sollar panels in the sahara???

Question

why is not happening yet, woulndt it save africa econmicly and the world from co2- greenhouse ****?

Answer 1

Because there aren't enough solar panels in the world. And not enough electricity users in that part of the world to use the power if we did have the panels. The problems are to find a way to make solar panels cheaper, and to get the electricity to the cloudy dark places, like Seattle or anywhere at night, where the electricity is needed.

Answer 2

much of the CO2 emissions are coming from industrial worlds such as USA and Canada. Countries like Africa emit very little when compared to these others.

Energy production requires a user near the source, energy cannot be saved, and required tons of money to export to other areas (not local) and not feasible to try to transport it over seas.

So for solar panels, not the demand in Africa and not the infrastructure to transport it else where.

In the desert there are massive storms. These storms, especially sand storms can damage the equipment and make it useless, so it cannot make any energy or money.

probably the biggest factor:
The energy industry is driven by economics, so to purchase expensive solar panels and create a grid to distribute the energy, and to transport the energy to locations who can afford the energy, out weight the profit. Hence no economic sense.

But it is too bad the world is run on economics and not the right thing to do, cause we would better off.

Answer 3

Well, when you move power from one place to another, you lose some of it to resistance. If we found a substance that could carry electricity without losing current (at normal temperatures, as opposed to 2 degeres kelvin), then this idea would be more feasable. As of right now though, it's cheaper and more effective to build a coal fired power plant in the US than build solar panels in the sahara desert and transfer the power here.

So that's what we'll do.

Answer 4

Solar panels so far invented are very expensive for the power generated. Also there is the cost and power losses of transmitting the power to where it is needed which would be gigantic for solar panels located in the Sahara.

Solar panels have their uses, particularly where small amounts of power are needed in remote locations. As they are further developed the cost may well come down and they may well then be able to compete with other carbon neutral sources of energy such as biomass or wind turbines.

Answer 5

We could also use solar panels in the relatively sunny parts of the US south; California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida. Twenty square miles of solar panels in each state would provide all the electricity the US needs.

Right now, solar panels are very expensive to make and to install and to maintain (you have to wash bird crap and windblown dust off them). Electricity generated by any other source (gas, coal, oil, hydroelectric, nuclear) is much less expensive.

When we run out of gas, coal and oil, and when hydro and nuclear will not meet the demand, then we will install solar panels, no matter how much they cost.

Answer 6

The same reason people do not use spell check here, it is common sense.
I agree, though. Of the billions of dollars in aid the US sends out, you would think that they would utilize this energy source.
But I am not an engineer, so maybe I have no clue.

Answer 7

Have you seen the cost of solar panels?
They are simply not cost effective YET!

Answer 8

It is tooooo costly to set solar panels. Believe me it will be costilier than what we are doing now to generate electricity.

Answer 9

it would, but then again you could build them all over the world and it might save the world, the rich and the greedy governments that are in control don't want that, otherwise it would be done already