"Solar panels in Sahara could boost renewable energy but damage the global climate – here’s why

The world’s most forbidding deserts could be the best places on Earth for harvesting solar power – the most abundant and clean source of energy we have. Deserts are spacious, relatively flat, rich in silicon – the raw material for the semiconductors from which solar cells are made — and never short of sunlight. In fact, the ten largest solar plants around the world are all located in deserts or dry regions.

Researchers imagine it might be possible to transform the world’s largest desert, the Sahara, into a giant solar farm, capable of meeting four times the world’s current energy demand. Blueprints have been drawn up for projects in Tunisia and Morocco that would supply electricity for millions of households in Europe.

While the black surfaces of solar panels absorb most of the sunlight that reaches them, only a fraction (around 15%) of that incoming energy gets converted to electricity. The rest is returned to the environment as heat. The panels are usually much darker than the ground they cover, so a vast expanse of solar cells will absorb a lot of additional energy and emit it as heat, affecting the climate.

If these effects were only local, they might not matter in a sparsely populated and barren desert. But the scale of the installations that would be needed to make a dent in the world’s fossil energy demand would be vast, covering thousands of square kilometres. Heat re-emitted from an area this size will be redistributed by the flow of air in the atmosphere, having regional and even global effects on the climate."

https://theconversation.com/solar-panels-in-sahara-could-boost-renewable-energy-...

Of course what they don't mention is the sand scouring the solar panels in sand storms or dust blocking the sunlight. Or that being arid water to wash them down would make it expensive. Let alone things like cable losses.

And the dust is one thing that causes the Sahara to radiate heat to space -
very effectively.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/19/2009jcli2847.1.xml?tab_bod...

But contributors to The Conversation just know stuff.

Jasin wrote on Feb 24^th, 2021 at 4:09pm:



Under lab conditions or in the field?

They could have 1000 sq km worth of solar panels in the Australian desert. It would help the towns in the region to get power. But it won't end the reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

Better to drive 100kms at 30kms an hour on FREE/RENEWABLE energies?
or
100kms at 100kms an hour on expensive pollutional energies?

Maybe Petrol will be for the very rich one day, while the poor rest fight over it like Mad Max barbarians?

Getting Free energy from the Sun is like getting your Vitamin D. It doesn't hurt and keeps the MS away.
But a Red Bull, Cocaine and more can give you 'more' energy. 

Frank wrote on Feb 24^th, 2021 at 5:22pm:


Well the progression from 18% to 35% kinda makes me think they 'could'.

Jasin wrote on Feb 24^th, 2021 at 4:42pm:


What little I know about battery-powered cars, they do will in terms of performance and low pollution. But the batteries might last 10 years at best (maybe not that long) and then have to be replaced by something new. A car might be powered by $2/L petrol soon. But the car will last 20 years, or until the fuel reserves last where alternatives have to be found.

My parents have solar panels on the roof of their house for the purpose of hot water and house power. I doubt that the expense of the solar panels are really worth anything more than unburdening the power system.