I have an electrical engineering degree but never actively practiced the discipline (pivoted into automation & controls) and I really wished I'd read I have an electrical engineering degree but never actively practiced the discipline (pivoted into automation & controls) and I really wished I'd read this book in school. Perhaps more accurate: I wish I had the patience and discipline to read this while I was a student.
This would have also been good information for my first site job as a baby engineer-in-training, supporting commissioning a 138kV substation. I picked up lots of info on that job but was missing the foundations.
Read to support more recent interests in power grids and electrical systems, this book helped fill in a lot of technical gaps, but I'm rating it 3 stars as it was just not that interesting....more
What I liked: this book was similar to Hans Rosling's Factfullness, updated with a decade of more and better data and a reorganization of t3.5 stars.
What I liked: this book was similar to Hans Rosling's Factfullness, updated with a decade of more and better data and a reorganization of the issues covered (more of a climate focus overall). This book would probably be top of the list I'd recommend to someone who hasn't read anything on climate.
What I didn't like: the author often used "renewables" in a place where she clearly meant "low carbon" (as other times she'd specify "renewables and nuclear" or "low carbon"). While she had a nice little piece in the conclusion trying to reconcile differences between groups promoting positive change (calling out nuclear vs renewable fans specifically), in a book about accuracy and communication I'd prefer to see the "low carbon" language consistently....more
Wow, terrifying. I couldn't put it down (err, stop listening to the audiobook).
The book is basically the title. A big what-if scenario informed by reWow, terrifying. I couldn't put it down (err, stop listening to the audiobook).
The book is basically the title. A big what-if scenario informed by reality, interviews, history, and known procedures, as real as the author could possibly make it.
Bleak and scary but if a) you can create some cognitive dissonance about the real possibility of global nuclear war, b) your utter inability to do anything about it or your own survival if it happens and c) you enjoy apocalyptic/post-apocalyptic fiction, this is an utterly captivating book.
I'll check more of Jacobsen's books, I like her style and her self-narration of the audiobook was great! ...more
Super interesting book that I'd recommend to people in Saskatchewan interested in the intersection of climate, energy, and labour. Or Saskatchewan indSuper interesting book that I'd recommend to people in Saskatchewan interested in the intersection of climate, energy, and labour. Or Saskatchewan industry, industrial safety, corporate communications, etc.
Grabbed the book from the library after seeing some buzz on SK energy social media. I did not realize until opening it that it was a collection of 9 essays/papers. The advantage of this format was getting to sample a menu of authors and arguments, but the disadvantage was that there was a fair bit of repetition on the details of the labour dispute and lockout.
My favorite essays were the ones that focused on the labour dispute, the history of the Regina refinery and its relationship with the city and surrounding communities, and the essay looking at journalistic coverage of the lockout.
One thing I struggled with was the framing of climate issues and solutions. Statements like "Transition away from fossil fuels is inevitable" (p190) lacks the little bit of nuance I'd like to see on, for instance, applications that would be extraordinarily difficult to transition (having just read Material World) at scale like silicon or closer to home, nitrogen fertilizers.
If you think you'd enjoy it, you will definitely enjoy it. If you think you won't enjoy it, I think you'll actually get more out of it than you think!...more
Hard to beat Mahaffey's Atomic Accidents, but this was a great exploration into some of the wackier nuclear tales in his engaging writing style.Hard to beat Mahaffey's Atomic Accidents, but this was a great exploration into some of the wackier nuclear tales in his engaging writing style....more
An awesome history of uranium mining in Canada, covering the very beginning up to 1960. Fascinating to learn about the Port Radium mine at Great Bear An awesome history of uranium mining in Canada, covering the very beginning up to 1960. Fascinating to learn about the Port Radium mine at Great Bear Lake and how the facility in Port Hope, Ontario evolved.
Bothwell is a terrific and detailed writer, highlighting both the major characters in industry and government as well as key process developments and innovations in mining and refining.
I'm not certain I can broadly recommend this one but if you're into Canadian nuclear/uranium history it's worth checking out!...more
Very good electricity book! Didn't realize until now that California's big electric company, PG&E, was directly liable for damages due to fires causedVery good electricity book! Didn't realize until now that California's big electric company, PG&E, was directly liable for damages due to fires caused by old power wires failing... And just how pervasive those two problems are. Listened to the audiobook, narration was great. Great energy/electricity read....more
Maybe the best "this is how everything works and where it comes from"-type books I've read! Required reading if you're into energy/energy transitions,Maybe the best "this is how everything works and where it comes from"-type books I've read! Required reading if you're into energy/energy transitions, materials, manufacturing, etc. Terrifically readable and interesting throughout, well written....more
What resonated? Resources are finite, and limited. This intuitively makes sense; there are only a finite amount of economically recoverable reserves oWhat resonated? Resources are finite, and limited. This intuitively makes sense; there are only a finite amount of economically recoverable reserves of oil, gold, and other materials. The authors paint a compelling case for conversation of these materials. "The Carbon Pulse" is one of many central theses which describes humankind's current practice, taking millions and millions of years' worth of naturally sequestered carbon and rapidly re-emitting it.
The fact that resources are limited, and remaining reserves are of diminishing quality will increase energy and production costs in mining, manufacturing, cost of living. This is intuitively true when you think about it. If in the 1950s I needed to mine 20 tonnes of ore to get 1 tonne of copper, but now I need to mine 100 tonnes to get that same 1 tonne, copper is going to be more expensive (despite improvements in technology and efficiency).
The authors have a persuasive and convincing argument that infinite growth is not sustainable - but like J. Storrs Hall says, a growing society enables cooperation but in a no-growth society, "pressures towards morality and cooperation vanish."
The sections on supply chains and in particular how car- and truck-dependent we are in North America resonated big time. Large trucking will be hard to decarbonize and we have not designed our cities for anything *but* cars and trucks, ripping out lots of railroad over the past century.
What didn't resonate? The structure of the book is short (think 2-4 page) chapters, where the human authors give an very brief overview on a topic, then an alien named TaaL - "Through an alien Lens" - responds. This gimmick purports to be a neutral "alien" perspective on humanity and was cute in the first few chapters but quickly got old. TaaL is often used as a rhetorical tool to "say the quiet part out loud", advocating ideas for radical degrowth and societal change that supposedly-sapient aliens have mastered. Despite all of democracy's flaws I don't see a neat way to, as TaaL suggests, "put the smart people in charge".
Fully the first third of the book is a deep dive into human evolution, with a focus on our faults and logical fallacies. The authors could have condensed this section into a neat 20 pages (dropping the snarky alien TaaL) to hit the points that were most relevant to their main section "Energy and the Economy."
The undertones - and hell, overtones - of the book were literally dehumanizing: "depriving a person or group of positive human qualities." Perhaps it's just my human post-hoc rationalization (see what I did there?) but I'm not sure the authors had a single positive thing to say about humanity. The authors may argue that my human optimism bias was not satiated (and that'd be true). But I don't think attacking your entire audience (the human race) is the best way to catalyze change.
I looked up "signs of emotional abuse in a relationship" while reading this book, here's a partial list that resonated: - Your wants and needs feel invalidated and neglected - You feel bad about yourself when you are with the abuser - You feel guilty for things that are not your fault - You are criticized and humiliated - You are being gaslighted
No clear solutions were proposed. It is difficult to read a book that is so profoundly and comprehensively negative, especially when the authors spend the first third of the book beating you up for being a fallacious, bias-prone human - I think this was a form of advanced gaslighting to pre-empt disagreement and debate on their other arguments. As a reader I need a bit of a glimmer of hope or a lifeline somewhere in a challenging read. But, not only was my own humanity castigated, so was society, civilization, economic systems, governments, the banking system, energy-rich lifestyles, energy sources...
The solutions that were dimly floated were dark, dire, and politically unappealing (or impossible). The authors did not come right out and say "we need these" (often they deferred to the voice of the snarky alien TaaL to hint at them) but dramatic population control and a future of energy scarcity seemed like two entirely palatable solutions.
Finally, as a self-admitted nuke bro, I can't forgive the authors' treatment of nuclear energy. In a book all about how energy is about to become scarce and carbon emissions are bad, the authors are quick to succumb to their own confirmation biases about nuclear. Consider: for 300 pages, the authors dance around the idea of deep degrowth and incurring a lot of suffering to reduce current levels of consumption, then say nuclear is not feasible due to the spooky scary waste (is it as bad as the CO2 emitted by fossil energy?!). Or, spending a couple mini-chapters talking about how fossil energy costs will soar and how money and debt are just fake human constructs, but we can't do nuclear because it's "too expensive".
Here are the author's own positive qualities of energy systems and projects (p296), plus my two bits on nuclear. Is it just me, or are the authors being hypocritical by listing these criteria of positive energy systems, then suggesting nuclear doesn't meet the criteria? - Energy affordability / positive EROEI (✅nuclear by a mile) - Quality/consistent energy (✅nuclear) - Energy investment threshold - how much of society's limited remaining fossil reserves would be diverted to build it? (not much on a per-unit-of-energy basis, so ✅nuclear) - Affordability (debatable for sure, but non-North American countries are still building nuclear for cheap, so ✅nuclear) - Mature technology(✅nuclear) - Scalability (✅nuclear) - Durability and replicability (✅nuclear) - How much time will it take (the authors propose few implementable solutions in the entire book, but I'd argue nuclear plays a role in decarbonization and sustainability, so ✅nuclear) - Political acceptability (this is completely dependent on where you live, but generally ✅nuclear) - Aggregate probability (that could it happen? Sure, look at the countries pledging this week to triple nuclear by 2050; ✅nuclear)
Anyway, TaaL finishes off the section on nuclear by once again saying the quiet part out loud - that we can't risk growing nuclear because it will sustain the continued growth of the human amoeba. Because humans are bad.
Conclusion I'm glad I read this book. It's a good balance to some of the eco-modernist and techno-futurist stuff I've read in the last few years. The authors synthesize a huge amount of knowledge and ideas into a fairly tight package, though it could have been tighter. Much of the discussion around resource limitations was insightful.
I generally love idea books and this could have been 5 stars, but so much effort was put into attacking the reader (as a member of the human race) that it was quite off-putting to read. I've read many books that were very challenging but managed to get hard new ideas across, but none that were so emotionally abusive or vitriolic (love this definition: filled with bitter criticism). So, 5 stars for ideas, 1 star for readability and enjoyment.
(readers who enjoyed this book may be quick to pounce on this review and call me out for my own biases... which I totally admit that I have. The point is that front-loading the reader with info on human biases and fallacies is an uncomfortable tactic that takes away from what could be more interesting discussions of ideas in the energy & economics chapters)...more
Filled with super good Canadian nuclear history and political trivia, and I would say holds up over the last decade!
Some of the public policy jargon aFilled with super good Canadian nuclear history and political trivia, and I would say holds up over the last decade!
Some of the public policy jargon around applying the "advocacy coalition framework" in the intro and conclusion was a bit of a slug for a non-policy wonk, but the "meat" of the book was very interesting.
Published in 2012, I'd love to see updated chapters for 2022 and again in 2032....more
Epic, "explains-everything", page-turning, exciting history of the oil industry from the mid-1800s to 2008 (when the original 1991 version was updatedEpic, "explains-everything", page-turning, exciting history of the oil industry from the mid-1800s to 2008 (when the original 1991 version was updated).
I'm going to butcher the quote, but Mark Nelson (@energybants) said something like if you hate coal and want to get rid of it, you've got to love it first - because if you don't understand what's great about it you'll never replace it. This book can serve that purpose for oil: interweaving how economies and societies develop and grow from oil energy and wealth, we well as the political instabilities that put those plans at risk.
The prose in the book is just great. From the start I was reminded of Robert A Caro's incredible portrayals of his subjects, crossed with Walter Isaacson's multi-subject "The Innovators".
I loved how Yergin was able to seamlessly zoom in one one or more "characters" in an era, conveying what the industry was like through their experiences, them zoom back out to macro/global/political stories.
At 780 pages (before references), not at all a quick read, but extremely fun, rewarding, and exciting. Probably one of the best energy books I've read....more
DNF. In the first couple chapters, I feel like I've ready this book already (Pielke Jr., Schellenberger). So, moving on to something more new/challengDNF. In the first couple chapters, I feel like I've ready this book already (Pielke Jr., Schellenberger). So, moving on to something more new/challenging/fun. ...more
This is probably the best in-depth book on climate change I've read to date. My conclusion is that Curry is an alien placed on earth to monitor human,This is probably the best in-depth book on climate change I've read to date. My conclusion is that Curry is an alien placed on earth to monitor human, scientific, cultural, and organizational behaviour and document her observations.
What I mean is this book covers the epistemology of climate and related issues. It's very "meta", examining scientific and political processes. For example, Curry would never drop a sentence like "95% of scientists agree that climate action is needed to avoid catastrophe". Instead, she would dedicate entire paragraphs, sections, or chapters to answering sub-questions like a) who are the scientists? b) how are they organized? c) what does agreement (consensus) even mean? (maaaan?) d) what kind of action? e) how did we get agreement/consensus on the type of action needed? f) if models were involved: (recursive set of all the same questions into models) g) what does catastrophe mean? h) what is the uncertainty level in the projected outcome? etc...
The book is broken into three parts: 1) The Climate Change Challenge 2) Uncertainty of Twenty-First Century Climate Change 3) Climate Risk and Response
"Uncertainty" does not refer to doubts about if the climate is warming (it is) or how the climate is warming (a mix of human and natural causes). Uncertainty refers to assumptions and model errors in both climate models (i.e. what will the climate do?) and scenario/response models (i.e. what will we do and how will that affect outcomes?).
I found a few sections in Part 3 a bit slow, but overall the book was fascinating and thought-provoking. Tons of references, overall quite readable, and info-dense without being too long.
My two big takeaways (not necessarily the book's main conclusions, just my own): 1) Uncertainty should not defer action, but uncertainty also needs to be acknowledged. Acknowledging uncertainty (where it exists and to what magnitude) will help us zero in on no-regrets actions that make sense under a majority of future scenarios, as well as help build trust and consensus.
2) There's an interesting long-term risk around over-focussing on CO2. What if in 50 or 100 or 200 years we are able to precisely control CO2 levels in the atmosphere - what then? Will we use that control to "just" cancel out human impacts on climate, or also attempt to shift naturally-occurring climate changes as well? Will we attempt to engineer the climate back to pre-industrial (1850s) levels? 1950s? 2000s? Who decides and how!?
Quotes & notes.
p3. "How concerned should we be about climate change? The IPCC Assessment Reports do not support the concept of imminent global catastrophe associated with global warming. However, a minority of scientists, some very vocal, believe that catastrophic scenarios are more realistic than the IPCC's likely scenarios. There is also a very vocal contingent among journalists and politicians that support the catastrophe narrative."
p4. "The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change - attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition (mainly CO2) and climate variability - attributable to natural cases."
p9. "The scientific validity of the two-degree target has been questioned. Sustainability scientist Carl Jaegar describes how the two-degree limit has evolved in a somewhat ad hoc and contradictory fashion: policy makers have treated it as a scientific finding, and scientists treat it as a political issue. It has been presented as a threshold scenario separating a domain of safety from one of catastrophe, and as an optimal strategy that balances costs and benefits."
p16. "'Consensus entrepreneurs' include politicians, social scientists, and activists who defend and extend the climate consensus for political purposes... well beyond its scientific basis and often without regard for the actual substance of the scientific consensus."
p19: "Communication theorist Jean Goodwin has examined the manufacture of consensus by the IPCC. She assets that there is no mechanism from within science for establishing that a scientific consensus exists. She contents that the IPCC's consensus claim is primarily aimed at non-scientists, and constitutes an appeal to authority. She argues that once the consensus claim was made, scientists involved in the ongoing IPCC process had reasons not just to consider the scientific evidence, but also to consider the possible effects of their statements on their ability to defend the consensus claim."
p38: "Climate change is a problem that deserves consideration, but how should climate change policies be prioritized relative to other problems and threats? ... Over-spending on ineffective climate policies means under spending on effective climate policies and on other opportunities we have to improve life for billions of people now, and into the future."
p48: "As a group, scientists tend to be naive and unrealistic regarding the translation of their scientific evidence into policies, expecting public policy to be scientized. Scientists often assume that important improvements in policy making would ensue if only policy makers would incorporate the knowledge of researchers." (same is true of engineers!!!!)
p71: "Due to the Hawkmoth Effect, even a model with good approximation to the equations of the climate system may not produce output that accurately reflects the future climate. The nonlinear compound effects of even a small tweak to the model structure can be so great that the marginal performance benefits of [model improvements] may be zero or even negative. In short, adding detail to the model can make it less accurate, and complex models may be less informative than simple models."
p83. "The extreme emissions scenario RCP8.5 has commonly been referred to as the "business as usual" (BAU) scenario. Referring to RCP8.5 as BAU implies that it is probable in the absense of stringent climate mitigation... RCP8.5 paints a dystopian future that is fossil-fuel intensive and excludes any climate mitigation policies."
p90. "It is significant what is not mentioned in the Summary for Policy Makers. Chapters Eleven and Twelve in the IPCC AR6 identify the following event types for which there is either no change or low confidence in any change. [meteorological or hydrological droughts, extratropical storms, total number of tropical cyclones, no trends in tornadoes, hail or lightning associated w/ severe convective storms]. The AR6 is equivocal on floods: ... project a larger fraction of land areas to be affected by an increase in river floods than a decrease in river floods (medium confidence)."
p98: "'Model-land' is a world in which mathematical simulations are evaluated against other mathematical simulations. Decision support in model-land implies taking the output of model simulations at face value, and then interpreting the frequencies from model-land to represent probabilities in the real world."
p107: "[Climate temperature targets] encourage goal displacement, which occurs when attention becomes focused on hitting the target while obscuring the real reasons why we are concerned about climate change in the first place - the wellbeing of human and ecosystems."
p130: Did you know there are volcanoes under Antarctica?
p132: "[S]cenarios of twenty-first century sea level rise exceeding about 1.8 meters require conditions without natural interglacial precedents. These extreme scenarios require a cascade of extremely unlikely events and parameters. The joint likelihood of these extremely unlikely events arguably crosses the threshold to implausibility."
p145: Benoit Mandelbrot's differentiation between "mild" and "wild" risk - kind of like Taleb's Mediocristan and Extremistan.
p152: [T]he issues with increasing CO2 and warming are primarily social, not environmental. The Earth has undergone geological periods of higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, during which life thrived. Characterization of climate change as an environmental problem has downplayed the cultural and political dimensions of the issue. In fact, many social scientists have argued that climate change is a values problem [...] Clarifying the multitude of values in play would help illuminate the ambiguity surrounding interpretations of climate risk. However, characterizing climate change as a values problem can also lead into blind alleys. Many environmentalists have moralized the climate change problem as a simple, righteous values voice: Are for the planet or against it?"
p162: "A successful risk management initiative should be "Proportionate, Aligned, Comprehensive, Embedded, and Dynamic (PACED)." Proportionate - balance level of effort put into risk management with the level of risk. Aligned - with other policies and priorities. Comprehensive - consider all aspects of the system at risk. Embedded - with other relevant policies. Dynamic - and responsive to changing political, economic, and technological environment.
p175: "Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations at a target level is a non-robust strategy in an environment that is extremely uncertain and non-linear. The stabilization concept implicitly assumes that there is high confidence in setting the target level, and that there is no or little risk associated with a target level. Further, it assumes the risks of having a safety margin in the target level is lower than the risks and costs of complying with the target."
p207: "[Many] internationally funded climate adaptation projects reinforce, redistribute, or create new vulnerability in developing countries. People in developing countries are often worse off after climate change adaptation interventions. The crus of the problem is that the adaptation projects frequently focus on the impacts of climate change rather than on the root cause of vulnerability." (e.g. poverty, education, health, water access, etc.)
p225: "[There] is substantial inertia in the global carbon cycle and the climate system. Even if emissions are successfully reduced/eliminated, it takes time for the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to respond to the emissions reduction and it takes time for the climate to respond to the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration. There is substantial uncertainty regarding how much time this will take - we may not see much of a beneficial change to the climate before the twenty-second century even if emissions are successfully eliminated."
p232: Canada is the world's largest wood exporter.
p232: "The net effect of biofuels is lifecycle emissions that can be worse than the displaced fossil fuels, exacerbated food shortages, and degraded farmland."
p235: "The land footprint of energy systems displaces natural ecosystems, leads to land degradation, and creates trade-offs for food production, urban development, and conservation..."
p236: "Energy systems producing abundant amounts of electricity driven solely by renewable energy would be prohibitive in most regions in terms of land and coastal ocean use. It is difficult to imagine electric power systems circa 2100 in most regions without a backbone of nuclear power. Windfarms are a viable solution where land and coastal use considerations permit. Rooftop solar is a good solution and supports some level of local autonomy. Advanced geothermal is desirable, but it is not clear at present how technologies will evolve. I don't see a role for biofuels in the future, where other power sources are available."
p240: "The energy transition can be facilitated with minimal regrets by: - Accepting that the world will continue to need and desire much more energy - energy austerity such as during the 1970s is off the table. - Accepting that we will need more fossil fuels in the near term to maintain energy security and reliability and to facilitate the transition in terms of developing and implementing new, cleaner technologies. - Continuing to develop and test a range of options for energy production, transmission, and other technologies that address goals of lessening the environmental impact of energy production, CO2 emissions, and other societal values. - Using the next two to three decades as a learning period with new technologies, experimentation, and intelligent trial and error, without the restrictions of near-term targets for CO2 emissions."
p249: "In 2015, the world's nations agreed on a set of 17 interlinked Sustainable Development Goals to support future global development. These goals include, in ranked order: 1. No poverty. 2. Zero hunger. 7. Affordable and clean energy. 13. Climate action. Should one element of Goal 13, related to net-zero emissions, trump the higher-priority goals of poverty and hunger and the availability of energy? Not if human well-being, flourishing, and thriving are the objectives."
p251: "Prior to imagining the future circa 2100 - 78 years hence relative to 2022 - it is useful to consider the world 78 years ago, circa 1944. Near the end of World War II, it would have been difficult to imagine: the existence of the European Union and the rise of China as a superpower, a global population of 8 billion that is far less impacted by hunger and poverty, and globalization... It would also have been difficult to imagine in 1944 that in 2022 the world's governments would be preoccupied with human-caused climate change, a priority that is effectively superseding poverty reduction and energy access for developing countries."
p258: "We need to acknowledge that control is limited, the future is unknown, and it is difficult to determine whether the impact you make will be positive. We need to accept that climate change will continue to disrupt natural systems and human wellbeing; this acknowledgement helps avoid the urgency trap. By acknowledging there is no road back, we can focus on the road ahead." ...more
Purchased on a whim because the title and cover seemed interesting.
This was not quite what I expected, but I'm glad I read it. Over my last few yearsPurchased on a whim because the title and cover seemed interesting.
This was not quite what I expected, but I'm glad I read it. Over my last few years of geeking out over energy, I've only glossed over the downsides of hydro dams and focused on the positives (base load, low carbon, zero operating emissions). This book is much broader than hydro power: it's everything else dams are used for (irrigation, flood control, water storage; many thousands of dams have no electric capability) and specifically the ecological, societal, and cultural impacts of dams.
My main takeaway, if anything, is to be just a little more pro-nuclear energy (although the book only mentioned nuclear in the negative, see below), and be a bit more hesitant to include large-scale hydro in new energy systems. Dams have enormous ecological footprints and impacts on upstream and downstream systems; the author says global hydro performance is degrading over time. Nuclear plants just sit on a tiny little square of land and deliver constant output.
Things I liked: - Learning about the impact of dams on the environment through storytelling and narrative. - Learning about the impact of damns on Indigenous peoples in particular. The book was US-focused and there were in-depth narratives/case studies on a few in particular. - The full-page photo spreads in this book are BEAUTIFUL - whether they're showing nature, dams (I still love infrastructure), or dam failures. Tons of amazing areal photography. - I learned about dam silting and sedimentation and how they erode performance of reservoir and electric capabilities. - There is a growing movement to remove obsolete dams (most very small) and restore ecosystems to their free-flowing states. - I learned about the complicated politics of dams, balancing water rights at different levels (municipal, state, industrial, commercial, agriculture, First Nations, and more). Again, electricity is often just a small piece.
Things I didn't like: - I wished for a references section. Lots of material referenced in-text but sources were not neatly summarized. - As a narrative book written by an anti-dam activist... I was not sure which details were trustworthy and which were possibly exaggerated or one-sided or not viewed through a full lens. For example, I don't think there is much debate about the huge impact dams have on wildlife, fish, and ecosystems. However, one claim early in Chapter 1 is that (hydroelectric) dams are rarely profitable. Is this because of their intrinsic existence as a dam, or could it be about the electricity market they're operating in (see: Shorting the Grid). - Chapter 1 had an absurd 10-page diatribe about nuclear weapons, basically drawing a cause-and-effect relationship between the construction of a hydro dam at the Hanford Site and the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. The author got off dams completely and ranted about all sorts of scary nuclear things before coming back and blaming the dam. It was totally insane - it'd be like blaming trains for the Holocaust. - Because it wasn't an energy book, the author didn't propose detailed solutions for loss of hydroelectricity sources. Some vague nods to renewables (wind/solar) were given. Some errors or ambiguities in electrical units were present, e.g. "[the dam delivers] 940 megawatts of electricity every year" (Watts is either an instantaneous or an average measurement of power, typically Watt-hours would be used for energy). - The how-to chapter on activism and removing dams was unnecessary for more curious, less passionate readers, and could have possibly be put in an appendix.
Despite the criticisms and my 3-star rating I'd enthusiastically recommend this book to people interested in energy, specifically because this book isn't about energy and it's important to develop knowledge about the non-energy impacts of energy systems. ...more
I read King Leopold's Ghost a few years ago, a terrific and sobering read documenting the rape of the Congo by Belgium at the turn of the 20th centuryI read King Leopold's Ghost a few years ago, a terrific and sobering read documenting the rape of the Congo by Belgium at the turn of the 20th century. Living in the developed world, it was too easy to file the contents of that book away as "history" and move on.
Cobalt Red shatters that illusion that the exploitation of the Congo is "history".
This was an imensely affecting, sad, and beautifully written book. If you do any reading or thinking about the "energy transition", in particular mass electrification, batteries & EVs, this is required reading.
I will be thinking about this book for a long time - and particularly when buying anything with a rechargeable battery. (please vehicle Jesus, let my old Honda run forever so I don't have to confront this decision soon)
"In all my time in the Congo, I never saw or heard of any activities linked to [the Global Battery Alliance or the Cobalt Action Partnership], let alone anything that resembled commitments to international human rights standards, third-party audits, or zero-tolerance policies on forced and child labor. On the contrary, across twenty-one years of research into slavery and child labor, I have never seen more extreme predation for profit than I witnessed at the bottom of global cobalt supply chains. The titanic companies that sell products containing Congolese cobalt are worth trillions, yet the people who dig their cobalt out of the groupd eke out a base existence characterized by extreme poverty and immense suffering. They exist at the edge of human life in an environment that is treated like a toxic dumping ground by foreign mining companies. Millions of trees have been clear-cut, dozens of villages razed, rivers and air polluted,, and arable land destroyed. Our daily lives are powered by a human and environmental catastrophe in the Congo." (p5)
"In 2021, a total of 111,750 tons of cobalt representing 72 percent of the global supply was mined in the DRC, a contribution that is expected to increase as demand from consumer-facing technology companies and electric vehicle manufacturers grows each year." (p14)
"The EV30@30 target would require a global stock of 230 million EVs by 2030, a fourteen-fold increase over 2021 numbers... Millions of tons of cobalt will be needed, which will continue to push hundreds of thousands of Colgolese women, men, and children into hazardous pits and tunnels to help meet demand." (p27)
"Nothing looks the same after a trip to the Congo. The world back home no longer makes sense. It is difficult to reconcile how it event inhabits the same planet. Nearly arranged mountains of venetables at grocery stores seem vulgar. Bright lights and flushing toilets seem like sorcery. Clean air and water feel like a crime. The markets of wealth and consumption appear violent. Most of it was built, after all, on violence, neatly tucked away in history books that tend to sanitize the truth." (p69)
"The entire operation seemed like a death sentence, be it from suffocation, drowning, or collapse. I asked Ikolo if it was worth the risk. He went silent for a moment before offering a response. 'There is no other work here. Cobalt is the only possibility. We go down the tunnel. If we make it back with enough cobalt, our worries are finished for one day.'" (p218) ...more
Loading...
