is looking at building a huge solar power site in the desert to supply Europe with electricity via an interconnector.
Coincidentally I was just watching a video about why African Solar Energy isn’t already supplying Europe with electricity.
From what I saw, I don’t see that happening any time soon.
Why would it not work?
One reason I can think of would be the huge cost of Swiss banks having to set up branches all over Africa 
alioth wrote:
No, he didn’t. But he was right – it wasn’t a hurricane, even if it might have felt like one if you were in it!
Well, he was right – but the response “It’s an alligator!” is also right when you yell “Help, I am being eaten by a crocodile” in Florida, but less than helpful.
gallois wrote:
you are totally wrong about a European grid system. We already are pretty much there, although it could be strengthened. Europe also has a gas grid system joining many countries.
What in particular did I say about the European grid? The grid is not the problem, the problem is what you feed into it, and what you stop feeding into it.
The math is simple. For any unit of bad stuff, you need at least one unit of good stuff. “Ideally” this would be in the form of storage. The problem with storage only, is that the technology that will make it happen does not exist. The requirement is way too large (by orders of magnitude) than what is feasible with any known form of energy storage.
I know that lots of naive idealist dreamers think that if we just interconnect the grids enough, there will always be wind somewhere, and the sun will always shine somewhere. Yes, there will be wind somewhere, and yes the sun will shine somewhere, but how will this solve anything? It will not solve anything because of plain simple logic. Let’s assume that there is no wind or sunshine anywhere except Germany (just to pick a large country). This means Germany must feed the rest of Europe. If Germany was to do that, it would have to build wind and solar capacity that is capable of feeding the entire Europe. Is this feasible? No, it’s plain silly. The silliest part however is the basics of the concept, namely the believe the wind/solar situation in Germany is very different from the rest of Europe.
From a pure technical point of view, solar/wind is feasible when you also have:
The Nordic grid (Norway, Sweden, Finland and a small part of Denmark) has this ability. It has a base load of nuclear and hydro. It has lots of hydro (50% of the hydro capacity in the entire Europe is here. Norway is practically 100% hydro). It also has a good deal of Nuclear in Sweden, and Finland is building more nuclear plants as we speak. In principle, the production from wind/solar could equal the entire production from nuclear and hydro, and it will work just fine all the time, 24/7 365 days per year.
The question then is why? The only reason is to export the excess capacity. This is being done. Well, when I say excess capacity, what is really being exported is the ability to absorb and produce power at will. Very little net export of electric energy (if any) is being done, it’s all about balancing power to the UK and Denmark/Germany.
Then there is the environmental issue. Wind and solar take huge areas. It destroys nature 100% (not irreversibly though). And there is the cost. The cost of wind and solar is the installation itself + the equal amount of installed MW to balance the installation (some form of the good stuff). That balancing power is paid by the consumers in form of higher electricity prices. All that “green” energy will not reduce CO2 by any appreciable amount because no solution to the storage problem exists.
The alternative is nuclear. It will solve everything for the foreseeable future, and that includes CO2 and destruction of nature. It’s being hold down by irrational fear exclusively. It’s a sign of madness indeed IMO.
LeSving wrote:
Let’s assume that there is no wind or sunshine anywhere except Germany (just to pick a large country). This means Germany must feed the rest of Europe. If Germany was to do that, it would have to build wind and solar capacity that is capable of feeding the entire Europe. Is this feasible? No, it’s plain silly. The silliest part however is the basics of the concept, namely the believe the wind/solar situation in Germany is very different from the rest of Europe.
If we do the “simple” math, what’s the probability of this happening? In the end everything is about probabilities.
I disagree with your assumptions on so many levels. If you have a unified grid, which we already have to some extent, you also need a unified control and planning authority/ system. That within the EU is not a great problem and is also no problem outside of the EU such as the UK. The interconnector between France and the UK is a DC link capable of transporting some 2000MW to 2500MW IIRC. I am a bit out of touch about whether a 2nd link is operating now.
The UK IIUC is now capable of supplying around 50% of its electricity from renewable sources, mostly windpower. (This according to a Boris Johnson speech)
If the UK sells its electricity to France, it doesn’t matter if it originates from wind, solar, pumped storage or nuclear. The UK grid control ensures that 400KV power lines transport that electricity to Sellindge at 50hz. At Sellindge it is coverted to DC crosses the Channel and at the other end it is converted back to 400kv 50 hertz. There is some harmonic juggling to be done but that is all built into the systems at Sellindge and Sangatte. The system works both ways. One big advantage has been that peak demand comes an hour earlier in Europe than in the UK.
Those same electrons coming across the channel could feasibly be coming from a wind turbine in the north of Scotland due to an interconnector between Scotland and the UK, or from the Isle of Man or even from Norway if the electricity interconnector between the UK and Norway is now fully operational. Of course we don’t know where its coming from because its all mixed together and the controllers in each country are operating the system to balance their own needs. The interconnector simply becomes another large user/customer.
The question for individual countries is how we can best and most economically use the electricity available to us, when it is available.
If we take solar power as an example. It is of course only available for use when the sun shines. But here, both an old and a new technology is around.
The old technology:- Many oldies may remember heating their houses with electric storage heaters, heavy uncontrollable things, but they used cheaper off peak electricity to heat overnight and then release it during the course of the day. Thanks to modern technology these have improved greatly in efficiency. But in terms of storing energy there is no reason why electricity which originates from solar panels cannot be used to charge these radiatiors or any other heat sink during the day.
Once upon a time the controllers of Northern European grids didn’t have to take much account of air conditioning in their planning. Now air conditioning is a major part of the demand planning due to the heat produced by computer systems.
As countries and as consumers we will all need to adapt to changing situations and be ready to take advantage of new technologies as they come along.
No one is saying that electricity generation should not be diversified but we are where we are and a nuclear power station can take 10 years or more to build from the initial decision to build one. That’s apart from the cost of building, the running costs. The price of uranium and its origin (at the moment I think most of France’s comes from Africa whereas the UKs comes from Australia). And then there’s putting aside a certain reserve to deal with waste and decommisioning at the end of the station’s useful life. The end result is that the cost per unit of nuclear generated electricity is higher than other forms of generation and a minimum price needs to be guaranteed in order to make it worthwhile for an investor to invest the huge sums needed.
Meanwhile an investor can invest in a solar or wind farm, large or small and get a return relatively quickly. A solar farm can currently be constructed and connected to a grid in less than a year as can a wind turbine. The only efficient fossil fuel generating plant that can be built in that same timescale is a Gas turbine plant. But where do you get the gas and how much is it going to cost? There is no need to worry about whether the fuel is going to run out or whether your governement might fall out with the supplier of fuel.
Tidal power could also be a way to go in the future. Once thought to be a costly investment when fossil fuel prices were low, are now perhaps a cheaper option to Nuclear.
These are just some of the reasons I disagree with your simple “no” to @Alioth I believe it was, suggestion of large grid systems.
There is also the fact that our demand for power may reduce.
If we all have solar panels on our roofs (all new build here have to have them, and I’m assuming that due to the cost of fossil fuels and the grants available, every existing home will eventually be retrofitted) that will reduce our need for power station derived electricity.
Also add in the effects of retrofitting our homes with better insulation, (again massive grants available, and we’ll all eventually have it done) and another big chunk of fossil fuel usage will be taken out.
Even if we didn’t make any other changes, those would make a significant reduction in the amount of fossil fuels we’ll need.
LeSving wrote:
The alternative is nuclear. It will solve everything for the foreseeable future, and that includes CO2 and destruction of nature. It’s being hold down by irrational fear exclusively. It’s a sign of madness indeed IMO.
You lined out all the pros and cons of wind and solar power but present nuclear power generation like a silver bullet which it isn’t. It destroys nature very efficiently only you can’t see it when hiking through the woods. Let’s all hope that the plant in Zaporizhzhia won’t blow up. But also without the freak accidents nuclear power generation is all but clean. Mining Uranium leaves a mess. Germany alone paid close to 7 billion Euros to clean up the mines in Eastern Germany which supplied the Soviets with Uranium. And the sea around Sellafield is apparently not so clean as it is looking as well.
Clipperstorch wrote:
You lined out all the pros and cons of wind and solar power but present nuclear power generation like a silver bullet which it isn’t
The bad thing about (or for) nuclear energy is it’s still fashionable (in some circuits) to be afraid of it, and more afraid of nuclear than man made climate change 
Airborne_Again wrote:
If we do the “simple” math, what’s the probability of this happening?
Probability of what exactly?
gallois wrote:
The interconnector between France and the UK is a DC link capable of transporting some 2000MW to 2500MW IIRC
Well. Norway has 5 GW of DC cables to Europe and UK (over 3 GW just to Denmark and Germany). This is all for “export” of electricity, meaning sending power to Norway when the production of power in Europe/UK is too high, and sending power from Norway when there is too little wind in Europe/UK. Norway gets paid in equal amounts regardless of which way the power go. Lots of money also, typically € 0.5-1.0 for this kind of service. The single only reason this is possible, is due to hydropower.
We also supply the UK with about 50% of the total gas consumption in dedicated lines. The rest they produce themselves. About half of the total gas consumption in the UK is used for gas power plants, and it’s increasing. Gas power plants are much better than coal/nuclear when it comes to the ability of varying output power without losing efficiency. What the UK has done during the past 10? years is to shut down practically all coal power plants. They have built lots of wind power, but also increased gas power almost the exact same amount. Then this new 1.5 GW cable from Norway for grid balancing in the UK went online last year. The UK can handle the grid (to some extent), but are 100% reliant on Norway for supply of gas and balancing of electric power.
The UK isn’t all that bad actually, and in a much better position than EU as a whole. Going from coal only to a mix of gas and wind is feasible technically (with a little help from a friend ) Gas is much better in all respects than coal, but it’s hardly CO2 neutral. There is no possible way for the UK to step down on gas. On the contrary, they have to increase it proportionally with increased wind. The only way to step down on gas is to create energy storage facilities. The problem with that is the technology to do it, does not exists, and perhaps never will.
France is a shining example of how things should be done in the EU. Lots of nuclear and enough hydro to handle all variations. A good deal of solar as well, and no wind to speak of. Kind of similar to the Nordic grid, only more nuclear and less hydro and wind.
dublinpilot wrote:
If we all have solar panels on our roofs (all new build here have to have them, and I’m assuming that due to the cost of fossil fuels and the grants available, every existing home will eventually be retrofitted) that will reduce our need for power station derived electricity.
Yes. Individual homes are solvable. These “zero houses” have existed for some time, and they work. But housing is only a small fraction of the total energy consumption. It’s the industry and transport that requires energy.
