Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How would a massive solar power grid in a desert work?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    How would a massive solar power grid in a desert work?

    As in, it's in a desert area but it's connected to the power stations of one or more countries via lots of underground wires and everything. Would that generate a more than sufficient amount of energy for a country even when nightfall comes?

    #2
    i would think that it stores energy generated by the sun (solar) rays

    Originally posted by Kajin_Style ;n529802
    Do you even step back and ask why a grown person is getting triggered over this? Why half the population is getting regularly triggered?

    Comment


      #3
      Depends on the desert, which countries it's trying to power, and the number of solar panels you're using.

      Also the general weather (including cloudiness especially), the conductivity of the underground wires, and probably a bunch of other factors. I seriously doubt it'd work though, unless you're filling Antarctica with the bastards.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post
        I seriously doubt it'd work though.
        Elon Musk seems to believe otherwise.

        “If you wanted to power the entire U.S. with solar panels, it would take a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah; you only need about 100 miles by 100 miles of solar panels to power the entire United States,” Musk said. “The batteries you need to store the energy, to make sure you have 24/7 power, is 1 mile by 1 mile. One square-mile. That’s it.”
        It's as I said in that other topic, we already have the capability to turn towards 100% renewable energy sources, the problem is mostly just the cost. The solar panels, on their own, would cost about $61 billion, the cost of the batteries would be close to $154 billion. So that's verging on a quarter of a trillion dollars just for the panels and batteries in this situation. And that's not even the most expensive part about it. You also have the cost of infrastructure to get the stored energy to the thousands of substations across the country so it can be transferred to homes. I have no idea what that would take, but I can only imagine that it would be many times our current national debt, because you'd either have to convert current substations or build entirely new ones.

        Comment


          #5
          Cid Do you think the Gulf states could easily pull something like that off? People there are insanely rich and have lots of desert to work with.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by TechTastic View Post
            Cid Do you think the Gulf states could easily pull something like that off? People there are insanely rich and have lots of desert to work with.
            It would be considerably less expensive for them. Smaller areas and fewer people to supply power to. I'm sure it's possible, if they actually wanted to. The issue is that the gulf states rely heavily on crude oil for economic stability. By changing over into clean energy, you're taking a bite out of their economy. So it's incredibly unlikely that they would want to embrace clean energy initiatives at all.

            Comment


              #7
              well the sun is bigger and hotter in the desert so it would have to be a massive solar panel or else it might get overloaded
              Originally posted by Kajin_Style
              I have this illness called "Having-a-Heart" and gives me this irrational sense of empathy and care for my fellow man.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Cid View Post

                It would be considerably less expensive for them. Smaller areas and fewer people to supply power to. I'm sure it's possible, if they actually wanted to. The issue is that the gulf states rely heavily on crude oil for economic stability. By changing over into clean energy, you're taking a bite out of their economy. So it's incredibly unlikely that they would want to embrace clean energy initiatives at all.
                But crude oil is something they export right? If they were to use the money earned from that (one of them even has the strongest currency in the world currently), they could easily build massive grids for themselves but still export crude oil (since it isn't refined) to those countries that need it. Or would it affect their economy regardless? I mean the oil is going to run out eventually so it would be a smart move if they did that.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post
                  Depends on the desert, which countries it's trying to power, and the number of solar panels you're using.

                  Also the general weather (including cloudiness especially), the conductivity of the underground wires, and probably a bunch of other factors. I seriously doubt it'd work though, unless you're filling Antarctica with the bastards.
                  Like, perhaps a large portion of the Sahara desert as well as the deserts in the Arabian Peninsula. The gulf states in particular happen to be capable of funding such a thing with little to no problem, including paying for all the necessary materials.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by TechTastic View Post

                    But crude oil is something they export right? If they were to use the money earned from that (one of them even has the strongest currency in the world currently), they could easily build massive grids for themselves but still export crude oil (since it isn't refined) to those countries that need it. Or would it affect their economy regardless? I mean the oil is going to run out eventually so it would be a smart move if they did that.
                    If the countries that benefit most heavily from oil exports stop using oil and move to renewables, how do you think other countries will respond?

                    I imagine that those countries will start thinking that it might make more sense, economically, to try to begin producing their own energy instead of buying it from countries that don't believe in the product they're selling.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Cid View Post

                      If the countries that benefit most heavily from oil exports stop using oil and move to renewables, how do you think other countries will respond?

                      I imagine that those countries will start thinking that it might make more sense, economically, to try to begin producing their own energy instead of buying it from countries that don't believe in the product they're selling.
                      I thought they just use the money from oil in order to make their countries into more than just deserts (like Dubai for one) along with many other things, not that they actually use oil themselves.

                      The prices of oil fluctuate depending on economic factors already, it would be future-proofing to use other sources of energy while they're raking in the money provided by oil sales. It would also be helpful if they want to modernize in certain sectors like transportation and other energy-related areas. So then even if they eventually no longer get anything from the nations that used to buy their oil, they'll at least have a clear path to a future without it, if they can maintain them afterwards.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Cid View Post

                        Elon Musk seems to believe otherwise.



                        It's as I said in that other topic, we already have the capability to turn towards 100% renewable energy sources, the problem is mostly just the cost. The solar panels, on their own, would cost about $61 billion, the cost of the batteries would be close to $154 billion. So that's verging on a quarter of a trillion dollars just for the panels and batteries in this situation. And that's not even the most expensive part about it. You also have the cost of infrastructure to get the stored energy to the thousands of substations across the country so it can be transferred to homes. I have no idea what that would take, but I can only imagine that it would be many times our current national debt, because you'd either have to convert current substations or build entirely new ones.
                        Kinda sounds like the only barrier keeping us from advancing technology is the existence of money 🤔

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Chara View Post

                          Kinda sounds like the only barrier keeping us from advancing technology is the existence of money 🤔
                          That, as well as general complacency.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by TechTastic View Post

                            That, as well as general complacency.
                            Nah, humans are natural innovators. It's in our genes to improve and do better. However, innovation and progress is stopped whenever it can by people that benefit from having older technology that keeps them ahead of the curve and making that cash.

                            The USA for example has the term intellectual property. Which basically means you can't take an already existing thing and copy it and potentially make it better. This does not follow the so called competitive market that capitalism is supposed to provide, it does the opposite.

                            It's really frustrating, we could be so far ahead in technology if it's not constantly being stopped.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Chara View Post

                              Kinda sounds like the only barrier keeping us from advancing technology is the existence of money 🤔
                              Money gives people the incentive to work. Without money, none of that is gonna happen regardless.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Apologies in advance; this post will be a fairly long one.
                                I haven't replied seriously on T5 in quite a while, and I hope to begin contributing at least a little to more momentous discussions again!

                                Originally posted by Chara View Post
                                Kinda sounds like the only barrier keeping us from advancing technology is the existence of money 🤔
                                This is more accurate than you know.

                                Fossil fuels are so intertwined into our country's politics and economics that we cannot even begin to comprehend the strings that are pulled by OPEC and the other puppeteers who maintain their interests. Most politicians and universities have invested in or otherwise have some manner of stake in the fossil fuel market, to say nothing of other entities; and this has completely overtaken the entire world, MDCs and LDCs alike, but especially the United States. Obviously, since politics are the means by which policy can be deliberated upon and passed, and since educational institutions are the means by which we acquire the knowledge necessary to induce change, this precludes true change because pursuing cleaner and alternative sources of fuel and energy do not lie in the best interests of the structures that would facilitate said change.

                                In fact, since the Yom Kippur War, the United States in particular has researched and developed countless of technologies pertaining to cleaner, better, and more efficient energy, as well as alternative sources to fossil fuels. However, we do not derive many -- if any -- benefits from this: our taxpayer money goes into the research, which is then adopted by other political states and the products of which are then produced there to their profit. This is perhaps the sole phenomenon President Trump is correct about: other countries, China in particular, exploit the United States' flawed foreign policies for their own gain in the background while criticizing us for them in the foreground. We war where we have no business or right, instead of providing assistance to allies and other states who are more in the right than their opponents; we use our foreign intelligence to control what would otherwise be democratic states, instead of applying them to remove terrorist groups and dystopian governments; we draft and maintain terrible trade agreements and market policies, to the detriment of almost all American citizens but to the benefit of multinational corporations that are ever-increasingly deregulated and not subject to any laws; and so forth. Yet God forbid we actually serve what should have been our obligation as a superpower by promoting peace and democracy by the will of the peoples in foreign states, or strive for a decent society and reasonable standard of living at home.

                                In fact, we have the technology to completely replace petroleum production with biofuel production: we have achieved a level of efficiency, diversity, and practicality that enables this, and it can only improve with time and further research. Organic matter alone suffices for most biofuels that could be used these days, meaning there has not been a legitimate "food vs. fuel" concern in a very long time. This is especially telling if we consider the fact that the wind energy that could be provided by America's Great Plains would easily meet and exceed our country's current energy demands; they are called the Saudi Arabia of Wind for a reason. This is to say nothing of how much we could save if we didn't have wastefulness so ingrained into our culture.
                                Indeed, if gasoline wasn't so heavily subsidized in our country, most of these alternative energy sources would be cheaper -- significantly so if they were subsidized instead -- and would give rise to a relatively sustainable state that is more concerned with the environment, community, and true efficiency.

                                What holds us back from adopting these available technologies and measures are our politics and their interface with our terrible, unsustainable economy that we have failed to maintain since President Reagan sowed its seeds. This is due in part to the hold lobbyists have over politicians, but frankly mostly because we as a country do not engage in communication and especially in politics. In fact, those very lobbyists and other special interest groups -- especially corporations -- spend a lot of time and money influencing us to be apathetic through subliminal messages, because in spite of the fact that the U.S. is de facto an oligarchy currently, it does not have to stay that way; we really do have a democratic system that we can reclaim. This detachment and the general lack of trust and faith in politicians and our social systems at large can ultimately be traced back to a vastly diminished social capital, something that came into being when corporations began to aggressively maximize shareholder value and executive profit over literally everything else, enabled by deregulation; and that has been the primary cause of our recessions, drastic rise in inequity and inequality, and general economic (and thus political and social) decline.

                                The U.S., for all its ugly history, succeeded, thrived, flourished, and became the greatest country in the world because of community. It is now that same community -- twisted into one that does not care to discuss politics and thus falls prey to their worst imaginable iteration, that emphasizes individualism to a deleterious extent, that pushes impossible and unhealthy ideals -- that puts it at risk, and with it the entire world as we know it.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post

                                  Money gives people the incentive to work. Without money, none of that is gonna happen regardless.
                                  If money never existed to begin with we'd be fine. The incentive to work would be to keep advancing and improving. Money is what limits humanity, with money the only reason we work is to scrape by and try not to go homeless

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Morocco already did that, the solar power stations generate about 40% of the country's electricity. A country as big as the USA is a different matter though.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Cid:

                                      You pay for this by carbon taxing Gasoline, Diesel, and Coal; About $2.50 per gallon tax for Gasoline and Diesel, and about $10 per ton for Coal. The money from this goes to a Federal match-pay subsidy system for Wind and Solar power.

                                      Comment


                                      • Cid
                                        Cid commented
                                        Editing a comment
                                        Good luck getting something like that to pass congress.

                                      • Wade
                                        Wade commented
                                        Editing a comment
                                        Good luck future generations surviving in the polluted Hell we're making for them.

                                      • OrganizationXV
                                        OrganizationXV commented
                                        Editing a comment
                                        good luck me, who needs to drive 50 minutes to work and who can't afford bills as it stands.

                                      #20
                                      Originally posted by Louay View Post
                                      Morocco already did that, the solar power stations generate about 40% of the country's electricity. A country as big as the USA is a different matter though.
                                      That sounds excellent, though given its location I'd think it would be far more than 40%.

                                      Comment

                                      Working...
                                      X