Qabrikha village in Marjeyoun is now powered by Solar Energy

Jo

Jo

Administrator
Master Penguin
This Lebanese Village Is Now Powered by Solar Energy

[...]

As part of the UN's project CEDRO, the EU has invested 365,718 euros (roughly $400,000) in the installation of a number of solar panels in the village of Qabrikha, as an experiment in public solar power.

Qabrikha was chosen specifically because, unlike many other areas of Lebanon, its generator system is run by the municipality rather than by private companies, and the transition from generators to solar power would remain within the municipality.

As explained by CEDRO project manager Hassan Haraji to The Daily Star, "It's a common microgrid system that you find worldwide in many countries, but in Lebanon's case, it's a dual-mode microgrid," which allows the solar plant to connect to the generator network 'when there's no electricity from the grid.'

The good news is that the Qabrikha project won't be the only one of its kind in Lebanon. According to a statement by the EU, Qabrikha was just one of "several innovative projects promoting energy efficiency and small-scale renewables [in Lebanon]."

[...]

More: This Lebanese Village Is Now Powered by Solar Energy
 
  • Advertisement
  • Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    In a country with as much sun as Lebanon, it is crazy that solar energy is not more widely used.

    However, the way they implemented this project is quite ugly.

    There is enough green land being devoured by construction...no need to add solar panels to the mix...they should be installed on rooftops instead.

    This is a small village with few inhabitants. Imagine the amount of natural destruction that such a project would cause if it was implemented nation-wide, and in more populous areas, with higher electricity needs and more panels.

     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    In a country with as much sun as Lebanon, it is crazy that solar energy is not more widely used.

    However, the way they implemented this project is quite ugly.

    There is enough green land being devoured by construction...no need to add solar panels to the mix...they should be installed on rooftops instead.

    This is a small village with few inhabitants. Imagine the amount of natural destruction that such a project would cause if it was implemented nation-wide, and in more populous areas, with higher electricity needs and more panels.

    When it comes to Lebanon I think the big reason it's not widely used is the cost, it costs a lot to install a photovoltaic power station and then it costs a lot to install storage for the energy generated by the station, basically we can't really afford it. At least not on a massive scale
     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    the silicon the panels use to capture sunlight needs a lot of heat. Silicon meltis at 1,414°C, if the motive for installing solar panels is environmental they are pretty much useless. In Lebanon's case it is more of an alternative source because the supply is less than the demand so it helps.
    Bottom line the best source of energy today in the era of being environmentally friendly and producing minimum green house effect is hydro, but hydro is less available so the next option is Nuclear. Of course if produces waste but this type of waste is not green house, it is radioactive and doesn't contribute to warming the planet, we need to give the planet time to breathe and digest all the CO2 available in the air and this is where the world should move to nuclear, Once the temperature of earth stabilizes then all less clean alternatives can follow suit.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    the silicon the panels use to capture sunlight needs a lot of heat. Silicon meltis at 1,414°C, if the motive for installing solar panels is environmental they are pretty much useless. In Lebanon's case it is more of an alternative source because the supply is less than the demand so it helps.
    Bottom line the best source of energy today in the era of being environmentally friendly and producing minimum green house effect is hydro, but hydro is less available so the next option is Nuclear. Of course if produces waste but this type of waste is not green house, it is radioactive and doesn't contribute to warming the planet, we need to give the planet time to breathe and digest all the CO2 available in the air and this is where the world should move to nuclear, Once the temperature of earth stabilizes then all less clean alternatives can follow suit.
    Nuclear in Lebanon? With the irresponsible leaders we have? If the meticulous and diligent Japanese could have an accident, imagine the risks in Lebanon. This is without counting Israeli airstrikes.

    Solar is a great option in Lebanon, because there is a lot of sun...as long as it is installed properly.

    And I agree with you about hydro. It is the best option, when possible. But Lebanon doesn't have enough water to rely on it.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    When it comes to Lebanon I think the big reason it's not widely used is the cost, it costs a lot to install a photovoltaic power station and then it costs a lot to install storage for the energy generated by the station, basically we can't really afford it. At least not on a massive scale
    Well...people are paying two electricity bills right now. If they consolidate those amounts and give it to the government to invest in solar, the system would be paid for...and once the system is installed, they could go back to paying one reasonable bill per month, for 24/7 electricity.

    But I'm not counting on the Lebanese to make an investment, now, for future gains. The generators' mafia would probably use some populist lies to get people to revolt, and people would probably fall for it.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    NOT ALLOWED
    Why are you upset? In another thread you're fantasizing about jihadists taking over the country and "obliterating the infidel political system."

    You should be happy that Lebanon doesn't have an electricity system invented and produced by "infidels."

    Stick to your backward jihadi way of life.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    Well...people are paying two electricity bills right now. If they consolidate those amounts and give it to the government to invest in solar, the system would be paid for...and once the system is installed, they could go back to paying one reasonable bill per month, for 24/7 electricity.

    But I'm not counting on the Lebanese to make an investment, now, for future gains. The generators' mafia would probably use some populist lies to get people to revolt, and people would probably fall for it.
    The issue with solar energy other than cost for original installation and whatnot is that you will still need a backup usually in the form of energy generated through fossil fuel. And they're not very efficient to begin with, I think the biggest "facteur de charge" is something like 25% in Arizona where it's sunny all the time. So theoretically speaking we're gonna end up paying an insane amount of money for something that will certainly help generate energy but cannot possibly replace what we currently have. I think nuclear energy is the best option (for comparison, facteur de charge is at 75% in France whereas solar energy is at 9%) if we are to go for a more sustainable energy source than fossil fuels but solar farms are still a step in the right direction

    I agree with the second part of your post
     
    AtheistForJesus

    AtheistForJesus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Well...people are paying two electricity bills right now. If they consolidate those amounts and give it to the government to invest in solar, the system would be paid for...and once the system is installed, they could go back to paying one reasonable bill per month, for 24/7 electricity.

    But I'm not counting on the Lebanese to make an investment, now, for future gains. The generators' mafia would probably use some populist lies to get people to revolt, and people would probably fall for it.
    Ever since the government forced private providers to install meters, our electricity bill went down considerably. I think it went down from $100/month to $20/month.
    (Thanks to whoever is currently running the ministry of energy).

    The cost of electricity in Lebanon is not as high as people think. The Lebanese love to nag. There's no need for solar energy. Ma ela 3azeh.
     
    opium

    opium

    Well-Known Member
    Best option is to install panels without batteries. The surplus of electricity to be directed to the power grid and we get paid in return.
    The panels alone are not expensive at all. However the inverters and backup system and batteries are! approx 75% of the cost.
    Nationwide, if we want to store this energy, we can use the surplus of power in pumping water up to High altitude artificial lakes. And we install hyrdo power plants on each lake to generate electricity when needed. It is not an efficient solution but probably better from backup batteries. This is beeing used in Europe( Most probably when they get excess power from windmills) .
     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    Best option is to install panels without batteries. The surplus of electricity to be directed to the power grid and we get paid in return.
    The panels alone are not expensive at all. However the inverters and backup system and batteries are! approx 75% of the cost.
    Nationwide, if we want to store this energy, we can use the surplus of power in pumping water up to High altitude artificial lakes. And we install hyrdo power plants on each lake to generate electricity when needed. It is not an efficient solution but probably better from backup batteries. This is beeing used in Europe( Most probably when they get excess power from windmills) .
    Pump water from where, there is hardly any drinking water for people, bitdall ma2tou3a el may and in 2035, there will not be enough water in absolute numbers, meaning even if you have the water to pump, you will need it for consumption.

    The solution for all the worlds problems, not only in Lebanon but the whole world, be it energy, lack of food, lack of space, etc. Is reducing the world population, they keep talking about finding solutions to problems of lack of this or lack of that, there is no lack, there is an excess of people and once the world starts looking into decreasing the population we will we be able to find better solutions but the economy of the since the 14th century have been based on growth, and messing with growth will mess the economy badly so governments and parties still campaign on growth and adding jobs and increasing wealth for their people which goes in direct conflict with the survival of our species.
    Either we fix the problems of earth or eventually earth will fix the problems for us and then we won't like how she did would do it.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    solar and wind energy are neither efficient nor environment friendly. there is simply plenty of hype around them because people are not very well informed about the intricate details of the subject. first the production cost is by far more expensive than the gas alternative, second the impact on pollution is even worse than traditional gas powered turbine.

    wind turbines:
    • disadvantages
      • the wind turbines produce a very bad noise humming (noise pollution).
      • they are very dangerous when they break
      • they need routine and costly maintenance.
      • they are expensive to set up.
      • they are not reliable or efficient in low wind condition and can only serve as a secondary source.
      • they are ugly and destroy the serene scenery.
    • advantages
      • they produce AC current, easier to transfer over grids.
      • no air pollution.
      • uses renewable source of energy.
    solar panels
    • disadvantages
      • require a ridiculous amount of surfaces (to power up the UK using solar panels, 1/3 of the country needs to be covered by panels).
      • they require a ridiculous battery storage when used in large scale.
      • batteries need to be periodically changed (every couple of years), and that is by far more polluting than CO2 emissions.
      • energy storage is costly.
      • ugly.
    • advantages
      • closed systems,
      • they can be used in isolation to heat water without resorting to battery storage.
      • we have plenty of sunshine.
    solar concentration (mirror) farms
    one of the most efficient forms of renewable energy are solar farm mirrors, the mirrors concentrate the solar power on a water tank, they heat it up and turn the water to steam used to run the attached turbines, the steam is then cooled through a network of pipes and travels back to the reservoir as water to be heated again.



    the main disadvantage however is that the heat attracts lots of insects, which in turn attract many birds, and the birds are fried on the spot. measures need to be put in place to keep the birds away.


    in a country like Lebanon, all we need is gas powered plants along with some solar concentration farms in the bikaa valley. if someone wants to put a wind turbine in his farm or a solar panel on his roof it is a different matter, but i am against investing in them just because of the hype. that's money down the drain.
     
    Nonan

    Nonan

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Pump water from where, there is hardly any drinking water for people, bitdall ma2tou3a el may and in 2035, there will not be enough water in absolute numbers, meaning even if you have the water to pump, you will need it for consumption.

    The solution for all the worlds problems, not only in Lebanon but the whole world, be it energy, lack of food, lack of space, etc. Is reducing the world population, they keep talking about finding solutions to problems of lack of this or lack of that, there is no lack, there is an excess of people and once the world starts looking into decreasing the population we will we be able to find better solutions but the economy of the since the 14th century have been based on growth, and messing with growth will mess the economy badly so governments and parties still campaign on growth and adding jobs and increasing wealth for their people which goes in direct conflict with the survival of our species.
    Either we fix the problems of earth or eventually earth will fix the problems for us and then we won't like how she did would do it.
    Have you been watching the Avengers? On a more serious note, you can reduce consumption dramatically before you start chopping off half the earth population...
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    solar and wind energy are neither efficient nor environment friendly. there is simply plenty of hype around them because people are not very well informed about the intricate details of the subject. first the production cost is by far more expensive than the gas alternative, second the impact on pollution is even worse than traditional gas powered turbine.

    wind turbines:
    • disadvantages
      • the wind turbines produce a very bad noise humming (noise pollution).
      • they are very dangerous when they break
      • they need routine and costly maintenance.
      • they are expensive to set up.
      • they are not reliable or efficient in low wind condition and can only serve as a secondary source.
      • they are ugly and destroy the serene scenery.
    • advantages
      • they produce AC current, easier to transfer over grids.
      • no air pollution.
      • uses renewable source of energy.
    solar panels
    • disadvantages
      • require a ridiculous amount of surfaces (to power up the UK using solar panels, 1/3 of the country needs to be covered by panels).
      • they require a ridiculous battery storage when used in large scale.
      • batteries need to be periodically changed (every couple of years), and that is by far more polluting than CO2 emissions.
      • energy storage is costly.
      • ugly.
    • advantages
      • closed systems,
      • they can be used in isolation to heat water without resorting to battery storage.
      • we have plenty of sunshine.
    solar concentration (mirror) farms
    one of the most efficient forms of renewable energy are solar farm mirrors, the mirrors concentrate the solar power on a water tank, they heat it up and turn the water to steam used to run the attached turbines, the steam is then cooled through a network of pipes and travels back to the reservoir as water to be heated again.



    the main disadvantage however is that the heat attracts lots of insects, which in turn attract many birds, and the birds are fried on the spot. measures need to be put in place to keep the birds away.


    in a country like Lebanon, all we need is gas powered plants along with some solar concentration farms in the bikaa valley. if someone wants to put a wind turbine in his farm or a solar panel on his roof it is a different matter, but i am against investing in them just because of the hype. that's money down the drain.
    The air in Lebanon is disgusting. Burning more fuel is not a good idea.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Have you been watching the Avengers? On a more serious note, you can reduce consumption dramatically before you start chopping off half the earth population...
    For once I agree with you. Over-consumption is more of a problem than over-population.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    The air in Lebanon is disgusting. Burning more fuel is not a good idea.
    true, we need to take every measure to address air quality, though i think the contribution of power plants to air pollution is marginal, it is mostly from burning trash, local generators and traffic. that said, in comparison to the yellow smog we witness, some CO2 in the air would be quite a welcome changed.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    true, we need to take every measure to address air quality, though i think the contribution of power plants to air pollution is marginal, it is mostly from burning trash, local generators and traffic. that said, in comparison to the yellow smog we witness, some CO2 in the air would be quite a welcome changed.
    I dunno. Maybe it's time for me to give up on this country.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I dunno. Maybe it's time for me to give up on this country.
    it is not as dramatic as it seems.. just don't breathe the yellow stuff all the way in, and practice cutting your breath for long distances in areas where the smell is unbearable :p
     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    Have you been watching the Avengers?
    Did you just hand me a spoiler, couldn't you write SPOILER ALERT before?
    On a more serious note, you can reduce consumption dramatically before you start chopping off half the earth population...
    Not true, the economy is built on consumption and growth, offer and demand are carefully balanced in today's economy, pricing is already at the the brink people hardly earn what they need to buy what they consume, most people hardly make ends meet . There is no wealth among the population and the economy is built in way where the rich invest their money and create jobs. This is how the economy of the world is built. Now stop consumption and you have a overproduction that leads to items including farm crops, steel, durable goods and manufacturing in oversupply. This means companies will have to purge their supplies at a loss, and close facilities and throw out equipment. Share prices will suffer with offer bigger than then demand, on the other hand stopping growth meaning stopping credit. No credit means ressources will not be efficiently distributed in the market economy we have today, the rich will not invest their money in company stocks. You will have massive bank failures and a credit crunch similar to 1929 and 2007-08, large unemployment just like 1929 and 2008. This will exacerbate the nationalism in many countries who will create more trade barriers to protect their employers, more of Trump, more of Salvini, more of Le Pen, more of Orban. Unemployment and nationalism, the worst recipe for war. We've seen it in the 1930s. War will reduce the population and that will lead back to the point where we better control the growth of the population than have wars reduce these numbers for us, or famines, or rise of oceans or other natural or unnatural disasters.

    Either we fix it or earth will fix it for us but more violently than we would like it to be.
     
    Top