Slashdot Mirror
Massive Solar Plant In the Sahara Could Help Keep the EU Powered (digitaltrends.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Digital Trends: In the global race to ditch fossil fuel reliance for more renewable energy sources, Europe is already making some impressive strides. That is likely to ramp up considerably thanks to a new European Union plan to build a large solar plant in the Sahara desert -- with the ability to generate enough power to keep much of Europe juiced up. In all, the enormous solar farm aims to produce 4.5 gigawatts of power, which can then be transmitted across the Mediterranean from Tunisia to mainland Europe. TuNur's proposed solar farm utilizes an enormous quantity of mirrors to reflect sunlight onto a central collector, which uses molten salt to store the energy as heat. Three HVDC submarine cables will then transport the power to Europe. The first cable will link Tunisia and Malta, the second will link Tunisia to central Italy, and a third will link Tunisia to the south of France. "We are opening a new energy corridor to allow Europe to import cheap solar power from the Sahara on a massive scale," Daniel Rich, Chief Operating Officer of TuNur, the company behind the project, told Digital Trends. "This will help Europe meet its Paris Climate Agreement emissions reduction commitments quickly and cost effectively. It also will give a much-needed boost to the Tunisia economy through significant investment into the country, creation of thousands of jobs, new tax revenues, and the establishment of a new solar industry that can help support their future domestic demand."
Barely enough to supply power to Ireland To really make a difference it would need to be about 450GW
I wonder where the cables will run through north Africa? A lot of unstable regimes there, would be easy for terrorists to cut/blow up the cables, whether overhead or underground. Not good for energy security.
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
http://www.natureasia.com/en/n...
....to rely for your power on such a stable, friendly part of the world.......NOT.
Do the Tunisians get any of the electricity?
Or do we just throw a few beads at them and move in?
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
I hope that Africa create a lot of energy ... for africans.
Yeah... europeans could enjoy that massive energy though lines, but it's better that we raise african life quality instead to move the wealth to Europe and later have a lot of african migration into Europe.
Tunisia is on the northern coast of Africa, straddling both Mediterranean and the Saharan desert (sort of like the LA sprawl straddles the Pacific and the Mojave.)
As such the HVDC cables mentioned will leave their own coast and go directly to the three target locations, with any contesting parties most likely being islands/their parent nations on the European side.
Tunisia is on the northern coast of Africa
A bit of a generalisation. The northern coastline of Tunisia is on the Med. But there is an awful lot of sand between that part of the country and the Saharan desert regions in the south. It also shares long borders with other countries - many parts of Tunisia are closer to Libya than to the northern coast.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I live in Vietnam and we've had our internet access severely crippled seven (eight, nine?) times in the last few years because the submarine cables connecting the country to the rest of the world have been mysteriously severed.
I've looked at the map and it seems that every time, the approximate place where the cables (I believe all three of the ones that currently connect Vietnam) have been cut has been in a place that it would only affect Vietnam. For example the Asian American Gateway cable connects the U.S. with a bunch of nations here but I think it was only in the spur that connects Vietnam that was cut.
Of course it could be due to natural causes; undersea disturbances, fishermen dredging up fiber optic cables for their copper cladding (about a decade ago that was the reason!), even sharks. But since the government made damaging these cables a crime against the "national infrastructure" (which may be a capital offense) and since Vietnam, unlike some of its neighbors, is not a particularly active seismic zone, I'm not so sure. Of course one major power would have the will and ability to sever these cables without Vietnam being able to do anything (and maybe not being able to catch them doing it): China. What better way to cripple your up and coming neighbor's economy while getting away with complete deniability. (Fortunately, not all the cables were cut at the same time but that could be because it was only meant as a warning).
I believe that once, in the 50s or 60s, the then Soviet Union tried to cut some of the transatlantic cables connecting the U.S. with Europe. I understand that the U.S. quickly determined that the cables were not failing due to natural causes and since there was only one other country with the means to do so, quickly told the Soviets to stop or it would be WAR. (The U.S. was also developing means of tracking all sorts of submarine activity so maybe they didn't have to rely on deduction). Unfortunately, the Vietnamese cannot absolutely positively pin it on the Chinese (other powers may be playing some sneaky dirty games) and anyway they don't have nukes (or a decent military) to push back 1.3 billion people! (They also don't have any kind of decent underwater surveillance capabilities in contrast to the sonar/intelligence net the Chinese are intending to deploy throughout the entire South China sea.)
So, as much as I'd like to see a jobs program to try to (vainly?) employ the exploding numbers of millions (hundreds of millions? Soon billions?) of under/unemployed Africans to reduce Europe's carbon footprint, I don't think the governments involved would take the risk of being so reliant on three cables that could be instantly cut. Better would be to export the power to sub-saharan Africa to drive their economies with cheap, zero-C power.
Because the region around the Sahara is so peaceful and Euro-friendly nowadays.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
This sounds quite like Desertec, or at least a small variant or part thereof.
I'd hope for such a project to bring some more stability to the region, if it ever goes anywhere.
An extremely good, and free, e-book on climate change recommended this solution in 2008. The author, David MacKay, was the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (UK).
Here's the book - I thoroughly recommend it: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air.
It attempts a quantative approach to determining whether particular alternative sources of energy are useful and sustainable or not. It's a short read, politics free (neither "bah, it's all a hoax!" nor "do this immediately or DIE!") and is definitely worth the time of anyone interested in the subject.
if only they'd doubled the output, then we'd be back to the future
To send 3.7 Delorians back to the future!!
Sorry.. had to be said.
For Europe to put itself at the mercy of vulnerable infrastructure transmitting energy across a volatile region would be crazy.
We need to be looking at solar/wind/etc technologies as ways to eliminate fragile national electric grids and to move to locally supplied power.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Does "European Union plan to build a large solar plant in the Sahara desert" sound ok to you? Just a reminder that the Sahara desert is not in Europe. The statement shows how powerful countries use and make inconsult decisions about undeveloped countries.
Wind farms in a sandy environment? I'm not sure how reasonable that would be.
Ezekiel 23:20
There is a reason why we have power plants spread across the world vs 1 or 2 really big ones in every country. It is getting the power produced from the plant going to the homes. A lot of that energy is already being turned into heat and sound just from the resistance of the cables. Sure smart grids, help the problem, but it doesn't solve the problem.
That is why I much prefer local energy production, solar panels and or wind turbine with battery backup on your home, perhaps with a small grid shared with your neighbors. While the cost may be higher, it offers a degree of freedom in your living, and you can mostly keep or sell the energy that you don't use. Vs. hooked up to a grid of either noticeable hanging cables, or having crews dig up your yard and regulations to make sure you can't dig in your own property. And if you don't pay your bill your power gets cut off, placing you in a situation where you cant make more money.
If we could Green Energy could probably fit well in a conservative agenda, if we could get big oil and the religious extremists out of the picture.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
We're still burning coal. It's because power utilities cannot fathom charging for something that just has a sunk cost. But wait, they already do. All the outside plant and even the generators and burners are sunk costs.
Thanks for the link. I note with some amusement, that there are translations into several other languages - including American, it seems :-) Nice to see their language finally gets some recognition.
So hell!
Lets make our power dependent on one huge collection of transmission lines that can be taken down with one well placed bomb.
And lets place that in one of the most war torn regions in the world.
That will work out just great.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol_Solar_Power_Station
I thought with all the renewable energy Europe is supposed to be producing, they were going to be completely green in just a few years. You mean they're going to have to get energy from North Africa in order to keep from freezing to death?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Is that satire? Why would the object to get money and jobs in exchange for a piece of desert land they likely have no other use for?
Even if they could get such a power plant for themselves for free, I don't think an electrical power plant is the biggest thing that they lack to improve their quality of living!
That's easy. The dessert stops at the box edges.
#DeleteFacebook
Really, you don't think half a billion dollars in annual revenue (by my rough estimation of how much Tunisia stands to earn, with commercial rates and a realistic capacity factor and profit margin) would have an impact on the quality of living there?
Tunisia specifically modified their energy law in 2015 to allow projects like this. Tunisia doesn't have some scarcity of desert land, it has a scarcity of income.
He's really very... gentle... and fuzzy. We're becoming fast friends.
It's too bad nobody is working on "cold panels" because they would work a lot better in Canada compared to solar panels.
#DeleteFacebook
"many residents of the desert"
ha ha ha ha ha
Not to mention the insane idea of criticising a solar power project for sourcing power in a desert country. Because *that's* never happened with fossil fuel power generation before.
Seems like you could put a vast array of solar panels in several places throughout Europe where cloud cover is minimal, like Greece or Spain. Surely these countries would be amenable to adding those new jobs and and are much more politically stable and secure than anywhere in north Africa, making this big investment far less risky.
Once Europe's solar farms are profitable, their success will encourage that economic model to spread and attract investment elsewhere, even where security and infrastructure is less stable, like the Sahara.
Lets make our power dependent on one huge collection of transmission lines that can be taken down with one well placed bomb.
That could happen regardless of where you build the plant. The bigger concern is whether the EU really wants to hand the keys to its energy security over to a bunch of north African nations that are not exactly known for their stable governments and enlightened world view.
There is extensive material on the TuNur website about the benefits for Tunisia. You could have looked it up instead of whining.
http://www.nurenergie.com/tunu...
That could power three Deloreans!
Tunisia in contrast to Morocco is a democracy, and a somewhat stable one at that. If it happens, it is likely it will be considered at least in part a foreign aid thing as well.
Also Spain may be close to Morocco, but the rest of Europe is farther away.
There are lot of things that require power that we take for granted and are quite luxurious. I mean ignore the fact that they're trying to prevent people from travelling but can you imagine, if your vehicle required electricity and power was virtually free? Freedom to go anywhere, do roadtrips easier etc. It's definitely a step in the right direction, I hope it goes well and ahead as planned.
Uplink Hosting - Web/email at an affordable price with high performance - https://uplinkhosting.ca/link.php?id=3
Pump water in from the ocean. Cool a portion of the exhaust for drinking water or agriculture.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
This makes me so angry, I'm having a difficult time putting it into words. In case Daniel Rich and the other assholes at TuNur are unaware, the Sahara is NOT in Europe! The audacity of these people is astounding. There is an entire continent, large swaths of which struggle with lack of access to electricity, and these pieces of shit are talking about using THEIR land to power a completely different continent? FUCK THAT. These people need to be driven out of business. Hopefully the residents of Northern Africa will wisen up and seize control of the facility. There is absolutely no reason privileged Europeans should have access to this power source until the people who actually live on that land are taken care of.
No, it's the southern quarter of the country, after the Atlas mountains
4.5GW is about 25% of the power-requirement of the Netherlands. That small country on the north sea....
The major problem with this is not the cost, which is fairly low, or the transmission, which is not from that great a distance, or even the add on jobs for the African population, which would be great.
But it does provide a lack of resilience in France if the lines are cut. More local power gives you the ability to withstand power cuts from ever increasing quakes, storms and other disruptions, as you can always bring back buildings with their own roof top solar and wind first, then turn on grids with enough power.
So long as the total output is kept below 25 percent of the French utility grid usage, it's not a problem. Since this is fairly small, this might be ok, but it does increase risks.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
By refusing to accept any other situation and ignoring the problems and expense of nuclear, Mackay merely sucks the dick of the nuke lobby,
No, he doesn't, unless something really strange is going on. Prof. MacKay passed away last year.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
it's an old project : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The big problem in that : the North African region is not politically stable enough.
Why ? Because the French and British govs started a war in Lybia, which created ISIS and maintanis chaos in the region.
You can't build critical infrastructure in that kind of environment.
In full deployment, there will be (in a distant future) 500GW.
aaaaaaa
Setting aside that they are depositing a whole lot of hope on building power plants in another continent, I guess that's just how things goes.
If it's a fair deal with african countries, it could strenghten relationships. If it's not, that plant will end up seized and taken.
Which, in the grand scheme of things, might not be all that bad too. Well, certainly bad for the EU, but perhaps they've also realized - like China - that it's just better to invest in Africa even fully expecting drawbacks. The continent has tons of potential, but it needs development, economic support and stability, and infrastructure in general before moving forward.
It would probably have impact on a very tiny number of people. The bulk of the profits would go to wealthy people with connections and not enter the local economy. A small amount would go as salaries locally and while positive, it would probably be under 25 million.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Are you really incapable of scrolling down a page? There are nine specific benefits mentioned on that page -- why would you imply they only describe the first one? And why play down the significance of anti-desertification measures if you actually give a shit about Africa?
And this will help deter global warming how?
The alternative is to release heat stored in the chemical bonds of fossils and release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which trap more heat.
Either way, you are releasing/retaining 4.5 GW of energy. The difference with solar is that you avoid a greenhouse effect which traps even more heat.
Remember that this sunlight has already reached the Earth's surface and is therefore part of our normal energy input from the Sun. The 4.5 GW absorbed by the solar array will radiate out eventually, just as it would naturally. The only difference is that it will do some useful work first---and it will radiate out from Europe instead of Africa.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
The Sahara?
Probably.
The desert?
No.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There was a project named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... related to that company that didn't pan out, cf
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://www.nurenergie.com/tunu...
Supercomputers use megawatts of power.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Dude - TuniCOIN! Let's get over there and get it started right now. Fuck the Europeans. We should put massive solar fields in Tunisia and just mine coins! + Blackjack & Hookers. Who's coming with me?
That's an epic thermodynamics 101 failure right there.
How is this anything but good?
1. Africans should get energy? Yes they should, and this will help enrich the region, at least more than if this were not built. ... and elitist, like eating local. The poor person who can't afford it?
2. Cables are a terrorist target? Yep. So are a lot of things. Diversify.
3. I thought Europe was already green? No, and this won't make it 100% either, not by itself. But it'll help.
4. Only enough to power Ireland? True. Better than NOT building enough solar to power Ireland.
5. Unfair to Tunisia/Unfair to Europe? No. Trade is good. Tunisia can produce energy cheap, and Europe has money to buy it. Capitalism at its finest.
6. We don't want energy dependency in that part of the world? True. Nor do we want it in any part of the world. Diversification again is key. Here's a way to diversify: get some solar from Tunisia. Bad idea: get most energy from Tunisia. Or most from fossil fuels, for that matter.
7. Local energy is better and conservatives would like that? Local IS better
Political, rant against both sides for lack of common sense:
Conservatives like to drill-baby-drill, but since we don't have that many fossil fuel reserves, the remainder would have to be US renewable or imported cheap fuel. Conservatives choose imported cheap stuff every time, reducing our security for a modest decrease in price. In fact, we have our own deserts where, with some modest grid improvements, we could get cheaper, cleaner, domestic energy, better in every imaginable way, but the right does not want that (because the left does). And the left has trouble encouraging nuclear. Nuclear DOES have issues: waste and safety, both of which can be dealt with. There's another issue: nuclear power plants might not be competitive with wind at this point. If that's so, and if the left doesn't like nuclear, then they should be screaming FOR nuclear. The nuclear wouldn't get built (energy companies won't build anything uncompetitive) and the left would look like patriotic heroes for trying. Or at least they'd look consistent on the issue of carbon emissions. And if nuclear plants do get built because they can be built safely and are economical ... that's good! I HOPE that happens.
Everybody with a brain should admit the facts:
* Global warming is real. The physics are trivial -- read a book from say 50 years ago about Venus' atmosphere to get a non-political understanding of the mechanism and devistating inevitability of the problem. It's real. Don't change the facts to fit your theory. If your doctor told you that you had cancer, you wouldn't wait for treatment until you really needed it. You'd attack the problem early, because waiting is stupid.
* The solutions go beyond your ideology, left or right. Remember Acid Rain? Republicans and Democrats argued but eventually came to a market-based approach, and the problem was solved for dirt-cheap. The problem was liberal (the environment actually matters), the solution was conservative (market forces), and the world is now better off. Ozone hole? The problem was universal (skin cancer), the solution kind of liberal (international agreements) and again for a minimal price the problem has turned the corner and will be fine in a while. Everybody needs to quit whining and just take care of the problem. It's not that big a deal, especially at current renewable prices. Conservatives need to contribute their voice, to put forward proposals that actually solve the problem but without silly liberal baggage, and after some ridiculously ugly compromise, we'll solve the problem, it won't be that expensive, and like acid rain or lead in gasoline or ozone layers it'll be a boring thing of the past.
So much for the lie that converting to Renewable Energy would bring ruin to the world's economies.
So much for the fallacy that the oil companies wanted to let the invisible hand of a free marketplace guide economic decisions.
Maybe the environmentalists had the right idea all along, and that listening to them 30 years ago could have already improved the lives of so many people.
Awaiting the clickity-clack of the imploding minds of many /. conservative pundits who will continue to insist on the purity of their foolish lies.
Muwahahaha!
PlaynBass