Thermal Solar Plant To Be Erected In Australia

connect4 writes: "An article from the bulletin explaining a plan to erect a 1km high solar convection wind turbine in outback Victoria - the worlds tallest construction. Projected output per tower: 200MW. Cost to build: A$670m. Footprint of tower: 20sq km ."

Wonderful!

[Pete (big-pete)]

This sounds very impressive. It's great to hear that there is still plenty of active development in seeking out new power-sources. The tower sounds absolutely incredible:

The lightweight concrete tower will be the diameter of the Melbourne Cricket Ground's playing surface at its base, and will reach a kilometre towards the sky. A vast, gently sloping greenhouse will extend from its base to a radius of 2.5km, funnelling a rising column of hot air through 32 wind turbines about 40m above ground, generating power day and night.

If it's built it will surely be a wonder of the modern world - I'd certainly love to see it! A prime example of the better elements of what mankind is capable of...

Also there is always an environmental issue, even in solar power it is common for there to be MORE damage to the environment at first - in this case they expect to have countered that, and be "in the black" environmentally after only 2 1/2 years!

-- Pete.

Re:Why the height?

[waimate]

It needs the height because there is a 1 C temperature differential for every 100m of altitude, so 1000m = 10 C, which is what creates the 'draw' and makes the whole thing go.

It's like saying "why have hydro-electric generators at the bottom of a long fall of water.

Re:More info

[Goonie]

This is why not:

1. The Liberal and National parties, which currently form a coalition federal government, receive much of their funding from mining companies.
2. The Labor Party, which is the major opposition party and controls most of the state governments around the nation right now, is an offshoot of the union movement. Guess in which industries the union movement is strong, and thus which unions exert considerable clout in the ALP? Yep, that's right, mining and electricity.

Re:Is this the time for renwable energy

[Richard Kirk]

The solar chimney is a really neat idea for reasons that do not transfer to wind power.

All the moving bits are at the bottom (well - within 40M of the bottom). This means that you can get to service them without having to scale the chimney. You can swap out the generators for more efficient ones when they are developed without having to redesign the rest of the scheme.

There are windmill designs (the Savonius rotor) that have the generator at the bottom, and don't need pointing into the wind, but these are a design compromise between efficieny and servicability. The wind farms in Scotland have a dynamo with a windmill on top of a big stick. I remember the 'Tomorrows World' presenter going up it, and going rather green: the really big ones are pretty scary places to work.

The chimney can also generate power when it is half-built. It won't be as efficient, but this may allow the building loan to be spread out. Once you have built the chimney, it may then make finiancial sense to expand the greenhouse area. A windmill is either there or it isn't.

Don't get me wrong - I like windmills, and a solar chimney in the Orkneys simply isn't on. However, the Orkneys windmill is paying because regular electricity was over 4 times the cost on the mainland. However, IMHO, the solar chimney is in a different league to windmills and tidal stations. I do hope it gets built.

Re:More info

[TeraCo]

Actually Nuclear is much cleaner [environmentally], efficient and safer then any other power source out there.

Of course, you will always have people parroting the tripe that the greens sprout about it being 'dangerous.'.

More information at:http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=2&catid=118&U pFront=true

While this site is a bit more US centric then I would like, it does provide a wealth of information on nuclear energy.

Sounds great to me

[musicmaster]

Just for those who didn't read the text:

They had a similar thing in Spain (150 km south of Madrid) between 1982 and 1989. It had had some funding problems and for that reason was built on the cheap. As a consequence it collapsed in 1989 in a storm. It had a capacity of 50KW.

The idea is that:
- you have a big greenhouse that collects the sun and generates hot air.
- you send that air into a very high chimney because the air at a high altitude is colder so you can get more energy
- closed water basins in the greenhouses store the heat for the night so that you can generate electricity at night too

The biggest problem seems to me that the technology has not been tested very much. Scaling from 50KW to 200MW is quite a big step. And the quoted prices seem to have a lot of variation depending on the article that you read.

Carnot Efficiency?

[mrright]

This is a really nice project. But it only makes sense if it is combined with agriculture or other forms of solar power generation.

The carnot efficiency is defined as e=(T1-T0)/T1. If we assume T1=20C=293K, T0=0C=273K, the maximum thermodynamic efficiency is 20/293=0.068=7%. And this is the theoretical maximum. So it would be more reasonable to expect something like 4% for the total efficiency.

On the plus side, this design comes with built-in energy storage for the night, it can be used for agriculture, and it might be possible to increase its efficiency by placing photovoltaic cells in the collector area.

If you consider that this thing will be a huge tourist attraction, building it will definitely be worth it.

Re:Wonderful!

[zmooc]

Well I don't think it would be very usefull for stellar observation. Probably the air that comes out of the chimney is relatively hot and will distort the light above the tower. But I might be wrong:)

Re:More info

[Max von H.]

You, sir, are an idiot. You miserably fail to envision the nuclear waste problem, which is probably the biggest and shittiest kind of waste you'd ever want to deal with.

The site you mention is nothing else than pro-nuke propaganda, since it's the Nuclear Energy Institute itself (shudder). What else would you expect?

And, just for the fun of it, please tell me *how* "...nuclear is much cleaner [environmentally], efficient and safer then any other power source"? Come_on, either you're trolling or genuinely are a brain-dead idiot. This power generation system (the tower) has ZERO emissions, needs low maintenance and furthermore, the ecological impact (emissions) of its building will be recouped in 2-1/2 years.

pfffff.

/max

Re:Pretty useful in near-tropical regions

[maaaaanis]

Check a map of autralia...
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/
Notice the climate, it's got more tropical, near tropical, desert, savanna etc etc than any other country. Better still, it's bigger than india and has less than 1/50th of the population, more available space, if native title issues ever get sorted.
In central australia there is an average of 11hrs sunlight a day all year which is the most important factor when using a greenhouse.

Re: 1000m != 10° C

[GigsVT]

Man, it's because the air is heated more than normal air by the greenhouse effect in the enclosure part on the bottom.

Re:More info

[Nikau]

The Liberal and National parties, which currently form a coalition federal government, receive much of their funding from mining companies.

That may be, but Australia is bound by the Kyoto protocol to control its emissions:

But burning more brown coal would compromise Australia's obligation to reduce its greenhouse emissions under the Kyoto protocol, which requires it contain its emissions by 2010 to within an 8% increase of 1990 levels.

So basically building the tower would help the emissions situation, since building the tower instead of another coal plant (another power plant seems inevitable judging by the article) will be hitting two birds with one stone... New power plant, no extra emissions.

Also, we have this paragraph to consider as well:

By 2010, Australia's energy supply companies must purchase 10% of their electricity from renewable sources. The figure is now 8%, most of it from hydro-electric power. Emerging solar technologies are likely to provide much of the 2% increase.

Building another coal plant doesn't exactly help them reach this goal, now does it?

The Labor Party, which is the major opposition party and controls most of the state governments around the nation right now, is an offshoot of the union movement. Guess in which industries the union movement is strong, and thus which unions exert considerable clout in the ALP? Yep, that's right, mining and electricity.

OK, so the mining industry seems to have a chokehold on 80-90% of Australia's government. Whooptee-doo. What's the projected output of the tower? 200MW. According to the article, what's the overall output of Victoria's power plants?

...to replace Victoria's current 7672MW generation capacity.

So... 200MW from a solar tower vs. 7672MW from mostly coal plants, and the mining industry feels threatened? And remember, this is just for Victoria and its vicinity, never mind the rest of Australia.

I don't think the government or their mining industry friends need to worry. The government wants to build another plant to provide jobs, that's great. But building a solar tower will help Australia meet its other obligations, not to mention other benefits - tourism, potential farming opportunities in the greenhouse... I doubt there will be a sudden rush in the construction of the towers, but it'd be neat to see at least a few...

No way is this thing feasible

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to make any sense at all, electricity has to be generated for less than 5 cents per kilowatt hour. (Your electric co charges 10-15 cents per kWH, and the difference is the cost of getting it to you.) At a construction cost of $670 M, the interest alone (at 10% per year, in the ballpark for a risky project like this) comes to $7,667 per hour. At 200 MW, and assuming no downtime and 100% of rated capacity (neither of which is likely), that comes to 3.8 cents per kWH, JUST FOR INTEREST ALONE! Add in any sort of operating costs, and it just doesn't look all that feasible to me.

Also planned in South Africa

[nairolF]

South Africans are always quick to point out that not everything revolves around the Aussies.
See for example this [saep.org] 1998 article.

Re:More info

[Anonymous Coward]

How to account for barrels of radioactive waste?

I read the explanation (for the U.S.) a few years ago.

1/ Recycling of fuel rods was forbidden by law. It would have required the creation of breeder reactors that were banned.

2/ Creating proper disposal facilities was forbidden by law.

3/ Using existing military disposal facilites was forbidden by law.

4/ ALL waste generated in the facility whether exposed to radiation sources or not was to be considered radioactive. Paperwork, paper clips, old chairs whatever. All must be disposed of the same as used fuel rods was required by law.

Now some of this might have changed since I read it but it is unlikely.

These nice laws were passed because of pressure by environmental groups who didn't research and industrial groups (coal mine operators for example) who would be hurt by clean competition. The same groups who block attempts to test transmission of power generated in orbit down to the the ground by microwave.

A coal plant releases more radiation out of its smoke stack than a Nuclear plant releases total.

Nuclear? Throw away 48 Billion Pounds Sterling

[Mandelbrute]

Building more nuclear plants would help

Australia can't affort to build and operate a nuclear plant - they are very expensive.

Also, you all may recall the recent news that British Nuclear Fuels has liabilities of 48,000,000,000 pounds sterling (I think you still come close to doubling that for US dollars). After more than thirty years of operation of nuclear power in the UK the debts are astronomical and still growing.

In the US, of course, the plants can break even by selling weapons materials at a cost calculated to keep them breaking even, which is why you only see nuclear power in countries that have nuclear weapons or aspire to do so.

As for safe and clean, ask someone in the Ukrane about that! Also remember that the grossest mistakes of Russian engineering have been mirrored in the past by corner cutting US entrepenuers (Three Mile Island).

Re:More info

[pfdietz]

How exactly do you account for barrels upon barrels of nuclear waste? Many of which are no longer properly secured and are eroding, etc., etc.?

High level nuclear waste -- the stuff that comes out of commercial nuclear reactors -- is properly secured, and is most certainly not 'eroding'. (Reprocessing waste from military nuclear programs is more problematic, but that doesn't have anything to do with commercial nuclear power, where reprocessing doesn't make economic sense.)

Perhaps you are thinking of drums containing low level nuclear waste? This is stuff like contaminated clothing with trace amounts of radioactivity. It's not a significant hazard.

Re:More info

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I back it up? Check this link.

http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/col ma in.html

The quote below is from the link above.

For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year; the equivalent dose for coal use, from mining to power plant operation to waste disposal, is not listed in this report and is probably unknown.

Or you can read some on this site.

http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/inforesource/other /d evelopment/devfifteen.html

Quote below is from the site listed above

There has been no credible documentation of health effects associated with routine operation of commercial nuclear facilities anywhere in the world. Widely accepted studies demonstrate no correlation between cancer deaths and plant operation. Studies reporting a linkage have been shown to be incorrect. UNSCEAR reports that radioactive releases from coal power plants, due to radioactive impurities in coal result in higher radiation exposures to the public than those from nuclear power plants.

Fossil fuel combustion produces noxious gases and a wide range of toxic pollutants that are the largest source of atmospheric pollution. The releases are responsible for a wide range of respiratory disorders and illnesses including cancer. The WHO estimates that annual deaths due to indoor and outdoor air pollution from energy use account for 6% of the total 50 million annual global deaths. Ingestion of heavy metal pollutants can cause a wide variety of substance specific health disorders.

Or you can read some on this site.

http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/col si de1.html

The quote below is from the link above.

At least 73 elements found in coal-fired plant emissions are distributed in millions of pounds of stack emissions each year. They include: aluminium, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, calcium, chlorine, chromium, cobalt, copper, fluorine, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, sulfur, titanium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc.

Or you can calculate your radiation dose on this site.

http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ans/doseform.html

Note the exposures for living near coal vs nuclear plants

Do you live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant? 0.009 mrems/year

Do you live within 50 miles of a coal fired power plant? 0.030 mrems/year

Notice that for living near the coal plant your radiation exposure is more than 3 times higher?

All this was found in a few minutes of web research. I am sure you could find more.

Re:Um... what about...

[MrResistor]

I only wish there were a practical system for generating solar power without moving parts

They're called solar panels.

Yes, they wear out, but they really aren't that expensive, especially now that they're being designed as roofing material (both shingles and metal sheet-style). Cost wise there's little advantage currently, installation and maintenance will currently cost you about the same as it would to get the power from the grid. Manufacturing costs for solar cells have steadily gone down, and will continue to do so in the forseeable future, while efficiencies rise. With a moderate storage system there's no worries about short-term power loss (obviously this isn't a great sollution for somewhere that gets a lot of snow). If you happen to be in a location where getting on grid is cheap and easy, you could hook up a phase-matching invertor and sell your excess power to the power company (at least in CA, one of the few benefits of deregulation). If you're in a location where getting on the grid is difficult or expensive, this is the way to go (I lived in such a situation for almost 20 years).

In an urban or suburban situation it doesn't make much sense from an individual perpective, but a whole neighborhood with solar-cell roofing could produce a fair amount of power. There's no polution, no line-loss, and the only space that's used up isn't good for much else anyway.

Really, all that's missing is an economic incentive for people to do it. At one time there was a tax credit for installing alternative energy systems (I don't know if it was Federal or State), and GWB's short-sighted energy plan unfortunately doesn't include that. (I applaud him for having an energy plan, I just don't think it's a very good one.)

The lifecycle for the solar cells is 15-25 years, depending on the specific tech (the same as most standard roofing materials), the invertor you'd want to replace every 10 years (to take advantage of new tech, they generally last longer than that), and the batteries should probably be replaced every 5 years or so (we used deep cycle lead-acid batteries, Lithium or NiMH would probably be a better choice, but I don't know anything about the cost/maintenance issues).

The real math

[Friendly]

Assumptions:

$670 million in construction costs
no maintanence charges
life of loan is 20 years
life of plant is 20 years
construction is instentanious (no time paying interest with out plant online)
monthly interest payments at 10% (0.0083% per month
No down time and all power used as produced

For 200MW average power output
Total cost incluing interest $1,770,546,502.78
Total output over 20 years 35040000000kW
Cost per kW $0.05

For 100MW average power output
Total cost incluing interest $1,770,546,502.78
Total output over 20 years 17520000000kW
Cost per kW $0.10

This could turn out to be more expensive to produce the energy than traditional sources, but the pollution credits could change thet. Also some one pointed out that this would take two and a half years to get it pollution credits in the black because of what is released during construction. Well I would like to say that building any other type of power plant will produce its own share of construction related pollution.

What I do not understand is this. By green house do they mean glass building filled with plants, or do they mean glass building filled with empty space over dirt. Plants would absorb energy (as they will be turning the sunlight into food) and less energy would be put into the air that needs to be heated. Also wouldn't it be better to build in condensors along the inside of the chimney as "dry" air weighs less (so it moves faster), has a lower latent heat energy (has a greater change in temperature with the same amount of heat), and condensing water gives off heat (the activation energy needed to vaporize water in the first place).

Friendly

Re:Lets put this into perspective..

[Grond]

whanau said:
"Currently its $348 million US, which is about the TOC of a nuclear reactor of the same capacity."

US$348 million will buy you a nuclear plant in the 1.5 Gigawatt range. It would cost about $300 million to build a new reactor comparable to the one about 5 miles from my house (Arkansas Nuclear One [entergy-nuclear.com]) which produces a total of 1694MW. Nuclear power is far, far cheaper than solar, wind, hydroelectric, you name it. Now, whether it's better is somewhat open to debate, but it is by far the most efficient way to produce really large amounts of electricity, both in terms of cost and in terms of space (the cooling tower on Unit 2 is big, but it ain't 1km big).

Re:More info

[pfdietz]

There *is* only so much uranium, but there's a whole lot of solar fusion to go around.

There's enough uranium in the ocean to supply the world's energy demand with a once-through fuel cycle for about 1000 years -- and the Japanese have shown how to extract this uranium at what is probably an acceptable cost.

Sure, solar energy is abundant, but so is fission energy. After 1000 years, we can think about fission breeder reactors. With those, the uranium and thorium resources in the crust will still be unexhausted when the sun's aging makes the earth uninhabitable.

Re:Misleading article

[Anonymous Coward]

The company that made this in Spain has drawing board plans fro 100MW. They are using a black tube filled with water as a solar sink for flow at night. So they really are at near continuous. The company also markets this at 3rd world countries where they cannot absorb the maintainace and supply costs of traditional. Austrailia is being used due to its controled political situation for the feasibility test.