Can we install solar panels in sahara ?
IT would generate huge amounts of free electricity if neighboring countries put solar panels in SAHARA DESERT.
whats your opinion ?
| its Not a Good idea | 3 | |
| i think its a Good idea | 7 | |
| idk | 3 |
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[
Report Post
]
Comments ( 14
)
-
megadriver
A much better idea would be mandatory solar panels on all new buildings and car parks. Free power and shade - it's a win-win!
Not many people live in the Sahara desert, too many difficulties and expenses to bring said electricity to where it's needed and the solar farms would be vulnerable to thieves, terrorists and vandals.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
notdonaldtrump
-
-
Boojum
Of course you could, but there's no point in creating a lot of electricity if there's no way to get it to where it's needed, and all long-distance power transmission lines have losses.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
LloydAsher
Also the Sahara desert isnt exactly the most populated/maintained part of the world. Heck there might be scavengers just waiting for expensive scrap to be built in the middle of nowhere. Might have terrorist raiding the area for the panels either for their own energy needs or just the scrap.
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
yazboi999999
It would generate loads amount of electircity, sure, if the *entire* country was covered. Also, imagine how far the power would have to travel by wire. By the end of it, your looking at, well, not much power.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
RoseIsabella
Whenever I hear the word Sahara I think of Sahara Avenue in Las Vegas, Nevada, and or the Hotel Casino called "Sahara" that now no longer exists, but used to be located on Las Vegas Boulevard, and Sahara Avenue.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
olderdude-xx
An ecomonic reality is that solar energy from solar cells is some of the most expensive electricity out there for many areas of the world (it does have some applications where it is economical). There are massive government subsidies to support the building of solar electricity generation... with the theory that long term that will allow development of more economical solar cells and pay off in the far future.
Certain environmental concerns can play a factor; but, most people ignore the environmental cost of production and ultimate disposal of the solar cells themselves.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
LloydAsher
I have no problem with solar energy other than its inefficiency. People wonder why we cant be on entirely renuable energy is because most renuable energy isnt constant energy. The power that goes through most peoples houses was coal a few seconds before being burned for steam= energy=> to the home.
We dont have good battery technology so most energy has to be produced as needed rather than stockpiled and rationed.
We need better batteries first before we have any good alternatives for fossil fuels.
That or nuclear. Nuclear is proven effective and efficent. I think we could do more with thorium but that's just my two cents.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
olderdude-xx
I agree on Thorium. The key issue was that many decades ago several major governments spent the equivalent of $10-$20 Billion of today's money in developing uranium processing for military weapons. Peaceful use of atomic technology then could just use the 1st part of the same processing system for uranium or plutonium based power reactors without having to spend about half of that again to develop thorium.
It's still a problem to day - who is going to fund the $Billions for developing the base Thorium infrastructure. The cost of the power plants will be similar. The uranium/plutonium cycle has had a lot of fine tuning done to it as well over the last 70 years of power production - and we have it well developed (a lot of early plants had glitches). Thorium also has to go through a similar development program as its plants get built and then improved.
Note that I worked in Nuclear Power Plants for a while. I'm a big proponent of nuclear power for base-load power.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
LloydAsher
I'm under the belief that nuke power is green power. Yeah it has a waste that will practically never go away. Buuuut it's also a drop of waste compared to coal or oil.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
olderdude-xx
Nuclear is fairly green. There is no true green power if you look at how things are constructed and manufactured, and ultimately disposed off.
Nuclear is at the better end of green. Main nuclear power plants are designed now for an initial life of 60 years with potential extensions to 100 years.
Most wind turbines have to be replaced every 20 years (and that's the best we have gotten too): I have seen no evidence yet of even reusing the towers other than a few experiments.
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
-
-
-
Tommythecaty
“IT would generate huge amounts of free electricity if neighboring countries“
Never had solar have you 😂🤣
Comment Hidden ( show )