How Many Solar Panels To Power The World?
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
Covering 1/18th of the Sahara with solar panels (a number that will drastically increase as African economies grow and as the large majority of Europe is still growing quickly) will not only raise the temperature in one of the hottest places on the planet, but it will cause significant changes to the climate of Eurasia and Africa. The weather in most of Europe is heavily influenced by Saharan winds, and I don't think it's especially wise to screw with the one thing that keeps the region temperate and capable of widespread food production.
Their predictions don't appear to include the fact that solar power isn't 100% guaranteed, you need extra production if you're planning on powering a region. Most wind and solar production has to be turned off after meeting a quota, because they have to supply customers with the same amount, you can't go producing 500MW one day and then produce only 50MW the next because it's cloudy.
Perhaps I'm just a doomsayer, but all the gung-ho environmentalism that gets proposed seriously disturbs me. Farmers get paid to have wind turbines on their land, not only does this cause demineralization of their fields, which increase fertilizer use, which no matter what causes nitrates to get into the water, but it also decreases bird and bat populations that act as natural pesticides. Now you have to increase pesticide usage too, which gets more into the food and more into the water. There's a solution to all this, whilst sticking with wind turbines, but I've yet to see a company deploying helical wind turbines (which significantly reduce demineralization and bird strikes).
I like good old green nuclear, it produces guaranteed amounts of power on a daily basis rain or shine, windy or calm. Modern reactors produce significantly less waste than old reactors, produce medical isotopes. Reactors also often cause a benefit to the environment as the majority of their land is a buffer zone, which goes untended and becomes a natural habitat.
I'm sorry but when nuclear frequently increases biodiversity and 'green' frequently reduces it, you've got some serious shit going wrong with your plans to save the planet.
How do modern reactors produce less waste? The underlying nuclear reactions can't really be influenced by technology.
Not to mention that your "green" reactors' fuel is
A) produced in strip mines that devastate entire landscapes
B) running out about as soon as oil is, unless you start using breeder reactors, which are a much less tested technology and pose a massive proliferation risk.
Here's the same statistic, shown in another light:
http://www.bingocardcreator.com/blog-images/lying-with-numbe...
Deleted comment
Size of Ghawar oil field: 280 km × 30 km
Fraction of global oil produced by Ghawar: 6.25%
Size of Spain: ca. 500,000 km^2
Do the math yourself.
Um... I don't think so...
Kind of like the old saying that "the sun never sets on the British Empire."
But it's a silly oversight that is irrelevant to the practicability (or lack thereof) of this proposal.
In any case, you'd probably still need some sort of power storage, not because of night and cloudy days, but because of demand variation and peaks. The big problem would be around midnight GMT: lots of demand for power in Europe and North America, but most of the sunlight shines on the Pacific, with its distinct lack of desert areas (or dry land in general).
Some people see these charts and see possibility. I see the sheer scale of the operation and boggle; it's absurd.
That's mind-boggling too, you just don't think about it because it's already there.
That's exactly my point; I do grasp how much that took, and then to propose that we could solve all our problems by just doing a thousand times more work (or more) is just silly.
I actually think that the 125x125km area should be doable. Its not like we don't have space in Sahara. US is more difficult as its probably not practical to transfer electricity as it from Africa. Maybe as hydrogen, dunno.