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?
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'
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!
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
Wouldn't it be a little expensive to replace all the panels every time they get sandblasted by a windstorm?
I don't think anyone literally expects a single 1% area to be covered by solar panels and for this to be the sole worldwide energy generator. It was more an indication of the amount of energy hitting the earth's surface and what little amount of this energy we use.
- Chuq
I want to see molten salt.
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?
So this power will have to travel through such stable, well-governed countries as Algeria and Libya.
Unless you put the power station in Morocco or Tunisia...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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.
solar panels
Unless they use solar concentrators, which are "just" parabolic mirrors super-heating mineral oil...
You need to create huge barriers to stop sand storms from engulfing all your stuff.
Heh. There's nothing man-made which could block a sand storm.
And the first one that marches through will scour the delicate equipment into nothingness.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Wait a minute, aren't you supposed to be part of the anti-PC words crowd? Do we have to call it "more renewable" energy now to make you happy? How about "Not Able To Be Burnt Up"(NATBBU?). The idea is to bootstrap ourselves using energy dense oil and coal to reach a level of tech where we can use the more plentiful energy sources which are more dispersed. Call me crazy, but working on a multi-century project to push back some of the desert, build some infrastructure in a wasteland*, and reaping huge long-term rewards sounds good to me; just because there are some wack jobs who do think that calling something "green" makes it good doesn't mean real critical thought can't be applied to a problem like this and have it result in a positive outcome.
* Don't go calling the north slope a wasteland. Do an assay of the biomass in a cubic meter of summer tundra versus the Sahara.
You don't seriously believe that the alternative energy movement is being taken seriously by the administration, do you? The powers that be realized that they could make more money faster by selling the country than by making it more profitable.
I expect to be labeled "flamebait", so I'm hiding behind this AC moniker.
>>What would happen if you installed hydroelectric dams at the openings to the Red sea, The straight of Gibraltar, and the Black sea; then used the whole Mediterranean as the power storage device, by pumping Atlantic ocean water into it at the straight of Gibraltar?
If you could dam the *Strait* of Gibraltar, then you wouldn't need to use it as a power storage device. The tidal power generated from it would be massive.
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.
What's in it for us, except for a lot of dead soldiers and wasted money?
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