0.3% of Saharan Sun Enough To Power Europe
Fri, Jul 25, 2008
Environmental Graffiti Will be Changing Dramatically Soon. Get a Sneak Preview By Signing Up Here.
Image by Divwerf
The major obstacle to using renewable energy has always been the inability to produce a constant supply of electricity to consumers. However, scientists now believe that they have found a way to solve the supply and demand problem.
Arnulf Jaeger-Waldau of the European Commission’s Institute for Energy, speaking at the Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona (ESOF), believes that the creation of solar farms in the Sahara desert could produce enough energy to meet all of Europe’s energy needs. Power could be generated either through photovoltaic cells or by using the sun’s heat to boil water and power turbines.
Scientists at the ESOF 2008 are also proposing a ’supergrid’ that could transmit electricity along high voltage direct current cables and potentially allow countries to export their wind energy during periods of surplus, as well as import energy from other sources. The grid proposal, with its ability to transmit power from different sources, eliminates the criticism of the instability of renewable energy. If there is no wind or sun in Europe, there certainly will be in the Sahara and the grid could potentially be able to transmit that energy to where it is needed.
The argument for solar farms in the Sahara is solid in that photovoltaic panels there could potentially generate three times more energy than panels in northern Europe. It is estimated that capturing 0.3% of the sunlight falling on the desert would meet all of Europe’s needs.
The major drawback to the proposal is the cost and the time. An investment of around €450bn would be needed and scientists estimate that it would take until 2050 before the project could produce 100 GW which is more electricity than all sources of power in the UK combined.
Image by PingNews
The visionary proposal comes as the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission released its strategic energy technology plan which highlighted photovoltaic cells as one of the eight technologies that need to be developed in the future. The plan also includes fuel cells, hydrogen, clean coal, second generation biofuels, nuclear fusion, wind and smart grids.
“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,” said Giovanni de Santi, director of the JRC. The targets include Europe’s commitment to reduce energy consumption by 20% by 2020, reduce CO2 emissions by 20% and increasing renewable energy by 20%.
The Euroscience Open Forum 2008 was held from July 18-22 and provided an open platform for scientists, researchers, policy makers, business people and journalists to debate and communicate on evolving research trends. It was the third forum with previous conferences held in Stockholm in 2004 and Munich in 2006.
If you want to find out all the latest news on the environment, why not subscribe to our RSS feed? We’ll even throw in a free album.
You Might Also Like Our Friends' Posts From the Intertubes
“The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else.”
1 Trackbacks For This Post
-
links for 2008-07-26 Says:
July 26th, 2008 at 11:31 am[...] 0.3% of Saharan Sun Enough To Power Europe : Environmental News Blog | Environmental Graffiti (tags: energy Environment europe) [...]
July 25th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Nice article.
Minor nitpick. Watts (and MW and GW) are a measure of a power plant’s capacity to produce power. A 10MW solar plant is still 10MW even in the middle of the night.
Power production is measured in watt hours (kWh, MWh, GWh).
July 25th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I can’t agree with the opnion here
July 25th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Why don’t we leave Africa alone for once and instead cut down on our energy consumption? Europe doesn’t need more energy; it needs a saner lifestyle.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:33 am
I work as an Electrical Engineer in Canada. Although I’m all for renewable resource engineering, the public needs to understand that projects like this are a pipe dream right now. How are these Engineers going to transport said energy over 2000km without major losses? Who will service 2000km of transmission lines through the desert to Europe? Has anyone thought about how much energy it will cost to manufacture and create these panels? And what about the Sahara dust storms and maintenance issues?
Believe me, if we could just somehow take a long ‘extension cord’ and plug it into the sun then things would be rosy but the average person does not understand the limitations that we are forced to deal with in real world designs.
For a primary source of power it needs to not only be sustainable but also reliable. Unless the public and industry are willing to put up with constant load shedding due to the inability to maintain a constant supply then I don’t see solar or wind in the near future providing the bulk of any modern power hungry society. Tidal power is another interesting source of power that has been explored for years with some problems but even then it is useless to countries far from the ocean or good locations.
I really hope we can come through with ideas but I also hope they are made by rational people who understand the constraints and how to build around them rather than politicians and others think they understand the underlying problem.
Best Regards,
Don
July 26th, 2008 at 7:04 am
This idea would probably be obsolete by the finish date. Might as well take that money and build a super-city in the Sahara to use that energy for its economy right there. There will be plenty of displaced peoples to put in the new super-cities, including Europeans. Another idea I have is to charge batteries on site rather than to push the energy through the wires, which is highly wasteful without superconductivity. It would be cheaper to just ship the re-usable super-batteries around, and to focus on getting the solar installations up and running, and the battery infrastructure in place and on the market.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:28 am
There’s enough energy in my ass to power Europe for decades. Assume that my ass weighs about 5 kg. and convert that to energy using Einstein’s E=mc^2. You’ll see that the secret to Europe’s energy crisis lies in my ass.
Now you may wonder if it’s feasible or economical to recover all that energy locked up in my ass. But I tell you, those are just bookkeeping details. Furthermore, the plan to exploit my ass for energy has a distinct advantage because unlike the Sahara desert, my ass is in Europe already.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:26 am
As usual with articles about this topic you left out a minor point. A minor point concerning about 900 million Africans who just may get into your way if you exploit their countries without them even getting the scraps.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Wow, why do the Europeans always tend to come up with the cool stuff? We are SOO behind!
JT
Ultimate Anonymity
July 26th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
30 percent of three million square miles of Sahara plus area for access and machinery is enough for Europe? Fuel for maintenance in an area prone to abrasive sandstorms, replacement PV and direct heat conversion units, personnel support, hundreds of thousands of miles of electrical cable or desalination plants for fresh water and more area for salt waste for branch water for the drinks and hydrogen production plants and refrigerated shipping or pipelines? With the desalinization/human maintenance infrastructure eventually comes population, sabotage, power grabs and the same problems associated with oil. Now if you could pipe in methane from all those Argentine cows or deep sea hydrate harvesting for biofuel plants, or get desert temperature superconduction going maybe under the direct heat conversion panels and down wind of the wind turbines that would help, but even then I see no solution for the, um, social factors previously encountered er, nearby, absent ah, accommodation. That seems to be working well for you, though.
Good luck, guys. We’re rooting for you. Call if you need us.
July 26th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
It is too early to start building mega solar plants in the desert to power Europe. The reason is that the best panels can only convert 32% of sun’s energy into electricity, which is not very efficient.
However, that conversion rate is rising rapidly, exponentially in fact, with MIT developed dye, for example, improving efficiency rates of existing panels by 50% in certain conditions.
Ray Kurzweil predicts that the real solar technology that will answer the planet’s needs is ready in about 5 years due to the exponential development curve in the efficiency of the panels and in the drop in costs to build said panels.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Not correct. Both power capacity and power production are measured in watts. It is energy that is measured in watt-hours.
A power plant generating 10MW of power produces 10MW-hours in one hour, 20MW-hours in two hours, etc.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
So, transmitting power across continents isn’t retarded enough for you? Relying on energy from a single power doesn’t sound stupid enough? OK, then we can progress with a moronic solar power station covering the Sahara.
Sorry, but no. No nation would ever rely solely on power produced on another continent – that would he the height of idiocy – except of course the promoters of such a venture.
No, the future of power generation and distribution is local. Never transmitted further than 5 kilometres unless there’s an emergency.
Centralised production of power is an idiots game, as the Eastern Seaboard discovered 2 years ago. Or did you conveniently forget about that?
The future is Electrostatic Confinement or Pulsed Focus Fusion. The end.
July 27th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Great news! All the despot leaders in the Sahara desert region will now have loads of money to finance the killing of all the inhabitants in the area.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:56 am
This idea may need work and may not be fully formed, but I really get ticked off with the “lets just burn as much of our fossil fuels instead” twerps. Guys – this is really worth investing in, making solar renewable energy is of extraordinary importance for our future. Perhaps you have never seen this video – http://youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY. I dare you to watch it beginning to end, understand the mathematics, and then tell me that Solar or similar renewable energy is not important to our future.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Solar thermal could theoretically do the trick, but PV’s…not gonna happen. Solar thermal’s storage capability takes away the fact that solar only works, even in a desert, abut 1/2 the time. Also PVs aren’t actually all that great at working in extreme heat. Their maximum power output goes down quite a bit.
The bigger issue is transporting that power affordably. My guess is that you will lose enough to take away the costs savings but hopefully that can be overcome.
ps- Antiglobalist, how many parts of the pc or laptop you are using were made and assembled in Europe? Perhaps 5%? Leave Asia alone while your at it and save us all the bs bleeding heart superiority complex.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Would it not make more sense to use the solar power to split sea water and produce hydrogen, which could then be transported and used for vehicles. Hydrogen power used on site would produce drinking water too.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:09 am
Solar thermal power plants that use the heat of the sun to boil water and drive a steam turbine is also called CSP (Concentrating Solar Power).
CSP plants with heat storage can run as base load power, like coal plants do.
They produce steady power, not intermittent. They can be designed to run all night.
Using less than 1% of the American southwest desert lands, we could power the entire U.S. That’s less land than now used for coal plants and coal mining. It’s been said that using 1% of the land area of the Sahara, you could power the whole world. 3% of Morroco would power Europe.
8% of Nevada would power the U.S.
The best heat storage medium is molten salt. It is excellent at holding heat.
The salts melt at about 450 F, and are heated to about 1000 degrees. Some designs use water to store heat. It’s far less expensive to store energy as heat, as to store electricity. At least 20 times cheaper.
So this is solar energy with it’s own cheap energy storage. It should be a top priority in energy policy because it’s the only current renewable technology that can replace the base load power of coal.
CSP plants can be water or air cooled, as well as various closed loop cooling systems. When they are water cooled, they can even desalinize water at the same time.
It’s low tech, quick to build, inexpensive power.
Prices are projected to fall to below 10 cents/kWh as soon as there are 4 gWt generating capacity installed. They are already competitive in some markets at 12-17 cents/kWh. Prices will fall to 5-8 cents/kWh with increased economies of scale.
Good articles about CSP
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/14/solar_electric_thermal/index.html
http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/concentrated-solar-thermal-power-a-core-climate-solution/
Combine CSP with the distributed energy of photovoltaics all over the country and windpower and geothermal, and we have most of our energy needs met.
All with current technology, which will only get better and cheaper.
We have lots of other promising energy sources like tides, waves, etc and better photovoltaic technology will develop.
However we need to get started scaling up solar and wind right away.
Biomass to methane is something else that can contribute while alleviating some of the impact of methane from cow manure etc.
Parasails for ships can save 10-30% on fuel at a very low cost. Google “Skysail”
Grow industrial hemp to replace trees as a source for paper. Hemp has many other uses.
Make bioplastics to replace much of our petroleum based plastics, using non food crops.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:39 am
I left out something. I said that the price of power from CSP would fall below 10cents/kWh when installed capacity reached 4 gWt. There are already 2 gWt contracted for or already building in California. Another 250 mWt plant is planned for Arizona. So 4 gWt is not far off. Total solar thermal plants building, approved or proposed is already about 3gWt capacity.
One commenter mentioned the cost of transmission. A report for the Western Governors Association said we could build 300 gWt near existing transmission lines.
HVDC transmission lines would expand that considerably.
HVDC lines have far less line loss over long distance.(actually anything over 30 miles) They also don’t have the big electromagnetic field that worries so many people with AC power lines.
All the good energy plans include building HVDC lines.
They all include massive buildup of solar, both CSP and PV, Wind, Geothermal,
PHEV cars, a smart electric grid, Huge improvements in energy efficiency and building efficiency and cogeneration. These conservation efforts will have the biggest effect, much less deforestation.
We need to develop better energy storage to modulate the grid, but there are other ways of doing at least part of that job.
Current total Coal nameplate generating capacity is 313 gWt providing 50% of U.S. power, measured in kilowatt hours. Total U.S. nameplate generating capacity is 1075gWt
Clean coal is a myth and at best would be a decade or more away from being ready. And then it would be expensive, much more expensive than solar and wind will be by then.
Same for nuclear It can’t be built fast and it’s fuel source will run out.
It has problems too numerous to list here.
See
http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#Nuclear
The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy
and
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/pdf/nuclear_report.pdf
April 24th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I agree- its the energy consumption that has to change… and now we want to destroy more untouched environments that are already struggling with erosion problems. Solar panels are an eyesore. A few panels on a house here or there is one thing but acres of panels is way too destructive. For energy to be sustainable it needs to be local… and notice its all going to rich Europe.