Hacker News Reader

Comment by notatoad | Hacker News Reader

We should not be covering any wilderness (even a relatively barren wilderness like the Sahara) with solar panels until every inch of roof in the developed world is covered in solar panels. There's a ridiculous amount of flat open surface that is just wasted space right now, and not only is the space going to waste but the energy consumers exist right underneath that wasted roof space.

View on HN

That's a silly notion.

I've lived in many places (Seattle, Edinburgh) where a solar panel is only useful about 25% of the year due to clouds, or the simple fact of being so far north. We don't all live in Southern California.

The Sahara presents an environment with lots of sunlight, little clouds, and nothing else being developed there. And it doesn't need to be solar panels- solar farms based on collectors reflecting to a central tower are what is being cited in the article. We can't do that in most developed areas, because it takes up a lot of space- deserts are mostly empty, perfect for that.

In short, it would make far more economic sense to build solar panels in the Sahara and lose 50% of the power to transmission loss piping it all to Scotland than it ever would to put the same solar infrastructure into Edinburgh (or many other cities in the world).

Solar panels still work in cloudy weather, though the efficiency is reduced. Transmission losses are huge over long distances, plus you would have the added problem of securing the panels and transmission lines against sabotage -- and the Sahara isn't exactly the most politically stable part of the world.

Transmission losses are huge over long distances

I found this document from ABB, http://www02.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh250.nsf/0/2adcc78ab7f..., they know a thing or two about power transmission. They claim:

   A 2,000-km long HVDC line rated at 800 kilovolts
   loses about 5 percent of the electricity it
   carries to heat, while an equivalent AC line
   would lose twice that amount, or about 10 percent.

I wouldn't call either of those losses "huge". There are of course additional losses in converters or transformers. Still, that's darn good, better than I would have guessed.

plus you would have the added problem...

Those are fair points, I think much more significant than the transmission losses.

...as silly as siting a CSP (concentrated solar power) system which requires copious amounts of WATER and maintenance in the middle of a desert?

CSP is dead. It actually never stood on its own.

Photovoltaics (PV) IS KING: 1. No moving parts 2. Creates electricity directly at the load (minimal losses) 3. Sunlight is the most evenly distributed resource on Earth (got clouds? Add more panels!) 4. Made from crystalline silicon (very abundant) 5. PV panels create electricity for 100+years (yes at diminishing amounts over time, but at 80% production @ 30 years of service...come on) 6. A source of power that actually has the potential to (or does, depending on the report you read) generate net positive energy in its lifetime. 7. Cheap as shit

Yes we need fossil fuel generators for smoothing out the grid as weather conditions change, but its possible to implement this now.

To produce all the energy needed by humans, only a minuscule part of the desert has to be covered - the environmental aspects would be pretty neglectable. The pro of using the Sahara would of course be efficiency, the downside are politics and transporting the energy produced to somewhere where it can be used.

Are the energy loss from transport far lower than the benefits of Saraha in terms of light input ?

A high voltage DC line should have less losses than the energy gained by moving south. Furthermore, one can pretty much rely on the Sahara sky not being clouded, which is probably more important as you then can rely on having the same energy output every day. The let-down is that it would cost billions to put the necessary lines in place. Putting the solar farms into the south of Spain is likely to be more cost-effective. The nice thing about photovoltaics though is, that there is no minimum size for a plant. This means, we could do both in parallel - extend European solar plants and set up some in Africa.

Yeah, the idea of trying on Spain and Greece seems great. Simpler politically and economically.

Every inch? Even roofs in areas with very low sunlight available for solar energy? There must be some places where solar panels on roofs is not the most economical choice for renewable energy.

Having solar at the point of use also mitigates costly upgrades to bulk transmission lines. Solar absolutely doesn't need to only used in equatorial locales to be useful. With the cost dropping so much, base load battery storage doesn't even make sense. The dominating factor for solar installations is mounting and wiring, not the panels themselves.

Let's do both.

While I agree with your sentiment the problem is that solar panels in populated urban areas that are perpetually blanketed by geoengeering spraying practices are not going to be nearly as efficient as ones in dedicated remote areas not being sprayed.

Chemtrail citation needed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1x6r81/huge_lis...

Geoengineering is undeniable don't be ignorant. Either you can't read or you are a shill.

I forgot to tell you to gfy. I will never capitulate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com