If I can find the time, this will be the next  (non study-related) book that I read: David MacKay: Sustainable Energy - Without Hot Air. It is much praised for its accuracy and hard facts - so seems to be true to its sub-heading. It is also available as html files, or pdf download for free, so judge for yourself.





It's about time someone rational comes along with reliable calculations on what is possible and what is not. McKay presents how much space is needed for producing the energy that Europeans use today. This is important, because it is not likely that Europeans will be using any less energy in the future, and it is also not likely that Europe will be able to allocate large additional land or coastal areas for producing alternative energy.

Here's an example: Europeans consume, on average, 125 kWh per day. This could be produced from renewable sources as follows:

- 9 kWh from wind, if 2% of Europe's surface is harnessed
- 6.4 kWh from water, if we double the current production
- 2 kWh from wave energy if we harness the entire Europe's Atlantic Ocean coastline
- 2.6 kWh from tides,
- 12 kWh from bioenergy
- 10.6 kWh from solar energy, if every European installs a 12 m2 panel on their rooftop
- 54 kWh from industrial solar energy from power plants that cover 5% of Europe

TOTAL: 96.6 kWh

125 kWh - 96.6 kWh = 28.4 kWh that needs to come from somewhere else. But this is not bad news. If these calculations are correct, Europe can produce 77.28% of the energy it needs today from renewable sources, in Europe.

Without nuclear.

MacKay himself is by no means anti-nuclear, he is also rationally calculating it in as an option. Myself, I don't see that the human kind is better off switching from fossiles to nuclear because of the massive waste problem, health hazards during the life from raw materials to waste, and of course the eternal risk of something going wrong in the plant itself.

Not to mention the costs of both building and demolition of plants. The demolition is estimated to cost twice (e.g. Connecticut Yankee) or even four times (gas-cooled reactors) than the actual building of the plant. Latest estimated cost (from Thursday this week) of Olkiluoto 3, due to be ready in 2012, is as high as 5.4 billion euros.

But back to MacKay. So we can produce more than 75% of our energy in Europe, from renewable source. Of course this would mean "sacrificing" 7% of the land area, and a long shoreline, but what's the alternative? The alternative is nuclear, Russian gas, Chines coal or other bad choices.

Where to get the additional 22.72% then?

One idea could be in his book:  A 1000 m2 solar power plant in Sahara can produce enough energy for the entire world.

The entire world.

There's a though worth exploring.

Sources: MacKay, Sustainable energy - Withtout the hot air, Vihreä Lanka 26.3.2010, Kauppalehti 25.3.2010