Is Desert Solar Power the Solution to Europe's Energy Crisis?

[Kampfbaer]

tiny fraction of the sun's energy that shines upon the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East could meet all of Europe's electricity demands. The technology to harness the energy already exists. So why is hardly anyone investing in it?

The oil of the 21st century is not buried deep within the earth. Instead, it falls on its surface -- as sunshine.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,550544,00.html

[Chulo]

1. the area you need to develop a solar thermal power station is vast
2. Solar converters are still not as effective as they want it to be - its being worked on but right now its still not cost efficient
3. Transporting oil from the middle east has a supply route, transporting live power - not yet
4. Battery storage tech is still not as good as they want it to justify building large stations and shipping out the battery.

so basically, it can be the future, but at this point it is not as cost efficient

[Kampfbaer]

The automobile and the train were frowned upon by a lot of people at the beginning.

Sure it would take decades, but it is a perspective.

[Pille1234]

4. Battery storage tech is still not as good as they want it to justify building large stations and shipping out the battery.

Who is seriously considering a battery as transport vehicle? I was led to believe that the best way would be to generate hydrogen right there.

[Chulo]

Who is seriously considering a battery as transport vehicle? I was led to believe that the best way would be to generate hydrogen right there.I was just shooting ideas - but:
1. Storage is always an issue: how else would you move vehicles around?
2. If you cant/dont build high capacity power lines to connect the middle east to Europe, then you have to figure out some other way to get it there.

[RSone]

On a similar note: The Dutch Government is seriously looking at proposals for reclaiming land in the north sea (either of the coast or near the closure dike) thus creating a island, on which green energy could be produced using solar panels or using a sort of hydroplant(creating a basin water flows into and in doing so, driving turbines)

Could also be that both plans will be realized simultaneously, as the closure dike needs to be "refurbished" anyway (the tidal locks which handle the flow of water need to be enlarged anyway, as the amount of water coming through is too much, only problem is you can't really close the dike off, look at map and you'll see what i mean) so that would mean some sort of large island of the coast near Rotterdam Harbour(which has plans for a second Maas plain(a piece of land which was also reclaimed in order to enlarge the Harbour) and a larger island in the middle of the closure dike, both most likely producing some sort of green energy.

[randomguy]

You guys realize New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, are like 1 big ass desert right? Why build them in mid east when you can have them in your own country?

[MonkeyLibFront]

You guys realize New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, are like 1 big ass desert right? Why build them in mid east when you can have them in your own country?

Because the article is about EUROPE.

[Chulo]

You guys realize New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, are like 1 big ass desert right? Why build them in mid east when you can have them in your own country?
yes, but hes talking about Europe's energy crisis


lol. beat me by 5 sec..

Europe or United States, the issues are still the same
Harnessing
Transporting
Storage

[randomguy]

sorry i just skimmed through the first post, it looked like you guys were talking bout US.

[Warlord]

I passed by a project by the Saudi government here in the eastern province that they said was an experiment of some sorts for solar energy. Then a few months ago I read in the paper that they were to begin this kind of project in the near future. I do think someone is seriously working on it. We're not just completely informed. Yes, storage is a problem. Transmission loss is a factor too just like in ordinary/regular power transmission where energy is lost through heat. Just how much power can a solar panel generate and you have that huge voltage drop transmitting the power through cables.

[Vorian]

Because the article is about EUROPE.

Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy come to mind.

[Kampfbaer]

Obviously, this is possible, whereever there is enough sunshine.

[DaGreatRV]

Well, there are some solar thermal projects in spain, france and portugal.


Currently there are 2 long distance cables I know of being laid right now in the Netherlands, one is from the netherlans to the UK and the other is to Norway.


If you can do that that, connecting Northafrican solarstations to Europe's power grid will be possible aswell. :)

[-Church-]

Well i read that it could be possible to litterally emit, transmit energy like a signal. And that one thing we could do would be to have solar power sattelites transmetting the energy down to earth.

[tonyant9999]

why would we want to be dependent on the middle east any longer than we have to be? Why not research technologies that we can use on our doorstep rather than using technology in an unsafe and often hostile area of the world.

[-Max2-]

This project would mean that Europe would import all its electricity from Third world countries, some of them being unstable and potentially hostile. Sorry but thats not even an option for me... :-|

Europe is already very dependent from foreign countries for its oil (Russia, Gulf countries) and this project would make it even more dependent. Not so great idea IMHO. In an ideal world, this project would be interesting though...

I would rather prefer that we spend money massively on R&D to find solutions at home.

[Kitsune]

The article is quite misleading. It suggests that the solution for the energy question would be there and be that simple - but it simply is not that.

First, you need a massive investment to generate the necessary energy with solar cells in the desert. Second, you need not only to generate the energy Europe needs - you need to generate far more than that. Here is one quote of the article that is quite correct:

"We don't have an energy problem," says Hans Müller-Steinhagen, of the German Aerospace Center (DLR). "We have an energy conversion and distribution problem."
That is exactly the problem. There is lots of energy - almost everywhere - but what we need is mainly electrical energy (for heating purposes in winter pure warmth suffices). And we need it here, where it is needed. In your lightbulb, in your computer, in your washing machine.

And those are the problems. Of the heap of energy nature provides us with, virtually nothing is electrical and as for warmth, we need that exactly when and where nature does not provide us with it. But, alas, whenever energy is transformed, from one kind to another, there are huge losses involved (and there is not much you can do against that). If you try to turn the energy of sunlight into electricity (as a solar cell does or the method described in the article - warm something with sunlight, then turn the wamrth to electricity, that is actually less efficient) you lose most and keep only a fracture. And that means also: it is very difficult to transport energy.

One way to do that is to use the electricity, which is for example generated through solar plants in a desert somewhere, into hydrogen, transport the hydrogen to some other place and, after arriving where it is needed, use a fuel cell to generate again electricity from it. But in each of those processes you lose about 50% of the energy - all in all around three quarters of the original electricity you started with, since you do the transformation two times. The alternative are high voltage cables, but those have similiar losses and need to be build through the mediterranean sea first.

That means we have to create about four times the energy Europe needs in the Sahara, making that process more expensive than some think: at a first glance it all looks very ergonomic, but if you calculate the energy transport problem in, it suddenly isn't the great solution of our energy problems anymore. In other words, it was not only complete and utter stupidity why so far nobody did this.

And there is of course another problem. If we would indeed do it this way, get a considerable part of our energy from North Africa, then we would be utterly depending on those nations over there: one dictator coming to power in this state and one civil war in the other, and the lights go out in Europe. Unless we use some good dose of neo-colonialism. Well.

Summed up: the article is to a good part Schönfärberei. Never trust the German media when it comes to questions of energy. And never trust the Spiegel in particular. That is always good advice.

[BugHunt]

The article is quite misleading. It suggests that the solution for the energy question would be there and be that simple - but it simply is not that.

First, you need a massive investment to generate the necessary energy with solar cells in the desert. Second, you need not only to generate the energy Europe needs - you need to generate far more than that. Here is one quote of the article that is quite correct:

That is exactly the problem. There is lots of energy - almost everywhere - but what we need is mainly electrical energy (for heating purposes in winter pure warmth suffices). And we need it here, where it is needed. In your lightbulb, in your computer, in your washing machine.

And those are the problems. Of the heap of energy nature provides us with, virtually nothing is electrical and as for warmth, we need that exactly when and where nature does not provide us with it. But, alas, whenever energy is transformed, from one kind to another, there are huge losses involved (and there is not much you can do against that). If you try to turn the energy of sunlight into electricity (as a solar cell does or the method described in the article - warm something with sunlight, then turn the wamrth to electricity, that is actually less efficient) you lose most and keep only a fracture. And that means also: it is very difficult to transport energy.

One way to do that is to use the electricity, which is for example generated through solar plants in a desert somewhere, into hydrogen, transport the hydrogen to some other place and, after arriving where it is needed, use a fuel cell to generate again electricity from it. But in each of those processes you lose about 50% of the energy - all in all around three quarters of the original electricity you started with, since you do the transformation two times. The alternative are high voltage cables, but those have similiar losses and need to be build through the mediterranean sea first.

That means we have to create about four times the energy Europe needs in the Sahara, making that process more expensive than some think: at a first glance it all looks very ergonomic, but if you calculate the energy transport problem in, it suddenly isn't the great solution of our energy problems anymore. In other words, it was not only complete and utter stupidity why so far nobody did this.

And there is of course another problem. If we would indeed do it this way, get a considerable part of our energy from North Africa, then we would be utterly depending on those nations over there: one dictator coming to power in this state and one civil war in the other, and the lights go out in Europe. Unless we use some good dose of neo-colonialism. Well.

Summed up: the article is to a good part Schönfärberei. Never trust the German media when it comes to questions of energy. And never trust the Spiegel in particular. That is always good advice.


Kit are you seriously saying that article is no good due to the fact you loose energy during conversions and sending energy down a cable looses energy? :bash:

Welcome to basic energy physics 101....



Every1 of those points is RELEVANT NOW, with coal oil and nuclear power and is actually worked around and ironed out in the system.

If not show us the large scale energy system in usage now which doesnt.

We ALREADY have those "inefficient" conversions and high voltage cables working RIGHT NOW.

The UK is connected to the continent and can buy or sell electricity
as demanded....


I read somewhere that a high voltage cable from Africa to the UK would loose somewhere on the region of 10%....Hell if its bas bad as 40%-80% it might still be vesable...

You need 4 times the area OMG - build it X4 the SIZE. If no1 else has noticed this calculation flaw ;)


These OMFG problems though relevant to a solar farm in the sahara are far from insurrmountable.


If the one thing the Sahara ISNT short of is square acreage under populated and not being used....Big deal we make a few sqaure K's into a solar farm in the middle of no
where and station some troops and UAVs there to protect them...


How many square acres, metal and steel does a oil refinery or pumping station take up? How much of a MASSIVE INVESTMENT is that? How much space and resources does a nuclear plant take up - how much of a longterm security and enviromental threat does that create?

Seems like you might have to spend money developing a poorer perhaps politcally unstable country. But then again id say a decent longterm treaty to use what is afterall a deserted unused sandpark in the middle of nowhere would be a bit easier then the current system.



You know the current one where we take over countries to force feed them democracy, and spend Trillions$$$$ and lots of lives doing so. All so the oil supply is safe....

Or where we spend Billions per day buying oil from shakey morally corrupt regiemes...


There are problems with EVERY large scale project with energy - engineering/physics/geo-poltical. Each one of those problems is surrmountable....and looks on the face of it to promoting much less instablitiy and injustice in the world...

Your also acting like our current energy setups is -

A - economically sustainable
B - morally sustainable
C - enviromentally sustainable

Seems like a solar farm - perhaps with ultra efficient electrical/hydrogen powered cars is actually a viable solution. The costs being retooling and restructuring.....so what its was COSTLY creating the infrastructure for oil. But strangely enough we still managed to pay for these ASSETS. Im sure we might be able to pay for hydrogen or direct solar or whatever other energy ASSETS are needed.

We in the west happen to have large amounts of funds that can be borrowed from or taxed to pay for these things. We manage to do it with wars, why not with other stuff like INFRASTRUCTURE.

In the final analysis there going to be a fuk load cheaper then having 1-200,000 troops permanently keeping the peace on foreign soil...

[Kampfbaer]

The problem of further dependency on Northafrican of ME countries is still there, but massive solar power generation will generate enough money for those countries to improve and develop themselves.

There needs to be a politicial process parallel to the economic process.

[GazB]

tiny fraction of the sun's energy that shines upon the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East could meet all of Europe's electricity demands. The technology to harness the energy already exists. So why is hardly anyone investing in it?

During summer you actually get more sunlight hours per day at the north pole and south pole than you do at the equator. Do you think the ambient temperature in a desert will effect the amount of current you get from a solar cell?


You guys realize New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, are like 1 big ass desert right? Why build them in mid east when you can have them in your own country?

A solar furnace that uses hundreds or thousands of mirrors to concentrate the suns light on a container filled with water which then creates steam and turns a turbine to generate electricity might be possible in a desert, but for solar cells why put them way out in the desert?
Solar cells are largely made of silicon... why not make a roofing material that is made of solar cells?


It suggests that the solution for the energy question would be there and be that simple - but it simply is not that.

The real solution will be lots of things... some things are efficient at one thing and useless at others. Electricity is not a good way to heat water... having a big tank constantly heated is inefficient. Using gas to heat it when it is used is probably the most efficient... especially if that gas is something like Methane that would otherwise be a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
Geothermal is another way to heat water... dig down deep enough and the ground temperature is something like a steady 40-45 degrees. Not hot enough to sterelise drinking water but warm enough to pump through radiatiors using a natural circulation system so no other energy is needed. Solar, wind, even nuclear, hydro electric, etc etc.

[Dave242]

The technology to harness the energy already exists. So why is hardly anyone investing in it?


True the techology dose exist but no one will invest in it because you will need a hell of a lot of gallium to make the solar pannels of which there not much around?

Dave

[RSone]

Well i read that it could be possible to litterally emit, transmit energy like a signal. And that one thing we could do would be to have solar power sattelites transmetting the energy down to earth.

Yep, broadband power transmission. As of know it isn't a very efficient means of energy transfer, but research in improving efficiency is being conducted. Some NASA guys recently proposed that we could put solar arrays into geostatical orbits(at the terminator) and literally beam down the power. practically eternal free power, and a lot of it too.

[Kitsune]

Your also acting like our current energy setups is -

A - economically sustainable
B - morally sustainable
C - enviromentally sustainable

Seems like a solar farm - perhaps with ultra efficient electrical/hydrogen powered cars is actually a viable solution. The costs being retooling and restructuring.....so what its was COSTLY creating the infrastructure for oil. But strangely enough we still managed to pay for these ASSETS. Im sure we might be able to pay for hydrogen or direct solar or whatever other energy ASSETS are needed.

Actually, the problems are solvable. If we use an energy mix consisting very roughly out of 25% eco-energy (solar, wind, water, tides or, where possible, geothermic), 25% nuclear (preferably safe High Temperature Reactors or other Generation IV reactors, in a few decades some fusion reactors may possible produce a share), 25% coal (as clean as possible, though perfectly "clean coal" will probably never exist) and 25% oil and gas, add to all this some serious efforts to use energy more effienctly and we will be able to provide for the needs of the 21st century alright. As it looks, there is precisely not the one, great solution that will solve all our problems tommorrow. But as long as we are suffiently pragmatic and not too dogmatic in our approach and avoid nonsense like "let's use no nuclear energy at all because it's is black sorcery" or "let's use only solar energy from the Sahara", we will do fine.

[throwback]

Europe already imports loads of North African energy: illegal migrants.

As far being efficient, this energy, donthinkso.

[Funnage]

You guys realize New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, are like 1 big ass desert right? Why build them in mid east when you can have them in your own country?

Big Oil runs an excellent campaign in Washington to ensure that alternative fuels do not happen.

[GazB]

As long as there are big powerful oil companies making money off oil alternative energy options will not have a chance.

The best thing that could happen would be for the price of oil to keep going up. Eventually alternative fuels will become a financially viable alternative and more money will be invested. The huge irony is the greatest weakness of the west is its dependance on fossil fuels. The wests supposed advantage is its high tech capability. It is logical to use that tech advantage to develop real sustainable alternatives to oil, like hyrdogen fueled vehicles. The oil companies have too much political power though.
The irony is that oil dependance makes the West weak and dependant on countries it wouldn't normally bother dealing with otherwise...

[BugHunt]

But as long as we are suffiently pragmatic and not too dogmatic in our approach and avoid nonsense like "let's use no nuclear energy at all because it's is black sorcery" or "let's use only solar energy from the Sahara", we will do fine.


So nukes = fine.

But Solar power from say deserts = physically impossible? IE sort of black sorcery? p-)


Still cant see where your major downer on the concept is coming from other then trotting out problems which occur in exsisting systems...

On the face of it the concept seems sound harness a huge amount of available energy with comparatively little enviromental cost. Ok it might cost more and take time to develope.

But doesnt oil NOW cost more. And dont oil refineries/nuclear stations NOW cost to build etcetc.


Actually, the problems are solvable.

Absolutely i agree. With foresight and good planning there neednt be some major energy crisis.


Mixed systems (very probable) with renewables perhaps even majority from renewables....

What makes me shudder isnt the technology or our inventiveness but the apparent lack of governmental concern or direction for these problems....

Theres been next to no effective action as regards energy efficiency, or homebuilding etcetc...let ALONE the big projects...


I agree with alot of what your saying Kitsune, but cant understand your arguments in opposition to the concept of a solar farm...

[BugHunt]

As long as there are big powerful oil companies making money off oil alternative energy options will not have a chance.

The best thing that could happen would be for the price of oil to keep going up. Eventually alternative fuels will become a financially viable alternative and more money will be invested. The huge irony is the greatest weakness of the west is its dependance on fossil fuels. The wests supposed advantage is its high tech capability. It is logical to use that tech advantage to develop real sustainable alternatives to oil, like hyrdogen fueled vehicles. The oil companies have too much political power though.
The irony is that oil dependance makes the West weak and dependant on countries it wouldn't normally bother dealing with otherwise...

Its economically viable NOW for a new home to be built which would be close to or ACTUALLY energy self sufficient (or producing a surplus) from a combination of renewable sources.....

Several thousands to tens of thousands of pounds. A extra cost YES. But considering it pays for itself and gives a net gain it can be thought of as a direct investment.

Who looses out when people choose to take responsiblity for there own energy supply? Big energy.... you might argue were conditioned to pay for energy from a large scale producer. Why? Because its TRADITION.

Same with water supply. A rain collection tank - and a filtration system with water system created to reuse grey water etcetc a house becomes water self sufficient too.

Who losses out when people take responsiblity for there own water supplies? Big water suppliers. Its TRADITIONAL to buy from them.


Some people chose to foot the extra cost now as a safety net against large scale collaspses in society or to be more eco-friendly...


But considering 50% of the UK's energy needs are domestic - there would be HUGE savings in promoting this way of thinking.



I believe we have most of the technological graft done already we just need a mindset to implement things. We actually have BARRIER in this country revolving around planning permission and guess what most peoples mindset "thats crazey we dont do things like that its not TRADITIONAL".

Whether government takes a lead or not i doubt for the arguments raised above - there are too many well funded interests lobbying and influencing things behind the scenes...

[tecumseh11]

Isn't Europe sitting on masses of coal?

[Kitsune]

Still cant see where your major downer on the concept is coming from other then trotting out problems which occur in exsisting systems...
It is as I said: the major problem with this is, that if you produce the electricity in the Sahara, it is thousands of kilometers away from where it is needed. For a power plant in Europe, all you need are high voltage lines, to send the electricity for 10 to 50 kilometers to the homes or industrial facilities or whatever. There are losses involved, but they are still small. But if those high voltage lines have to be a couple of thousands of kilometers long, most of the electricity you send away does not arrive.

Of course, there is not only the question of "where?", but also one of "when?" involved: one of the general problems of solar energy is, that it tends to be rather ineffective at night, doesn't it? Unfortunately, that is when we still need lots of energy - to keep the lights on. Now, the method described here uses not classic solar cells but solar thermal energy: at night heat is stored in tanks of molten salt. But you would need an arseload of those to power night-time Europe with them. Of course you do need to spend money first for building countless high voltage lines of thousands of kilometers length, some right through the mediterranean sea.

The other method, which can potentially solve the problems of transport and around the clock avilability, uses hydrogen conversion. But even with that, you still lose three quarters of the originally produced electricity. And you still need to transport those huge amounts of hydrogen (with fuel driven tankers perhaps?). And just so you know: hydrogen is quite explosive, so there goes the safety advanatge solar energy used to have.

But in the end the main problem is and stays: energy produced that way will be expensive - even if the basic generation is quite cheap, once you calculate the transport poblem in, it is not any more. (And by the way: it is not that solar energy, or even the variant described here, is incredibly cheap in the first place). And don't gove me that crap about "I don't mind to pay ten times as much for my electricity". I myself do mind, and the industry does as well. If the cost of energy rises much, the result is poverty for whole nations.

All this means, that producing electricity with solar generators in the desert is not the great solution as the article depicts it to be, that is all. Or that we were all stupid to not have done that before. Heck, it's not that the idea of solar energy from the Sahara is new or something - even many decades ago there were already lots of discussions about that. There is nothing wrong with some projects down there, and solar energy in general can play a role (for example it is well suited to power electricity intense cooling for large buildings in summer time) but it is not the simple King's road to solve all our energy problems of the future. The article is simply way to positive here.

[BugHunt]

Good post m8.

Ive got a rebuttal to most of those points - but to be worthwhile ill have to sit still and type ;)

[SOG]

1. the area you need to develop a solar thermal power station is vast
2. Solar converters are still not as effective as they want it to be - its being worked on but right now its still not cost efficient
3. Transporting oil from the middle east has a supply route, transporting live power - not yet
4. Battery storage tech is still not as good as they want it to justify building large stations and shipping out the battery.

so basically, it can be the future, but at this point it is not as cost efficient

5. The crazy a-holes toting machetes.
6. The crazy a-holes toting Kalashnikov's.
7. The crazy a-holes starting full on wars in the middle east. Ah dammit, that's us...

[SOG]

It is as I said:

Militarily speaking having 90%+ of your power in someone else's backyard would be a strategic nightmare. Plus all the hurdles you mentioned. I think it better to produce something so important locally.

[BugHunt]

It is as I said: the major problem with this is, that if you produce the electricity in the Sahara, it is thousands of kilometers away from where it is needed. For a power plant in Europe, all you need are high voltage lines, to send the electricity for 10 to 50 kilometers to the homes or industrial facilities or whatever. There are losses involved, but they are still small. But if those high voltage lines have to be a couple of thousands of kilometers long, most of the electricity you send away does not arrive.

Of course, there is not only the question of "where?", but also one of "when?" involved: one of the general problems of solar energy is, that it tends to be rather ineffective at night, doesn't it? Unfortunately, that is when we still need lots of energy - to keep the lights on. Now, the method described here uses not classic solar cells but solar thermal energy: at night heat is stored in tanks of molten salt. But you would need an arseload of those to power night-time Europe with them. Of course you do need to spend money first for building countless high voltage lines of thousands of kilometers length, some right through the mediterranean sea.

The other method, which can potentially solve the problems of transport and around the clock avilability, uses hydrogen conversion. But even with that, you still lose three quarters of the originally produced electricity. And you still need to transport those huge amounts of hydrogen (with fuel driven tankers perhaps?). And just so you know: hydrogen is quite explosive, so there goes the safety advanatge solar energy used to have.

But in the end the main problem is and stays: energy produced that way will be expensive - even if the basic generation is quite cheap, once you calculate the transport poblem in, it is not any more. (And by the way: it is not that solar energy, or even the variant described here, is incredibly cheap in the first place). And don't gove me that crap about "I don't mind to pay ten times as much for my electricity". I myself do mind, and the industry does as well. If the cost of energy rises much, the result is poverty for whole nations.

All this means, that producing electricity with solar generators in the desert is not the great solution as the article depicts it to be, that is all. Or that we were all stupid to not have done that before. Heck, it's not that the idea of solar energy from the Sahara is new or something - even many decades ago there were already lots of discussions about that. There is nothing wrong with some projects down there, and solar energy in general can play a role (for example it is well suited to power electricity intense cooling for large buildings in summer time) but it is not the simple King's road to solve all our energy problems of the future. The article is simply way to positive here.

Electrolysis is looking very promising solving the night problem.... ;)

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/reverse-fuel-ce.html


Hydrogen with efficent fuel units in homes to create electricity and using the waste heat to warm water/homes etc...

Yeah its toxic, explosive and hard to store but so's petrol or disel.....


Heck with newer more efficent and cheaper solar panels it might just become possible to micro generate even in cloudy UK....which is always gonna be the ideal for domestic use i think...

Thread revival baby p-)

[RSone]

Solar power might be the way to go in The Netherlands as well, Western europe is warming up considerably faster than previously thought, an because of our stricter environmental laws, the air is cleaning up really nicely, which results in more solar "penetration". The warming is also causing the windspeeds to lower, which is contraproductive to generating power with windmills(up until now, generally considered the best source of alternative power in our country)