"In just six hours, the world's deserts receive more energy from the sun than humans consume in a year. If even a tiny fraction of this energy could be harnessed – an area of Saharan desert the size of Wales could, in theory, power the whole of Europe".......
From Leverage Academy
So... What do you think? Can you identify any significant pitfalls in the argument?
Hi Joe, what kind of subsidy would it take to bring the cost of solar energy from desert regions in line with energy from traditional fossil-fuel burning? From the article it also seems that dust may have a role to play in the viability of using such technology, as keeping receiver tubes clean is so important to efficency and the water resources (39 cubic meters per day) required are so scarce, do you think that climate change could exacerbate the dust and cleaning problems in the future?
ReplyDeleteHi Ed, your question is probably the most potent in any cost-benefit analysis that may be conducted. Regarding the dust component: The Sahara provides the most substantial quantities of aeolian dust with emission estimates between 500 and 1000 Tg yr-1 which makes up around 50% of the global total. The Bodélé depression is the widely considered the most important source region in the Sahara and contributes a considerable proportion of the Saharan emissions. Saharan dust is comprised of a number of a number of different particles but is made up predominantly of SiO2 and Al2O3. So yes, dust is a major consideration and if climatic change in the the future does induce further desertification and in turn dust fluxes transported from the source regions then efficiency may be hampered. I am aware of certain self-cleaning technologies and perhaps in time these may be translated into solar mechanisms in arid regions.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the subsidisation: Meeting future energy demand will require $26 trillion in infrastructure investment between now and 2030, more than half of it in the developing world (IEA, 2008). With this in mind, meeting energy demand will not be a cheap practice whatever method is employed. The following quote from the Centre of Global Development provides some useful information, " Assessing the comparative costs of power generation projects is difficult. Quoted prices for materials and equipment steel, cement, turbines, electric generators, etc.) can vary
considerably across countries and projects. The same is true for the cost of construction labor and operational and maintenance personnel. Coal, oil, and gas differ in quality and cost, and their future prices are difficult to predict. Full project costs, especially for renewable technologies, are also influenced by the physical characteristics of project sites. In addition, expected profitability, which determines whether or not a project is actually pursued, is affected by electricity tariff structures, tax incentives, renewable portfolio standards, debt-to-equity ratios, finance and insurance arrangements, capital cost schedules, and, importantly, expectations about regulation of greenhouse gas emissions." Evidently there are a lot of considerations that need to be built into any model that predicts a comparative financial plan.
See the following link for far more information on the economics and costs involved. It seems to me, however, that the future costs of oil etc, is a critical consideration.
http://www.cgdev.org/files/1417884_file_Desert_Power_FINAL_WEB.pdf