{br} STUCK with your assignment? {br} When is it due? {br} Get FREE assistance. Page Title: {title}{br} Page URL: {url}
UK: +44 748 007-0908, USA: +1 917 810-5386 [email protected]
    2. Book Assignment

    An acceptable book for the book assignment will have the following characteristics:

    Non-fiction (no novels)

    Suitable topic (a book that is about an energy issue, a sustainability issue or both)

    More than 150 pages of text

    One author (author does not mean editor)

    WARNING: If you choose a book that does not meet these criteria, then your maximum grade will be 60%.

    Structure of Book Assignment paper:

    Page 1 (Part 1) Tombstone (10 points)

    Title; sub-title (if any)


    Publisher, Date of Publication

    How you obtained the book.

    You should also outline in point form the author’s background (including educational background…what the author studied and where) and important issues discussed in the book. This part must be a maximum of 1 page (all in point form – bulleted list).

    Pages 2-3 (Part 2) Outline Structure of the Book (30 points)

    Point form outline of the book’s sections and/or chapters. With each section and/or chapter include in your point form list the author’s main ideas associated with the section or chapter (max of 3 per chapter). This part must be no longer than 2 full pages. You are expected to stay within the page limit. For books with many chapters it may be necessary to aggregate chapters in order to stay within the page limit.

    Page 4-6 (Part 3) Worldview (40 points)

    1. Which of the worldviews (HEP or NEP) best fits the book? I’m looking for a one worldview answer, not “the book is HEP here and NEP there” but rather “the book is [HEP of NEP] because” or “the book is HEP here and NEP there but overall is [HEP or NEP] because” What are the reasons for your choice of one worldview over the other? (Minimum 1 full page, maximum less than 3 full pages)

    Sources for background:  Catton, W. R., Dunlap, R. E., Catton, W. R., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant sociology. American Behavioral Scientist, 24(1), 15-47. doi:10.1177/000276428002400103 (in particular page 34) and McDonald, G., & Patterson, M. (2007). Bridging the divide in urban sustainability: From human exemptionalism to the new ecological paradigm. Urban Ecosystems, 10(2), 169-192. doi:10.1007/s11252-006-0017-0 (Carleton Library e-journals) 

    Page 7 References (10 points)

    Any material you refer to or quote should be given a reference, together with a citation in the body of the assignment. Material not accompanied by a citation and reference will not be graded.

    Overall Organization/readability/editing (10 points)

    The paper should be edited and paginated. The paper should be prepared in 12 point font, double spaced, and the text should include paragraphs. The font, line-spacing, margins, etc. should be the same throughout the paper. The font, line-spacing, margins, etc. should not be used to fit text to the page limits (you should rewrite instead).

    The Book Assignment is due February 15th at 11:00 pm. Please submit your work to the Book Assignment Drop Box that will be posted on cuLearn. Projects submitted between 11 pm on February 15th and 11 pm on February 16th will receive a 20% penalty. No assignments will be accepted after 11 pm on February 18th.

    There are no extensions to these dates/times except for documented emergencies beyond your control. Documentation should be submitted to the instructor for evaluation. Poor time management is not an emergency beyond your control. CuLearn establishes the dates and times. Students are responsible for checking that their submissions have been received by cuLearn and that what they have submitted is the correct file. The last file submitted before the deadline(s) establishes the date and time. There are no extensions for failure to carry out these responsibilities.

    NOTE: Submitted assignments must be in Word or pdf format. Other formats, or files that can’t be opened, will not be graded.


Subject Literature Pages 8 Style APA


Part 1: Tombstone

Title: Power Hungry: The Myths of ““Green”” Energy and Real Fuels of the Future

Author: Robert Bryce.

Publisher: Public Affairs; First Edition (April 27, 2010).

ISBN-10: 1586487892; ISBN-13: 978-1586487898

Hardcover: 416 pages.

Note: This book was retrieved from Amazon.com through Internet search for solar energy text books.

Non-fiction category textbook

Author’s Background

  • Robert Bryce has been writing industrial-length journalistic materials for the two-decades, and is an American journalist and author (Bryce, 2019).
  • Education: Bachelors in Fine Arts degree (Bryce, 2019).
  • He has written several articles that have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Counterpunch, the Washington Post, and Atlantic Monthly.
  • He writes on topics such politics, climate change, and energy.
  • He has published other books such as Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper: How Innovation Keeps Proving the Catastrophists Wrong in 2014, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence in 2008, and Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego, and the Death of Enron in 2002 among others (Bryce, 2019).
  • He is currently a Senior Fellow at Manhattan Institute (Bryce, 2019).
  • In summary, the major issues discussed in the book is that the notion that the world will rely entirely on renewable energy in the future is a myth and that the future energy fuels for the world are natural gas and nuclear energy against common public opinion.


Part 2: Outline Structure of the Book

  • This book is divided into four parts (Parts I-IV) and 30 chapters.
  • However, prior to Part I, there is the author’s note and an introduction.
  • Author’s note main points:
  • Energy is a fascinating and complex topic.
  • The complexity, importance, and the scale of energy use are unmatched by any industry.
  • Introduction: The Cardinal Mine – A Point of Beginning main ideas:
  • The author promotes a controversial view that people should not expect much from the promise of “clean energy future” and “green jobs” since carbon-based fuels are here to stay and the world will not quit using fossil fuels in the foreseeable future.
  • The hard reality is that coal, natural gas, and coal is here to stay.
  • The author argues that capture efforts and carbon sequestration will not work and that renewable energy is not green.
  • Part 1: Our Quest for Power (Chapter 1 to 7)
  • In this section, the author explores in depth different units of energy, their origins, conversion and their usage in different contexts.
  • The reader gets a good introduction of different scales used in quantifying energy and energy density.
  • The demand for energy will continue to increase with time.
  • Part II: The Myths of “Green” Energy (Chapter 8 to 20)
  • In this section the author terms the current notion that fossil fuels will be replaced with solar, wind, and biomass energy as pure myths.
  • He argues that resources requirements for establishment of wind power plants are very high.
  • He comments the Danes for maintaining their carbon emissions low despite the fact that their energy consumption is high.
  • Part III: The Power of N2N (Chapter 21 to 28)
  • The author’s view is that the future will be dominated by a continuous move towards nuclear power and natural gas.
  • In other words, nuclear power and natural gas are the fuels of the future and are best alternatives for decarbonalizing the global economy.
  • Part IV: Moving Forward (Chapter 29 & 30)
  • Countries should put in place in “forward looking” energy policies.
  • The author promotes diversification of energy supply and guaranteeing of energy security.












Part 3: Worldview

            Human Exceptionalism Paradigm (HEP) paradigm best fits Bryce’s book’s general worldview. According to this paradigm, humans are considered different or unique from other organisms. Human behavior is controlled by free will and culture, and that all problems or issues can be solved by technology and human ingenuity (McDonald & Patterson, 2007). Bryce’s (2010) general argument is not remorseful that increase consumption of fossil fuels contributes to ecological problems and negative environmental impacts. Instead, Bryce (2010) terms pro-environmental efforts that seek to increase the world’s reliance on renewable energy as myths. The generative narrative in the book is impassionate, unsentimental, unsparing, and detached as far as ecological, climatic, and environmental impacts of mining and use of fossil fuels is concerned.

Bryce (2010) is bold enough to proclaim that future energy fuels will be nuclear energy and natural gas. Promotion of the use of natural gas adds insult to the global concerns relating to the manner in which fossil fuels have ruined various ecosystems and the environment as a whole. Consistent with the HEP world view, Bryce (2010) seems to say that the world that it is currently suing less oil than it should in an ideal situation. This goes against the environmental and ecological protection and preservation thoughts and efforts to curb the impact of the use of fossil fuels. A common view shared by many people across the world is that renewable sources of energy may help provide safe and reliable alternatives; however, Bryce (2010) does not identify with this position.

Bryce (2010) makes a strong case influenced by HEP worldviews that the forward-looking energy policies will acknowledge the use of available fossils fuels as a realistic bridge for transition into nuclear energy. However, increased use of fossil fuels in the last decade has been blamed for rapid changes of climate globally (Vavtar, 2014). This statement favors gas, oil, and coal lobbyist, but hurts environmental protection lobbyist. Lobbying in either way, leads to those who loss and those who benefit. For example, this book favors oil and coal lobbyist who will benefit if policies promote mining and use of oil and coal but at the expense of companies that rely or deal in cleaner production technologies (Kang, 2016).

Bryce (2010) promotion of adoption of nuclear energy may pose a looming danger to the world. This is not to insinuate the fact he is not knowledgeable about past nuclear energy disasters such as Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine in 1986 and its impacts. He has discussed the risks of nuclear energy in great detail (Bryce, 2010). What stands out is the author is not concerned or cautious about the danger nuclear energy can pose to the environment, flora and fauna. Radiation from Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011 has resulted in health issues such as increase in thyroid cancers (Takamura et al., 2016). Nuclear radiation has ionizing effects on both animals and plants and may result in negative biological impacts (Steen & Mousseau, 2014).

Fossil fuels are presented as reliable in providing the world with the horsepower that it grave for. The general argument is that coal, oil, and natural gas are sources of energy supplies that the world will continue to depend on in the future. Renewable energy sources are dismantled in book as not green but are associated with significant ecological challenges as well as migratory birds being killed by wind power mills. In addition, Bryce (2010) affirms that energy policies should be informed by four imperatives including cost, scale, power density, and energy density. He supports his position by the observation that solar and wind power may not satisfy the above four imperatives due to energy storage challenges and variation of weather (Bryce, 2010).

Bryce (2010) is against the view that carbon sequestration and carbon capture may help solve carbon emission and pollution problems. He labels these advanced technological developments as ineffective and that they will work in the long term. He cites that advanced countries such as Denmark remain heavily dependent on coal and North Sea oil; notwithstanding, the country has kept her greenhouse gas emissions at an increase of only 2.1% in 2006 as compared to 1990 emissions. Perhaps this may be due to the fact that Denmark imports significant quantity of hydroelectric power from Sweden and Norway (Bryce, 2010). Bryce’s (2010) HEP worldview does not leave hydroelectric power alone without pointing out the potential problems that are associated with this popular renewable form of energy. He points out that hydroelectric power is associated with serious issues such as ruining of habitats necessary for aquatic life (Bryce, 2010).



Bryce, R. (2010). Power hungry: The myths of ““Green”” energy and the real fuels of the future. New York: Public Affairs.

Bryce, R. (2019). Bio. Retrieved on Feb 02, 2019 from, http://robertbryce.com/bio/

Kang, K. (2016). Policy influence and private returns from lobbying in the energy sector. The Review of Economic Studies, 83(1), 269-305. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdv029

McDonald, G., & Patterson, M. (2007). Bridging the divide in urban sustainability: From human exemptionalism to the new ecological paradigm. Urban Ecosystems, 10(2), 169-192. DOI: 10.1007/s11252-006-0017-0.

Steen, T.Y., & Mousseau, T. (2014). Outcomes of Fukushima: Biological effects of radiation on nonhuman species. Journal of Heredity, 5(1), 702-703. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esu049

Takamura, N., Orita, M., Saenko, V., Yamashita, S., Nagataki, S., & Demidchik, Y. (2016). Radiation and risk of thyroid cancer: Fukushima and Chernobyl. The Lancet, 4(8), 647. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30112-7 

Vavtar, L. (2014). Environmental lobby effectiveness – The case of Lithuania and the United Kingdom. Societal Studies, 6(2), 313-330.













Appendix A:

Communication Plan for an Inpatient Unit to Evaluate the Impact of Transformational Leadership Style Compared to Other Leader Styles such as Bureaucratic and Laissez-Faire Leadership in Nurse Engagement, Retention, and Team Member Satisfaction Over the Course of One Year

Related Samples

WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, how can I help?