A post-COVID-19 critical review of Robert Bryce’s “Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.”

INTRODUCTION

In Power Hungry, Robert Bryce champions a shift from coal and oil to natural gas and nuclear energy—termed “N2N”—as the United States’ path to energy autonomy. He argues that N2N meets his “Four Imperatives”—energy density, power density, cost, and scale—while aligning with megatrends like decarbonization, increased gaseous fuel use, concerns over peak oil and coal, urbanization, and reduced carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. Bryce positions N2N as a sustainable, economically viable, and environmentally friendly alternative, leveraging the shale gas boom and nuclear’s high efficiency. Yet, his portrayal of N2N as a universal solution oversimplifies the U.S.’s diverse energy landscape, where geography, politics, resources, and regional needs vary widely. While his data-driven approach is persuasive, Bryce often omits counterarguments, skewing the narrative toward his conclusions. This review examines the strengths of Bryce’s N2N proposal, critiques its limitations, and advocates for a regionally tailored energy strategy that integrates renewable and non-renewable sources. A balanced, adaptable approach, rather than a one-size-fits-all “panacea,” better addresses the complexities of U.S. energy policy.

STRENGTHS OF BRYCE’S ARGUMENT

Public Misconceptions and Energy Literacy

Bryce compellingly highlights the ignorance, fear, and guilt shaping American attitudes toward energy, linking these to scientific illiteracy and innumeracy. A 2016 AP-NORC survey illustrates this gap: 66% of Americans opposed fracking, yet only 20% knew it drives two-thirds of U.S. natural gas production. This disconnect, echoed by energy scholar Amory Lovins, undermines informed decision-making. While individual choices—like opting for electric vehicles—may seem minor, collective behaviors influence national carbon emissions and energy transitions. Bryce’s focus on public education as a prerequisite for energy policy reform resonates as a foundational strength, exposing the myths of “green” energy that obscure practical realities.

Renewable Energy Pitfalls

Bryce adeptly critiques the intermittency of wind and solar power, which rely on variable conditions—wind speed, turbine height, cloud cover, and daylight. Their capacity factors (34.5% for wind, 25.1% for solar in 2016, per EIA) pale compared to fossil fuels, and pairing them with coal or natural gas introduces inefficiencies. Coal plants, designed for continuous operation, lose efficiency when cycled on and off to compensate for renewable fluctuations. Moreover, wind turbines and solar photovoltaic (PV) cells depend on rare earth elements, with China controlling 90% of global supply. This geopolitical vulnerability, coupled with high initial costs—solar installation averaged $2.5/W in 2010 (Lazard, 2024)—renders renewables less competitive long-term, a point Bryce underscores with clarity.

N2N’s Alignment with Decarbonization

Bryce’s N2N aligns with decarbonization goals, offering a pragmatic bridge from coal. Natural gas emits half the CO₂ of coal per unit of electricity and, in flex-fuel vehicles, cuts CO and CO₂ emissions by 75% and 33%, respectively (Zarante et al., 2009). Nuclear energy, with zero operational CO₂ emissions, boasts super-high power density and minimal solid waste. The shale gas boom—Marcellus production surged thirteen-fold from 2007 to 2014 (EIA)—and nuclear’s scalability position N2N as a viable coal replacement. By 2023, natural gas accounted for 43% of U.S. electricity, up from 30% in 2010 (EIA, 2023), reflecting its growing role in reducing emissions while meeting demand.

LIMITATIONS OF THE N2N SOLUTION

Despite its strengths, N2N falters as a universal strategy due to oversimplification and regional disparities.

Oversimplification of Substitution Dynamics

Bryce’s “switch-and-compare” approach assumes natural gas and nuclear energy can seamlessly replace coal, ignoring political and economic complexities. Greinier et al. (2018) found that expanding natural gas use does not consistently displace coal emissions, as factors like urbanization (80% of Americans live in urban areas), GDP per capita, and electricity demand complicate transitions. Methane leakage—estimated at 2.3% of U.S. natural gas production (Hausfather et al., 2022)—further offsets CO₂ reductions, with a global warming potential 25 times that of CO₂ over 100 years. Politically, fossil fuel lobbying ($130 million in 2022, per OpenSecrets) and short-term profit motives delay coal phase-outs, while economic incentives for natural gas growth may lock in emissions-intensive infrastructure, stunting long-term decarbonization.

Regional Variability and Resource Disparities

The U.S.’s energy profile varies starkly by region, a nuance Bryce overlooks. Texas, the top natural gas producer, generates 60% of its electricity from gas-fired plants, while Washington harnesses 77% from hydropower, leveraging Pacific proximity (EIA, 2023). California’s solar output exceeds 30%, supported by 15 GW of installed capacity, and Iowa leads in wind, producing 57% of its power from turbines. These differences reflect geographic and resource realities—arid Southwest states favor solar, while windy plains suit turbines—that N2N cannot uniformly address. Transmission networks, like the Grand Coulee Dam powering 11 western states, demonstrate regional synergy’s potential, yet Bryce’s national focus dismisses such tailored solutions.

Nuclear Safety and Public Perception

Nuclear energy’s environmental benefits are tempered by safety risks Bryce downplays. The 2011 Fukushima disaster displaced 156,000 people, with cleanup costs exceeding $200 billion (UNSCEAR, 2021), though no direct radiation deaths occurred. The U.S. stores 80,000 metric tons of spent fuel across 70+ sites, lacking a permanent repository—a $40 billion challenge unresolved since Yucca Mountain’s cancellation (DOE, 2023). Public support lags, with only 51% of Americans favoring nuclear expansion in 2022 (Pew, 2022), driven by fears of accidents and waste. Regulatory hurdles, like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 5–7-year licensing process, further complicate deployment, undermining N2N’s scalability.

Data Bias and Missing Counterpoints

Bryce’s data supports N2N but lacks balance. He ignores renewable advancements—solar generation rose 75% from 2019 to 2023, with costs dropping from $150/MWh in 2010 to $40/MWh (Lazard, 2024). Battery storage, up sixfold since 2019 (IEA, 2024), mitigates intermittency, yet Bryce omits this progress. Small modular reactors (SMRs), backed by $4 billion in DOE funding, promise safer, cheaper nuclear power by 2030 (DOE, 2023), offering an evolution of N2N he overlooks. This selective framing weakens his argument’s credibility, favoring narrative over objectivity.

A PATH FORWARD: REGIONAL ENERGY SYNERGY

A regionally adaptive strategy outperforms N2N’s blanket approach. In the Northwest, Washington could pair hydropower (77% of its mix) with SMRs, providing stable baseload power while leveraging the Grand Coulee Dam’s 6.8 GW capacity. Texas, with 27% wind and 60% natural gas (EIA, 2023), could blend these sources, using gas to offset wind’s variability. California’s solar dominance (15 GW installed) pairs naturally with battery storage, which stored 7 GWh in 2023 (IEA, 2024), smoothing intermittency. Iowa’s wind leadership (57% of generation) could integrate with natural gas for reliability. Politically, streamlining nuclear licensing—reducing it to 2–3 years via legislative reform—and extending Inflation Reduction Act tax credits (up to $80/MWh for clean energy) would accelerate adoption. Economically, $10 billion in grid upgrades (DOE, 2023) could enhance interconnectivity, distributing power from resource-rich regions to demand centers. This mosaic approach balances scalability, emissions goals, and regional strengths, fostering energy independence without N2N’s rigidity.

CONCLUSION

Bryce’s N2N proposal offers a robust framework for replacing coal and oil, leveraging natural gas and nuclear energy to address intermittency and emissions. Its alignment with decarbonization and scalability shines through the shale gas boom and nuclear’s efficiency. However, its oversimplification—disregarding regional diversity, nuclear safety, political barriers, and renewable progress—undermines its viability as a national solution and highlights its outdatedness. A synergistic, regionally tailored strategy, blending renewables like solar and wind with non-renewables like natural gas and nuclear, better navigates the U.S.’s complex energy landscape. Supported by updated data and policy reforms, this approach promises a more economical, environmentally sound path to energy autonomy, outpacing N2N’s one-size-fits-all bet.

REFERENCES

  1. Bryce, Robert. Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future. Public Affairs, 2010.
  2. Desjardins, Jeff. What Americans Actually Think About Energy and the Climate. AP-NORC and Energy Policy Institute, 2016.
  3. Lovins, Amory. Reinventing Fire. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2011.
  4. Greinier, P. T., et al. “Snakes in The Greenhouse: Does Increased Natural Gas Use Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal Consumption?” Energy Research & Social Science, vol. 28, 2018, pp. 53-57.
  5. Zarante, P. H. B., et al. “Evaluating Carbon Emissions Reduction by Use of Natural Gas as Engine Fuel.” Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, vol. 1, no. 6, 2009, pp. 216-220.
  6. EIA. “Annual Energy Outlook 2023.” U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2023.
  7. Hausfather, Zeke, et al. “Methane Leakage from Natural Gas Infrastructure: Implications for Decarbonization.” Nature Climate Change, vol. 12, 2022, pp. 345-352.
  8. IEA. “United States 2024: Energy Policy Review.” International Energy Agency, 2024.
  9. Lazard. “Levelized Cost of Energy+.” June 2024.
  10. UNSCEAR. “Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation: UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report.” United Nations, 2021.
  11. DOE. “Nuclear Energy: Pathways to Commercial Liftoff.” U.S. Department of Energy, 2023.
  12. Pew Research Center. “U.S. Public Views on Climate and Energy.” 2022.
  13. OpenSecrets. “Oil & Gas Industry Lobbying.” 2022.