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

[RangerDanger90]

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

 

[sam_w]

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

Can you provide a link to this? I just did a Google search and came up flat, in fact the first was a link to this thread, talk about running in circles.

 

[RangerDanger90]

For sure!

Best link I can provide you is:
€400bn energy plan to harness African sun - Europe, World - The Independent

There are several links that can span from the google search engine with keywords like "Desertec project" or "super solar plant in africa."

Some other links include:
DESERTEC Foundation: Start
#Vast solar plant in Africa to provide up to 25% of Europe's electrical needs - talk.politics.misc | Google Groups

=)

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

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?

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.

 

[obvious Child]

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.

Too bad that they will require billions in additional US government spending not to mention billions in subsidiaries per kilowatt. Want more nuclear? Then you are for expanding government and expanding our debt.

 

[Bootsavich]

Too bad that they will require billions in additional US government spending not to mention billions in subsidiaries per kilowatt. Want more nuclear? Then you are for expanding government and expanding our debt.

As much as I like out existing nuke plants, you're right. New plants are too expensive.

Coal is, and will be for a long time, the most feasible option for power generation.

 

[Oftencold]

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

Well, as I understand it, with the possible exception of Death Valley, all of our deserts are lush vacation spots compared to the Sahara, and have complex ecosystems that would likely be greatly damaged by the massive loss of insolation* gigantic solar farms would entail.

Add to that the problems op long distance power transmission, and you have your answer.

Also, since we as a society are in the process of tuning our attention inward and becoming fixated on relatively mild problems that government cannot solve, large, new pulbic engineering projects are unlikely to materialize.

( My favorite visual metaphor for the current state of western society is that of a magnificent hunting dog that has just proudly, and gracefully just run across a meadow in sunlight-- a vision of living poetry. when suddely, it flop[s down on the ground curls up and begins licking its nether regions.)





* look it up

 

[Catawba]

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

Ranger, thanks for posting that news for folks here to read! I read about this just the other day and posted about it on another site. It is great to see other nations addressing our global footprint problem and gearing themselves up for an energy independent future. I still have hope folks in this country will step up and take the steps needed to have sustainable and environmental friendly energy that requires no foreign wars to maintain. Most people don't factor in the cost of Middle East wars in our energy cost which allows a skewed picture of the true costs.

When a majority figure that out, we may take the steps to compete in a future world.

 

[RangerDanger90]

Ranger, thanks for posting that news for folks here to read! I read about this just the other day and posted about it on another site. It is great to see other nations addressing our global footprint problem and gearing themselves up for an energy independent future. I still have hope folks in this country will step up and take the steps needed to have sustainable and environmental friendly energy that requires no foreign wars to maintain. Most people don't factor in the cost of Middle East wars in our energy cost which allows a skewed picture of the true costs.

When a majority figure that out, we may take the steps to compete in a future world.

Most definitely, it is my pleasure! =) Your right, I just hope that we can all get together and really make renewables cost efficicient if possible!

 

[sam_w]

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.

Nuclear is not all that it's cracked up to be, while certainly still cleaner than any coal of course. Problem is the waste that is produced, and what to do with it. It is a political firebomb of where to transport the waste, and how to get it there. Usually politicians are all in favor of nuclear plants until one is built in their district, the waste is stored in their district, or the waste has to be transported through their district.

If we had truly safe and reliable space transport vehicles we could probably just shoot it into the sun, but that day is far away.

 

[Bootsavich]

Nuclear is not all that it's cracked up to be, while certainly still cleaner than any coal of course. Problem is the waste that is produced, and what to do with it. It is a political firebomb of where to transport the waste, and how to get it there. Usually politicians are all in favor of nuclear plants until one is built in their district, the waste is stored in their district, or the waste has to be transported through their district.

If we had truly safe and reliable space transport vehicles we could probably just shoot it into the sun, but that day is far away.

Agreed. Eventually, I think national pressure and reduced construction costs will force us to realize that we have a lot of space in the deserts of the southwest. Nuclear and solar power could turn that region into an important resource.

 

[sam_w]

Agreed. Eventually, I think national pressure and reduced construction costs will force us to realize that we have a lot of space in the deserts of the southwest. Nuclear and solar power could turn that region into an important resource.

Agreed as well, there is a hell of a lot of land still in the U.S. from the Dakotas to the South West that is barren, close to inhabitable, and generally of no use. Solar panels and wind towers will have a much limited impact on the environment than many think.

 

[justone]

Solar panels and wind towers will have a much limited impact on the environment than many think.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/52108-super-solar-plant-africa-4.html#post1058137438

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/52108-super-solar-plant-africa-4.html#post105813750

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/52108-super-solar-plant-africa-5.html#post1058137626

The more solar panels you build of whatever efficiency the more AGWsolar you cause. The more you improve efficiency of the solar panels the more AGWsolar you cause.

basic thermodynamics. More impact than CO2.

 

[sam_w]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/52108-super-solar-plant-africa-4.html#post1058137438

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/52108-super-solar-plant-africa-4.html#post105813750

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/52108-super-solar-plant-africa-5.html#post1058137626

The more solar panels you build of whatever efficiency the more AGWsolar you cause. The more you improve efficiency of the solar panels the more AGWsolar you cause.

basic thermodynamics. More impact than CO2.

Muahahahha you cite as source links to posts here, way to go flat earther

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

If we're going to cover 10,000 square miles with solar cells, I say do it to Delaware and New Jersy.

 

[UtahBill]

If we're going to cover 10,000 square miles with solar cells, I say do it to Delaware and New Jersy.

correct, place the power close to its customer base. the north africa site is too far away from Europe, and the governments are too unstable. Transmission losses will be considerable. I predict that the project will never get built...

Besides, the FIRST thing we in the USA would need to do is to REDUCE OUR USAGE. A well built house uses less than half the energy normally consumed by heating and cooling the structure. It would take 50 years under new and improved building codes to accomplish this. The average age of cars on the road is about 10 years old. If we had implemented better building codes back in the early 70's when we mandated cleaner burning gasoline engines, we would be far better off now.

 

[UtahBill]

Nuclear is not all that it's cracked up to be, while certainly still cleaner than any coal of course. Problem is the waste that is produced, and what to do with it. It is a political firebomb of where to transport the waste, and how to get it there. Usually politicians are all in favor of nuclear plants until one is built in their district, the waste is stored in their district, or the waste has to be transported through their district.

If we had truly safe and reliable space transport vehicles we could probably just shoot it into the sun, but that day is far away.

The volume of nuclear waste is very small and easily mangaged. Only the most ignorant and/or rabid anti-nuke thinks otherwise.
Shooting nuclear waste into the sun will never happen.
As for transporting on our highways, we already ship by truck and rail dangerous substances, and people get hurt, but as long as it isn't "nuclear", it seems to be acceptable.

 

[RightinNYC]

Too bad that they will require billions in additional US government spending not to mention billions in subsidiaries per kilowatt. Want more nuclear? Then you are for expanding government and expanding our debt.

As compared to the $570b project proposed by the OP?

 

[SgtNeo]

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.

I am sorry, but to include nuclear and safe for the environment in the same sentence is ridiculous.

Splitting atoms is very dangerous and uranium does deplete and has to be stored which gives off radiation for eternity.

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

If Scientists could develop Cold Fusion already.

 

[UtahBill]

I am sorry, but to include nuclear and safe for the environment in the same sentence is ridiculous.

Splitting atoms is very dangerous and uranium does deplete and has to be stored which gives off radiation for eternity.

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

If Scientists could develop Cold Fusion already.

A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush....nuclear works well and is available in large quantities, while solar and wind are in the bush, and are at best SUPPLEMENTS, not alternatives.
Nuclear IS safe, emits next to nothing to the air and water, unlike coal which emits tons of crap into the air, and then there are the tons of coal ash that has to be stored.
People who avoided any science classes in high school should not be the ones making our energy policies.
There are NO energy sources that have zero pollution or waste storage problems except the sun, and it is a form of radiation in inself. You get more radiation exposure from one dental exam than from living next to a nuclear power plant for 20 years.
We can't even get hot fusion, you want cold fusion?

 

[Orion]

Good for the EU. I don't think this is practical for North America though. The fact that Europe needs to base this project in a large, abandoned area of Africa says a lot about its land use requirements. Finding land of that size with good sunlight coverage in North America while not disturbing agriculture, ecosystems, or other things that rely on the area, would be difficult. I guess the desert could be one idea...

In any case, I find it a bit strange that the EU is investing in the pannel technology when more efficient solar technologies are just years away from being more available.

I'm also curious about what the Northern African nations are going to get out of this benefits wise?

 

[UtahBill]

Good for the EU. I don't think this is practical for North America though. The fact that Europe needs to base this project in a large, abandoned area of Africa says a lot about its land use requirements. Finding land of that size with good sunlight coverage in North America while not disturbing agriculture, ecosystems, or other things that rely on the area, would be difficult. I guess the desert could be one idea...

In any case, I find it a bit strange that the EU is investing in the pannel technology when more efficient solar technologies are just years away from being more available.
I'm also curious about what the Northern African nations are going to get out of this benefits wise?

The USA has a LOT of desert, more than most realize. Most, nearly all, of the southwest is desert.
North African nations get to have the EU by the balls, that is what they get.
Building your power plants in politically unstable countries is stupid...it would be like us building our power plants in Mexico.

The part of your statement that I bolded, what makes you think that such progress is only years away? I think you are way too optomistic about scientific progress. Besides, we can do more good right now by learning to just use less energy...

 

[Orion]

The USA has a LOT of desert, more than most realize. Most, nearly all, of the southwest is desert.
North African nations get to have the EU by the balls, that is what they get.
Building your power plants in politically unstable countries is stupid...it would be like us building our power plants in Mexico.

To my knowledge, a lot of U.S. desert is banned from development because of military operations. Deserts are often used for testing.

The part of your statement that I bolded, what makes you think that such progress is only years away? I think you are way too optomistic about scientific progress. Besides, we can do more good right now by learning to just use less energy...

The technology already exists... they even have solar technology that can be squeezed out of a tube into liquid form. The missing factor is investment and production now, and for that, in most places, it needs government support.

I agree with you that conservation is the most important, but that doesn't mean we can't be researching new alternatives too. At least Europe is trying, unlike us in North America. All ideas are defeated with pessimism before they are even put to task... meanwhile, green technology could at least supplement the system.

But that's not what big corporations want, especially big oil.

 

[UtahBill]

To my knowledge, a lot of U.S. desert is banned from development because of military operations. Deserts are often used for testing.



The technology already exists... they even have solar technology that can be squeezed out of a tube into liquid form. The missing factor is investment and production now, and for that, in most places, it needs government support.

I agree with you that conservation is the most important, but that doesn't mean we can't be researching new alternatives too. At least Europe is trying, unlike us in North America. All ideas are defeated with pessimism before they are even put to task... meanwhile, green technology could at least supplement the system.

But that's not what big corporations want, especially big oil.

Not true about the deserts and the military. True that in western states the federal govt owns a lot of the land, but there is still plenty left.
You want the solar power sites, like any other energy source, to be close to the consumers to minimize transmission losses, and there is plenty of desert that is close to the cities.
You are using the right word, tho, green technology is supplemental. There are no "green" alternatives to coal, which provides the base load, except nuclear.

 

[C. Gerstle]

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