3 ms·

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 fac

by mabbo 11y ago

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).

iamnothere 11y ago
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.
- PhantomGremlin 11y ago
  Transmission losses are huge over long distances I found this document from ABB, http://www02.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh250.nsf/0/2adcc78ab7f0f967c12574c00046478a/$file/HVDC+-+efficiency+and+reliability.pdf 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.
SeaDude 11y ago
...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.

by mabbo 11y ago

iamnothere 11y ago

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.

PhantomGremlin 11y ago
Transmission losses are huge over long distances I found this document from ABB, http://www02.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh250.nsf/0/2adcc78ab7f0f967c12574c00046478a/$file/HVDC+-+efficiency+and+reliability.pdf 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.

SeaDude 11y ago

...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.