backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 181 comment(s) - last by ceefka.. on Aug 18 at 9:34 AM


Spain, which holds the solar plant shown here, is leading the EU's solar efforts. However its contributions could be a drop in the bucket compared to plans to get solar energy from the Saharan desert wasteland, where solar panels produce nearly 3 times as much power. Algeria and other Saharan nations plan to join with Europe in these efforts.  (Source: AP)
The largest fully industrialized populus in the world could be entirely powered by a small fraction of solar desert energy, according to new plan

The U.S. has some big plans for solar, both with building new power plants and through businesses and consumers adding solar panels to rooftops and unused land.  However, no U.S. solar effort thus far compares to the ambitious plan that European Union (EU) officials are considering.

At a Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona, an EU science and policy hotbed Arnulf Jaeger-Waldau of the European commission's Institute for Energy unveiled a visionary plan, which he says could satisfy all of the EU's energy demands in coming years. 

Mr. Jaeger-Waldau proposed blanketing the Sahara Desert, an expanding uninhabited swath of wasteland, with solar panels.  He says that if just 0.3% of the intense solar energy falling on the Sahara was captured, it could power all of Europe.  Such a feat would require a solar platform far beyond current installations, approximately the size of Wales.  Still, when viewed against the backdrop of the vast, mostly uninhabited Sahara the large chunk of land looks no bigger than a postage stamp.

A broad variety of solar technologies were discussed as possibilities for the deployment.  They included parabolic dish collectors, a growing solar field, which focuses light via mirrors on water, boiling it.  Also discussed were the more traditional silicon based solar power plants consisting of arrays of photo-voltaic panels.

The researchers are also considering the construction of a supergrid of very high-power DC lines.  These lines would connect the Sahara solar infrastructure, wind power from the UK and Denmark, nuclear power plants across Europe, and excess geothermal energy from Iceland.  The grid would use its multiple varied sources to balance loads.  As DC lines lose far less power, the plan promises to be economical where AC lines (currently used in almost all power grids) would not be.

The plans have support from French President Nicholas Sarkozy and British PM Gordon Brown. 

Scientists are particularly excited about getting energy from the Sahara, as the panels are expected to generate nearly three times as much energy as those in Europe thanks to the intense, more direct sunlight.  Mr. Jaeger-Waldau and proponents of the plan admit it will take a great deal of work.  

Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, and other Mediterranean nations currently are poorly interconnected in power grids.  While a power cable does exist between Morocco and Spain it is insufficient for the intense amount of power proposed, and would need to be expanded or replaced. The fully implemented DC-ready grid is projected to cost around $70B USD.  Ultimately the project would require an immense amount of construction, but this could have economic benefits for Europe, creating new jobs.

The plan follows current trends, though.  Algeria, which is located in Northern Africa and contains part of the Sahara, is already planning to export 6 GW of power to Europe by 2020.  To reach the final goal of complete power independence, scientists and politicians are proposing a more modest stepping stone goal.  They want by 2050 100 GW worth of power to be generated from solar projects in the Sahara.  The project would cost a lofty €450bn (approximately $700B USD), but would be staggered over many years and would yield power capacity equivalent to all electrical power currently generated in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jaeger-Waldau believes that the larger solar farms will bring down costs for consumers.  He states, "The biggest PV system at the moment is installed in Leipzig and the price of the installation is €3.25 per watt.  If we could realize that in the Mediterranean, for example in southern Italy, this would correspond to electricity prices in the range of 15 cents per kWh, something below what the average consumer is paying."

The new plan comes from the commission's joint research centre (JRC), which is planning the EU's energy future.  Giovanni de Santi, director of the JRC, also speaking in Barcelona, stated of the new plan, "It recognises something extraordinary - if we don't put together resources and findings across Europe and we let go the several sectors of energy, we will never reach these targets."

The JRC plans on building infrastructure in a broad array of alternative energy classes, among them  fuel cells and hydrogen, clean coal, second generation biofuels, nuclear fusion, wind, nuclear fission and smart grids.  The JRC is tasked with accomplishing the EU's energy plan -- to cut the EU's energy consumption by 20 percent and to have 20 percent of the remaining consumption provided by alternative energy by 2020.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No thanks
By martinrichards23 on 7/24/2008 11:51:37 AM , Rating: 4
I'd rather rely on nuclear for a few decades. By then technology will hopefully mean a project like this is actually realistically possible.

In the mean time it just looks like a fantasy.

p.s. Please don't put the solar panels in the Middle East, I'd rather pay more and have them somewhere else.




RE: No thanks
By AnnihilatorX on 7/24/2008 11:57:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
p.s. Please don't put the solar panels in the Middle East, I'd rather pay more and have them somewhere else.


Last time I checked Sahara is in Africa


RE: No thanks
By martinrichards23 on 7/24/2008 12:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I meant because previous talk was of this sort of this in the Middle East.


RE: No thanks
By theapparition on 7/24/2008 12:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. Africa. An area that's only slightly more stable than the Middle East.

As we've seen in the US, energy dependence is a hot topic, and it's clear that energy is vital to our national security, both militarily and economically. (Same for the EU or most other industrialized nations for that matter.)

The absolutely last thing I'm going to do is put my entire country's future energy supply in the hands of a foreign nation.

What happens one day when there is a dispute (or political change) that stops the flow of energy. Lights out for the EU. Don't say that can't happen. Already happened in Venezuela.

Dumb is a pure understatement for this project.


RE: No thanks
By rivercat on 7/24/2008 1:01:04 PM , Rating: 1
It doesn't really matter for the EU. In another 20 years (or less), they'll all be Muslim countries.


RE: No thanks
By Eri Hyva on 7/24/2008 1:25:43 PM , Rating: 1
?

What has religion to do with this?
How would that change our energy needs here in Europe if we all convert to Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Judaism or let's say Rastafari or Hare Krishna.

(BTW: Here we can believe whatever we choose, seems to be a little bit different there in spite of the constitution)


RE: No thanks
By Jim28 on 7/24/2008 11:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
That is quite dumb.

If the countries are converted to ISLAM, then you won't have stife with your buddies in North Africa would you? Of course being Europeans, you guys can generate strife with anyone.


RE: No thanks
By Spuke on 7/25/2008 1:57:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If the countries are converted to ISLAM, then you won't have stife with your buddies in North Africa would you?
I guess the differences between the Shiite's and Sunni's that result in continuous, violent conflict over the past few thousand years aren't considered strife.


RE: No thanks
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 3:34:55 PM , Rating: 1
Not near as much as Islam versus anything else.


RE: No thanks
By boogle on 7/27/2008 8:55:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course being Europeans, you guys can generate strife with anyone.


Heh, because European countries have been invading multiple countries recently. Oh wait...


RE: No thanks
By masher2 (blog) on 7/27/2008 8:30:18 PM , Rating: 3
> "Heh, because European countries have been invading multiple countries recently. Oh wait... "

You mean, besides the massive genocide and conflicts in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Serbia, and Croatia, Albania's invasion of Macedonia, Russia's continuing occupation of Chechnya and Moldava, France's attacks on Cote d'Ivoire in 2004, and France's support of the 2008 invasion of Comoros? That's all in the past 10-15 years. If one goes back 40 or 50 years, the list gets wholly outrageous.


RE: No thanks
By thezorry on 8/8/2008 1:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
lol

It's so funny to receive humanitary lessons from the only people who used a nuclear device to exterminate civilians. ;)

Hope someday everyone pays for their acts, not depending who they are. We didn't have time to make Truman pay but Karadzic is paying now, and I hope Bush pays soon. No one american/asian/european should be free after been responsible of what they've done.

Peace


RE: No thanks
By Mr Alpha on 7/24/2008 1:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, by the time EU gets this thing built, northern Africa will be part of EU.


RE: No thanks
By Yawgm0th on 7/24/2008 1:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yep. Africa. An area that's only slightly more stable than the Middle East.

Africa is more stable than the Middle East? By what metric of stability did you come to this determination? It's problematic to compare a geopolitical region with a continent, especially one in which it partially resides. Even doing so I can't see how one could possibly come to the conclusion that the Middle East is less stable than Africa.

quote:
The absolutely last thing I'm going to do is put my entire country's future energy supply in the hands of a foreign nation.

Most countries do this to some extent already. Certainly, much of the world (including most of Europe and North America) relies on energy (namely oil) from some of these allegedly unstable Middle Eastern countries.

Admittedly, few nations rely entirely on energy sources provided by or located in another nation, but I wasn't under the impression that that is the plan proposed here. Putting solar power in the Sahara would only be one of many power sources used by Europe. They're certainly not going to close down nuclear, hydroelectric, or geothermal plants because of this. If anything, I'm thinking that this is more about switching to a clean energy source, given the general feelings of most Europeans on the subject.

This plan is only far-fetched due to its likely prohibitive cost and low returns, and even those I'm not so sure about.


RE: No thanks
By theapparition on 7/24/2008 8:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Africa is more stable than the Middle East?

I said slightly :)

I know exactly what your trying to get at, but facts remain that many of the Sahara nations are only partially tolerant of "western" ideals. A simple polical/religious shift would be disasterous.

quote:
Most countries do this to some extent already. Certainly, much of the world (including most of Europe and North America) relies on energy (namely oil) from some of these allegedly unstable Middle Eastern countries.

Once again.....I said FUTURE energy supply.
Oil is one thing. Tomorrow, we could completely stop the importation of all oil from the middle east. There are other sources for oil. Instead, let's pump 70+Billion into infrastructure plus the cost of the solar station itself, that could become completely worthless as the polical winds change.
If you don't see the difference, your truely lost.


RE: No thanks
By Yawgm0th on 7/24/2008 10:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I said slightly :) I know exactly what your trying to get at, but facts remain that many of the Sahara nations are only partially tolerant of "western" ideals. A simple polical/religious shift would be disasterous.


Actually this answers my question exactly as expected. The metric you've used is tolerance towards the west, which is much higher in the Middle East than many realize. Unfortunately this is almost irrelevant when Africa and political stability are the subjects. Many, dare I say most African nations have internal issues or issues with each other to the point that the entire continent is in a near-constant state of war, genocide, civil strife, and regime changes. The Middle East, at least until our invasion of Iraq, was relatively stable. Israel may have a conflict with Hamas, or Hezbollah here and there, but that is only significant because of the religious and political interests of the West. Modern Israel and friends are a drop in the bucket compared to Rwanda, Sudan, etc.

quote:
Once again.....I said FUTURE energy supply. Oil is one thing. Tomorrow, we could completely stop the importation of all oil from the middle east. There are other sources for oil. Instead, let's pump 70+Billion into infrastructure plus the cost of the solar station itself, that could become completely worthless as the polical winds change. If you don't see the difference, your truely lost.
The United States (and its number one oil supplier, Canada) could actually sustain that, albeit at a crippling increase in the cost of oil, but many countries across the Atlantic, namely Europeans, simply could not. The cost of oil would devastate them.

I can see the difference, but when it comes down to it a big solar array in the Sahara is no more politically shaky than oil imports from the Persian Gulf. The European Union could, if push came to shove, militarily secure such an installation for as long as necessary. In the Middle East, a regime change here or sectarian conflict there means most of the world encounters major energy problems that can't be solved by pen or sword. This our future AND present energy.


RE: No thanks
By Aloonatic on 7/24/2008 11:58:44 AM , Rating: 5
Let's compromise, maybe the WU could build a load of nuclear power stations in the middle of the desert?

As someone pointed out, how are they going to stop these solar panels from being sand blasted to nothingness, or completely buried under the rapidly shifting sands of the desert?

Still, at least these things are being looked into, but I'm not sure that I will be happy to be relying on these power sources alone, but I guess it wont be like that during my life time.

[joking]

This project is going to rely on Intel and Microsoft behaving rather badly for a long time in order to fund it.

[/joking]


environment
By tastyratz on 7/24/2008 11:53:25 AM , Rating: 3
While this does appear to be an excellent idea and a great utilization of otherwise wasted landspace There are a few issues.
1. The ground is not very stable because of the ever changing dunes - how do they plan on supporting the foundation of which to build on a short and long term basis?
2. Sand blowing in the wind would probably be erosive. Mirrors and panels would probably not last very long being sandblasted all day and having a matt finish in the end.

Thats a very harsh environment to be building in, I am curious how they are engineering it.




RE: environment
By SandmanWN on 7/24/2008 12:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
There are a few more issues to consider. One being Algeria has spent most of the 90's in civil war.

What is Europe's relationship with Algeria? And the other nations along the northern Sahara? I'm sure Libya would be receptive right? lol

What will happen when/if that relationship turns bad? Will their relationship with OPEC cause issues?

What sort of protection will be needed so some militant faction doesn't ride into the desert and single handedly cripple the power supply for all of Europe.

The only factor isn't just the weather but an entire continent whose more prominent news real over the past decades has been whens the next military coup or whens the next genocidal maniac going to gain control.


RE: environment
By ksherman on 7/24/2008 12:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo


RE: environment
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 12:26:33 PM , Rating: 5
> " One being Algeria has spent most of the 90's in civil war."

Exactly. Europe's plan for "energy independence" involves outsourcing all its energy production to a region more war-torn and full of dictatorial regimes than the Middle East.

Nice Plan.


RE: environment
By Strunf on 7/24/2008 1:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder where you read "all its energy" when the article clearly speaks of other sources of energy in EU countries...


RE: environment
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 5:17:50 PM , Rating: 3
> "I wonder where you read "all its energy"..."

From the article headline...the part that says "could power the entire EU".

If that isn't a clear implication that solar power is viable as a sole solution, I don't know what is.


RE: environment
By ceefka on 8/18/2008 9:34:14 AM , Rating: 2
That still doesn't meant all power for the EU will come from solar power in the Sahara exclusively.

Since they talk about a "small" percentage of the entire Sahara (by 2050) I can only imagine a lot of diplomatic efforts to "secure" the area. The countries that have the solar plants might benefit from those as well, thereby sharing an interest in keeping them safe and operational.

Let's just start with Tunesia and Morocco. They are friendly countries to the EU. The doubts I have are with Algeria (what is their political status?), future Egypt (Mubarrak has to go some day) and Lybia (what is Khadafi's point of view?).


RE: environment
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 12:17:26 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah irregardless of the actual durability, I was wondering how exactly they plan to keep it the solar panels, mirrors, etc clean. The desert is not a static landscape. It changes daily, even hourly.

A solar farm could potentially be buried in the sand inside of a month.


RE: environment
By 2nd Abnormalized Form on 7/24/2008 1:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
Did a quick search, about 20% to 25% of the Sahara is the big, sandy, dune desert that usually comes to mind - it's not all sand and not sand all the way down. So there are places where building large installations can be done. That still leaves wind and dust issues, though.


RE: environment
By elessar1 on 7/24/2008 2:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
Sahara is not completely cover with sands...there are many "deserts" in the Sahara, some of them are stone plateaus perfect for the construction of solar plants...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

cheers...


Didn't know the Sahara was owned by the EU?
By pauldovi on 7/24/2008 12:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
Is it their playground?




By jbartabas on 7/24/2008 12:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it has been for a while...

Now (part of) Europe tries to build "bilateral" bridges through a Mediterranean union, but there's a load of historical scars. Such a major project could be seen as a way to build these bridges, but I personally think it is a too sensitive matter (energy independence) that will be judged premature by most of the public and politicians.


RE: Didn't know the Sahara was owned by the EU?
By Strunf on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Didn't know the Sahara was owned by the EU?
By Jim28 on 7/24/2008 11:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
Strunf you are quite defensive there aren't you. Must have hit a nerve!

jbart, you are entirely correct, there is no way this project would be polictically acceptable, or sensible in a national security sense even if the EU was counted as one big happy country, even though it definitely is not with all of the deep scars there.


RE: Didn't know the Sahara was owned by the EU?
By Strunf on 7/25/2008 3:33:40 AM , Rating: 2
Defensive? na more like aggressive... I just paid it back with the same coin. If I don't say the obvious who else will ? :D


RE: Didn't know the Sahara was owned by the EU?
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 1:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
Actually you have been dishing it out, not paying anyone back. Looking at this whole thread you have a bone to pick with America, and you coveniently brush under the rug all of Europe's problems, past wars, historical mistrust of one another, and current selfish actions. I think it would be best for you to simply shut up about it, as neither Europe, nor America look very good when you use the same measuring stick on foreign policy. (ie. pot calling the kettle black.)


RE: Didn't know the Sahara was owned by the EU?
By Strunf on 7/25/2008 4:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
A bone to pick with America? no way dude, why the hell should I speak of the EU problems when this article is about solar energy... it's "you" that seem to have a problem with the EU if not how can you explain that in every single article that is related to the EU will inevitably get dozens of comments dissing Europe without a single word about what the article is really about...

Besides give me a break will ya I'm on commenting on enemy territory and loosing points by merely stating the obvious.


By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 5:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think one of you fellow Europeans started this trip!
Eva I belive?
"(But it seems in the US everything is split in half, on/off, either/or, with us/against us. Very much not needed and at the same time totally unrealistic)"

I don't have a problem with the EU at all.
I am not responsible for other people's postings. (Duh.)


By HrilL on 7/24/2008 6:49:43 PM , Rating: 3
Playground? You mean Sand Box?


Well...
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 11:50:14 AM , Rating: 2
Besides the minor inconvenience of getting that power from the middle of a desert to some kind of major urban/industrial centre, how exactly do they plan to reinforce the solar farm to withstand desert conditions? I'm not an engineer by any measure, but such a massive building project in an environment like a desert can't be exactly simple.

And if they're going to build it the size of Wales, they might as well just go ahead and build it far larger.




RE: Well...
By deadrats on 7/24/2008 12:01:19 PM , Rating: 1
i have a better question: instead of this over-the-top proposal (with it's many technical hurdles) why not change the building codes and simply say that all buildings must be built with a combination of solar panels and small wind turbines on their roof's so that they don't rely on any grid to bring them power.

such a change would eliminate the possibility of blackouts, of course it would also eliminate the need from power companies as we know them, which is probably why they won't do it.

still, i have seen private homes built like this and while the initial additional costs to the price of construction is significant, not having any monthly electric or heating bills and not being effected by a brown/black out is pretty nice.


RE: Well...
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 12:14:27 PM , Rating: 3
So what happens on a cloudy, windless day?

This isn't imagination land.


RE: Well...
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 12:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
Let me also add that even private homes with solar power are hooked into the grid. Because of the reason above. Florida gets lots of sun. But there are weeks where there's almost no sun.

And much of Europe is hardly the ideal solar power location.


RE: Well...
By Jedi2155 on 7/27/2008 8:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I think this could work if they just keep the nuke's for backup in case such an emergency does occur. I mean the plants are already built, and if you keep half of them running (or some other ratio), you could balance your sources of clean energy to prevent it from being so dangerous.


Helps Africa, helps Europe
By Lonyo on 7/24/2008 11:53:37 AM , Rating: 3
Reduces emissions in Europe from fossil fuel based plants, while (hopefully) supplying some African nations with a source of income from European nations who buy the power, while not damaging the environment.
This assumes that the construction of large arrays can be done in an environmentally and sustainable manner.

Cost forecasts are a bit silly though. Are they talking 450bn of todays money, 450bn after inflation (looking from now to 2005, that's a lot of inflation), and how much are they accounting for reductions in prices of technology and increases in efficiency?
40 or so years for a project which uses what's currently pretty leading edge technologies means that what we start with now and what we end up with could be very very different things with hugely different costs to any estimates, and makes the hwole thing pretty pointless.




RE: Helps Africa, helps Europe
By ksherman on 7/24/2008 12:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
Kind of like when the US Governement decided to use the precious metal Aluminum for the dome on the congressional building, only a few years later, a major break through in the production of Aluminum meant that dome was nearly worthless. At least compared to how much was paid for it.


RE: Helps Africa, helps Europe
By JustTom on 7/24/2008 1:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
The current, second, dome of the Capitol building is made of cast iron, not aluminum.

The first dome was copper plated wood.


By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 7/24/2008 2:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
i believe he meant the cap on the washington monument


By Mystery Meat on 7/24/2008 1:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
EUreferendum debunks this proposal pretty thoroughly.

...currently, European nations operate 197 nuclear power plant units with a capacity of 170 GW, and that accounts for one fifth of total capacity. By that reckoning, Europe works on about 850 GW, yet this lady is happy to run a story suggesting that the whole of Europe can be satisfied with 100 GW. In fact, by 2050, Europe will probably need in the order of 1000 GW, if not more.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/07/gullible-...




By JustTom on 7/24/2008 1:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
Spot on.

In the next 20 years the estimate is Europe will need 300 GW of new electricity productive capacity (200 GW for replacement of aging plants and 100 GW to meet new demand). This plan, even if it is feasible does nothing more than meet the estimated growth in demand.


By jamdunc on 7/24/2008 1:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
Well sorry to say Mystery Meat but that EU referendum site quoted an article which didn't give the full story and so makes it's own argument defunct.

The article posted above quotes:

quote:
To reach the final goal of complete power independence, scientists and politicians are proposing a more modest stepping stone goal. They want by 2050 100 GW worth of power to be generated from solar projects in the Sahara.


So this 100GW is a modest stepping stone towards that goal. It never suggests that Europe will be satisfied with just 100GW, but that this will be the first step towards the goal of satisfying Europe.

I did also go and read the Daily Telegraph article and found it didn't contain as much info as could be found elsewhere. Do research, you might find that sometimes, people hide the truth to get their point across.


By Spuke on 7/25/2008 2:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do research, you might find that sometimes, people hide the truth to get their point across.
Hear. Hear.


Hmm..
By cokbun on 7/24/2008 1:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
how about a huge solar panel covered baloon or blimp that hovers above the clouds? It's better than putting something like this on a 3rd world country, with civil wars, extreme weather and stuffs

Anybody see the movie ' sahara ' ? ( with penelope cruz ) i saw the same thing already build there ! A spinoff from a movie? Or doest it really exist?




RE: Hmm..
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 2:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
So what happens when someone crashes a small plane into it?


RE: Hmm..
By Hakuryu on 7/24/2008 3:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
Or better yet, have a large satellite that is tethered by a line to the ground. They are already working on a robotic 'climber' that could climb a tether into space, so although this does sound rather clunky and way-out, someone is working on that aspect.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/200...


RE: Hmm..
By danobrega on 7/24/2008 3:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't happen anything because the panels wound already have some meters of sand on top of them.


Libya 'halts Swiss oil shipments'
By kattanna on 7/24/2008 3:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7523537.stm

quote:
Libya's state shipping company says it has halted oil shipments to Switzerland in protest at the brief arrest of leader Muammar Gaddafi's youngest son.


honestly.. and this is the conditions on which EU wishes to further expand their dependence on?




By nOpeMan on 7/24/2008 3:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
Gaddafi is a crazy bastard, like the rest of his family. One of his son's was on holday's, here in switzerland. He was seen beating up one of his "slaves" with a long leatherbelt. We enprisoned him for a few day's and then let him go.

... so much about the oil story. Oh and by the side, switzerland is not in the EU ;).


By nOpeMan on 7/24/2008 3:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
Gaddafi is a crazy bastard, like the rest of his family. One of his son's was on holday's, here in switzerland. He was seen beating up one of his "slaves" with a long leatherbelt. We enprisoned him for a few day's and then let him go.

... so much about the oil story. Oh and by the side, switzerland is not in the EU ;).


Change location
By RabidDog on 7/24/2008 1:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
approximately the size of Wales

Why don't they just build it in Wales. This could solve 2 problems at once!

:)




RE: Change location
By Gastrian on 7/24/2008 6:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
Surely we'd need to have a bit of sun for solar panels to be of use?


double up
By Screwballl on 7/24/2008 2:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
From what I understand, the wind is blowing almost constantly in many areas of the Sahara as well so why not double up the power output in the area and place wind power rotors next to the solar panels. Not like the desert is being used for anything else...




RE: double up
By Dasickninja on 7/25/2008 2:25:31 PM , Rating: 2
You'd have basically the same issues that you'd get with solar, i.e destruction of habitat, and inability to work at capacity when the weather isn't playing ball.


Ocean
By danobrega on 7/24/2008 3:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
Ocean >>>> Desert.




RE: Ocean
By danobrega on 7/24/2008 3:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Terraform the desert into a tropical jungl, and put solar panels floating on the ocean.


Just a thought
By Dasickninja on 7/25/2008 7:44:08 AM , Rating: 2
Will Africa get any of this power if this gets built or is this just another resource that the Europeans will take?




RE: Just a thought
By cornelius785 on 7/25/2008 10:29:29 AM , Rating: 2
That's what I'm thinking. One could argue Europe has exploited Africa (nevermind North America, South America, Australia, East Asia, India, etc.) for whatever they wanted/needed in the past. Seems like they want to get power (not for free) from Africa and money from various companies like Microsoft and Intel.

Looking at southern Europe, it seems like Spain and Portugal (along with other locations within Europe) are pretty sunny. Why not build there? It'll be in a political stable land, probably cheaper, losses from transmission will probably be lower, and so on. I need to look more into this, but who says Africa will say 'Yes'? I sure hope Africa gets a good deal out of it to, like cheap power and lots of money.


Talk about a jump!
By Amiga500 on 7/24/2008 11:58:28 AM , Rating: 2
The plans have support from French PM Nicholas Sarkozy and British PM Gordon Brown. The new plan knocks a hole in one traditional criticism of alternative energy, which states that its variable nature due to factors such as the weather would make it unviable for continuous power output.

1. I don't see anything other than hideous amounts of redundancy in this "plan" solving the variability issue. That specific problem is one of energy storage - there is no solution to it here that I see.

2. The plan also uses nuclear energy... I wonder what that is for?

3. Has there been any projections of the cost per KW/hr? After all, anyone can make a power grid with enough juice to feed the world from solar/wind/wave etc - but doing it at a price economies can afford is the problem




Poor Nicolas :-)
By jbartabas on 7/24/2008 12:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The plans have support from French PM Nicholas Sarkozy


LOL, after all his efforts to become president, Nicolas is now downgraded to PM again :_D You're tough Jason!

Coming back on topic, the concept of having a major portion of European energy being provided through Algeria (or any north African country) will probably raise political obstacles far more important than any technical one.




I have a better idea...
By ThatNewGuy on 7/24/2008 12:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
Tired of prisoners not contributing to society while locked up? Instead of getting an education and playing games, have them generate electricity by having them run on big wheels! They could easily stay in shape and benefit society! Everyone wins!

/sarcasm




The U.S. has Deserts...
By Cheapshot on 7/24/2008 1:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
The abundance of energy the U.S. had in days past is what brought it to power... the E.U. konws this of course, but with constantly increasing demands... and the overall cost of this project... I would think the break even point will come quicker than anticipated.

With an influx of power will come an influx of work and with todays mindset and the need to act quickly before the next guy... I would imagine the power promised is already being bid on behind closed doors... or at least being considered for a multitude of new government and business solutions.

Just a thought.




Duality
By mezman on 7/24/2008 4:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah! Let's paint the floor of the Sahara with solar arrays! There's no way that could have an ecological impact! Not like coal...right?




Good information on this subject
By majBUZZ on 7/24/2008 5:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-...

This seems like a logical approch.




Shortages?
By Gastrian on 7/24/2008 6:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
I thought there was a shortage of the material required for LCD and solar panels ands we'd run out within the decade.




By phxfreddy on 7/24/2008 7:26:00 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with these dilute sources of energy is that with current technology they will probably never be built fast enough to catch up with demand.

Nuclear plants however with lower amounts of material / labor probably would

The environMENTAL crowd just can not be bothered with those confusing number thingys. It makes their dizzy little heads swim. They need easy things like HOPE and CHANGE so they do not blow a fuse.




All just economics
By 2nd Abnormalized Form on 7/24/2008 9:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I can tell, the only practical question is can the power be produced economically? All of the technology exists and is in use, including the solar plants. None of the political and/or security problems seem to be all that different from those already being dealt with and managed for existing energy sources, resources and installations. I'm not saying it will be cheap or easy, just that I don't see anything new.

On the potential upside, fairly clean energy, diversification of energy resources, and the producing countries now have an interest (paying customers) in Europe that might help mitigate any testy political relationships a bit.

But again, what's the cost? Can it be sold?




By teckytech9 on 7/25/2008 1:56:05 AM , Rating: 2
I hope the scientists did a study to find the economic benefits of using thin film technology where it belongs, the rooftops. Granted, the sun does not always shine in Europe, but in the summer months, solar rules the day.

What is needed is more government subsidies for solar power installations directly to homeowners and businesses.

This solar array is bound to run into cost overruns and technology inefficiencies in the years following its completion. Transmission line expenditures and future upgrades will only add to costs. Thin film technology and the daily breakthroughs in efficiency is a better alternative to silicon in the future.




Sand
By nstott on 7/25/2008 2:30:01 AM , Rating: 2
Have fun keeping the blowing and shifting sand off and out of the panels.

BTW, while I'm all for developing solar energy, it's funny how the Sahara Desert is a "barren wasteland" when enviros want to develop solar energy but ANWR is a "pristine natural habitat" when the idea of developing for oil extraction is proposed for the most barren area of ANWR while using a smaller area than a vast EU solar farm would take up.




By cornelius785 on 7/25/2008 10:51:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see how this would work along with a report generated from actual power engineers, not just some political 'know-it-alls' doing some calculations or a reporter trying to look smart. I've read many of my concerns being discussed by others already. What I'm also concerned about is the stability of the power grid. It is already known that too much reliance on wind power can destabilized the power grid. What happens to the grid when a few lines are cut? Will the grid be able to cope with it and stop a vast majority of Europe going dark? I'd like to see proof that the power grid is resilient enough to deal with next to everything. We've all seen what happened to the American grid in August 2003, right?

Until I see the hard proof (from the people who will design it) showing that it will work, I will think the EU officials that thought this up are smoking crack.




Terrorism
By foxtrot9 on 7/25/2008 4:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
Talk about a prime target for terrorist attacks...




Umm, what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Umm, what?
By Grast on 7/24/2008 12:15:46 PM , Rating: 1
Masher,

I know you are the man for this question. What is the efficiency for long range high voltage DC transmission? I have always heard and believed that transmission of electricty regardless of AC or DC is waistful due to resistance of the energy carrier; copper & alluminimum.

Later.


RE: Umm, what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 12:22:24 PM , Rating: 1
About 5% per 1000 miles is the standard figure for HVDC. The only problem is that the lines and especially the required inverters are ungodly expensive. The article quotes a figure of $70B just to run the transmission lines for this project, regardless of the cost of the solar cells. My own back-of-the-envelope calculation leads me to believe that figure is a bit optimistic.


RE: Umm, what?
By martinrichards23 on 7/24/2008 12:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My own back-of-the-envelope calculation


If only the people pushing this idea had done even that.


RE: Umm, what?
By lukasbradley on 7/24/2008 12:44:45 PM , Rating: 5
You're right. We should assume we are the experts, given we have plenty of envelopes.


RE: Umm, what?
By jbartabas on 7/24/2008 12:47:21 PM , Rating: 4
Isn't what "the internet" does, making us experts in everything? ;-)


RE: Umm, what?
By Strunf on 7/24/2008 1:39:12 PM , Rating: 3
Wikipedia is the number 1 school for that :D


RE: Umm, what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Umm, what?
By redsquid5 on 7/24/2008 3:26:03 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, 1500 miles is roughly about right, London to the Sahara. A huge portion of Europe is easily within transmission distance with acceptable line losses.
Looks like the folks did do the calculation.


RE: Umm, what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 4:03:19 PM , Rating: 1
With current AC lines, line losses would be prohibitive. With HVDC transmission, the losses would be acceptable, but the costs -- assuming a system that would power all Europe -- would be boosted by hundreds of billions of dollars, excluding the costs of the PV cells themselves.

The net result is power that is far more costly than nuclear or hydro...and you still need those plants anyway, for when the sun doesn't shine. So why even build the solar array in the first place?


RE: Umm, what?
By 306maxi on 7/24/2008 5:24:21 PM , Rating: 5
There's a cloud to every silver lining with you isn't there?


RE: Umm, what?
By just4U on 7/24/2008 7:03:05 PM , Rating: 1
What I want to know is if its possible to build this... is there no effective means to store the energy (like a reserve)for times when the sun isn't shining?

Also what effect would there be on the environment? I don't imagine solar panels just pop up out of thin air, or grow on trees.

The last question would be is there any down side.. Does the planet take some sort of hit with this technology? Typically it all sounds so good till it's in use and then you start hearing the downside.. after that their trying to ban it because it's unsafe. It's a no win proposition.


RE: Umm, what?
By 2nd Abnormalized Form on 7/24/2008 9:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
I believe there are already solar plants built and in use in several countries, although some may be demonstration scale plants, such as Eqypt, Brazil, and the U.S.
Energy storage is the tricky bit, but one method is as stored heat. Melt some metal salts using the heat/power generated, then use the heat to produce energy when the sun goes down.


RE: Umm, what?
By drebo on 7/25/2008 12:51:17 AM , Rating: 1
Considering the highly toxic chemicals involved in the creation of solar cells and the millions of habitats destroyed by covering the Sahara with solar arrays, yes, I'd say there is a HUGE environmental impact with this solution.


RE: Umm, what?
By ViroMan on 7/25/2008 4:04:51 AM , Rating: 3
Your right. By blocking the sun from reaching the ground you create shade, thus lowering the temperature of the area by 10-20 degrees. You might be able to grow something in that shade. Soon the Sahara will be blooming with plants under solar panels. lol


RE: Umm, what?
By freaqie on 7/25/2008 4:05:30 AM , Rating: 2
that depends on what you are using. solar cells ok.
but the pollution is made elsewhere.
(also i know no better place to pollute then the sahara desert.unlike any odd landfill it has almost no animals / plants to harm.)
point is that solar enegry can be harvested in many ways
photovoltaic cells (low maintenance expensive and inefficient)
but also stirling engines. (no environmental impact low maintenance and efficient medium cost)
or even a cheap steamgenerated powered by the sun.
(high maintenace medium efficiency low cost)
these last do not pollute.
and photovoltaic cells do not either
(atleast not where they are placed.)


RE: Umm, what?
By piroroadkill on 7/25/2008 5:26:48 AM , Rating: 2
It's not going to make the Sahara worse somehow, that's for sure, if anything it might make it habitable


RE: Umm, what?
By geddarkstorm on 7/25/2008 12:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
What part of "wasteland" and "desert" didn't make sense? There's nothing out there plant wise unless you find an oasis. Might as well be complaining about destroying habitat when covering the moon in solar panels.

In all reality, we'd be /creating/ habitat by producing shade where animals can hide in and where water can collect.


RE: Umm, what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/2008 1:11:06 PM , Rating: 1
> "There's nothing out there plant wise unless you find an oasis"

Spoken like a true urbanite who has never set foot in a desert.

quote:
The Sahara Desert is often described as a bleak and barren plain. In truth, it is very beautiful and full of different Sahara Desert plants....
http://www.factsmonk.com/Sahara_Desert_Plants

A list of some of the 100+ plants which thrive in US deserts:

http://www.desertusa.com/flora.html

The amusing this is that, if a massive new oil deposit was found in the Mojave or the Sahara, you people would be the first to claim the environmental cost of drilling it was far too high.

> "In all reality, we'd be /creating/ habitat by producing shade where animals can hide "

Desert animals either hide underground or they don't need shade at all. What they *do* need is the plant food chain. And desert plants need sun to grow, not shade.