I am aware if it, and the idea is interesting (and I quite like it) BUT (big but) I don't believe the technology is anywhere near being able to put out more energy than is required to build the system (that includes solar panels, converters and infrastructure and even ignoring the use of battery storage).

The technologies needed are developing (very fast) but we are going to need to wait (probably) another 10 or more years before solar panels and converters can be made with a minimum of energy and resources so that the system actually generates more energy than is required to make it.

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-collectors-covering-03-sahara-could-power-all-europe

See numerous previous threads on solar power, infrastructure and of course overall energy expended vs overall energy generated over life cycle of entire planned system.

Jack - Power Generation, Transmission and Storage R&D.

It is at the level of storage and conversion that they make the big difference:

In traditional solar produced electricity the light is transformed to electricity in a PV cell.

The "new" method is to first collect the heat of the light and use this heat to boil water. This steam is then used in a traditional steam turbine to rotate a generator which produces the electricity.

The second process is way more efficient as light contains more heat (IR) than UV needed in the PV cells.

A second benefit is that heat storage is much more efficient and simple than electricity storage.

So the sun heats up a big tank of salt until its molten. This tank contains sufficient energy to bypass the night.

In case trouble hits the fan and the next days are cloudy... the needed heat can be supplied by traditional burners working on gas or oil.

This is not science fiction: there are multiple installations like this active on earth for more than 20 years now.

The system has proven its feasibility and can be transformed to high scale.

A second big difference is that they want to use HVDC which has proven to be much more efficient than HVAC when it comes to long distance transport.

You claim that solar panels still require more energy than they produce: this was true in the sixties but now they reach their break-even point after some years of service, depends where they are placed. Serious PV panel producers calculate this and publish it on their website.

You claim that solar panels still require more energy than they produce: this was true in the sixties but now they reach their break-even point after some years of service, depends where they are placed. Serious PV panel producers calculate this and publish it on their website.

Not in any of the studies and analysis I have seen with regard to "silicon" solar panels which require vast amounts of energy to mine and produce, and certainly not when taking into account a system including a silicon solar panel and necessary inverter (and ignoring price and government subsidies - only looking at it from a point of energy in VS energy out).

Have a look at the numerous threads on CR4 on this and see what you think. Others have explained it better than I have (but I still like my simple "if it takes two coal power stations to produce a solar system that only produces the equivalent of 1 coal power station over its life, then you have a loss of 1 coal power station" analogy).

Focused heat to boil steam is a little different and while not a new concept is being used in a number of designs to try and better utilise the concept of "energy from the sun". I am familiar with the other energy storage systems.

All I am saying is that if you want to build a big system you better make sure that you are not just building what's effectively a big "environmental feel good" net energy sink.

"Have a look at the numerous threads on CR4 on this and see what you think. Others have explained it better than I have (but I still like my simple "if it takes two coal power stations to produce a solar system that only produces the equivalent of 1 coal power station over its life, then you have a loss of 1 coal power station" analogy)."

very good point but,.... when the coal runs out.... the solar might still be producing energy.

Based on current estimates of world coal reserves VS current and expected usage (which varies quite a bit so lets take the worts case of "real soon"), existing solar projects will be obsolete and well past their end of life by the time this happens. Hopefully (well before that time) the technology should have been developed to ensure an overall solar system energy break-even or surpassing of that of the humble coal power plant.

Have a look at the numerous threads on CR4 on this and see what you think. Others have explained it better than I have (but I still like my simple "if it takes two coal power stations to produce a solar system that only produces the equivalent of 1 coal power station over its life, then you have a loss of 1 coal power station" analogy).

Interesting; please expand your speculation.

What is the life expectancy of PV system that only produces the equivalent of one coal power station?

I can't help think of the fast food commercial by-line "you're ala carte but we're all smart"

Here's Masu's work up of the question, though not using coal fired power plants as a unit of measure:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/4728/MASU-on-Machines-Photovoltaic-Cell-Energy-Payback

(I knew I was going to get the flak from my opposing position on the topic).

What is the life expectancy of PV system that only produces the equivalent of one coal power station?

Well there was a lot more to my simple analogy (which I ended up using in previous threads to try and simplify the concept of "total system energy and materials costs" vs "total energy out" over "life cycle of system" using existing technology). I kind of like the vastly simplified unit of "1 coal power station" as a summation of numerous material and energy variables (it certainly simplifies things and helps to convey the overall message).

Still, as long as it gets people thinking (even if they don't agree with my view).

The mayor problem is that we face a small problem if we would decide on: just use the coal reserve we have.

This means BAU (Business As Usual): The worlds Power requirement is doubling every 20 to 25 years.

The coal reserve will take us approx 200 years down the road, and what's next?

Uranium will only help us 40 years at the current usage level.

By then the first fusion reactor will probably be reality, it will have costed more than what it would have costed to build alternative power systems delivering the same power output.

One big difference: The reactor will probably work, the alternative power already does and brings more simple jobs to the base population of the world.

I studied the subject of requiring more energy than ever capable to produce.

Recently the DLR (Deutsche Zentrum für Luft und Raumfarth) studied this thoroughly and came to the conclusion that at the moment sustanable energy harvesting pethods have a ratio of 2 to 1 over fossil sources. This will improve as the part of energy from sustainable sources in the energy consumption used to create the systems will grow.

The study claiming this can be found here. (the english version)

Never forget that for each ton of coal burned in an electricity production unit a vast amount of oil and coal had to be consumed to get the stuff out of the ground and a the centrals permises. Take every dime in the picture and realise. (which is in most cases not done to prove that alternative energy is stupid and go on with Business as Usual)

I agree with your comments and the study (it even mentions New Zealand geothermal). It is on the same lines as what I have said above and in numerous previous threads on CR4 (that the total systems must be taken into account for a proper comparison, not just a small part of it like fossil fuel vs solar panel costs).

I'd be more excited if the Sahara was in a more stable part of the world. Kind of like Persian Gulf oil.

If we could bring work and better conditions of life the issue would be solved.

You don't solve problems by shooting childern but by bringing a future to them.

Gwen.Stouthuysen,

"You don't solve problems by shooting childern but by bringing a future to them" - very well said.

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

It makes much more sense than putting huge solar arrays in orbit and beaming it down to the surface. After all, with a desert-based system, there is no need to beam the orbit-collected waste heat out again.

There are places in Nevada and Arizona where it is happening already.