Yes, I’ve been there. But the parts that aren’t like Dune would be suboptimal (from a sun shine perspective) for a solar plant, no? Or, at least, they would be no more optimal than, say, Southern Spain or parts of Italy, Greece, etc.
Also, a point I haven’t seen mentioned in the thread is, what about political instability? The Euro’s would be dependent on a foreign source of power still, unless they plan to annex the territory and control it militarily (:dubious:…:p)
The last time I checked it contained salt water. Not so good for moving parts or equipment.
Sure. So, it’s a trade off between high European wages and high capital and operating costs due to the environment. I think Europe gets a bigger bang for their buck by building (whatever) locally and just paying the higher wages.
What is the theoretical return on this energy percentage wise? 15%? 20%? 30%? Hell, they could be 100 percent with $550 billion US dollars invested in nuclear plants scattered throughout Europe…that’s over 500 nuclear plants for gods sake! That’s a LOT of power.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but thus far they haven’t invested anything in this project. It’s just in the preliminary stages. I’d sure love to see what their engineers are telling them about how they are going to get all that power back to Europe. To me, this sounds like one of those pie in the sky projects on Wired or Popular Science…all hype, little actual meat.
Tell you what…let’s lay down a 10 year bet. If, at the end of the 10 years, Europe has actually built this thing (or is even reasonably building it) you win…if not, then I win. Whatever stakes you like.
That’s where the wage differential comes into play.
**Rune **mentioned that in the OP. Definitely a serious consideration. Though there is no reason to believe they wouldn’t still want to sell the power to Europe.
True, but there is desalination and water tables on the coast that have been filtered by the Earth. I read a few years back in Wired about a guy who setup a desalination plant that also generated electricity. I don’t know whatever happened to that.
Probably. I’d say building it in Greece/Spain/Italy/France is probably a wiser investment.
Yes, yes it is. I don’t know what the theoretical return is.
The spent fuel? I suppose it would be stored where they are storing it now…in situ. Or the Euro’s could create a common repository, I guess. It’s more a political problem than an engineering one.
I suppose it comes down to…how serious are they about this whole Global Warming thingy? If they are REALLY serious then they will build the nuke plants. If not…then they will build this fantasy solar thingy and still have to figure out how to produce the other 80-85% of their energy needs. Wind? Well, that might get them another 10-15% if they invest another half trillion. Then what?
Here is an articlein Spiegel which looks at the plan in greater detail. Note that part of the power will be used for desalination which could supply some of the water necessary for maintenance.
Perhaps but these countries don't receive as much sunlight as the Sahara desert. They are also quite densely populated and I doubt their citizens would want solar plants all over their beautiful countryside.
Yes, well there was the county the size of New Jersey in Texas with a population of 500 where they couldn’t get a storage facility built. I can’t remember the name of the country I think it was Davis county maybe, I don’t know I heard about it from my Father-in-Law who lives in West Texas. The political problem is a real one and is probably more intractable than the engineering problems. Because of NIMBY, nuclear power just isn’t practical.
They don’t go into a lot of detail, though they at least mention it:
(looks like my math was wrong on converting Euro’s to Dollars too)
So, this system would cost $623 billion US dollars and would be ready to go by 2050 (both in theory of course). Aprox. $70 billion would be simply for the new power infrastructure.
They would have to run lines from North Africa across the Med. That just doesn’t seem very feasible. Oh, as an engineering problem it’s do-able, I’m sure…but, well, it seems kind of unrealistic. Still, I’m sure these guys have a better idea of the costs of such an under sea infrastructure would be, how much loss the lines would take over those kinds of distances, how they would need to bring it into the grid in multiple countries (they actually mention this aspect in the article), etc etc.
I’m guessing that even the $70 billion might be low…and no idea what the maintenance on such an under water power infrastructure would be.
No doubt you are right…NIMBY syndrome strikes everyone.
Well, coal (the fossil fuel we predominantly use for power generation) is STILL cheap and abundant…and probably will remain so unless it’s artificially inflated, until well after 2050. I’m unsure why he thinks that the US has lost interest in solar thermal power…I was watching Discovery the other day and they were talking about a new solar plant in, I think, Arizona, that just is working up to full production. As the article says, solar power is more expensive, but I think the main problem is transporting the power from the plant to the main grid where people can use it. Also, a desert environment is pretty rough on equipment (the plant in Arizona(?) actually has automated robots that wash the panels, but I’m not sure how much additional maintenance is required on the articulated joints that align the panels to the tower…a lot, I’d guess, with all the dust)
Even if all of this stuff is completely true and they could actually build this stuff for the projected cost (would be one of the first projects on this kind of scale that came in on budget), we are talking about over $600 billion US and taking 40 years to bring on line…and in the end you get 15% of your power needs taken care of. That doesn’t sound like a great deal to me. Especially if we need to get this global warming stuff under control now.
Frankly we know way too little to even speculate about whether it’s a good deal or not. For example is the 600 billion a present value and if so what discount rate are they using? Does it include operating costs ? What is the projected consumption of electricity in 2050? I doubt it’s a case of electricity being generated only in 2050. Probably it will be gradually ramped up over the next four decades until it reaches the projected levels in 2050.
Agreed…we know too little about the project. I’d love to see the details on how they propose to get the power back to various places in Europe though, so if anyone see’s some additional detail on this feel free to post a link and some quotes.
Theoretical Space needed for solar power plants to generate sufficient electric power in order to meet the electricity demand of the World, Europe (EU-25) and Germany respectively. (Data by the German Center of Aerospace (DLR), 2005):
Gods…look where they are planning to put these things! O…M…G! Ok, if that’s actually where they are planning to put them, I’m down grading this to ‘fantasy land’, personally. If you think they are going to put large scale solar plants in the middle (literally) of the Sahara desert, well…
It has nothing to do with the project. Just to illustrate how relative small areas are needed. I still think southern Portugal and Spain are much better alternatives.
One of Iran’s claims was they sought nuclear plants so their oil would last longer. It is vital to the future finances of the country. The Middle Easterners are well aware that the oil will eventually run out. I think they would embrace solar plan ,if it were also diverted for their own needs.
Interesting that they haven’t embraced it though, ehe? I mean, they have vast amounts of capital from oil sales. They have the money to build artificial islands and (less frivolously) really expensive desalinization plants. So, you’d think they would be going great guns for solar, especially considering their location. And if they could simply sell the energy back to Europe, it seems a win win situation. They have the capital and can simply buy the technology.
