A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations

by Robert Bryce

If, in the ancient world, it was guns and germs and steel that determined the fates of people and nations, in modern times it is electricity. No other form of power translates into affluence and influence like it. Though demand for it is growing exponentially, it remains one of the most difficult forms of energy to supply and to do so reliably. Storage is even harder. This paradox has shaped global politics, affected the outcome of wars, and underlies the growing chasm between rich and poor, educated and uneducated. It is changing the game for business, and the requirements of national defence. It is altering the landscape and complicating the task of dealing effectively with climate change.

In this book, Robert Bryce explains the unique nature of electricity as a commodity. He draws on stories from history to illustrate the stunning impact of our quest to harness it, illuminates exactly what is required to successfully sustain it, and explores the impact on societies and individuals when it collapses.

As billions of people around the world still live in darkness, the gap between the electricity haves and have-nots widens, with profound political and ethical consequences. Modern life, even civilisation, has become ever more dependent on a source of energy that must be produced locally and in the moment, in a reliably steady stream at particular wattage, conveyed on wires strung on poles or threaded through pipes. If the lights go out, so does our manner of living, with potentially devastating consequences.

Genres: Economics, Nonfiction, History, Science, Politics, Technology, Environment

352 pages, Paperback

Published April 16, 2020

About the author

Robert Bryce has written three books, his newest being Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence. He was hailed as a 'visionary' by the New York Times, a fact he often repeats to his children and his dog, Biscuit.

Reviews

[Jaidee · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 "zap me with a golden fork" stars !!

Runner Up -The Pleasant Surprise Award of 2021


My thanks go out to Netgalley, the author and Perseus Books for an e-copy. This was released March 2020. I am providing my honest review.

This book was a fascinating, clear and concise introduction to the history, economics and cultivation of electricity.

We rely more and more on electricity for our health, quality of life, economic well-being, comfort, learning and transportation. Think of how stressed and lost you feel when you experience a planned or unexpected blackout and it only lasts half an hour. Our world would quite literally fall apart without the commodity of electricity.

Mr. Bryce writes in a helpful, humorous and informative fashion about all that he has learned as a writer focusing on electricity on the world stage. He also presents a balanced presentation of the environmental damages that coal, natural gas, nuclear power, coal and mining rare metals has on our lives and future of our planet. He talks about some of the myths perpetrated by environmentalists about solar and wind power and the limitation of these forms of electricity generation. He visits various places in the world and talks about countries that have little electricity that does not supply society's needs and the impact has on the population's health and well-being and futures.

I am withdrawing a final star as he does not really talk about (in enough depth) non-resource related issues such as dire overpopulation, animal extinction, the true cost of climate change, western gluttony and greed and the criminality of electricity in poorer nation distribution.

This is a book that helped balance my views and open my eyes. Thank you Mr. Bryce !

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

As of the date of this review, October 2022, TV news programmes in the UK are battering us with warnings that we might face electricity blackouts in winter due to supply side shortages arising from the Russia-Ukraine War. Personally I suspect there is a fair amount of press scaremongering behind the stories, at least as far as the UK is concerned, but time will tell. However, given the topicality of the subject I felt this book might be a useful way of improving my understanding. It was written before the current crisis, but most of the information remains relevant.

I’ll say at the outset that this book has a hard-hitting message for the environmental lobby, especially for those within it (a large majority I think) who are opposed to the use of nuclear energy. More on that later.

The book has an American focus and I found some early parts a bit slow, for example when the author gave us a history of electricity generation in the U.S. It picks up when it describes the current issues around electricity generation, and the likely future pressures. It looks at the substantial energy requirements of what he calls the “big five” tech companies – Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft, as well as at relatively new developments such as cryptocurrency, the “mining” of which is enormously energy-intensive. One thing I hadn’t suspected was the amount of energy consumed by indoor cannabis cultivation. The book advises that “According to one estimate, the carbon dioxide emissions associated with American cannabis production are roughly equal to the emissions from three million automobiles.” (!)

Other future pressures include the huge growth in the use of electric vehicles, and air conditioning. At present few of the people in the world’s hottest countries have access to air conditioning, but expect this to change in the future. The overall effect of all these pressures means that in the next few decades demand for electricity will grow enormously.

This brings the author to one of his main points, which is to argue, bluntly, that it is wishful thinking to believe that the world’s future electricity needs will be met via renewables. (Actually he is lot more blunt than that). He quotes a Cambridge University physicist, the late David J. C. MacKay, as saying “I love renewables, but I am also pro-arithmetic.” Cost, storage and land use are all significant barriers. It’s a feature of electricity that, for the most part, it has to be consumed as it is generated. It is possible to store electricity of course, but capacity is very limited. Wind and solar power are unpredictable – the opposite of what people require from electricity, which is a stable supply, available when they want it.

The author argues that it would be indefensible to keep hundreds of millions of people in the dark to protect the climate, and personally I’m with him on that. He continues by saying that we will need all the available fuels, including wind and solar, to meet our future needs, but he feels that the biggest contributions will have to come from nuclear energy and from natural gas (which produces less CO² than other fossil fuels).

The author isn’t keen on wind turbines, and I felt his criticisms of them were a bit excessive, but overall he argues his case well, citing lots of research and quoting statistics.

I daresay the message of this book will be unwelcome to many, but I suspect energy policy is an area where some tough choices will have to be made.

[Amora · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s no longer guns, germs, and steel that determines the wealth of nations, it’s electricity. Bryce tells the story of how electricity was responsible for “vertical cities,” expanding women’s rights, and the lifting of all tides. When talking about the present, Bryce talks about how we can continue to progress and why renewables aren’t the solution for more electricity

[Saman · Rating 4 out of 5]

دوست داشتم در مورد یک موضوعی کتاب بخونم که چیزی ازش نمی‌دونم و رسیدم به این کتاب. دغدغه مهم هم این بود که کتاب نثر همه کس فهمی داشته باشه و تخصصی نباشه که خداروشکر این مساله هم تیکش خورد.نتیجه این شد که یه کتاب خواندنی و جالب خوندم که هم خوندنش لذت بخش بود و هم برای من آموزنده بود. کتاب برق و ثروت ملل از آقای رابرت برایس کتابی است در مورد برق. برقی که به قول خود برایس : « در واقع وقتی از برق صحبت می‌شود ما نمی‌فهمیم چه نعمت خوبی داریم یا برق دقیقا چقدر مهم است. ما به داشتن برق عادت کرده‌ایم چون هیچ‌گاه ندیده‌ایم که نباشد.» همچنین حالتی واسمون داره. برایس با شوق و ذوق فراوانی این کتاب رو نوشته. این ذوق رو از لا به لای جملات کتاب می‌تونید به قشنگی حس کنید. بدون اغراق حین خوندن کتاب و حالا پس از اتمامش، می‌تونم بگم علاقه‌ام به برق بیشتر شد. اینها رو مدیون نثر روان و جذاب نویسنده کتاب می‌دونم. کتاب ابدا خسته کننده نیست. برایس مساله تخصصی برق رو ساده نوشته و همه با هر سطح اطلاعی می‌تونند این کتاب رو بخونند. او برای نگارش این کتاب به جاهای مختلف دنیا سفر کرده و با افراد گوناگونی حرف زده که بخشی از اینها در فصول مختلف کتاب آورده شده.

کتاب ویژگی‌های مهمی داره. هم به تاریخ برق می‌پردازه. هم به موضوعات مهم مرتبط با برق، مثل سوخت‌های تولید کننده‌ی برق می‌پردازه. هم نگاه انتقادی داره به انرژی سبزی که سالها توسط حزب دموکرات در آمریکا تبلیغ میشه و هم از سوخت هسته‌ای و گاز برای تولید برق دفاع می‌کنه. برایس در این کتاب در بخش نخست که شامل شش فصل می‌شه یه کلیاتی از برق می‌گه. اینجا یه تاریخی از برق می‌خونیم و تاثیراتی که داشته رو بررسی کرده.این بخش در علاقه مند کردن منِ مخاطب به موضوع نقش مهمی داشت.حتی پیشرفت و توسعه برق رو به نفع زنان دونست و گفت این مساله باعث شد(به کمک عوامل دیگر، نه اینکه فقط و صرفا برق) زنها از کارهای یدی و سختی که مجبور به انجامش بودند دست بکشند و بیشتر به تحصیل و سایر مسائل بپردازند. بخش دوم کتاب برایس دست روی موضوعی مهم می‌ذاره و در مورد نابرابری استفاده و تولید برق در نقاط مختلف دنیا حرف می‌زنه. او جهان رو از منظر مصرف برق به سه قسمت تقسیم می‌کنه: پروات، کم وات و بدون وسیله‌ی برقی. تعداد جمعیت و تعداد کشورهای درگیر هر بخش رو با استناد به بانک جهانی و سایر محاسبات مشخص می‌کنه. اینجا این نکته رو بگم که همین تقسیم بندی رو طبق سال 2012 نوشته و بسیاری از آمارهای دیگه کتاب هم حول و حوش 2017 تا یکی دو سال بالا پایین میچرخه. بعد از این تقسیم بندی حالا برایس یه اصل مهمی رو برای تولید برق تعریف می‌کنه. او معتقده برای تولید شبکه های برق در سراسر دنیا سه عامل : درستکاری، سرمایه و سوخت مهم‌ترین عوامل تولید برق هستند.این قضیه رو با مثال‌هایی در جاهای مختلف برای مخاطب تشریح می‌کنه و معتقده حفظ این سه عامل به تولید و پایداری برق کمک شایانی می‌کنه. یکی از فصول جالب کتاب تحت عنوان جنگ به سبک آمریکایی به جنگ های آمریکا می‌پردازه که نیروگاه‌های برق رو مورد هدف قرار داده. ویتنام، کره شمالی، عراق از مواردی است که برایس مورد بررسی قرار میده. باز هم جنگ عراق و موضوعی که تو برخی ریویوهای دیگم هم گفتم که منو تریگر می‌کنه. برایس در این قسمت از تاثیر خرابی‌هایی که بر سلامت مردم به دلیل این حملات انجام شد حرف می‌زنه که قطعا تلخ و دردناکه. در ادامه و بررسی کشورهای کم وات، او سفری به بیروت داره و در مورد مافیای برق قدرتمند و بسیار فاسد لبنان حرف می‌زنه. لبنان این طوری است که هر ما دو قبض برق پرداخت می‌کنند. مثلا حسین موصل راننده برایس در این سفر میگه ما ماهی سی و پنج دلار به شرکت دولتی برق لبنان و صد دلار به مافیایتولیدب رق، کسانی که مالک و بهره بردار دستگاه های تولید برق هستند پرداخت می‌کنیم. در طول سفر با مقامی از وزارت انرژی و آب لبنان هم حرف می‌زنه . همه این مافیای قدرتمند رو از وجودش خبر دارند و کسی هم اراده و توانایی برخورد باهاش رو نداره.

بخش بعدی کتاب به بحث در مورد پروات ها می‌پردازه. در واقع چیزهایی که مصرف برق بالایی دارند. حالا این چیزها چی هستند؟ شرکت های غول فناوری مثل آلفابت، آمازون،اپل،فیس بوک و مایکروسافت..رمز ارزها. برادران و خواهرانی که به تولید ماریجوانا می‌پردازند موضوعاتی است که برایس با داده و آمار در موردشون حرف می‌زنه و مصرف بالای این موارد رو بررسی می‌کنه.

یکی از موضوعات مهم کتاب بحث انرژی های تجدید پذیر است.برایس معتقده تولید برق توسط انرژی‌های تجدیدپذیر که توسط شرکت‌های محیط زیستی و دموکرات‌های امریکا تبلیغ میشه و هدف گذاری های سیاستی فراوانی هم در این مورد انجام میدند، یک خودفریبی بزرگی بیش نیست و اساسا این تجدیدپذیرها نمی‌تونند بر انرژی و تولید برق مسلط بشند. چرا نمی‌تونند؟ برایس چهار عامل مهم رو ذکر می‌کنه. هزینه، ذخیره سازی،مقیاس و استفاده از زمین.هر کدوم از این عوامل رو هم بررسی می‌زنه و با آمار و داده ازشون حرف می‌زنه. من فقط یک نمونه اشاره می‌کنم و دیگه بحث رو ببندم، ایالت انتاریو کانادا دستور میده که نیروگاه های زغال سنگی بسته بشند.نتیجه این میشه که بین سالهای 2008 تا 2016 نرخ برق مسکونی در این استان 71 درصد افزایش پیدا کنه که دو برابر میانگین مابقی مناطق کاناداست. در نهایت هم در انتخابات سال 2018 به همین خاطر در انتخابات شکست می‌خورند و نامزدی که وعده کاهش نرخ برق به 12 درصد رو داد به پیروزی رسید.

در نهایت برایس از سوخت هسته‌ای و گاز دفاع می‌کنه و میگه در آینده بهتره تولید برق رو از این دو طریق افزایش بدیم. درسته که این روشها هم معایبی دارند ولی مزایای اونها بیشتر و معایبشون هم نسبت به سایر گزینه های تولید برق کمتره.
کتاب از نظر ترجمه هم روان بود و دست اندازی تو بحث ایجاد نکرده بود.

[Jeanette · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good summation on electricity. it is the pivotal crux between how humans lived in the past and how/where/work/longevity they do now. Every poverty depths nearly everywhere are scarred by not having electricity. Without electricity, productivity becomes quite upon another scale.

For me the book was at least 3.5 stars but I rounded it up for the common sense (REAL MATH) and applications for the reality of/for quantitative renewable sources for power grids. New technology (entire/ original and mostly innovative and yet undiscovered) will probably arise. He is optimistic. Air and solar are nowhere near the scales or possibilities for replacing fossil fuels or water power sources.

Some of the chapters were math heavy and excellent. Nuclear power is one of the keys that some people will not accept as approaching green "standards". Some countries use nuclear power for a great predominance of their needs. Nuclear is absolutely a factor. Europe on the whole successfully.

This book made me remember that two poor souls who were trying to keep the Venezuela grids up all by themselves during the collapse of those systems in that country. As soon as floating power outages begin in major cities- you will hear more about this subject.

Good book, but also hard to digest. Most of the humans alive now in industrialized societies could not live where they live and how they live without electricity. Especially in very hot or cold climates. But also re work, goods production or 1000's of other factors. Longevity will/would shrink immensely regardless. We can't all just use less of everything and return to pre-electric livability. Being the least you can be will never do it. I have already seen generators being powered by gasoline in storm times. Present batteries all have their problems. I loved the charting on battery power near the end.

[L.A. Starks · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book, which is all about the importance of electricity in the entire world, especially where people don't have it--had the misfortune of being published right as the first wave of Covid-19 hit the US in March 2020. Because we didn't know what the new normal would look like (hopefully a lot like the old normal, it now appears) I set this book aside until recently.

For readers concerned about having affordable, reliable electricity in the US, and more especially in places like India and Africa, Bryce drills down to how that can be achieved. There is no one fuel source (natural gas, coal, oil/diesel, nuclear, solar, wind) for electricity generation that is a panacea. What Bryce illuminates, so to speak, is that solar & wind have big land use and trillion-dollar capital requirements, while nuclear, coal, and natural gas are very energy-dense. Like his earlier book, Power Hungry, and an extension of a more recent book-- Smaller, Faster, Lighter, Denser, Cheaper--Bryce sees natural gas as a powerful transition fuel and nuclear as the best large-scale, long-term option.

I recommend this book to those (and only those) nonfiction readers interested in the economics, business, technology and policy of electricity globally and--yes--climate change.

[Martin Keast · Rating 5 out of 5]

A "must read" book as it clarifies the miracle of electricity and why the renewables drive is such a flawed policy direction. He thoroughly supports his thesis that cheap abundant electricity is the key factor in a nation's economic development.

[Shana Yates · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars.

Portions of this book are well written and well reasoned. Bryce looks at a world that has an ever-increasing demand for electricity, what supplying electricity requires, and the huge difference in quality of life electricity allows (lifting people out of poverty, advancing women and girls toward equality, a release from drudgery). These parts of the book are interesting and engaging.

When it comes to how we are to supply the world with electricity is where what could have been a powerful book falters. Bryce clearly has a strong opinion -- namely that the proponents of 100% renewable energy are, at best, Pollyannas, and at worst, dishonest fear-mongers. Some of his points about the goal of 100% renewable are well-taken. The world would be hard-pressed to find the space to deploy renewables sufficient to supply the current energy needs of the world, let alone the needs as the developing world (rightfully) tries to improve its lot. But he undercuts his own arguments by not applying the same rigor to his preferred course of action (which includes a large dose of nuclear power) as he does to the courses of action he disapproves of.

I am not saying his conclusions are necessary wrong, but that his condescending and at times flippant dismissal of some ideas and arguments is glaring and could make readers question those conclusions due to his failure to attempt an even-handed assessment. A few arguments make prime examples. At one point in the book he dismisses concerns about the dangers of radiation exposure by stressing that only two people died as a result of the Fukushima disaster, that deaths from Chernobyl were not as extensive as people thought they would be, and by pointing out we are exposed to radiation on a daily basis. Oh, and that radiation can be therapeutic -- which almost made me laugh, as if its use in small doses concentrated on tiny parts of the body make it no big deal. (He also appears to be cherry-picking experts to quote without critically questioning them.) In contrast, when he is attacking renewables and especially wind farms/turbines, he talks about health risks, saying that some preliminary studies and anecdotal reports support the idea that people are right to have doubts about wind farms. Again, I'm not saying there are not health effects -- but if he were to apply the same standard to wind that he did to nuclear I could see him saying wind farms are fine because no one has died from the effects of a turbine.

The other rhetorical device that lessened the quality of his book was to repeatedly point out how much energy a particular renewable generated and then say that the amount generated wouldn't even supply enough energy to [fill in the blank]. He then would talk about how much landmass would be needed to supply the world with energy if using that particular renewable. This was incredibly disappointing because it tacitly suggests that renewables are unrealistic because any one of them (solar, wind, water, geothermal) is not enough to meet universal needs. The better and more honest point is that different renewables are suitable for different parts of the world (solar panels don't work in Seattle, but might work in the dessert), and that by developing and deploying renewables in intelligent ways they can in coming years supply a growing percentage of world needs.

A last example of how he applied different standards depending on his personal point of view is evident in his evaluation of different energy sources and their impact on the environment. He talks about fracking/extracting oil from shale and use of carbon-based fuels in a fairly cavalier way, with minimal attention given to environmental hazards (both potential and already perpetrated in our centuries of mining). Then he switches to discussing renewables and stresses the numbers of bats and birds killed by turbines. Then he talks nuclear and never discusses the impact on wildlife of either Chernobyl or Fukushima, only saying at a later point that because nuclear has a smaller footprint you can preserve more of nature than with renewables. Again, no one point is wrong, but the inconsistent weight given to the same type of argument makes him seem, to be charitable, fickle.

Nothing disappoints me more than a book on an interesting and important topic where the author is so invested in making a point they give short shrift to the facts. Bryce should have been confident enough in his conclusions (namely, that renewables cannot in the near-term, and maybe ever, fully supply our human civilization that has a monstrous need for power, and that use of nuclear energy is necessary if the goal of reducing carbon emissions is to be met) to have given a fair hearing to renewables.

For anyone looking for a more balanced assessment of energy, I'd highly recommend Professor Micheal E. Wysession's Great Courses lectures, The Science of Energy: Resources and Power Explained. The Professor did what Bryce didn't - offered the reader a clear-eyed explanation of the various sources of power, their pros and cons, and the pragmatic conclusion that to supply the world is likely to take a mixture of renewables, an eventual phasing out of mass use of carbon-based fuels, and the greater integration of nuclear energy. No panacea there or diatribe, just an objective evaluation of the state of energy in the world.

[Peter Tillman]

WSJ has a good review, https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-questi... (Paywalled. As always, I'm happy to email a copy to non-subscribers)
Excerpt:
"Mr. Bryce [the author] sees the modern age as a struggle not for industrialization or political primacy but rather for electricity. “The vast disparity between the rich and the poor” in the world is defined, the author proposes, “by the disparity between those who have electricity and those who scrape by on small quantities of juice or none at all.”

There is a nearly direct relationship between reliable electricity and high living standards, Mr. Bryce tells us. About a billion people have little access to electricity; it’s no coincidence that they are also among the worst educated and the most impoverished. Another very large cohort is held back by intermittent electricity that costs too much.

Universal, affordable kilowatts should be a cause for the 21st century in the same way that rural electrification was a cause of the young Lyndon Johnson. ...

Mr. Bryce . . . has no patience for those who make pie-in-the-sky promises of green-only power. “Renewables aren’t going to be enough,” he writes. “Not by a long shot.” While green energy is falling in capital cost and rising in importance, to say that only nonfossil, nonnuclear power should be permitted is tantamount to condemning much of the world to perpetual immiseration. Mr. Bryce favors low-emission natural gas over coal and oil as electricity fuels, then goes on to show in persuasive detail that “there is simply no way to slash global carbon-dioxide emissions without big increases in our use of nuclear energy.”

I live in California, where the fantasy of "green energy" is practically a state religion. As a result, we have one of the highest electric costs in the country, and a utility (PG&E) that can't maintain its powerlines, largely because of state Green Energy mandates. Feh.

[Regina Mastrogiacomo · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was looking forward to this book because I thought I was going to learn more about electricity and how it effect the human race, but it only discuss how electricity works and a little bit. Most of the book was a huge amount of a negative discussion on renewable energy and an endless confirmation on old, tired and polluting fuels.
I will agree that Wind is questionable source after reading the book, but for Solar the biggest problem that isn't talked about is when it generates more energy then the house needs and the city and utility don't want to accept it because they can't make as much money. Ex. Nevada versus Solar in 2016. With Nuclear he goes to say that the waste is not a concern because we have great secure places for it . I bet he doesn't have any of the waste in his backyard. So I question how objective this book is about electricity.
I know that this is a draft of the book, but I found the writing awkward and jumbled. Its not smooth.

I want to thank Perseus Books and Public Affairs Publishers for a free copy of this book.

[AcademicEditor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an interesting exploration of how electricity and access to it determine so much of the lives of people around the world. Indeed, areas with unreliable or limited access to electricity seem destined to lose out in the global socioeconomic competition. This is one clear source of inequalities being perpetuated, with solutions quite difficult to reach. I learned a lot about the brief but chaotic history of electrification from this book.

Thanks to the publishers and NetGalley for a digital ARC!

[Tiah]

I really don't have the energy right now to pull quotes. I'll post the Book Bite if it gets published.

For now - if you are a South African, I highly recommend reading this.

And if you are a "green fuel or bust" person - while I DO want an increase in green power, this book highlights the problems of just doing it via wind and solar. I don't think there is a one size fits all solution, and think he might have been overly harsh at green policies, but I suspect the real answer is somewhere between the two extremes. I think it is important to acknowledge the flaws when pushing new ideas. Then maybe we can make better, more nuanced, arguments and plans.

Oh, and cutting back on our electricity usage where we can is good, which he doesn't really get into at all. Still - a great read.

[David Lockhart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent read, easy to digest information and data. Thought provoking and truthful realism that shows why electricity is vital to human advancement, and necessary to uplift societies out of poverty. The realities of land use, convenience, and improved quality of life in many ways directly conflict with 21st century climate goals seen so frequently in the first world. Highly recommend to anyone interested in climate change, geopolitics, energy, or business/economics.

[Luciano Costa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Did you know that the combined power consumption of the so-called Big Tech (Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft) equals to demand of a whole country such as Ireland? Energy currently used to power cannabis growing in US is almost the same ammount consumed by Peru. This book brings several interesting data on the energy economics, explaining how electric power can be considered the most important force of our times.

[Dale · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great book to frame the energy discussion highlighting the increased demand for electricity across the global and different industries. Is the increased demand driving a need for more harmful to the environment activities or is this a lesser evil?

[Rishi Patel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good book. I enjoyed how it provided a lot of context into energy as a whole. This is a great starting point to read for a curious energy student. The author does have a pre-disposition in favor of fossil fuels so it’s written with that rhetoric in mind.

[Olivia DeQuattro · Rating 5 out of 5]

For what this book is, it was great. I really enjoyed listening to the audiobook.
This was a great overview of the historical and socioeconomic issues of electricity.
I appreciated the stress that electricity is a human right. How we get it is ever-evolving.

[Fearless Leader · Rating 1 out of 5]

Completely worthless book

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very enlightening (pun intended) read. Well written, highly recommend

[Thomas · Rating 2 out of 5]

He is not wrong but god so dull

[Infinity's Bookshelf · Rating 3 out of 5]

Robert Bryce’s new non-fiction book examines the role of electricity in our world. Starting with the thesis “Electricity is the fuel of the twenty-first century”, his argument splits the books into four approximately equal parts. He starts with a discussion of the history of electricity, continuing to a discussion of the areas of the world without regular access to electricity, then to the parts of the world that do, ending with a discussion of the future. As I am a student of political science and history, my thoughts on this book might be different then someone who understands the scientific aspect or economic aspect of Bryce’s arguments. This review is also quite long as I tried to accurately describe my thoughts. I also received a copy of this book for free, special thanks to the publisher, PublicAffairs, a division of Hachette Book Group, and NetGalley!

This review will be split into different parts for each section of the book. The sections were very separated, with very little bleeding between sections, as well as chapters that did the same generally. I have seen reviews that found this distracting, but I do not share that viewpoint. If you are considering reading this book, this is purely a stylistic aspect that you should take into account.

The first section focused on the history of electricity from it’s introduction to the Second World War. This is probably my favourite part of the entire book, as the information is quite specific, meaning it feels like a deep dive into the subject, with the added bonus of general information, which was also revealed. Topics discussed include: a basic overview of the invention and it’s proliferation focussing on Edison and his employees, a look at the effects on the formation of cities, examining US policy that was meant to expand the grid into rural areas, and the effect the widespread introduction of electricity had on women.

All of these focused almost entirely on the United States, which I found interesting, but I would have liked to see the formation of the electrical systems in other countries. There are a few moments throughout the book that would have benefited from an overview of the history of their grid, including Iraq, India and Germany. As the future chapters explained his arguments, i found myself wondering what caused their grid to grow like that. The grid in Iraq is explained in more detail in it’s own chapter and that was another of the most interesting chapters.

The second section focuses on parts of the world where electricity use per capita is less than 4,000 kilowatt hours. This is the equivalent of about four refrigerators and is the largest level of electricity that affects the Human Development Index of a country. This means that countries lower than this level are detrimentally effected by their lack of electricity and countries that are higher that that value are not improved because of their electricity use, atleast in terms of their Human Development Index, which catalogs countries based on life expectancy, nutrition and other similar factors. Topics discussed include: the American military’s contribution to the lack of electricity in countries they’ve been at war with, what makes a stable electrical grid, and how countries with intermittent power are compensating for the fact.

I enjoyed reading about the different ways that countries were functioning without massive electricity use, but most the chapters were simply too long. The author kept restating his point and by the end of each chapter his position was getting a little old. I did enjoy the chapter on Iraq, which gave a bit more historical context than the other chapters, which generally just discussed the current issues.

At the end of this section hes discusses how developing countries, such as Iraq and India, were actually investing in fossil fuel plants, because of the cost effectiveness of those types of plants. This is where the book started to go downhill. Without explanation, the author chooses to ignore the fact that many developing countries are investing in alternative sources of energy, instead focusing on the coal plants that are being erected. I found this a little bit irritating, but as the section focussed on fossil fuel use primarily, I continued, hoping for an explanation. This is the closest I came to disliking the style of separated sections, as this explanation and his discussion of renewables only comes in the final section.

For the third section, the focus is on what he calls, High-Watt countries, which uses more than 4,000 kilowatt hours a year per capita. This is the section I could connect with the most, as I live in one such country, and I can say that this book gives me a greater appreciation of that. The fact that I can have this blog and connect with people around the world is because I can access electricity. This section discusses: The electricity used by Big Tech companies and their server farms, the uproot of traditional cash in favour of types that require electricity, such as credit cards and mobile apps, the creation of Bitcoin and their use of electricity, and the electricity used by the marijuana industry.

These types of issues are ones that I focus on in my studies and I found these chapters incredibly interesting, The author gives insider access into Bitcoin and marijuana farms, which were described in vivid detail and highlights the ways that High-Watt countries uses electricity in ways that do not improve lives. Highlights are given to the growth of these industries and their projected future electricity use. The chapters were also kept quite short, which also contributed to my enjoyment of this section.

Finally we get to the final section, which focuses on the future of electricity and the viability of different sources. This section makes up the authors argument, which is that the world needs to be producing more electricity to keep up with demand, renewables are unable to produce the level of electricity we need, as they require lots of space, requiring nuclear energy mixed with natural gas, to keep up. While I can understand the argument made, I found his analysis of renewable energy sources lacking.

The main argument of this book is that electricity is needed for modern life to function, but the author spends a large amount of time advocating for nuclear power. He sees nuclear power as the only source that can be scaled to prevent further climate change. This analysis of nuclear energy feels simplistic, as his discussion of the Fukashima disaster focuses on the fact that no one died, which ignores that fact that effects of that disaster’s radiation are not currently known and, he might have written this prior to the announcement, but one person has died and more are surely to come.

Bryce spends a whole chapter discussing the effects of areas going carbon neutral and another chapter analyzing renewable viability. These chapters are strangely organized in a way that is dissimilar to the rest of the book. These sections focus almost entirely on interview evidence, bouncing across the world in a very repetitive way. I found myself wondering why the information was arranged that way and the only thing I could come up with is that it makes his argument seem like it is challenged, but in a strawman sort of way. He does not once interview someone who supports renewable energy and it shows. The majority of interviewees are people who either own homes near wind turbines or are paying more for electricity because of fossil fuel plant closures.

The chapter discussing renewable viability was the most egregious example. Bryce spends the longest chapter focusing on wind turbines and the amount of space they take up. Most environmentalist agree that wind energy is the least viable source of renewable energy, with solar having great viability and geothermal and hydro-power also being quite viable, but in special circumstances. Even emerging technology for hydrogen fuel cells and tidal power is viable. Instead of having an overview of all the types the author spends about 40 pages on problems with wind turbines and 1 page on solar. The other types are only briefly mentioned in other chapters.

Overall, this book was interesting as one perspective on the global energy debate, but it fails to explain other sides of the argument. The historical portions of the book were well organized and enjoyable to read and the modern uses of energy were also extremely interesting. Many of the chapters felt very long and his argument was very repetitive throughout the book. I would recommend reading more perspectives on the subject rather than just this one.

I’ve noticed that I write differently in fiction vs. non-fiction reviews. This review is a pretty good example of that! I think I went into this a little too deep, but I couldn’t help myself. I hope spoilers don’t exist for non-fiction! Tell me in the comments if you like non-fiction reviews on this blog or if they don’t really fit in. Happy reading!

3 stars

[Hill Krishnan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Electricity
1. No low energy and high income country.
2. Hurricane & no power.
3. Globally 1 billion has no access to electricity and 2 billion limited access.
4. Electricity is a big poverty killer.
5. Density: highly ordered energy. Stack them. Electricity great precision than steam engine.
6. Power density—tiny in farming.
7. More electricity consumption improves country’s economics.
8. Bahrain, Iceland, Norway—rich electricity consumption
9. Haiti, Ethiopian, Tanzania —poor
10. Vertical CITY: height is electricity and more people to live. Elevator & electricity. ~9 millions NYC because of electricity.
11. Washing machine freed so many women from burden to slavery in impoverished countries!
12. Electricity & women enfranchisement are followed in many countries!
13. Life expectancy is 16 years lesser among unplugged countries! Low education achievement too!
14. Globalization of electricity is almost none. It has to be produced inside! Loss of power in transportation and sovereignty are the problems.so, can’t import.
15. INTEGRITY (no leakage—no stealing like in Pakistan):, CAPITAL—most capital intensive industry & FUEL—coal.
16. Destroying electricity—Iraqi war—electric grid using tomahawks missiles. —humanitarian crisis. Even in 2015 they were able to produce only 4 hours of electricity!
17. Lebanon: generator mafia. Only few hours by the government. Israel v. Lebanon—Israeli hit $200 million electricity grid.
18. India: coal—“Dirty electricity.” 300 million Indians in poverty and can’t abandon the above. So, China is 50% of global coal consumption.
19. US & Australia have 300 years of coal. Russian 400 years!
20. Giant 5: new data center and own electricity grid. Together they consume as much as Ireland. It’s demand increase dramatically!
21. Crypto currency looking for cheap power usage. Switzerland because cold and data storage doesn’t need a lot of a/c
22. EMP attack: 4 to 10 years no electricity in America. “Book: Lights out.”
23. 2018 only 5% of homes have a/c. 10 a/c sold every second in the next decades!
24. Desalination plants need enormous electricity. Water demand is going up!
25. Republicans support nuclear energy more than democrats since 1972.
26. 3 problems of renewable energy: Cost; storage (storing power and waste in nuclear) and land usage!
27. Natural gas is more future usage.

[MIKE Watkins Jr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pros:

1. The Journalistic background of the author does wonders. IF an electrician or engineer wrote this he would just focus on the components that make a lightbulb work or a power grid work. If a historian wrote this he would just focus on the history of electricity itself. If a lawyer...you get it.

But because a journalist/author wrote this, and a very talented one at that, the author doesn't neglect a single element needed to disseminate what electricity is, its function, and it's history. You'll learn about how electricity works but also who made the first electric elevator, the environmental impact of methods used to obtain electricity, and how the electric MIddle West utility company through financial engineering dominated the energy face.

2. The book includes various interviews from people who have problems accessing electricity. This adds an emotional component to the book and makes you realize how precious the light switch alone in your house is.

3. One of the main reasons this book is a 5-star book is that it changes the way you think about things you thought you knew a decent amount about, such as electricity. The book will change the way you think about technology, renewable resources, and non-renewable resources because you'll look at them with a new lense, with a newfound emphasis on energy and how best to obtain energy.

4. The book showcases why the "100 renewable" climate change movement has good intentions but is simply unrealistic especially for underdeveloped countries who can't afford the expensive materials and adjustments needed to manifest these climate change proposals.

Cons:

1. The book drags on a point too much. Like eventually we get it "electricity is a major factor that determines wealth and literacy rates".

2. If you're a note-taker this book will be a pain in the butt to read, at least in the later sections of this book that focus more so on what the author's position is on this topic. I wouldn't recommend taking detailed notes or well...I wouldn't recommend taking conclusive summarized notes until you get to the end.

[Andrew Troske · Rating 3 out of 5]

A question of power was an informative book. I think it could’ve been entitled the Terrawatt challenge. I strongly agree with the conclusion. I do believe the book could’ve been a little tighter written. For example at least four pages of chapter 18 “this land is my land” felt a bit redundant.

Here are some notable quotes.

“The persistence of coal in India shows that people will do whatever they have to do to get the electricity they need. It also shows that climate change concerns are not as important to decision makers as reliable electricity.”

“Roger Pielke Jr. has dubbed this "the iron law of climate policy," which says, "When policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time”

“when forced to choose between dirty electricity and no electricity, people wil choose dirty electricity every time.”

“Given all this opposition and coal's heavy carbon footprint why has the fuel been so durable? There are several reasons. First and foremost, it's cheap. For Asian countries, coal is about one-half to one-third of the price (on an energy-equivalent basis) of imported liquefied natural gas. Second, coal prices are not affecte by any OPEC-like entities. That means no single country, or group of countries, can reduce supply and therefore cause price spikes. Third, coal deposits are widely dispersed geographically. Fourth, the world has gargantuan coal deposits….. Finally, there is little technology risk. Coal-fired power plants have been in use for decades all over the world.”

“The late Nobel laureate Richard Smalley called it the Terawatt Challenge. The world's most pressing problems, he explained, could only be addressed if the people of the world have plenty of energy.”

“THE TOP TEN PROBLEMS FACING THE WORLD 1. Energy 2. Water 3. Food 4. Environment 5. Poverty 6. Terrorism and war 7. Disease 8. Education 9. Democracy 10. Population…. if we can solve the first problem on the list, then the next four go away.”

“Electricity demand is increasing for many reasons, including (as I discussed earlier) marijuana production, the expansion of digital commerce, and cryptocurrency production. Several other macro trends are also stoking electricity demand growth, including urbanization, population growth, air conditioning, water treatment, electric vehicles (EVs), and climate change.” Andrew’s note: notably missing from this list is data storage and AI.

“Increasing need for fresh water will also drive electricity demand growth. According to a recent estimate, global demand for clean water will increase by one third between now and 2050. Meeting that demand will require enormous quantities of energy.”

“In summary, there's no doubt that we will need vastly more electricity in the decades to come than we have now. Adding 6 terawatts of new generation capacity will be a huge challenge. To put that in perspective, recall that the United States currently has about 1 terawatt of generation capacity? Therefore, over the next three decades or so, the countries of the world will have to add six grids the size of the existing US grid.”

“Despite the attractiveness of the all-renewable concept to voters, activists, politicians, and corporations wanting positive media coverage, here's the truth: Renewables aren't going to be enough to meet the Terawatt Challenge. Not by a long shot. Four factors will prevent renewables from taking over our energy and power systems: cost, storage, scale, and land use.

“The "chaotic nature of renewable energy supply, particularly from wind and solar, is an enormous challenge because it's the opposite of what we actually want in the system we're trying to provide. We don't try to create something chaotic," he said. "We're trying to create something stable, predict-able, that can give people what they want, when they want it ... at low cost, every hour of the year. Preferably you wouldn't do that with something that was driven by the weather."”

“Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science who was one of the coauthors of the 2013 letter, reiterated his belief that nuclear must be part of any emissions-reduction effort. "The goal is not to make a renewable energy system. The goal is to make the most environmentally advantageous system that we can, while providing us with affordable power," Caldeira said. "And there's only one technology I know of that can provide carbon-free power when the sun's not shining and the wind's not blowing at the scale that modern civilization requires. And that's nuclear power."”

“Nuclear energy is "the only way to make electricity production that contains all of its toxic waste. All of it." He continued, saying that nuclear energy prevents its waste "from going into the environment and yet people think that the waste from nuclear plants is a big problem.'….. the nuclear waste issue is not a technical problem; it's a political problem”

“Since the 1950s, when construction on the New York facility began, the domestic sector has produced about 80,000 tons of high-level waste. That may sound like a lot. But consider this fact: if you collected all of that waste in one place and stacked it about 10 yards (9.1 meters) high, it would cover an area roughly the size of a single soccer pitch. The key to nuclear waste is proper management.”

“While radiation fears and waste disposal have hampered the nuclear sector, the biggest single problem facing the future of nuclear energy is cost.”

“when looking at the global nuclear-energy sector, it's clear that state-owned companies are the only ones building significant amounts of new nuclear capacity. The state-backed model is particularly obvious in China, which is building more nuclear plants than any other country in the world.”

“The humanist response to the Terawatt Challenge is obvious: we cannot shrink away from it. We cannot keep hundreds of mil-lons of people in the dark due to worries about what may happen with regard to climate change.”

“The humanist response to the Terawatt Challenge is simple: it is to bring light and power to others so that those who are living in the dark can come into the bright light of modernity and progress. Making that happen won't be easy. Electrification requires societies to have integrity. It takes capital and fuel. But the trends toward greater electrification and higher living standards appear unstoppable. Electricity nourishes humans like no form of energy ever has. We need more human flourishing, not less. Sure, as we produce more electricity, we will have an effect on the environment. We will have to mine more copper and lead, refine more uranium and lithium, drill more gas wells, manufacture more solar panels, and build many more nuclear reactors. As we do all of those things and produce more electricity, we will emit more carbon dioxide, and that will have an effect on the climate. Despite the near-continual warnings about climate change, I remain optimistic that we can, and will, adapt to whatever changes are coming. We cannot stand still. Nor can we deny modernity to the billions of people who are living in Low-Watt and Unplugged places.”

[Ripudaman Malhotra · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have always enjoyed reading books by Robert Bryce. His clear-eyed expositions of tough issues like oil supply, crony capitalism, and power density have been most informative. In A Question of Power Bryce turns his attention to electricity—the most important form of energy.

Bryce uses data from the World Bank to show the vital role electricity has played in advancing well-being of humans all around the globe, and the lengths to which people all around the world will go to get access electricity. What I particularly liked about his writing is that not only does he provide the raw data to back up his position, he also enlivens the narrative by personal stories of people living with limited electricity. He describes the predicament of Wilfred Roque and his family in Puerto Rico after hurricane Maria who had to invest in a procuring a gasoline generator and spending over $100 a week to get the benefits of a few hours of electricity while putting up with its noise and air pollution so his children and do their homework. Bryce talks about the transformative power Rehana Jamadar experienced when electricity reached her home in rural West Bengal near Kolkata. No longer did she have to spend her time in the drudgery of gathering fuel. Jamadar takes pride in the fact that her daughter is receiving good education and studying to become a lawyer—something she could have become had she had the access to electric power when she was growing up.

Having established the critical need for electricity for all people, Bryce goes on to examine the primary sources available to generate electricity. The required amounts are truly staggering! Currently, most of the electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas. Additional sources include hydropower, nuclear, geothermal, and smaller amounts from wind and solar. Each of these sources has its own limitations. Burning fossil fuels increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are not enough rivers to support expansion of hydropower to the required levels. Wind and solar are intermittent and require batteries or other storage systems. They are also very dilute sources and thus require vast tracts of land often away from power consuming centers, necessitating more land for transmission. Their low power density and low productivity also translates into much higher requirements for commodity materials like steel, concrete, and glass—all of which are detrimental to the environment. In the chapters entitled, “The All-Renewable Delusion” and “This Land is My Land” Bryce again uses personal stories from farmers along with data to convincingly show that renewable resources alone cannot meet the necessary demand.

This leaves us with a mix of fossil-fuel plants along with wind and solar power. The rate of greenhouse gas buildup can be slowed by transitioning away from coal to natural gas, but that is not sufficient for reducing the threat and projected devastation due to climate change. If we want to reduce the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we have to include nuclear power. However, he points out that the widespread radiophobia and opposition to nuclear power, fed in large part by the organizations such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Sierra Club, make expanding nuclear power a very expensive proposition.

While Bryce acknowledges the value of nuclear power, stemming from its incredible power density, he is realistic about the hurdles in its expansion. The most likely scenario for global electricity in 2040 is what the International Energy Agency has projected in its New Policies Scenario. In this scenario, there is a substantial increase in the installed capacity of solar, wind, and natural gas power plants, and only a slight increase in nuclear power. Despite the increase in the installed power (nearly 3 TW), the total electricity generated by wind and solar will still only be a fifth that from coal and natural gas (5 TW). I am glad that Bryce included a chapter early on the book to explain the fundamentals of electricity, including the important difference between power and energy.

As the IEA acknowledges, this scenario is “far from enough to avoid severe impacts of climate change.” It does not include any significant electrification of the transportation sector, oil and carbon dioxide emissions from energy use are still on the order of 36 Gt a year, only a bit less than current emissions. For a sustainable future, the world would need to decarbonize deeply, and that will require a much larger contribution by nuclear power as described by Goldstein and Qvist in their excellent book, A Bright Future.

[Eric Chevlen · Rating 4 out of 5]

"If you are anti-carbon and antinuclear, you are pro-blackout. There is simply no way to slash global carbon dioxide emissions without big increases in our use of nuclear energy."

This book was written before Russia squeezed Europe's energy supply as a buttress for its invasion of Ukraine. It was written before the Biden administration signaled that it would impede development of domestic fossil fuel energy sources. It was written before increasing tension with China made obvious the security hazard of our dependence on its control of 80% of the world's lithium resource. Although these political perspectives are only a minor part of the author's thesis, if the book were updated now, the last chapter might be titled "I Told You So."

Author Robert Bryce reviews the role of electricity in a growing world. There is a complete correlation between a region's electrification and its productivity (and therefore wealth). Correlation does not always confirm causation, but in this case there is indeed a causal link in both directions. As a society grows more wealthy, it can afford to create reliable power supplies to create electricity, and grids to distribute electricity. Similarly, the more the society has reliable and distributed electricity, the more productive and wealthy it can become. This is not an abstract concept. Electrification can raise societies from the drudgery of manual domestic chores, illiteracy, and water contamination. Electrification can reduce the number of deaths due to heat waves (without air conditioning) and cold spells (without heating). By keeping energy extraction far from urban centers, electricity grids can reduce air urban pollution, another threat to human life.

As world population growth and the wave of modernization continue, the world will need huge increases in energy supplies. The author refers to this as the Terawatt Challenge. (A terawatt is 10^12 watts, that is, a million million watts.) Experts estimate that in the coming decades, the growing world population will need to add 6 terawatts of power. "To put that in perspective, recall that the United States currently has about 1 terawatt of generation capacity. Therefore, over the next three decades or so, the countries of the world will have to add six grids the size of the existing US grid."

To accomplish this task with non-nuclear renewable energy sources is impossible. The author describes four reasons why this is so. I'll merely touch on them here:

COST. Renewable energy sources are far more expensive than traditional fossil fuel energy sources. Their displacement of fossil fuel as an energy source would result (and has already resulted) in decline of manufacturing, and increase in unemployment with all its attendant pathologies.

STORAGE. Since wind blows and the sun shines intermittently, any power produced from those sources must be stored for later use. The current technology to do that (batteries) is enormously expensive, and the duration of storage in batteries is woefully brief. Using renewable energy sources to power the synthesis of methane (via electrolysis of water and harvesting of carbon dioxide) is an emerging technology that could provide important improvement on storage of energy, but in itself is not a complete answer to the Terawatt Challenge.

SCALE. The demand for electricity is growing much faster than solar and wind energy systems can be implemented. "Just to keep pace with the growth in global electricity demand, the world would have to install fourteen times as much solar capacity as now exists in Germany, and it would have to do so every year."

LAND USE. For example, "relying on large wind turbines to supply all US electricity demand...would require installing about 1.8 terawatts of new generating capacity." That would "require 900,000 square kilometers of land--nearly a tenth of the country's land, or roughly the area of Texas and Kansas combined."

I recommend this book for curious readers who care about the prospects for human flourishing and the global environment, and who also want to face the reality of the challenges before us, rather than to embrace the blandishments of pious environmental posturing.

[Wendy VanDellon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I received a free copy from PublicAffairs through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Robert Bryce's A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations is a nonfiction book with a singular thesis: electricity is the fuel of the twenty-first century. Bryce delves into this argument examining many aspects of electricity, including why electricity means modernity, the vast disparity in electricity access around the world, why electricity demand continues to increase, and how the demand on the grid will continue to grow in the years to come. This exploration shows the reader how electricity and the invention of the elevator helped cities move up rather than out, how coal is still a booming source of power in nations like India, and how big companies like Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft are building their own grids to ensure they have enough electricity to power their enterprise even if the grid fails.

As a whole, Bryce's use of electricity as a lens allows him to bring in a multitude of topics that fit into a four part argument. I appreciated all the different ways that electricity can be examined and that Bryce has done extensive research into various aspects of electricity, as can be seen by the fact that the final quarter of the book is appendices, a bibliography, and notes. I learned a lot that I didn't know about electricity by reading A Question of Power.

However, there were a few things that frustrated me. For example, even though the four sections of the book did help group ideas, even with this grouping the chapters felt a bit disconnected, even with an overarching theme. Additionally, Bryce touts that nuclear power is the way of the clean energy future and explores how radiation concerns, waste, and cost have often been hurdles that limit the public perception of nuclear possibility. In fact, Bryce even goes so far as to say if the reader is anti-carbon and anti-nuclear, then they are pro-blackout. I understand Bryce's point, but I am also wary of nuclear energy. Within his argument, I can see how land disputes and health impacts of some renewable energy sources do show a continued need for nuclear energy on the grid.

However, as he breaks down the impact of nuclear waste, I would have liked a bit more information on how he examined this issue. I realize Bryce is covering several topics and has done extensive research, but this was an area where I thought the book fell a bit short. Citing Yucca Mountain as a possible place to put spent cores, Bryce missed the fact that Nevada ranks fourth in seismic activity and that several studies have been done about the possible consequences of mishandling of cores during transport that could render places like Las Vegas uninhabitable. Also, surveys of Yucca Mountain have suggested that since it is an aquifer water could render any kind of container moot after several hundred years. Not to mention that Yucca Mountain and the surrounding areas are lands that were central to several Native American peoples and have religious significance. Yet there were alternatives to Yucca Mountain, such as military bases that already specialize in nuclear power, that I thought were much more promising if transport and handling precautions are also considered.

Though as I said, I learned a lot by reading A Question of Power. My rating comes from the fact that the disjointed nature of the exploration hampered my reading. However, I agree with Bryce's ending note: electricity is a human right and everyone should have access.

[Haseeb Saqib · Rating 4 out of 5]

The overall writing style of Robert Bryce is quite appealing. In the initial part of the book, he endeavors to explain the basic concepts of electricity and its pivotal role in societal transformation. While his main focus is on U.S. society, the message he intends to convey is applicable worldwide.

In the second part of the book, he delves into the reasons why billions of people around the world still lack access to electricity. Bryce provides detailed accounts of how the U.S. caused significant damage by targeting electric infrastructure during the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq wars, resulting in human and public health crises due to the obliteration of infrastructure. Drawing on Lebanon as an example, he underscores how this basic necessity is exploited by mafias. His primary focus in this section is on coal power generation, where he argues that completely phasing out coal power generation at this stage is practically unfeasible.

The third part of the book sees Bryce exploring the new and emerging electricity market, and the demand for electricity driven by power-hungry emerging technologies. His revelations about electricity's role in the weed market are particularly intriguing.

In the final part of the book, Bryce addresses the twenty-first century challenge facing the world: the need to increase electricity generation capacity to 12 terawatts by the late 2030s. He provides a detailed discussion on why, in his opinion, it is not feasible to meet this challenge through renewable generation alone. He staunchly advocates that meeting this challenge will require giving due consideration to nuclear power generation. Additionally, he emphasizes that gas-based generation will continue to grow in order to meet this demand.

[Stephen Harrison · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is sort of an "electricity for dummies" with a policy side. Bryce's basic argument is pretty straightforward - Electricity is essential to modern life. Access to reliable electricity is directly tied to economic prosperity and human development, with the HDI closely tied to electricity consumption. This part of his argument is compelling and tough to argue with.

Then he moves to how the world (and specifically the United States) is going to deal with increased energy demand. While he is concerned about climate change, current demands in the third world can only be met with cheap coal. Natural gas is cleaner, but not as accessible for places like India and China, where demand is growing quickly. Solar and wind are limited by their intermittent nature and difficulties with storing electricity on a large scale. Nuclear makes the most sense because it can produce a huge amount of energy from limited space, and it doesn't contribute to climate change. This part of the argument was fairly convincing, especially in regards to nuclear. However, the book was published in 2019, so I wonder if the increases in solar power efficiency since then would affect his argument.

It is a nice short book that makes its main point very clearly. Most of the chapters are elaborating on specific aspects of it. It certainly makes a good case for the need to keep electricity a key part of any planning. I didn't love his writing style and he sometimes made his drove his argument into the ground, especially on weaknesses of wind power. So I liked it overall, but definitely didn't love it.

[Neil Hunt · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree with Bryce's key thesis that Power is essential for standard of living, and many countries need much more.
I find his treatment of renewables a bit reactionary -- that renewables can't get us there.
His math on power density of wind turbines works out - 1W/m2 - but that ignores the fact that the land area underneath is usable for agriculture or solar, and ignores offshore wind.
His writing style is a bit repetitive, for instance endless examples of lawsuits by rural communities protesting turbine placement - neither exploring the equivalent issues of fracking and nuclear, nor discussing what can reasonably be done.
His solution - gas to nuclear - might be what ends up happening, but he fails to advance a balanced argument why renewables, particularly building-top solar, can't continue to grow much larger.

His discussion of storage is marred by data errors - Tesla batteries hold 6kWh? (Actually 60-100kWh), and ignores that the operating factor of solar and wind complement the demand factor for electricity, and assumes that we need *months* of storage to bridge between winter low production and summer consumption.

His discussion of the grid is thin - limited to some notes on resistance to installation of lines near communities - not enough discussion of emerging microgrid concepts and particularly the relevance of micro grids in emerging markets.

He also doesn't give enough credit for the ongoing march of tech progress, and the age of the text (2019) is by now quite dated (e.g. much larger wind turbines, much better power storage, much more rooftop solar, years more of massive increases in renewables, better offshore wind technology).