Lights Out: Ten Myths About (And Real Solutions to) America’s Energy Crisis - Book Review

Sep 22, 2026

Uploaded by Aditya

A book review of Spencer Abraham and William Tucker’s Lights Out examines the proposed U.S. energy policy aimed at cutting greenhouse gases and reducing dependence on foreign supplies while keeping electricity reliable. The review evaluates the ten energy myths and contrasts Abraham’s fuel-mix targets and argument structure with prior studies, highlighting strengths as a discussion starter and weaknesses including disorganized flow, politicized rhetoric, and debatable assumptions about nuclear, renewables, clean coal, and energy efficiency.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLiterature

FormatPDF

Pages3

Reading Time5 min

AccessFree to download

Overview

Goals and energy policy thesis

Fuel-mix proposal and study comparisons

Book structure and arguments

Part 1: Energy myths and facts

Part 2: Threats to energy and environmental security

Part 3: Why energy security failures

Part 4: Proposed solutions and rationale

Review assessment

Organizational issues and rhetorical tone

Bias concerns and viability claims

LIGHTS OUT: TEN MYTHS ABOUT (AND REAL SOLUTIONS TO) AMERICA’S ENERGY CRISIS by Spencer Abraham (with William Tucker), St. Martin’s Press 2010 Reviewed by Jay Matson Former United States Senator and Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham is following the same path that so many other politicians before him have chosen after leaving office – writing a book. Unlike many others, however, Lights Out is not a gossipy tell-all or a behind-the-scenes look at the political machinery of Washington (though he does offer anecdotes to lend some credence to his points) . Rather, Secretary Abraham takes on the daunting task of developing a plausible energy policy designed to reduce greenhouse gases and reliance on foreign energy supplies, while making sure the lights do not go out. His case may not be as compelling as it could be. Perhaps it is impossible to present a compelling case for any solution. It is nonetheless a good starting point for a discussion that needs to occur if the United States is going to pursue a rational and deliberate energy policy before a crisis forces difficult choices. In very readable prose, but a somewhat disorganized approach, Secretary Abraham makes the case that the United States should aim for a fuel mix by 2030 that includes 30% nuclear, 25% natural gas, 20% renewables (including hydro), 10% efficiency gains, and 5% clean coal (presumably, the remaining 10% will be traditional “dirty” coal.) This proposal differs from relatively recent studies done by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and McKinsey & Company (McKinsey) in certain respects.1 For example, Secretary Abraham would encourage more nuclear development, as compared to the EPRI (28%) and McKinsey (24%) studies,2 and he would rely less on renewables (EPRI forecasts 21%, McKinsey 23%) .3 Overall, however, his proposal generally trends in the same direction.4 Secretary Abraham’s proposal is presented in four subparts. In Part 1,“Energy Myths and Facts,” Secretary Abraham briefly describes the ten myths that were offered as the teaser in the book’s subtitle. These myths run the gamut from the obvious (“Global Warming is a Complete Hoax”) to the more sophisticated (“We Are Entering an Age of Natural Gas . . . and It Will Largely Solve Our Energy Problems”) . In attacking these myths, Secretary Abraham removes many of the roadblocks that can undermine the development of a sound, comprehensive energy policy, and thereby sets the stage for a more productive discussion in the rest ofthe book. In Part 2,“Threats to Our Energy And Environmental Security,” Secretary Abraham describes the problems confronting the United States in the energy 1. See Jonathan D. Schneider, So, the World Is Getting Warmer: What Now? New Literature on Electric Sector Options and the Cost of Climate Control Legislation, 30 ENERGY L.J. 553 (2009) . [2.](2. Id. at)[ Id.](2. Id. at)[ at](2. Id. at) 555. 3. Id. 4. Perhaps the most notable difference is EPRI and McKinsey each predicted substantially lower reliance on natural gas. More recent developments regarding the ability to extract gas from shale cost effectively suggest that Secretary Abraham’s projection is probably more realistic under current assumptions. sector, including the inability of supply to keep up with the ever-increasing demand for more electricity, geopolitical instability, and the impact of power production on the environment. For a reader that does not already think there isan increasingly critical need to develop a rational, practical, comprehensive energy policy in this country, that point is driven home here. In Part 3,“Why We Have Failed to Address Our Energy Security Threats,”Secretary Abraham takes the political process to task. As he correctly observes,“mistakes have been made on all sides,” including the Bush Administration (in which Secretary Abraham served), Congress, the media, environmental activists, and the general public. Past mistakes are identified, presumably, so they c

FAQs

What is the central energy-policy goal discussed in the review?

The book argues for a plausible U.S. energy policy that reduces greenhouse gases and reliance on foreign energy supplies while preventing power outages.

What fuel mix does the review say Abraham targets by 2030?

It describes a mix including 30% nuclear, 25% natural gas, 20% renewables (including hydro), 10% efficiency gains, and 5% clean coal, with the remainder implied as traditional coal.

What criticisms does the review make about the book’s approach?

The review notes a tendency to meander, occasional distraction and delayed revisiting of topics, a rhetorical political tone, and concerns that the treatment of nuclear versus renewables may reflect bias.

Sep 22, 2026

Uploaded by Aditya