Wind turbines could transform the Sahara

[UM-Bot]

In addition to generating huge amounts of energy, wind and solar power could turn the Sahara desert green.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/321266/wind-turbines-could-transform-the-sahara

[Trenix]

What can ever go wrong? Oh yeah, like mass extinction of desert plants and animals that have adapted to live in an environment that is hot and dry. It's funny, these are the people that seek to protect animals, people, and the environment. Yeah, right.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Trenix

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, Trenix said:

What can ever go wrong? Oh yeah, like mass extinction of desert plants and animals that have adapted to live in an environment that is hot and dry. It's funny, these are the people that seek to protect animals, people, and the environment. Yeah, right.

Just because it's a wind project doesn't mean it's an environmental project.  The idea is being floated by engineers, not ecologists.

The Sand Sea is the size of France.  Nothing lives there.  It is an area that might benefit from something like this.

How does that compare with projects like flooding the Qatar Depression to generate electricity and provide Egypt with a new port?

Certainly some of this might work.  But people need water and the only place to get that much water is the ocean.  Desalinate it and use it for irrigation?  In the desert?  What would evaporation losses be?  How expensive would it be?

This project hasn't been half thought out yet.  When it is, maybe we'll know whether its worth building, even in part.

Doug

[Trenix]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

Just because it's a wind project doesn't mean it's an environmental project.  The idea is being floated by engineers, not ecologists.

The Sand Sea is the size of France.  Nothing lives there.  It is an area that might benefit from something like this.

How does that compare with projects like flooding the Qatar Depression to generate electricity and provide Egypt with a new port?

Certainly some of this might work.  But people need water and the only place to get that much water is the ocean.  Desalinate it and use it for irrigation?  In the desert?  What would evaporation losses be?  How expensive would it be?

This project hasn't been half thought out yet.  When it is, maybe we'll know whether its worth building, even in part.

Doug

Israel, a country within a desert, gets so much water from the ocean that it actually exports it. Crazy right? I always realize that scientists who try to play God do more harm than good for nature and this is a perfect example. They're no different than politicians. CO2 is rising! Yet, they're responsible for it way more than an average person.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Trenix

[pallidin]

5 hours ago, Trenix said:

What can ever go wrong? Oh yeah, like mass extinction of desert plants and animals that have adapted to live in an environment that is hot and dry. It's funny, these are the people that seek to protect animals, people, and the environment. Yeah, right.

Seriously? That "adaptation" was far from perfect.

Given your logic we should let entire regions grossly suffer because... they will "adapt"

Sorry, but you are so wrong on so many fundamental levels...

[Trenix]

3 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Seriously? That "adaptation" was far from perfect.

Given your logic we should let entire regions grossly suffer because... they will "adapt"

Sorry, but you are so wrong on so many fundamental levels...

Oh, so now desert animals and plants are suffering.. lol. I hope you weren't being serious.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Trenix

[pallidin]

There would be absolutely NOTHING WRONG with say, turning the entire Sahara basin into a lush, productive area.

[pallidin]

Just now, Trenix said:

So now desert animals and plants are suffering... lol. I hope you weren't being serious.

Who cares about the "adaptive creatures" which may be eradicated by irrigating deserts..

Look at the Big Picture of what turning a desert into viable land actually means...

Feeding millions of humans versus protecting creepy insects.

Not a single hit on global ecology.

[pallidin]

Conversion of desert or wasteland to a crop-sustaining environment far-outweighs any concern for desert crawling critters.

Far outweighs.

Got it????????

[pallidin]

I find zero value in your comments.

I have said what needs to be said, and my comments are 100% correct.

So, I guess, go hug a desert critter.

 

[Merc14]

46 minutes ago, pallidin said:

I find zero value in your comments.

I have said what needs to be said, and my comments are 100% correct.

So, I guess, go hug a desert critter.

 

Deathstalker Scorpions are very cuddly I'll have you know, at least until the neurotoxins kick in and then things go south real quick.  Better to let hundreds of millions starve than threaten those cuddle-bunnies. 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Merc14

[Trenix]

The same people who root for wildlife, want to abolish it if it means saving mankind. You don't like a scorpion, so therefore it shouldn't live, you're a genius. Aren't you the same people that believe mankind is responsible of the destruction of our planet? Besides that, humans can live in all sorts of environments. Their living standards has nothing to do with where they live. If Israel can feed all their people and have an abundance of water, then why can't other countries in similar harsh conditions? Maybe the problem isn't the desert, but the people who are starving.

[DarkHunter]

I'm not saying if the idea is good or not, or if it's viable or not, but this is a good example of how messing with stuff on a global scale can have consequences far beyond what is originally intended.

Turning the Sahara desert into fertile land will have a far larger impact then just more food and less desert creatures.  There is the albedo difference, deserts generally have an albedo between approximately 25% to 30%, savanna has albedo between approximately 16% to 18%, and forest between 5% to 15%.  What all of that means is turning the Sahara desert to fertile land is going to drastically increase the amount of solar energy the earth takes in.  From a spot changing radically in how much solar energy it holds is going to effect weather patterns drastically which will lead to other effects and on and on of which some will be completely unexpected and potentially counter intuitive.  Ultimately the earth is an insanely complex system with countless checks and balances and effects that we currently know little to nothing about.

These changes and effects could make the planet better off for everyone by making the planet in general more habitable, or maybe large parts of north America, or Europe, or Asia that were once fertile now become inhospitable.  

What I'm really trying to say is that a project that can change something globally will have global effects and we as humans dont really have any idea whatsoever if those effects will be good, bad, or neutral so automatically assuming a change will be positive, negative, or no effect isnt good or safe.  We as humans are starting to move towards being able to actually terraform earth but it is an extremely powerful force and extremely dangerous.

[+DieChecker]

I think this would be a fine idea, as long as the local people are removed from the equation. They've shown throughout history that they just ruin one thing after another. Yet, we're to put the entire worlds energy demands into their hands, and expect them to be civilized about it. Perhaps if the locals were.... displaced... this project could be a bounding success.

[qxcontinuum]

I agree with the idea. In fact I remember myself being kid, thinking of this. The vast land lost in the desert can benefit of course Millions of habitants that can live there. The creatures living in the desert are barely a few since they don't live throughout the entire portion of it but just around oasis. I guess my only thought aside the huge amount of waters required to irrigate the land to transformed it into productive land is its sustainability. I imagine that due to scarcity of rain the process will continue throughout time so the quantity of water required to maintain the newest land would be outstanding ginormous, sea like volume.

Another important fact to consider is that Sahara's hot air contributes to the planetary climate.

 

 

[SHaYap]

Since the ice at the poles are melting away back into the sea, a global initiative to harvest to bergs to wet the desert might be a good idea, just keep the accountants away from confabulating the numbers to get themselves that hefty annual bonus.

~

[RoofGardener]

I think it's a GREAT idea. 

Why isn't it tried on a small-scale ? Just to see what happens ? 

[+DieChecker]

20 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Since the ice at the poles are melting away back into the sea, a global initiative to harvest to bergs to wet the desert might be a good idea, just keep the accountants away from confabulating the numbers to get themselves that hefty annual bonus.

~

I've read it is cheaper to use local power to produce fresh water from sea water, then it is to drag a iceberg to the tropics.

[keithisco]

Just wondering how denuded of nutrients the Saharan desert sands are. I have a feeling (no more than that until I research it a bit) that potash and nitrogen fixing bacteria will be in limited supply along with a total lack of leaf and plant litter. Add to that  desert humidity is usually so low that not enough water vapor exists to form clouds even though the air does rise anyway, then you do not really have a viable ecosphere in which to generate plant biomass not already adapted to the conditions. Those that are have little calorific value in terms of human needs. IMO

[Black Monk]

So as well as shredding birds, these abominable blights on the landscape could kill off North African desert wildlife.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Black Monk

[SHaYap]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I've read it is cheaper to use local power to produce fresh water from sea water, then it is to drag a iceberg to the tropics.

As a one off one berg operation , yes ... I agree, the costs would be exorbitant. What I'm thinking here is a long term global commitment, full and total initiative priority for a period of years, then reevaluate the impact and resolve whatever deficiencies inherent in the initial operation, then commit again to a new schedule dictated by the circumstances. Start slow and near to the sources, maybe recondition old sea vessel oil tankers instead of salvaging them when the insurance grace period coverage expires. Start with regions along South American coasts, Southern Dry arid Africa, Australia could use a good wet cooling off. I'm not saying harvest the bergs for human consumption or industrial use, I'm suggesting harvesting the bergs to rejuvenate areas that needs a bit of time stemming the drying from the weather record breaking heat on the up and up. Slowly as the system gets a start and is in place, take back as much of the desert as required.

The global underground water table needs a bit of time to recover to tell the truth, I just hope the bergs won't be siphoned off for the high paying 'customers' to build more fantstic water fountain shows like those in the Nevada Desert is what I hope.

~

[Myles]

11 hours ago, Trenix said:

The same people who root for wildlife, want to abolish it if it means saving mankind. You don't like a scorpion, so therefore it shouldn't live, you're a genius. Aren't you the same people that believe mankind is responsible of the destruction of our planet? Besides that, humans can live in all sorts of environments. Their living standards has nothing to do with where they live. If Israel can feed all their people and have an abundance of water, then why can't other countries in similar harsh conditions? Maybe the problem isn't the desert, but the people who are starving.

"Root for wildlife"?   That's an odd phrase to use.  

As someone said earlier, the Sahara desert is massive and almost nothing lives there.   What does, would not be endangered.   With every bit of vegetation, more animals will thrive.   

I think you need to educate yourself.  

[Merc14]

16 hours ago, Trenix said:

The same people who root for wildlife, want to abolish it if it means saving mankind. You don't like a scorpion, so therefore it shouldn't live, you're a genius. Aren't you the same people that believe mankind is responsible of the destruction of our planet? Besides that, humans can live in all sorts of environments. Their living standards has nothing to do with where they live. If Israel can feed all their people and have an abundance of water, then why can't other countries in similar harsh conditions? Maybe the problem isn't the desert, but the people who are starving.

Whi are you directing this at?  Learn to use the quote function.

14 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

I'm not saying if the idea is good or not, or if it's viable or not, but this is a good example of how messing with stuff on a global scale can have consequences far beyond what is originally intended.

Turning the Sahara desert into fertile land will have a far larger impact then just more food and less desert creatures.  There is the albedo difference, deserts generally have an albedo between approximately 25% to 30%, savanna has albedo between approximately 16% to 18%, and forest between 5% to 15%.  What all of that means is turning the Sahara desert to fertile land is going to drastically increase the amount of solar energy the earth takes in.  From a spot changing radically in how much solar energy it holds is going to effect weather patterns drastically which will lead to other effects and on and on of which some will be completely unexpected and potentially counter intuitive.  Ultimately the earth is an insanely complex system with countless checks and balances and effects that we currently know little to nothing about.

These changes and effects could make the planet better off for everyone by making the planet in general more habitable, or maybe large parts of north America, or Europe, or Asia that were once fertile now become inhospitable.  

What I'm really trying to say is that a project that can change something globally will have global effects and we as humans dont really have any idea whatsoever if those effects will be good, bad, or neutral so automatically assuming a change will be positive, negative, or no effect isnt good or safe.  We as humans are starting to move towards being able to actually terraform earth but it is an extremely powerful force and extremely dangerous.

You do realize that the Sahara was fertile and green at one time in earth's history right?  The climate is always changing and what we have today is not the most  best there ever was.

[Bunzilla]

It's not as if they're going to be covering the entire sahara, only one small section of it. I seriously doubt that the local flora and fauna, as scarce as it is, would be effected.

Honestly, I think it's a great idea. It could easily provide energy for the entire landmass. I somehow doubt that anyone would find laying massive power cables across the ocean floor to be viable. However, we have our own 'massive potential power generation area' ourselves ; the salt flats. Whatever happened to providing the whole continent with cheap energy? Yeah. I get the feeling the same thing would happen with this project. Sadly. There's far too much greed. If it weren't for one millionaire's greed, Tesla would have long since given us all free, wireless energy and this conversation would be moot.

[DarkHunter]

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

You do realize that the Sahara was fertile and green at one time in earth's history right?  The climate is always changing and what we have today is not the most  best there ever was.

I know it was fertile at one time, it goes in cycles of being a savanna and desert about every 10,000 to 15,000 years but messing with that cycle will also mess with all of the other cycles of the planet of which there is simply not enough information on if it will be a net benefit or not.  The earth is a highly dynamic closed system and playing around with what is essentially low level terraforming without having any real idea of the repercussions is extremely dangerous.