Best alternative & renewable energy books according to redditors

Take a look at Gerard O'Neill's books The High Frontier and 2081. I think you might be pleasantly surprised about what space can mean to our civilization.

That was O'Neill's original plan. I just picked up a new edition of his book, and in the forward he said it turned out not to have much advantage over other high circular orbits.

Just a note, if you go into physics for nuclear fusion, you will probably be studying plasma physics so I've listed some useful books. Another route for supporting nuclear fusion research is material science because the plasma-wall interactions are important for fusion energy. Another approach is condensed matter research.. specifically into superconductors in my uncreative mind (but I'm sure there are other ways to support fusion work) because you need to confine that shit. There are probably a lot more ways to support fusion research so don't this as the final word.

-----
Just a general popular science kind of book:

An Indispensable Truth: How Fusion Power Can Save the Planet by F F Chen

Good introductions to plasma physics that don't completely skimp out on maths:

Introduction to Plasma Physics by R J Goldston and P H Rutherford

Statistical Plasma Physics by S Ichimaru

The equivalent to Jackson for all those mf'ing plasma waves:

Waves in Plasmas by T H Stix

I like that you included that visualization of alternative energy budgets. With an Apollo type program, we could make enormous progress in fusion energy[1].

Imagine solving this problem, with the energy source of the stars themselves.

The High Frontier, written by O'neill himself
https://www.amazon.com/High-Frontier-Human-Colonies-Space-ebook/dp/B00CB3SIAI

Their second slide states their design has a greater cross surface area. This is not how it works. The reason area matters is because of this equation:

Power = (1/2) x (air density) x (area) x (power coefficient) x (wind velocity)^3

The area in that equation is dependent on the length of the blades. Not on how much of the circle is covered by blades. So if you have a design with a 50 m long blade, the cross sectional area will be the same regardless of whether your turbine design uses one blade or 15 blades. What changes is the power coefficient.

What they should say is that their design has a higher solidity.

There's a fair bit of aerodynamics at play here. But the maths shows that optimial efficiency (the power coefficient in the above equation) is achieved with three blades. As you increase the number of blades (thereby increasing the solidity) beyond three blades, the maximum power coefficient drops.

With that said, these types of turbines do already exist, mostly in the form of wind pumps. They are designed to work in low winds, with lower RPMs but where high torque is required (to pump water). For those uses, a design with high solidity works. But for use in high wind scenarios where the purpose is to turn a generator, the three blade design works best.

The other problem with more blades is that you are increasing the costs dramatically. The utility scale turbines discussed in the OP are very tall turbines with long blades. The additional costs involved in increasing the number of blades would be very high. Firstly the extra blades would cost money, then the hub design would be more complex, and the hub and nacelle must be stronger/heavier to support the extra blades, this means the tower must be stronger/heavier to support the extra blades and heavier nacelle and hub, and finally, this results in the requirement for stronger foundations. And all this extra equipment also means higher transportation costs.

Also, in the slides, they state that the three blade designs are fixed in their position and can't turn to face the wind. This is simply not true. All utility scale turbines can and do rotate to face the wind direction. It may be the case that small scale turbines do not turn into the wind, but I'm not familiar with turbines of that scale.

So though it's possible that high blade count turbines have applications at which they excel (wind pumps, possibly with small scale generators), utility scale electricity generation is not one of them.

Source: Wind Energy Handbook

For non-fiction I'd recommend:

• An Indispensable Truth by Francis Chen - Chen is a world famous Plasma Physicist who stands out in all areas of the field, excelling in theory, experiment and even engineering. In this book he looks at the energy crisis and climate change and the ability of fusion power to solve both. The book is written for laymen but will teach you some pretty cool physics (Raleigh-Taylor instabilities anyone?) so even if you disagree with his conclusions you'll have learned a lot!
  
  
• Towards A New Socialism by Cockshott and Cottrell - Although the title may discourage many - it contains groundbreaking ideas about the application of technology to governance. It introduces and explains many technical concepts such as neural networks etc. and economic theories, and how they may be used to create a working economic system. This is not another left-wing whinging book at all, it is quite technical and I would say it is a must-read for anyone who claims to seriously ponder future governments and socio-economic systems.

What type of Space Station O'Neill Cylinder (i.e. Babylon 5), or a ring station, or a 0g space station? O'Neill Cylinders could handle just about anything, a Island 3 Type O'Neill Cylinder is as wide as B5 was supposed to be long 20 Miles by 5 Miles. 0g limits the types of foods you can grow but it is still possible. If you can't guess I recommend O'Neill Cylinders.

The Round Table - Gerard K. O'Neill, Issac Asimov.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM88sUBTTRM

The High Frontier: Human Colonies In Space by Gerard O'Neill
https://www.amazon.com/High-Frontier-Human-Colonies-Space-ebook/dp/B00CB3SIAI

Carbon is so much more efficient than other sources of energy that it is likely we will burn ALL of it (including coal) before completely moving to alternatives.

Read this interesting book on the physics of power, batteries, etc: https://www.amazon.com/Powering-Future-Eventually-Civilization-Tomorrow/dp/0465022200

The Wind Power Story: A Century of Innovation that Reshaped the Global Energy Landscape https://www.amazon.com/dp/1118794184/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_7Qw2CbKXX8YYV

Not available until July though.

There's an out-of-print book simply called "Passive Solar Energy." It's got lots of great information; I bet it will be just what you are looking for as far as the physics of solar energy and thermosiphoning (which is essentially "heated fluid rises because it's less dense than cooler fluid"). I'm an engineer and I really think that book gives you all you need to know to have a basic working knowledge of solar heat gain and how various systems of solar energy capture operate. Here's a list of books I have found helpful and/or interesting in regards to solar energy:

• Passive Solar Energy - The top link is a link to pdf's of the chapters of the book.
  
  
• The Passive Solar Energy Book - VERY in-depth on passive solar theory, design, and construction.
  
  
• Solar Air Heating Systems - Another design and construction book, specifically about solar air heating.
  
  
  
• The Solar Greenhouse Book - Name says it all. It's all about passive solar greenhouses.
  
  
• A Golden Thread - Really interesting book about how man has worked with the sun in building design through the history of civilization.
  
  
  For earthships/earth-sheltered homes, I recommend these books:
  
  
• Earth-Sheltered Housing Design - One of the most detailed and complete books on earth-sheltering available. Not earthships, but the same ideas apply.
  
  
• Earth-Sheltered Houses - Another essential book for earth-sheltering houses. Author has built several of his own and remains an authority in the subject as well as cordwood building, for which he has also written books.
  
  
• Earth-Sheltered Solar Greenhouses - Combines two subjects for a very Permaculture-appropriate building technique.
  
  
• Earthship Vol I and II - Needs no explaining.
  
  
  From my experience in university studying fluid dynamics, I recommend not going any deeper into the subject than what you would find in the solar energy books I listed above. The subject is math-heavy, and the academic study of the topic is not going to help you with what you are interested in with permaculture. It's kind of like studying the abstract physics/math of electromagnetism when all you want to do is wire a house.
  
  Hope this helps!

What exactly are you trying to learn? The process? The politics? Do you have a certain renewable in mind (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal?) Are you most interested in electrical generation technologies? Or moreso passive technology like water heating? I mean, there's alot to it... I have multiple degrees in renewables so just let me know what you want to know and I can point you in the direction.

Edit:
https://www.amazon.com/Alternative-Energy-Dummies-Rik-DeGunther/dp/0470430621

^if you're looking for a good book to start with maybe this would be good.

Old but good: The High Frontier, with the studies for orbital colonies from the 70s.

There's also the recent "update" The High Frontier: An Easier Way.

So for Space colonization you really cannot go wrong with:

• 'Mining the sky' - By John S. Lewis
  
  
• 'The High Frontier' - By Gerard K. O'Neill
  
  There are a lot of other books on colonising space, but these are the pair I have read and they are still entirely valid pieces of work (imo). An other you might want to check out is ['The Starflight Handbook' - By Eugene F. Mallove] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Starflight-Handbook-Pioneers-Interstellar-Editions/dp/0471619124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465674138&sr=8-1&keywords=starflight+handbook) which covers the maths behind conceivable interstellar propulsion methods. All very cool stuff.
  

This: The Chemistry and Manufacture of Hydrogen is one of the best books I've ever owned. It was printed in 1901 and it describes how they used acid and different field metals (scrap barbed wire, etc.) to create hydrogen to fill air balloons during the civil war. It gave the north a distinct advantage over the south as we were able to see them coming from great distances. It also has plans for an old electrolyzer that separates hydrogen from oxygen, so that both gases can be collected for their respective use. It's bully.

And if you want to balance out your view you should also consider both sides

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/0521173159

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Observed-impacts-Planet/dp/044453301X/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10300308-living-in-denial

http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Global-Warming-Histories-Technology/dp/067403189X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888732&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Uncertainty-William-Stewart/dp/0976729164/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/1597265675

http://www.amazon.com/The-Weather-Makers-Changing-Climate/dp/B001PO66MG/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1

http://knopfdoubleday.com/2012/06/25/global-weirdness-by-climate-central/

http://mark-bowen.com/book_cs.html

http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Flat-Crowded-2-0-Revolution/dp/0312428928/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888779&sr=1-1

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/six-degrees-mark-lynas/1100833125

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15856813-overheated

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/1608193942

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Contact-Sport-Inside-Climate/dp/1426205406/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888885&sr=1-1

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/0822351099

http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Capitalism-Creating-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0316353000/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888939&sr=1-1

Purifying silicon is the most energy-intensive industrial process ever invented by human beings. Do you have any idea how much heat is required? So energy is by far the most expensive item in the production of a solar cell. And that's CHEAP energy, generated either by coal, hydro or nukes.

Solar cells already cost 20x - that's a two (2) followed by a zero (0) - as much as conventional sources of electricity. And that's if solar cells are made using cheap energy. If the solar energy cycle were to be closed, it boggles the mind what they would cost. 100x as much as nuclear probably. Which is exactly how much more costs solar thermal technology than the cheapest alternative once you strip out the government subsidies.

Furthermore, what I said about nuclear not having that green cachet was sarcasm meant to indicate how much I look down on you. Because you see, the rest of the world overwhelmingly doesn't care that Americans are retards incapable of figuring out the difference between environmental facts and environmental fictions. In the rest of the world, nuclear is king. Nuclear is The Light. Not the light of an oncoming train at the end of the tunnel which solar power represents but Industrial Light & Electric Co. here and now, and for the next million years.

(Not that Lew Rockwell is in any way, ever, reliable. But here the author contents himself with quoting an authoritative book on the subject.)

Before you say even one word on the subject, to anyone ever, go to http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/3/5/19821/21750 and look at the figure labeled Quantified Marginal External Costs Of Electricity In Germany. The big thing that's wrong with that chart is that in every other country, hydro has much, MUCH higher ecosystem costs than nuclear. And both wind and solar have additional costs on the electricity grid. Especially see the part where photovoltaics have external costs almost as high as burning gas.

I would say this book is pretty comprehensive:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Photovoltaic-Science-Engineering-Antonio/dp/0470721693/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323196031&sr=1-1

Dangerous is subjective. but cost, time, energy production life, and disposal are not which is why wind and solar are the better options and it wasn't green peace that convinced us that nuclear was not viable it was economics. Find this book at your local library https://www.amazon.com/Great-Transition-Shifting-Fossil-Energy/dp/039335055X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485375068&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Great+Transition

> Some random undergraduate's take on this subject is hardly definitive.
>

Hmm...
The guy's professor for that class was/is Robert B. Laughlin, recipient of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics, who recently (2011) published a book, Powering the Future: How We Will (Eventually) Solve the Energy Crisis and Fuel the Civilization of Tomorrow_

On page 56, he says:

Nuclear reactions present two serious problems that set them apart from all other energy sources: The waste products they leave behind remain dangerously radioactive for very long times (one thousand years to three hundred thousand year, depending on your danger tolerance), and the explosions they facilitate are a million times more powerful than those of dynamite. Both require extraordinary measures to mitigate, and both are intractable. No country has managed to commit itself to any long-term burial site for its nuclear waste, even though everyone has understood the need for such burial for over fifty years. No country has credibly quantified how good its security is a preventing determined people from diverting nuclear material from peaceful power programs to make weapons. No country treats nuclear energy in a nonmilitary way. All countries censor news about nuclear energy--although some are better at it than others. The underlying problems are so great that this situation is probably permanent.

.

Professor Laughlin suggests that eventually, any alternate fuel will need to be measured in terms of its relative cost vs nuclear power, including all expenses like ongoing waste disposal, so its not like he is anti-nuclear, just more realistic about the issues than your presentation seems to be.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. The net reaction is H + HOH (catalyst) -> H[1/4] + HOH + 208 eV (208 eV is alot of energy). H[1/n] is fractional (i.e. Rydberg) Hydrogen. The trick is that this has to happen in an arc current plasma in order to prevent the ionization of the water catalyst from becoming rate limiting. The arc current plasma provides negative resistance and therefore the reaction becomes heavily favored and you get highly energetic kinetics.

Here's a video of a one-hour test run of the reactor clearly demonstrating 40 to 80 kW of constant energy output. The fuel consumed was approximately 4 tsps of H2O. The reaction converted the H atoms into a lower energy form of hydrogen. If you want to learn about the process, I suggest Holverstott's book.

You’re an uninformed person who just ignored the point I made that we burn 85% of oil as fuel which is incredibly inefficient for a nonrenewable source of energy. Im surprised you’re not advocating for the genocide of whales to collect their blubber. Solar panel processing is more efficient because you can recycle them and reuse the materials. You cant do that with co2 in the atmosphere.


Go read a textbook. I recommend this one

The most condescending Iranian looking liberal cocksucker I have ever seen in my life.

Solar energy is not "dense" enough to compete with fossil fuels.

http://www.amazon.com/Solar-Fraud-Energy-World-Second/dp/0971484546