For those too lazy to click on the image and/or Desertec link, the red squares represent the area of land in the Sahara that would need to be blanketed with solar panels at approximately 20% efficiency to satisfy the electricity needs for the entire world, the EU, and Germany, from largest to smallest, or left to right.
Pretty simple concept intended to give you a general (not an exact!) idea of the small coverage involved relative to the large surface area of the Earth, right? I mean, you'd think this would be a no-brainer comparison, but unfortunately the real no-brainers feel constantly compelled to shart their dipshit, semantical, hair-splitting two worthless cents all over everything.
From the Boing Boing comment page:
gellfex
Terrible piece of reportage, and bad headlining. What little there is at the end of the line fails to define at what solar efficiency they're talking about: current practical or theoretical 100%. Addtionally the graphic is not actually "to power the world" but to supply worldwide electricity. A large amount of power yes, but not the same thing. According to wiki it's about 1/7 total power used.
Apparently gellfex's lack of trust is so intense that IT'S TERRIBLE REPORTING WHEN HIS OR HER DEEPEST FEARS OF A DECEPTIVE 100% EFFICIENCY CALCULATION ARE NOT ASSUAGED! What a paranoid ass bucket. Lazy, too. Go do some research/calculations on your own, gellfex. And the bellyaching semantics that Frauenfelder's headline said "...power the world...", rather than, I guess, electrify the world is a nice, meaningless touch, lemme tell ya. Thank God gellfex has a venue to share such an "important" observation with the world. Meanwhile, the caption and its link make it clear what is being indicated in the image, and the last I checked the two terms were synonymous, but don't let all that get in the way of failing to read past the headline, gellfex.
daneel
http://www.withouthotair.com/c25/page_178.shtml
“All the world’s power could be provided by a square 100 km by 100 km in the Sahara.” Is this true? Concentrating solar power in deserts delivers an average power per unit land area of roughly 15 W/m2. So, allowing no space for anything else in such a square, the power delivered would be 150 GW. This is not the same as current world power consumption. It’s not even near current world electricity consumption, which is 2000 GW.World power consumption today is 15 000 GW. So the correct statement about power from the Sahara is that today’s consumption could be provided by a 1000 km by 1000 km square in the desert...
Again, with the "power" versus "electrical." Does anyone read? Anything? Ever? Jaezuz Cheeeeroist. As for the "100 km by 100 km" gripe... Bust out Google Earth, people, and spin the world around until you are staring at Algeria. Click on the ruler feature, and select "kilometers." Try to reproduce the world power (oops, I said power!) square. It's more like 300 km by 300 km, which is in fact the area that would supply electricity for all of us.
Do these people ever take ten seconds to evaluate their own flawed reasoning? Or is there some set of "I'm always right no matter what" neurons that only they have constantly firing off inside their brains? The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
brindalin
How 'bout because they'll be blown up?xrayspx said:andy_hilmer said:
when we build them, can we please put them anywhere other than Libya and Algeria
Why? Because a few of the people who live there are "bad"? Given that vast panel farms would improve the local climate and create huge numbers of jobs on land that is currently unused and hostile to all life, I can't think of anywhere better.
If I were going to embark on a multi-trillion* dollar project, I would want to minimize the risk that some ethnic/religious/political faction wouldn't destroy it because it represents Western imperialism or hold it hostage on an occasional basis.
Dunno, maybe it's just me, but if we're gonna be browbeaten about all the energy above and beyond electricity required to run human civilization, then it's a bit late to worry about the stability of the regions from which we get our fuel, isn't it? And, frankly, that's Desertec's problem, so forget that right now, and let its higher-ups lose sleep over such particulars. Frauenfelder posted this image, not to argue in favor of some literal application of Desertec's power generation plans, not to argue that the red squares are placed EXACTLY WHERE THE PANELS SHOULD GO IN REALITY, but, rather, for the very same reasons I recently posted a defense of electric cars: reduction of a fairly complex argument or technology down to a few simple calculations or images for the sake of helpful perspective.
Problem is, the trolls can't resist patting themselves on the back for overstating any impracticalities or outstanding technical hurdles, real or imagined, you didn't list exhaustively.
crenquis
How much area would be required for the storage "batteries"?
See what I mean? At least have the decency to moan and groan about something that matters, crenquis, huh? Like maybe the transmission lines, which, again, are for Desertec to work out, not the problem of someone posting a summarizing, non-exegetic graphic. If you are really so concerned that Desertec is overlooking a fatal flaw, then email the organization a hair-on-fire warning. Route your nitpicking through the proper channels instead of making a pointless ass of yourself online every five seconds.
Look, this graphic simply amounts to another way of looking at the inarguable fact that the Sun rains more energy down on the Earth in an hour than all of us use in a year, and we just need to figure out how to harness it. That's all. It's not an opportunity to prove you have OCD of the semantics variety.
Get.
Over.
Yourself.
Already.
No comments:
Post a Comment