4 ms·

>> "I think the only reason to pursue [solar panels in the Sahara] would be if it were a stopgap measure in which the long-term goal would be to reduce consumpt

by lvspiff 11y ago

>> "I think the only reason to pursue [solar panels in the Sahara] would be if it were a stopgap measure in which the long-term goal would be to reduce consumption of energy and to change our lifestyles to be more sustainable, so that subsequent generations don't have to deal with as many problems as we're going to leave them." I hear this logic a lot and disagree. Finding more sensible and environmental ways to produce electricity needs to be the goal because we cannot be more sustainable. Mankind thrives on energy. I think the past 263 years (since Franklin's kite experiment) have shown us electricity is a way of progressing. We need power to run things. Where that power comes from is the difficult part. Unless another form of energy is found that can be used to work everyday devices from phones, to computers, to lights, not sure how we get away from electricity and only continuing to increase its consumption. As for paneling the desert - The massive solar arrays in the Mojave desert outside of Vegas show that the sun can be used effectively, but the cost to produce the materials and impact on desert flora/fauna that go into the arrays are just as bad for the environment. The material cost alone in terms of environmental impact make it a laughable endeavor in terms of "environmental" concern.

bendykstra 11y ago
I don't like her analogy in which she compares solar panels to smokestacks. As she points out, smokestacks were not a complete solution to air pollution because they merely moved the problem somewhere else. Solar panels are in no way comparable in that respect. The analogy only works if you consider energy production to be itself a problem.
- acheron 11y ago
  "The analogy only works if you consider energy production to be itself a problem." Welcome to environmentalism.
- Edmond 11y ago
  She could simply be trying to say that nothing is ever free. Conservation of energy dictates you need energy to produce energy, no matter the tricks you use to get energy there is always a cost even if it is not immediately apparent.
  - metafunctor 11y ago
    If by conservation of energy you're referring to the first law of thermodynamics, then it's completely inappropriate to invoke as an argument for "no energy is free". The energy in solar power is coming from the Sun. While there are various costs in capturing the radiation, converting it into some other form (like electricity) and shipping it around the globe, those costs have nothing to do with the first law of thermodynamics.
  - pm90 11y ago
    I think this line of reasoning just confuses the argument being made. The law of conservation of energy and the idiom that "nothing is free" are not the same. I believe the argument being made was that resource extraction and manufacturing for the machinery required for generating renewable energy causes as much damage to the environment as using non-renewable sources of energy. Im not sure if that is true, but I don't have the research to support either way. I do think that with more adoption and development of renewable energy, the extraction processes themselves could be made more environment-friendly.
WhoBeI 11y ago
Yeah, people always seem to forget that most deserts have life. Then there's the clans of nomads that live in the Sahara. The need for, at least initially, military protection and patrols. Someone has to keep the power lines/pipes from being destroyed. And, of course, the countries surrounding the area aren't the most stable either. The systems needed to control the automated surveillance drones coordinating the security teams would be interesting though. A green energy solution would be nice but I have a hard time seeing covering Sahara in solar panels being it. To many variables, to big a project. Besides everybody want local solutions for national security reasons anyways. >> "I think the past 263 years (since Franklin's kite experiment) have shown us electricity is a way of progressing It would be more fair to give this honor to Faraday since he invented the electrical motor and other uses for electricity while Franklin proved lightning is electricity and invented the lightning rod. Having your house not burn down is beneficial to progress, in that you can spend less time building houses, but doesn't really fuel progress in itself. I've always felt that Franklin steals the thunder by having a better, more dramatic story - the kite and all that. A genius in his own right though.
- pm90 11y ago
  We don't need to cover the whole desert. The Sahara desert is HUGE: almost the size of China itself. We would probably use only a small fraction of the desert for energy production, and (hopefully) use the regions which affect the environment least. As for security, I think its a tough question but not without solutions. Instead of treating the nomads as enemies, maybe we could explain to them the purposes of the project and reach some kind of understanding. This is a problem for diplomacy: not something that interest most HN readers. As for Faraday not being recognized: there are tons of scientists who've made important contributions that are required for everything that we take for granted today. Franklin is probably more famous for being an astute statesman rather than as a scientist.

by lvspiff 11y ago

bendykstra 11y ago

I don't like her analogy in which she compares solar panels to smokestacks. As she points out, smokestacks were not a complete solution to air pollution because they merely moved the problem somewhere else. Solar panels are in no way comparable in that respect. The analogy only works if you consider energy production to be itself a problem.

acheron 11y ago
"The analogy only works if you consider energy production to be itself a problem." Welcome to environmentalism.
Edmond 11y ago
She could simply be trying to say that nothing is ever free. Conservation of energy dictates you need energy to produce energy, no matter the tricks you use to get energy there is always a cost even if it is not immediately apparent.
- metafunctor 11y ago
  If by conservation of energy you're referring to the first law of thermodynamics, then it's completely inappropriate to invoke as an argument for "no energy is free". The energy in solar power is coming from the Sun. While there are various costs in capturing the radiation, converting it into some other form (like electricity) and shipping it around the globe, those costs have nothing to do with the first law of thermodynamics.
- pm90 11y ago
  I think this line of reasoning just confuses the argument being made. The law of conservation of energy and the idiom that "nothing is free" are not the same. I believe the argument being made was that resource extraction and manufacturing for the machinery required for generating renewable energy causes as much damage to the environment as using non-renewable sources of energy. Im not sure if that is true, but I don't have the research to support either way. I do think that with more adoption and development of renewable energy, the extraction processes themselves could be made more environment-friendly.

WhoBeI 11y ago

Yeah, people always seem to forget that most deserts have life. Then there's the clans of nomads that live in the Sahara. The need for, at least initially, military protection and patrols. Someone has to keep the power lines/pipes from being destroyed. And, of course, the countries surrounding the area aren't the most stable either. The systems needed to control the automated surveillance drones coordinating the security teams would be interesting though. A green energy solution would be nice but I have a hard time seeing covering Sahara in solar panels being it. To many variables, to big a project. Besides everybody want local solutions for national security reasons anyways. >> "I think the past 263 years (since Franklin's kite experiment) have shown us electricity is a way of progressing It would be more fair to give this honor to Faraday since he invented the electrical motor and other uses for electricity while Franklin proved lightning is electricity and invented the lightning rod. Having your house not burn down is beneficial to progress, in that you can spend less time building houses, but doesn't really fuel progress in itself. I've always felt that Franklin steals the thunder by having a better, more dramatic story - the kite and all that. A genius in his own right though.

pm90 11y ago
We don't need to cover the whole desert. The Sahara desert is HUGE: almost the size of China itself. We would probably use only a small fraction of the desert for energy production, and (hopefully) use the regions which affect the environment least. As for security, I think its a tough question but not without solutions. Instead of treating the nomads as enemies, maybe we could explain to them the purposes of the project and reach some kind of understanding. This is a problem for diplomacy: not something that interest most HN readers. As for Faraday not being recognized: there are tons of scientists who've made important contributions that are required for everything that we take for granted today. Franklin is probably more famous for being an astute statesman rather than as a scientist.