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."

22 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. 4.5GW not that much by ickleberry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Barely enough to supply power to Ireland To really make a difference it would need to be about 450GW

    1. Re: 4.5GW not that much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to start somewhere

    2. Re: 4.5GW not that much by johannesg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But it can free us from dependence on Russian gas.

      That's funny, because I keep hoping the Russians will help free us from islamic oil... And I certainly don't want yet another energy dependency on that part of the world.

    3. Re:4.5GW not that much by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It provides significant power during times of peak demand. And it's the first one.

      Anyway, if we are willing to invest tens of billions of Euros in single nuclear plants that generate less than half that much, it seems like it's pretty "significant".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Energy security? by amalcolm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Energy security? by paulatz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you had a clue about geography (or just checked a map) you may have noticed that the cable would pass entirely in Tunisia, closer to the border with Algeria than with Libya. Both Tunisia and Algeria are relatively politically stable, although Algeria is not very democratic.

      Anyway, it is possible that the project will go nowhere, but I'm pretty sure that the engineers and politicians involved will take due care to read all this Slashdot discussion and take in account your valuable expertise on the subject, they may even send you some money for the invaluable insight you have provided!

      --
      this post contain no useful information, no need to mod it down
    2. Re:Energy security? by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      You're right. But the current situation is that much of Europe's energy is supplied by Russia, which, in the current geopolitical climate, is even worse for energy security because it gives the Kremlin the power to strongarm the Union by threatening to raise prices or close the gas flow entirely.

      If only there was a mineral of some sort in the ground that could be used to generate energy via nuclear fission that was safer per kilowatt than other energy production sources,and if only someone had devised ways of storing the radioactive waste safely...

      But because radiation is scary to people who do not understand the difference between modern reactors and Chernobyl/Fukushima, my fellow Europeans seem somehow terrified by it, even though countries like France have been using it to generate over a third of all their energy for long.

      Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying nuclear is the perfect solution. It's not. But it's a whole lot better for energy security and for the climate than continuing to use coal, oil and natural gas while we try to figure out cleaner solutions that work even in less sunny areas.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  3. African energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:African energy by Tranzistors · · Score: 4, Insightful

      instead to move the wealth to Europe

      How is this moving wealth to Europe? If Europe is paying for use of land, then this is transfer of wealth from Europe to Tunisia. It is an energy transfer to Europe, but unless Tunisia is using that energy (or the land, where that energy is falling on) for themselves, they are not losing anything (economically).

  4. Not just terrorists... by wisebabo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Desertec reborn? by 4im · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. Interesting:years-old advice coming to fruitation by mccalli · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Great idea let's invest there by mccalli · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly, it would likely become a lot more stable if the world suddenly found a serious self-interest in making it so.

  8. About sovereignity... by EquisTango · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Energy distribution. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  10. Terrorism by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Terrorism by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      taken down with one well placed bomb.

      So terrorists now have submarines? You do realize that the lines are underwater, don't you? Only the stations are aboveground. And there's three of them. Very large structures containing row after row of AC-DC converters, not just "one bomb and it's all gone". And even if that wasn't the case, losing one station would just mean a rebalancing of the European grid - flows changing direction, peaking coming online followed by reserve, etc. The significance of even losing all three (you're talking warfare, not terrorism - but what military would want to destroy a valuable export asset?) would depend heavily on when it happened.

      And lets place that in one of the most war torn regions in the world.

      Tunisia hasn't been in a war since World War II. There have only been two military skirmishes since then - one in 1961 with France over a naval base that France never gave up when Tunisia became independent, and the other a single bombing by the Israeli air force against a PLO headquarters. Internally, there have been brief periods of unrest - the most recent being the revolts that led to the resignation of Ben Ali (and the start of the Arab Spring) in 2010 - but they have never been associated with widespread bloodshed or destruction. The Tunisian Revolution in 2010, for example, only involved 338 deaths.

      --
      He's really very... gentle... and fuzzy. We're becoming fast friends.
    2. Re:Terrorism by Enigma2175 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As usual, the /. pants-wetting crowd is quickly on the case, pointing out that yet another thing can be targeted by terrorists. News flash, EVERYTHING can be targeted by terrorists, and most of the time they are not. Quit listening to those that seek to gain power by instilling fear in the populace, they aren't doing you a favor.

      --

      Enigma

    3. Re:Terrorism by blindseer · · Score: 3

      The problem with this decentralized set-up is exactly that: it isn't centralized and Mr Big Money has more problems to get his thick fingers behind it. So now they come up with a central plant in the Sahara.

      Bullshit. Mr. Money can sell millions of Europeans solar panels, inverters, batteries and a service contract to maintain it all. Barring that they can still sell a grid connection to buy and sell electricity.

      There's lots of money in energy. The problem with solar is cost. There is a reason that they want to put the collectors in Africa instead of Europe, there's more sun in Africa. Rooftop solar fails in so many places because the people may not be living where the sun it. Cheaper solar panels won't necessarily fix this because there's still more sun in Africa, it could just make the sun in Africa look better.

      I love these conspiracy theories about how "the man" just wants to take everyone's money and give nothing in return. For every "the man" trying to keep people down with rent seeking there's another "the man" competing with the other "the man" for people's money. The one that offers the *MOST* for their money will win.

      If decentralized solar makes sense in Europe then someone will be selling it. All kinds of people in the world are willing to stand in line to give money to someone that can free them from "the man". Government subsidies for big solar projects like this just prop up "the man" and traps the common person into another utility bill.

      If you want "Mr. Money" to stop stealing from you then tell your elected representative to stop giving them *YOUR* money for these big centralized solar projects.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  11. Wait a darn minute by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  12. Re:dependence on Russian gas. by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  13. Re:Slowdown global warming? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.