Power From Above, Free and Carbon Free Part II

I read recently that Libya will pay France billions of dollars to build them a nuclear power plant to supply electricity. This started me thinking along the following lines.

With all the concern surrounding nuclear power (disposal of waste, mis-appropriating of technology and materials, safety issues, terrorism, etc) I wonder if the money could be better spend on a thermal solar power stations such as the one built in Spain. I don't have the numbers, but I imagine that you could build many, many of those plants for the cost of a single nuclear power plant.

I think this would be a better approach for the planet, based on the following:-

1) Libya has a huge area of desert, with a lot of sunshine, so their power producing potential is enormous, limited only by how many power stations they want to build. If they build more than they need to supply domestic consumption, then they can overcome the major problem of solar thermal, namely

2) Solar power, obviously, only works during the day. The solution is simple. Lay some huge cables across the Mediterranean sea and during the day, excess power is supplied to Europe (which is why you should build much more capacity than you need domestically), thereby reducing their carbon emissions. At night, the power (probably from fossil fuelled power stations unfortunately) flows from Europe into Libya. Using a two way metering system, Libya would also get a cheque every month, with which to build more of these power stations.

3) Speed. It takes an awful long time to build a nuclear power station, much less for solar thermal.

4) Redundancy. With many (comparatively) small solar stations, if a couple go off line, no real problem. With a nuclear station, either it works or it doesn't. (I am aware that most nuclear power stations have good reliability, but sh!t happens. Look at the nuclear power plant in Canada that supplies most of the world's medical isotopes;it went down, the medical community around the world was screwed)

5) Closer business and economic ties, reducing the likely-hood of conflict between the parties involved. As they are now mutually dependant for each other on power, there is a huge motivation to resolve any differences of opinion by working together, rather than being confrontational.

6) Conservation of Libya's oil and gas assets (if they so chose....)

7) Any others I have missed that you wish to add.

Yes, there will be some major technical hurdles to overcome and it won't be cheap, but compared to some of the (oil and gas based) mega-projects either on the go or proposed, the problems are not beyond solution. The environmental impact would also be far less, both in the short and long terms.

Which bring s us to the three main questions regarding the proposal (feel free to add more)

A) is it feasible, technically?

B) would it be economically viable ?

(how many solar thermal plants = 1 nuclear plant, 10, 100, 1000? Economies of scale of 100, 200, 500 solar thermal plants vs 1 nuclear plant?

and, most important of all,

C) would their be the political will needed to make it work?

I look forward to hearing the thoughts, feelings and opinions of others regarding such a proposal.

IPG

BTW, I only used Libya as an example, as it was in the news program I read. The above is applicable to any country with the desert, sunshine, will and money to pursue it.