Solar power from Sahara will keep Europe’s lights on

The Times ^ | 7/23/2008 | Foreign Staff

[bruinbirdman]

European politicians are discussing ambitious plans to harvest the energy of the Saharan sun, connecting a vast network of solar panels to electricity grids across the continent. According to The Guardian, the project, estimated to cost up to £35.7 billion, is backed by Gordon Brown and President Sarkozy of France.

The project is still at an early stage and faces daunting financial and technological obstacles. Solar power’s supporters say it will take ten years for it to become economically competitive, and while undersea cables to Sicily and Spain are planned for construction in 2010-2012, it is not known how they will be financed.

As the world grows increasingly anxious about climate change and dwindling fossil fuels, ideas that once sounded like science fiction are becoming ever more plausible.

The EU last year set a mandatory target of producing 20 per cent of its energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020, and there are also big political imperatives in play.

[mylife]

Awww Jeeez! Is there energy ANYWHERE other than the ME? L0L

[Kickass Conservative]

Well, if it's going to take 10 years, don't waste your time.
What's good for Oil must be good for Solar.

(Hypocritical Democrat logic on)

REMEMBER, YOU CAN'T SUNSHINE YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Solar power’s supporters say it will take ten years for it to become economically competitive

Hmmm...ten years for this new energy source to come online and be competitive. Where have I heard that number before??? I just can't seem to place it.

[mylife]

A small investment for 20% energy and more reliance on the muslims

[EyeGuy]

“Solar power’s supporters say it will take ten years for it to become economically competitive.”

In ten long years anything can happen.

This simply means they have no clue as to whether solar will EVER be competitive with unhip, reliable coal, or the real current trump card-nuclear.

[mylife]

And since when is the Sun “renewable”?

[USNBandit]

The last I heard was that only certain markets in California make solar a good economic decision. That is only because the cost of electricity in those markets is really expensive.

[jonrick46]

In case Europe forgot, solar energy can only work during the daylight hours. How is solar energy going to light their cities at night? You need a electrical storage system, which decreases the efficiency of the system. Also, you have transmission loss, which further decreases the efficiency.

I have another method: algae oil. With algae oil, sunlight causes algae to make fuel grade diesel. Diesel fuel becomes the solar storage device. This diesel fuel then can power turbine generators day or night. As a side benefit, the CO2 from the turbine generators makes algae grow faster. It also becomes a closed system.

Of course, the algae oil will also power cars, boats, and jets.

It will be possible with good technology to make 100,000 gallons of algae oil per acre. How many acres of desert do they want to use?

[I see my hands]

Dim wits believe that if you want something bad enough and believe that it is really really good then it will be. And f corporations and capitalists too!

[hosepipe]

[ European politicians are discussing ambitious plans to harvest the energy of the Saharan sun, ]

We could do the same in Death Valley.. and surrounding desert areas.. like most of Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada..

[EyeGuy]

“The last I heard was that only certain markets in California make solar a good economic decision. That is only because the cost of electricity in those markets is really expensive.”

Interesting. Thanks.

That just means they should be building more nuclear power plants.

California has roughly the economic output of France and has only 3 (three) nuclear power plants. The French are not shy about nuclear and have about 60. It is no coincidence that they are the number one net EXPORTER of electrical power in the world.

[Gondring]

Awww Jeeez! Is there energy ANYWHERE other than the ME? L0L

Not as long as we block it with knee-jerk criticisms of alternative energy.

[bruinbirdman]

"Hmmm...ten years for this new energy source to come online and be competitive. Where have I heard that number before??? I just can't seem to place it. "

Interesting.

Congress says no drilling, no coal burners, no shale oil, no more dams.

That leaves solar and wind. Yet congress has not mandated it. Not written it into law.

So we get individual whacko state governments that do the mandating.

They tell state utilities they must be 20% renewables (wind and geo in Calif, solar in Nevada) in 10 years.

The state gives the utilities some tax incentives. I'm sure the feds do, too. But here in Nevada, even though there is supposed to be a huge solar plant in my city limits, 64 MW, that supposedly went on line in June 2007, I have not seen one report of it producing one watt of power.

Now, the gas generating plant, also in my city's limits, has just altered a lease option for more desert, not for the planned second gas generating plant, but for a solar plant.

Ain't seen a watt yet and so far more than $300 million has supposedly been invested.

yitbos

[EyeGuy]

Ayn says what about nuclear?

[bruinbirdman]

"The French are not shy about nuclear and have about 60. It is no coincidence that they are the number one net EXPORTER of electrical power in the world."

Nuke power is tricky in large quantities. The Frogs overbuilt and have problems. You can't just pull out a few fuel rods and put out less at a nuke plant.

The French have cut super discount energy deals with neighboring countries to take excess nuke output, especially at night. The Germans, Italos, etc, have the gas and coal plants that are the adjustable throttles on the EUro grid and they get Frog over produced electricity super cheap.

That having been said, the U.S.A. could use some more nukes, but, mostly, we need to burn COAL.

yitbos

[VeniVidiVici]

Um, ya, ok. Like a $37-billion dollar solar reflector in the Sahara wouldn’t be a target for terrorists.

[Publius6961]

To all the dreamers and ignorant "planners" out there...

Africa is in --- well, Africa.
Oil was in the middle East for the better part of a century. Still there. Residents of the 7th century are robbing us blind because they could; it was their country, you see.

Back to Africa. There are Africans there (and many muslims). If desert-created power from Africa is used by Europe <<< not in Africa, How long do you suppose it would be before the (OSPEC) monopoly errrr... cartel is formed and the prices jacked up to "oil equivalent" levels?

Of course the US and or Europe can just invade and take over the facilities, but why bother with that world cesspool, when it would be easier to take over the Middle East, Venezuela and Mexico?

Let's get real here.

[television is just wrong]

ok, since everyone in Mexico has moved up here, how about we start building solar panels in Mexico to power our country?

[Publius6961]

And since when is the Sun “renewable”?

Start getting ready to laugh.

I actually heard it tonight on a "Schlocumentary": "Wind power might be free, but maintenance is not..."

I couldn't stop laughing, since I have known that this is the achiles heel of solar power, too; and has been for at least 40 years.

Check out the ICC building at Georgetown University in DC...

[bruinbirdman]

"how about we start building solar panels in Mexico to power our country?"

Why is there no silver in a silver dollar?

yitbos

[ModelBreaker]

Where have I heard that number before??? I just can't seem to place it.

30 years ago?

[coalman]

yes,and knee-jerk reactions to stop drilling for oil and stopping development of our most abundant resource,,coal,,the best alternative source of oil is in oil shale,and we have an endless supply of it.we got all the energy we need.

[Rummyfan]

The project is still at an early stage and faces daunting financial and technological obstacles.

Yes, like how to get power generated in the Sahara across the Med to Europe without losing ninety percent of it in transmission.

[AmericaUnited]

In case Europe forgot, solar energy can only work during the daylight hours. How is solar energy going to light their cities at night?

The Europeans have that figured out. They will use former oil super tankers to "put" the electricity in during the day. It's a 8-12 hour cruise to from the Sahara so when the tankers filled up with electricity get to various European cities, it will be nighttime... :)

[wolf78]

In case Europe forgot, solar energy can only work during the daylight hours. How is solar energy going to light their cities at night? You need a electrical storage system, which decreases the efficiency of the system. Also, you have transmission loss, which further decreases the efficiency.

Photovoltaic works only during daylight hours. Solar thermal is 24/7, if you take a little trick from nuclear reactor design (Molten salt reactor): Use molten salt to store the energy and use it during the night. Has been done before, even in the U.S.:

The Solar Project

[wolf78]

Awww Jeeez! Is there energy ANYWHERE other than the ME? L0L

If it works, you can just take the finished design, set up a production line in the US, and plaster Arizona an Nevada with heliostats.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

The problem is the promoters of wind and solar are dishonest in their economic analysis because they always ignore storage to get through the night or periods of low or no wind. To make a renewable system that can be "dispatched" when needed, you need large-scale energy storage which only exists in two forms today - pumped hydro and compressed air. There are few areas in the country where you can build a high-elevation pumped hydro reservoir, but there are a lot of underground salt caverns and other geologic structures that can store compressed air. Unfortunately, these systems are often sold without accounting for the capital and operating costs of the associated storage systems without which, they can cause huge grid control problems. The capital costs of a system double if you have to add in the storage cost.

[wolf78]

As I said, solar-thermal with a molten sand "buffer" doesn't have such problems, it runs 24/7 in more or less cloudless deserts, 24/7/365 if you're close enough to the equator. And that's the option they're looking at.

However, it's still far more costly than the intermittent wind energy. Wind energy is rather cost-effective, if you just add a few percent to a network with already sufficient pump storage and fast-acting power plants (like natural gas). Trying to get 100% of your electricity needs from wind today is a nightmare, as compressed air is anything but efficient.

So the added capital cost depends on the existing power grid infrastructure.

Personally I think that solar-thermal has the potential to become competitive with other "boutique" options of electricity generation (nuclear, natural gas, oil), beating coal or large hydro will be hard.

[TexasRepublic]

One problem with the Sahara is the Saharans. What would prevent muslims from blowing up the infrastructure, just as they destroy pipelines?

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Wind is a huge nightmare. Look at the recent fiascos in ERCOT when the wind suddenly stopped blowing and the grid nearly went down. Also look at Washington state where there was too much wind causing hydro generators to curtail load and insufficient discharge water for the fish. Lots of unintended consequences, not the least of which are noise and raptor kills.

My point is that most “renewable” studies don’t pay enough attention to the capital and operating costs of storage to provide a complete analysis.

[wolf78]

Lots of unintended consequences, not the least of which are noise and raptor kills.

The danger for birds is minimal and no reason not to do wind turbines, hunting and housing kill more birds and nobody wants to ban these. Noise depends on where you are relative to the turbine and is usually not a problem.

Look at the recent fiascos in ERCOT when the wind suddenly stopped blowing and the grid nearly went down. Also look at Washington state where there was too much wind causing hydro generators to curtail load and insufficient discharge water for the fish.

Problems also exist for nuclear plants: In Germany they had to turn down the nuclear plants because an unusually hot summer caused the rivers (cooling water) to get to hot. In France 100 workers got contaminated. Coal mines kill and sometimes cause earthquakes.

My point is that most “renewable” studies don’t pay enough attention to the capital and operating costs of storage to provide a complete analysis.

Which is correct, but goes for everyone: Nobody advertises his or her disadvantages. Storage is the real problem and it grows with the number of wind turbines you install. I'm neither anti-wind nor anti-nuclear, all energy options should be explored. I just prefer to let the experts analyse the costs and benefits. That "bird killer" mantra is just the same as the Tchernobyl kumbaya, I prefer sober facts, and as you sayd, they should include storage cost, if necessary.