<p>This question is possibly better suited to SE Engineering. It might be migrated elsewhere or it might closed here or there because it is too broad &amp; also because any answers will most likely be a collection of personal opinions. Here’s my opinion.</p>
<p>The likely answers to the question involve psychology, investment strategy, politics and also technology.</p>
<p>When it comes to investment strategy most investors play the short game: they want to maximize the return as soon as possible. What you are asking about requires investors to play the long game.</p>
<p>Also, do investors want to invest such vast amounts of money on such a scheme now or in the future? Could that money be better spent on something else? Most investors aren’t altruistic. They want their money back plus a return.</p>
<p>Most of the likely sites where such a solar farm could be located are remote from where the generated electricity would be used. Using the energy to produce a transportable fuel is possible but it adds complexity and most investors like things to be simple. There’s a higher possibility of something going wrong the more complex something is.</p>
<p>The alternative would be to use cables to transmit the generated electricity. The technical problem with this is the longer the cables the greater the energy losses. The other problem concerns people and the use of their land in hosting the power line corridors required to transmit the electricity. There are already situations around the world were farmers are protesting the inconveniences to their farming practices and way of life posed by such power line corridors so that city people can have electricity for existing or proposed wind or solar farms. It’s already an us and them situation.</p>
<p>Putting solar panels on the roofs of buildings, including houses, alleviates both these situations. The electricity is generated in close proximity to where it most likely will be used.</p>
<p>The other aspect to the question is you are assuming that such sites are freely available to whomever want to use them for an electricity generating site, or whatever other purpose.  Such sites may be remote and inhospitable but they may also belong to groups of people, such a indigenous peoples who have long been colonized and they want their land for their purposes. Such sites may contain sites that are sacred to indigenous peoples who do not want them damaged or destroyed. You may or may not believe in monotheistic god or in a pantheon of gods, but an indigenous group might believe a serpent spirit who’s sacred site is where you want a giant solar farm. Why should you be allowed to have your cathedral or temple or other form of place of worship or veneration but deny them their sacred sites?</p>
<p>Things get messy sometimes.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-18T04:51:22.883Z
2024-08-18T04:51:22.883Z
Fred
<p>Not sure if this is the right Stack to ask this, please comment if there is a better one.</p>
<p>Currently, there are many entities world-wide which try to use money to reduce carbon emissions: governments, NGOs, companies and rich individual philanthropists like Bill Gates.</p>
<p>Such entities could decide to use a few billion of their available money to build a huge photovoltaic station somewhere in a desert, where there are rarely any clouds. I'm not talking about a few thousand square meters, but much more, <a href="https://www.quora.com/Could-the-U-S-set-up-100-one-square-mile-blocks-of-solar-panels-throughout-the-U-S-to-run-the-U-S-on-solar-If-yes-is-anyone-trying-to-implement-this-plan" rel="nofollow noreferrer">dozens or hundreds of square miles</a>. Of course, that would likely cost more than a few billion, but at least they could start with a few billion and then extend it later.</p>
<p>Yes, this would have problems as a direct power source (distribution over space and over the year), so the energy would not be used directly. Rather, this station's power is used to generate some kind of fuel that can be stored and transported easily, like hydrogen or methane. Due to the rather low efficiency of this process (and other reasons), this fuel might be too expensive to compete at the current markets. But since this is not investor money, but money used to reduce carbon emissions, competitiveness is only a secondary concern.</p>
<p>The following reasons seem to indicate that this might be an efficient way to reduce global emissions:</p>
<ul>
<li>Supply of emission-free fuel to industry, traffic etc.</li>
<li>Can be converted back to electric power when needed, to avoid having to use emission-heavy gas or oil plants during peaks of electric demand.</li>
<li>Since photovoltaics are most expensive when they are built, the entities behind those plants only need to provide the fuel at an economic loss during the first few years. After that, there would be only maintenance cost (which might be mostly automated for such a big plant), so the economic loss will go down with time, and it might even become profitable.</li>
<li>The mere decision to build this plant and provide its fuel could trigger investments into carbon-free technology - EVs, industry using hydrogen instead of natural gas, etc. It could also make investments into expensive fossil fuel extraction projects unfeasible.</li>
</ul>
<p>AFAIK, this is not currently done on a massive scale. I must be missing some important point, which might be:</p>
<ul>
<li>This money is rather invested into the development of next-generation nuclear plants (SMRs, Thorium reactors), or other carbon-free power sources.</li>
<li>Plans for such plants exist, but they are currently shelved because photovoltaic plants are expected to become cheaper / more efficient with time.</li>
<li>I got something wrong, this is not at all efficient at scale.</li>
</ul>
<p>So, my question: why isn't this done on a massive scale?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-18T16:23:03.933Z
https://regenpower.com/why-arent-we-using-the-deserts-for-solar-power/#:~:text=Besides%20being%20very%20hot%2C%20the,increase%20the%20cost%20of%20installation.
Stevan V. Saban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-18T21:39:06.993Z
This questions seems off-topic here. The aspect of *opportunity cost* motivates focusing investment on the *most efficient* ways of utilizing renewable energy sources. Power-to-X has *very low* efficiency across the chain of generation, transport, and final usage, and is therefore best limited to niche applications (synthetic jet fuel for airliners *may* be one of those).
njuffa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-21T02:27:03.637Z
making methan defeats the purpose of using solar, making hydrogen means you need a desert with a realy supply of water. plus hydrogen is really expensive ot store it costs even more to transport, plus you need a diffrent powerplant to turn it back into electricty. energy is easier to store in batteries, or in pumped water, which is highly efficent.
John
<climate-change><carbon>
Why isn't more money used to build huge Power-2-X photovoltaics stations?
Jonas Sourlier
# Why isn't more money used to build huge Power-2-X photovoltaics stations?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-08-17)

Not sure if this is the right Stack to ask this, please comment if there is a better one.

Currently, there are many entities world-wide which try to use money to reduce carbon emissions: governments, NGOs, companies and rich individual philanthropists like Bill Gates.

Such entities could decide to use a few billion of their available money to build a huge photovoltaic station somewhere in a desert, where there are rarely any clouds. I'm not talking about a few thousand square meters, but much more, [dozens or hundreds of square miles](https://www.quora.com/Could-the-U-S-set-up-100-one-square-mile-blocks-of-solar-panels-throughout-the-U-S-to-run-the-U-S-on-solar-If-yes-is-anyone-trying-to-implement-this-plan). Of course, that would likely cost more than a few billion, but at least they could start with a few billion and then extend it later.

Yes, this would have problems as a direct power source (distribution over space and over the year), so the energy would not be used directly. Rather, this station's power is used to generate some kind of fuel that can be stored and transported easily, like hydrogen or methane. Due to the rather low efficiency of this process (and other reasons), this fuel might be too expensive to compete at the current markets. But since this is not investor money, but money used to reduce carbon emissions, competitiveness is only a secondary concern.

The following reasons seem to indicate that this might be an efficient way to reduce global emissions:

* Supply of emission-free fuel to industry, traffic etc.
* Can be converted back to electric power when needed, to avoid having to use emission-heavy gas or oil plants during peaks of electric demand.
* Since photovoltaics are most expensive when they are built, the entities behind those plants only need to provide the fuel at an economic loss during the first few years. After that, there would be only maintenance cost (which might be mostly automated for such a big plant), so the economic loss will go down with time, and it might even become profitable.
* The mere decision to build this plant and provide its fuel could trigger investments into carbon-free technology - EVs, industry using hydrogen instead of natural gas, etc. It could also make investments into expensive fossil fuel extraction projects unfeasible.

AFAIK, this is not currently done on a massive scale. I must be missing some important point, which might be:

* This money is rather invested into the development of next-generation nuclear plants (SMRs, Thorium reactors), or other carbon-free power sources.
* Plans for such plants exist, but they are currently shelved because photovoltaic plants are expected to become cheaper / more efficient with time.
* I got something wrong, this is not at all efficient at scale.

So, my question: why isn't this done on a massive scale?

**Tags:** climate-change, carbon

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: https://regenpower.com/why-arent-we-using-the-deserts-for-solar-power/#:~:text=Besides%20being%20very%20hot%2C%20the,increase%20the%20cost%20of%20installation.  
> **username_2**: This questions seems off-topic here. The aspect of *opportunity cost* motivates focusing investment on the *most efficient* ways of utilizing renewable energy sources. Power-to-X has *very low* efficiency across the chain of generation, transport, and final usage, and is therefore best limited to niche applications (synthetic jet fuel for airliners *may* be one of those).  
> **username_3**: making methan defeats the purpose of using solar, making hydrogen means you need a desert with a realy supply of water. plus hydrogen is really expensive ot store it costs even more to transport, plus you need a diffrent powerplant to turn it back into electricty. energy is easier to store in batteries, or in pumped water, which is highly efficent.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2024-08-18. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

This question is possibly better suited to SE Engineering. It might be migrated elsewhere or it might closed here or there because it is too broad & also because any answers will most likely be a collection of personal opinions. Here’s my opinion.

The likely answers to the question involve psychology, investment strategy, politics and also technology.

When it comes to investment strategy most investors play the short game: they want to maximize the return as soon as possible. What you are asking about requires investors to play the long game.

Also, do investors want to invest such vast amounts of money on such a scheme now or in the future? Could that money be better spent on something else? Most investors aren’t altruistic. They want their money back plus a return.

Most of the likely sites where such a solar farm could be located are remote from where the generated electricity would be used. Using the energy to produce a transportable fuel is possible but it adds complexity and most investors like things to be simple. There’s a higher possibility of something going wrong the more complex something is.

The alternative would be to use cables to transmit the generated electricity. The technical problem with this is the longer the cables the greater the energy losses. The other problem concerns people and the use of their land in hosting the power line corridors required to transmit the electricity. There are already situations around the world were farmers are protesting the inconveniences to their farming practices and way of life posed by such power line corridors so that city people can have electricity for existing or proposed wind or solar farms. It’s already an us and them situation.

Putting solar panels on the roofs of buildings, including houses, alleviates both these situations. The electricity is generated in close proximity to where it most likely will be used.

The other aspect to the question is you are assuming that such sites are freely available to whomever want to use them for an electricity generating site, or whatever other purpose. Such sites may be remote and inhospitable but they may also belong to groups of people, such a indigenous peoples who have long been colonized and they want their land for their purposes. Such sites may contain sites that are sacred to indigenous peoples who do not want them damaged or destroyed. You may or may not believe in monotheistic god or in a pantheon of gods, but an indigenous group might believe a serpent spirit who’s sacred site is where you want a giant solar farm. Why should you be allowed to have your cathedral or temple or other form of place of worship or veneration but deny them their sacred sites?

Things get messy sometimes.


---

