Massive Saharan Solar Project Could Power $71 Billion EU Supergrid
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 07.24.08
Image from bachmont
Sometimes called the Saudi Arabia of solar energy, the Sahara could soon be home to dozens of huge solar farms under a new EU supergrid initiative to supply the continent's electricity needs with renewable energy. The Guardian's Alok Jha reports that the plan, which would cost around $71 billion (€45 billion) and take several decades to finish, would let all EU countries share electricity from wind, geothermal and solar energy.
Solar initiative already has crucial political backing
It has already gained a crucial measure of political support, with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who just helped establish the Mediterranean Union to work with countries in north Africa and the Mediterranean region, recently giving it the thumbs-up.
Image from Shayan
Building a massive, continent-wide DC supergrid
Each farm would generate between 50 and 200 megawatts of power, which would be fed thousands of miles through high voltage DC transmission lines to EU states. DC lines are preferable to AC lines in this case, because they lose a lot less energy over long distances.
It makes more sense to build the panels in north Africa rather than Europe, the European Commission Institute for Energy's Arnulf Jaeger-Walden explained, because the sunlight there is much more intense. He estimates that PV panels installed in Sahara could produce up to 3 times as much electricity. The initiative could cost up to $2 billion a year every year until 2050, according Jaeger-Walden.
Solar thermal generators could provide electricity and freshwater
This EU supergrid proposal is reminiscent of Desertec, a solar scheme to provide up to one sixth of the EU's energy needs which was unveiled late last year by Jordan's Prince Hassan bin Talal. While less ambitious, I think the European Commission would do well to consider using solar thermal generators, instead of conventional PV panels, since they could also be used as desalination facilities. Concentrating solar power (CSP) also seems like a much more cost-effective solution, especially on the scale that the farms will be built.
Via ::The Guardian: £37bn plan to power EU with the Saharan sun (news website)
More about huge solar projects
::Powering 20,000 Homes: The World's Largest PV Solar Farm Opens
::Largest Solar Power Plant In the United States Planned for Florida
::Turning Big Box Stores into Solar Power Plants in California
Solar Thermal also has the advantage over PV by providing electricity at night. Huge vats of liquid sodium can be heated during the day and that stored heat can turn steam generators at night.
High voltage electric current can provide the means to transport the electricity to Europe. These lines lose 3% of their electricity every 1000km (660m). All of Europe is within 3000km (a 10% loss) of the Sahara desert, and the vastly greater solar potential of the desert more than compensates for the loss over distance.
One issue is that the cables provide juicy terrorist targets. This was highlighted earlier this year when the middle east lost most of its internet connectivity when 4 or 5 of the main undersea telecom lines were cut simultaneously. A lot of redundancy will have to be built in and the lines well guarded.
This same potential exists in the SW of the US as well. AZ, NM, UT and southeast CA have similar solar potential to the Sahara. Almost the entire country could be powered by the electricity generated there.
It isn't clear how much capacity the $71b covers, but a more complete article in the Telegraph mentions $700b for 100Gwatts which is more than large enough for Britain, presumably not large enough for Europe, though they didn't relate it to that.
Perhaps the $71b is just grid upgrades and not generation.
I just want to thank JSDreyer for pointing out something important: transmission losses just aren't that big. For example, about 7% of electricity is lost in transmission here in the US. Of course, even seven percent is not zero...but it isn't a back-breaker either. The efficiency and cost savings of centralized power often offset transmission losses many times over.
The same holds for "food miles". Only about 4% of the energy embedded in your food is due to transportation. "Buying local" will save you some of that 4%, but it almost always means more driving for you and the farmer, more food prep and cleaning in your home, etc...again, offsetting the minor gains you made by shortening the distance the food travelled.
Huge solar farms like this are inevitable. It's good to see the EU moving forward and paving the way for the rest of us to follow, just as they have done for carbon emissions.
DC transmission line, I think that a typo.
DC (direct current) transmission lines OK, allow higher voltages (lower costs) than AC....But can anywhere in North Africa be considered politically safe enough long enough to put that much energy dependence on? ...DB
T. Boone Pickens has the right idea - use land that's not being developed for power generating windmills.
@ JimS
The $71b is just for the grid, not for any of the solar plants. Europe (including Russia) has a population more than double the USA (700m vs. 300m) but uses less than half the energy per capita (3.5K vs. 8K kg oil equiv), so it's fairly safe to say that Europe and the US have about the same installed capacity: 1000 GW. I was unable to find it, thus the calculation.
So, how much does a CSP plant cost?
Solnova 1 CSP (50MW) in Spain: 250m Euros ($400m)
Andasol 1 CSP (50MW) in Spain: 310m Euros ($500m)
Nevada Solar 1 (64MW): $250m
This works out to anywhere from $4m (USA) to $10m (Europe) per megawatt of generating capacity. CSP plants are still a brand new industry, and according to CSP maker Ausra, price per MW is expected to fall by half. Let's take the worst case scenario and cut it by half (allowing for economies of scale), so that in Europe in five years, you can produce CSP for $5m per MW of generating capacity. To produce 1000 GW of capacity will cost $5 trillion or about 3 trillion Euros.
@mki
DC is not a typo. AC loses a much greater amount of electricity over distance vs. DC. All long distance transmission will be in HVDC.
Some of you may know that this idea was actually planned to happen before world war 1. it was a planned idea between Great Britain and Germany, but the war cut the whole idea.
to make up any short fall in transmission small wind solar or geothermal in Europe can be used, as well as acting as emergency generation encase of disruptions.
would be good if they looked at turning the system around and supplying the host countries and the rest of Africa as well as Europe. that would cut a huge problem of potential developing nations using non sustainable fuels.
as for the cost, how much does it cost to build nuclear plants or coal plants? and how much does the national grids of all countries cost to maintain and upgrade? in order to have smart networks that could take power both too and from your house a lot of upgrades are going to be needed anyway, this would just be about bring a unified approach to the issues
I think it is great that this is being considered, but how is the land obtained? Is it going to be leased from countries with land on the Sahara? What about African nation's piggybacking on a system like that. These may be naive questions, but I am curious if anyone knows about these issues.
@ Guy
Well, the article does say the upgraded grid for all of Europe would be 71 billion
let's siphon more resources from africa.
not sure about if this is going to supply ALL of europe's electricity, and i think the transmission losses are under-reported but oh well.
it's a good idea. no one is using 99% of the northern sahara, so why not build massive solar collectors there?
in my mind, the greatest threat to the scheme is not terrorism, but the risk of the locals expropriating the panels, just as OPEC nationalised the oil facilities of the multinationals in the 1970s. in my mind, the only north african country that could be considered secure enough to not do this is Tunisia, which by its proximity to Italy is probably also the best location for this plan, but who knows what the region will look like in a decade?
I think it is a great plan, but i want to know if africa will get any money in return to better their economy?
Risks for sabotage, then why not use Spain and Portugal as a base for the project. Both countries have extremely large areas of land that is not useable, and would be suitable for solar power