While Goodstein lays out the usual scenario regarding oil depletion and correctly explains differences between "remaining years" via the Hubbert's Peak method and the R/P method, much of the information is seemingly unconnected.

Yes, I know that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply. But I have read much clearer explanations of those laws in Freshman Physics in college. While "pithy", his explanations are not exactly clear or self-evident to the casual reader. And, once Thermodynamics are explored, the reader is left wondering WHY was all that explained? How does that connect to oil depletion? I know, because I have been studying this in other books, but this book does not link the theoretical explanations clearly with the problem of a shortage in oil production, available energy, etc.

I have read books that were longer and more clear on the subject; books that are a faster, easier and more understandable read than this brief volume. The first I would recommend is "The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies" by Richard Heinberg. This is an excellent well-rounded review of all issues regarding oil depletion.

For the reader who would like to explore the geological aspects in more depth (why can't we explore for more? what about making existing fields more productive? how is oil formed and where is it found?), I would recommend "Hubbert's Peak" by Kenneth Deffeyes, an associate of King Hubbert.

I'm sorry I paid so much for this slim little volume. Those books I recommended will cost you much less, are more clear, and easier to digest than this one.

Note: "Charts, graphs, photographs" in the Editors Review should be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, there are charts and illustrations, but they are simplistic. Some of the inserted illustrations are almost child-like.

33 of 34 found the following review helpful:


Thermodynamics for Dummies  Aug 05, 2004 By M. A. Plus "Advanced Atheist"
Goodstein's book stands out from others about Peak Oil I've read because he emphasizes the thermodynamic aspects of the oil problem. Economic reasoning about energy resources can be misleading because economics arose in the 18th Century and implicitly assumed the Newtonian scientific worldview before it incorporated the concepts of heat and entropy developed in the 19th Century. In other words, economics presupposes the existence of perpetual-motion machines. In the physical reality we have to live in, however, the "energy returned on energy invested" (EROEI) determines the true value of an energy resource. The good old-fashioned gushing oil wells we had 50-60 years ago had EROEI's of 100:1 or better, whereas current oil extraction has an EROEI around 10:1 on average and falling. When the EROEI of an energy resource falls down to 2:1 or less, the game is over because you aren't yielding enough energy to maintain an industrial civilization, much less to grow it. However we keep seeing physically ignorant economic analyses of alternative energy "sources" like ethanol-from-corn, Canadian oil sands, hydrogen fuel cells etc. that are really pseudoscientific because they have unity or worse EROEI's, even if the author can assign some arbitrary "price" to the final product that makes them seem "competitive" with real energy supplies.

Once you understand and integrate the thermodynamic aspect of the energy problem, you realize that the seemingly colossal reserve of oil sands in Alberta is useless and irrelevant if you can't extract it with a high enough EROEI. Moreover, any physically plausible way to capture a form of energy to replace oil will require a massive investment from the current and struggling stream of fossil fuels supplies for its construction, and it will have to generate an EROEI thereafter that is not only sufficient for our current needs, but also leaves plenty for building its replacements and further expanding the supply without having to dip into additional fossil fuels. Solar panels and windmills can't do this; the factories which make them don't run off of sunlight and wind, but are plugged into the regular electrical grid powered by coal, natural gas and nuclear. Until we can find the thermodynamic trap door that frees us from fossil fuels, we face the prospect of the "Dieoff" plausibly argued on certain Websites, especially considering that modern agriculture burns about ten calories of fossil fuels energy to deliver one calorie of food energy to our tables. Goodstein deserves a lot of credit for trying to get out the truth about the energy emergency, despite the cognitive resistance he's encountering from people who claim to be knowledgeable about physics yet who have been hypnotized by "economics."

28 of 29 found the following review helpful:


Other reviewers miss the point  Jul 13, 2005 By Bruce Kasanoff
I have trouble understanding why so many people favor intellectual debate over meaningful action. We don't need longer books or more detailed technical explanations. Denser treatises won't heat our homes or transport us around the globe.

To me, the author's goal seems both simple and exceedingly well done: to paint an unvarnished picture of a world headed towards a disaster no one is taking seriously.

Like some other reviewers, I have been researching alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. At present, they are pitiful. This book explains why the alternatives are so bleak, and why finding better alternatives requires a huge undertaking for which we require a much stronger resolve than currently exists.

In my community, residents periodically "all" try to read the same book, and then discuss it. I wish everyone would read this book, not just in my town, but in towns and cities everywhere. It's understandable, direct, and extremely sobering. We don't need a better book on the subject; simply acting on this one would be a superb start.

16 of 17 found the following review helpful:


Small volume, profound content  Apr 11, 2004 By Bruce W Ristow
Goodstein's small volume discusses the consequences of having passed the peak of oil discovery and soon reaching the peak of oil production. He makes the extreme but correct claim that civilization as we know it will not survive, but will revert to no better than an eighteenth century world, unless we can find a way to live without the oil, coal, methane, and other fossil fuels which are running our electrical generation plants and our transportation systems.

In the course of his discussion of the scientific basis for our fuel based society, he makes the useful distinction between energy conservation (That's the first law of thermodynamics, energy/mass is always conserved) and fossil fuel conservation (That would help postpone the crisis), briefly discusses heat engines and entropy (that's the second law - we need useful work not just energy).

Goodstein makes the telling observation that oil is valuable and essential as a raw material (feedstock) for the synthetic materials, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries. Once we don't have enough of it, it will be more valuable for these purposes than it ever was as a fuel source. A chapter, possibly a book, could be written on this neglected aspect of the oil as a fuel issue alone. Drilling for the Alaska oil should be postponed, if not forever, until at least it is the last resource for the petrochemical industries.

The alternatives to oil as the fuel source are examined. Goodstein identifies two as possible solutions to the problem.

One is direct conversion of sunlight to electricity. This is something that can be done now but at nowhere near the efficiency and cost needed to be practical. It will need to be done much better to be a solution.

The other is the feared and scorned nuclear power alternative. Nuclear power is not easy to discuss in a society that required NMR instruments to be renamed MRI instruments (magnetic resonance imaging instead of nuclear magnetic resonance) to avoid the dreaded word nuclear before introducing them into medical practice for diagnostic purposes, . People are frightened of nuclear fission power generation and there are issues to be resolved (safe disposal of long lived radioactive waste, safe operation of power plants). Goodstein has dismayed and offended people - see other reviews - for daring to raise nuclear power and identifying it as one of the two possible fuel source solutions.

Goodstein is optimistic even in the face of his "civilization as we know it will not survive" statement when he identifies the solution as one of engineering. This is a case where the trite "If we can put a man on the moon why can't we ... " works. We don't need a break through in fundamental science nor do we need to discover a perpetual motion machine to overthrow the second law. We need to recognize that we have a serious problem which will require significant resources and serious commitment from top to bottom. (a U.S. entropy law rather than a new U.S. energy bill?). It is difficult to be optimistic about that happening until there is more than $2 a gallon gasoline to focus the debate.

Goodstein isn't very optimistic that our present national and international leadership even recognizes the problem. Possibly this book will help.

16 of 17 found the following review helpful:


Non-hyperbolic treatment of a serious subject  Feb 11, 2004 By C. Naylor
David Goodstein does a good job of treating a flammable subject with the balance and seriousness it deserves. His conclusion is that there is no doubt that fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) will run out by the end of the century, but that we will be forced to begin dealing with the ramifications of falling supply long before that. Most estimates assume that the coming lack of oil will become a problem only when the wells have all dried up. Goodstein argues that the problems will occur much earlier - when production peaks at the half-way point of the planet's oil reserves. A point that is either here or will soon arrive.

The book avoids a long and detailed discussion of the geological forces behind the formation of fossil fuels - giving just a brief overview - and doesn't discuss the techniques of oil exploration, production and drilling at all. Goodstein's audience is the person who is unfamiliar with the science behind the controversy and a large portion of the book is devoted to an overview of energy, fuel, the science behind the discovery of the uses of oil and our rising dependence on it (with one or two brief forays into the related phenomenon of global warming).

I give the book 5 stars not for its fluid prose (although it is very readable) but because the author draws simple, firm and appropriate conclusions based on available evidence, while at the same time studiously avoiding hysteria and hyperbole to make his point. He also offers some alternative suggestions which, while unable to completely prevent economic and social dislocations that will be caused by falling oil production, do offer some hope.

See all 41 customer reviews on Amazon.com