20 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpPumping millions of gallons of water over hundreds of miles in and out of the desert just to warm it up is the worst idea ever; and is certainly a "no brainer"; as would be trying to run electricity cables to collect the feeble amount of charge which would then have to be driven hundreds of miles into the grid.
I can't figure out why they don't cover parking lots with solar panels. Covered parking and energy generation, it's a win-win. Also, solar panels in the desert sounds like a no brainer, surely someone's already thought of this, is the cost too prohibitive?
20 Sep 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt can be developed with the money obtained by selling solar power.
Solar energy is difficult to transport and Africa needs developing.
I don't think it is logical to suggest that power should not be exported in an attempt at development - unless there is massive corruption. But that applies much more to oil.
If anything, the export of power would help pay for construction of solar power plants thus making the possibility for cheaper local power.
20 Sep 11
Originally posted by shavixmirIn terms of realism, to what extent do vast amounts Russian Oil and natural gas make an integrated European green energy grid a non starter?
Isn't it funny that if it doesn't concern the US or Israel, nobody seems interested in talking about it?
As far as I've been able to tell, if this plan goes ahead it will be the next step in energy evolution.
Not interesting?
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199203
20 Sep 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBut once it's in place, there's no need to transport anything. The problem is that it's a one-sale deal and therefor not as profitable as other forms of energy. Helen Caldicot has argued that if the power companies could wrap a blanket around the stratosphere and sell holes, the technology would be decades ahead of where it is now.
Solar energy is difficult to transport and Africa needs developing.
20 Sep 11
Originally posted by KunsooThere's a loss of energy as it goes through the wires. A side effect of widespread solar panelling is that the land underneath will be shaded and enclosed, which means it could be possibly made into habitable land again over time - and the solar energy could do it.
But once it's in place, there's no need to transport anything. The problem is that it's a one-sale deal and therefor not as profitable as other forms of energy. Helen Caldicot has argued that if the power companies could wrap a blanket around the stratosphere and sell holes, the technology would be decades ahead of where it is now.
If Africa sells this energy, they surrender some of their wealth to Europe and get paper in return. Right? What would they sell it for except money?
The net transfer of wealth will be out of Africa.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199203
20 Sep 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe point of solar is that it can be very decentralized. Each village can have its own sources. Potentially, each home.
There's a loss of energy as it goes through the wires. A side effect of widespread solar panelling is that the land underneath will be shaded and enclosed, which means it could be possibly made into habitable land again over time - and the solar energy could do it.
If Africa sells this energy, they surrender some of their wealth to Europe and get ...[text shortened]... What would they sell it for except money?
The net transfer of wealth will be out of Africa.