Discussion on:

Sunrise in the desert

Chris, As usual a great article. Hopefully, the US will someday develop an integrated and intelligent strategy and approach to its energy deficits - and especially all of those critical commodities dependent on our current petroleum dependent NPK/food paradigm.

Another interesting article with profound implications. It points out one of the pitfalls of democracy, versus a state managed by a small number of people who have a vision for the future. With a more business centered approach to government, these countries are making an investment in the future that actually is helping to bolster their present economies as well. We should be doing the same thing in the US, but unfortunately our leaderless government is busy squabbling over the best approach to achieving bankruptcy in the next few years. Our star is fading as a world leader, and we don't even have the foresight to do anything about it. We deserve what we get!

Tyrannies always work better for the people. The U.S. should undo the constitution and the republic, and start all over again.

The trouble with an ill-informed democracy is that it easily becomes an ochlocracy -- that is, rule by the ignorant mob. As long as the USA included slavery, it was only a democracy for the non-slave class. But speaking of ignorance, how many times have you read that plutonium is the deadliest element in the world? Radium is about 24000/1600, = fifteen times as radioactive, because that's the ratio of the half lives. But radon's half life is 3.8 days, so it takes about 153 grams of radium to match the radioactivity of one milligram of radon.
Anyway, the other trouble is the power of the plutocracy. The chief media of information are sorely beholden to the advertisers who fund them, or in the case of PBS, the large organizations that by their funding "make this program possible". For those who don't know, plutocracy is government by money. Indeed, the holders of financial power, in the USA and elsewhere, tend to limit our freedoms and take our money at least as much as the elected government and those whom that government appoints.

One of the problems is probably the lobby groups, all looking after their own financial interests. And good results for this quarter is more important for most companies than anything else.

Another country whose leaders seems to have a longer term vision is China.......

dcr100:
Fully support your point of view!

Of course, a small number of people holding the power can turn sour (as some in this talkback already argue by mentioning Tyranny), but this report is a direct proof that sometimes it just might work, much better than anything else we have tried already. Ultimately, it boils down to - what will the small group of people do with the power they possess!

My arguments are often about an educated monarchy which, is able to carry out a sound plan for the future of it's nation as a whole, instead of having constant squabble in every single inception due to conflicts of interest. Sometimes having many leaders is not necessarily better than having only one (or few), but made up from the right ingredients. It is a gamble, true, but when it works, it works like magic in every aspect involved.

I so wish people would understand the simple principles these individuals have applied, in hope of securing their countrys place (in the future too) as a dominating energy provider at times when their natural resources will eventually run out.

I might be naive in placing my trust in such noble beginings, but rather do the revolutionary instead of sitting infinitely on the worn-out throne (like a grumpy old man dying of cancer alone), distrusting everything else around him.

CREDIT: (Pink Floyd) ...like an old man dying of cancer alone...

Nice one fo128

Benevolent monarchies have been very few in the history of man.

No monarchy has ever been better for democracy than a real democracy.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

People who don't learn from the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history. You sound so very ignorant.

Power does corrupt I agree, but the power of the Corporations (Financial might, extending over into to Political realm), is exactly that - the rule of the corrupted FEW! So how come you keep fighting for, and defending all that you are so against. In my opinion, it is all going back to Communism, but via a different route! After reading most of my posts, you probably know why - HUMAN GREED!

What I liked in this report was to see that when you remove and eliminate some of the typical human (call them negative) factors, the decision of the few can become a very attractive alternative, and a great example to follow over the constant unending battle to reach a consensus between different agendas.
And one thing is certain, Democracy is overrated! How do we know that? Look at the tentacles of the Corporations enveloping and ever-more (for their own purposes) controlling most of the Political / Government decisions.

I have always said it - the rule or the decision of the majority is not always the best one, and Democracys fundamentals are based exactly on that principle! You ponder on that for a while!

And to finaly sum it up - please be aware, that it is easy to label people ignorant, but what is the point!? If I recall history well, during the evolution of the humankind most non-conformist and a big number of academic personas were all labeled as Ignoramus, non-believers and so forth, simply because of their revolutionary and out-of-time beliefs and visions. By having this argument here and now, are we repeating History again - you and I?

Amen.

I'm not sure what to make of the article's failure to even mention UAE's (or Saudi Arabia's) nuclear programs, despite the fact that they are doing far more in the nuclear area than they are with renewables.

It discusses 10 MW solar plants, but doesn't talk about the fact that UAE will build almost 5000 MW of nuclear capacity before 2020, compared to 1500-1800 MW of renewable *capacity* (which will operate ~25% to ~33% of the time, vs. ~90% for nuclear). In other words, UAE's annual nuclear generation (in kW-hrs) in 2020 will be ~10 times as much as its generation from all renewables. The Saudis are planning to build 16 large nuclear plants.

I agree with these nations' decision to move away from oil and gas for domestic power generation, and understand their reasons for their doing so (some of which are discussed in the article). However, the truth is that nuclear is their main focus in terms of non-fossil power generation, and their shift away from oil and gas power generation.

Quite so. Actually I believe UAE is building 6000 MW of nuclear capacity. But renewables were the focus of the conference and nuclear was only mentioned in passing; it's not what Masdar is about. Likewise the exhibitors were primarily solar and water companies. I didn't see any nuclear companies represented. For what it's worth, Shams 1 is 100 MW (not 10), and the next planned PV system is also 100 MW.

The best example of how a nation shut down its nukes is Germany. Germany began a feed-in tariff policy that requires Utilities to pay $0.54 kwh for 20 years to homeowners who harvest solar & feed it onto the grid. Germany discovered it was making as much solar energy as from nukes, so in 2011 they shut down half their nukes. They will shut down all nukes by 2022. They will shut down all coal fired plants, gas & oil by 2030. By 2050 Germany will be 100% solar & renewable. I have an organization, ONE, that is pushing California to achieve 100% solar by 2031. Youtube: paul8kangas

If you live in the desert, you can save on air conditioning in summer by running it off of the sunshine that's causing it. In California, and much or the Middle East, I suppose the same applies. But at night, in winter, it isn't quite as effective. $0.54/kwh -- Surely you mean the worst example of how a nation shut down its nukes? How many thousand megawatts of capacity did they shut down? How many thousand megawatts of coal and gas burning?
In France, the highest rate for energy per kWh is about $0.18, plus a standing annual charge of around a hundred Euros, depending upon how big the customer's maximum power demand is, in kW. There is in fact a nuclear renewable -- no, two technologies whereby nuclear energy resources can be made both renewable and sustainable. You can breed fissile plutonium from non-fissile U-238, or fissile U-233 from thorium, Th-232. Nuclear reactors are already reliable, and so much cleaner than coal that only those lamentably ignorant of chemistry, physics, and the actual data would shut down nuclear before coal.
The fact is, that wind turbines require "spinning reserve" for when the wind drops even 5%, and in the USA and no doubt elsewhere, that is supplied by gas turbines that are constantly burning just to keep spinning, and opening a throttle serves to supply the increased demand. The power of the wind, and therefore of wind turbines, is proporrtional to the cube of the wind speed. If you live in California, and Paul kangas succeeds in achieving 100% solar power plants, I recommend you buy a VERY large battery backup for your refrigerator and freezer. Don't run for governor, it only took a mild winter for the recall of Governor Davis, who was blamed for the wildly overpriced peak demand capacity that was caused by the absence of snow behind the hydroelectric dams.
A gigawatt year of electric energy from fissile uranium or plutonium requires less than a ton of the fissile isotope. The same quantity of energy from coal or hydrocarbons requires about a million tons. If it's coal, that actually releases several tons of uranium and thorium oxides! Probably half of that goes freely up the smokestacks as particulates.
To provide a gigawatt-year of energy from a fixed field of photovoltaic cells, in a permanently cloudless sky, you'd need a capacity of 3000 MW. Two gigawatts if they rotate to follow the sun. But in neither case do they keep the lights on at night.

This shows that the UAE has better sense than the USA. Presumably even with solar availability higher than any state in the USA other than California, Texas, and others with square miles of deserts, they realise that nuclear power is indeed clean, safe, and compact compared with fossil carbon and hydrocarbons, and that the Industrial Revolution was about getting away from so-called "renewables" like wind, wood, sun, and even high mountain rainfall.

Achieving 7% renewables by 2020 is not that ambitious. States like California and Colorado have 33% and 30% renewable mandates respectively by 2020, and they are on target to achieve those goals. In 2011 the US got about 5% of its electricity from renewables (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 ); it's probably one or two percent higher now. Much electricity production in the US has shifted from coal to natural gas, which in the short to medium term results in a net reduction in CO2.

The point is that if having a national mandate is seen as the only way to achieve gains in renewables, then Abu Dhabi is not that great an example. It's not doing any better than the more fragmented and contentious US in its efforts. Perhaps the messy process of democracy isn't that much worse after all.

Bear in mind, those CA and CO include hydropower. In fact the vast majority is hydro. Not the case in UAE

When they invest a little in making a rainforest in the dessert they won't be needing money for water, by selling the children's crude oil. The water wil be falling from the sky, only if.

I suppose you could plant the trees, desalinate enough water to water them for 40 or 50 years until they get established but I really doubt it would become a self sustaining forest ever in that location.

I have read this type of investment in the middle east for the past 6 years from various countries including Saudi Arabia. They are investing large sums of money in the alternative energy sector. One wonders if there is something that they know that we still have not figured out yet? Running out of oil? Collapse of US dollar? Any ideas?????

And we don't. I.E., how long they can continue to run their economies on revenues from those reserves. We might want to smoke that in our prediction pipes and get a move on building out the electrical, renewable energy infrastructure while fossils are still relatively cheap, because they won't be that much longer. If they feel the need to move, how much more should we???

but it's in the oil companies interest to obfuscate the numbers, bring in their own optimistic predictions about shale oil, undiscovered reserves, etc into the overall numbers. Short term, more money to be made by high consumption. And so those numbers are also what the politicians see.

Thanks for the article Chris. The photographs were awesome as well. I'm curious though, What did the water taste like from the hotel tap? Was it a cold, deep well, mineral rich taste like in Nelson Co. VA, , or a bland, reverse osmosis lab sample like LasVegas?

I had read years back that the Middle East was reinvesting their increasing oil wealth in Renewable energy and water desalination + distribution. I think the cultural difference driving UAE's forward vision is manifested in "the Ownership" of the natural resource.

In the USA, we do not look at the oil fields of Texas, the Bakken tar sands or any of the shale gas finds as property of ALL the American citizenry. If we did, we would be receiving our yearly checks like the Alaskans do. (equal distribution of the costs and the profits). I've heard it's common knowledge the Saudis and Egyptians share the wealth too.

They've been out in that desert much longer than we've been roaming around North America so they understand the value of time. I for one am glad to see their build out a sustainable society to be around a lot longer.

The tap water tasted much more Las Vegas than VA. A bit chemical tasting. Not great, not awful. And 8-oz plastic bottles of water were ubiquitous. I wondered what they do with them all when they're empty...

You are quite right to point up the ownership issue. That's fundamental to the difference in strategy. Here we have resource ownership at a single person's discretion. There they have a long tradition of stewardship and obligation to entire families/tribes/nations.

"It may seem strange that the worlds seventh-largest oil producer, pumping over 3 million barrels per day of liquid fuels and over 5 billion cubic feet per day of gas, would see the attraction of investing in renewables, but thats only where the ironies begin in this part of the world."

I seem to see this line a lot, but I think it is less ironic and more good business. If you have control of a limited resource, and people are willing to pay good money for said resource, than it makes a whole lot of sense to use as little of that resource as possible, because the less you use, the more you can sell.