Solar and wind farms, stretched across North Africa's Saharan desert and relying solely on existing technologies, could produce enough electricity to power the entire world. (That amount of electricity approximates over 21 terawatt hours.) As an added benefit these combined wind and solar arrays would also increase rain fail in the arid Sahel region thereby slowing the steady southern encroachment of the desert.
This was the conclusion arrived at by academic researchers using supercomputers. Teams at the University of Maryland and University of Illinois modeled their results in a study financed in part by a Chinese government agency. Their results were published in the prestigious journal Science (September 7).
Yes, we know it sounds farfetched. And even perhaps too ridiculous consider. But is it any crazier or more uneconomic than the two biggest nuclear construction projects currently underway in the U.S. and Europe? Spending $25 billion or more to erect bespoke nuclear power generating stations (when a comparable gas fired facility could be built at a relatively small fraction of the cost) shows that regardless of economics, for those that the politicians favor, funds can often be found.
And it is not just new nuclear technologies that should be singled out for economic excesses. Southern Company's recent attempt at building a truly clean coal electric power generating station resulted in the $4 billion Kemper County project in Mississippi. That facility now only burns natural gas rendering large parts of the investment economically irrelevant.
But for sheer scale it is typically nuclear construction that provides the biggest numbers. In this regard consider the proposed $20-$30 billion ITER nuclear fusion project. The point? We already spend huge sums to experiment with and develop increasingly carbon free power sources. From a technological perspective the Sahara wind/solar project is practically "old school". It relies exclusively on so called off the shelf, existing technologies.
The challenge as we see it, apart from financing, would come from the actual construction. Giant construction projects in relatively inhospitable climates almost always pose a challenge. This would be akin to building the Alaska pipeline or putting huge oil rigs in the North Sea or in Arctic waters. Related: Ex GM Boss: Tesla 'Headed For The Graveyard'
A German consortium, DESERTEC, proposed a Saharan solar project in 2009 based on work that goes back to the 1980s. The organization made promising financial projections based on its research. Its shareholders included major Mediterranean infrastructure and electricity firms and State Grid of China.
Wind and solar projects can also produce "unintended consequences" for the environment as the Illinois and Maryland researchers gently put it. In the Saharan case though, the consequences, more precipitation, might actually be beneficial.
From the perspective of the earth's surface, wind and solar farms change surface roughness and reflectance. This raises local temperatures--the last thing the Sahara needs. However, the temperature boost also increases the likelihood of precipitation, in fact doubling it in this particularly arid region. That would in turn lead to increases in vegetation growth. More vegetative ground cover increases evaporation which, in turn, increases precipitation. Solar farms by themselves could have a similar environmental impact.
Admittedly, the university researchers did not address a whole host of concerns: social, political, business and technological. The challenge of constructing solar and wind farms across the Sahara Desert and then delivering the power to those who need it is a daunting task. But the researchers did interestingly address the impact of the project on climate and concluded it would be beneficial. That's at least a start.
Would relatively small European and American energy companies rise to a challenge of this magnitude? Or would the Sahara project developers, if there is one, propose this ambitious project to the Chinese as part of their One Belt, One Road Initiative? From a policy perspective China has made no secret of its interest in Africa. It would be ironic if they embarked on an ambitious undertaking like this while domestically the US plays "small ball" and focuses on subsidies for relatively uneconomic coal and nuclear power generating stations to extend their economic lives.
By Leonard Hyman and William Tilles
More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:
Leonard S. Hyman is an economist and financial analyst specializing in the energy sector. He headed utility equity research at a major brokerage house and… More
Comments
This feedback comment doesn't need to be publicly visible.
Plastics, paints, building materials, industrial chemicals, fertilizers that accelerate plant growth to actually serve bio-capture of carbon from the air, pharmaceuticals that heal instead of particulates that harm.. all of these come from fossil and at higher profit margins, so long as you don't burn what you take from the lithosphere.
Plastics, paints, building materials, industrial chemicals, fertilizers that accelerate plant growth to actually serve bio-capture of carbon from the air, pharmaceuticals that heal instead of particulates that harm.. all of these come from fossil and at higher profit margins, so long as you don't burn what you take from the lithosphere.
There was a plan to place heat engines in the Sahara to generate electricity for Europe... but then coal won out. Those heat engines were not nearly as efficient as today's solar, but then our electricity consumption is a tad larger than it was projected to be back then.
The objections then were probably the same as today... something about political instability. But, on this go-round, having some job-creating megaproject in Libya might do Europe some good. Making it a government-sponsored megaproject and framing it as an illegal immigrant solution might actually get European citizens willing to pay for it.
CO2 is a blessing and a gift and the more the better, so there is no reason to restrict any fossil fuel consumption, most especially natural gas, the cheapest, cleanest and most affordable source of the energy, the third worlds so desperately needs.
The AGW fake science, is a criminal act of Genocide, against the poorest and most defenseless.
Why is this website NOT championing the cause of science and the petroleum industry, instead of these shameless, greedy opportunists?
Like other dessert areas the big problem is dust. Put a panel up one day and the next it's covered in a layer of fine sand. Within two days it's got a thick layer on it, rendering it useless.
Even if you could keep the dust off, sand scours everything. Within a few weeks in Saudi a panel looks like a dull beige wall. The efficiency drops like a stone off a cliff.
So it sound like a good idea but in practice any solar farm will quickly become useless.
On the question of electricity usage worldwide, it appears to be about 21,000 TWH per year. We apologize for the misstatement of quantity.
Bill Tilles and Leonard Hyman