JM

Tedious & Contrived

Revisado: 10-05-24

Most of the book seemed to a recounting of geography as seen from the air. The conflicts and motives of the characters seemed contrived. May have been good in its time, but not nearly as good as other works by the author.

The reader had a rhythmic way of reading that was okay. However the post production editing of words, probably for pronunciation, was a bit jarring as the inserted words broke the rhythm and seemed harshly pronounced relative to the sentences that they were inserted in.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Pales in comparison to Narnia

Revisado: 09-15-24

Didn’t draw me in to the world. Characters seemed cartoonish yet it didn’t seem to be a children’s story.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Too fluffy for me

Revisado: 03-29-15

This book is pretty light on actual content related to "Lean" and heavy on info about the author, his company and his travels etc. Given the other rave reviews - this clearly hits the mark for other but not for me. It came across too much like an infomercial to me.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Loooooooooonnnnnnnng, Slooooooow and Repetitive

Revisado: 04-18-12

The female reader is painfully slow, the story slows and starts and information is constantly repeated. Edited down, the interesting bits might take up 1/3rd of the total time of this book. An abridged version would be something to consider.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Misleading Title

Revisado: 10-24-11

The title and description of this book are both misleading. Given the content of the book, it should have been titled "A case for Nuclear and Hydrogen" as this is not a book about renewable energy alternatives- it is a case for moving to a Nuclear and Hydrogen based economy. In the book the author systematically dismisses (repeatedly) all forms of renewable energy except perhaps geothermal. He then goes on the say that Nuclear based electricity used to create hydrogen are the only 'serious' options available and that we should stop work in renewable energy (except large scale geothermal) and focus all efforts on building nuclear plants and a hydrogen infrastructure.

He repeatedly talks about the 'cost of energy today' as if it is a valid baseline. Given peak oil and the massive external costs (pollution, global warming) and subsidies given to fossil fuels, the baseline price paid per kilowatt hour or gallon of gas are not nearly reflective of the real costs.

Some of his criticisms of renewables are that they would require storage and grid upgrades, however he never discusses the possible use of renewables to actually create hydrogen, only focusing on using nuclear to create hydrogen. He's dismissive of issues with nuclear safety and radioactive waste and spends no time talking about potential unintended consequences of hydrogen.

One of the touted benefits of the futuristic US hydrogen economy is that the hydrogen supply—in the form of water—is virtually limitless. This assumption is taken for granted so much that no major study has fully considered just how much water a sustainable hydrogen economy would need. Less than 3% of the worlds water is fresh water and that amount of usable fresh water is in decline. Additionally, we go to where we are with fossil fuels based on faulty assumptions of relatively limitless supplies and no lasting environmental impacts. Do we really want to bet the farm on using water? It might be a good answer, but it needs better big picture analysis.

Other than sunlight, the earth is a closed loop system and any proposal to have an energy enconomy based on extraction (uranium and water) vs. actual renewables needs a much larger look at the big picture so that we don't trade one economic, geopolitical, environmental problem for another based solely on the energy density equation.

Finally, if Nuclear and Hydrogen were such no-brainers, then people would be heavily investing in them today. No nuclear plants will be built without government support and no insurers will insure them for potential problems in the future - so any safety issues will be born by the taxpayer both for the plant safety and the safety of radioactive wastes. Without factoring in these costs and risks the nuclear 'cost effectiveness' assertion is highly suspect.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 8 personas

Repeats endlessly

Revisado: 02-02-08

While this book offers sound advice on index investing. It is endlessly repetitive. The crux of the material could be covered in 15-30 minutes.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 32 personas