That's what I thought.

Do I really have to say it again?

Ok, fine.*

You intimated that a single attack in (the mountain region of) a single North African country spelt the kybosh for any sort of solar power farm (and/or dependency upon) within that continent.

I merely pointed out that we (that is, western nations in particular) already depend on power/fuel supplies from volatile nations full of miltants and/or non-democratic governments, so even if we take your wildly (oh, so wildly!) sweeping assumption as unchanging gospel it's still not any sort of practical barrier.

Incidentally, i just caught something - I pretty sure I never said anything about being 'totally dependent' on solar from the Sahara; I'd like you to back up that claim because I think it's false and/or exaggerated purely for effect.


* That's the last time i'm going to be goaded into a reply by you trying to act like a smartass, by the way.

You intimated that a single attack in (the mountain region of) a single North African country spelt the kybosh for any sort of solar power farm (and/or dependency upon) within that continent.

No, I intimated in the Sahara, not the whole continent. If you do your research you'll find that this isn't the first time.
That whole area in the green circle is where a major terrorist group has been operating.

I merely pointed out that we (that is, western nations in particular) already depend on power/fuel supplies from volatile nations full of miltants and/or non-democratic governments, so even if we take your wildly (oh, so wildly!) sweeping assumption as unchanging gospel it's still not any sort of practical barrier.

And I pointed out quite clearly what the consequences to us were (9/11 and other terror strikes plus massive anti-westernism), what I didn't point out was the cost to the people in those areas (civil wars, foreign invasion, religious extremism, local terrorism, unprecedented corruption). You're saying it is ok for us to continue to make the same mistakes we have been making for the last 100 years just because we have been doing it, and I'm trying to say that we no longer have to keep that up.

And yes, you did say putting solar farms in the Sahara.

NB: the general strategy for renewables usually involves some sort of sensible geographic planning and export - solar farms in the Sahara

Because winters in northern europe suck, you would be completely dependant on it for at least those 3 months unless you go with another form of power that is more dependable, like coal or nuclear.

*sigh*

I don't know why I bother....

I said putting solar farms in the Sahara, I did not suggest sole dependency upon them.

9/11 was not strictly the consequence of the oil industry (the last 2 Iraq wars, perhaps) but a multifaceted series of causes, particularly going back to the aftermath of the last attempted Islamic revolution in Egypt, Israel/Palestine, etc. It's not the oil industry that is to blame but the general western colonial attitude and behaviour; this can either be perpetuated or corrected, but in either case we still get oil.

I believe I did mention the issues regarding militancy, volatility, etc in these regions; specifically regarding the potential of sensible, measured investment to improve the situation as part of any energy 'farming' (I presume you're not advocating the first world never, ever does any business in Africa, ever?). Whether or not this is realistic depends on your pessimism.

In any case I cited a few examples to make it clear that the stability of a country has never been an issue when it comes to oil-fuel sources, so dismissing solar power from - par examplé - Algeria on the basis of some militants is as valid as dismissing importing oil from Saudi Arabia.

Why do you think solar power would be the only renewable in the 'portfolio'? If you remember the last discussion, surely you can also remember the alternative sources like wind / wave. In fact, to mention a specific country which has focused on renewable energy, Norway generates almost 100% of electricity from renewable sources (mostly hydro) and hasn't fully tapped wind sources yet. Likewise, IIRC Scotland sits on a potentially massive wave energy source.

EDIt;
next time you post a map, cite / source it. I shouldn't have to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_O ... ic_Maghreb to determine that said GSPC (hey, didn't I buy my house from them?) is widespread but perhaps not endemic. Range-of-operations means very little unless you have intensity.

I had this really awesome reply typed out but I accidently closed the wrong window.

9/11 was not strictly the consequence of the oil industry (the last 2 Iraq wars, perhaps) but a multifaceted series of causes, particularly going back to the aftermath of the last attempted Islamic revolution in Egypt, Israel/Palestine, etc.

Our meddling in that area is generally to get the oil. Notice how Somalia has been in total chaos for nearly 20 years and we don't care about it, also notice how they have no oil. Without Saudi petrodollars the Wahabbiists would find it much more difficult to spread extremism and incite terror without such financial backing.

It's not the oil industry that is to blame but the general western colonial attitude and behaviour; this can either be perpetuated or corrected, but in either case we still get oil.

The whole reason the prime minister of Iran was overthrown in operation ajax was because he was going to nationalize the oil fields and take them away from BP. They sell us their oil partly to enrich themselves but also because if they dont they usually end up on the wrong end of our cannons.

I believe I did mention the issues regarding militancy, volatility, etc in these regions; specifically regarding the potential of sensible, measured investment to improve the situation as part of any energy 'farming' (I presume you're not advocating the first world never, ever does any business in Africa, ever?). Whether or not this is realistic depends on your pessimism.

My pessimism is based on the reality. Typically what happens in situations like that is a super corrupt government clique embezzles virtually all of the procedes leaving their people with nothing. Take for example Nigeria, which is a fairly oil rich country. The oil procedes are taken by said government officials and the people see none of it. If you want real development then microfinancing would be a better route to put the money in the hands of entrepreneuars and away from government.

In any case I cited a few examples to make it clear that the stability of a country has never been an issue when it comes to oil-fuel sources, so dismissing solar power from - par examplé - Algeria on the basis of some militants is as valid as dismissing importing oil from Saudi Arabia.

I also don't think we should import oil from Saudi Arabia. I'm just saying look at the harm it has caused before we think about repeating these mistakes.

Why do you think solar power would be the only renewable in the 'portfolio'? If you remember the last discussion, surely you can also remember the alternative sources like wind / wave. In fact, to mention a specific country which has focused on renewable energy, Norway generates almost 100% of electricity from renewable sources (mostly hydro) and hasn't fully tapped wind sources yet.

A.) Norway has a very small population with a comparatively large area.

B.) Hydro is limited by geography.

C.) I can think of another country that depends almost totally on hydro, Uganda, but has load shedding over large areas everyday.

But really wind still has major efficiency problems. According to the Bertz limit, the most you can get out of a wind turbine is ~60%, and that doesn't include other inefficiencies, so realistically you would only ever get ~50% or so of installed capacity. According to this handy area calculator in order to have an installed capacity of 1.6 GW (which is the same as the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland which takes 47 acres) assuming .38 acres per turbine and 2 MW per turbine it would take at least 304 acres, but like I said because of efficiency problems that number would be even higher, and if you want to actually have enough left over for some kind of storage scheme it would take even more on top of that. How much wilderness land would you be willing to take up just to keep the lights on?

Likewise, IIRC Scotland sits on a potentially massive wave energy source.

Wave energy doesn't have the intermittancy problems wind does, but it still is not nearly as efficient, and there is a limit you can put out before they become a hazard to shipping. It does have some potential though.


And I'll throw this in, James Lovelock, the guy who created the gaia theory theory believes nukes are the way to go for primary power

lolwut?

I don't know why I bother....

I've never known you to give up so easily.

lolwut?

Do you have anything more specific you'd like to add to the conversation?

He just did, very specific, and very concise.

I don't know why I bother....

I've never known you to give up so easily.

Because I don't really care whether or not you agree with me, and I see no point in engaging in pointless circular arguments. I just wish I'd been mature enough to ignore you in the first place, as the thread title isn't exactly of the 'hey, let's have a sensible argument' nature anyways.

Incidentally, I believe (although it was a while ago) this is where the idea originally came from. Although I'm reasonably sure I heard it proposed by another eminent scientist before 2008. I have to admit I do find it quite amusing that Algeria - which is of course a hellhole overrun by terrorists where no-one would ever want to do business - is working on solar exports alongside it's existing gas and oil exports.