Editor’s Note: This book review was published just short of 20 years ago in The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics [Vol. 8, No. 3 (FALL 2005): 93–95] by Pierre Desrochers of the University of Toronto.

“Austrian economists have so far contributed very little to energy studies…. This book could therefore go a long way in providing a new set of concrete economic examples and principles for use in classroom discussions.”

Despite its obvious economic and social importance, energy (broadly understood) is an understudied field. True, among academics, one can find several engineers and geologists, along with some economists, geographers, legal scholars, and political scientists, who devote much of their research efforts to devising and/or analyzing various energy-related technologies, supply sources, markets, and institutions.

By and large, however, very few individuals have tried to understand how all the various parts of the energy puzzle fit—or not—together, and much—if not most—of the public discussion of the issue is agenda-driven and ignorant of basic physical and economic principles.…

“The Kiesling/Giberson (et al.) narrative is a call for more government. MORE wind. MORE solar. MORE Batteries. MORE central planning to correct prior. And rationing from ‘smart meters’ to forgive all that came before. Think Big Brother, the Electricity Road to Serfdom.”

Three years ago this month, a prolonged, extensive cold snap did the unthinkable to Texas’s huge electricity grid. The shared narrative from proponents/apologists of forced energy transformation (‘Energy Transition’, ‘Decarbonization’, ‘Net Zero’, ‘Green New Deal’, ‘Virtual Power Plant’) focused on the failure of natural gas infrastructure as the cause of the debacle, a sort of “market failure” from “an Act of God.” The cancer in the system, intermittent wind and solar ($66 billion worth), was forgiven, and central planning of the state’s grid by Austin politicians, regulators, and administrators was treated as a neutrality.…

“Hydrogen from electrolysis, called green hydrogen, typically costs more than $5 per kilogram, or more than five times the price when produced from natural gas.”

“The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act offers an astounding subsidy of $3 to produce a kilogram of green hydrogen, three times the market price. Imagine a subsidy of $150,000 to purchase a $50,000 electric car or a subsidy of $12 to produce a $4 gallon of gasoline. There appears to be no end to the cash governments will pay to try to establish a hydrogen economy.”

World leaders tout “green hydrogen” as an essential fuel in the renewable energy transition. Today, heavy industries use huge amounts of coal and natural gas to produce products needed by society. Governments propose to replace hydrocarbon fuels with hydrogen fuel, using hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies.…

“Koonin is … not REMOTELY qualified to dispute the conclusions of thousands of working scientists…. Koonin will say whatever he is paid to say.” (Paul Bryan, below)

“Bryan offers only  ad hominem attacks. Sadly, so characteristic of the public conversation about climate science.  If he’d made a specific criticism of what I said about climate science, it might be worth responding to.” (Koonin, below)

Emotions run high in the climate debate between the ‘settled-science’ alarmists and cautious, data-driven critics. There is every reason to listen and learn in a quite unsettled area (climate models?) and not be crude and offensive, much less engage in angry hate speech.

“Fossil fuel troll” … “You are simply shilling for the addiction model of energy and the dealers that profit from it” … “Your arguments are tired, old, oft-debunked pages from the Denier’s Playbook.…