- Blake Ekelund
- Excelsior, MN
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Sahara desert as a solar farm.
Instead of looking at the Sahara desert as a vast unusable wasteland, look at it as good as gold!
Think... If 0.3% of this desert were covered in solar panels, we would have enough energy to power Europe!
Now take that scale to 1%. We could power the U.S and Europe without the use of Nuclear, Coal, and other non renewable "harmful" substances.
Topics:
desert enviroment future innovation life technology
Mats Kaarbö 10+
A MIT report shows that we have 4000 years of untapped clean and renewable geothermal energy that can easily meet the energy needs of tomorrow. http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf
Tyler Leonard
Steve C
No, the world doesn't need nuclear energy, or the digging-up, transporting, preparing, & eventual burial or escape of those fuels.
Anywho, what about transmission of energy in a laser-carrying tube; as we do with water & oil?
Allan Macdougall 30+
http://www.torresolenergy.com/TORRESOL/gemasolar-plant/en
Energy storage duration via pressurized steam is approx one hour, but an energy storage medium such as molten salt would improve this substantially, allowing energy release in darkness.
Because of energy losses, such Solar plants would be best suited at or near point of use. So the remoteness of the Sahara would render the technology inefficient.
What might be more beneficial would be to use desert-generated solar power for desalinating large amounts of seawater for new crops, livestock and human consumption. As farms develop, so too will human settlement - thus bringing point of use to the point of generation, intead of trying to transport the energy over thousands of miles.
Erik Bowman, M.Ed.
Roy Bourque 20+
Solar panels are not cheap. My brother works for a company that produces melting furnaces that create pure silicon ingots used in solar panel manufacturing. He has noted several problems; it takes about a week to produce an ingot. It isn't the melting that is an issue, it is the cooling process. Ingots must cool slowly so that they don't create internal stress cracks that would render them useless. Second, there is the cutting. Pure silicon is about as hard as granite. Third, there is the brittleness. Pure silicon wafers are extremely brittle. Until these problems can be dealt with, the cost isn't going to change much.
As far as a power generation plant goes, they all need a cooling source. That is why they are all built near water sources. A heat engine needs a heat sink for condensing in order to work.
The work environment is also an issue; 130 degree heat in the daytime is a hard environment to work in. The labor contracts and the turnover in workforce are all going to have to be dealt with along with the engineering difficulties of working in a hostile environment. Eventually we may find the answers that make it possible.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Lejan . 30+
31% coal-fired power plants (world average)
33% nuclear power plant (world average)
In this case, lower efficiency is just a matter of additional space, which, in desert regions, does no seem a major problem to me...
Casey Christofaris 10+
Lejan . 30+
Considering a 'waste of resources' in this comparison does not hold up, as the given energy production is a waste of resources already.
Silicon is no scarce resource on this planet and it would not be effected using some of it to get our energy renewable and finally green.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Lejan . 30+
Just as a simple fact: Our whole world food supply is based on fossile fuel, beginning at seeding, fertilization, harvesting, transportation, storage, cooling and preparation. And even the fertilizer itself is based on fossile fuel, exclusively in large scale production.
Just to transform this system within a timeframe of 75 years - and personally I don't think we have that much time (oil) left - we need to start NOW, to hopefully get it done just in time, not even counting the rise in worlds population today and in the near future.
Honestly I do not see any trajectory but lip-service anywere!
Why? Well, that is easy, because there is no quick profit to gain here, no boost in shareholder value and no short turn return in investment for the given system!
Nuclear and coal-fired power plants are no alternative, so what is substantially there, in the scale of change we need, for its replacement? I don't see a single approach, nowhere, serious and powerful enough to really make this change happen.
There is no need for the ending of the mayan calendar nor an apocalyptic world-end scenario of a religion to start, better keep blowing the whistle...
Guillaume Leclerc
I think we should realize that alternative sources are not an alternative anymore. If we hope to ever grow as a species, we need to invest in Solar, Wind and Hydro energy. (Some forms of hydroelectricity requires flooding large ecosystem and may be harmful to the local environment, but it's still has the best ratio for production/pollution, to my knowledge.)
I hope someone will look at the Sahara as an energy sources, I really do. There's a lot of potential for "solar scientist" (I don't know if that's how they call themselves, but it does sound cool, so I'm guessing they don't mind) Maybe an internationally funded research team could be implanted there, with the objective of perfecting and optimizing solar energy with every technology available on the planet.
Now, I'm not sure about the feasibility of covering 1% of the Sahara RIGHT NOW. Solar energy is just beginning, I think before wasting valuable materials on low quality solar panels, we should really focus on optimizing them... thus the research facility.
Am I the only one thinking someone from some space program should already be there with solar panels, testing some stuff for future missions or something?
By the way, I greatly salute the question and it's author. This world really needs new ideas, and harvesting the sun from the Sahara is a good one I think. I believe the technology that is currently killing our home is going to be it's savior... if we can just change gear and get to work.
Casey Christofaris 10+
however you are right but oil will be used and produced for quite some time in the future
Lejan . 30+
Statistically you (USA) consume twice as much energy per year than I do (Europe) and both of us consume way to much as it was good for our planet.
As I lived in the US for a while I didn't experienced any change in living standard, so the difference in consumption must be caused somewhere else.
In my view, one cause is hidden within the suburbanisation in the US. You have a lot of land and you used it. Resulting - in terms of energy efficiency - in a wide spread distribution of homes and the need to use a car to go (drive) 'shopping'.
I used to live in Newark, Delaware, nothing more than a large University campus surrounded and interwoven by a small town, happen to carry that name. But even though it was small for US standard, before I had my own car, it was very difficult to me to get my shopping done. Little to no sidewalks along the streets, a view small grocery stores downtown, yet the supermarket way off the town center and almost only accessible by car.
Changing those structures towards a more compact and 'walkable' infrastructure will become mandatory in the near future unless we find a source of renewable energy for our transportation. So far, again, even there is nothing in sight for a complete substitution, and a view Teslar's won't have any impact on that change to come...
Oil will be used for quite some time in the future, but because of the increase in price - and this is the law of the market, no doomsday fantasy - less and less people will be able to afford it. And this will happen to our food too! At first it may doesn't even bother anyone if fancy fruits from oversees get more expensive one day, and turn even luxury some days later, but bread, potatoes and before all meat will follow, and at this point change may be to late ..
Lejan . 30+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3sxMByA1R0&feature=related
Casey Christofaris 10+
Jose V Balaguer
Joshua Quinn
Roy Bourque 20+
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
Casey Christofaris 10+
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
Kyle H
walter crockett
cst commonsense
1) Lots of solar power 'locally'
2) Geothermal where possible (now many parts of the world using new deep drilling techniques)
3) Nuclear (Thorium powered) in places where solar and geothermal can't be done effectively
4) As a stop gap use gas powered stations (phased out say 30 years)
5) Excess energy means cheaper (clean) transport for distribution
6) We can expect automation to provide much more cost effective re-building of installations in say 50 years time
7) CLEAN SUSTAINABLE future energy - forever!
Ensure that the world builds more facilities than we need (perhaps led by some body like the United Nations coupled to the World Bank?) - the excess is turned into hydrogen (or derivatives such as ammonia) which can easily be used for transport (cars, lorries, ships). Institute a world energy policy that provides for all countries as to their needs at know/fixed cost so everyone can plan ahead on transport policies etc., (as we would have excess this shouldn't be impossible). The total energy costs would (after spending many trillions $ in development and installations) come down to the point where everyone can do much more in all parts of the world sustainably.
So while we have many people sitting on their bums in many parts of the world not being productive - why don't we put them to work investing in the LONG TERM? Of course this means overturning economic, political, cultural barriers - so instead of doing that, we shall probably spend about 10 times more Trillions $ (over the next say 50 years) in wars, terrorism prevention, bailing out all sort of countries and societies from meltdown, or indeed disappearing down the pan. That's the choice folks.
See Energy & Transport:
http://www.commonsensethinking.co.uk/energy.html
j
peter lindsay 30+
Kyle H
Frans Kellner 100+
Mirrors that reflect sunlight to heat oil, up to 400 degrees Celsius what is used again to generate power with steam. In Marocco it is operational as a try out and produces enough for half a million houses.
http://www.desertec.org/?gclid=CIX52LG0mrMCFanItAodzG0A9Q
peter lindsay 30+
Frans Kellner 100+
You can see it on the link on ARTE TV I've put here somewhere.
walter crockett
Krisztián Pintér 200+
walter crockett
Krisztián Pintér 200+
edward long 100+
BTW, what about distribution of Saharan electricity to population centers? Maybe we could use all the subsidized Chevy Volts to pull trailer loads of fully-charged storage capacitors across the trans-Atlantic bridge? Sorry for the levity. Frustration did it.
Edwin Nazarian 10+
This is great Idea!
Europeans have all the rights to use African natural resources. because they haven't had enough since Industrial Revolution.
Here is an IDEA for you
STOP buying and filling your homes with High Tech gadgets so you won't need more electricity!
TEXAS is large enough to provide Solar energy to US and Canada, what's wrong with using that part of land?
peter lindsay 30+
John Smith 30+
Here is an IDEA for you
STOP buying and filling your homes with High Tech gadgets so you won't need more electricity!
TEXAS is large enough to provide Solar energy to US and Canada, what's wrong with using that part of land?"
There might be problems getting the energy from Texas to Europe, wouldn't you think? The Sahara can accomodate much more solar power than the Arabs could ever use, meanwhile they lack fertile farmland which Europe has plenty of, hmmm, I wonder if somewhere there's a fair solution to be found there...
peter lindsay 30+
John Smith 30+
It's also possible to have a "pass-it-forward" scheme where Spain generates energy for Portugal and France and Spain gets energy from Algeria, with the Spanish paying the Algerians and the Portugese and French paying the Spanish.
Additionaly there are options for wireless transmission or using hydrogen as an energy carrier.
Edwin Nazarian 10+
the way the Europeans found to bring Latin American gold, they also can find a way to bring each piece of Sahara's sand (one by one). and as long as it is profitable they also can make the Africans count the sand pieces for them.
Edwin Nazarian 10+
I didn't ask to use Texas's land to produce energy for Europe. (where have you read that I asked such a thing?) All I have said (and I will keep saying) is this: STAY OUT OF AFRICA, it is not European land. and it DOES NOT belong to Europeans.
How comes that Europeans need more energy than Arabs? How comes that Europeans can go and build Solar Energy Parks on someone else land and use it for themselves? Who gave them that right?
If we think we have the right to do so, what stops us from doing that for African people?
WHY NOT for Africans? Instead of pumping the energy to North, why not to South?
(oh, maybe in Mali, Niger, Senegal, Chad, Sierra Leone etc people will have energy (can watch TV, use internet, build schools) and will become smarter. Oh no, that is not what we want, isn't that true? we want it for us.)
European Greed is legal, isn't it? We are known (with all right) being Masters at someone else's house.
John Smith 30+
I know, however you did rant about Europe and then suddenly switched to Texas, I joked about that because it seems you like to rant without coming up with alternatives.
"STAY OUT OF AFRICA, it is not European land. and it DOES NOT belong to Europeans."
Who said that? Why do you assume Europe won't pay Africa for the energy? Did you forget the fact that the Arabs get paid fortunes for oil by Europe? It strikes me as very odd that you did not understand I was hinting at Europe exporting food (and other goods whose manufacturing process requires lots of water) to the Sahran countries in exchanging for importing energy from those countries, this in addition to Europe paying for the construction of the solar parks and the surrounding infrastructure.
"How comes that Europeans need more energy than Arabs?"
Because the population of Europe is greater than that of the Saharan countries.
"Instead of pumping the energy to North, why not to South?"
Why "instead of", why not both? Did you not read the sentence that said Europe needs only 0.3% of the surface area? There would be plenty of room left for energy generation for the sub-Saharan countries, but they will have to pay for that themselves just as Europe would.
Edwin Nazarian 10+
:-) Where are you from, sir?
How much did Europe pay for African gold, diamond and for the blood they shed for gold and diamond?
We brought / bring uncountable amount of wealth from Africa and when we give them some pennies we shout as hard as we can.
Please, don't make me laugh.
Thank you
peter lindsay 30+
Joshua Quinn
Frans Kellner 100+
http://www.arte.tv/de/acc/244,em=045194-000.html
Tuesday, Novembre 11 at H 10:35.
MET
Direct online: http://www.tv-replay.fr/redirection/23-10-12/l-energie-du-sahara-arte-10423929.html
Cody Autrey
Frans Kellner 100+
One concern though how can you implement them in a region which isn't stable, where you can't make long term deals.
We first need peace.
gale kooser 20+
Heat & sand, blowing off west coast of Africa, cause massive depression areas that can & do develop into hurricanes that cause $ in damage to anyone in their path. Many hard core studies would have to be made on this issue alone.
Like they say: When ya mess with Mother Nature, she'll up & grab your butt in the end.
Gail . 50+
Frans Kellner 100+
Gail . 50+
John Smith 30+
In any case there's plenty of room in Spain for solar power as well, maybe we should start there.
Joshua Quinn
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Frans Kellner 100+
Here an example that's already used in Italy.
http://www.mcphy.com/en/markets/hydrogen-energy/
John Smith 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
wikipedia tells you: "The AC-to-AC efficiency of hydrogen storage has been shown to be in order of 40%, rendering hydrogen storage unsuitable for anything but special (mobile) applications."
and this 40% does not contain shipping.
Anil Rajvanshi
Cheers.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
elizabeth muncey 10+
elizabeth muncey 10+