We should not be covering any wilderness (even a relatively barren wilderness like the Sahara) with solar panels until every inch of roof in the developed world is covered in solar panels. There's a ridiculous amount of flat open surface that is just wasted space right now, and not only is the space going to waste but the energy consumers exist right underneath that wasted roof space.
I've lived in many places (Seattle, Edinburgh) where a solar panel is only useful about 25% of the year due to clouds, or the simple fact of being so far north. We don't all live in Southern California.
The Sahara presents an environment with lots of sunlight, little clouds, and nothing else being developed there. And it doesn't need to be solar panels- solar farms based on collectors reflecting to a central tower are what is being cited in the article. We can't do that in most developed areas, because it takes up a lot of space- deserts are mostly empty, perfect for that.
In short, it would make far more economic sense to build solar panels in the Sahara and lose 50% of the power to transmission loss piping it all to Scotland than it ever would to put the same solar infrastructure into Edinburgh (or many other cities in the world).
To produce all the energy needed by humans, only a minuscule part of the desert has to be covered - the environmental aspects would be pretty neglectable. The pro of using the Sahara would of course be efficiency, the downside are politics and transporting the energy produced to somewhere where it can be used.
Every inch? Even roofs in areas with very low sunlight available for solar energy? There must be some places where solar panels on roofs is not the most economical choice for renewable energy.
Having solar at the point of use also mitigates costly upgrades to bulk transmission lines. Solar absolutely doesn't need to only used in equatorial locales to be useful. With the cost dropping so much, base load battery storage doesn't even make sense. The dominating factor for solar installations is mounting and wiring, not the panels themselves.
While I agree with your sentiment the problem is that solar panels in populated urban areas that are perpetually blanketed by geoengeering spraying practices are not going to be nearly as efficient as ones in dedicated remote areas not being sprayed.
Ship water and coal, and return with mixed hydrocarbons, then distribute them all over the world. You thermalize (rather than electrolyze) the water to get hydrogen, then react it with the carbon from the coal.
Build a large pipeline to the nearest port to transport the material rather than trucking it.
The leftover oxygen can be sold, or more likely just released.
Since hydrogen releases much more energy (per atom) than carbon when burned, and since since hydrogen outnumbers the carbon in the final product, this will greatly reduce CO2 emissions, even though it's not completely zero.
Capturing heat from the sun is much easier and cheaper than electricity.
The sahara could be a source of endless solar energy. But for the obvious political and technical considerations Europe probably first should look into installing large solar plants in Spain, Italy and Greece. Not only would it support the economies of those countries, but it would be very easy to connect those solar farms to the European grid. Also it would give a nice daytime distribution of the power as Spain and Greece are at the western and eastern borders of the European Union.
A distributed system of solar arrays intelligently placed on top of every building in the world, back-feeding into the grid or powering on-site batteries (Tesla Powerwall, etc.).
Or massive array in one geographical region susceptible to natural disasters, politics, or terrorism.
You can't use a distributed system for, say, Aluminum smelting, which requires tons of electric power.
If the idea suggested in the article is implemented, the Sahara could be turned into a "powerhouse" and an invaluable economic resource to the rest of the world. Integration of this system into the global economy would entail tremendous changes to both the world's interest and understanding of Northern Africa.
Solar panels on the sort of scale being discussed here would, once you consider the logistics of maintenance, basically be a small (or large) town that also has a huge number of solar panels.
Running a company town devoted to solar panel maintenance in the middle of the Sshara wouldn't be impossible, but it's a lot harder than just plunking down a one-time infrastructure investment.
>> "I think the only reason to pursue [solar panels in the Sahara] would be if it were a stopgap measure in which the long-term goal would be to reduce consumption of energy and to change our lifestyles to be more sustainable, so that subsequent generations don't have to deal with as many problems as we're going to leave them."
I hear this logic a lot and disagree. Finding more sensible and environmental ways to produce electricity needs to be the goal because we cannot be more sustainable. Mankind thrives on energy. I think the past 263 years (since Franklin's kite experiment) have shown us electricity is a way of progressing. We need power to run things. Where that power comes from is the difficult part. Unless another form of energy is found that can be used to work everyday devices from phones, to computers, to lights, not sure how we get away from electricity and only continuing to increase its consumption.
As for paneling the desert - The massive solar arrays in the Mojave desert outside of Vegas show that the sun can be used effectively, but the cost to produce the materials and impact on desert flora/fauna that go into the arrays are just as bad for the environment. The material cost alone in terms of environmental impact make it a laughable endeavor in terms of "environmental" concern.
I don't like her analogy in which she compares solar panels to smokestacks. As she points out, smokestacks were not a complete solution to air pollution because they merely moved the problem somewhere else. Solar panels are in no way comparable in that respect. The analogy only works if you consider energy production to be itself a problem.
Yeah, people always seem to forget that most deserts have life. Then there's the clans of nomads that live in the Sahara. The need for, at least initially, military protection and patrols. Someone has to keep the power lines/pipes from being destroyed. And, of course, the countries surrounding the area aren't the most stable either.
The systems needed to control the automated surveillance drones coordinating the security teams would be interesting though.
A green energy solution would be nice but I have a hard time seeing covering Sahara in solar panels being it. To many variables, to big a project. Besides everybody want local solutions for national security reasons anyways.
>> "I think the past 263 years (since Franklin's kite experiment) have shown us electricity is a way of progressing
It would be more fair to give this honor to Faraday since he invented the electrical motor and other uses for electricity while Franklin proved lightning is electricity and invented the lightning rod. Having your house not burn down is beneficial to progress, in that you can spend less time building houses, but doesn't really fuel progress in itself.
I've always felt that Franklin steals the thunder by having a better, more dramatic story - the kite and all that. A genius in his own right though.
When there's enough money to be made in it, private industry will just make it happen. We're not quite there yet, but it seems likely to happen as prices for solar keep falling. Politics don't have to enter into it, but government involvement has the potential to speed up the process.
(2) Split H2O into O2 and H2 and
use the H2 for fuel.
(3) Convert water and coal
to gasoline.
(4) Desalinate and/or purify water and use
the water for humans food and drink, bathing,
washing, swimming, lawns, greenhouse agriculture,
or just to make the desert bloom?
(5) Heat salt to store the energy, and
then run water through tubes in the
hot salt to generate high pressure
steam to drive steam turbines
and, then, electric generators
and, then, transmit the power
across the Mediterranean to Europe
and sell it?
Uses (1)-(4) have the advantages
that get just to use the power
while the sun is shining and
don't have to store the power
for nighttime use or
transmit the electric power long
distances. Would have
to transmit the hydrogen or
gasoline for those options.
In the words of the skeptical
mayor's wife in the movie
The Music Man, "I'm reticent.
Yes, I'm reticent."
Why? The idea is not nearly new.
So,
I do have to suspect that a good
engineering-economic analysis
would show that we would need
progress in:
(1) Keeping desert sand off the
solar panels.
(2) In case want to use the
electric energy to make
hydrocarbons, a good
source of coal
near the desert.
(3) Energy storage.
(4) Superconductivity for the
transmission lines across the
Mediterranean.
Might be able to pay for it if
the world can agree on some
huge carbon taxes.
Nukes might be be cheaper.
Might keep in mind that the spot,
wholesale cost of electric
power in the US has been
under $0.01 per KWH and the
full cost, say, ballpark $0.06.
So, the cost to a consumer of
10, 12, 22 or so cents per KWH
is mostly for distribution,
not generation. But
the panels in the desert
handle only the
generation part,
do nothing for the
short distance distribution
costs where the consumers
are and make the long distance
distribution, e.g., across the
Mediterranean, more expensive.
Also on the money side, might
want to keep in mind that
the major oil sources in the
Mideast pump oil for
less than $1 per barrel.
That price is tough to
compete with.
Right, might be shipping the
power to France which is
doing quite well with nukes.
Then once carbon taxes
start to take hold,
people might watch
and discover the evidence that
CO2, methane, etc. from human
activities has nothing at all
to do with the climate or
temperature of earth
and, instead, changes in those
two are driven by
changes in the activity
level of the sun,
the sun spots,
the solar wind,
the blocking of
cosmic rays hitting
the atmosphere,
the rate of formation
of water droplets,
the rate of H2O cloud
formation, and, thus,
the cooling effect of
clouds.
Then people will object
to carbon taxes.
Net, it appears that
while the Watts of
solar energy per
1000 square miles of
desert are astoundingly high,
for
what people in the population centers want
in electric power,
motor fuel, clean water,
etc., that desert solar
power is just not very valuable.
The Media always seem to frame questions like this wrong. The question to ask is, "Why shouldn't we solar panel the Sahara Desert?" And once that question is answered we get started.
[+] [-] notatoad|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mabbo|10 years ago|reply
I've lived in many places (Seattle, Edinburgh) where a solar panel is only useful about 25% of the year due to clouds, or the simple fact of being so far north. We don't all live in Southern California.
The Sahara presents an environment with lots of sunlight, little clouds, and nothing else being developed there. And it doesn't need to be solar panels- solar farms based on collectors reflecting to a central tower are what is being cited in the article. We can't do that in most developed areas, because it takes up a lot of space- deserts are mostly empty, perfect for that.
In short, it would make far more economic sense to build solar panels in the Sahara and lose 50% of the power to transmission loss piping it all to Scotland than it ever would to put the same solar infrastructure into Edinburgh (or many other cities in the world).
[+] [-] _ph_|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baddox|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sitkack|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rocky1138|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AC__|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|10 years ago|reply
But don't make electricity, make hydrocarbons using the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces...
Ship water and coal, and return with mixed hydrocarbons, then distribute them all over the world. You thermalize (rather than electrolyze) the water to get hydrogen, then react it with the carbon from the coal.
Build a large pipeline to the nearest port to transport the material rather than trucking it.
The leftover oxygen can be sold, or more likely just released.
Since hydrogen releases much more energy (per atom) than carbon when burned, and since since hydrogen outnumbers the carbon in the final product, this will greatly reduce CO2 emissions, even though it's not completely zero.
Capturing heat from the sun is much easier and cheaper than electricity.
[+] [-] murbard2|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kilroy123|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maaku|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _ph_|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] charlesdenault|10 years ago|reply
Or massive array in one geographical region susceptible to natural disasters, politics, or terrorism.
I'll take the distributed system.
[+] [-] pm90|10 years ago|reply
You can't use a distributed system for, say, Aluminum smelting, which requires tons of electric power.
If the idea suggested in the article is implemented, the Sahara could be turned into a "powerhouse" and an invaluable economic resource to the rest of the world. Integration of this system into the global economy would entail tremendous changes to both the world's interest and understanding of Northern Africa.
[+] [-] zyxley|10 years ago|reply
Running a company town devoted to solar panel maintenance in the middle of the Sshara wouldn't be impossible, but it's a lot harder than just plunking down a one-time infrastructure investment.
[+] [-] collyw|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lvspiff|10 years ago|reply
I hear this logic a lot and disagree. Finding more sensible and environmental ways to produce electricity needs to be the goal because we cannot be more sustainable. Mankind thrives on energy. I think the past 263 years (since Franklin's kite experiment) have shown us electricity is a way of progressing. We need power to run things. Where that power comes from is the difficult part. Unless another form of energy is found that can be used to work everyday devices from phones, to computers, to lights, not sure how we get away from electricity and only continuing to increase its consumption.
As for paneling the desert - The massive solar arrays in the Mojave desert outside of Vegas show that the sun can be used effectively, but the cost to produce the materials and impact on desert flora/fauna that go into the arrays are just as bad for the environment. The material cost alone in terms of environmental impact make it a laughable endeavor in terms of "environmental" concern.
[+] [-] bendykstra|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WhoBeI|10 years ago|reply
The systems needed to control the automated surveillance drones coordinating the security teams would be interesting though.
A green energy solution would be nice but I have a hard time seeing covering Sahara in solar panels being it. To many variables, to big a project. Besides everybody want local solutions for national security reasons anyways.
>> "I think the past 263 years (since Franklin's kite experiment) have shown us electricity is a way of progressing
It would be more fair to give this honor to Faraday since he invented the electrical motor and other uses for electricity while Franklin proved lightning is electricity and invented the lightning rod. Having your house not burn down is beneficial to progress, in that you can spend less time building houses, but doesn't really fuel progress in itself.
I've always felt that Franklin steals the thunder by having a better, more dramatic story - the kite and all that. A genius in his own right though.
[+] [-] abalone|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jws|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anindyabd|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eloff|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] graycat|10 years ago|reply
(1) Smelt iron or aluminum?
(2) Split H2O into O2 and H2 and use the H2 for fuel.
(3) Convert water and coal to gasoline.
(4) Desalinate and/or purify water and use the water for humans food and drink, bathing, washing, swimming, lawns, greenhouse agriculture, or just to make the desert bloom?
(5) Heat salt to store the energy, and then run water through tubes in the hot salt to generate high pressure steam to drive steam turbines and, then, electric generators and, then, transmit the power across the Mediterranean to Europe and sell it?
Uses (1)-(4) have the advantages that get just to use the power while the sun is shining and don't have to store the power for nighttime use or transmit the electric power long distances. Would have to transmit the hydrogen or gasoline for those options.
In the words of the skeptical mayor's wife in the movie The Music Man, "I'm reticent. Yes, I'm reticent."
Why? The idea is not nearly new. So, I do have to suspect that a good engineering-economic analysis would show that we would need progress in:
(1) Keeping desert sand off the solar panels.
(2) In case want to use the electric energy to make hydrocarbons, a good source of coal near the desert.
(3) Energy storage.
(4) Superconductivity for the transmission lines across the Mediterranean.
Might be able to pay for it if the world can agree on some huge carbon taxes.
Nukes might be be cheaper.
Might keep in mind that the spot, wholesale cost of electric power in the US has been under $0.01 per KWH and the full cost, say, ballpark $0.06. So, the cost to a consumer of 10, 12, 22 or so cents per KWH is mostly for distribution, not generation. But the panels in the desert handle only the generation part, do nothing for the short distance distribution costs where the consumers are and make the long distance distribution, e.g., across the Mediterranean, more expensive.
Also on the money side, might want to keep in mind that the major oil sources in the Mideast pump oil for less than $1 per barrel. That price is tough to compete with.
Right, might be shipping the power to France which is doing quite well with nukes.
Then once carbon taxes start to take hold, people might watch
'The Great Global Warming Swindle'
at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
and discover the evidence that CO2, methane, etc. from human activities has nothing at all to do with the climate or temperature of earth and, instead, changes in those two are driven by changes in the activity level of the sun, the sun spots, the solar wind, the blocking of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere, the rate of formation of water droplets, the rate of H2O cloud formation, and, thus, the cooling effect of clouds.
Then people will object to carbon taxes.
Net, it appears that while the Watts of solar energy per 1000 square miles of desert are astoundingly high, for what people in the population centers want in electric power, motor fuel, clean water, etc., that desert solar power is just not very valuable.
[+] [-] stevefeinstein|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iSnow|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zobzu|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marshray|10 years ago|reply