert haben? (das letzte Kapitel scheint sich 1980 abzuspielen, und nicht etwa in 2220: "Dieser Winter war besonders schlimm, einer der heftigsten seit Langem. Immer wieder heulten von Kanada her Blizzards wie Güterzüge herein, leerten die Winterdienstbudgets der Bezirke schon sehr früh in der Saison...". Ein Klimaleugner hätte das nicht anders geschrieben.
Diese 200 Jahre in der Zukunft sind aus meiner Sicht nur ein Alibi, damit er seine Energie-Theorien für heute (vorwiegend Atombrutreaktoren) profilieren kann. Diese können ja quasi als Deus ex Machina jedes Energieproblem lösen.
Schliesslich noch dies: bei einigen Reviews erstaunt mich, dass der Autor bewundert wird, wie er gut vulgarisiert. Ich finde, das ist ihm nicht gelungen. Hier ein kleines Zitat: "Die bislang erfolgreichste Technik sind Parabolrinnen, die das Sonnenlicht in Röhren mit einer Flüssigkeit zur Wärmeübertragung konzentrieren - üblicherweise ist das eine EUTEKTISCHE Mischung aus BIPHENYL und DIPHENYLOXID -, die dann zu den Dampferzeugern fliesst."
January 13, 2022
Sadly, most of the energy landscape is littered with confusion from hidden interests by certain groups or individuals. This confusion gets extrapolated and permeates much of the discourse even at the top levels in most organizations that deal with energy, climate, electricity, environment, etc.
This book should be a must read for presidents, CEOs, UN guys, people in general having an opinion on the direction humanity should take or anyone curious on how we should deal with energy. It will just clear out exactly what are the limits of each of the different energy sources humanity can pursue and provide a better framework on how to think about them.
For example it is not that much known but if we are to take in account all of the known reserves of Uranium and switch all our energy needs to nuclear we will ran out of it in 29 years.
Another good example is the limits that solar power generation will have on land, we will need approximately 7 million sq km to switch all our energy needs to solar, such a big area will definitely get pushback from local folk and environmental groups.
Highly recommend to cut through the current noise and as a way to think of energy related to humanity in the right way.
This book should be a must read for presidents, CEOs, UN guys, people in general having an opinion on the direction humanity should take or anyone curious on how we should deal with energy. It will just clear out exactly what are the limits of each of the different energy sources humanity can pursue and provide a better framework on how to think about them.
For example it is not that much known but if we are to take in account all of the known reserves of Uranium and switch all our energy needs to nuclear we will ran out of it in 29 years.
Another good example is the limits that solar power generation will have on land, we will need approximately 7 million sq km to switch all our energy needs to solar, such a big area will definitely get pushback from local folk and environmental groups.
Highly recommend to cut through the current noise and as a way to think of energy related to humanity in the right way.
June 15, 2017
The author, a professor of physics at Stanford, discusses various possible ways of obtaining and storing energy in the future. I remain skeptical about many of his forecasts, but one insight that I suspect is true is his assertion that we as a species will always opt for whatever source of energy is cheapest. For the foreseeable future, he claims this will be fossil fuels - oil, coal, and natural gas. Once these are exhausted (a couple hundred years hence), we'll probably opt for nuclear, with some supplementation from solar in places in which it makes economic sense. I think, actually I hope he's underestimating potential innovations in various areas, including bio-tech and nano-tech, and even cultural changes, that will make other sources of energy economical.
February 13, 2022
This book is dated and did not age particularly well. The book was published in 2011. The advancements have occurred in areas different than predicted. The development of industrial heat sinks and pumps does not appear to be the future. Battery elements, cost, and power density are different than predicted. This book also spent an unnecessarily long amount of time on the history of rocks—which is as boring as it sounds. I would be interested in the same book written now and the differences between the two.
October 9, 2018
Author Laughlin explains that, at the rate we are using carbon-based fuels, supplies will be depleted in a couple hundred years. What will replace these fuels? Whatever is the cheapest in the future! He explains the pros and cons of alternatives, including nuclear energy, burning today's landfills, solar and wind energy, deep sea storage and the robots which will be required, converting animal waste, and more. While I found this all very interesting, most of the details were over my head!
December 13, 2021
The book was well researched and as completely realistic, but I still think that there is a good chance for a far different future for solar. But my idea also involves individual wanting to be more independent. So... I am probably wrong.
July 31, 2019
Interesting ideas, but poorly written. Lots of technical terms and concepts scattered throughout a single idea makes it hard to see the point the author is trying to make. Ideas are quite scattered as well, jumping from one to the other in a train of thought that I have trouble following. Could have really been simplified and edited down by several pages, and I'm only on chapter 5 at this time.
On completing, I would say you could easily skip some of the chapters, especially the last one.
On completing, I would say you could easily skip some of the chapters, especially the last one.
March 19, 2020
I recently saw "Crude Awakening", a documentary on the coming oil production peak and subsequent depletion and it really captured my interest. I also recently read "Why the West Rules for Now", where Morris posits that maximum civilization levels seem to be correlated to energy consumption per capita, which was an ecological limit set by photosynthesis/solar irradiance up until the exploitation of coal started the industrial revolution. The intersection of my interests in the rise and fall of civilizations with the end of the hydrocarbon age primed me to grab this when I saw it in the University bookstore.
When I first picked it up and thumbed through it, I saw no numbers or calculations and was ready to dismiss it out of hand until I saw the last HALF of the book was footnotes with equations, calculations, and references galore. This is a very well researched and thought out analysis of the likely progress of energy sources to power civilization, assuming we make it through the transition crunch, which he points out at the end of the first chapter will probably entail much death and warfare.
There are two of his premises that I'm not sure I buy - the progression from source to source will be purely set by the economics of $/joule, and if mankind finds something "useful" he will find a way to keep using it (such as cars and planes). But even if you can't accept those two planks, there is a trove of easily digestible knowledge about the tradeoffs between the known available energy sources.
One thing I really liked was the approach of breaking down everything into Joules, Joules/kg, and/or Joules/$ to make it easy to compare apples/apples. I had no idea that hydrocarbons were such ideal energy sources. He delves into quantum mechanics to explain why this is so. His explanation of why we may be doomed to the "plutonium economy" is understandable and scary. I was also taken aback by his assertion that fusion may not end up being clean because it will probably also be used as a breeder source. Damn disappointing if true.
Near the end, he tackles solar (and wind - also solar), biomass, and storage techniques and quantifies the requirements for each. Sobering. I highly recommend reading this just to be able to semi-intelligently discuss options for the underlying basis of our entire modern civilization, because our grandkids won't be flying planes that use fossil fuel, if they have planes available at all.
When I first picked it up and thumbed through it, I saw no numbers or calculations and was ready to dismiss it out of hand until I saw the last HALF of the book was footnotes with equations, calculations, and references galore. This is a very well researched and thought out analysis of the likely progress of energy sources to power civilization, assuming we make it through the transition crunch, which he points out at the end of the first chapter will probably entail much death and warfare.
There are two of his premises that I'm not sure I buy - the progression from source to source will be purely set by the economics of $/joule, and if mankind finds something "useful" he will find a way to keep using it (such as cars and planes). But even if you can't accept those two planks, there is a trove of easily digestible knowledge about the tradeoffs between the known available energy sources.
One thing I really liked was the approach of breaking down everything into Joules, Joules/kg, and/or Joules/$ to make it easy to compare apples/apples. I had no idea that hydrocarbons were such ideal energy sources. He delves into quantum mechanics to explain why this is so. His explanation of why we may be doomed to the "plutonium economy" is understandable and scary. I was also taken aback by his assertion that fusion may not end up being clean because it will probably also be used as a breeder source. Damn disappointing if true.
Near the end, he tackles solar (and wind - also solar), biomass, and storage techniques and quantifies the requirements for each. Sobering. I highly recommend reading this just to be able to semi-intelligently discuss options for the underlying basis of our entire modern civilization, because our grandkids won't be flying planes that use fossil fuel, if they have planes available at all.
August 9, 2011
I got a pre-pub copy for review in Library Journal. The following is my review (please note that LJ holds copyright):
LAUGHLIN, Robert B. Powering the Future: How We Will (Eventually) Solve the Energy Crisis and Fuel the Civilization of Tomorrow. Basic. c 212 p. notes. 978-0-465-02219-9, $26.
Whether this book is ultimately optimistic or pessimistic, or just honest is a matter of interpretation . In his “armchair journey” into the Earth’s energy future, physicist and Nobelist Laughlin transports readers to an age, some two hundred years from now, when every last lump of coal and drop of oil has been extracted from the planet. First of all, some may not be willing to accept that fate, especially the inevitable environmental wreckage it will cause. However, Laughlin assumes that human nature is such that we will demand energy, first, then seek to manage the consequences. Thus, the good news is that we can continue to power our machines via a combination of natural, synthetic, and alternative energy sources. Many will cheer his endorsement of biofuels. Not so many his assertion that nuclear power will be essential. So will solar energy, although environmentalists may cringe at the idea of deserts shaded by a canopy of solar collectors. And the presence of colonies of robots managing energy transport systems on the bottom of the ocean isn’t like to win anybody’s green seal of approval. Still, the author contends that any technology that can be economically developed, will be. The easy flow of the text masks the book’s erudition (there are over 450 detailed notes). Verdict: A pragmatic, authoritative look into energy alternatives for general readers. Another perspective is Robert Ayres and Edward Ayres’ Crossing the Energy Divide: Moving from Fossil Fuel Dependence to a Clean-Energy Future.
LAUGHLIN, Robert B. Powering the Future: How We Will (Eventually) Solve the Energy Crisis and Fuel the Civilization of Tomorrow. Basic. c 212 p. notes. 978-0-465-02219-9, $26.
Whether this book is ultimately optimistic or pessimistic, or just honest is a matter of interpretation . In his “armchair journey” into the Earth’s energy future, physicist and Nobelist Laughlin transports readers to an age, some two hundred years from now, when every last lump of coal and drop of oil has been extracted from the planet. First of all, some may not be willing to accept that fate, especially the inevitable environmental wreckage it will cause. However, Laughlin assumes that human nature is such that we will demand energy, first, then seek to manage the consequences. Thus, the good news is that we can continue to power our machines via a combination of natural, synthetic, and alternative energy sources. Many will cheer his endorsement of biofuels. Not so many his assertion that nuclear power will be essential. So will solar energy, although environmentalists may cringe at the idea of deserts shaded by a canopy of solar collectors. And the presence of colonies of robots managing energy transport systems on the bottom of the ocean isn’t like to win anybody’s green seal of approval. Still, the author contends that any technology that can be economically developed, will be. The easy flow of the text masks the book’s erudition (there are over 450 detailed notes). Verdict: A pragmatic, authoritative look into energy alternatives for general readers. Another perspective is Robert Ayres and Edward Ayres’ Crossing the Energy Divide: Moving from Fossil Fuel Dependence to a Clean-Energy Future.
July 6, 2012
Excellent book. Looking at the future of energy production through the twin lenses of physics and economics was a good mix. Even if his view of the future economics of energy production (that the lowest cost energy will ultimately win out because no one will pay for a higher cost alternative--or pay the taxes to support subsidies for a higher cost alternative) turns out to be inaccurate, it is a likely scenario and therefore worth using as a filter for presenting the options. And either way, the real physics limitations on the available options are going to be there.
I found the strict separation of energy and environment into two distinct issues--e.g., we might solve the energy issue without solving the global warming issue--clarifying.
The place I would most question his economics is his unstated assumption that current externalities will remain in place in the energy industry for the coming centuries. That is, the costs of energy production that are not paid by energy producers but dumped on society will remain the same in the future. A regulatory system that correctly apportioned the actual costs of energy production to the producers would change some of his calculations of the future cost of different methods of producing energy. In other words, a system that didn't subsidize but that simply made the free market for energy a level playing field.
Certainly at times a dark view of the future, but an excellent read.
I found the strict separation of energy and environment into two distinct issues--e.g., we might solve the energy issue without solving the global warming issue--clarifying.
The place I would most question his economics is his unstated assumption that current externalities will remain in place in the energy industry for the coming centuries. That is, the costs of energy production that are not paid by energy producers but dumped on society will remain the same in the future. A regulatory system that correctly apportioned the actual costs of energy production to the producers would change some of his calculations of the future cost of different methods of producing energy. In other words, a system that didn't subsidize but that simply made the free market for energy a level playing field.
Certainly at times a dark view of the future, but an excellent read.
May 29, 2012
Laughlin’s discussion is interesting, even if not always agreeable. His talk of effects over geological time is a novel way of demonstrating that we are protecting us and the forms of life with which we are familiar, not the environment. It shows that climate change and reducible pollutants are a problem for the current dominant life, not the whole of nature.
He seems to believe strongly in the rational egoist actor of conventional economics. To him, the law of the jungle in competition for cheap energy is unavoidable. He presumes market dominance over economic decisions, an assumption that limits the way in which different resources can interact and problems can be solved.
His mentioning of bio-fuels, hydrogen, solar, wind, and various power storage schemes is as to be expected. His talk of the political volatility and need for fuel recycling in nuclear power is excellent, and his consideration of a early commercial fusion device serving as a neutron source for a sub-critical fission reactor or fuel breeder is the first discussion of a viable short-term method of obtaining breakeven in a fusion device I have seen.
Overall, this book is a good read for someone who wants to know what probably options exist for providing for our future energy needs.
He seems to believe strongly in the rational egoist actor of conventional economics. To him, the law of the jungle in competition for cheap energy is unavoidable. He presumes market dominance over economic decisions, an assumption that limits the way in which different resources can interact and problems can be solved.
His mentioning of bio-fuels, hydrogen, solar, wind, and various power storage schemes is as to be expected. His talk of the political volatility and need for fuel recycling in nuclear power is excellent, and his consideration of a early commercial fusion device serving as a neutron source for a sub-critical fission reactor or fuel breeder is the first discussion of a viable short-term method of obtaining breakeven in a fusion device I have seen.
Overall, this book is a good read for someone who wants to know what probably options exist for providing for our future energy needs.
March 1, 2012
Prof. Laughlin explores in fascinating depth the prospects for energy discovery and usage in the far future (~200 years out), a time when he presumes that all fossil fuel options will have been exhausted and mankind has no choice but to develop and implement alternatives. He examines the future of "traditional" alternatives like nuclear, hydro, biofuel, solar, and wind, as well as tackling somewhat more hypothetical options like undersea mining, tidal, etc. It's an overview that will really make you think about the subject in different ways.
April 20, 2013
A good look complete with numerical calculations on what the future of our power generation might look like.
Key takeaways:
that carbon is indispensable for transport fuels (read cars and planes),
that price will be the deciding factor,
that the magnitude of some sources of energy are much larger than others.
that a plutonium economy is likely to be the default in a 100 years unless some renewable source takes over.
that energy storage will be the key to making intermittent sources (wind and sun) feasible.
EE8093 prep rawr.
Key takeaways:
that carbon is indispensable for transport fuels (read cars and planes),
that price will be the deciding factor,
that the magnitude of some sources of energy are much larger than others.
that a plutonium economy is likely to be the default in a 100 years unless some renewable source takes over.
that energy storage will be the key to making intermittent sources (wind and sun) feasible.
EE8093 prep rawr.
May 16, 2014
Laughlin's consideration of the economics around future alternative energy sources along with the efficacy of various technologies to deliver energy in the volume required to power the future puts practical boundaries on what is feasible. Whether we want to hear it or not, he correctly assumes that the future driver of energy sources are the same as we have today, namely what is the most profitable mix for the private enterprise suppliers. He convincingly argues that it will inevitably be carbon-based.
April 17, 2012
Al Gore and environmental doomsayers will not like this book. But anyone that wants a comprehensive but simple explanation of energy and its associated costs and benefits will enjoy the unique non political logic employed to make critical points relevant to now and the future.
Money and politics,and much of it is based on simple energy and its uses.
Money and politics,and much of it is based on simple energy and its uses.
July 18, 2012
The guy is a better speaker than writer. Interesting, but after his talk slightly disappointing.
Read
November 14, 2012fairly detailed and a little tough to get through the details, but full of ideas about what happens *after* all the oil runs out.
November 20, 2016
Fascinating!
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews