Could you fit the centre of Australia with miles of solar panels?wouldn't this solve the world energy problems

Question

I'm not sure of the pay-back period of solar panels. I think it takes (say) 20 years, but isn't there a vast area of un-used land in the centre of Australia which could be better utilised. It has guaranteed sunshine and surely would be even more effective than wind/water turbines?

Answer 1

Too expensive right now.

Global warming is a huge problem. We'll need all available tools to fight it.

Australia can use some solar in some places. Mostly the small isolated ones with limited requirements. For the major cities, nuclear is clearly needed right now. The alternatives aren't developed enough to do the whole job.

Answer 2

It would certainly solve Australias dependency of oil. And if Australia would be able to give up on fossil fuels then that would mean less CO2 emissions of which Asutraila is a large contributor. Other than that it wouldn´t solve the worlds energy problem. The biggest hurdle is exporting electricity. It can´t be done easily. But energy can be refined and then exported as a secondary product. Iceland is doing it as they have enourmus surpluses of energy. The import bauxite and then turn it into aluminium. That is basically energy refinement. And Australia just happens to be one of the worlds largest bauxite exporters... Iceland also produces lots of fertilizers. Those are made basically out of air, water and electricity. Also energy refinement. Iceland aims to become the worlds first hydrogen based society with not a scrap of energy, not even for cars, coming from fossile fuels. This is the way to go for not just Australia but for any country.

There is another obstacle for Australia going solar. That is that alot of the vast empty stretches of land are actually national parks and holy land for the aboriginals. It isn´t allowed to just put up endless stretches of photovoltaic cells all over. But Australia has so much desert perfect for solarpower that a series of powerplants, on different strategic locations with a capacity to cover all of Australias energy needs, would never get anywhere near holy aborignal land or nationalparks.

Go for the sun Australia!

Answer 3

Where does the trillions of dollars needed to build these new solar thermal power plants come from? How do we get the power from north Africa to Europe, or from the US Southwest to the rest of North America, or the outback to coastal Australia etc... What do we do with the billion cars that are now useless since we don't have gas to run them, because all this new energy is electric? Why should anyone sacrifice now for some future utopia of free and abundant energy when their neighbor will just consume any resources saved by their sacrifice and prevent any progress in the end? Those are the sorts of questions that will lead you to the answer to your own question.

Answer 4

Even if you did, its a desert its windy, how are you going to keep the panels clean? Wind turbines are far more affective then solar panels at the moment.
The comment about a mile long solar panel powering all of the US is absolute nonsense, you are living in a dream world. The fact is at the moment solar energy is most effective for water heating in domestic use and as water heating is the primary use of electricity in most houses it can contribute considerably. However as I already said Solar panels are rubbish at the moment. They are expensive to build and maintain as opposed to wind turbines. The price of all commodities is going up and there are components in solar panels, at the moment that are very rare and expensive. The person commenting earlier makes a completely valid point that solar panels take an extremely long time to re-pay the economic and energetic expense it costs to create them, nevermind the massive amounts of energy and water to maintain them. At the moment solar panels, in large scale form are simply not the answer.

Answer 5

Even for the relatively limited needs of Australia one would need to build a lot of new transmission lines (the states in Australia tend not to connect to each others electricity grids very much) and things get worse when you add the need to string wires over the Pacific Ocean to supply the US.

Then there's the problem of what happens at Night in Australia when the electricity demand in Europe is greatest.

Better to just use nuclear power if you can't put your solar panels in orbit. Ground based solar and wind are pretty much hopeless and efficiency isn't going to be enough with a growing population.

Answer 6

Oh, no you don't. Nuclear energy is NOT a solution to any problem on earth. The waste is entirely too dangerous--it's not a "clean" fuel at all. At least with burning carbon-based fuels, you don't have the risk of Chernobyl or have to deal with completely unnatural waste that absolutely nobody wants in their backyard.

I don't know about Australia. They do have a lot of sun there. And solar energy panels are getting cheaper, as evidenced by some places requiring them to go into new homes to offset electricity needs. As the market demands more panels (some are sheets, rather than rigid panels), people will find ways to make them cheaper and more feasible. The cost is a bit prohibitive now, but I'd say at some point, solar energy panels won't be quite as flimsy or expensive as they can be these days.

Plus, we need to focus on greater fuel efficiency, with insulation, more efficient cars, appliances that run on less energy, etc. You don't have to produce as much electricity if you don't need it.

Answer 7

I've heard that if you put a solar panel 1 mile long by 1 mile wide in the USA, that we would have enough solar energy for the entire country. I'm sure the same would apply Down Under.

The problem with this, as with all alternative fuel sources, is that threaten the incomes of the large energy corporations. As long as they make the big bucks their making, they'll do just about anything to stop the switch to more environmentally compatible energy.

If you're "in constant wonder" about the cost off solar energy, yes, the energy used to produce the cells will be recovered very quickly by the energy the cells themselves produce.

Solar energy is one of many obvious answers to our energy "crisis". Its definitely the most reliable/abundant resource we've got.

Answer 8

Another alternative would be to use mirrors to heat a central focal point that is a steam generator. Mirrors are cheaper to produce, and as I understand it, this is a pretty effective method of energy production. There is a tower like this near Barstow, CA. It also helps to have a hot ambient temperature which isn't a problem for central Australia.

Answer 9

Will the energy generated by the solar panels be enough to offset the energy used to make that number of solar panels?

Answer 10

One of the major problems with any energy production scheme that is based in a remote location is that transmission of electric power over large distances is not cost effective due to significant losses.

To be economic power production needs to be located close to market.

So the advantage of the location - that it's miles from anywhere - is also it's chief disadvantage.

Of course, you could use the power to produce something that can be transported losslessly e.g. hydrogen. That would get over that problem. Then you'd just need to power the trucks or trains that transported the hydrogen!