Ask HN: Book recommendations for renewable energy and climate change?

[fredrb]

I'm trying to figure out what are the classic books and authors on the topic. There seems to be a plethora of books on climate and energy out there and every blog recommends a completely different list. As I'm not that familiar with the topic, I'm ideally looking for a book that gives an overview of the different types of energy and their practicality.

[ZeroGravitas]

Electrify by Saul Griffith's is an up to date survey of where we are.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/electrify

[DougMellon]

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

[leephillips]

The expensive _Managing Global Warming_ is useful because it has chapters on various renewable energy and related topics, each one written by some kine of specialist in that field, and will bring you up to date as of 2018. There may be better such books, but I’m biased because I wrote the solar energy chapter:

https://www.elsevier.com/books/managing-global-warming/letch...

[compressedgas]

David MacKay's Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air

[ZeroGravitas]

This is really outdated, so unless you want to marvel at how wrong even a smart and well-meaning person could be in the face of rapid technological change, probably not worth revisiting.

There's been a few attempts to update it with modern numbers but they're so different it effectively nullifies the whole point of the book.

[ciropantera]

I've google a bit but couldn't find anything but universal appraisal for the book. Would you mind elaborating on which numbers changed and how did it nullify the whole point?

[ZeroGravitas]

https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2017/3/30/l6qcqgoedse1...

[ciropantera]

Thanks for the link, interesting read

[cjmcqueen]

Amory Lovin's "Reinventing Fire" is a commonly held classic. Disclosure, I work for RMI the consulting firm he founded.

[credit_guy]

Bill Gates “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need”.

[muldoc]

It doesn't seem smart to me to take advice from a got-lucky, business billionaire that brought us Windows, with a cult following and marketing power of a country, than any run-of-the-mill real scientist.

[pydry]

https://m.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gates...

His huge investment in modular nuclear reactors may not be all it's cracked up to be.

[credit_guy]

He invests in a lot of things. The book is not about nuclear reactors.

[pydry]

The book advocates for more public investment in nuclear energy and advocates against using too much solar and wind.

He is personally has many billions sunk into the nuclear startup Terrapower, which is also taking a grant of roughly $4 billion in taxpayer cash while demonstrating... mixed results at best.

You dont see a potential for a slight conflict of interest with this book?

[credit_guy]

Maybe 5% of the book is about nuclear power. He does not hide his positive attitude about it, or his ownership of Terrapower, but he does not sound at all gung ho. If anything he advocates more for offshore wind. But most of the book is about describing the problem, not prescribing solutions. I found it to be very informative. Personally, I was less pro-nuclear after reading the book than before.

[newyankee]

I found a typo in one of his solar calculations, which seemed weird given how influential the book is going to be.

[credit_guy]

What is the typo?

[newyankee]

His solar calculations IIRC were off by a factor of 10 in terms of what amount of energy could be extracted from a given piece of land. I do not have the book now otherwise I could've pointed it out. I think he was calculating the footprint of different forms of energy. Thumb rule is that at 20% efficiency a PV panel can get 200 Wp energy per sq m which translates to 200 MW per sq km. Leaving aside space for equipment, gaps, roads etc one can easily have a thumb rule of 100 Mw peak per sq km. I believe his book had this calculation as 10-20 MW per sq km.

This assumes 1 KW peak irradiance. Off course things will change based on latitude, season etc and one has to adjust for these factors however Solar is a no brainer in tropical and temperate climates alike at this point in my opinion.

[credit_guy]

He states 5-20 w/m2 (same as MW/km2) with a footnote that the theoretical one is 100 w/m2 but noone has achieved that yet.

[newyankee]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park

This has a ~ 40 MW/ sq.km output with a lot of it still being open space for different reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamuthi_Solar_Power_Project

This one has ~ 64 MW/ sq km output

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility

This one in US seems to be about ~ 53 MW/ sq km

So definitely he is purposely understating the potential of solar. Because it does not include future growth of tandem solar cells (Si + perovskite) taking it to more than 25-30% efficiency, or the fall in costs if they continue (albeit at a slower pace). Co-located Wind & solar power plants at suitable sites can be even more efficient with their reliability and capacity factors increasing if batteries added to the mix.

[itzprime]

Energy Return on Investment: A Unifying Principle for Biology, Economics, and Sustainability

[aborsy]

Sustainable Energy – without the hot air, by David J. C. MacKay.

[dagw]

While certainly a classic and highly influential book in the field, be aware that it is very out of date and based on 15+ year old data. This means that most of the conclusions the book comes too are no longer necessarily relevant or correct. So read it more as a historical snapshot of the thinking of the time as opposed to a guide to relevant energy policies in todays climate.

[ComradePhil]

Not really what you asked for but I think they are more important to gain perspective:

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein

The Absent Superpower: The Shale Revolution and a World Without America by Peter Zeihan

[agmand]

If you speak spanish there's a really good book doing now the rounds by an skeptic of the long-term economical viability of renewables (and fossil fuels, nuclear, and more): Petrocalipsis, by Antonio Turiel. It's very clear, concise and data-driven, so it's one of those books where even when you disagree with a point it forces you to research why.

An ok alternative in english would be Facing the Anthropocene, by Ian Angus (but the scope of that book is way more limited, and it's markedly political, specifically ecosocialist)

[timst4]

Drawdown

[mjklin]

https://drawdown.org/the-book