Massive Solar Updraft Towers Planned For Arizona

MikeChino writes "Australia-based EnviroMission Ltd recently announced plans to build two solar updraft towers that span hundreds of acres in La Paz County, Arizona. Solar updraft technology sounds promising enough: generate hot air with a giant greenhouse, channel the air into a chimney-like device, and let the warm wind turn a wind turbine to produce energy. The scale of the devices would be staggering — each plant would consist of a 2,400 foot chimney over a greenhouse measuring four square miles. The Southern California Public Power Authority has approved EnviroMission as a provider, although there’s still plenty of work to be done before the $750 million, 200 megawatt project can begin."

Comments

Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output

[Anonymous Coward]

A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt. I think the capital expense is comparable. What is the benefit here?

Regards,
Jason

Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output

[Chris Burke]

Land use is not exactly a big issue in Arizona...

Re:Nuclear Would Use Less Land with Higher Output

[QuoteMstr]

The total volume is waste is tiny, and it's not that dangerous. It's not more dangerous than the output of other industrial sites like oil refineries and solvent plants. Considering that the carbon footprint of the nuclear power cycle is staggeringly low (even taking into account plant construction and uranium mining), nuclear power is the best and most obvious solution to climate change. We don't even need thorium reactors. There's enough conventional nuclear fuel to last millennia even without reprocessing. We can extract the stuff from seawater.

The issue here is political: the general populace is frightened of political power due to a 40 year standoff involving nuclear weapons and one terrible Russian nuclear accident. The waste "problem" is fear-mongering.

How can you tell? Ask a nuclear opponent what his criteria for "solving" the waste problem are. What containment technology would win him over, even in principle? You'll find he won't accept anything short of the magical transformation of nuclear waste into hemp.

Education and sanity are slowly winning, but it will be a long time until nuclear power is accepted again here. Until then, we're going to be stuck with coal power slowly strangling our planet.

Re:Why can't we address the human factor first?

[QuoteMstr]

I don't accept your premise.

(Or, I find your lack of faith disturbing.)

Though science, we can provide a first-world lifestyle for all those people. We can build enough nuclear plants to provide enough energy to supply them all with power, and desalinate seawater, and still have plenty left over.

Nuclear fuel is that abundant. You can even extract it from seawater. Growth problems go away with the application of enough electricity.

Besides: population growth is self-limiting. Affluent people have fewer children. As we see more people enjoy a first world lifestyle, with its education and contraceptives, we'll see worldwide population sizes level off just as it they have in first world nations.

Re:Linear thinking

[ChrisMaple]

The numbers in TFA work out to an efficiency of 1.9% for 4 square miles and a 2000 foot chimney. That's probably the limit for what can be economically built. Even if they could get better efficiency for a larger system, it's not going to scale up much. They're already fighting serious problems with airflow resistance. Photovoltaics routinely exceed 20%.

In their favor, storing an hour or more of heat shouldn't be too difficult, so the output will be more regular that photovoltaics.

Re:Why can't we address the human factor first?

[General Wesc]

Human population will reach 9 billion this year.

6.9 billion, perhaps. We're nearly to 6.8 billion right now and the high UN projection is to hit 9 billion around 2030. Medium projection is 9 billion around 2050, and low is never reaching it. (Source)

The solution is simple -- before fucking with the planet and spending billions of dollars on green efforts, work to limit the population growth.

The good news is that we can actually do multiple things at once. There's no need to completely ignore one issue just because there's another one that you see as more pressing.

Re:Green Energy?

[The End Of Days]

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but I'm pretty sure all the energy that the sun will dump into these greenhouses was going to end up there anyway...

The desert isn't a wasteland

[sp3d2orbit]

The project will decimate 2000 acres of desert habitat for 200 megawatts output. Palo Verde nuclear power plant, also in Arizona, spans 4000 acres of desert and produces 3.2 gigawatts.

Nuclear power is 8x more efficient in land use alone.

Re:Why can't we address the human factor first?

[Nefarious Wheel]

This sort of news upsets me... Why do we spend countless dollars on searching for more energy if the basic problem is not addressed first: There are too many humans and until we figure out how to control human population growth we are doomed sooner or later. ...we'll be able to reduce human population to something that Earth can sustain.

Course manouvers. The Universe is infinite, space is big, and it's all out there for us to tap. And considering the scale of the playpen, I have utterly no qualms about invading it with our polluting presence. We could grow to a population of quintillions or more and not even be noticed on the cosmic scale. I refuse to feel sorrow over our biological imperatives. Far from feeling any sort of sorrow, I take a sunny fresh joy in watching people discussing ways to allow us to live and thrive while using what we have in the most efficient possible way, until the time comes for us to leave the nest and fly. Go Technology!