I think the hardest part will be finding enough "politically stable countries" to build the thing in. Good luck with that.

What about sandstorms? I can't imagine that high winds and abrasive sand is the best combo for solar equipment.

wow...big plans...

it looks cool...but thats a LOT of money...ans how long would each panel last?

I dont think this is economically smart.

To the first three comments:

So maybe we should scrap the idea and just continue to suffocate ourselves in greenhouse gasses until there's nothing left to be pessimistic about. Now there's an idea worth half a trillion dollars

To "One" and others curious about "Global Warming" read this!
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.

Human "Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect.

Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .

Yes there's a lot of sun there, but there are also vast dunes of shifting sand. How are these structures meant to stay above the shifting sand?

@JC...Thank you, the enviro-hysteria is getting thick these days.

@Coder77...That was my first thought. The panels would need to be very strong to resist sandblasting.

@Mr. Gumsandals...This was my second thought. I also thought Iran would be a perfect haven for this project but of course if they used this, they wouldn't get the essential plutonium to build nukes with and that of course is not an acceptable option.

@JC/@IsoTek... Thank you, but I have more faith in the large number of real scientists - over "junkscience.com".

The united states could do the same thing with death valley, but we all know that would take money from the energy companies and they need to suck every last dime from us.

There is an old saying: If you can dream it, you can do it. Good luck to this project and to all like-minded projects to follow. The prosperity of tomorrow begins with the seeds we plant today.

From the article on Next100: "the project would erect 100 gigawatts of concentrating solar thermal power generation in North Africa, enough to supply about 15 percent of Europe's electricity needs."

It is a collaboration of 20 companies and other companies/countries are welcome to join in. What they get is a big chunk of the electric bill of each and every person in Europe. Once the installation and equipment costs are paid off the electricity is practically free (just need to pay for maintenance).

What the Europeans get is clean power that does not contribute to air pollution in their towns and cities.

What the African nations that participate get is much needed capital to grow their economy. There must, however, be guarantees that the profits will be split among the people and not go to create an aristocracy (like in Saudi Arabia) that keeps its citizens in line with a powerful police state.

I love how the article makes it sound like such a great thing that we would only need to cover .3% of the desert to power all of Europe, but what they fail to say is that that is more than 27 000 square kilometers.

That is why green energy will never amount to much except in small niche markets.

JC: Just so you're fully informed, maybe you should know a little more about Steven Milloy, the man behind the junkscience.com website.

His previous careers included stints as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry, and the oil industry. He worked for the National Environmental Policy Institute which fought against pollution controls.

He also worked on the Regulatory Impact Analysis Project which was a lobbying group formed to help the energy industry fight $400 million in Superfund clean-ups.

He worked for the Environmental Policy Analysis Network, which is an anti-EPA front group. The list goes on...

He has essentially made a career helping to protect corporations that run into health and pollution PR problems.

"Although Milloy frequently represents himself as an expert on scientific matters, he is not a scientist himself. He holds a bachelor's degree in Natural Sciences, a law degree and a master's degree in biostatistics. He has never published original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Moreover, he has made scientific claims himself that have no basis in actual research. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, for example, he claimed that greater use of asbestos insulation in the World Trade Towers would have delayed their collapse "by up to four hours." In reality, there is no scientific basis for claiming that asbestos would have delayed their collapse by even a second, let alone four hours."

The Junk Science Page is not about junk science so much as it is about anything which does not support a conservative or libertarian political agenda for businesses and industries that do not like regulations that limit their ability to pollute or poison us or our environment.

Milloy uses the term 'junk science' mainly as a political and polemical term. What the majority of scientists call sound science, Milloy usually calls junk science. And what he calls 'sound science', the majority of scientists usually call junk science.

How is this power going to be transmitted to Europe? Last I checked there was a bunch of water between them.

A nice slice of revenue could help some of the neighboring countries stabilize, I'd reckon.

Hmm. I have a radical idea. How about some of that power going to Africans. An ample, stable supply of power in the region could probably go a long way to creating more stable governments.

first, the africans don't need that much power- we are talking gigawatts. Second, the people paying for it might just want the power they are paying for. Third, stable power does not equal stable governments... see Iraq and Iran for examples. Fourth- power itself is useless unless you have factories and homes- something in short supply in the sahara.

While Nevada Has FINALLY Begun With A Solar Power Plant Between Vegas And Boulder City (About Frakking Time Cause We're In A Frakking Desert), I'm Surprised California, Arizona, New Mexico Haven't Sought To Do The Same (WTF? If You Live In A Desert Solar Pannels Are Frakking Essential)!!

Perhaps If This Sahara Desert Solar Power Plants Were Split Up Into 3 Separate Large Ones (Controled By Morocco, Ethiopia, Egypt) It Would Work Out?

MovieDemon and Jeffox: In trying to promote the idea of global warming, I see you refer to what the "majority of real scientists" say. How does anyone know what the majority of real scientists say? You will certainly hear from the outspoken ones, but do they speak for the majority? If you don't poll every scientist in the world, I don't think anyone can claim that the majority believe or say any particular thing. There are certainly scientists on both sides of the global warming issue. I've seen some writing that indicated we are really experiencing global cooling for the last few years. If the evidence for global warming was irrefutable, wouldn't the agreement be more complete? Even at that, I don't know that I would trust the "majority of scientists"; if such a group could be polled for their opinions. After all, the "majority of scientists" once believed that the world was flat.

All that being said, I do think we would be better off with less pollution and taking advantage of more renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power. And you don't have to be a scientist to come to that conclusion.

MovieDemon and Jeffox: In trying to promote the idea of global warming, I see you refer to what the "majority of real scientists" say. How does anyone know what the majority of real scientists say? You will certainly hear from the outspoken ones, but do they speak for the majority? If you don't poll every scientist in the world, I don't think anyone can claim that the majority believe or say any particular thing. There are certainly scientists on both sides of the global warming issue. I've seen some writing that indicated we are really experiencing global cooling for the last few years. If the evidence for global warming was irrefutable, wouldn't the agreement be more complete? Even at that, I don't know that I would trust the "majority of scientists"; if such a group could be polled for their opinions. After all, the "majority of scientists" once believed that the world was flat.

All that being said, I do think we would be better off with less pollution and taking advantage of more renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power. And you don't have to be a scientist to come to that conclusion.

Good thing we are going with thousands upon thousands of solar panels in unstable regions versus silly untried technology like nuclear. I would normally be the last one to throw a compliment to France but their ability to generate cheap abundant electricity via nuclear power is the benchmark, not this moonbeam project. If you are a believer in Al Gore, there is no hope for you, you are beyond the ability to learn anything and are a programmed robot. Please report to your recharging station.

Even if climate change turns out to be naturally caused, and global warming is a creation of mankind's imagination, why would anything like this be a bad idea? What's wrong with human beings taking responsibility for their actions? I think that you'd be foolish to nay say any idea or project that could better our environment as long as it doesn't drastically alter our way of life.

This seems like an excellent idea, I just hope it works out the way it's expected to.