Originally Posted by EmiratesMillhouse

well they are. Shams in AD is a good (well bad actually) example of a large solar project. ( http://www.utilities-me.com/article-...habis-shams-1/ )

But, there are a number of problems. Namely:

1- cost

Gas works costs about 3-4cents/kwh, solar about 20cents/kwh. When you sell power to the end user at lower than the cost of production that is a big issue.

To put it in perspective, the shams project cost 600m USD - the cost for the same amount of conventional capacity would be around 80m USD. The shams project also consumes vast amounts of gas in pre-heating the plant. Some say shams by name, shams by nature.

2- technology
Dust here is an issue but like you say there are ways around this. The quality of light here is not great either (it is diffused in the dusty skys - i.e. we don't get blue skys here).

3- it's hot
Heat isn't great for PV panels.

4- Lack of supply
There are pretty much only two suppliers around and they are small companies. There is also concern about their ability to meet ongoing maintenance and warranty claims as they could simply go bust. People don't want to take the risk

5- Unknown
The technology degrades over time - sadly, we don't yet know by how much.

6- Tariff subsidies

People in the region have no idea how much electricity they consume due to it being sold too cheaply.

To get this to really work the regional governments need to lift the subsidy on electricity... can't see that going down well. Imagine your DEWA bill jumping 6 fold.


I could go on... but in short, it's not the no-brainier you think it is when you look at the economics. Of course, investment should be pointed that way to try and fix all of this and to give the region it's credit it is doing so. I agree that all new buildings should have panels on the roof - at least that way the primary cost is 'hidden' in the purchase cost of the apartments.

Originally Posted by shiva

was keen on the wrong kinds of solar as said above photovoltaics get too hot to be efficient, was desperate to pursue geothermal in RAK, is obsessed with wind ( a friend has just quit that and gone home cant take the bs anymore basically we dont have enough full stop) and generally hasnt a ****ing clue whats going on. basically a load of kiddies with a few bill to play with.

Originally Posted by Bahtatboy

The individual points you make are, no doubt, correct--but the whole point is that we've got to get round to eco-energy sources. All those above points could be fixed if there was sufficient political force in place.

Originally Posted by shiva

any info on the UK's solar feed in tariff? saw a few solar farms has sprung up?

Originally Posted by EmiratesMillhouse

are they still trying to do the wind farm in Egypt? the phrase pushing water uphill springs to mind.

The UAE doesn't have enough wind, Saudi does though...

Originally Posted by EmiratesMillhouse

cut

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...feed-in-tariff

UK is skint. I bet those coal mines will be open in no time and we'll have a Drax II.

Originally Posted by Meow

There are plenty of unemployed Northerners to send down the mines

Originally Posted by EmiratesMillhouse

cut

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...feed-in-tariff

UK is skint. I bet those coal mines will be open in no time and we'll have a Drax II.

Originally Posted by Bahtatboy

Solar! I'll say it again: SOLAR. If Aramco and the other nationals had put 1/10 of their profits into development of alternatives over the past 20 years, we wouldn't need oil or nuclear. It does tend to be a bit sunny out here.

I was dead set against nuclear--having lived in Kobe and seen what earthquakes can do, I was always anxious about the effects that a big one would have on a nuclear plant. Fukushima seems to have proved me wrong: yes, there probably will be some deaths as a result, but far fewer than from the supply chain and pollution of oil- or coal-fired plants.

Agree totally with the comments about building nuclear here. Total 'king lunacy.

And although Fukushima seems to have proved nuclear to be "safe" (its a pretty damned small statistical sample though), the decommissioning costs and the management of the waste for the next zillion years is a real concern.

Originally Posted by Norm_uk

If a 30 year old plant in Fukushima can be proven relatively safe after one of the largest earthquakes in history plus a tsunami I think brand new plants, if built properly would fare even better...

Originally Posted by Bahtatboy

But its not just about the plant itself--its arguably even more about the management of the waste for generations after the plants have been decommissioned.

Originally Posted by Bahtatboy

But its not just about the plant itself--its arguably even more about the management of the waste for generations after the plants have been decommissioned.