Links:

Great idea! Thanks for posting.

Hello!there is also network of scientists (DESERTEC;established on 2009) from Europe, Midle East and Africa which actually generates clean power from the deserts..you can find more info at: http://www.desertec.org/en/global-mission/

@ Pabitra: You are welcome.

@ Sofia: Thanks for the info. I will look into that.

Genration of energy with least impact on ecology is an interesting subject. Thanks for your post. Have you ever wondered why do we need energy? Ultimately to live comfortably, isn’t? I request you to just ponder on this chain of thought.

More energy is required for more technology > More technology is required for more comfort > more comfort is required to stay further from nature. So ultimately more energy is the reason why we are farthest from natural elements.

Now think about this. As adaptive animals our thresolds of minimum energy requirements can be pushed miraculously. David Blain held his breath for 17 over minutes! Ok, we cannot do that….but can we not decrease our energy requirements so that we need less energy yet can live healthily?

Can there be a technology that can upgrade us as less hungry? For food, energy and any consumption?

Trying to solve a demand of a monster with the supply of an angel is like trying to push the cart on which you are sitting yourself. Alternate source of energy like solar will work in a world with alternate life-style.

I liked your post and bid you to give a thought to my crazy idea

Best.

@ Pabitra: Well. Sure we can decrease our energy consumption and still live healthily. I am not convinced that energy has ever been necessary to live healthily, but as you mention - the comfort level increases exponentially with the increase in energy consumption.

Though going back to nature may be in everybodys best interest, I am not sure it is a necessity. And I am positive that it will never actually happen. I guess I feel it would be better to level the playingfield a bit. If we get our energy from sustainable, clean sources I honestly can’t say anything to support a decrease in technology consumption. I love my laptop and I wouldn’t want to be without my cellphone, but I can see why you suggest this.

I do think though, that it is not a technology that is required to make a change in the human hunger for consumption, but a change of the average mind set. So long as popularity and well being is being defined through possesions, consumption in abundance will remain a reality. And to be frank, I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

Well actually - I take that back. Technology can someday change the human consumerism. If you have watched the FOX series ‘Dollhouse’, you will know of what Im thinking. - ultimately a brain scan can create the human doll-state, where the person in question is always happy and at peace, and where the only possesion necessary is the clothes he or she is wearing.

But thats pure science fiction!

Thanks for your input. I hope you lived through my somewhat extended answer.

Hi Line! Interesting piece yours! But who will look after the costs incurred in installing and maintaining the panels, when there are no profits in it? Can we expect the developed countries to take the lead? If they come forward with funds, then one things for sure, we are moving on from intending towards acting.

@ Gorky: I suggest a payment plan. Western countries with the funds and the technology install the panels and, like the UN forces that help educate afghan police officers, we have a taskforce in charge of maintenance and education of the locals, who in time will be able to maintain the panels themselves.

Why should we do that? It wouldn’t be for free. In return for the technology and the manpower, countries that contributes with assets to the project will have the costs refunded through a payment plan. Only the payment is in free energy untill expenses are covered in full plus interest.
And - first and foremost because sustainable, clean energy is in the interest of everybody. If we have that in abundance, we would never need oil nor nuclear power ever again. And energy would be cheaper, as sun is something that shines all around the world, and thus not constricted to a few lucky countries. If the Saharan countries does not oblige by keeping the energy prizes at a resonable level, then business will for certain go elsewhere… im thinking the Mojave desert.

I lived through your extended answer still kicking and thanks! Do not take me seriously - my ideas are self proclaimedly crazy. But if you can find time and interest, I will be happy if you check my posts.http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/blogger/Mukhopadhyay

Confused as I am, I cannot help but ask you a few questions:
1. In cold we need energy to get our homes warm (comfort), that needs energy. In heat we need AC (comfort), that needs energy. We need a SUV (comfort), a private jet (comfort), an yatch (comfort) all those need lots of energy…so why are you not convinced? Please do not take it personally, but Solar power potential of Sahara and all deserts always remained a fact, why there is a certain surge in excitement when it becomes a power mine for Europe?
2. I understand none will be happy to give up his/her laptop and iPod for a betterment of life in future professed by a handful. Basic feed of our consumerist economy is the immediacy of need-fulfilment. A bergar now is better than a questionable full lunch tomorrow. Understandable. But I am not surprised why refugees saw a potential in Africa when affluent rest did not. Innovation is the fruit of necessity not of choice. Waht do you think about that?
3. I did not see the Fox series, but I think I get your drift. Happiness and peace are subjective goals, and we are talking about energy needs. Why can we not be half as ingenious/innovative/enterprising cutting down our needs compared to cashing the same for chasing the demand?
Anyway, I liked your post. The diagreement is purely academic.

Best

@ Pabitra: Okay. I will play along with your mind game. As i tried to explain before, I think that decreasing our eergy consumption will be valuable and recommendable. We don’t need yachts or SUV’s or privat jets. But allthough it would be great to decrease our energy consumption, I don’t think that it is necessary for the planet, if we just have viable sustainable energy sources - hence the sun.

1) Though solar powered energy from the Sahara and other places have been a wellknown existence for years, it just hasn’t reached its’ potential yet. For me the excitement has very little to dowith the fact that it can power Europe, and everything to do with the fact that it just takes one tenth of the ptential solar energy generated in the Sahara desert to actually power the entire world. So if solar energy was exploited to its’ consequential potential, we would need no other sources for energy at all - and we could still go fly our private jets or cruise around in our SUV’s - no questions asked. So ultimately my question to you is this:
If we can supply all of our technology and our consumerist ploys with clean, sustainable and neverending energy that does not harm the environment in any way (except maybe for the solar panels being ugly), is it for the better to cut down on technology, needs, wants and lifestyle - just because we can, and it may be morally better?

2) I am inclined to agree withyou on this one. Though I do believe that the solar panels have been donated to the saharawi refugees, solar energy may very well be the most reliable energy source in the deserts of Tindouf, since energy cables and powerplants are scarce in these areas. But overall I think, as you do, that the most valuable innovations are made from necessity more than from excess. Granted we in the western world have far better reources to innovate - true as it may be that our inventions are mostly consumerist inventions, like say the iPad.

3) Again - I think the question is not whether we can be innovative or enterpricing when it comes to cutbacks in consumerist demands. Of course we can.If the economy contiues to go south, I am sure cost-reductive solutions will sky rocket, and demand for non-necessities will go down. The question for me is: Do we need to? As long as we have the money and the resources to maintain this level of excess, I dn’t think anything is likely to change - although I do agree with you on the concept.

But come another ice age, and you will see innovative cut backs like ner before.

And don’t worry. Even if we disagree on various points, at least for the sake of the argument, I don’t take it personally, and I do appreciate the challenge.

Its a great workable plan Line. Countries should look on stuff like this rather than only showing concerns. Lets hope something comes our of this!

I have a question Lina. How do you transport clean energy to other parts of the world? Covering the world in thick aluminium cables? Resistance would take up lot of energy. What do you think?

@ Gorky: Well - thats actually a very good question, come to think of it. But I hope technology will solve that problem. A power-grit from Africa to Europe would be quite easily done via the Gibraltar Strait, and most of mainland-Asia via the Suez canal, but the Americas and Australia will be a challenge.

Maybe somebody will invent giant batteries for energy storage. You know, like a battery for a laptop can hold energy for a number of hours. A giant battery could maybe hold solar energy to supply a building block for a month or something. I don’t have the answer to that one. But consequently - if 0,3 percent of the Sahara desert can supply all of Europe, then Im sure deserts on the american continents can supply that part of the world aswell. Same goes for Australia.

Just a thought.

Yeah that can be done. Or we can convert solar energy into chemical energy, in hydrocarbon form, and then ship it.

@ Gorky: Hmm - obviously you are much better at inventing stuff than I am.
But if the general idea was to have clean energy with no waste material, I think we both have a slight problem with our respective solutions. I knew I should have paid more attention in physics.

Good evening Line. Please check my post http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/why_solar_is_not_going_to_be_the_future_of_sustainability/

As a journalist, you are having amazing physics quotient Lina. We can leave the transporting part to physicits! But for the rest of the idea, it’s all thumbs up!

@ Gorky: Hah - let’s hope no physicists read this though… they’ll think me insane. But thanx though.