Digg - 0.3% of Saharan Sun Enough To Power Europe (via Mowser)

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

0.3% of Saharan Sun Enough To Power Europe

environmentalgraffiti.com — 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. It is believed that the creation of solar farms in the Sahara desert could produce enough energy to meet all of Europe

Bury

Favorite?

sungoddess808 35 days ago, made popular 34 days ago

986 diggs digg it

145 Comments Who Dugg It? Blog It Email It

ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -5/+80This is great in theory; though aside from time (40+ yrs) & money (â‚¬450bn) relying on certain unstable northern African countries to supply Europe with power could be the biggest risk.

wisam, on 07/25/2008, -6/+24Unstable North African countries?

Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia are more "stable" that you could even imagine.

Mubarak of Egypt has been ruling for 27 years!
Qaddafi of Libya has been ruling for 39 years!
The Alaouite's of Morocco have been ruling for centuries.
Tunisia is the only Arab country with a past president who's still living and wasn't overthrown.

gbudavid, on 07/25/2008, -2/+4Qadaffi almost quit ruling during Reagan Presidency and Saw the Light During George W Bush Presidency. Mubarak is ruling at the Pleasure of USA mecharabbit, on 07/26/2008, -1/+6What North Africa needs most is a little instability. The nations of the West only coalesced into functioning democracies after centuries of rebellions, civil wars, and revolutions. The will of the people will always be done, if given some time. The US is doing North Africa no favors by propping up corrupt regimes like Mubarak's. sanman, on 07/26/2008, -13/+3@wisam

so in other words, they're all dictatorships and police states

uhh, good recipe for breeding more idiotic terrorist groups (which the Left can then adopt as pet cause celebres) fatjoe, on 07/26/2008, -0/+9Don't forget

Saddam of Iraq ruling for 24 years!

Oh wait....... arvvvs, on 07/26/2008, -1/+3Some people over there, might not be happy that the west is "exploiting" the region.

Even though all it is is sand. Papajohn56, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2did you just call Libya stable ahahahah Iztikeit, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2Africa = Stable?

Now I've heard everything.

lordmike, on 07/26/2008, -0/+23And I suppose relying on Iran, Iraq, and the middle east in general for our oil is more stable?

AgmLauncher, on 07/26/2008, -3/+2No, that's not what he said at all. He means supplying power locally is a better option (e.g. wind farms around the UK).

Besides, one massive dust storm and you can kiss the efficiency of all those massive mirrors and photovoltaic cells goodbye.

But it's cool. If Europe wants to let that part of the world maintain its power stranglehold on them, all the better for the US ^^

rudeboyskunk, on 07/26/2008, -1/+1Hopefully the energy supplied would also be shared with all of the African countries. A steady supply of electricity could keep them stable. asabil, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1This is a sample of an idiot's comment

mentol, on 07/25/2008, -4/+19That's certainly a beautiful idea, but I don't think Europe is really interested.

Grummond, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3Most european countries have already invested heavily in wind mills anyway. Some of them get 20% of their power from wind mills, and that number is growing.
Solar energy might be a nice compliment though, since wind isn't totally constant either. Iztikeit, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1And the conversion ratio wouldn't make it very cost effective.....

dislexicllama, on 07/25/2008, -3/+72And what about the maintenance of such a grid? Can you imagine the damage to a solar farm when a dust storm kicks through?

SillyRabbits, on 07/25/2008, -1/+46Yep, nothing helps solar cell efficiency like sandblasting the optically transparent coating. Not to mention the fact that the desert likes to completely bury things during those storms. This is just another case of a quick "back-of-the-envelope" calculation getting turned into an article without addressing what the real engineering concerns would be.

lump1, on 07/26/2008, -0/+19There was a less polite comment attached to the article itself which sort of makes a similar point:

Thereâ€™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 Einsteinâ€™s E=mc^2. Youâ€™ll see that the secret to Europeâ€™s energy crisis lies in my ass.

Now you may wonder if itâ€™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.
 zeebo, on 07/26/2008, -1/+1The mars rovers have dealt with its planet-wide dust storms even when it was initially thought that they would disable them quickly. I think that it would be a solveable problem. stklaw, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1If it's scratches we're afraid of, we should ask what Apple did with the ipod Touch.

mecharabbit, on 07/26/2008, -2/+5Not to mention the herds of nomadic tribesman roaming about on their camels, armed with baseball (err..cricket?) bats, just looking for something to smash.

stagmire, on 07/26/2008, -3/+4Just pay them to kill each other off like we did with Iraq and Iran in the 80s. reisrocks, on 07/26/2008, -5/+1mecharabbit You are a bigot, and in case you do not know what that means:

"Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable."

Do us a favour and run back to the hills you came from.

FairDinkumMate, on 07/26/2008, -3/+7Because the scientists that drew up the proposal, worked out the returns while taking into account transmission loss, comparable European local systems, average amounts of sunlight, costs of equipment & myriad other issues would obviously have never thought that their might be a sandstorm!

If you want to knock an article or idea, at least apply commonsense to your comments....

LoCoPyRo, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2I have to say you are extremely naive. I hope you don't honestly think that their estimate is even close to correct? There is no way to account for all the problems that will arise when you are doing a project no one has ever attempted before. If you think estimates for mega projects are ever even close to correct I direct you to do some research about one of the largest US infrastructure project in its history -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig_(Boston,_Mass ...

"Although the project was estimated at $2.8 billion in 1985 (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006),[6] over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars)[6] had been spent in federal and state tax dollars as of 2006."

I can only imagine what would happen when we are talking about 450 bil
 FairDinkumMate, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1II'm sorry. Did I mention costs somewhere in my comment that I haven't seen? If anyone is being naive I would suggest it is the commenters that have the arrogance to assume that in the 5 minutes it took them to read the story their superior intellect enabled them to foresee problems that never even occured to a whole team of experts in the field! LoCoPyRo, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Experts forget problems and costs that will arise all the time (if you would read the article I pointed out). That's one of the reasons why estimates are always so bad. It really helps to get an unobjectified opinion from a neutral third party. A lot of times experts miss seemingly obvious things that a complete idiot without any scientific knowledge or intellect can point out to them.

Also no where in the article does it say that the 450 billion includes things like maintenance, unexpected emergencies, etc so I don't know why you assume the experts have run the figures on that kind of stuff.. I guess I assumed it was just the start up capital cost but the article is pretty poorly written so I'm not sure. Pretty sure it also doesn't say if it is a team developing this or only one person.. not sure why you assumed that either.

thegreatgazoo, on 07/26/2008, -0/+4Exactly. Even without dust storms, they will still have to be cleaned/dusted. Also, the heat is attrocious (50+C), acidic and abrasive sand, plus it would get into all of the connectors and wiring. Not to question if there is enough raw materials to build that much solar panels.

Plus, how do you get power across the Mediterranean? Have a huge freaking wire across the straits of Gibralter?

Justice101, on 07/26/2008, -5/+2You could beam the power using satellites. I think some venture capitalists and an island are working on putting a solar collector in orbit and beaming down the power to an island to be distributed. I heard about it about a year back. This brings up another point, why not use the money to make lightweight large solar panels and just put them in orbit? bullox, on 07/26/2008, -1/+3Is wireless energy a serious option at this point? I wouldn't want to get in the way of the wave. You first. mousky, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2I guess you haven't heard of underwater cables then? sysop073, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1"Plus, how do you get power across the Mediterranean? Have a huge freaking wire across the straits of Gibralter?"

I assume that wasn't supposed to be ironic: http://news.cnet.com/i/ne/p/2006/020306cablemap_55 ...

swAppp, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Great, another way to generate electricity! masamunecyrus, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2You might mention that the Sahara desert is 3,500,000 square miles, 0.3 percent is 10,500 square miles (27,000 square kilometers). Have fun deploying 10,500 square miles of solar arrays.

Eyesaw, on 07/25/2008, -7/+5very interesting! Miamifan1354, on 07/26/2008, -10/+2Prediction for 2020:

US war to liberate the last two residents living in Sahara is just a cover to provide energy to New US (formally known as Italy). dignation, on 07/26/2008, -1/+46Assuming we reach this 0.3% simply by using the potential energy we could generate a given area of land, and given the sahara is 3,500,000 square miles (9,000,000 square km http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara ), 0.3% of the Sahara would be 10,300 square miles (27,000 square km). So, we would need to build 10,300 square miles of solar panels in order to capture this energy. In order to put it into perspective, this is the equivalent of 6 and 1/3 Rhode islands or a little under two Connecticut or 6.29% of California COMPLETELY covered in solar panels.

acparks1, on 07/26/2008, -4/+1http://tinyurl.com/6595kt funkymoose, on 07/26/2008, -3/+2"6.29% of California COMPLETELY covered"

^misleading. booper13, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3isnt there like 1 state u could pick instead of 2 tiny ones multiplied or a small percentage of a huge one? MuskokasFinest, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1And solar panels today are only at most, around 28% efficient. That would mean you'd have to multiply that area by 25/7. So the actual area needed for the project would be 36,800 square miles. trolleyfan, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1How about just seeing it as one big square solar panel, a smidge over a hundred miles on a side...

Xehoz, on 07/26/2008, -2/+6Did they actually considered the power loss that exists with such great distances? How much of that power generated in the desert would be lost, until it reaches, say, Sweden or Norway?

giloron, on 07/26/2008, -1/+1Super conductors.

Toss in an extra .1% to power the cooling units for the super conductors. MikeFallopian, on 07/26/2008, -0/+6Right now, the best option is high-voltage direct current (HVDC) cables. They have relatively low losses over long distances (3% power loss over every 1000 km). Large offshore wind farms use HVDC to transmit power back to shore. dojonz, on 07/26/2008, -3/+4Basically, I think what we need here, is big ass batteries. Just ship the batteries to a central power port, replace when low.

welliwonder, on 07/26/2008, -2/+1Nice! randyzaia, on 07/26/2008, -5/+38Digger News Flash: We May Soon Be Able To Satisfy Our Power Needs on Unicorn Fur And Pixie Dust

Yonson, on 07/26/2008, -0/+18And Capital Letters. randyzaia, on 07/26/2008, -0/+8duly noted

nastronomical, on 07/26/2008, -7/+5The day solar and wind can power a factory, town and city without intteruption 24/7 365 days a year with zero downtime and the ability to ramp up to meet demand instantly, is when its viable.....until then. Its a fantasy fueled by ignorance and wishful thinking.

HappyScrappy, on 07/26/2008, -1/+9It doesn't have to be our only power source in order to make a difference.

We use hydroelectric power even though it can't supply the whole country either.FairDinkumMate, on 07/26/2008, -1/+10The day you can produce coal or oil based energy & keep the resultant pollutants within only your own breathable air with ZERO emmisions impacting on others is when it's viable.....until then it's a fantasy fuelled by ignorance & arrogance!govsucks, on 07/26/2008, -5/+2Spoken like a man who isn't a hypocrite and uses no oil or coal.
hipswiggle, on 07/26/2008, -2/+6It'd be nice if our current infrastructure could power factories, towns and cities without interruption 24/7 365 with zero downtime AND ramp up to meet demand instantly.

Why should renewable resources be held to higher standards than our current resources?TheMachine1, on 07/26/2008, -0/+5Most demand is during daytime.sk11, on 07/26/2008, -0/+6The day that a computer never crashes, has hardware faults, has any bugs, errors, security issues and can run all day long, forever is when they become viable...until then they are nothing but a fantasy?

/idiocy

kolinkoolface2, on 07/26/2008, -8/+2this is great but..... now how do you trap and save this energy.... o wait you cannot in the time being.

ericnorris1, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Uh, yes you can. Its called solar panels and batteries.

nevetssav, on 07/26/2008, -2/+2Kolinkoolface has a good point: transporting the energy would be the major problem, not to mention maintaining solar panels in an inhospitable corner of the world. Idiggapony, on 07/26/2008, -2/+10Could we maybe cover 9.3% of Nevada instead of 0.3% of the Sahara? I recognize that the power cord running from Nevada to Europe would be a lot longer than the one running from the Sahara. But I don't think we should all be in a big hurry to put the civilized world's next major energy source in the hands of hostile people, like the current one is.

Justice101, on 07/26/2008, -3/+2Were going to have to tax that energy though Europe. /capitalist

govsucks, on 07/26/2008, -4/+1/capitalist!?!?!?!

You mean "We're going to have to tax that. /Socialist politician that produces nothing.

There! Much more realistic!

ctrlfreak13, on 07/26/2008, -0/+6Ummm, why wouldn't we just use the power from solar panels in Nevada for ourselves? We could use the electricity too and it makes more sense than loosing mass amounts of it trying to get it to Europe using a non-existent cable.

vitr0x, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Yeah....let Europe figure it out. Let's cover the deserts in California, Arizona, and Nevada with solar farms. There's NOTHING living in the deserts of CA. I'm sure we could do something there.

booper13, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2"in the hands of hostile people" re Saharan Africa

/ignorant asabil, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1ignorant and xenophobe ! go educate yourself hakkola, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Damn those Canadians!

xDynaBlade, on 07/26/2008, -1/+21Energy is not produced, only converted to a useful form.

thegreatgazoo, on 07/26/2008, -9/+2Well, most of the time. In the case of nuclear explosions you get e=mc^2.

Justice101, on 07/26/2008, -0/+5Nope, your just converting the energy from whats holding the nuclear material together. fmyidotcom, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2Citing the equation YOU posted, energy and mass are one in the same, while the ratio isn't 1:1, energy more or less is mass, and visa versa. Therefore you cannot really create either, simply "convert to a useful form" LoCoPyRo, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energ ...

spyd3rweb, on 07/26/2008, -1/+12Being totally dependent on foreign nations for anything is a bad idea.

vitr0x, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2Definitely. BobScratchit, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Unless those nations are dependent on the United States, then it's totally acceptable.

nthug, on 07/26/2008, -2/+4Hasn't Europe ravaged Africa's resources enough? If they do it again I hope they at least try to help out the people who are starving to death.

grapesofbaath, on 07/26/2008, -2/+13Yes, I sure hope they don't steal sunlight from the desert people.

Idiggapony, on 07/26/2008, -0/+4Simpsons did it.

Sort of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Shot_Mr._Burns%3F ...

Justice101, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1I think people would appreciate some shade.

foxhound009, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1yeah we Europeans will steal your sunlight!

natthew, on 07/26/2008, -2/+15The cost for this is less than that of the Iraq war. Imagine what would have happened...

ikrit2006, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1We could have paid to power Europe?

bman1984, on 07/26/2008, -3/+18That is great, except the Sahara Desert is not in Europe.

MikeFallopian, on 07/26/2008, -3/+13And the coal plant that generates your electricity is not in your backyard. This may shock you, but electricity can be moved from one place to another using devices known as "wires".

bman1984, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Bad call. The hydroelectric damn that I get my power from is with 5 miles of my home. Also, these wires you speak of have a magical property called internal resistance. This resistance is directly related to. . . *gasp* distance.

lordmike, on 07/26/2008, -2/+5Shhh... next thing you know, Bush will invade Africa! No blood for sun!!! ;-)

dkapuchino, on 07/26/2008, -2/+1Are you suggesting the democrats won't allow us to collect sun on US soil, like they don't allow us to drill for oil in the US(thus forcing us to depend on foreign dictatorships)?

lornali, on 07/26/2008, -3/+1Wonderful. marine63, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2I had this idea when my biology teacher asked for alternative fuels.. except replace shara with all of africa and replace solar panels with nuclear power :l In the subject of placing alternative energy sources could we do it with mexico.... it would make jobs and keep them there and some solar plants in our deserts would be nice KireGoTI, on 07/26/2008, -1/+17Twenty-seven thousand square kilometers. That's how much area we would have to harness.

Excuse me, but this seems like a ludicrously impossible proposal. To build and maintain such a structure will probably far exceed in cost even the estimates, and may not even be feasible, no matter how many resources we put behind it. Just to put it into perspective, that's a power grid half the size of New York state.

Also, can anybody think of the environmental impact of such a manmade structure? Human civilization has never built anything remotely of this scale. It dwarfs cities. Who knows what damage we could do with this behemoth?

Lastly, anyone who expects energy consumption to really fall over time is off his rocker. We may be able to raise the efficiency of technology that is already in place, but for civilization to move forward we will certainly need something to drive it. And civilization will move forward, to the beat of overpopulation and new machines and urbanization. If we were to build this thing, what if by the time it were built it no longer served its function? What if, with electric cars finally in place, we needed fifty times the energy of this grid? Surely, that would prove an impossible obstacle to mount. And what about the rest of the world? Surely China and the Caucuses will make up for whatever energy Europe manages to save.

People keep forgetting that we already have a very clean, very safe form of energy available: nuclear power. The only problem is the disposal of nuclear waste. If instead of coming up with crazy theories on how to harness energy we took these resources and put them into perfecting the energy we have already, then we would have something: power plants that produced hundreds of times more energy than we would need at the point of their construction, capable of powering everyone and everything at virtually no cost. The energy problem would be solved for the rest of time, locally and globally.

marine63, on 07/26/2008, -4/+1yes like i said take over africa build nuclear plants and rule the world maverick_swl, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1We still lack battery tech too though luuletaja, on 07/26/2008, -1/+1Yep, although nuclear power plants are kind of dumb systems at the moment as well. I mean we use radiation to heat up the water and then use hot air to make the turbines turn around.

We should find a way to get rid of the turbines part completely. Jeremyz0r, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1You contradicted yourself within two sentences.

"People keep forgetting that we already have a very clean, very safe form of energy available: nuclear power. The only problem is the disposal of nuclear waste"

From clean to waste~

MikeFallopian, on 07/26/2008, -0/+6The idea of using Saharan solar farms to supply Europe with power is a great idea that has been studied at length. One proposed implementation that's been around for years is called DESERTEC. If you're interested in reading about this technology, they have a lot of details and white papers on their website:

www.desertec.org

Hopefully the recent conference mentioned in the article will spur a renewal of interest in the idea. All of the technology for power generation and transmission exists; by the time it reaches the European grid, it could actually be much cheaper than the current price of electricity. Of course, the initial investment in infrastructure and the political deals with African countries will be the sticking point. nastronomical, on 07/26/2008, -4/+3Energy consumption is rising at a astronomical pace. can solar ramp up to meet such a demand which is 24/7 365 days a year? No it cannot....unless solar panels can harness star and moonlight.

When it comes to Energy listen to the real Scientist and Engineers. Ignore the "so called" scientist with garbage degrees. Electricity and the methods to harness it hasn't changed in the last 100 years, if you think so squirrel brain enviro wacko will rewrite them you need to take a few classes in electrical engineering.

Azerael, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2Don't they have batteries where you come from? sk11, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1You'll note electricity usage at night is lower and we can actually store energy. Anyway, no one is saying we'll go 100% solar, not yet.

The scientists ARE the ones telling the politicians that we NEED to switch to clean renewable energy! Technology HAS progressed over the last 100 years and will continue to do so, no amount of personal bias is going to change that. We are at a stage where solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc. could, in a few decades, provide a large percentage of the energy we use, if we start now.

Skooma714, on 07/26/2008, -4/+1Because making solar panel is cheap and environmentally friendly. duggdowncatisad, on 07/26/2008, -1/+1Why not just float the solar panels in international waters? No need to worry about unstable African nations and, as an added bonus, the panels can "follow the sun" and be more efficient than the panels sitting useless in the Sahara at night.

ldkronos, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1By follow, do you mean like...they can move around the earth as it rotates? If so, do you realize how infeasible that is? Besides the fact that you need the panels connected to land to get the energy, even in a straight line you need to move at 1000 MPH to keep up with the sun.

stonedthot, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Don't reckon the fish would be too happy

KJ83, on 07/26/2008, -0/+11Put the panels on the roof! Your roof my roof and every roof in all the land! CommanderEFG, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2Ya but....isn't relying on foreign energy the cause of the situation we are in now? MMaster23, on 07/26/2008, -1/+3what kind of naive ***** wrote this? The only reason why we aren't on solar yet is because solar panels aren't that easy to build, are quite expensive en coal/gas is still dead cheap. Seeing as we rather buy useless crap like iPhones and Playstations as suppose to buying mills and panels... HubbertWins, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3What a crock. Who on Earth over the age of 10 hasn't had the thought of covering the deserts with solar cells? SciFctn, on 07/26/2008, -5/+1The .3% figure truly is mind blowing, but why would oil-rich saharan nations want us free from oil?

maverick_swl, on 07/26/2008, -4/+5Get over yourself you pompous ass.

LoCoPyRo, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2I dont see how this network will end the problems and unreliablity of solar power.. if it were so easy countries would have started these plans years ago. They also don't talk about how much energy and fossil fuels have to be expended to make each photovolatic cell, not to mention the environmental effects.

Solar panels aren't the cure all everyone thinks they are, hopefully people will wake up and look to the other renewable energy sources and technologies that are out there. maverick_swl, on 07/26/2008, -2/+1....... but we don't have batteries to store the energy we collect....

Not to mention the energy and resources in to creating that number of PV cells, that number of needed batteries. Not to mention the fact that you'll have the eco nuts on your balls for disrupting the eco-system, but don't listen to me, I'm just an engineer.

I'm all for renewable resources being used to their maximum, but you can't suck enough energy out at peak use! Get real!

sk11, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2Because it's not like companies such as First Solar or Nanosolar have began making thin film solar cells? No, your engineering degree covered all technology that will ever be invented or developed. The issue of batteries needs to be resolved, but no one's talking about going 100% solar, not yet anyway.

Wouldn't people be happier with any environmental impact (can you elude to these?) of solar cells compared to fossil fuels? It'd be like prefering to get punched rather than stabbed. Though I'm not sure there'd be such horrendous environmental consequences, could you elaborate?

Solar could provide a good percentage of energy usage.

eng1n33r, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1"The issue of batteries needs to be resolved"
Why use batteries? Why not continue doing what they do now using hydro-dams. When electricity is cheap they just pump the water back into the dam, its still a form of energy storage just like batteries.

AMR88, on 07/26/2008, -0/+0What is it i always say...
Scientist see if its viably economical,
Politicians see if its economically viable nullcodes, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2All the people above dissing this .. havent read the proposal ..but think they know everything.

This idea is old and serious -- it's not some guys blog entry. It has been reworked and reviewed a few times .. the folks involved know about the issues like environment, transmission, energy storage, maintenance, cost etc. Those are all obvious stuff. Never read an energy project proposal before?
Eccentric1, on 07/26/2008, -2/+4It's easy to think of reasons and ways why something won't work or can't be done. Unfortunately, there appears to be a surplus of Diggers here with this whiney "It's Impossible Because..." illness. Just remember people that all human progress is made by people who keeping trying to find ways to MAKE SOMETHING WORK by working out or getting around obstacles. It always starts with a vision that has a bunch of reasons why it can't be done. The doers, conquerors, and winners spend less time and energy focusing why it won't work because they're too busy making it happen!

Dig me down at your leasure. loulan, on 07/26/2008, -1/+1People always tend to believe that solar energy is clean, way cleaner than nuclear energy. That's ***** : since we use a lot of energy during the night, we would need to build HUGE batteries. That would be much, MUCH worse than nuclear waste.

We'd better spend our money trying to build nuclear fusion power plants.

digid, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Batteries don't need to be chemical. With excess energy production you could pump water into retention ponds that are set high enough to provide enough gravitational potential energy to power the few hours of peak energy needed at night. The rest of the night is off-peak unless of course we move to electric cars and everyone is charging their cars at night. It might not be cheap, but the days of cheap energy are over unless we can figure out how to harness nuclear fusion. There are other options to provide energy at night such as wind, geothermal, and continued use of coal or natural gas power plants. If we only used coal and natural gas power plants at night we'd have enough reserves for hundreds of years while we figure out how to replace them. We'd still have CO2 emissions from the smokestacks but you could route the emissions through an algae farm to grow algae instead of releasing the CO2 into the air. So moving to solar today is not such a bad option.

alphonseragusa, on 07/26/2008, -1/+2I'm not sure how to solve the energy crisis but as for automobiles, why not just put solar panels on the roof? Cars are usually out in the sun. Build a car which can run on gas as a backup but relies primarily on solar panels. You can drive long distances and ITS STILL charging (like keeping your laptop plugged in). Even if your battery is running out you can go to a gas backup. WHY HAVEN'T I HEARD THIS IDEA?

OSuX, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1I think the "Th!nk" cars are supposed to have a solar panel integrated into the roof to help offset the energy requirements/keep the batteries topped off.

foxhound009, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3yhm it sounds great but! :

1. who will maintain such enormous structure and what will it cost to maintain.
2. what if say.... someone decides it would be funny to screw those things up?
whole europe without energy :D ?
it would have to be really secure.. and how exactly do you secure thing that BIG! ? ForestRangerBen, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1These articles always seem to have one or more of the following words: Maybe, possbility, we believe, could if, could but.

I leave you with this: "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, weâ€™d all have a merry Christmas" rationalist, on 07/26/2008, -0/+3Why would we import energy all the way from the Saharan System when we have good 'ol Sol right here in our backyard?

rationalist, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Not to mention that carving our 0.3% of a sun, and keeping it warm over all those light years of travel, sounds a little more complicated than keeping that December snowball in the freezer until July.

Kanten, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2This was already posted (and made popular) two days ago: http://digg.com/environment/Saharan_sun_s_solar_po ... KJSatz, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1WHAT IF the terrorists ***** on the solar panels? mrmudgeon, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1I hate breathless articles like this one. The main issue with these (only this small location would have enough sun) argmuments are two: The power has to be stored for use when the sun is not on. The power has to be transported to the users. The electric grid is very complicated and gets forgotten in stories like this one. The issues are more fun when the hard problems are ignored. OSuX, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2Why cordon off a huge tract of land controlled by someone else to get electricity? Solar shingles on every roof, it won't supply exclusive power but if every house had this, it would put a considerable dent in the power requirements. You could make up the difference with wind, hydro and nuke. There was an article just the other day asking where will we plug in our electric cars and how will our grids cope with the demand, well, solar panels at every residence and office building can offset this worry. kolinkoolface2, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1hahahah soooo stupid. Yea you can use that energy within a certain window.... there is no way to trap it for an extended long period of time. You guys are really pathetic. kd1s, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1How about the desert areas in the U.S. I bet they'd provide for the entire power needs and then some for the U.S. Yes it will take time and money and it changes the whole paradigm. Costs will only be for distribution since the sunshine is a renewable resource, therefore no energy charge.

But it'll take a whole lot of money to do this, but I think we have to think about it now before its too late.

Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.