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.'"
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
Well, we're talking about North Africa, not the Middle East. Sure, they're close to each other geographically, but the political realities are different. Further, the direct foreign investment of this sort of "infrastructure" could be beneficial. The influx of money should raise the standard of living those countries and it might encourage a different sort of economic growth than what we've seen in economies fueled by petrodollars.
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!
How does Africa already have a choke-hold on energy production? Are you confusing Africa with the Middle East?
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
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?
At least the minister's response quoted in the article is positive. The summary butchered it:
"This is a good question but not a question to destroy our project," Oettinger said. "This question must be answered by a good answer and so we need ways to ensure that our import of electricity is from renewables."
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
"Some environmental groups". In other words, a couple of total fucking nutcases. Just like we have nutcases to criticize every other initiative, idea, concept etc.
Some idiot shouting is not what is noteworthy. What is, however, is that de media (and yes, that includes you kdawson) give them credence in order to stir up controversy and rack up the hits to score more ad income.
Might I suggest kdawson gets a new job where he tries to rickroll us once a day and otherwise loses all privileges? The end result would pretty much be the same.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
You could cover a similar area in Spain and avoid some of the transmission loss. Spain could certainly use the business.
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)
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
They are not nutcases. They are powerful pressure groups, able to influence the policies that rule your life. Don't dismiss this as the work of discredited extremists, what government minister even has meetings with crazy extremists?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
They are not nutcases. They are powerful pressure groups, able to influence the policies that rule your life.
Unfortunately those two things are not mutually exclusive.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I completely agree. Spain is investing quite a bit in Morocco lately, for it is very close geographically and the costs are quite low. Not as low as in China but again, it's easier to work with people who at least uses the same alphabet as you do. In Morocco they speak French but many people speak Spanish too. It seems that we will finally have the kind of mutually beneficial relationship with them as other countries have managed to have with their former colonies. We are only a century behind or so.
Hardly an argument to call this a green energy scam, no?
The official language of Morocce is Arabic....has been for many years.
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...
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
How does Africa already have a choke-hold on energy production?
Pay more attention. He didn't say Africa, he said unstable region.
Both Africa and the M.E. are part of one big, contiguous, mostly-Muslim unstable region.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The environmentalists are right to ask the question, there are antecedents. In Europe (Spain in particular(Spanish)) there have already have cases of diesel power being passed off as renewable energy - they got caught only because they were arrogant enough to pass it off as solar energy... at night. If they had not been so greedy we would still be non the wiser, and 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 - 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.
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
True, Arabic is the official language, but I have yet to meet a Moroccan not speaking French.
As per Wikipedia, it's the country's "second unofficial language": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco#Languages
Unlike some other "educated" countries, the people of Morocco have realized that some people in other countries speak different languages, and that you can't overcome this by simply talking at them with an increased volume and decreased speed.
I hate printers.
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.
The EU has bigger economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
French, which is Morocco's unofficial second language, is taught universally and serves as Morocco's primary language of commerce and economics. It also is widely used in education and government.
So at least, they seem to know the alphabet.
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...
You aren't allowed to comment on geopolitics any more until you can tell the difference between different sorts of people that aren't white...
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
And how did you conclude that the environmentalists are against it just because they asked how you ensure that the energy does actually come from renewable resources. Did you read a call to "ban the cables" anywhere? No.
The Energy Commissioner said that it was a good question, and he is right. You don't just lay down a cable and just hope that the power sent through it is renewable. You need to put procedures in place to guarantee it, otherwise you have just wasted your money.
The problem with that argument is that the group of people that might be considered to be in the set "Environmentalist" is itself a collection of sub-sets, each of which has their own preferred solutions and solutions they oppose. Given the number of people in the set "Environmentalist" the chances are that for every single alternative technology power supply there are going to be people that oppose it loudly enough to get reported in the media.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
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 will, because it's a damm good question.
The makers of Thalidomide thought they were trying to do something positive as well I bet. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's not enough to try and do something positive, one must be sure one is actually doing something positive. This is the real world where real actions have real consequences, not your first grade classroom where everybody gets a trophy for trying - even if they don't actually accomplish anything.
It's easy (and childish) to simply dismiss the concerns as being from "those [obstructive] environmentalists, it's much harder to honestly answer the question.
It's almost as if you didn't actually read their statement or bother to attempt to understand it. They didn't say "lets not build this", they said "lets make sure this accomplishes it's stated goal".
Yeah, I thought that. But then I thought a bit more and - is it that hard to believe the idea that politicians might sell a massive investment in cabling to the taxpayers by saying "Oh, it's for a brand new green energy thingy" and then let their friendly lobbying oil companies use the link when the green power plans "happen" to fall through? I'm not accusing the politicians of trying to pull the wool over our eyes in this instance, just asserting that it's generally in their nature. If someone doesn't keep asking the right questions (along the lines of "How can we guarantee this is a good thing, not a subtly different thing that'll make lots of money?") then it's not surprising when we get nasty surprises.
That said, I do think some environmentalist groups are just being obstructive about relatively promising technologies, given that they're not going to be able to convert the whole world to a different way of life that doesn't require them!
Europe buys oil from Libya since ages.
No problem there.
You really need to think big.
It's a bonus that Morocco and Algeria are in this project.
These Countries need a decent source of income.
And if East Sahara is wired up, there will be no stopping wiring up Egypt, Jordan
Mauretania, Niger, Chad.
And why don't the Saudis add themselves to that grid?
The Chinese could tap into Taklamakan,
the US surely has some spare desert to make useful.
The US has tonnes of space in sunny deserts to build Solar stations. The problem is that nobody in the US wants to pay to run the power cables from these areas to population centres.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Solved problem, HVDC. Read it, might make you look less like a moron the next time.
Did you really think that nobody thought about that beforehand?
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.
Yes, they are. And no, they are not powerful.
Little anecdote: in the Netherlands a number of us want to build a second nuclear powerplant. Obviously greenpeace is opposed to this, so they staged a protest by climbing up the old city hall(medieval building) and raising a giant flag. Then they sat there for a couple of hours.
You know what this stunt got them? A 3 line article in the newspaper featuring a comment from a local police officer who in passing by had commented on the fact that they had attached themselves to the same hooks we used to hang convicted prostitutes.
Do you get the gist from the article that the aforementioned environmentalists were in any way being taken seriously? They get 2 lines and a curt dismissal, nothing more. kdawson then went out of his way to include only those first 2 lines, knowing full well there's a group of Slashdotians who will start foaming at the mouth when they read it.
The real environmentalists have several political parties which they can choose from that can influence policy. The nutcases stand on the sidelines and are mostly ignored until they get dangerous, at which time we have them removed by the local authorities.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Well, I thought someone would come out and say why development in Africa is a bad idea. Thanks for restoring my faith in environmentalists!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It appears we have grossly underestimated these Fremen, My Lord Baron...
They definitely have a large demographic momentum (many young people) but the total fertility rates (TFR) are in free fall in some of the countries. Here are some current numbers from the CIA World Factbook:
Western Sahara: 4.37 (only ~500.000 inhabitants)
Libya: 3.01
Morocco: 2.23
Algeria: 1.76
Tunisia: 1.71
As you can see the largest North African countries are now barely reproducing (although their populations will continue to grow for a generation or so due to the shape of their population pyramids). Their population booms are essentially over and they seem to be heading for TFR's below that of the USA.
So my guess is that the main source of instability in those regions will in fact be immigration from Central Africa into these countries.
Africa is a continent and the Middle East isn't part of it.
No shit.
moslim only region you speak of
What magic is it that morphed mostly-Muslim into moslim only?
Or are you just stupid?
but calling Africa mostly muslim is pretty far fetched.
Is it?
According to Wikipedia, North Africa is 89% Muslim, West Africa is 55% Muslim and East Africa is almost 30% Muslim.
Ok, that's "only" 47% Muslim, which isn't a majority. But it's close, and no one in their right mind could argue that the continent is anything but politically unstable.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
... 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.
Let's not imagine it, let's calculate:
10cm copper core (that's very generous), 1000km long (more than enough)
--> 7854m^3, or 70 000 tons
Now let's melt it:
It's a cold day, so we start at 10 degrees Celsius, i.e. we have to heat it by about 1075K and therefore need
"Energy to heat to melting point + Energy to overcome fusion enthalpy" = 4.3e13 Joules, that's 43TJ.
Let the HVDC line have a capacity of 1GW, which is entirely realistic and probably too low. That's 1GJ/s.
So, time to transfer the energy needed to melt this outrageously fat string of copper:
43TJ/(1GJ/s) = a tiny bit over 12 hours.
Sounds like a good deal to 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.
One explanation could be that the environmentalists are opposed to economical development of Africa. Not so uncommon desire amongst the environmentalists is to limit the human population. Now, prosperity Africa is surely going to mean more healthy children surviving.
Mod me down, if your cognitive structures start moving dangerously.
"I said, 'Are you enjoying ... your stay ... in our country!?'"
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Trinchera Ranch has been the source of some of these kind of troubles, I remember seeing a 60 minutes on something like this too, can't find it right now or remember if it's the same place (I think that was on a place in New Mexico, probably had turtles).
Protip: Read more than the first editorial returned, like how Trinchera Ranch was the single largest real estate purchase by an Environmentalist ... Hedge Fund Manager.
source for that one too: http://origin.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_7577768
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
People all over the world are doing it near power lines.
It has been defined as a crime in the United States to do it, but people do it anyways. Hard to detect, harder to locate.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
You are kidding, right? According to Wikipedia, the US is somewhere between the 9th and 14th place when it comes to GDP per capita. Better scores than the US have some European countries (like Luxembourg) and Arab oil countries (like Qatar).
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
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!
How is it positive to spend a lot of money on an undersea cable to get power from coal and gas fired power plants in North Africa? It seems like it would be much more cost-efficient to just build the plants in Europe.
Hi, Quadrilingual moroccan-american reporting in to prove you right.