Thermal Solar Plant To Be Erected In Australia 371
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
."
Re:Good idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
More info (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering Australia's size and geography, I'm surprise solar power isn't implemented on a wider scale. If only the polititians would get their heads out of their arse, they would realize solar and wind power are the only intelligent, long-term choice. They may bitch about the price, but once these things get to be built in large quantities the price will go down accordingly.
/max
Um... what about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets put this into perspective.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Currently its $348 million US, which is about the TOC of a nuclear reactor of the same capacity
Throw in credits from carbon trading, valuable research into the technology, bragging rights and the ability
to wean australia's fossil fuel dependant economy off foreign oil (australia is the world's worst polluter per captia) this is a very very good deal. Go Aussie!
Pretty useful in near-tropical regions (Score:5, Insightful)
The good, the bad and the ugly (Score:2, Insightful)
I think we've lost our nerve for risk, an affliction in which we are probably not alone.
Not a perfect solution (Score:1, Insightful)
you have to dam up and destroy the environment to build the thing.
Can't we just use less electricity? We really don't need anywhere near as much as we use. Street lights? A waste. Neon? Waste. Heating? Need solar passive houses. The list goes on.
It won't solve the CO2 problem (Score:2, Insightful)
fuel stations. What never happens is the replacement of a fossil fuel power station with
a renewable energy one. We need to reduce our overall power consumption. How many of you leave
your PC switched on for no reason other than you can't be bothered to wait 1 min for it to boot
when you want to use it again in 3 hours time?
UNtil peoples free for all attitude to energy consumption changes all we'll be doing is buying
ourselves a little bit more time but the end result of massive climate change will still occur.
Building more nuclear plants would help but the liberal right-on lobby would have a apoplectic fit
if anyone suggested that because in their not-too-bright minds they do a simplistic link between nuclear power and nuclear war so hence its verbotten.
Re:Good technical idea but.. (Score:2, Insightful)
1) While the towers would look quite impressive, I doubt there would be many people actually working on the site at any given moment.
2) To terrorize people, you have to give them the impression, that you can kill them at your own convinience.
Blowing up at 1 km tower and killing three people won't do that. Sending two planes into two towers where roughly 50.000 people work WILL terrorize people.
You can rebuild a 1 km. tower, but you can't rebuild the sense of security lost, when someone blows up a work place of 50.000 people and kills 4.000 people in the process.
Re:Good technical idea but.. [OT] (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't normally post OT stuff but try reading some international news [news.com.au] sometimes.
To quote from that URL:
Resistance from vested interests (Score:3, Insightful)
The quote by an energy industry manager, "It won't work", is typical of the process:
Usually, that is the end of things for revolutionary technologies... I hope it won't be in this case.
Re:Wonderful! (Score:3, Insightful)
That bit of Australia is kinda flat anyway. I'm sure the top could be used for other stuff, like comms or even stellar observation, which should work really well with little ambient light pollution, and relatively clean air. It would also be a massive tourist attraction, especially if the greenhouses could be cultivated.
Plus, you'd be able to see airliners coming from a long way off. Sadly, you gotta think about that whenever you talk about tall structures these days.
Re:Um... what about... (Score:3, Insightful)
In California, where we put up hundreds of wind generators, a very large fraction of them are idle because they broke and are very expensive to fix. I expect the same problem for this thing. I only wish there were a practical system for generating solar power without moving parts, something you pay for once and use forever. Sigh...
A government boondogle? (Score:2, Insightful)
Spending a sizable fraction of a billion dollars to reduce co2 emissions by what appears to be an inconsequential amount doesn't appear to me to be a brilliant idea. Maybe it has some value as a test example, but if so, WHY does it have to be that big and cost near half a billion dollars.
I'm not an Australian taxpayer, so I don't care if you go ahead and do it, but if I were, I would be highly skeptical...
Re:Wonderful! (Score:2, Insightful)
There goes the clean air.
why erect it? (Score:2, Insightful)
So does it have to be vertical?
Just find a nice mountain that is snow covered year round and that lives next to a desert. (Death Valley anyone?). Build an insulated chimney from the base of the mountain to the top, following the terrain. Having it lay on the ground will make it a heck of a lot cheaper, easier to maintain, it won't fall over, and it won't be an such an eyesore.
Also a 20km base is a lot of real estate. A green house is very good from a reliability and fuels stand point. But, could you use other heat sources? How about rotting compost or geothermal?
This system would do well in Iceland. Plenty of hot springs and plenty of mountains
Re:agricultural tie-in (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's another problem with the ``plant stuff in the greenhouse idea'': you use green houses for plants which can't grow in the cold outside climate. These greenhouse/tower contraptions are going to be most feasible in HOT climates, where these heat-loving plants grow naturally. Finally, the green house will be sucking in cold outside air. The plants near the outer edge might get MORE chilled at night than they would without the greenhouse (though the wind would prevent radiant cooling; this could be a big plus in high deserts).
Probably the best idea would be to pave underneath the greenhouse, and periodically repaint the pavement black.
Re:No way is this thing feasible (Score:3, Insightful)
The person quoted in the article as syaing that it wouldn't work was the guy who wanted to build lots more 1 MWH "conventional" windmills.
For those who didn't take finance, you need to calculate the "opportunity cost" of spending moneyt on a project as if you were financing it.