Congressman Inslee is a full-time elected representative with a background in economics and law, so we expect a book written by him to emphasize economics and public policy, and to be weak on science. Still, he could have sought out help on science.



His book merely supports popular solutions to the climate-change problem and disdains unpopular ones, and he never checks the data. For example, he proposes to replace gasoline with cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass. He points to publications that promise salubrious results and doesn't mention that cellulosic ethanol has never been shown to be practical. He's sure that compressed air could store enough energy to make part-time energy sources like wind and solar practical, but he never took the trouble to see how much air volume would be required--if he did he'd realize that no such scheme could ever work. He quotes a promoter of algal biofuels saying 650 gallons of biofuel per acre per year would offset the US's oil imports with only 0.1% of its land area. A pocket calculator shows it would take over 13%, compared with 18% that's arable. In contrast, he agonizes over nuclear energy. He's aware of its importance in slowing global warming, but he's fallen into the trap of believing it enables weapons proliferation. He wrings his hands over spent fuel from reactors, even though no person has ever been harmed by it. He gasps at construction costs for nuclear plants but says nothing about the costs of wind and solar, even though those costs are higher.



We should be pleased that a representative would interest himself in this subject enough to write a book about it. The book would be more helpful if he'd taken greater care.



A much better book is Terrestrial Energy by William Tucker, a career journalist who studied the same subjects extensively and produced a comprehensive but quite legible study. Mr. Tucker lays it all out plainly with no patience for unexamined hypotheses and empty wishes. [...]