The short version : yes, except wars and politicians.
The last comment is silly though. If you can generate all the energy needed through renewables, reducing energy consumption makes no sense. Renewables aren't a "stopgap", they're the whole point. Low carbon sources would be a stopgap.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34987467
Also, if we could reduce energy consumption, we would have a safety margin in our economic system or we could give some space and resources back to our ecosystems.
ReplyDeleteI've wondered why the Saudis and Saharan governments haven't hit on the idea that they have enormous amounts of land for solar technology (in addition to few clouds and being close to the equator). They could replace their oil dominance (which will only decline) for solar power dominance.
ReplyDeleteOr, you know, maybe a handful of nuclear power plants. The desert is still an ecosystem - you can't just go and pave it over.
ReplyDeleteWell, yeah. War, human rights, inability to distribute that power globally without a superconducting grid (or some way of storing and shipping the energy). Also love the idea of being one switch-throw away from instant global blackout (as opposed to having the buffer of oil reserves, etc.).
ReplyDeleteTell you what: instead of giving the Fremen all the spice a second time, let's give them the sandworms and video the hilarity for YouTube.
Could a desert panels convert CO2 to carbon black which could be transported with greater efficiency than running an electric grid to Europe?
ReplyDeleteDavid Strumfels The Saudis are buying billions worth of solar panels and installing them.
ReplyDeletehttp://cleantechnica.com/2015/08/12/another-low-solar-price-record-saudi-electric-company-lands-solar-ppa-5%C2%A2kwh/
Arien Huckeba That is true, however the commenter says : "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"
ReplyDeleteThis is a nonsense if you can provide all the sustainable energy needed for our current lifestyles. A stopgap measure could only occur if the energy source was not sustainable.
There is a mood in certain sectors that energy usage is somehow a fundamentally bad thing in itself. I disagree. It's how that energy usage affects the environment that we should worry about. This comment appears to be of the "we should all go back to living in the trees" mentality. There are, as you say, good reasons to reduce energy usage but sustainability is not necessarily one of them.
John Jainschigg I don't know how accurate it is, but the article quotes a power loss through cables of 2% per thousand miles. So a superconducting grid is maybe not necessary.
ReplyDeleteOil reserves are finite in any case, so we will have to switch to another source at some point. I agree about the political concerns though.
Sultan Saini I agree, that's another option. You wouldn't need to use that much of the Sarah though.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/07/02/why-dont-we-put-solar-panels-in-the-sahara-desert-as-a-source-of-electricity/
The environmental impacts would be interesting. I'm not sure if you'd really have to pave all that much to support the panels, maybe just have them raised above the desert. I have absolutely no idea what providing extra shade would do.
Nuclear would give each country much greater energy independence, reliability and sustainability. I'm not clear how it would expensive it would be since supporters and detractors throw around wildly different numbers. Solar is in principle free over the long term.
David Carlson Assuming this "2% loss per 1000 miles" figure is correct, my guess would be that using solar to convert carbon into usable fuel would be much less efficient than running a cable directly from the source to where it's used.
ReplyDeleteThat's true. A Saudi array could use HVDC to transmit power economically up to a theoretical maximum of about 7000 miles in any direction on land. Were it not for the fact that many neighboring states are hostile, in political upheaval (thus untrustworthy) and/or living in some version of the 13th century (thus untrustworthy and crazy) it might work.
ReplyDeleteWhat mildly astonishes me is that we're not doing exactly this in the Southwestern US, where money, know-how and relative stability make it readily feasible. I'd rather buy Arizona solar than Canadian hydropower.
In the U.S. we could sell wind and solar power to points east and west of their origination and easily cover all our power needs. There's enough wind power potential alone in the midwest to handle all the U.S. energy requirements.
ReplyDeleteUS wind map.
http://hint.fm/wind/
What we need in addition to wind and solar is wholesale conversion to geothermal heating and cooling for all of our buildings. Look at your own household's energy budget. Most of that is heating or cooling.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2013/01/energy-efficiency-geothermal-heat-pumps-and-negawatts.html
http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/17/10-myths-about-geothermal-heating-and-cooling/
Arien Huckeba 100% renewables would technically exclude fusion power. Is that really what we want?
ReplyDeleteI'd count fusion as renewable, we're never going to run out of hydrogen. But then I'd also count fission as renewable thanks to breeder reactors.
ReplyDeleteArien Huckeba If I was to be pedantic, I would call any process where the energy source is replenished "renewable" regardless of whether it generates waste or not. By that definition fusion isn't renewable since the hydrogen is consumed in the process. But I would settle for "can be sustained indefinitely" since that's the more important bottom line. If waste is generated then that certainly counts against it but that just means it's not such a good renewable source. I don't think "renewable" and "overall quality" should be so firmly tied together.
ReplyDeleteI think there will be a role for commercial fission power, but that is another topic.