Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Thermal Solar Plant To Be Erected In Australia

Posted by chrisd on from the hope-there's-a-plan-for-an-elevator dept.

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 ."

9 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. More info by Max+von+H. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    EnviroMission's site has more information regarding the technology employed, as well as some nice flash animations.

    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

    --
    -- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
  2. Um... what about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Some questions that need to be considered:

    • Maintenance costs? I mean, you don't just whack a great big building in the middle of nowhere and expect it to just work for the rest of its life, do you?
    • Expected life span? If it only is good for ten years, it's a bloody expensive way to generate electricity.
    • Effect on the surrounding area? A one kilometer tower is going to cast a pretty damn big shadow.
    • Expected average output? 200 MW peak output is what the article says... that's not the same as 200 MW average.
    Don't get me wrong -- I reckon it's a rather neat idea. But the article doesn't give the whole story by any means.
    1. Re:Um... what about... by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You're right about the maintenance costs. This thing will have many turbines that will eventually need replacing. Probably not off-the-shelf parts, either.

      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...

  3. Lets put this into perspective.. by whanau · · Score: 3, Insightful

    $670 million australian isn't that much money.

    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!

  4. Pretty useful in near-tropical regions by hashinclude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This stuff could be VERY useful in near-tropical regions. like India for example, the temperature difference (in the more extreme parts ~25N) goes from 40deg C (in the daytime) to something like 10-15 at night. So this could also possibly be used to churn out far more power than the aussie counterpart, IF used correctly. This is specifically for regions that have a high temperature during day/night times, and a nice dry climate. Coastal regions wouldnt be of so much use for the simple reason that the temp. gradient obtained is not so large.

    --
    US is now divided as the "Red" and "blue" states. Red States = communist countries. Coincidence? I think not
  5. Resistance from vested interests by hwilker · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It looks like the initiators of this project already thought about vested interests. These, rather than technical issues, are most often the biggest obstacles to overcome when trying to establish a totally new technology.

    The quote by an energy industry manager, "It won't work", is typical of the process:

    • At first, technical issues are put forward: "It won't work. If it would work, we would have done it before."
    • Then come economic issues. "It will be too expensive. Nobody will buy it."
    • If that doesn't work, and the project in question looks like it might succeed, political lobby work is started. "If it goes forward, we will fire so-and-so many workers. It must be forbidden."

    Usually, that is the end of things for revolutionary technologies... I hope it won't be in this case.

    --
    -- H. Wilker
  6. Re:Wonderful! by sql*kitten · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except, of course, for the permanent existence of a 1 km tall concrete tower occupying 20 sq km of land...

    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.

  7. Re:agricultural tie-in by nels_tomlinson · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The idea behind the green house must be to produce HOT air, to be swept up the chimney. Lots of lovely green stuff under the greenhouse would tend to cool the air, and would definitely add humidity. The cooling would definitely be bad. As someone else pointed out, there will be a condensation cloud at the top of the chimney. We wouldn't want that to be any bigger than necessary, as the cloud would further cool things, so the humidity might be bad too. By the way, that's a desert. Where is the water going to come from for these hypothetical plants?

    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.

    --
    See what I've been reading.
  8. Re:No way is this thing feasible by WinPimp2K · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yeah, but they were also pricing a coal fired plant at $600M, so that would cost (using your numbers) $6,850 per hour in interest costs alone (3.4 cents per kwh). So, in order for the development cost to make this unfeasable, a coal fired plant would have to generate a KWH of electricty on less than 0.4 cents worth of coal. Further, you are not factoring in any dollar value for the tradeable carbon credits a wind powered plant would produce compared to a coal fired plant.


    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.

    --

    You either believe in rational thought or you don't