Image: NASA Earth Observatory
HAMBURG, Germany -- Twenty-five years after Gerhard Knies conceived of powering Europe with the Sahara Desert's sun, the North Africa Solar project has grown into something considerably more than a mere mirage, but it's still less than a reality.
Part of the plan is to erect a network of solar plants that generate electricity by concentrating the heat from sunlight to make electricity, generating 100 gigawatts or the equivalent of 100 large nuclear power plants. Another part is to develop a grid of high-voltage transmission lines that can carry the power from Morocco, Jordan, Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria to power-hungry markets in Europe.
The overall plan has already attracted billions of dollars in investments from blue-chip German companies and the World Bank as well as palpable excitement among supporters. They see it as a way to fight climate change, help Europe meet its renewable energy targets and create badly needed jobs in troubled Middle Eastern countries.
But the estimated €400 billion ($566 billion), 40-year endeavor also has invited critics who question whether the region is politically stable enough for such development, and whether it's wise to create a new dependence on another source of energy from the Middle East. Others doubt the project will bring lasting benefits to North Africa. They see it as a repeat of resource exploitation -- albeit "green" exploitation -- on the African continent.
Knies is now the energetic and at times defiant chairman of the board of trustees of the Desertec Foundation, which is pushing the plan. He is eager to implement the solar vision he first developed in the wake of the horrific Soviet nuclear accident at Chernobyl. Then a particle physicist at Hamburg's Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY), Knies said the 1986 disaster prompted him to calculate how much energy the sun can deliver to the world.
"I thought to myself, 'Are we really so stupid that we put such things in our world that we cannot control? Just for some little comfort?'" he said.
From Chernobyl to Fukushima to Desertec?
Sitting in a tent drinking coffee at DESY during a recent conference on North Africa's clean energy prospects, Knies argued that climate change and the Fukishima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan -- which turned countries like his native Germany away from nuclear as a low-carbon option -- are lending new urgency to the current, more elaborate version of the plan. He roundly rejected any challenges to Desertec's motives or ability to help North Africa, arguing that criticisms of the solar project are unfounded.
"This is not a European invention," Knies said, noting that the solar initiative was designed by 15 European scientists and 25 scientists from the Middle East and North Africa.
"The Desertec project came from the region ... and it will be to the benefit of these countries," he said. Beyond the jobs and economic development he sees for troubled countries like Egypt and Tunisia, Knies argued that Europe and the Middle East have "a common goal. We do not want a climate that is out of control."
If the Desertec plan works, it could provide 15 percent of Europe's electricity needs and help the continent achieve its target of 20 percent renewable energy by 2020. Backers believe North Africa is one of the best places in the world for concentrated solar power (CSP), largely because of vast tracts of unused land that are in close proximity to road networks and transmission grids. With solar resources in North Africa about 20 to 30 percent higher than in Europe, according to supporters, the difference more than makes up for the added transportation costs to get the electricity to Europe.
Meanwhile, a World Bank study has found that while, at the moment, all the electronic components would be imported into North Africa, by 2030, the region would see a mix of pure local production and local production with international firms. The region could create about 80,000 jobs in construction services and manufacturing if it can produce between 5 and 7 gigawatts of electricity. Already, a 500-megawatt solar concentration plant in Morocco's movie capital of Ouarzazate is under way that could become Desertec's first testing ground.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentWhat happens when Europe has to invade Africa to protect its energy source from disaffected militants?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat happens when the governments of the African energy exporters realize that solar power can provide a revenue stream that is as large or even LARGER than the oil exports they currently ship to Europe and other countries? Seriously, these nations have been able to protect their energy infrastructure before, why would that stop just because they're exporting solar power instead of 50-million year old algea juice? Even in Lybia, the rebels and the loyalists have mostly spared the oil industry from destruction because either side knows that energy exports are a valuable source of cash to continue their war efforts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"North Africa's solar energy potential equals 1 million barrels of oil annually" - surely this is way off?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI get from Wikipedia that the EU's average annual electricity consumption is 3,635,604 GWh. To supply 15% of that (the claimed potential for the project) would be 545,340 GWh/yr.
At $.10/KWh = $100/MWh = $100,000/GWh, there would be potential for 545,000 x 100,000 = $54 Billion dollars per year.
At $100 per barrel, that would be 500 million barrels of oil per year.
I think all of the above is true. There is no question that this will add revenue to nations who coincidentally have citizens that desperately need economic assistance, but we should not delude ourselves into thinking this is a humanitarian gesture. Obviously, the vast majority of the benefit will be captured by an elite and powerful few, whose interests are probably not even aligned with the west politically. How well that infusion trickles down to those who need it depends on the investment choices of those few. Those choices will control the level of social inequality, which in turn drives the sort of desperation driven piracy, terrorism and revolutions at the bottom. The need to involve thousands of manual laborers and workers for infrastructure development almost always forces a reasonable system of trickle-down investment, at least during the construction phase. Before we criticize the social inequalities in place, remember that almost all of the wealth in the west is also controlled by an elite and powerful few. In terms of military vulnerability, rather than focusing on whether we will be putting money in the hands of terrorists, it comes to considering which is better, having a nuclear target in your own back yard, or a solar target somewhere in the Sahara. Terrorists will always get money. Our own governments (meaning wealthy nations) keep giving it to them, along with training, in order to foster their own shadow political agendas. If you really want to help social inequality and prevent war and instability, we have to change our behavior, not theirs. I think in the long run, solar plants in the Sahara would be a net positive politically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had the same comment as spiff. That number is absurdly wrong. Presumably he meant 1 billion, although that is still too conservative. For perspective, the US uses about 5 billion barrels of oil per year - yet I've seen realistic estimates that just 1% of the Sahara's solar energy, if totally harnassed, could match all the power-plants on earth. e.g. quoted in TIME ( http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1872110_1872133_1872141,00.html ), Of course, we won't get 100% anytime soon, but we'll get a lot more than a million barrels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best thing about this idea is that it is scientifically right. Our renewable energy comes from the sun. Waves, wind, etc. are all powered by the energy from the sun. If we focus on solar energy, the only limitation is the efficiency of our devices and transfer lines. But it's nice that it's also politically right. Globally the countries near the equator tend to be the poorest - investing in technologies which enable them to become energy producers is going to create a more balanced world - it doesn't have to stop with the Sahara.
They will be are better off by investing their billions in the invention of Gravity Control for Power Generation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith it, power can be generated in Micro-,Mega- or Gigawatt Amounts anywhere. It is more economical and safer than nuclear, wind, water or solar systems. It can even be used in ships, that can run everything without oil.
Schopenhauer said: " A new idea is first ridiculed, then it is fought and finally it is declared self-evident.
I am past the ridicule part after I got the patent, it is now being fought by other power interests.
The invention is based on the technology, used by the Flying Saucer.
It was first offered to Nasa, so that Shuttles would not need rockets anymore and could fly anywhere at very low cost. It was rejected, it would make the One Billion Dollar Heavy Lifter obsolete.
These big spheres under a Saucer are the Propulsion Units (PU) that can lift a 10 or 100 ton vehicle with an small amount of energy off the ground. The technology allows e.g that if a sphere has a charge of the equivalent of 10 watts, it gets all released in a millisecond or faster.
It acts then as 10 Kilowatt (10.3 HP). That happens many times per second.
A PU can also lift a weight in a Silo to maximum height.
When released it can activate a generator.
A Power Station would have two Silos, working alternately.
After startup by an outside power unit, it will keep on working by itself.
The PUs would be LEASED only to give investors and Taxman their due.
We will need thousands of electricians to convert oil and gas units to electric ones.
When we have more electric cars, they can run very economically for short trips. Power would be @ 1 cent per Kilowatt or less.
The Germans don't have to go to Sahara desert to get solar energy. They can put their solar panels on the roof of their houses and on the sides of their streets and highways. Do the calculation. It's 200 MW per sq. km. of area. There's enough roofs and roads in Germany.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat happens when climate changes turns the Sahara into a tropical rainforest with low overcasts all year round?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Don't get your shorts in a wad, I'm just kidding.)
What is "ennui" talking about?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDig a large trench from the Mediterrean to the Qattara Depression. Build a hydroelectic plant to capture the energy of the water pouring into the depression. Should last for a hundred years or so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was raised in Miami, Florida. We used solar to heat our water. Our electric bill was eight dollars a month. (In those days a kilowatt hour cost about 5 cents.) We always had plenty of hot water and plenty of electricity for everything else. The capital expense for solar occurred only once.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince extremely efficient insulation now exists, solar water heat is now possible in colder climates. It does not have the maintenance costs of electrical systems. Although a large amount of energy is used to move vehicles, a large amount is also used to heat water. We can save fuel by solar heating of water now. It is time to take a systems approach to energy.
Hot water from solar can be piped into the present system with only a few changes. It does not require a whole new massive set up.
Setting up a roof top unit with parabolic reflectors to create steam for a boiler requires more advanced technology but that technology exists and the costs would be reduced on an assembly line.
Thus both the United States and Europe could divert much of the energy used to heat air and water for use in transportation. No reason exists why sunlight must first be turned into electricity and then electricity turned into heat when it is possible to go directly from sunlight to heat.
Payment will come in the form of immigration quotas. Take the photoelectric power from the desert to enrich life in the temperate zone. Of course. It is obvious, clean, and creates wealth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe political price is obvious as well. End nationalism. Allow the people to enjoy the temperate climate and encourage the social organism to embrace the migration.
Just relax. This won't hurt a bit.
Your Qattara hydroelectric will only produce 1 month of U.S. electric consumption. US consumes 3.7 trillion kwhr a yr. You have to dig 80 km canal from the Mediterranean sea. The 19,500 sq. km. basin and 90 m elevation drop from sea level translate into 10^18 joules of potential energy or 400 billion kwhr of electricity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn second thought, your Qattara hydropower will not work bec. the seawater will not fall 90 m vertically. Instead it will flow 80 km horizontally at 0.11% gradient. So most of the potential energy will be used up in the kinetic energy and friction of the flowing water. Very little energy will be left to drive your hydroelectric turbine. I estimate about 240 million kwhr or just enough to run a 1,000 MW power plant for 10 days.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this