41–50 of 132 posts
Really? Very cool idea, but some of the claims sound downright ridiculous. First, the zero maintenance claim that is touted at least 3 times by the article seems suspicious. You can't really leave anything out in the desert sun and not have to maintain or replace it. Sun will disintegrate a lot of material, not to mention wind and sand. Anybody have any info or insight into what material they are using to create the…
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
A 200 MW power plant with the same 1000-metre-high tower would need a collector 7 kilometres in diameter (total area of about 38 km²). The 38 km² collecting area is expected to extract about 0.5 percent, or 5 W/m² of 1 kW/m², of the solar power that falls upon it. Note that in comparison, concentrating thermal (CSP) or photovoltaic (CPV) solar power plants have an efficiency ranging between 20% to 31.25%
38 square kilometers, these things don't make sense if you don't use the greenhouse for something. Hopefully the wiki is outdated and they have a higher efficiency.
60%? Darn. I was hoping for better after the hype earlier in the article. Don't large steam plants approach 99%? 150,000 US Homes Is that a lot? I hate to (continue to) be a cynic, but it doesn't sound like a lot.
The Census says there are 110,692,000 occupied homes in the US, so 150k is 0.136% of that.[1] That means that there would need to be 738 of them to meet demand. Now, the EIA says there are about 5700 power plants currently operating in the US [2]. Continuing with the back of the envelope math, that's almost 8 times as many as would be necessary if they all produced as much as this one. Pick whatever factor you want f…
Clearly back of the envelope numbers, but definitely something to be excited about.
For any other Aussies that, like me, vaguely remember the plans for building this near Mildura but can't be bothered watching the video to find out why it didn't happen, the reason cited is a "complete lack of incentives". Sad that something like this couldn't get a dime from the Australian government while the US "welcomed them with open arms" (and, presumably, truckloads of cash).
That's not a good sign. I mean, ideally, you'd want the incentive to be, "It produces power cheaper than coal!"
The Arizona tower will be a staggering 800 metres or so tall - just 30 meters shorter than the colossal Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the world's tallest man-made structure. Is there any reason why this can't be constructed to be 831 meters tall to edge out the Burj Dubai?
The article insists on the plant's low maintenance costs, so this may be a stupid question, but won't the greenhouse* have to be washed regularly of dust? I imagine the accumulation of detritus would significantly impact power production. Edit: I previously had written mirrors. The concept art looked misleadingly shiny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'building' is not optional.
Your burning karma thinks otherwise. Go find another hill to die on.
Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that Burj Khalifa (formerly known as Burj Dubai) should be the tallest for economic reasons. The Arizona tower is simply infrastructure, so its goals are to produce the most energy for the least cost. Adding 31 meters may upset the cost/benefit ratio. Dubai, on the other hand, is a tourist destination, and having the tallest building in the world is good marketing.
But... 'merica.
Honestly though, why compete just to show off? There its making money as the tallest structure, here it will be completely isolated, nobody comes here, whoopteedoo.
Here it is also all about cost-benefit. There will be no tourism.
60%? Darn. I was hoping for better after the hype earlier in the article. Don't large steam plants approach 99%? 150,000 US Homes Is that a lot? I hate to (continue to) be a cynic, but it doesn't sound like a lot.
It claims 200MW/150,000 homes = 1.3KW for a US home !!!! So homes in Arizona don't have AC or electrical appliances and are all owned by eco-warriors
Earlier quoted context omitted.
unless you had a perfectly vertical mountain your tower would end up being longer and costing more. if you did have a perfectly vertical mountain it would still be somewhat difficult to build on the side of a cliff. I suppose you'd need a mountain in the desert as well.
The mountain would also provide unwanted shade.
And longer, yes, but not in need of vertical support.