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 ."

13 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why the height? by waimate · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  2. 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.
    1. Re:More info by Goonie · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.
      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    2. Re:More info by Nikau · · Score: 4, Informative
      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...

      --
      There is no escape from The Muffin.
    3. Re:More info by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Considering Australia's size and geography, I'm surprise solar power isn't implemented on a wider scale.

      Because the sun goes down.

      Kind of a shame they got rid of the British Empire, really.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  3. Is this the time for renwable energy by slashnik · · Score: 4, Interesting
    In a similar vein this report on the bbc

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/new si d_1699000/1699665.stm/

    says that wind energy in Scotland with the help of wave and tidal resources could provide 60GW / 75% of the UK's energy requirements.

    slashnik

    1. Re:Is this the time for renwable energy by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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
    1. Re:Pretty useful in near-tropical regions by maaaaanis · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  6. Better idea by glowingspleen · · Score: 5, Funny

    It would be easier to build a machine that collects and processes the sweat of the nervous investors on this project...

    --


    ------
    Let me give you the lowdown
  7. Re:Good idea... by Heem · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is actually one of the best idea's ive heard in a while. I mean, sure, all the energy combined from the treadmills, bikes and rowing machines at a large sized gym would probably only be enough power to power up the computer at the front desk of that gym, but hell, how cool would that be?

    --
    Don't Tread on Me
  8. Re:Lets put this into perspective.. by Grond · · Score: 5, Informative

    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) 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).