Solving the world's energy problem is easy

[Enragé]

At least, i as a layman would think.

Why dont we just build shitloads of solar power cells in the Sahara? Almost nothing is going on there, its just a shitload of sand - with ALOT of sun!

So what would be the problems in doing this? (logistically and technologically)

And why isnt it being done? (i have a few ideas but i dont want to spoil the discussion)

[Q]

Despite some technical reasons (you'd need some really efficient cables for this to transport all this power to the rest of the world!), I'd say the main reason is a political one: The area is a hornets nest.

Incidentally Greece and now Spain is using this argument to promote solar power stations at home: It's a little less efficient, but hey, it's safe!

I expect though, with current developments, that in a decade or two solar panels on your roof is a very common sight.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Well, the technical problem really is storage and transport. The political problem is oil.

[eyedrop]

Aren't another problem that we don't actually have enough of some metal used in construction of solar panels to make a million squaremeters of solar panel.

Other types of solar panels could maybe be developed.

And you have the energy transport problem already mentioned, quite a decent % of the current is lost in power lines and I don't know how feasible it is to voltage it up to decrease it.

And if the whole world is running on Sahara sun power how would it deal with night in Sahara, you would need some method of storing the energy.


And we have the massive construction cost of something like that, and also the cost of earths natural resources.

[NorwegianCommunist]

I agree with you.
It would be smart, but it's up to the countries in Africa that includes the Sahara desert that decides it.
They would probably want some money in return and then you would not be able to build as many as you hoped for.

But, that my opinion on the matter. =)

[Decolonize The Left]

There was some stat somewhere that you could power the entire US with a couple hundred square miles of solar panels positioned strategically in Texas.

There is no real energy problem in our modern age - there is an economic and political problem which stops us from efficiently using our technology for the benefit of all due to that little thing called 'profit.'

- August

[Enragé]

Aren't another problem that we don't actually have enough of some metal used in construction of solar panels to make a million squaremeters of solar panel.


really? Didnt know that. Why do you have to use specifically that metal? And does anyone know what that metal's called?

[eyedrop]

really? Didnt know that. Why do you have to use specifically that metal? And does anyone know what that metal's called?

It's just something I remember reading somewhere, take it with a pitcher of salt. (Not everything translates so well)

I think it may be silicon (not a metal, but my memory isn't infallible) that could cause trouble in the scale one would need solar panels.

Here (http://www.solarhome.org/newsthesolarsiliconshortage.html) is a random article I pulled from the web.

"There is, however, one aspect of solar power that, according to many experts, threatens the future growth of the solar industry. This danger is the shortage of silicon, which is the main raw material for manufacturing the most popular kinds of solar panels. Investors who understand the dynamics of silicon supply may have an advantage when investing in solar stocks." From the President of Altenews.com

I don't know how reputable they are.

Other types of solar panels are under development though, for example Trygve Monstads work on solar panels based on metal hybrids.

Source (http://ife.academia.edu/trygvemongstad)

[Prometeo liberado]

There is a reason why there is almost nothing out there. The landscape is ever changing and with that comes a very unstable topography. To undertake the first step of building a viable road system would take time. I do agree that as a resource it will just be a matter of time and technology though.

[eyedrop]

There is a reason why there is almost nothing out there. The landscape is ever changing and with that comes a very unstable topography. To undertake the first step of building a viable road system would take time. I do agree that as a resource it will just be a matter of time and technology though.

When did roads become the topic of the thread?

Edit: I read your post abit fast the first time so I may have been somewhat rude, so I apologize.

[manic expression]

Green energy is, I think (and I'm no expert), best done on a local basis. Deserts that are relatively within reach of population centers would be great for solar (parts of the Sahara are probably a superb idea), but you can't count on just one area and one method for the whole world. If the energy sources are diverse enough then it might prove more flexible and adaptive IMO. Solar definitely needs to be pushed more, but wind, hydro and geothermal should also be employed when they make the most sense.


When did roads become the topic of the thread?
How would you go about repairing and maintaining those panels without any access to them?

[Prometeo liberado]

When did roads become the topic of the thread?

This thread is about solving the energy problem. If you read the other posts you would clearly see that the discussion is also about using the Sahara and how difficult that would be. Please.

[CommunityBeliever]

Solving the world's energy problem is easyNot really. Solving the world's energy problem is not as simple as installing solar power cells in the desert. Other electricity sources such as and hydropower plants, uranium fission reactors, and geothermal stations are going to continue to play an important role in the future. However, the ultimate solution to the world's energy problem is nuclear fusion. There is such an abundance of hydrogen and helium resources available to us that nuclear fusion will allow us to satisfy all our energy needs indefinitely.


Why dont we just build shitloads of solar power cells in the Sahara?There are several problems with this solution. Firstly, the materials for building a solar cell array requires burning 3% as much coal as would be burned in generating an equivalent quantity of electricity from a coal-burning power plant. Furthermore, there are several poisonious chemicals used in constructing solar cells such as s hydrofluoric acid, boron trifluoride, arsenic, cadmium, tellurium, and selenium compounds. Secondly, once we have manufactured solar cells we will have to transport them to the Sahara for deployment and we will need to layout a line of transportation to centers of use. Finally, these cells will require active maintenance and protection from damaging desert sand storms. In the below article, Dr. Bernard Cohen describes why although solar power is a good supplementary electricity source it will never be primary:

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter14.html (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/%7Eblc/book/chapter14.html)

THE SOLAR DREAM

One final point of public misunderstanding is the widespread impression that solar electricity will soon be replacing nuclear power, so there is no need to bother with nuclear energy. There are vociferous political organizations pushing this viewpoint, and a substantial portion of the public seems to be largely convinced that our primary source of electricity in the next century will be solar.

As a frequent participant in meetings on energy technology, I have come to know several solar energy experts, but I have yet to meet one who shares the above opinion. Their professional lives are devoted to development of solar electricity, and most of them are very enthusiastic about its future. Nevertheless, they have encouraged me in my efforts on behalf of nuclear power, saying frankly that the public's expectations for solar power are unrealistic. They foresee its future, at least for the near term, as a supplement to other technologies, with advantages in certain situations, rather than as the principal power source for an industrialized society. My purpose here is to explain why that is so.

[Georwell]

I know this is a bit far fetched, but eventually, it seems that such a method would actually be pretty beneficial for humanity and its continued technological and biological evolution. The solution in the future may be called a Dyson Sphere. The Sphere is a sort of mega structure that would consist of an array of satellites. These satellites would have on them solar panels, that would suck energy up from our friendly neighborhood star. If we could capture only a fraction of our Star's daily output, we'd be in good hands...

But before a Dyson Sphere is created, we have some work to do here. :thumbup:

[Psy]

Well first you'd want a receiver tower so you focus the energy via mirrors to a central collector as mirrors are cheaper.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Solar_two.jpg

Yet there is one small problem, such power plants require constant maintenance especially in a environment where sand can blow around at high speed scratching the surface of mirrors and clogging up mirror motors tracking the sun. Thus you need a settlement near by for workers, plus that settlements needs to be connected to supply lines.

[The Cheshire Cat]

The only real problem is the oil lobby. They practically rule this rock.

[Enragé]

Not really. Solving the world's energy problem is not as simple as installing solar power cells in the desert. Other electricity sources such as and hydropower plants, uranium fission reactors, and geothermal stations are going to continue to play an important role in the future. However, the ultimate solution to the world's energy problem is nuclear fusion. There is such an abundance of hydrogen and helium resources available to us that nuclear fusion will allow us to satisfy all our energy needs indefinitely.

There are several problems with this solution. Firstly, the materials for building a solar cell array requires burning 3% as much coal as would be burned in generating an equivalent quantity of electricity from a coal-burning power plant. Furthermore, there are several poisonious chemicals used in constructing solar cells such as s hydrofluoric acid, boron trifluoride, arsenic, cadmium, tellurium, and selenium compounds. Secondly, once we have manufactured solar cells we will have to transport them to the Sahara for deployment and we will need to layout a line of transportation to centers of use. Finally, these cells will require active maintenance and protection from damaging desert sand storms. In the below article, Dr. Bernard Cohen describes why although solar power is a good supplementary electricity source it will never be primary:

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter14.html (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/%7Eblc/book/chapter14.html)

THE SOLAR DREAM

One final point of public misunderstanding is the widespread impression that solar electricity will soon be replacing nuclear power, so there is no need to bother with nuclear energy. There are vociferous political organizations pushing this viewpoint, and a substantial portion of the public seems to be largely convinced that our primary source of electricity in the next century will be solar.

As a frequent participant in meetings on energy technology, I have come to know several solar energy experts, but I have yet to meet one who shares the above opinion. Their professional lives are devoted to development of solar electricity, and most of them are very enthusiastic about its future. Nevertheless, they have encouraged me in my efforts on behalf of nuclear power, saying frankly that the public's expectations for solar power are unrealistic. They foresee its future, at least for the near term, as a supplement to other technologies, with advantages in certain situations, rather than as the principal power source for an industrialized society. My purpose here is to explain why that is so.

With nuclear fusion do you mean 'cold fusion'? Isnt that just a theoretical idea and all attempts at it have failed?

To what you say about the toxic materials, would that be the case as well in psy's mirror-based solution?

And to the final point the scientist you quote makes, if you combine solar and hydro and wind-power, would you still have to fuck around with nuclear power?
My problem is that, though its not like i will dogmatically resist any transitional phase including nuclear and coal energy, i have the idea that instead of investing in trying to get to a post-nuclear and post-fossile fuel energy production, what is happening instead (because of current economic and political conditions) is a short-sighted choice for the nuclear option because it is cheaper right now - all the talk of 'transition' just being empty rhetoric.

[eyedrop]

With nuclear fusion do you mean 'cold fusion.

He means standard fusion, it doesn't have to be cold. Check out this gigantic project, in france, to research fusion as a power source.

http://www.iter.org/