Desert dreams of the solar age
As regularly as one hour follows the next, e-mails arrive in my inbox from people claiming to have the solution to the world's energy woes in their factory or garden shed or back pocket.
Most, as you'd guess, turn out to be no more convincing than a dentist's reassurance that "this isn't going to hurt" - why on earth does anyone bother inventing perpetual motion machines anymore? - but sometimes, what starts off as an idea with apparently insurmountable technical, political or economic obstacles turns out, eventually, to be a real contender.
Step forward, then, the idea of powering Europe from the Sahara Desert.
I would have to go back at least 10 years to find the first time that someone (an Australian professor, in that case) took me through the sums showing that enough solar energy fell on the sands of North Africa to provide all the world's electricity needs and much, much more.
(I'm sure the concept goes back even further, and I'd be interested to find out just how far back, if anyone has the details to hand.)
Yes, well, I thought; but how much would the electricity cost given the traditionally unfavourable economics of solar energy? What about the major investments needed in plant and transmission lines, and the huge gulf between the political mindsets of the EU and its would-be electricity suppliers?
Now, answers are appearing to some of those questions.
On Monday, a group of companies including some very big industrial concerns - Siemens, RWE, E.On - met with representatives of the German government and other political players to sign a memorandum of understanding that could eventually see the flowering of desert power - the Desertec Industrial Initiative.
Partners will now spend three years putting together viable financial packages that could plant solar facilities across large swathes of the Sahara by 2020.
There is talk of 400bn euros being invested. For comparison, that would dwarf the cost of the Iter fusion power project.
The conventional photovoltaic cell may play some role, but the major technology is likely to be concentrated solar thermal power - probably using approaches where water, or some other fluid, is heated to temperatures measured in hundreds of degrees Celsius and used to turn some kind of turbine.
Remember those startling high-tech photos of mirrors gleaming in a Californian dawn that filled the covers of glossy magazines back in the 1980s? That's a concentrated solar thermal power station.
So is the space-age tower rising from Spanish soil, just outside Seville, which may soon provide enough electricity to meet that city's needs.
The Desertec project's initial goal is "to produce sufficient power to meet around 15% of Europe's electricity requirements and a substantial portion of the power needs of the producer countries".
These will be in North Africa and the Middle East, probably stretching round as far as Jordan, whose Prince Hassan bin Talal declared that "partnerships that will be formed across the regions as a result of the Desertec project will open a new chapter in relations between the people of the EU, West Asia and North Africa".
But the dreams are even bigger. Why not power much more of Europe from the region? Why not electrify much of South America from the Atacama desert and the mountain tops of Patagonia? Sydney and Melbourne from the Simpson desert, and western China from the expanding Gobi?
One reason why not may turn out to be security of supply. Why trade dependence on Middle Eastern gas for dependence on Middle Eastern solar electricity, some would ask.
Another might be that "producer countries" raise concerns about colonialism, about the takeover of their territory to solve Europe's problems - just as some have raised concerns about Western investment in "carbon forests" in poorer tropical nations.
But, if the Jordanian prince is right, Desertec will see development flowing to impoverished desert peoples even as electricity flows in the opposite direction.
Politically, the project will build better bridges between the EU and countries that would like to be closer to it; other benefits could flow over those bridges.
For EU nations, one of the attractions is that it provides a partial route to the target of providing 20% of the bloc's energy by 2020 - a target that, in many observers' eyes, is considerably more ambitious than the 20% greenhouse gas reductions that the EU has also pledged.
Fifteen percent of electricity is a long way from 20% of all energy.
But it is a start. And bear in mind that Europe's electricity consumption is likely to grow; declining reserves of oil and gas will begin to tilt the economics of space heating and transport towards the electric road, and that's a movement that climate policies will probably accelerate.
The next three years, then, will determine if the economics really do stack up.
Many apparently good ideas have perished in the sands of time. One doubts that companies of this scale would be seriously interested in Desertec if they thought it was likely to meet the same end.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~58~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The two bicycle makers who invented the flying machine, that is how it usually works. The capture of solar energy has always been the issue and the tranformation to affordable power sources. Separation from the Arab world has pushed much of this and also the issues around climate change. I'm not sure this proposal will acconmplish what many would want, disengagement from that part of the world. It is encouraging that someone is heading in some direction. Large scale investments are often undercut by new technolgoies, we see it in medicine all the time. Nothing changes until something changes.
Complain about this comment
One problem with concentrated solar thermal power is that the mirrors used to concentrate the Suns rays require regular cleaning to remove the dust particles that inevitably build up and reduce their efficiency. The easiest method of cleaning is to use water. One thing deserts have in abundance is dust, and the thing they lack most is water. Hopefully there is a solution to that one.
As an interesting historical note, it is almost 100 years since someone first proposed using the Qattara Depression to generate hydro-electricity. The Qattara Depression is a vast area of NW Egypt that lies below sea level. It was proposed that a channel or tunnel be built from the Mediterranean Sea to the Qattara, and the resulting water flow used to generate electricity. Because the Qattara is a vast and hot space, the inflowing water would evaporate at a such a rate that the flow from the Mediterranean would be maintained. I believe the project was shelved because of concerns about contamination of groundwater.
Complain about this comment
2. At 5:43pm on 13 Jul 2009, Asopus wrote:
One problem with concentrated solar thermal power is that the mirrors used to concentrate the Suns rays require regular cleaning..
I share your hopes that such an abundant source can be harvested to a satisfactory enviROI.
Taking your caution another step, I have also heard that there may be issues to contend with the combination of sand particles and wind.
I have sand-blasted a few shiny glass surfaces in my time, and the reflectivity does tend to drop.
Complain about this comment
May I take the opportunity to post an idea I first had at least 20 years ago - instead of aiming at peak power extraction, design a solution which permits some light to penetrate - whether 10% or 90% is to be determined - such that in the darker, cooler, but not lightless area underneath these square miles of solar collectors the land could still be used potentially for growing food or other purposes. By having the solar collector forming the outside surface of eg a large dome, humidity could also be maintained at ground level.
Just an idea...
Complain about this comment
I'm very proud to see so many UK companies involved in this remarkable project.. Oh hang on.
Complain about this comment
"One problem with concentrated solar thermal power is that the mirrors used to concentrate the Suns rays require regular cleaning to remove the dust particles that inevitably build up and reduce their efficiency."
By how much? 5%? 10%? Apart from guano on the rear passenger, the windows of my car haven't been washed in months but they're still pretty transparent. If they'd been silvered, they'd still be pretty reflective.
Complain about this comment
"I have sand-blasted a few shiny glass surfaces in my time, and the reflectivity does tend to drop."
Yeah, drop 'em a line.
They probably haven't thought of that...
Complain about this comment
re #5.
Yup, we have the smarts here to do this. May have lost the bottle, mind.
Complain about this comment
re #4 I think the idea is to use concentrators because many clever tricks can be used to pump up the efficiency of solar cells if the intensity was higher.
They have to move about a lot.
And that requires quite a bit of machinery you don't want a harvester to whiffle.
It would be a better idea for the more normal solar PV, but only if you have a crop that
a) doesn't mind losing direct sunlight
b) has to be picked manually anyway
The list isn't very big for that... Many fruits manage b but don't like a. Truffles and mushrooms are about the only ones I can think of, and that's mostly because I don't know how mushrooms are actually picked...
Find the foodstuff first.
Complain about this comment
So is the plan to let African electrons into Europe but not African people?
Complain about this comment
It occurs to me that large scale distribution of "low voltage" electricity should be considered. Given the plethora of low voltage devices it should be possible to supply a house with 24V at low current (ie max 10A) rather than having multitudinous transformers. A substantial amount of power is wasted in Europe by stepping down power from 230V.
In the eighties it was predicted that the UK's demand for power would remain static until 2000 which was proven to be wrong, for example we are a net importer of electricity from France. The success of the PC has meant that demand for power has increased.
Complain about this comment
I know it might be a big job, but surely the answer is you build a big water pipeline from the sea to a suitable site in the Saharan desert. Coloured black so it heats up all the time. A byproduct of thermal power is steam, which can be cooled to produce water i.e. you have solar desalination as well as power generation. Therefore the West gets electricity, Africa gets a share of the electricity and clean drinking water.
Yes some of the byproducts may need to be removed, but surely the potential is incredible.
Complain about this comment
Hi Richard,
this project has been around for about five years at least. Shocked that it is new to you.
I first heard of it at London First, where ideas look for capital from Private Equity and the public purse.
http://www.london-first.co.uk/initiatives/detail.asp?record=20
If you want to attend our next meeting in September, let me know.
Complain about this comment
No need to be shocked, graeme0309 - it's not a new concept to me and indeed I didn't say that in the blog.
What I did intend to suggest is that whether energy projects come off in the real world is usually less to do with technology than with financial realities. Monday's signing of the memorandum, to me, is an indication that financial (and in this case, geopolitical) doors are opening; without that, Desertec would be doomed to remain just a concept. Now it has a chance of becoming something more.
Complain about this comment
7. At 8:18pm on 13 Jul 2009, yeah_whatever wrote:
"I have sand-blasted a few shiny glass surfaces in my time, and the reflectivity does tend to drop."
Yeah, drop 'em a line.
They probably haven't thought of that...
Excellent. Now, what is their solution... probably? I don't know and would be interested. If you do, how about sharing?
I'd like this to work out, but not until the % efficiencies are well understood during use, and the potential maintenance costs. Pouring money into green holes does not make the world a better place for my kids unless they work.
Complain about this comment
Nuclear power plants run 24/7, are not weather dependent and can be sited close to the areas that need power. Or, generate power only when there is sunlight and in a country so far away that an enormous amount of money will be needed to transport the electricity and a few terrorist bombs will hold Europe to ransom!
Another Great Green Gem of an idea.
Complain about this comment
" Nuclear power plants run 24/7, are not weather dependent and can be sited close to the areas that need power"
They also take huge subsidies so the real cost is much higher than any other energy source. They have to be decomissioned. They can't be sited close to the nuclear material and can't be sited within close proximity to the needs of power since people don't like glowing children.
Whereas we get a lot of sunlight here in the UK.
This is merely one way of making another source of revenue for previously oil-based economies.
"and a few terrorist bombs will hold Europe to ransom!"
As opposed to the rail or road that takes the nuclear material to reprocessing (which cannot be done in a country we suspect terrorists to be because they'd make the dirty bomb).
Complain about this comment
"I'd like this to work out, but not until the % efficiencies are well understood during use, and the potential maintenance costs. Pouring money into green holes does not make the world a better place for my kids unless they work."
Then working them out for real requires real use. Therefore you should be GLAD that this is going on, not GRUMPY.
Complain about this comment
Until there's a HVDC grid across Europe and extending into Africa, this scheme is pie in the sky. Actually, so is any scheme to move power for any significant distance. You Greenies may wish to consider the merits of stringing a web of electrical heating elements across the world before getting too excited about the promises of massive generation in one region.
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever...
And Solar and Wind power and Tidal energy generation are not subsidised? Right!!!!
We get very little useable sunlight. The reason deserts are suggested is because there are fewer clouds. Those white puffy things that have more to do with climate change than Carbon Dioxide ever has or will do in the future.
Nuclear waste disposal is only a problem to the Greens and no one is suggesting we use Chernobyl engineering. Nuclear engineering has advanced a lot further, is more compact, even safer and only the hysteria led media hype is slowing real progress. The French have the right idea. Nuclear power means less reliance on other countries supplying and thereby controlling energy costs.
Complain about this comment
One of the benefits of being based in the Sahara is not only the strength of the sun (believe it or not, the UK, whilst not that sunny, has enough light to provide a decent amount of electricity) but it's the "continuous" supply of light that is a huge benefit. Which has a beneficial solution to the and troughs of demand throughout any given day.
In the UK, 60% energy goes up cooling towers as waste. Landlines lose another 30% (leakage). If the grid intergrity was better, we wouldn't require as much new energy. The point is, if we could manage supply and demand better we wouldn't need nuclear (and it's waste - no doubt to be dumped in Scotland!) and we wouldn't need to litter the countryside with poorly thought out wind turbine engineering.
If our wind turbines stop turning at 9am - how do we store the electricity which they have created? Or how do we manage it? It's the same with solar and bad weather in the UK.
I met a few months ago a really interesting company in Scotland called Flexitricity. They are managing parts of the national grid buying monitoring peaks and troughs thoughout the day. If they spot a spike in in demand in Glasgow, they can remotely turn on a local 1mgw green fuelled supermarket generator for a period of time to pump in supply to smooth the curve. With their software and mgmt system, we can manage the power we already have to the power we need.
There are two Israeli companies who think they have also managed to harness the storage of excess electricity in enormous volumes. Something which hasn't been done easily before. Again, if the wind turbine only turns in the morning, the electricity can be carried over till everyone switches on their kettles at half time of a workd cup final in the evening. Watch that space closely......... these are the new Intels and Microsofts. The guys that own these companies will be billionaires.
Secondly, there is huge shift in public funding from Brussels moving away from supporting the generation of green energy to how to harness what we already have. Fulcrum First re-fitted a a 300 room London Met University halls of residence. Thermal imaging diagnostics and software examined the leaks. Once new refurbishment took place with state of the art materials (much of the materials re-use waste products) the halls were now use a tenth of the power that they used to and the internal temp of the building stays at ambient level from morning to night.
Like I said, shortly we'll see many private equity and publically funded monies being pulled and re-directed not to uber-incredible new ways of generating the energy but using what we already have!
I am absolutely convinced, over the next five years, much of the Brussels money allocated to this 400bn Sahara project will be diverted to new sustainable building initiatives and not towards projects that create more energy.
Complain about this comment
As rogerborg indicates, when you transmit power it uses power, I heard of a Canadian hydro system that was built to far from the area it was to serve and by the time the power got there it was virtually all used up in transmission waste. Resistance means the more power you want to push through a cable the higher the voltage needs to be and the hotter the wires get, but to push power through thousands of miles of cable would surely be impractical.
Complain about this comment
"As rogerborg indicates, when you transmit power it uses power,"
Yup. Including transmitting potential power (like coal or uranium bearing ores).
Funny how that's not a problem...
"I heard of a Canadian hydro system that was built to far from the area it was to serve and by the time the power got there it was virtually all used up in transmission waste."
This is a load of tripe.
Can.
Not.
Be.
True.
You've been scammed by someone against hydro power. Or doing the scamming.
"but to push power through thousands of miles of cable would surely be impractical"
It's being done now already with non-green power.
Complain about this comment
"If our wind turbines stop turning at 9am - how do we store the electricity which they have created? "
This state doesn't last for the entire UK except in extreme circumstances with a HUGE high pressure zone over us.
However, cloud is not a common component of such a system, therefore there will be good continuous supply of sunlight for PV.
Complain about this comment
"And Solar and Wind power and Tidal energy generation are not subsidised? "
a) not to the extent of nuclear, coal, oil and gas (what do you think is the reason for continuing Afghanistan? The pipeline).
b) You haven't complained about those other subsidies, just about renewables.
c) The basic research for nuclear power is government paid and a subsidy. Was for DECADES.
Complain about this comment
"Until there's a HVDC grid across Europe and extending into Africa, this scheme is pie in the sky."
Proof?
Got any?
Complain about this comment
So, once again, Africa's resources are to be used to benefit Europeans. Never mind that 90% of Africans don't have access to electricity.
The article talked of beneficial linkages. What beneficial linkages?
European and other companies have been in Africa a long time extracting energy and mineral resources. The local people haven't seen any benefit from these activities. Why should we believe that the local people are going to benefit from the desert solar project ?
Complain about this comment
My understanding is that thermal-electric is a 'go', and this would seem to confirm that.
------------
To cocormcbride #10: You wrote:
"So is the plan to let African electrons into Europe but not African people?"
Here here !!
That's right - we are now seeing the fallout from the global environmental crisis beginning to take shape.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Article from the Renewable Energy Foundation:
Wind Power and Spot Prices: German and Danish Experience 2006-2008
http://www.ref.org.uk/PublicationDetails/53
read the summary and overview
Complain about this comment
Richard,
Do you have any plans to cover some of the other suggestions from The Manchester Report?http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/13/manchester-report-climate-change
There were BBC logos on the 'sponsored by....' posters in the hall where the ideas were presented, but you've been very quiet about it. Several of the suggestions merit further discussion here, I think.
Thanks
Complain about this comment
18. At 08:24am on 14 Jul 2009, yeah_whatever wrote:
Then working them out for real requires real use.
Not sure I understand what you are talking about, which is possibly that you think that you need to build them first to find out if they work. I'd rather hope that there might be a few things that take place in advance of such epic commitments.
Back to the point you still seem to have trouble answering in your snappy one liners that make this thread such a joy to wade through, any more on mitigating the possible wind scouring effects of sand on highly reflective surfaces to maintain their efficiencies?
In asking that I don't think I'm being grumpy; just curious. It's something I heard, seems an issue and I'd like to hear more about. I remember my dear old Mum would resort to the old 'just you be glad with what you've go my lad' method of stifling further enquiry. Didn't work then; won't work now.
It's a pity that you seem keener on playing the person than assisting move discussion along, because there's often some good thinking and even factual value, if almost always overshadowed by a lot of poorly directed bile. And that is a bad place to be when lack of valid argument lets you down.
Maybe the author of the piece can help with my question?
Complain about this comment
Why do people always have to overcomplicate things when it comes to solving global warming and energy production? Jack Herer suggested a perfectly feasible solution to mankind's energy requirements that could use most of the existing infrastructure with minimal adaptation in his book "The Emperor Wears No Clothes". There's also a $100,000 reward for anyone that can prove him wrong, which to this day remains unclaimed.
Complain about this comment
"Not sure I understand what you are talking about, which is possibly that you think that you need to build them first to find out if they work."
Yes you do.
"I'd rather hope that there might be a few things that take place in advance of such epic commitments."
1) This isn't Epic.
2) Theory has already been used to get VC funding for the project. After theory comes practice. And that requires real building.
Complain about this comment
"It's a pity that you seem keener on playing the person than assisting move discussion along,"
Says someone to whom "moving along" means "don't do it, it's a waste"...
Complain about this comment
Did anyone learn anything from the global financial crisis? Solar is one of the less efficient forms of alternative energy. Does this include the costs of stationing an army around the system. Watch where to place your eggs. Solar is more likely to be the Walkman of energy sources, useful for awhile but no MP3.
Complain about this comment
"Geopolitical issues with the Desertec scheme such as North African control of European electricity remain to be resolved"
Does this mean we're going to have to go to war over a load of desert now........ or even better access to the sun?
People are all talking about the Sahara being able to provide plenty of power for Europe, I'd of thought that using it to provide plenty of power for Africa first would be somewhat more obvious.
Complain about this comment
"Solar is one of the less efficient forms of alternative energy. "
However, it is the most abundant. Solar constant: 1300+W/m2.
Even 3% of that is a horrendous oversupply of energy.
Complain about this comment
"Does this mean we're going to have to go to war over a load of desert now........ or even better access to the sun?"
We already do: the cattle trip to Majorca..!
"I'd of thought that using it to provide plenty of power for Africa first would be somewhat more obvious."
Yes, me too. However, if they have a surplus, if they can sell it to us, they gain in the trade balance and we lose if we buy it.
Seems perfectly cromulent to me.
Complain about this comment
If you cloned me several times over, LukeC_NE, I'd be able to cover everything I'd like to - 20 Ideas and much more. As it is, many things slip by the wayside.
Not that we've ignored all of these ideas. Stephen Salter's cloud-modifying machines and super-efficient woodstoves have both featured recently - possibly others have too.
Complain about this comment
here we have an entrepreneurial group ready to invest a sizable some of vc to solve some major environmental and even political/social issues and we get a barrage of 'do they realise it's sandy in the desert?' or 'do energy companies understand energy transmission loss?' or 'shouldn;t we be investing in failed technology instead?'.
i have a feeling there's a touch religious zeal to some of this anti-environment rhetoric.
clearly it involves a large scale shift in ideas (had to avoid paradigm of course), so maybe that's really the faint sound of looms being smashed i hear.
Complain about this comment
Everyone is teathered to the grid. Think independent. Think about independent energy control and usage. Because of the political influence of those in control of the existing infrastructure that is the way everyone is thinking. When we are provided the choices none will be one that the individual can control. If the solutions are to keep the status quo don't expect much in the way of real improvements, either in the environment or in costs. Think small.
Complain about this comment
" Think about independent energy control and usage."
Think about this:
Photovoltaics make my shed independent of the Grid.
But you don't seem to think this is worthwhile since it's too inefficient.
Yet it is practically FREE. I wasn't using the shed roof for anything else.
Carparks don't use their carpark for anything that a PV roof wouldn't stop.
Wind turbines use a small fraction of the land they occupy, meaning that many farmers get very nearly free money by having turbines planted in their farms and growing crops around them.
For those not near the local car park, you'll need a wire set overhead to carry this power to you for you to use.
Others may be able to use that wire too, if you all chip together, you can use the power more fully and reduce the individual cost.
Some sort of "electrical grid".
...
One of the problems for the current power people (and why they're getting in early where they can, as long as it doesn't cost too much off the budget) is that there's a much lower barrier to entry. Some US states forbid putting electricity back into the grid if it is unwanted. Some give so little back that it is barely worth it and increases the pay-back time. But where this is not the case (and one reason for a smart grid is to ensure that you can be your own mini-powerstation) you are a competitor.
They can't have too big a difference between the price of their electricity and how much you'll get paid for yours, since that number is quite easy to see.
So they have to compete fairly. And if municipal local generation create enough power, the town/city they sell to will buy from them rather than the national power providers if they do not get down to real economic costs.
This DOES require that you not vilify the national grid, else you have limited the competition for others and increased their costs without warrant or need.
Complain about this comment
August Mouchot built some solar engines from about the 1860s. This led to a parallel trough system in Egypt in 1913, which developed around 37 to 45kW. The plants are pretty basic technology, albeit refined somewhat. A big hudle is the economics abnd politics that could deliver the benefits around Europe.
Solar thermal's propensity for relatively cheap energy storage could help complement our rather fickle sources of renewable power.
Complain about this comment
Reading Richard's recent article "Government to map low-carbon road"...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8150919.stm
...I noticed that talking about "cutting greenhouse gas emissions" he mentioned that...
"Current government figures say emissions have already fallen by 22% from 1990".
I wondered where that figure of 22% had come from.
Searching a little I found an interesting site showing some statistics.
The "Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/gagccukem.htm
...has 3 graphs showing changes in emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O from 1990 to 2007. During that period CO2 has gone down by about 7%, CH4 by 53% and N2O by 47%.
It was harder finding a summation showing the overall GHG effect of the gases combined to get a single figure of GHG reduction.
I found that in...
"2008 UK Greenhouse Gas emissions, provisional figures, 26th March 2009 - Statistical Release" (pdf), at...
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/index.htm
(The first document in the table.)
On page 2 they show a graph (Figure 1) for CO2 and what they call "Basket of greenhouse gases (CO2 equiv)" from 1990 to 2008. As best I can measure it looks like a 19% reduction over that period for the overall GHGs.
What I thought was interesting though was that much of that reduction has come from reducing CH4 and N2O, already by about 50%, and the graphs (on the first link above) show that much of what remains comes from agriculture which showed little change during the period. So there doesn't seem to be much scope for continued reductions there, and clearly the 50% cuts in CH4 and N2O cannot be repeated.
So future reductions have to come from CO2 and looking at the CO2 graph 1990 to 2007 (same link) progress so far hasn't been so good.
Richard continues... "The Low Carbon Transition Plan and its associated measures will plot a path towards the 34% target by 2020."
From Figure 1 in the pdf, the target of 34% of 1990 GHGs is 262 million tonnes (CO2 equiv). If the non-CO2 contribution remains up around 100 (due to agriculture), ok say it drops to 62, then the CO2 itself will have to drop to 200. From the 2008 level of 530, that's a drop of 330 million tonnes over the next 12 years, that's a drop of 55% relative to the 1990 level of 600.
So after reducing CO2 by about 10% over 18 years, we now hope to reduce it by another 55% in 12 years. That's over 8 times the rate of reduction.
I hope they have a good plan!
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
"I hope they have a good plan!"
Well one of the reasons for a toll road system is that there is no way to get the petrol tax from people if they stop using petrol/diesel cars.
Despite what many "skeptics" say that the IPCC is a political wing and merely makes whatever the governments want said and AGW is a way for governments to tax more, AGW and its mitigation actually removes a whopping great chunk of tax from the perview of government. Especially ours.
Hence the lack of progress on CO2 reductions: there's no way to get the tax losses back without being obvious it's a tax.
This is one of the several reasons why their conspiracy theory doesn't work. However all I've ever had back from asking the denialists about this problem with their hypothesis has been "Huh? That doesn't make any sense". Most have scurried away to try someone else.
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #44:
That's a pretty interesting and thorough analysis.
It's so easy to take one's eye off the ball, isn't it?
Noctilucent clouds are putting on a big show recently, and far south, according to spaceweather dot com. (Global Warming???)
http://www.spaceweather.com/
-------------
Climate Change and Population Growth, sleep-walking set-in-their-ways governments, cost-externalizing corporations, and a somnalent electorate.
I had occassion to discuss climate change with one of the members of our recent mountain excursion - a physicist (lab), with no axe to grind. He seemed genuinely surprised to hear of the state of the planet/CO2 etc., said something to the effect that the numbers seemed so big, and didn't plants like more CO2 anyway.
It's a little depressing actually.
More understandable why the public isn't on side with James Hansen et al.
To me anyway.
----------
'Davblo2', here's something that might interest you on your topic from George Monbiot (July 14/09):
"If this is true, it means that the UK will not cut its greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050, as the government promised. It means it will cut them by 40%. Offsetting half our emissions (which means paying other countries to cut them on our behalf) makes a mockery of the governments climate change programme."
...
"Carbon offsetting makes sense if you are seeking a global cut of 5% between now and forever. It is the cheapest and quickest way of achieving an insignificant reduction. But as soon as you seek substantial cuts, it becomes an unfair, impossible nonsense, the equivalent of pulling yourself off the ground by your whiskers."
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/07/14/pulling-yourself-off-the-ground-by-your-whiskers/
----------------
I'm a little tired, not a good time to be optimistic. Still, one has to wonder, have we really bred in western civilization an almost entirely irresponsible citizenship? Too apathetic or too busy, what's the difference really, to slow down and smell the flowers, appreciate and treat others with true respect and consideration? And in this milieu, how could we possibly treat the natural world any different?
Immersed as it were in the Industrial World at this time, I have been giving this a lot of thought.
It seems to me the main negative consequence of the Industrial Revolution was and is the dehumanizing effect it has on people, and that includes both workers and managers.
Seemingly a gift, to free us all from hard work and manual labor, this revolution has made a few unimaginably rich, and as poor in spirit as it is possible to be, and for the many - well, I presume I am speaking to the many. How does it feel?
I know this. After a big mountain trip you can relax - for a short while. It is earned, and it feels right.
Is it really so different in life? What does a comfortable retirement really mean to most? A wasteland, masquerading as a good time?
- Manysummits, with our cat beside the computer -
Complain about this comment
My #44: "Reading Richard's recent article 'Government to map low-carbon road'...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8150919.stm
...I noticed that talking about 'cutting greenhouse gas emissions' he mentioned that...
I see that the article I referred to has now changed to a new one on the same link. It's now entitled "Low carbon way 'to reshape lives'". I presume it is an update following announcement of the plans Richard was referring to in the original article.
I don't know why the original article had to be removed; it means the quotes I stated are no longer visible and the link I gave leads to the wrong place.
One thing I notice now is that I misinterpreted Richard's statement...
"The Low Carbon Transition Plan and its associated measures will plot a path towards the 34% target by 2020."
I took the 34% target as meaning achieving emissions at 34% of those in 1990. I see from the new article that they mean a reduction of 34%, so that means that the target is actually 66% of the 1990 level.
In that light my final 2 paragraphs in #44 should read...
"From Figure 1 in the pdf, the target of 34% reduction (ie reaching 66%) of 1990 GHGs is 482 million tonnes (CO2 equiv). If the non-CO2 contribution remains up around 100 (due to agriculture), ok say it drops to 82, then the CO2 itself will have to drop to 400. From the 2008 level of 530, that's a drop of 130 million tonnes over the next 12 years, that's a drop of 21% relative to the 1990 level of 600.
So after reducing CO2 by about 10% over 18 years, we now hope to reduce it by another 21% in 12 years. That's over 3 times the rate of reduction."
So it doesn't look quite so bad, (I didn't say "good" though).
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
manysummits #46: "Noctilucent clouds are putting on a big show recently, and far south"
Thanks for pointing those out. I've been waiting for a chance, but it's been very cloudy of late. Tuesday evening was clear though so I was able to see them for the first time.
Here at around 60 degrees North the northern sky doesn't get so dark this time of year, so the contrast is not so striking as in some of the photos I've seen, and I had to wait until about 2 am. But they were there, and reached from the far North to almost overhead where they merged with a few stars. I hope to get a better view from home on the weekend, outside the city light pollution.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
manysummits #46: "here's something that might interest you on your topic from George Monbiot (July 14/09):"
Thanks for the link. I see he was writing in anticipation of the announcement of the new plan (as was Richard in the now non-existent article I referred to in #44).
I shall try to go trough the plan and see if Monbiot's points show up.
Here is a link to the new plan, "The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan: National Strategy for Climate & Energy" (pdf) which can be found on...
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/publications/lc_trans_plan/lc_trans_plan.aspx
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
In all of this I just assume oil is outdated - we need to move on.
If you used the solar in north africa/mid-east to produce electricity for europe, how much would be lost in transit?
How about solar in north africa/mid-east produces electricity, electricity produces hydrogen, hydrogen comes to europe?
Of course this just takes us back to insecurity of energy supply. European leaders still dependent on despotic rulers in oil/sun rich countries, sucking up to them and scared to even mention their human rights records. Big corporations paying bribes to put up their panels, despots paying bribes to european politicians. Money talking as we cancel arms contracts with one country to secure bigger contracts with oil/sun rich countries. Invasions and wars to secure the solar panel fields. etc., etc.
How about some sort of scheme where we produce things ourselves rather than sustaining dependence?
Complain about this comment
"How about some sort of scheme where we produce things ourselves rather than sustaining dependence?"
And having targets won't stop that.
"If you used the solar in north africa/mid-east to produce electricity for europe, how much would be lost in transit?"
Ask them. They likely have done the sums.
Complain about this comment
To rossglory #40 and ghostofsichuan #41:
Solar-thermal-electric will probably work, and there are a few looms being smashed.
But I like that idea of thinking small also, and taking more charge of our future as independents. And the alacrity with which the change is being implemented is a sure sign it is more on the side of 'business as usual' then the 'paradigm' shift which I think we need.
-------------
Here is something recent from James Hansen: (see "Strategies & Sundance Kid" - July 13/09):
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
----------------
I had occassion to visit my main mountaineering partner of many years just yesterday. He just had a kidney transplant, after three years on dialysis.
Do I laud the incredible skill of the surgeons, or lament the civilized life which in all probability caused his disease?
In 'Daoist' manner - I will answer - both!
Do we celebrate solar-thermal-electric and a new smart grid, or lament the poisoning of our world habitat?
My friend, if the transplant takes, will be on anti-rejection pills the remainder of his life. As always, he has greeted this misfortune with his unfailing good humor and love of life, which were always there, be it a monnlit mid-winter ascent of some frozen peak, or having a donut and coffee at "Tims".
Let's hand our children a future, not a life cleaning up our mess.
We are talking 'paridigm' here. As Jacques once said, "It is only the impossible missions which succeed."
- Manysummits - peaks up to 'bro' -
Complain about this comment
51. At 11:08am on 16 Jul 2009, yeah_whatever wrote:
"How about some sort of scheme where we produce things ourselves rather than sustaining dependence?"
And having targets won't stop that.
================================================
You're a whole debate behind the times with this - who mentioned targets? Last time you were years behind on your 'facts.' Please try to keep up.
I'm not taken in by the MMGW thing as an excuse for economic melt down, but oil is not going to meet global demand indefinitely. For those of us that are economically active, we will need alternative and secure sources of energy.
Basing dependence for our economies in the mid-east has not exactly been a stirling model for success over the last 50 years - corruption, war, unstable prices followed by recession etc. It would be nice to move to something better. I thought the 'environmentalists' were all in favour of sourcing locally?
Complain about this comment
"You're a whole debate behind the times with this - who mentioned targets? "
You do.
All the time.
You don't like interference by government in anything. Even when it's a good idea.
"It would be nice to move to something better."
Solar power from the middle east IS better than Fossil fuels from the middle east.
"I thought the 'environmentalists' were all in favour of sourcing locally?"
Who said I was an environmentalist?
Sourcing locally is right. But that doesn't mean you can't import too.
Complain about this comment
54. At 1:28pm on 16 Jul 2009, yeah_whatever wrote:
"You're a whole debate behind the times with this - who mentioned targets? "
You do.
All the time.
==============================
I don't see anything on targets - either in Richards piece or my comment at #50. Other people have moved to a new debate, try not to be left behind so much.
Phase out oil, but then replace it a new reliance on the mid-east?
Another 50 years (or more) of dependence, insecurity, instability, corruption, and turning a blind eye to civil rights abuses. Thats leaving out the invasions and wars that have cost thousands of lives.
You think that's a good idea?
Complain about this comment
"Phase out oil, but then replace it a new reliance on the mid-east? "
We still have our own sun, you know.
But economies of scale are still fairly weak at the moment, so the best "bang for the buck" may well be to do it in the Middle East.
After all, isn't one of the continuing complaints about renewables that we don't get enough sun up here in blighty? Seems like if you try and solve that problem, someone else turns up and starts complaining...
Complain about this comment
56. At 3:40pm on 16 Jul 2009, yeah_whatever wrote:
"Phase out oil, but then replace it a new reliance on the mid-east? "
We still have our own sun, you know.
================
Certainly, but Richard is talking about the deserts for good reason. These things have to make something approaching economic sense - amount of electricity produced against cost of infrastructure. In the UK we have clouds, deserts tend to have a lot less of them.
Dependence on foreign energy is noted in the article -
"One reason why not may turn out to be security of supply. Why trade dependence on Middle Eastern gas for dependence on Middle Eastern solar electricity, some would ask."
For anyone who hasn't been taken in by the climate of fear over climate change, one of the big advantages of moving on from oil would be to deal with the long standing issues of mid-east energy dependence.
Surely no one actually wants to continue the way we have been for the last 50 years - wars, invasions, corruption all to secure the oil/energy?
May be use it as one of a balanced range of sources, but lets not swap one dependence for another.
Complain about this comment
"Certainly, but Richard is talking about the deserts for good reason. "
Yes. Because there is a plan to make a solar power plant out there.
We are also building PV arrays, tidal generators and wind turbines here in our own country.
But that isn't unusual, it's more "dog bites man" stuff.
Your point?
"For anyone who hasn't been taken in by the climate of fear over climate change"
You mean those with their heads in the sand...
"one of the big advantages of moving on from oil would be to deal with the long standing issues of mid-east energy dependence."
Isn't that bringing up the climate of fear about terrists?
You're OK with spreading fear if it supports your preconception (held with no proof, I might add), but not if it counters your dogma.
Hmmm.
Complain about this comment
\\\ Paradigm Shift ///
John Kenneth Galbraith called us "The Affluent Society".
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society
Revisionist history might take an even dimmer view - perhaps the Columbian Age of the Robber Barons?
Antoine de Saint-Euxpery might have wished us to be "The Responsible Society"?
I am looking for another name. My friend 'wunarik', from Africa told me today that being poor is a perhaps necessary condition for progress. In his village, they had hardly a penny, but there is apparently a Dinka saying - something to the effect that a man without money is not without words. I imagine the depth of meaning is lost in the translation, but wunarik pointed out to me that he had never been so rich as here in North America these last years and never so unhappy.
Strangely, I have never been so unaffluent as these last years and never so happy.
So perhaps we're on to something?
We need another type of progress, and it is not more materialism.
- Manysummits -
(looking for a new name for twenty-first century society)
Complain about this comment
Is there a certain lack of interest in the big business of Saharan solar power? Does it smack of the same old?
--------------
Underacanoe, Cloudrunner and I watched a magnifcent thundercloud yesterday evening. It was to our northeast, over the airport I think, and lit up by the rays of the Sun two hours before sunset.
A 'Pileus Cloud' formed and reformed repeatedly as we followed the lifecycle of the thunderstorm for almost two hours.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileus_cloud
It was literally better than textbook. A breeze from the southwest was evident on the ground and in the cloud wind. Scattered Stratocumulus and high Cirrus accompanied this wonder of nature.
We had dinner on the balcony 'watching the show.' And it cost far less than a movie.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Richard,
Regarding #14, I find I must agree with you - you not only pointed out that this is "not" new technology - but provided examples (magazine covers in the 80's and the operating plant in Spain).
I am very curious to see what the results of this 3 year "feasability" study will reveal.
On another note, the US Military has recently built such a plant - at a cost of about $400M. The problem with this is that it is expected to save the US Military (Army) approx. $1M per year in electricity costs. Does not sound like a very good business case. Of course, we all hear about $900 hammers and $12,000 toilet seats found in the Military budget - so I wonder what the "real" costs are. It is also interesting to note that the story "quietly died".
I should very much like to see the results of this study. Of all the wind, solar and tidal schemes out there, this appears to be the most promising (IMHO). I think one of the larger issues will be the ability to maintain the mechanisms required to move the mirrors in order to "follow the sun".
The earlier poster who suggested that cleaning the mirrors would be an issue due to lack of water is neglecting the fact that the mirrors can easily be cleaned using compressed air - particulary in such a dry environment.
I certainly hope the business case turns out to be viable one.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
"On another note, the US Military has recently built such a plant - at a cost of about $400M."
Wasn't it ID4 said "you don't think you really pay $400 for a shovel, do you?".
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#63 cont'd...
(re: LarryKealey #61 "US Military has recently built such a plant")
If you did mean that one...
http://www.energycentral.com/articles/energybizinsider/ebi_detail.cfm?id=706
Then the said cost was not $400M but $100M, and note that it's a "photovoltaic plant" which would be expected to be more expensive (per Mw) to build than a solar thermal power plant.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
#64 cont'd..
Sorry I see Larry said "Army" and the link I posted was Air Force, so not the same thing. But searching for US military power installations I saw only photovoltaic plants in the deserts.
There was mention of a plan for a solar thermal plant which would melt salt and store it. The molten salt then being used to generate steam (or the like) to drive generators. That way it can continue to run in the dark. Seemed like a good idea.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Smaller Scale Solar - and Local
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8140038.stm
The Faces of Global Warming
Yosemite
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8159025.stm
Noctilucent Clouds
http://www.spaceweather.com/
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Richard, you asked for suggestions about earlier dates for using solar energy in north Africa.
The earliest mention that I am aware of comes from the 19th century and was made by Auguste Mouchout, a mathematics instructor in France. Mouchout began his solar work in 1860 after expressing concerns about his country's dependence on coal. He argued that European industry would eventually be unable to find local energy sources, especially coal, to meet its rapid expansion. In 1861 he was granted the first patent for a motor running on solar power. In the early 1870s Mouchout reported the results and findings to the French Academy of Science. He continued to improve his design until about 1880. In the 1870s it was decided to build large machines at Montpelier, in southern France, and at Constantine, Algeria. In the early 1880s, following an independent assessment of the machines performance, the French government concluded that the device was a technical success but a practical failure. One reason was that France had recently improved its system for transporting coal and the price of coal had dropped, rendering the need for alternatives less attractive. Mounchout was unable to procure further financial assistance and resumed his academic career.
Complain about this comment
Richard, Buckminster-Fuller proposed a "World Grid" powered by photovoltaics in a string around the equator (obviously the majority of equatorial land mass is in the Sahara).
The easiest way to accomplish this with mutual benefit for Europe and the Saharan landowners is to build a canal from the Med to the solar farm in the Sahara. Electrolysis of water is 97% efficient. So large volumes of Hydrogen can be produced. New modern Zeppelin - trains (without a fabric coating that ignites when wet & struck by lightning) would transport the Hydrogen to Europe. Back on site (at the solar farm), a large Fuel Cell combined with a suitably sized inverter would supply AC to the region and power for compressing hydrogen for export. The waste products of this electricity generation (pure water + sea salt) can be harvested and used by the local population. A Win - Win - Win situation all round, what's not to like?
Complain about this comment
I have worked out that with current pricings in the "High Street" (well online shops, anyway) I can build complete independence from the grid for a payback time of 17 years at present electricity prices and estimating an average inflation rate of 1% over the period.
Now, if only I could find a Banker willing to take that kind of gamble.
My system has been rather overdesigned to account for extrememly cloudy, windless days and has 4 days of reserve storage. Obviously, if we ever have a year again with a 'normal' summer, the excess electricity would be enough to run an electric car for free.
One small problem, would be that I can't operate the Washing Machine, Vacuum Cleaner, Dishwasher and the Power Tools in my shed simultaneously, but I hardly regard that change to my lifestyle as "a return to the Dark Ages"
Complain about this comment
Turning our expanding, deserted lands into clean-energy producing solar power plants...good in theory, but there are obviously some serious feasibility issues at work here:
#1 - how to clean the mirrors in a desert with no water
#2 - the enormous investments ($100-$400 million) necessary to start these plants
#3 - transportation of the new clean energy poses another set of problems with leakages, and the protection necessary to stop competing parties from sabotaging the new power plants
I believe, the answer to our energy crisis lies in having more localized energy sources (such as household solar energy generators or hydrolysis hydrogen power generators, that are more efficient and pose less of a threat of explosion in transportation as there is with hydrogen) to decrease dependence on the larger scale energy providers. Lessening dependence, does not mean people have to give up reliance completely, however.
In addition to increased localized sources of energy, there should be more efficient clean energy power plants that minimize transportation (through minimizing distances between the source and the population, many small plants versus one large one) and leakages through redesigning grid structures.
Also, using multiple facets of clean energy at once (some combination of solar, wind, and geothermal, perhaps) could increase energy output of these smaller localized plants to have multiple sources at once, that increase sustainability and work together to get a higher cummulative energy output.
In conclusion, the answer to our energy dependence is not to simply shift our dependence from oil to solar plants, but instead to decrease our dependence on large monopoly energy corporations by increasing localized clean energy sources, which take out the transportation problems and enormous investment costs necessary to have this idea work effectively.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS