http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/02/renewableenergy.solarpower

Europe is considering plans to spend more than £5bn on a string of
giant solar power stations along the Mediterranean desert shores of
northern Africa and the Middle East.

More than a hundred of the generators, each fitted with thousands of
huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea
cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to European
Union member nations, including Britain.

Billions of watts of power could be generated this way, enough to
provide Europe with a sixth of its electricity needs and to allow it
to make significant cuts in its carbon emissions. At the same time,
the stations would be used as desalination plants to provide desert
countries with desperately needed supplies of fresh water.

Are nthey saying £5bn could provide the EU with 1/6 of it's
electricity?
How much does one nuclear power plant cost?

-- 
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

In message , Mogga 
 writes
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/02/renewableenergy.solarpower

>Europe is considering plans to spend more than £5bn on a string of
>giant solar power stations along the Mediterranean desert shores of
>northern Africa and the Middle East.
>
>More than a hundred of the generators, each fitted with thousands of
>huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea
>cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to European
>Union member nations, including Britain.
>
>Billions of watts of power could be generated this way, enough to
>provide Europe with a sixth of its electricity needs and to allow it
>to make significant cuts in its carbon emissions. At the same time,
>the stations would be used as desalination plants to provide desert
>countries with desperately needed supplies of fresh water.
>
>Are nthey saying £5bn could provide the EU with 1/6 of it's
>electricity?
>How much does one nuclear power plant cost?

Good point, but it's a long wire from here to the mend.


Cheers, J/.
-- 
John Beardmore

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:05:37 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
 wrote this:-

>>More than a hundred of the generators, each fitted with thousands of
>>huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea
>>cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to European
>>Union member nations, including Britain. [snip]
>
>Good point, but it's a long wire from here to the mend.

Of course transmission losses don't mean extra greenhouses gases
with renewables. This point was forgotten by the regulator in their
current plans to complete the Englishisation of the electricity
system.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:59:02 +0000, Mogga wrote:

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/02/renewableenergy.solarpower
> 
> Europe is considering plans to spend more than £5bn on a string of
> giant solar power stations along the Mediterranean desert shores of
> northern Africa and the Middle East.
> 
> More than a hundred of the generators, each fitted with thousands of
> huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea
> cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to European
> Union member nations, including Britain.
> 
> Billions of watts of power could be generated this way, enough to
> provide Europe with a sixth of its electricity needs and to allow it
> to make significant cuts in its carbon emissions. At the same time,
> the stations would be used as desalination plants to provide desert
> countries with desperately needed supplies of fresh water.
> 
> Are nthey saying £5bn could provide the EU with 1/6 of it's
> electricity?
> How much does one nuclear power plant cost?
>

There's an article in the New Scientist about this this week, but you
can't read it online unless you're a subscriber. There's a diagram in the
article (which I can't find elsewhere) showing how much of the sahara
would have to be covered in solar arrays to produce the world's current
energy demand, and it's relatively small compared to the size of the whole
desert - 550x550 km.

It's probably better though to have the power generation distributed, and
for each region to use the kinds of renewable energy that are appropriate
to that region. E.g. wind / wave power in the UK.


-- 
remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me.

In message , David Hansen 
 writes
>On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:05:37 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
> wrote this:-
>
>>>More than a hundred of the generators, each fitted with thousands of
>>>huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea
>>>cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to European
>>>Union member nations, including Britain. [snip]
>>
>>Good point, but it's a long wire from here to the mend.
>
>Of course transmission losses don't mean extra greenhouses gases
>with renewables.

No , but it does mean less fossil fuel displaced per pound invested.


> This point was forgotten by the regulator in their
>current plans to complete the Englishisation of the electricity
>system.

?


Cheers, J/.
-- 
John Beardmore

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 01:06:23 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
 wrote this:-

>>Of course transmission losses don't mean extra greenhouses gases
>>with renewables.
>
>No , but it does mean less fossil fuel displaced per pound invested.

Of course. However, I think it sensible to generate large amounts of
electricity in the Western Isles and transmit it to England.
Minimising transmission losses is a theory which assumes that
electricity generation can be equal everywhere.

>> This point was forgotten by the regulator in their
>>current plans to complete the Englishisation of the electricity
>>system.
>
>?

The first stage of the Englishisation was to separate transmission
and distribution. Unlike England and Wales Scotland used to have two
integrated organisations, one for the north and one for the south.
Now there are four as the transmission bits have been put in
separate organisations.

The next stage is to revise transmission charges. The proposed
revisions, which are distance based, would penalise renewable
electricity generated in Scotland and instead encourage coal
generated electricity in England.

The distance based charges are very sensible for brown electricity,
but should not apply to green electricity. The regulator has been
lobbied on this, but the last time I checked (some months ago) they
were not budging.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:22:21 -0000, Andy Baxter
 wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:59:02 +0000, Mogga wrote:
>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/02/renewableenergy.solarpower
>> 
>> Europe is considering plans to spend more than £5bn on a string of
>> giant solar power stations along the Mediterranean desert shores of
>> northern Africa and the Middle East.
>> 
>> More than a hundred of the generators, each fitted with thousands of
>> huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea
>> cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to European
>> Union member nations, including Britain.
>> 
>> Billions of watts of power could be generated this way, enough to
>> provide Europe with a sixth of its electricity needs and to allow it
>> to make significant cuts in its carbon emissions. At the same time,
>> the stations would be used as desalination plants to provide desert
>> countries with desperately needed supplies of fresh water.
>> 
>> Are nthey saying £5bn could provide the EU with 1/6 of it's
>> electricity?
>> How much does one nuclear power plant cost?
>>
>
>There's an article in the New Scientist about this this week, but you
>can't read it online unless you're a subscriber. There's a diagram in the

Or you stand in the shop reading it... :)

>article (which I can't find elsewhere) showing how much of the sahara
>would have to be covered in solar arrays to produce the world's current
>energy demand, and it's relatively small compared to the size of the whole
>desert - 550x550 km.
>

Does it matter how much of the desert was covered? It's not as if the
land is used for crops? What affect does covering it have? I assume
changes take place in water distribution, evaporation which will
change things, but has research been done?


>It's probably better though to have the power generation distributed, and
>for each region to use the kinds of renewable energy that are appropriate
>to that region. E.g. wind / wave power in the UK.
-- 
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:24:01 +0000, mogga wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:22:21 -0000, Andy Baxter
>  wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:59:02 +0000, Mogga wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/02/renewableenergy.solarpower
>>> 
>>> Europe is considering plans to spend more than £5bn on a string of
>>> giant solar power stations along the Mediterranean desert shores of
>>> northern Africa and the Middle East.
>>> 
>>> More than a hundred of the generators, each fitted with thousands of
>>> huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea
>>> cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to European
>>> Union member nations, including Britain.
>>> 
>>> Billions of watts of power could be generated this way, enough to
>>> provide Europe with a sixth of its electricity needs and to allow it
>>> to make significant cuts in its carbon emissions. At the same time,
>>> the stations would be used as desalination plants to provide desert
>>> countries with desperately needed supplies of fresh water.
>>> 
>>> Are nthey saying £5bn could provide the EU with 1/6 of it's
>>> electricity?
>>> How much does one nuclear power plant cost?
>>>
>>
>>There's an article in the New Scientist about this this week, but you
>>can't read it online unless you're a subscriber. There's a diagram in the
> 
> Or you stand in the shop reading it... :)

;)

> 
>>article (which I can't find elsewhere) showing how much of the sahara
>>would have to be covered in solar arrays to produce the world's current
>>energy demand, and it's relatively small compared to the size of the whole
>>desert - 550x550 km.
>>
> 
> Does it matter how much of the desert was covered? It's not as if the
> land is used for crops? What affect does covering it have? I assume
> changes take place in water distribution, evaporation which will
> change things, but has research been done?
> 

I think the main environmental cost is likely to be from manufacturing the
solar panels rather than losing areas of desert. Depending on what you
think matters environmentally - some people live in deserts as well, and
presumably like being there and might not want to see something like this
happen.

> 
>>It's probably better though to have the power generation distributed, and
>>for each region to use the kinds of renewable energy that are appropriate
>>to that region. E.g. wind / wave power in the UK.



-- 
remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me.

In message , David Hansen 
 writes
>On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 01:06:23 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
> wrote this:-

>>>Of course transmission losses don't mean extra greenhouses gases
>>>with renewables.
>>
>>No , but it does mean less fossil fuel displaced per pound invested.
>
>Of course. However, I think it sensible to generate large amounts of
>electricity in the Western Isles and transmit it to England.
>Minimising transmission losses is a theory which assumes that
>electricity generation can be equal everywhere.

Yes - it's just one of the factors to consider.


>>> This point was forgotten by the regulator in their
>>>current plans to complete the Englishisation of the electricity
>>>system.
>>
>>?
>
>The first stage of the Englishisation was to separate transmission
>and distribution. Unlike England and Wales Scotland used to have two
>integrated organisations, one for the north and one for the south.
>Now there are four as the transmission bits have been put in
>separate organisations.
>
>The next stage is to revise transmission charges. The proposed
>revisions, which are distance based, would penalise renewable
>electricity generated in Scotland and instead encourage coal
>generated electricity in England.

Sucks !!


>The distance based charges are very sensible for brown electricity,
>but should not apply to green electricity.

That depends if you see it as a charge for causing emissions, or using 
grid capacity, but hell -  that's what it's there for !


> The regulator has been
>lobbied on this, but the last time I checked (some months ago) they
>were not budging.

At bit much to expect common sense...


Cheers, J/.
-- 
John Beardmore

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 17:36:12 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
 wrote this:-

>>The distance based charges are very sensible for brown electricity,
>>but should not apply to green electricity.
>
>That depends if you see it as a charge for causing emissions, or using 
>grid capacity, but hell -  that's what it's there for !

The regulator has sought to portray it as a way of reducing
emissions. That would be correct only if they were not applying it
to low emission generation.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54