What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, The Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy
The sheer volume of talk about energy, energy prices, and energy policy on both sides of the political aisle suggests that we must know something about energy. But according to Peter Huber and Mark Mills, the things we "know" are mostly myths. In The Bottomless Well , Huber and Mills debunk the myths and show how a better understanding of energy will radically change our views and policies on a number of very controversial issues. They explain why demand will never go down, why most of what we think of as "energy waste" actually benefits us; why greater efficiency will never lead to energy conservation; and why the energy supply is infinite-it's quality of energy that's scarce and expensive. The Bottomless Well will also revolutionize our thinking about the automotive industry (gas prices don't matter and the hybrid engine is irrelevant), coal and uranium, the much-maligned power grid (it's the worst system we could have except for all the others), what energy supplies mean for jobs and GDP, and many other hotly debated subjects.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published January 17, 2005
29 people are currently reading
477 people want to read
About the author
Peter W. Huber
22 books6 followersPeter William Huber earned a law degree from Harvard University in 1982, and a doctorate in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a partner at the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, an author who writes on drug development, energy, technology, and the law and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
May 1, 2009
Calling something visionary (a word I noticed on the dust jacket) doesn't mean it is correct.
Huber and Mills make a couple of good points (mainly that the more energy we conserve, the less demand there is for it, thus the cheaper it gets and ultimately we end up consuming more) but the rest of the book is balderdash.
Any book on energy, specifically oil, that is published in 2005 and doesn't include a single mention of Hubbert's theory of Peak Oil is either seriously lacking in scope or is trying to obscure the issue. So which is it, Mr. Huber and Mr. Mills? Your argument hinges on the assumption that humanity will continue to stumble from lower sources of energy to higher sources of energy forever. That, my dear sirs, is quite the leap of logic to make.
Huber and Mills make a couple of good points (mainly that the more energy we conserve, the less demand there is for it, thus the cheaper it gets and ultimately we end up consuming more) but the rest of the book is balderdash.
Any book on energy, specifically oil, that is published in 2005 and doesn't include a single mention of Hubbert's theory of Peak Oil is either seriously lacking in scope or is trying to obscure the issue. So which is it, Mr. Huber and Mr. Mills? Your argument hinges on the assumption that humanity will continue to stumble from lower sources of energy to higher sources of energy forever. That, my dear sirs, is quite the leap of logic to make.
November 27, 2009
Even though I am predisposed to agree with an iconoclastic approach to public and private energy policy, I was very disappointed in this authors "fantasia" on energy. This poor read was extremely redundant, and in all the wrong ways. The themes of greatest importance were not well developed, and the author’s favorite themes seemed to me to be the least important in the book. I was initially attracted to the many graphs, but was disappointed that most of them merely charted the obvious - like lasers use more energy than combustion engines, and Pentium IV chips use more than 286 processors. Many times I thought a good editor could turn this book into a good journal article, or perhaps a thick pamphlet.
The best part of the book was the history of several energy producing technologies like the steam and combustion engines. But I was sorely disappointed that there was not a clearer focus, with stronger implications for government policy, or market movements. The worst part was the utterly anti-climactic final chapter attempting to tie various energy related themes into the author’s novel theory on the origins of pre-cellular life.
The best part of the book was the history of several energy producing technologies like the steam and combustion engines. But I was sorely disappointed that there was not a clearer focus, with stronger implications for government policy, or market movements. The worst part was the utterly anti-climactic final chapter attempting to tie various energy related themes into the author’s novel theory on the origins of pre-cellular life.
October 18, 2019
This book will give you a whole new perspective on the world we live in. Those who need a state of crisis to thrive will deplore this book as the science, primarily physics and light math paints a picture of abundance and life. I struggled with some of the high level concepts, such as waste is a virtue, showing how ingrained our society embraces efficiency and conservation. Once you grasp the concept however the big picture makes sense and the material lends itself toward the philosophical.
As the book was published in 2005 it could use an update to take into account some of the recent changes such as the impact of fracking on our use of energy, but the book still holds up and is more relevant than ever. Anecdotally my house was built in 1931 and has gone through several major electrical upgrades over the years. Even as my stuff has become more energy efficient I consume more power than ever to my amazement. Having more small ‘always on’ devices logically support the claims of the book that more efficiency leads to more demand. The smart home is a power hungry home.
As the book was published in 2005 it could use an update to take into account some of the recent changes such as the impact of fracking on our use of energy, but the book still holds up and is more relevant than ever. Anecdotally my house was built in 1931 and has gone through several major electrical upgrades over the years. Even as my stuff has become more energy efficient I consume more power than ever to my amazement. Having more small ‘always on’ devices logically support the claims of the book that more efficiency leads to more demand. The smart home is a power hungry home.
August 10, 2019
Obfuscating and gee-whizzing the obvious
In this breezy and somewhat obtuse tome of energy babble Huber and Mills enthuse about an endless supply of energy with a kind of breathless giddiness that would shame even the late economist Julian Simon, author of the notion of perpetual economic growth. Essentially what Huber and Mills are telling us is this: we will not run out of energy until the atoms of the universe dissipate into the final stage of entropy some trillions of years from now.
More immediately, as the oil patch runs dry we will convert the hybrid-electric engine (now coming hugely onto market) to the electric engine, which will get its power from electricity generated from coal and nuclear plants, and when we run out of coal and uranium, fusion will be practical and then something else--after all, matter is energy and vice-versa, and with a sufficiently advanced technology, we should be able to extract the energy even in a lump of rock.
They are right, we are not about to run out of energy. I give them a "duh" on that. The sun still has five billion years to go. Furthermore, energy is really just an exploitable contrivance between the relatively hot and the relatively cold. What is important, as the authors never tire of mentioning, is the "ordering" of energy. That is, how energy can be concentrated and aimed at some kind of useful enterprise, such as a laser beam or a logic gate in a computer and not dissipated into the atmosphere as heat. (Although they insist that this dissipation, this "waste," is not only okay, but to be celebrated as evidence of our technological prowess. What they should be saying is that the less we dissipate, the less we pollute, the more technologically adept we are.)
Here's another of their pronouncements: "As we have seen, most of the energy we consume is used to process and purify energy itself." This quote is from page 138, but you'll find essentially the same expression several other places in the book. In fact, there is a lot of deliberate repetition as though the authors are giving a didactic seminar to some corporation's employees (or massaging the CEO)--which is what I suspect they sometimes do. This may account for the fact that they often sound like they want to stand up and shout: "American workers you are the most productive in the world--rejoice! Now get back to work."
Yes, most of the energy we consume is used to process and purify energy itself. Ergo, the more energy we use the more energy we use. Or if that isn't clear, try this: energy use increases because energy use increases.
This tautology is not without (again) its didactic merit. The first large-scale use of the coal-powered steam engine was to pump water out of coal mines. In other words, energy was used to gain more energy.
In the same vein (sorry), on page 136 the authors have a graph showing that the United States, the wealthiest nation on earth, has the highest per capita energy consumption while lesser nations are less wealthy and use less energy. The authors conclude, "The more energy a nation uses, the richer it gets."
A tautology employed to catch our eye is one thing, but confounding cause with effect is quite another. Measuring energy use is already measuring wealth. Wealth and energy use are positively correlated because they are inseparable. People are poor in Bangladesh not because they don't use enough energy. They don't use enough energy because they can't afford to.
The real reason per capita energy use has increased in this country is because we have gotten wealthier. And the reason we have gotten wealthier is mostly related to globalization and free trade, to increased productivity because of technological advances, to education and science, to the greater employment of women in the workplace, and to the use of cheap labor, both from poorly paid illegal immigrants and relatively cheap outsourced labor. This is not to mention the exploitation of the natural resources of other countries and indirectly their cheap labor.
Another "point" Huber and Mills make is that a greater use of energy in, for example, gas-guzzling SUVs is not necessarily wasteful since more powerful engines using more fuel gain for their users time. Yes, if you go 90 miles per hour you will get where you're going sooner than if you chug along at 65--that is, unless you're on the freeway at rush hour.
There are a few slurs in the book aimed at people the authors don't think are too bright, such as greens and environmentalists. One of those slurs with the most ironic quality is the one aimed at George Orwell. After attempting to dismiss Orwell's dystopian vision in "1984," the authors write that all kinds of non-dystopian things were happening "While Orwell was typing..." (p. 135) The implication one gets is that Huber and Mills are writing, composing and edifying while George Orwell was only "typing." The irony is not so much that these two gentlemen are not in the same league as Orwell as writers and thinkers, but that Orwell's vision is upon us this very day with poverty, pollution and perpetual war, whether Huber and Mills notice it or not.
One more point about which the authors are dead on right. We won't run out of oil because as oil becomes scarce its price will no longer be competitive with other energy sources and so there will always be some crude left in the ground. QED: we won't run out of oil.
If you want to know about peak oil, read Beyond Oil (2005) by Kenneth S. Deffeyes. If you want a contretemps to the views of Huber and Mills, I recommend Brian Czech's Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train (2000). And if you're interested in the prospect for a hydrogen economy, The Hype about Hydrogen (2004) by Joseph J. Romm is excellent.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
In this breezy and somewhat obtuse tome of energy babble Huber and Mills enthuse about an endless supply of energy with a kind of breathless giddiness that would shame even the late economist Julian Simon, author of the notion of perpetual economic growth. Essentially what Huber and Mills are telling us is this: we will not run out of energy until the atoms of the universe dissipate into the final stage of entropy some trillions of years from now.
More immediately, as the oil patch runs dry we will convert the hybrid-electric engine (now coming hugely onto market) to the electric engine, which will get its power from electricity generated from coal and nuclear plants, and when we run out of coal and uranium, fusion will be practical and then something else--after all, matter is energy and vice-versa, and with a sufficiently advanced technology, we should be able to extract the energy even in a lump of rock.
They are right, we are not about to run out of energy. I give them a "duh" on that. The sun still has five billion years to go. Furthermore, energy is really just an exploitable contrivance between the relatively hot and the relatively cold. What is important, as the authors never tire of mentioning, is the "ordering" of energy. That is, how energy can be concentrated and aimed at some kind of useful enterprise, such as a laser beam or a logic gate in a computer and not dissipated into the atmosphere as heat. (Although they insist that this dissipation, this "waste," is not only okay, but to be celebrated as evidence of our technological prowess. What they should be saying is that the less we dissipate, the less we pollute, the more technologically adept we are.)
Here's another of their pronouncements: "As we have seen, most of the energy we consume is used to process and purify energy itself." This quote is from page 138, but you'll find essentially the same expression several other places in the book. In fact, there is a lot of deliberate repetition as though the authors are giving a didactic seminar to some corporation's employees (or massaging the CEO)--which is what I suspect they sometimes do. This may account for the fact that they often sound like they want to stand up and shout: "American workers you are the most productive in the world--rejoice! Now get back to work."
Yes, most of the energy we consume is used to process and purify energy itself. Ergo, the more energy we use the more energy we use. Or if that isn't clear, try this: energy use increases because energy use increases.
This tautology is not without (again) its didactic merit. The first large-scale use of the coal-powered steam engine was to pump water out of coal mines. In other words, energy was used to gain more energy.
In the same vein (sorry), on page 136 the authors have a graph showing that the United States, the wealthiest nation on earth, has the highest per capita energy consumption while lesser nations are less wealthy and use less energy. The authors conclude, "The more energy a nation uses, the richer it gets."
A tautology employed to catch our eye is one thing, but confounding cause with effect is quite another. Measuring energy use is already measuring wealth. Wealth and energy use are positively correlated because they are inseparable. People are poor in Bangladesh not because they don't use enough energy. They don't use enough energy because they can't afford to.
The real reason per capita energy use has increased in this country is because we have gotten wealthier. And the reason we have gotten wealthier is mostly related to globalization and free trade, to increased productivity because of technological advances, to education and science, to the greater employment of women in the workplace, and to the use of cheap labor, both from poorly paid illegal immigrants and relatively cheap outsourced labor. This is not to mention the exploitation of the natural resources of other countries and indirectly their cheap labor.
Another "point" Huber and Mills make is that a greater use of energy in, for example, gas-guzzling SUVs is not necessarily wasteful since more powerful engines using more fuel gain for their users time. Yes, if you go 90 miles per hour you will get where you're going sooner than if you chug along at 65--that is, unless you're on the freeway at rush hour.
There are a few slurs in the book aimed at people the authors don't think are too bright, such as greens and environmentalists. One of those slurs with the most ironic quality is the one aimed at George Orwell. After attempting to dismiss Orwell's dystopian vision in "1984," the authors write that all kinds of non-dystopian things were happening "While Orwell was typing..." (p. 135) The implication one gets is that Huber and Mills are writing, composing and edifying while George Orwell was only "typing." The irony is not so much that these two gentlemen are not in the same league as Orwell as writers and thinkers, but that Orwell's vision is upon us this very day with poverty, pollution and perpetual war, whether Huber and Mills notice it or not.
One more point about which the authors are dead on right. We won't run out of oil because as oil becomes scarce its price will no longer be competitive with other energy sources and so there will always be some crude left in the ground. QED: we won't run out of oil.
If you want to know about peak oil, read Beyond Oil (2005) by Kenneth S. Deffeyes. If you want a contretemps to the views of Huber and Mills, I recommend Brian Czech's Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train (2000). And if you're interested in the prospect for a hydrogen economy, The Hype about Hydrogen (2004) by Joseph J. Romm is excellent.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
August 28, 2008
Despite being a terribly informative book full of incredible insights, unfortunately, the material will probably move too slowly for some readers. Anyone interested in energy policy should read this book. The authors effectively demonstrate why every forecast on energy has been wrong, and what we are some things in relation to energy we can look forward to in the future.
September 1, 2007
This book was also excellent. Sadly, it was slightly too intricate and formulaic for a Freshman research paper. I do recommend it, though.
August 8, 2011
basically we'll never run out of energy b/c the human mind will always come up with something to use. the day we don't, we're all dead anyway so no need to worry about it.
September 13, 2023
Published in 2005, this book takes a deep dive into the big picture of “energy” and how it is harnessed and used by humanity. It is amazing how timely and relevant it remains today. The book considers the laws of thermodynamics, particularly the first (energy cannot be created or destroyed, only change form), and second (disorder or entropy always increases) as they relate to energy. The authors make a distinction between energy and power that can be used to do work. They make the point that order (vs disorder or chaos) of energy is more important than the raw energy itself in terms of it being useful for us to do work. Sunlight or heat is disordered and disperse while electricity is highly ordered and thus more useful, but it takes energy to create order, and in that way energy begets energy. They say that there is so much energy out there that we will never run out. Technology has continually advanced to allow us to access, harness, and use different forms of energy, and technology continues to advance. They also say that demand will continue to increase even as our use becomes more efficient because 1) the energy saved by gains in efficiency is surpassed by the energy consumed by new applications opened up by those increases in efficiency and 2) the more highly ordered the energy is the more energy is needed to create that order (biomass to steam to internal combustion to simple electricity, to semiconductors and lasers). I did not understand all the technical stuff they discussed, but the general ideas, implications, and conclusions are clear. Energy use is virtuous, our demand for it will continue increasing, and we will never run out. They do discuss carbon and global warming, agree that it may be a genuine concern, and conclude that the problem will only be solved by more advanced uses of energy not going back to less ordered and much more land intensive sources. Again, amazing how relevant the book remains today.
January 25, 2021
The book is all the more entertaining for the fact that it shatters many energy myths in an unapologetic and politically incorrect fashion. This straight-shooting return to truthfulness is a welcome breath of fresh air guaranteed to irritate the automatons of the environmental-left. To be specific, the authors dispel six myths about energy:
1) why the demand for energy will never decrease
2) why "energy waste" (actually refinement to more intensive forms) is beneficial--a good thing
3) why more efficient cars lead to a higher demand for energy
4) why the energy supply is essentially infinite
5) why gasoline prices are less important now than in the past
6) and why hybrid engines will likely lead to increased use of coal and nuclear fuels
1) why the demand for energy will never decrease
2) why "energy waste" (actually refinement to more intensive forms) is beneficial--a good thing
3) why more efficient cars lead to a higher demand for energy
4) why the energy supply is essentially infinite
5) why gasoline prices are less important now than in the past
6) and why hybrid engines will likely lead to increased use of coal and nuclear fuels
April 26, 2025
Energy - misunderstood and the devolution to general chaos. Just like we did not run out of wood, we will not run out of any energy source because humans will merely utilize the next source. Unless we manage to eliminate ourselves, and then it will be the next alpha species problem.
July 11, 2017
Very good book if you want a different prospective than what I have believed about conserving enery. Forces you to think outside your own head. It is definitely data intensive, but has good points.
June 8, 2018
Energy and its myths busted. On how we on wasting, using, searching energy can find more energy and never run out of it. Energy begets Energy.
March 18, 2017
I wanted to like this book, for the sake of a few key arguments that were sound; but, I cannot recommend it. I did not disagree with the author's thesis as much as I did not follow it. The narrative seemed to be all over the place and I lost interest.
December 10, 2007
This book was often a bit technical for me, but I enjoyed it overall. Two points that caught my interest were:
People rarely consider the overall energy consumption of a product. For example, people often look to hybrids because they produce fewer carbon dioxide/tailpipe emissions. However, what people don’t consider is that energy consumption used to develop and build hybrids is often more labor/energy intensive, which consequently results in comparably larger amounts of greenhouse gas emissions than the development/production of a conventional automobile. As such, overall greenhouse gas emissions associated with hybrid technology is often greater than those associated with conventional internal combustion technology.
The paradox of efficiency. Better/more efficient technology doesn’t translate into energy conservation. It actually translates into just the opposite. Consider how engine technology has developed over the past 100 years. Engines are now more efficient than ever, and yet people are driving more, driving faster, driving bigger cars, etc……ie consuming more. The major developments in internal combustion efficiency of the last 100 years have been offset by an inherent desire to consume more. And these developments in efficiency allow people to accomplish this.
People rarely consider the overall energy consumption of a product. For example, people often look to hybrids because they produce fewer carbon dioxide/tailpipe emissions. However, what people don’t consider is that energy consumption used to develop and build hybrids is often more labor/energy intensive, which consequently results in comparably larger amounts of greenhouse gas emissions than the development/production of a conventional automobile. As such, overall greenhouse gas emissions associated with hybrid technology is often greater than those associated with conventional internal combustion technology.
The paradox of efficiency. Better/more efficient technology doesn’t translate into energy conservation. It actually translates into just the opposite. Consider how engine technology has developed over the past 100 years. Engines are now more efficient than ever, and yet people are driving more, driving faster, driving bigger cars, etc……ie consuming more. The major developments in internal combustion efficiency of the last 100 years have been offset by an inherent desire to consume more. And these developments in efficiency allow people to accomplish this.
April 3, 2015
I am sure this book has some sort of very profound message : at least that is what some of its Amazon reviews say. But I have to admit that whatever that message was, it went right past me. Perhaps I was not sophisticated enough to get it; but I think the whole book reads like the incoherent dialogues of two schizophrenic former scientists sharing a bunk bed in a mental hospital.
I think the central theme in the book is that the more energy we waste, we somehow find more energy..Or something like that.. There must certainly be better books on energy policy and history; I just can not recommend this one.
I think the central theme in the book is that the more energy we waste, we somehow find more energy..Or something like that.. There must certainly be better books on energy policy and history; I just can not recommend this one.
March 18, 2014
I love this book. My main takeaway? No one that talks energy or energy policy on TV knows what they are talking about. Maybe this author doesn't know what he is talking about, but I found it fascinating and it made sense to me. Nothing in the book made me think, "you have got to be kidding me" but I did recommend this book to a friend who declined to read it once he found out the author wrote for Forbes occasionally.
I also was excited that this book was optimistic and did not end in doom-and-gloom.
I also was excited that this book was optimistic and did not end in doom-and-gloom.
August 19, 2009
I understand what they put forth, and I read it at the time with vigorous agreement, right up until the last three pages. Lately I have begun to value the Slow Way of Doing Things. What's the point in doing it all bigger and faster if we lose our connection to the present?
You will learn a hell of a lot from this book.
You will learn a hell of a lot from this book.
July 15, 2010
A real eye-opener. The title is provocative, but the supporting content ably explains and provides proofs based on a more thorough understanding of energy (and entropy, and thermodynamics) than is held by either left or right. Huber and Mills truly challenge conventional wisdom. Their point of arrival provides reconciliation between "green" and "growth."
December 18, 2011
This one never grabbed my interest. I like to read opinions that are contrary to popular believe but this one didn't hit the right spot. Didn't help that I think it requires a degree in EE to understand half of it. I did agree with them that the more efficient we become in using energy, the more energy we use, not less.
September 13, 2007
interesting take on the energy debate
July 13, 2008
interesting take on the energy crisis.
October 8, 2009
I'm not going to finish this one. I made it 60 pages and the author still wasn't grabbing my interest.
June 30, 2011
Strong ideas told well. I read it start to finish in one day before a job interview that I had with the author.
February 8, 2012
Learned a lot. Last chapter was weird.
Want to read
December 25, 2011Specious logic, denial, and desparaging of existing theories. I needed something to read that I could disagree with. It's good for the argumentative skills.
November 15, 2012
Hubbert's Peak what? A bit nerdy, but very interesting read. Delves into history, economics, politics particle physics, thermo- dynamics, bio-chemistry, and of course energy policy.
September 24, 2013
Interesting and mostly understandable read about energy in our current time and looking back historically.
Read
April 12, 2016Need to read this wonderful book again!
December 29, 2007
Completely changes how you view "energy" and all the associated issues. Al Gore's worst nightmare.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews