PowerSwitch

I'm quite a fan of the Desertec concept:



A large power network with very low electricity losses allows clean electricity to be generated from renewable sources at the most advantageous locations. The type of technology used on site depends on local circumstances, as well as on the wishes of the country concerned and the investors.

In desert regions near the coast, solar-thermal power plants can be combined with seawater desalination so that they not only produce electricity, but also drinking water. Air-cooled solar-thermal power plants combined with water-saving cleaning robots are particularly useful in desert locations inland. Many coastal areas are excellent locations for inexpensive wind power plants. Photovoltaic systems are useful for covering peak mid-day demand, for example from air conditioning systems. Solar-thermal power plants, as well as biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric and pumped storage plants, provide valuable, controllable electricity. This means they can be used to balance out the fluctuations of wind and photovoltaic power, so that more of these variable energy sources can be used in the future electricity mix.

Lot's more on their site: http://www.desertec.org/concept/questions-answers/

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec

It has been subject to some criticism from people in North Africa
http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 92332.html

But I'm not sure there is anything wrong with the concept so long as the benefits are equitably shared.

Relies on international co-operation, but maybe that's a good thing?

What does the panel think?

I note all distribution lines lead to Europe. Hardly equitable.

woodburner wrote:I note all distribution lines lead to Europe. Hardly equitable.

I suppose that's because we will be paying for it! Equitable enough for me.

Most African countries could do their own thing locally or in the southern Sahara paid for by some of the aid that we send them: the aid that doesn't end up in Swiss bank accounts, of course.

I would not care to invest a lot of capital in fixed assets in countries that have a record of wars, revolts, coups, confiscations and general corruption and inefficiency.
No matter how fair the arrangements may seem initialy, it would not be long before the plant was nationalised or confiscated for the alleged benifit of the local people.

Neither would I be keen as a consumer on being reliant on power imported from or via such places. Natural gas from or via Russia is bad enough !

"we're paying for it"

question-

if solar was truly viable and not the result of green incentives, or a scheme that looks appealing to investors for psychological reasons...

wouldn't it pay for itself?

Just like plants grow without being paid for - solar infrastructure should be able to build itself.. providing the energy to refine its own materials, manufacture, maintain. It should only need our waste..


just a thought that i bring up whenever i hear "we just need investment in solar.."

Not everything that can pay for itself gets built. The stuff that pays the most gets built. Also remember that the playing field is far from level. There are many distortions in the energy market; subsidies (for all forms of energy), taxes, uncosted externalities, lock into prior technologies etc...

I used to think Desertec was a good idea. Now that we're firmly on the downslope I doubt it's possible. It requires financial capital and political stability, two resources which are likely to remain scarse. I also thought some major German players had recently announced their departure from the project, essentially kicking the whole thing into the long grass?

HVDC lines from the Dogger Bank windfarms would be a useful and manageable scale development to get on with this afternoon.

What's our sun doing falling on their sand?

The answer to the original question I suppose is who benefits? If the ownership, profit, jobs, R&D, and all the other benefits of large-scale energy investment end up in western and local elites' hands, then for "oil" read "sun". If on the other hand some locally-acceptable means of dispersing the benefits can be found then this investment might be part of the answer to some of the problems Adam outlines above.

wouldn't it pay for itself?

Funny you should mention that, a similar Japanese project working in this area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Sol ... er_Project

woodburner wrote:I note all distribution lines lead to Europe. Hardly equitable.

My understanding is that the power lines interconnect Europe, much will flow South to North, but also sharing power within Europe will help with the irregularity of wind & solar.

Regarding the benefits for the North African countries:
http://j.mp/XLlu5C


Some highlights:

Criterion 3.1: The use of water is minimized and the water balance should be positive or at minimum neutral.

Criterion 3.2: The power plant project contributes to the mitigation of water scarcity.

Criterion 4.1: The power plant provides the local and / or national population and industry with electricity.

Criterion 4.2: The power plant project provides education and training for the local and / or national population.

Criterion 4.3: The power plant project creates jobs for the local and / or national population.

Criterion 4.4: The power plant project contributes to an improved educational and training infrastructure for the local and / or national population.


So _on paper_ at least they are asking some of the right questions.

In terms of the security angle, I agree it's a risk. But the more incentive we have to work together internationally the more hope there is of something holding together?

Equally I think the interconnects would be useful even if some parts became unusable? We might lose the North African bit for example, but surely having Iceland and Europe connected is a good idea anyway?

ceti331 wrote:"we're paying for it"

question-

if solar was truly viable and not the result of green incentives, or a scheme that looks appealing to investors for psychological reasons...

wouldn't it pay for itself?

Just like plants grow without being paid for - solar infrastructure should be able to build itself.. providing the energy to refine its own materials, manufacture, maintain. It should only need our waste..


just a thought that i bring up whenever i hear "we just need investment in solar.."

That's a pretty high bar you're setting for an electricity generating technology there! Do you apply that to all technologies??

The economics of solar are changing far faster than most could possibly have foreseen five years ago. Unsubsidised solar is already competitive with fossil fuels in sunnier climes than we have here and it won't be long before it's competitive in the UK as well (utility scale solar is apparently already starting to approach the average market price in the UK).

So it's coming and quickly, but I can't see it contributing more than about 10% of our electricity unless we get some big storage breakthroughs.

Indeed, I think it's likely solar will contribute approaching 10% of UK electricity in ~20 years time (assuming the economy doesn't collapse first). 10% overall is approximately what you get with enough solar to meet around 100% demand on a sunny summer's day. The total electricity consumption will be a lot lower than today though!

So it's coming and quickly, but I can't see it contributing more than about 10% of our electricity unless we get some big storage breakthroughs.

One of the interesting things about CSP as opposed to photovoltaic is the possibility for energy storage: http://knowledge.desertec.org/wiki/inde ... gy_storage

sam_uk wrote:

So it's coming and quickly, but I can't see it contributing more than about 10% of our electricity unless we get some big storage breakthroughs.

One of the interesting things about CSP as opposed to photovoltaic is the possibility for energy storage: http://knowledge.desertec.org/wiki/inde ... gy_storage

This is true.

I'm generally a big fan of the idea of Desertec but the instability of North Africa increases the risk of the project substantially. I think we should still go ahead and start constructing it (and the Iceland and other interconnectors) but we shouldn't get into a position where we're dependent on it.

At the same time we should be working hard to help the countries which are supplying their sunshine to develop further so that they become more stable and prosperous (which would be good for them and Europe).

Pepperman wrote: I think we should still go ahead and start constructing it (and the Iceland and other interconnectors) but we shouldn't get into a position where we're dependent on it.

At the same time we should be working hard to help the countries which are supplying their sunshine to develop further so that they become more stable and prosperous (which would be good for them and Europe).

This kind of approach makes sense to me, I can imagine a virtuous circle;

Desertec provides energy for local de-salination. Used for drinking, and also used sparely as part of a permaculture 'greening' the desert project https://vimeo.com/7658282

This reduces poverty.

Desertec also builds on local manufacturing capacity for projects like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Sol ... er_Project

And also additional desalination plants, as well as the infrastructure to develop them.

The reduced poverty reduces security risk in North Africa. The model is copied by countries further south, with borrowed capital from the now affluent Northern African countries.

A bit colonialist maybe, but what's the alternative? Just keep taking African Uranium and Oil? Stop all trade with Africa?