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.