Slashdot Mirror
Europe To Import Sahara Solar Power Within 5 Years
An anonymous reader writes "If just 1% of the Sahara Desert were covered in concentrating solar panels it would create enough energy to power the entire world. That's a powerful number, and the European Union has decided to jump on its proximity to the Sahara in order to reap some benefits from the untapped solar energy beaming down on Northern Africa. Yesterday, European Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger announced that Europe will start importing solar energy from the Sahara within the next five years. It is estimated that the initiative will cost €400 billion ($495 billion). It's part of an EU goal to derive 20% of its power from renewable sources by 2020. From the article: 'The EU is backing the construction of new electricity cables, known as inter-connectors, under the Mediterranean Sea to carry this renewable energy from North Africa to Europe. Some environmental groups have warned these cables could be used instead to import non-renewable electricity from coal- and gas-fired power stations in north Africa.' To this the energy minister replied, essentially, 'Good question, we'll get back to you on that.'"
...for yet another way to be dependent on this already-unstable region of the world which already has a choke-hold on energy production.
The CB App. What's your 20?
That's good news. As long as we are harnessing renewable energy, it is welcome.
I would be more happy, if some way the dessert is made green part by part, while we are in there. Just a wishful thinking.
hilarious
oh yes, these guys have not learnt anything from that piracy problem. Unless, they plan to have an army of their own to safeguard these solar plants. Oh, and add those costs in, and those cheap energy promises might not be all that cheap any more..
Some environmental groups have warned these cables could be used instead to import non-renewable electricity from coal- and gas-fired power stations in north Africa.
Why are environmentalists always negative focussing on the cables, we should be celebrating, this is a significant time for humanity, getting away from fossil fuels to solar and thermal power..
i'm sure a few species will die because of this, i'm sure some habitats will get destroyed because of this, but imagine removing the dependence and waste of fossil fuels, this would benefit everyone.
It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
Hurray for renewable energy but wow, this is stupid. If that summary is correct, spending almost half a trillion in one single place with one single technology to move to renewable energy is extremely stupid. I know the desert isn't exactly known for its horrific hurricanes but who knows what could happen! One earthquake or well placed nuke and all their expensive energy modifications go dark. They should spend a few billion in many different places instead of putting all their eggs in one basket.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
That completely misrepresents the problem. If you cover 100% of the Sahara Desert with solar panels it still won't provide all of the power that the world needs, because some of that power is needed during night in that timezone.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
"Some environmental groups have warned these cables could be used instead to import non-renewable electricity from coal- and gas-fired power stations in north Africa.'"
In the same way the Internet can be used for Porn, or for boring stuff. Cars can be used to kill people or as a convenient form of transport. Etc. Lay the cables, audit the supplies, just get on with it.
Some environmental groups have warned these cables could be used instead to import non-renewable electricity from coal- and gas-fired power stations in north Africa.
OK, who wants to get up and defend this one? Here we are, trying to do something positive, and environmentalists come down hard on it. Is anyone here surprised or consider this atypical? It's almost as if environmentalists don't want any development whatsoever to happen from now until the end of humanity.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
If you have power to spare, even moderately efficient energy storage solutions become viable.
A water->hydrogen->water cycle may be less than 50% efficient, but then just take 2%.
Same for solar thermal storage in molten salt solutions.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
To quote Firesign Theatre, it's a "power so great, it can only be used for good or evil!"
All seriousness aside, we need better energy conduits from these arid, sun-soaked regions. There is an abundance of solar energy waiting to be tapped in our deserts. Many, many, many human ills could be easily tackled by abundant energy. Sure, 1% of the Sahara can power our current usage. That fails to account for the fact that use increases as cost decreases. I'm sure if we managed to capture a much larger fraction of it, we'd put it to many unforseen uses, such as food synthesis, carbon sequestration, and so on.
I think it's high time we started tapping seriously into the energy arriving at earth daily. There is no energy shortage. There is only an energy collection and redistribution shortage.
Program Intellivision!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
And Europe has enough mountains to do this with.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
An issue that needs to be solved is the storage of electricity, as sunlight is available only during the day. Although it is not addressed in the article, the issue stays. One proven technology is hydroelectric storage using dams in the Atlas or in continental Europe. But the capacity is not high enough. But in any way, the Desertec is definitely a alternative to fossil fuels.
You could cover a similar area in Spain and avoid some of the transmission loss. Spain could certainly use the business.
I don't see how Northern Africa is "unstable enough" to state it in such a way, but maybe we weren't on same classes... Africa IS developing world, but it's not Middle East or Central Asia. Not at all. It's very good place to come with money in search for resources.
As for OP mention of possible import of coal produced energy.... Whatever - it's win-win for EU. It's easier to pay for energy than to produce and care about production waste, even in coal case.
If renewables... Europe can't have Africa's sunlit hours, even wind is questionable... And it can use more wind and sun, in any case.
If coal... Let some over-big-sea country worry about waste.
win-win
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
Wouldn't it be a little expensive to replace all the panels every time they get sandblasted by a windstorm?
...suddenly reflected a hell of a lot less heat back into the atmosphere, you're going to alter the climate drastically -- which may well reduce the amount of energy you have to tap, as it's likely to cause a regional cooling, which may result in greater cloud formation. I'd want to see the climatologists study the proposal. More to the point, is there an advantage in using solar panels over having the sunlight heat water (which is vastly more efficient) and then use the steam to generate electricity?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Could you explain the "green energy scam" part?
No, seriously. It would be very hard to guard as vast an area as 1% of the Sahara against petty vandalism and people desperate to steal some valuable resources... note the poor who tap oil pipelines in Nigeria, for instance, despite it being suicidally dangerous (and theft). This would be an incredibly soft target waiting to be hit by Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or whatever their full name is called. This... isn't an easy problem to solve.
I hope this time would be really a Win-Win situation. For years relations between Europe and the MENA region were always some form of exploitation; the French wanted even to make Algeria an integral part of their country. May be this is a new start. I think such projects will contribute more to the development of the region and more importantly will strengthen economic ties between the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean. All I wish is that Europe will learn from its past and will do some pressure on existing regimes in North Africa; continuing the current policy of supporting them will not help stabilize the region for the long term. A new form of colonialism will not be beneficial to any one and can be disastrous. The deal needs to be done with the local population in mind. Development means better life, population conscience and consequently better stability and security. Compared to the Middle East, North Africa is for sure more stable and even economically more competitive (e.g. Tunisia is the most competitive country in Africa, even better than Italy and Portugal). I think both parties can put again the Mediterranean in the map as a powerful economic region in a world dominated more and more by Asia and the Americas.
Google 'spain night time solar'.
Subsidized solar energy producer in spain ran generators at night in order to get more money.
Yea so the Sahara is always sunny. It's not worth the tradeoff. Would you really like to extend your dependence on people who want you dead to actually outlast the oil supply? Really?
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
Hardly an argument to call this a green energy scam, no?
Too soon to say.
So this power will have to travel through such stable, well-governed countries as Algeria and Libya. I am certain that people like Gaddafi would never abuse the power this will give him...
It actually is a really good idea, from the point of view of power generation. But the political realities are a huge problem.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
It sounds easy ... but does the average person (or even slashdot reader) have any idea how big the Sahara Desert really is? Answer: About as big as the whole of the USA.
Plus there's the teeny problem of building something stable on top of shifting sand dunes and transporting the stuff once you generate it (make liquid hydrogen and ship it?)
No sig today...
Wait a second. Doesn't the US have its own rocky deserts that are far, far safer and politically stabler from which to extract energy? Isn't the US the biggest economy in the world, *by far*? We should be the ones announcing these kinds of initiatives. This is the kind of infrastructure nation-building that would leap us to the forefront of alternative energy research, development, and exports, ensuring the growth of our economy for decades to come.
I'm also kind of surprised the EU is able to pony up this much money.
NO. There is a very good reason they are asking this question. In Europe (Spain in particular(Spanish)) diesel power has been passed off as renewable energy. The company get's to both sell dirty power AND collect on renewable energy subsidies. What's worse, nobody in the upper management or local politics has yet been prosecuted for the massive fraud - halls of power protecting their own it would appear.
So the question the environmentalists are calling it right. If this happens IN Europe, what can we expect when it's over in Africa unless there are strict transparent controls put in place? One thing is certain: There will always be Companies that will do almost anything to make a buck - we need to ask and address how the system can be abused before we invest public funds into it.
we have messed with the people in that region in a hostile way for a long time: Crusades
Has everyone forgotten that the Muslims invaded Europe through Iberia/Spain 350 years before the First Crusade?
All of Europe would be Muslim if it weren't for a forward thinking (hack, spit, cough) Frenchman 1250 years ago.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Except of course, the cells will get covered and scratched by the sand storms.
They'll have to pay people to keep the cells clean uncovered and well polished.
---
Solar Power Feed @ Feed Distiller
Don't worry, it will be expensive enough :) The goal here is not to reduce cost, but to reduce carbon emissions as well as dependence on oil and, possibly, nuclear energy.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
A single Volcano in Iceland shuts down air travel in Europe for days, so far....
Wait until what a common sandstorm will do. Europe blacked out for days until the window cleaners can get onsite...
The 1% is indeed just one of those figures. Apparently, the Sahara Desert measures over 9,400,000 square km(3,630,000 sq miles). That 1% would be more than twice the size of The Netherlands to cover in solar panels.
... for our people.
Then they came for our minerals.
Then they came for our water.
Then then came for our sunlight.
Oh Lord, what have we done that you visit these plagues on us?
Why are you a Muslim apologist? Because every single one of them is against Israel occupying the lands of Jordan, Egypt etc but never EVER make a single notion of the occupation of the Sahara by Morocco. And that country is in near state of war with Algiers about it all.
Stable? Only because nobody reports on the area. That will change the moment it starts to have any economic relevance. The reality of that area is that all the countries in the area make claims already on what is just worthless sand. If it becomes the powerhouse of the world, they would be very motivated to press those claims.
The Sahara is also the buffer between these barely stable Muslim nations and the black countries were stability is a distant dream. Obviously any development in the Sahara would have on the north near-warring nations and on the south near constant civil war. Yeah, that is place to base the western worlds source of energy.
And you hope that this development will be different then oil dollars? Oil dollars were a sudden influx of big capitol within existing countries/borders. This new development will be in practical no-mans land. I predict a massive land-grab.
No, only if you read the popular press would you get the idea that this area is stable. Read up on the border skirmishes in that area and you realize it is about as stable as the Russian Chinese border or the Indian Chinese border. No, you don't hear about those either, but I wouldn't recommend building your economy there either.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"...cables under the med...." are you aware of a little something called ohms law? 3 ways this could be done: 1.get some ultra pure copper cable, solid core roughly as wide as your desk! 2. same as above but smaller and ultra pure gold or platinum 3. take standard high current/voltage cable and super-cool it, which is counter productive as you'd be using quite alot of energy to cool it! even with these your still gonna get a considerable loss! looks like someone went to a green energy lecture and got carried away with ideas......
... only imagine the amount of energy needed to melt the copper for the long distance high voltage lines ... somehow, I think this might not be the best approach to tapping Sahara Energy.
0x or or snor perron?!
The influx of money should raise the standard of living [in] those countries and it might encourage a different sort of economic growth than what we've seen in economies fueled by petrodollars.
What growth? Countries which get essentially "free money" often have shrinking economies . Whether they get paid for oil underground or sun shining on the ground doesn't matter. They don't become poor, but they end up importing everything because local labor is so unattractive an expensive. See Dutch disease etc., this was just recently discussed on /. in relation to the "trillion dollar ore miracle" in Afghanistan.
And these solar arrays are probably built by non-local companies, so no local know-how is rewarded. Then the states just get monetary compensation for maintenance work, not for fabricating anything. Now how to build a local economy.
I’ve said for years, that this is the best way of all to generate power and become independent from oil.
Except that they must be solar thermal power plants, not solar cells! They are cheaper to build and to maintain, only need abundant materials, and are dead simple.
I’ve seen the plans, and the idea is to use HVDC cables from the Sahara to the fjords and seas of the north. Then you can go and pump water up some dams/seas as very-large-scale energy storage at day, and use that energy like normal dams at night, giving you 24/7 energy availability.
It actually looks like a really good plan for a change.
It’s funny how some idiots here blab about dependencies, while driving a car fueled with oil, from countries that they are at war with. Yeah, makes total sense!
If I have to be dependent (and for Europe there is not enough free sunny space to build those things), then I prefer it to be Africa. At least then there may be a chance of them being able to get something from us for a change, instead of us taking everything from them.
But, considering how e.g. Shell treated Africa, I don’t think that African countries will have a big chance with this new type of energy companies. It’s probably mostly the same people doing it anyway.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Guenther Oettinger : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icOO7Ut1P4Y
Too bad the area of the Sahara is 3.5 MILLION square miles.. so 1% would be 35 thousand square miles... or an area roughly the size of Indiana.
* Before I hit post, I double checked the size, and I see numbers anywhere from 1.5M to 3.5M sq. mi. Regardless, it's fucking huge, and it would take years -- likely decades -- to populate even 1% of it with collectors. And as others have noted, without superconductors, transfer would be a bitch.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Yeah, and it's about time to kick off Crusades2.0 if you ask me, and I don't mean more of these boy-scout/pr-stunt picnics like Iraq/Afghanistan.
Even if coal-fired energy was sold through those cables, who cares? The environmentalists don't. They care that it does the stated goal of transferring renewable energy and want to make sure that, if connected to a non-renewable grid, some bozo doesn't suddenly decide to shitcan the solar arrays.
If it never connects to a non-renewable grid, great. In that case, the environmental groups are incorrect. But from the response, it sounds like the project is intentionally connecting to a non-renewable grid to help power the local area, too. The thing is, once an electron is on a wire, it's kind of difficult to determine where that electron came from. Cheating (or outright lying about) what you call "renewable" when it can't be traced surely will lead to corruption.
It appears we have grossly underestimated these Fremen, My Lord Baron...
If just 1% of the Sahara Desert were covered in concentrating solar panels it would create enough energy to power the entire world
I was initially very skeptical about that assertive, so I went out and checked it.
Consider:
A - Total World Energy Comsumption: 15040000000000 watts [1]
B - Sahara desert total area: 9100000000000 m2 [2]
C - Concentrating Solar Panel Efficiency: 50% [3]
D - Total solar energy available per area: 1000 watts/m2 [4]
So, A/(B*C*D) gets us 0.00331 (0.331%), slightly less than one third of the number given above. That would account for the night period (when there's no sun and therefore no energy generation) with room to spare for the very rare cloudy weather and occasional sandstorm on that 1% slice of the Sahara's total area.
In a single word: AMAZING...
References for the numbers used above:
[1] "The Sahara [...]At over 9,400,000square kilometres [...]"
[2] "In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was [...] equivalent to an average power consumption rate of 15 terawatts (1.504×1013W)"
[3] "[...] Expected future efficiencies are nearly 50%"
[4] ""STC specifies [...] an irradiance of 1000 W/m2 [...]"
Best Regards,
Durval Menezes.
I have never met a computer that didn't like me.
Is around one hundred Westinghouse AP1000 1GWe modern Generation III+ nuclear power plants (or similar plants from another manufacturer). I reckon you may even be able to negotiate a bit of a discount for an order of that size. As a rough estimate, this would supply the current electricity needs of the UK, Spain and the Netherlands.
The latter would then be able to lower their per kWh CO2 emissions to around what France (which generates about 75% of it's electricity from nuclear) has already achieved. It remains a fact that aside from countries blessed with the right geography and climate for large scale hydro or the geology for geothermal, France's CO2 emissions per kWh are waaaaay below any other country.
Even better, start building the Generation III+ reactors and begin a crash development program for Generation IV reactors which are something like one hundred times more efficient and can 'burn' the waste from current reactors thereby turning a problem into a huge energy asset.
Wikipedia says that the longest economic power transmission line is 7000km but various sites give a distance of about 3000km from Algeria to London. Crossing the Mediterranean at high voltage will be a challenge but I don't see it as being impossible.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Some of the issues rised here are answered on their FAQ : http://www.desertec.org/en/concept/faq (if anyone cares to check it out)
What's in it for us, except for a lot of dead soldiers and wasted money?
In fact, these deserts could be used for another purpose: creating large farms of tanks growing oil-laden algae in seawater (no need for exorbitantly expensive desalinization systems!). And they could grow enough oil-laden algae as a biomass source to make diesel fuel, gasoline and kerosene on a huge scale, the fuels critical for so many industries around the world. And the "waste" from the processing of the algae could be used to make fertilizer or even ethanol, another fuel with increasing usage around the world.
we have messed with the people in that region in a hostile way for a long time: Crusades
Has everyone forgotten that the Muslims invaded Europe through Iberia/Spain 350 years before the First Crusade?
All of Europe would be Muslim if it weren't for a forward thinking (hack, spit, cough) Frenchman 1250 years ago.
Yeah, but I think the Muslims might have the last laugh. The invasion of Europe will soon be complete as Muslims obtain a majority in like 25 years or less. It took them a little longer then originally planed but it is working out. The funny apart about Muslims going to Christian Nations is they go there because their own countries are so fucked up. Then their kids get told how great Arab nations by smooth talking clerics and suddenly they want to setup Sharia law to make sure Europe is as fucked up a Arab countries. And put those Clerics in charge. Sure Muslim countries would put a fast end to a European migratory invasion by Europeans but instead we have to help those poor people suffering under Muslim Theologies by bringing poeple over to europe to convert it to Theologies.
They don't become poor, but they end up importing everything because local labor is so unattractive an expensive.
It's lucky that we live in the West, just think if we had to import most of our shoes, clothes, computers, consumer electronics ..... Oh wait
You need to step away from the computer for a while. Too many if-then statements.
Sure Muslim countries would put a fast end to a European migratory invasion by Europeans
Didn't seem to work out too well in Palestine...
Le français vous intéresse?
Everyone knows this, of course, but I can't help but note: 1% of the Sahara is a lot of desert. 360,000 mi^2. 940,000 km^2.
The margins are a joke there, shoes and clothes are 19th century tech, you mostly pay wages to peasants or other unskilled workers. Printing generic circuits became too easy as well.
Real high tech, stuff that has been on the market for less than 10 or 20 years, where you can make a lot of money, that is still mostly western tech. And most manufacturing gets moved overseas when wages are a big factor. With high tech stuff 10 or 30 PhDs earning 100ks won't matter. Don't worry, the US is still a manufacturing powerhouse!
There's a reason that many in developing countries who hate the West do so more because of economic colonialism than any other reason.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Time to get out that Buckminster Fuller Dymaxion electricity distribution map.
Eh so what would you have the rest of the world do, let them sit and stew in their own poverty? These systems would not just provide financing but also reliable electrical power to large regions of the African continent. Also that "resource curse" does not hold true for countries like Norway and Saudi Arabia, which reduced poverty by half in 2007, offers free education and healthcare to all citizens, and a low interest or no interest loan for housing. Its certainly not a paradise, but its a lot better off than it would have been.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Well, it's about 40,000 square km or 18,000 square miles or .05% of the United States (basically the area of West Virginia). Granted that's all of the energy for the world but it's a lot bigger than, say, my backyard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Desert_(ecoregion)
I would upvote if I could AC. But I would add, that to some people, killing people different than us is a good enough reason to kill our own soldiers too.
Well, certainly expensive at first. If we keep building out capacity, though, so that we're collecting 2-3x what we currently use, price per unit will eventually come done.
Program Intellivision!
The common solar cells are only around 20% efficient. So, that leads to the need to cover 20% of the Sahara to power the world. But that's not all, because the long distance power transmission can loose up to 30%, which would push the need to cover the desert to around 28% to get enough energy to run the world.
That certainly keeps with the spirit of my original post. I did forget one word though: Storage. We need to capture, redistribute and *store* energy. Facilitating the carbon cycle in this way (using algae to create diesel/gasoline/kerosene, for example) also helps address the storage problem. Note that I say "carbon cycle:" This isn't the same as pumping carbon out of the ground and putting it in the air. The algae have to get carbon from somewhere before you get diesel/gasoline/kerosene.
Program Intellivision!
Damn! Let me correct my own math. If solar cells are 20% efficient, then you have to cover 5% of the Sahara. The transmission losses push it to 7%, much less than the 28% I said above, but still much more than 1%.
I was quite amazed to see the Financial Times refer to separate McKinsey and PWC studies that show that the cost of reducing European CO2 by 80% would not cost more than ``business as usual'' replacement of coal fired plants and even that going 100% renewable by 2050 would cost only about 2.5 times what Germany has already spent on solar power.
FT, McKinsey and PWC are not known as granola eating treehuggers, which makes this all the more exciting.
The sahara could supply the entire world with almost unlimited power: Solar combined with wind power and power transmission via space.
There is a difference. We make CPUs, airliners, jet engines, cars, roads, houses, drugs, and so one. I do agree that we really need to start making even more stuff but we do make a lot of big ticket high complexity items.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
So what would be the cost in pollution from toxic materials used in production in solar cells if 1% of the Sahara was covered with solar cells?
Currently hooked on AMP
All solar panels need to washed regularly to maintain efficiency because dust/sand build-up blocks sunlight. Now we have a dilemma, sun is abundant in desert but water by definition is not! So if you have these solar plans in desert area, they will have to fight for what little existing water there is with locals or devise ways to bring water where non exists. I recall seeing stories in the news about locals fighting solar plants for water rights because the planners of the plans apparently forgot that water is scarce in those sunny deserts where they built the plants.
Lots of questions are also answered at Desertec's FAQ
Greetings, Sebastian
>> oil-laden algae in seawater
This was BP's plan all along.
But NORTH Africa is much closer to the Middle East than it is to South Africa. What with Central Africa being pretty big and Suez/The Red Sea being pretty small...
And it's not just the raw distance; it's much easier to coast hop a boat along the Med than to trek across the Sahara, and longitudinal travel is generally easier than latitudinal.
And don't forget history. North Africa and the Middle East were both part of the Roman Empire, and later the caliphate, and later still the Ottoman Empire. Other bits of Africa = most of it, in fact - weren't.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
My daughter gets to keep her clitoris.
Far Away?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City has got 60MWp and will be growing towards 500MWp which can feed 500 million households - strange to see that they have one of the largest oil reserves in the world (100 billion barrels)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldpolenz_Solar_Park has got 40MWp
Looking at the EU fundings
a max of 25% initial installation costs (min 1000 Wp, max 15000 Wp)
then a 0.33 euro per kWh delivered back on to the net
That is approx 0.55 cents per kWh refund
Our energy suppliers MUST take my energy back on to it's net, because gov says so.
Now looking at my roof it's a flat roof so all panels can be placed in optimal conditions which would make approx 75kWh a Year (In the Netherlands) with 100Wp
I can handle approx 15000 Wp on my roof
Initial investment:
80.000 euro
Let's say I'd go for a cheaper solution installed by professionals
1000Wp - 750 kWh/year
+/- 2800 euro investment with the funding already taken off that number
I'm using a stagering 5200 kWh a year and I'd reduce that number with the 750kWh
that would be awesome not?
The fact that those solarpanels on my roof make it a lot hotter it needs extra cooling.
I'd like more funding before I get some people to install those panels on my roof.
That funding can be done if they don't create some third world infrastructure, instead, fund EU first.
Once I get that, EU will have my power without all those changes for infrastructure.
- and so on back in time - before that it was the Romans; perhaps a bit more relevant is European imperialism, during which time we walked all over the face of the locals there. That and the West's blind and uncritical support for Israel, due to our collective bad conscience.
The United States feels the strain by having to import a lot of oil from unstable regions. China and Japan are completely dependent on oil imports, but Europe is doing themselves no favor by committing to more energy imports from unstable or potentially unstable regions.
The EU imports 75% of its natural gas from unstable or potential enemies (Algeria and the Russian Federation).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_dependence_on_Russian_energy
The only currently stable states in North Africa are Morocco, Tunisia and Libya. However both Tunisia and Libya are authoritarian governments with no real succession plan other than "keep it in the family."
While it's a good idea to move solar into the desert, this isn't a good plan for long term stability, unless the EU is ready to intervene in North Africa if this is ever threatened.
I sense a poor attitute towards the value of desert. The desert does not need investments or solar power to have a value, it has a value in it self. To carlessly talk about exploiting huge expeses of valuable desert as if it did not matter, as if an acre of desert had no special value unless one could dra an oil pipeline or put up solar arrays on it. Very not Arne Næss. Ajja bajja.
This was a great idea when Norman Rush wrote about it, calling for "Solar Democracy" in Botswana, in his novel MATING, for which he won the National Book Award. It would be awesome if this could drive some actual development and reform in Africa.
And don't forget the Ottoman empire's incursions into southeastern Europe for hundreds of years...
You always have to pay for the cost. If you produce more than the demand, it just means that the price at which you'll be able to sell is less than what it costs to produce and you can't make a margin.
Solar power plants don't need fuel but they still need maintenance, there is a cost to it.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Yeah, look at that poor, deprived United States, with their non-existant natural resources. They sure made something out of nothing. </sarcasm>
It's highly interesting (to me at least) to investigate what happens to countries with 'new money' like Oil deposits, coal, diamonds, whatever. They pretty universally fail to prosper in a meaningful way, with the exception of a few lucky Arabian states that have borderline prosperity thanks to ungodly amounts of money being spent on infrastructure like skyscrapers and resorts. But why is the success rate so low? Are these resources truly cursed? Surely, not every nation blessed with a resource ends up wasting it all before it does them any good?
One of the more interesting ideas was covered on a recent episode of Planet Money, wherein they built a case for simply taking every dollar earned from the resource and dividing it equally amongst every last citizen. This would prevent the government from spending the money in any way it wanted to, and require them to again coax revenue from the people in the form of taxation. Taxation with representation, it is argued, is the best way for citizens to be engaged in government.
And this goes back to the thesis that "free money" from natural resources is a bad thing. "Free money" when it's piped straight to the government coffers and they do with it what they please, is the bad thing. The US is quite disgustingly blessed with "free money" resources, from oil (most of which is gone, admittedly) to fertile land, coal, sunshine, timber, you name it. And what happened with that little experiment? The money, specifically, did not go to the government. It went to the people, and the government had to earn it. As a result, the people prospered and the government was kept in check (for most of the 200-some-odd-year experiment, at least). But that's enough spoilers, I won't tell you how it ends.
I can't be the only one who is sick and tired of smug-emitting environmentalists.
As a conservationist, I find environmentalism offensive, and here's why: I support wind power. I support nuclear power. I support solar power. I support installation of generators in incinerators, and also would support investigation into building turbines into oil and gas fired central heating furnaces, to recoup as much of the energy as possible from the fossil fuels we do use.
I do not support hybrids for drivers of small econoboxes, because when you are a city dweller driving only 12K miles or fewer per year, you will not offset the additional resources needed to manufacture your hybrid over a conventional econobox - and what's more, you won't be saving any money either. If you drive 30K miles, however, your hybrid will probably offset the additional resources to manufacture in five years, and you will probably reap enough fuel savings to offset the hybrid financial costs in three years. So, for most people, hybrids are not smart money. You're better off getting a small diesel and getting 50+mpg. Besides, you don't save all that much fuel going from 35mpg to 45mpg combined.
I DO support the development of hybrid SUVs and large pickups, because going from 10mpg to 15mpg is a 50% improvement in economy, or going from 10mpg to 20mpg is a 100% improvement in economy. Instead of trying to push personal cars into impossibly-tighter emissions and economy standards, which cannot be attained without significantly lightening the cars by foregoing safety equipment like the European econoboxes do, we should be focused on the vehicles that really guzzle gas; Road tractors (often incorrectly called "semis"), large pickups, large SUVs, etc. - a LOT can be done to improve fuel mileage on all of those, and it doesn't even have to reduce utility or capacity. In fact, if implemented correctly, hybrid technology can actually increase hauling capacity when needed. However, if Congress has any business at all in setting fuel economy standards, it should focus on netting 50% and 100% savings on fuel consumption where it really goes to waste, and not putting the smack down on the little guy to net a 3% savings on a drop in the bucket.
The problem with environmentalists is NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone): any time a new natural gas or propane depot is proposed (cleaner than oil, coal, gasoline, etc.) the enviro-nazis oppose it. Any time a solar farm is propoosed, enviro-nazis opppose it because it might upset a scorpion or two and a family of rattlesnakes. Any time a wind farm is proposed (such as Cape Wind/Nantucket Sound Wind Farm), enviro-nazis oppose it and block it for years on the ground that someday some stupid seagull might fly into it and die. Any time a clean nuclear plant is proposed, it gets knocked down. At the same time, these self-same environazis want us to stop using oil NOW, and to use alternative energy.
Therein lies the problem: we WANT to use alternative energy, and any time anyone tries to actually provide it on any kind of practical, usable scale that will make a difference, the same idiots who want us off oil NOW oppose the clean energy with NIMBY and BANANA. I'm sorry, but there is no magic pixie dust. Want us off oil? Guess what? Without magic pixie dust, we need to build nukes, wind, and solar power plants in order to get off oil. You cannot have one without the other, and if the only alternative is that we go back to living in tents, I suggest that the Al Gore types and all of his disciples take the lead and live a couple of harsh winters in tents, then if it works out well for you, we'll all follow your example.
Until then, either stuff it, or come to some sort of happy medium and work with conservationists who actually want to limit the use of oil and get us to that point by implementing the technologies that can replace it.
Getting rid of cars isn't going to do it. Mass transit sucks. Cutting fuel consumption in passenger c
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Some environmental groups have warned these cables could be used instead to import non-renewable electricity from coal- and gas-fired power stations in north Africa.'
Even when you are doing what they want they find a way to complain.
I never meant to imply that solar was free. But, once solar capacity is built out and the transmission lines are in place, solar has quite a lot of potential to be cheaper than fossil fuels, particularly if fossil fuels are made artificially more expensive through carbon taxes. I don't have to mine or drill for solar power. I don't have ships, train cars and semis carting solar power all over the country. So, as solar capacity comes online, the overall cost of energy may drop, not because solar doesn't cost anything, but that it costs less than the alternatives.
Program Intellivision!
I hate to disturb you while you're comfortably read this, sitting in your chair fat as I know you are, but there are still starving children (less adults) and hineous wars in Africa. Shouldn't we solve those problems first, and then have the locals help us build our stuff (nourished and educated)? Or should we just rush in, plug those energy suckers into that land, and get the heck back while it powers our technology?
Perhaps if we build this, we get more in touch with african people, and some bread crumms fall off our rich tables there. Then again, perhaps we never do.
P.S. What's up with this new layout?
Or in european units, that's about one Switzerland.
Or in european units, that's about one Switzerland.
Thanks! :-)
hydro is the only renewable that can be used to trim baseline load
Actually, solar thermal can maintain baseload by using molten salt to store heat energey during the night. Besides being incredibly useful, the idea of a huge tower of molten salt is just dang cool.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
The whole concern about coal based energy being used is silly. If the solar panels are there already and capable of supplying enough energy to power the whole world I don't see why they would continue to use coal. Coal has a cost associated with it. Once the panels are built there is no fuel cost for solar. Am I missing something here?
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
Not particularly relevant though - the 1% calculation was only used as a reference point, there are no plans to actually supply the world's electricity demand via this route. The plan is for this to merely be one of the means by which to reach the EU's 20% renewables goal.
Now the real problem is just converting that power into Energon Cubes, and keeping Decepticons away from it.
I've seen that movie. Turns out it was Charlton Heston.
Comment of the year
Investing in solar power from northern Africa is also investing in an area known for violence and great instability. Could they pick an area more likely to be involved with terrorists bombings? Frankly if it were my bag of coins I would not invest in anything that has to do with northern Africa.
Solar Energy is a ruinous business, a real fraud in Spain and Portugal for example. The average cost of producing 1 MWh electric energy in these countries is around 35/MWh but photovoltaics is being subsidized between 350 and 500/MWh, but sold to consumers at normal cost, artificial cost, leaving the rest to an energy deficit that the taxpayers have to pay, some day.
This is creating a completely unsustainable situation and in Spain the deficit is already over 20 000 million and the government has announced it will reduce the subsidies given the severe economic crisis.
In spanish:
Industria recorta las energías renovables y mantiene la nuclear
http://www.expansion.com/2010/06/14/empresas/energia/1276550415.html?a=6d9326ce0953647290db36c20d15f3ee&t=1277233083
Not to mention the Seljuk Turks incursions into Anatolia, the heart of the Eastern Roman Empire, before that. Next year's mass in Saint Sophia's!
So will these countries with vast tracts of desert land (ie, energy sources), soon become centers for energy intensive industries such as aluminum and iron production?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Well, nobody said we had to have it done tomorrow. I hear that even today, after being at it for a hundred years, some companies are STILL putting up power lines and building power plants in the United States. You'd think they be done by now.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
There is no energy shortage. There is only an energy collection and redistribution shortage.
Or, as every slashdot reader has long suspected: There is no female shortage. There is only a female collection and redistribution shortage.
I assume the energy produced will not be competitive with alternatives, which implies massive subsidies, which Europe can not afford.
My understanding was that typically 50% of electrical energy is wasted by long distance transmission (nevermind whatever other inefficiencies there may be). If that is the case wouldn't this scheme be prohibitively ineffective? How much energy can realistically "transported" such a large distance - between continents!
Is this just more unrealistic greenwashed nonsense - consuming billions of public dollars to pay nefarious private organisations to put precious/rare/toxic chemicals all over the place - to be a later public nuisance and cleanup issue, or worse - maintenance? Call me cynical but I won't be banking on this one.
Stupidity is its own reward.
Norway did this a century ago and is currently 100% hydro powered. So while Norway is the world's 3rd largest exporter of oil, and natural gas, we don't use it to power our houses.
Denmark decided to build wind parks, and now the Scandinavian countries exchange power using a power market (NordPool). Dips in wind power at night can be compensated with hydro power.
We just signed a contract to build a subsea power line to the European mainland, by way of Germany, that will let them take part in our power surplus/exchange mechanism.
P.S. Russia and Norway are Europe's biggest power suppliers, yet both remain outside the European Union. The EU is working on securing their power supplies for the future, the North African addition is part of that plan.
I've seen that movie.
Actually, no. El Cid fought for both Christians and Muslims in the middle of the (original) reconquista.
Turns out it was Charlton Heston.
Great movie, huh? Sophia Loren was an unstoppable beauty.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
So should we go for 2 or 3 percent, just to give us some wiggle room?
Those transmission lines will have to be well protected, otherwise the Mediterranean could become a very big salty bathtub. One might get a buzz from swimming in it. ;)
This is not about solar panels. Solar panels are stupid for anything else but places far from the "mains".
This is about mirrors reflecting sunlight on water containers. Very effective. Much more environmentally friendly than solar panels.