• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Germans Implementing Super Solar Plant in North Africa's Desert? WHY NOT THE US!

Go to the website. Desertec.org. The plan is not just solar power. It's a massive network of alternative energy plants spread out all across Europe, the Middle East, North Africa. Of course, the coup de grace of the plan is the solar power plant in north Africa, but you guys think it is one huge plant in one location. You're wrong. It is a series of solar plants stretching from Morocco to Saudi Arabia. This creates a sphere of nations that depend on each other, creating a need for diplomacy and cooperation

Oh, this is just too funny....
There is already a need for diplomacy and cooperation, has been for thousands of years. Radical ideology in North Africa and the Middle East cares nothing for diplomacy and cooperation.
Terrorists will DESTROY the energy sites. THEY will see the sites as just a substitute for oil, and right now oil is their only source of revenue and political power.
Smart people keep their power sources close to home and away from their enemies...
 
Again, it's spread out across all of EUMENA. It creates an interdependancy sphere in which North Africa depends on Europe just as much as Europe depends on North Africa. When you make nations completely independant of each other, you make a world where there is no incentive to engage in diplomacy. The answer is neither energy independance nor energy dependance. The answer is energy interdependance.
 
Again, it's spread out across all of EUMENA. It creates an interdependancy sphere in which North Africa depends on Europe just as much as Europe depends on North Africa. When you make nations completely independant of each other, you make a world where there is no incentive to engage in diplomacy. The answer is neither energy independance nor energy dependance. The answer is energy interdependance.

Yes, I get that....but much of NA and ME use very little electricity compared to the EU, and that makes the EU more dependent than the others. Besides, the NA and ME can just sever transmission lines to the EU and still have all the local power to themselves. Interdependency needs more than just energy sharing.
There needs to be trade in goods and services, not to mention a mutual respect for the others culture, religions, etc.
What is the EU sending to the ME or NA now that they just have to have and only the EU can provide?
 
When will you guys realize that this whole thing is not just for Europe? It's for all of EUMENA (EU-Europe, ME-Middle East, NA-North Africa). Everyone is talking about the North African solar plants because that is where most of the construction will be.

Other parts of this whole system include geothermal plants in Iceland, Italy, and Greece, biofuel farms in Germany and Egypt, and a string of wind farms that starts in Morocco then goes along the coast of Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany.
 
When will you guys realize that this whole thing is not just for Europe? It's for all of EUMENA (EU-Europe, ME-Middle East, NA-North Africa). Everyone is talking about the North African solar plants because that is where most of the construction will be.

Other parts of this whole system include geothermal plants in Iceland, Italy, and Greece, biofuel farms in Germany and Egypt, and a string of wind farms that starts in Morocco then goes along the coast of Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany.

again, I get that....what YOU don't get that the ME and NA are not exactly the most stable areas on the planet.
Are you wanting to tie all the sources in to a single massive energy grid? Perhaps you missed the news a few years back when the entire northeast United States got blacked out.
Regional grids, isolated from each other, precludes such a thing from happening again, but we aren't considering that here, even with our bad experiences.
Regional grids also means that if one country goes even more unstable, the rest of the countries in the area don't have to worry about one country disrupting the power supplies.
The USA can have landlines for power and telephones a lot easier than the EU, since we are basically ONE governmental entity, not a collection of former enemies. So I am suggesting that just among the members of the EU, there will be squabbles. The energy supplier countries s are going to be in charge, and the energy user countries are going to feel like victims every time a rate hike is requested...
 
This is what this whole thing looks like

Solar thermal power plants spread across MENA

Wind farms, form a line along the coast from Lithuania to Liberia

Hydroelectric plants in Italy, Iceland, Scotland, Sweden, Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, and Spain

Biomass power plants/farms in France, Germany, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and Egypt

Geothermal power plants in Iceland, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, and Turkey

PV Cell factories in Spain, England, France, Germany, and Austria

All of this is connected by a power gr
 
In order to limit transmission costs, the EU will get most of their electricity from the European based plants. This whole system is set to supply 80% of Europe's energy needs by 2050.

The funding for this (it will cost 400 billion euros, or $568 billion) comes from the private sector. 12 companies have signed an agreement to invest in a new company called the Desertec Industrial Initiative, which will coodinate the efforts of the 12 companies to put this plan into action.
 
The 12 companies are:

ABB - a Swedish/Swiss power technology company
ABENGOA Solar - a Spanish solar power company
Cevital - an Algerian food producer
Deutsche Bank - a German bank
E.ON - a German energy company
HSH Nordbank - a German bank
MAN Solar Millennium - a German engineering company
Munich Re - a German reinsurance company
M&W Zander Group - a German enginering company
RWE - a German power company
SCHOTT Solar - a German solar cell producer
SIEMENS - a German engineering company
 
There are plans being laid out for a 400 Billion Euro (568679911658.49 USD) Super Solar Plant installation in North Africa's desert.

It will provide about 20-25% of Europes energy needs!
If Europe has 731,000,000 people, 182,750,000 will be theoretically satisfied!

If the US has a population of 304,059,724, then it would satisfy 61.24% of our needs!

Why dont we spend 568.68 billion US dollars and install a mega super solar power plant in the middle of a desert in the SouthWestern US?

We would definitely reduce power plant emissions!!! =)

Remember, I factored in the amount of energy to each individual member of the population as a fair ratio in energy consumption.

Because fossil fuel costs are on the rise, this becomes a prettier picture! =)

Because the Europeans want to install this super solar plant in North Africa, it is going to be more of a risk because the plant will be subject to immense political strain and blockades. Scenarios include that a country will cut off the whole solar plant militarily and that African nation will then charge everyone that uses the power generated from that plant, in end, it may turn into a fiasco and a 400 billion euro gift to that nation and a line of income as it profits from the plant. It may also generate armed conflict as germany sends in troops. It may be a lifesaver or it may be a firecracker just waiting for the fuse to be lit.

In the US, we have a far lesser risk of that happening, unless Nevada, Arizona, and California secede from the Union, which is always a possibility ;)

Everything you said about a solar plant in Africa: double goes for oil fields in the ME.

Everything you said about a US solar plant: triple goes for drilling ANWAR.
 
I am sorry, but to include nuclear and safe for the environment in the same sentence is ridiculous.

Naturally.

I mean, nuclear power produces no wastes that can't be easily controlled, zero carbon monoxide, zero sulphur, and zero ozone.

Splitting atoms is very dangerous

No it's not.

In fact, the nuclear power industry is the safest industry in the world.

and uranium does deplete and has to be stored which gives off radiation for eternity.

Actuall, uranium is a fairly common element, and with proper engineering u238 can be coaxed into becoming Pu240, which is an even more effective fission-fuel than U235.

Also, radiactive elements, by definition, decay and don't last for eternity.

Renewable energy is must practicle option.

Yeah, when renewable energy options can generate 10,000 Mw from a ten acre site, 24 hours a day, they'll be viable, even.

Creating energy with no by-product is essential for human life to continue far into the future.

No one "creates" energy, that's a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

If Scientists could develop Cold Fusion already.

Ah, the Wet Dream of the 80's. Fusion requires sustained temperatures in excess of a million degrees Kelvin. Good luck with that. What we have right now it good old-fashioned uranium/plutonium/thorium fission, and thorium isn't very popular.

BTW, I've operated a nuclear power plant and have an engineering degree. How're you doing experience-wise over there on your side?
 
Naturally.

I mean, nuclear power produces no wastes that can't be easily controlled, zero carbon monoxide, zero sulphur, and zero ozone.



No it's not.

In fact, the nuclear power industry is the safest industry in the world.



Actuall, uranium is a fairly common element, and with proper engineering u238 can be coaxed into becoming Pu240, which is an even more effective fission-fuel than U235.

Also, radiactive elements, by definition, decay and don't last for eternity.



Yeah, when renewable energy options can generate 10,000 Mw from a ten acre site, 24 hours a day, they'll be viable, even.



No one "creates" energy, that's a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.



Ah, the Wet Dream of the 80's. Fusion requires sustained temperatures in excess of a million degrees Kelvin. Good luck with that. What we have right now it good old-fashioned uranium/plutonium/thorium fission, and thorium isn't very popular.

BTW, I've operated a nuclear power plant and have an engineering degree. How're you doing experience-wise over there on your side?

Scarecrow, you are whizzing into the wind here.....his mind is made up and no amount of factual proof will change it...
 
Scarecrow, you are whizzing into the wind here.....his mind is made up and no amount of factual proof will change it...

One provides truth to counter fear-mongering propaganda not in the hopes that the propagandist has the honesty to learn, but in the hopes that his audience has minds open enough to want to learn the whole story.

I'm kinda hoping Europe does develop an continental dependence on foreign sunlight, just like they're growing increasingly dependent on Russian methane. What'll they do when they've finally sold all their North Sea oil to the US? Why, they'll have to pay the charitable Russians and their benevolent foreign colonies arms and legs to move their Smart Cars.
 
Even France understands the superiority of nuclear power as a provider of infrastructural energy:

In 2004, France consumed 11.2 quadrillion Btu of total energy. Nuclear energy was the largest share, representing 39 percent, followed by oil (36 percent), natural gas (16 percent) and hydroelectricity (5 percent). France is the second-largest producer of nuclear power in the world, after the United States, however, nuclear energy is a much larger share of France’s total energy consumption than the United States (8 percent in 2004).

France: Energy profile | Spero News

It's clean, efficient, cost-effective (in the long term), and safe. I don't understand why Americans aren't demanding a nuclear infrastructure. IF the government is going to subsidize an energy industry we might as well subsidize nuclear energy. It's about as close as you can get to an ideal energy source with current technology.

If France gets it, then why doesn't the far left? The two normally go hand in hand...
 
Even France understands the superiority of nuclear power as a provider of infrastructural energy:



It's clean, efficient, cost-effective (in the long term), and safe. I don't understand why Americans aren't demanding a nuclear infrastructure. IF the government is going to subsidize an energy industry we might as well subsidize nuclear energy. It's about as close as you can get to an ideal energy source with current technology.

If France gets it, then why doesn't the far left? The two normally go hand in hand...

French military victories may be a joke, but not French engineering....they build good stuff....
 
Even France understands the superiority of nuclear power as a provider of infrastructural energy:



It's clean, efficient, cost-effective (in the long term), and safe. I don't understand why Americans aren't demanding a nuclear infrastructure. IF the government is going to subsidize an energy industry we might as well subsidize nuclear energy. It's about as close as you can get to an ideal energy source with current technology.

If France gets it, then why doesn't the far left? The two normally go hand in hand...

The problem with nuclear energy is that the anti-nuclear power movements succeeded in propaganda and were able to create a hysteria about the risks.

However the result is that in Germany nuclear power is no longer an option due to political reasons. This anti-nuclear power hysteria is not my cup of tea, but if this was the only problem, we could say, deal with it; get out of this lets build coal plants, maybe smaller coal plants with a high efficieny, but here is a dangerous eco-lobby which is living in an utopia, in which we do neither need coal plants nor nuclear plants. They ignore the fact that the alternatives cannot proliferate electricity in the manner like today; the result of their visions would be electricity as a luxury for rich people.
 
I find the whole notion of creating large scale centralized renewable energy facilities to be counter to the ultimate goal and benefit of the technologies.

An attribute that makes renewables so attractive is that they work best, especially solar, on a decentralized, local, if not residential scale. The prices are kept down and individuals actually benefit in terms of community level energy independence. The grid can handle peak loads much easier because of the resultant redundancy in localized energy production. Also power production becomes far less vulnerable to shut downs/ disasters, and more sustainable both economically and environmentally.

One of the major flaws in contemporary power production, (i.e. nuclear, coal, natural gas) is centralization. Regions are completely dependent on one vulnerable energy retailer, whose shut down would paralyze said area. In addition rate hikes, tendency to fail, and massive operating costs further the negatives of centralized power production. While solar alleviates some of these concerns building a massive centralized facility in the image of the broken model of nuclear and coal would lead to an infrastructure that ignores the true potential of the technologies and is burdened with many of the same problems as the large centralized power production methods of today.

Essentially, the EU plan described above ignores the resilience inherent in renewable energy, and the massive investment would ultimately be a misdirected attempt that ends in the creation of a burgeoning, vulnerable infrastructure. Simply put, bigger is not always better.
 
Because nuclear power plants are less harmful to the environment, more practical, and not subject to the weather, not to mention the fact that they'll piss off millions upon millions of paranoid ignorant environmentalists.

Yes, we must leave alone and preserve the flat barren desert - for it is - deserted and sparsely populated.
 
Yes, we must leave alone and preserve the flat barren desert - for it is - deserted and sparsely populated.
Putting power plants of any kind in remote areas is counter productive. Transmission losses will eat up a large percentage of the power long before it gets to the customers...
 
Putting power plants of any kind in remote areas is counter productive. Transmission losses will eat up a large percentage of the power long before it gets to the customers...

Exactly.

While on the surface it might seem to be an environmental concern - it's really just a practical issue of location location location.

Same thing with wind and water - it's all *there* but it's all *over there* and not in my back yard. While I have 2/3 available for personal use in reasonable quantities - I haven't the money to fund it for my personal use and not enough people around here care to make it an issue netting such plants (wind/water) being in our back yards - or neighborhoods.

What do they burn, though, for fuel during the winter?
Coal.
 
Last edited:
Exactly.

While on the surface it might seem to be an environmental concern - it's really just a practical issue of location location location.

Same thing with wind and water - it's all *there* but it's all *over there* and not in my back yard. While I have 2/3 available for personal use in reasonable quantities - I haven't the money to fund it for my personal use and not enough people around here care to make it an issue netting such plants (wind/water) being in our back yards - or neighborhoods.

What do they burn, though, for fuel during the winter?
Coal
.

Most of north Africa doesn't need much in the way of added heat during the winter, especially those areas near the Mediterraneian Sea, or Atlantic ocean.
I spent 3 years in GTMO, Cuba, and only one day in those 3 years did we feel the need for heat. Had to turn on the oven and place a fan in front of it to blow the heat out....none of the houses had heaters....
 
Putting power plants of any kind in remote areas is counter productive. Transmission losses will eat up a large percentage of the power long before it gets to the customers...

Have you seen the proposals for DC transmission of power? Looks interesting
 
Most of north Africa doesn't need much in the way of added heat during the winter, especially those areas near the Mediterraneian Sea, or Atlantic ocean.
I spent 3 years in GTMO, Cuba, and only one day in those 3 years did we feel the need for heat. Had to turn on the oven and place a fan in front of it to blow the heat out....none of the houses had heaters....

So very true - good point.
They will use a part of our American-used energy.
 
Have you seen the proposals for DC transmission of power? Looks interesting

got links?

Last I heard, the reason we use AC instead of DC is due to the ability to use transformers with AC that allows higher voltages, meaning less current for the same power, therefore less power losses due to transmission line resistance.
 
got links?

Last I heard, the reason we use AC instead of DC is due to the ability to use transformers with AC that allows higher voltages, meaning less current for the same power, therefore less power losses due to transmission line resistance.

I will have a look but it was an article in New Scientist talking about how this could be an answer to power losses over distance.
 
There are plans being laid out for a 400 Billion Euro (568679911658.49 USD) Super Solar Plant installation in North Africa's desert.

It will provide about 20-25% of Europes energy needs!
If Europe has 731,000,000 people, 182,750,000 will be theoretically satisfied!

If the US has a population of 304,059,724, then it would satisfy 61.24% of our needs!

Why dont we spend 568.68 billion US dollars and install a mega super solar power plant in the middle of a desert in the SouthWestern US?

We would definitely reduce power plant emissions!!! =)

Remember, I factored in the amount of energy to each individual member of the population as a fair ratio in energy consumption.

Because fossil fuel costs are on the rise, this becomes a prettier picture! =)

Because the Europeans want to install this super solar plant in North Africa, it is going to be more of a risk because the plant will be subject to immense political strain and blockades. Scenarios include that a country will cut off the whole solar plant militarily and that African nation will then charge everyone that uses the power generated from that plant, in end, it may turn into a fiasco and a 400 billion euro gift to that nation and a line of income as it profits from the plant. It may also generate armed conflict as germany sends in troops. It may be a lifesaver or it may be a firecracker just waiting for the fuse to be lit.

In the US, we have a far lesser risk of that happening, unless Nevada, Arizona, and California secede from the Union, which is always a possibility ;)

I suppose if you're cool with mining for arsenic and paying for processing, etc. Also, putting what over 60% of our power generation into a single spot....sure. BTW...how big is the array? How much would it cost to maintain?
 
Back
Top Bottom