EnviroMission via press release "EnviroMission Solar Tower Project Financial Commitment". EVM has received a formal commitment to provide the entire development and construction capital for EVM's first solar tower power station being developed in La Paz county Arizona to deliver the terms of a power purchase agreement with the SCCPA.
The financing is subject to the due diligence and the acceptance of related banking instruments by EVM's legal adivsors and bankers..."100% pure equity".
Pretty exciting PR found at the EnviroMission website: "Solar Tower Development Overview & 2012 Strategic Direction". Slowly getting closer to the construction of a solar tower.
@AwsomenessDefined The difference in temperature from the base to the top creates a natural air flow with enough air speed to "spin" the turbines at the base of the tower, creating energy.
@AwsomenessDefined The height of the tower provides greater velocity for airflow through the turbines. The original plan created a decade or so ago called for a very tall tower for optimum performance. EnviroMission has indicated in past press releases that the designs for the tower have a reduced height. For perspective, commercial building heights are increasing. The Burj in Dubai is 2,722 feet tall (829m).
@brettrodli BTW, if you haven't seen the Discovery Channel segment on EVM, you may want to take a look at it. The animation of the tower helps create a visual perspective, despite the filming taking place in Australia.
I bought the "Solar Chimney' book, It explains in detail, all of the details of the original experiment that was tested in Spain. It really nice that the outer edges can be used as a greenhouse , so not all the land is 'wasted' on the power plant. This is the most incredible solar design to date for a large-scale system! Thanks for sharing!
@basque777 the one in Spain focuses the light from about 4000 mirrors onto a small spot at the top, where the immense heat powers a single turbine. The one show here just creates an up-draft of warm air, which is meant to power a number of fans at the base of the tower. The Seville system is much more efficient, as the temperature differential is higher and it can also be powered over night. see Gemasolar.
@Devilzwishbone2009 its not always about being the most economical. its about sustaninability and affect on the environment. without enviornment, economy wouldnt exist.
You're forgetting about maintenance & operation costs. There's no fuel - solar energy is free.
Secondly - this idea seems to be very simple; it may be much affordable than nuclear. Question is: HOW MANY facilities like this can be built with cost of nuclear power plant?
First shot and i found that cost of building Nuclear PP is 4,5mln Euro (6,39 mln $) per 1 MW of power.
If THAT costs ~320 mln $ (inlcuding 4 times lower efficiency) it could be good idea.
All it seems that it would do since their is no information is shoot any air or Co2 from the ground into the air....Seems rather useless unless it filters or does anything different than what it showed...Almost seems like just a big windmill to harness air..Don't see how it reduces green house gases.
@Acrimonious10001 i see your point. but the air always will be travling at 49 feet per second. and with the hight of the tower you could put at least 5 massive turbines in it. and also because of the heat at the bottem it could make energy with steam. there could also be soler panels. so woth all that it can produce the max amout of energy from the sun well producing all most no co2.
XCritonX: So the Hover Dam and the Grand Coulee Dam prove that hydro-electric is not cost effective? Free marketers seem to forget how much the free market is a freeloader. From power production to medicine, the free market waits for government sponsored research to do the leg work, and then swoops in for easy profits once much of the development work has been done.
Are you aware that the oil industry receives billions of dollars in government incentives every year. In fact the oil industry receives more incentives than any other energy sector.
So, this has a "fall zone" of almost a mile radius, a foundation that reaches into magma, and can't be anywhere near an airport approach. How much does it cost to build something like this, compared to a comparable (read "small") combined cycle gas plant? I"m all for alternatives, but this looks like a pagan altar, more than a power generating facility.
Nice as a propaganda short film, but with no details, no specifications, scientific explanation or actual models.......just CG, do you really think this video is worth wasting YouTube time and space on ? Anything this big won't be decided by your average YouTube watcher. Assuming of course its effective and efficient.
@SuperDundeeboy In a flat area with stable ground and as little seismic risk or other natch' disasters as possible. In the USA I'm thinking the flat areas of the Edwards Plateau N of Del Rio or possibly some area of the Llano Estacado. In Australia that could be the Nullarbor Plain (near the coast & yet with no natural disasters to speak of.) Interesting that it stands an exact Km. The Burj Khalifa is only 800 m tall.
I wish people would get behind epic projects s/a/^ the way they used to.
If the voting public would demand this type of energy, this world would be in a better place. But where is it written that the voting public can thank.
I'm totally for wind power and solar power and alternatives, but they still haven't pulled the wool over my eyes. I personally want both on my land, for personal use. However, CO2 is not what causes climate change. It's a bold faced lie. CO2 increases when the temperature rises, not the other way around. We've been having warm periods and ice ages all throughout history.
Where does the excess heat at the base go? Why aren't fiberoptics being used to collect and channel the light for hydroponics and basic illumination? Why isn't the exterior covered in photovoltaic paint. Why aren't there more wind traps within the tube? Why isn't there a hydropump driven by water heated by the tower? If you are going to use the resources to build something like this you should take all of this into consideration.
How to tell if some new technology is cost effective:
If the idea is good and cost effective the private sector will voluntarily invest in it and you will see one built solely with private money. It will then make profit because it is more efficient than the alternatives.
If the idea requires public money (our taxes) then it is not a good idea. It must be such a bad idea that no one wants to invest voluntarily in to it so the money must be taken by force and spent on the project.
@XCritonX Not necessarily, people were willing to invest in British Petroleum because they thought it was a company that was competitive. The idea of coal, nuclear, and oil is to drop all the costs of pollution onto the general public. They pay for the oil spills and health costs not your shareholders.
@XCritonX This would be true in an honest world but Big Oil companies make a billions of dollars a year and this solar tower only cost 700 million to make yet 4 years later and it still hasnt raised the money to build it. Regular investors wont invest in it cause they have their money already invested in Big Oil companies so why give money to the competion. Google is very big on green technology but they havent invested in it either. Stock prices are only at 45 cents a share.
@XCritonX Incorrect. If it is a good idea that won't make money for the oil industry, it is a bad idea. Think about it. The technology is simple, and easy to construct.
Your blanket statement is baseless and an udder simplification of how public policy and macro/micro economy works. I'm surprise there are so many people who agrees with you enough to garner thumbs ups. Please arm yourself with more knowledge. Start by googling - reading classical vs keynesian economics.
The one question I have about this tower is why the greenhouse section is not filled with sea water. Water vapour is less dense than air so it would rise up through the tower. Then the distilled water would rain down in the immediate area creating a microclimate. The the high salt content water could then be either sold to Indonesia or the magnesium chloride could be sold to magnesium processors (perhaps using the electricity from the tower) or returned to the ocean.
Large plants that use coal/natural gas produce a gigawatt, therefore you will absolutely need all five towers shown at the end to compensate. It seems it would be costly due to size and amount of panels needed, nevertheless, a good investment for the environment
there is no panels involved. They are glass plates. the light heat the ground. the air get heated. air flows to center because of temperature difference along the chimney. Also, the plates cross-sections are getting larger gradually before it enters the turbine hole.
It seems that it will not be built in the near future, but it really is a good and reliable technology that will likely be built eventually. It is too bad that it isn't already being used instead of all of those non-environmental power producing methods.
before i learnt how the solar tower works, i thought this was a huge mirror array / dish.. n i was like what!! those people elevatorin' to the top are gonna get toasted!!! lolz
It's really? No news from company since 2007. Poorly information in official EnviroMission website. Anyway, what is building progression status? The building is started or not??? No information - no investment.
They ran into problems in their home country, Australia, because of the enormous coal lobby. Australia is a huge coal exporter so makes sense. So they went on to buy solarmission technologies in the us through a stock exchange deal. They finally aquired that company and now plan on towers in arizona i think. But I really hope they get some more support on the home market so that they can build the first tower in Mildura as planned.
Ground heat accumulated during the day keeps the tower producing at night - at a reduced rate of-course (but theres less demand anyway during nighttime).
where does this project stands? I checked wikipedia and there is basically no news since 2007. The company (EnviroMission) still has a (pretty) website, but not much info on it.
There are only wind turbines at the base because cold air or dense air at ground surface when heated up it creates convection or it raises in that way the flow and pressure of warm air ascending is greater and more efficiently used.
why are there only turbines at the bottom? even though they would porduce less power higher up surely they should still utilise the full height of the tower
I would imagine you can't put too many turbines in there, as you want the hot air to successfully evacuate the tower to be replaced with fresh air, rather than have alot of obstructions in the tower that would clog up the air flow.
i heard it would take 7,000 of these mamoths to power the united states today. someone help me out here. it seems to me ironic and counterproductive to combat global warming by intentionally heating surface air temperatures over millions of acres of land.
200 mega watts is enough to power the rural communities in most of victoria and SW NSW (Australia) Compareed with other types of renewable energy this is second to none. America as a whole need to come up with a new statergy for 1) Fossil Fule consumption 2) Enviromenatlly savvy energy sources. So, Yes its Ironic that we have developed the tech to use the earths heat to provide power, but this would not be nessesary if capitalist didnt take the easy option for energy in the past.
The History Channels Modern Marvels stated that it would take only 620 of these to power the US. At $700 million a pop that means that it would only cost $434 billion to power the US with an energy source that is always going to be here.
Look at the land mass required to generate 200 MWs, and I wonder what type of water use is required (these things look best suited for desert areas, where there usually is not a lot of water to waste.
if the turbines are at the bottom, why does so much money need to be spent on such a huge tower when it doesnt contribute anything no matter how high it is
Except it does. It provides a temperature differential from the very hot air at the bottom to the very cold air at the top. If you just had a ring and no tower the hot air would "bleed" out the hole and it's speed would be greatly decreased.
By proving a "funnel" between the two temperatures you create a vertical "wind tunnel" that accelerates the hot air by "sucking" it up the tube.
Overall, I have studied the cost and environmental consequences of buiding hydro-electric plants, versus the solar tower. Th recovery of costs and the availabilty of 35% of the land under the canopy for agriculture makes this project a winner. I wish to have one in Texas.
Lmao. What plane have you been riding in? The thing is 3,000 fett, an airplane cruises at 34,000 feet. And besides, its two times larger than the Eiffel Tower, its not like its hard to see. Rofl.
I just saw the video of the pilot project. It showed the land under it became lush with vegetation. So, why not grow sugar cane, or corn and make bio-fuel? Or add solar panel fields inside? Solar panels also give off most of the energy that hits them as heat. Capture that, and use it in the wind tower.
Some one said it's less than 7% efficient. These are thoughts that could increase the efficiency of the project per acre with possible future upgrades. Point is, the land within is still useful.
Bear in mind, there is NO FUEL needed, and it will abate 900,000 tons of CO2 annually. Let's not confuse efficiency with usefulness. It's not very efficient, but it is amazingly useful. -- Zehaas
So why not instead use 30% efficient solarthermal power with heat storage?
greyfalcon. net/ solarbaseload
greyfalcon. net/ solarthermal
greyfalcon. net/ 92x92
Not to mention, it can be built at human level height, with far stronger structures, at a mere fraction of the cost, using already mass scaled materials.
Energy efficiency is low, cost efficiency is good though and will become better and better compared to alternatives as we run short on coal and uranium and energy certificates become more inportant.
I'm a big alternative energy advocate, but seriously, with construction costs, who is going to build something that is what, taller than the WTC? I live in NYC and we can't get a regular building built for corporate america with the same dimensions. Everyday there is some new story about the construction there.
I doubt this tower would be two times taller than the empire state building, but tell that to the people of Dubai, the city of buildings, tall buildings, including the their own tallest, Burj Dubai. GOdDamn!!! Look like it came straight out of a comic book. Nope, that's 4 real.
Ok, cool, it'll power a whole city in daytime, but I use most of my electricity at night (maybe you guys just use electricity in the daytime, as a secondary system it works, but it'll only produce about 30% of the power needed, the rest is used at night, and there's no way to store that amount of energy to use it in the night, unless of course we all had battery packs to store day supply for the night(which isn't such a bad idea either)
the captured heat in the area around the tower will continue to radiate and turn the turbines even at night. the atmosphere around the top of the tower cools at night faster than the trapped heat at the base. not as efficient as daytime but still viable. also, this is an excellent way to transform a desert into lush vegetation over time.
thats awesome. as an australian, it's good, but kind of pointless to intstall something like this because australia contributes less that 1% of carbon emissions. perhaps america should consider one
Seeing as this is for Australia perhaps an idea would be to use it as a solar still. The bottom greenhouse could be filled with salt water from Lake Eire or the ocean. The water evaporates (water vapour is less dense than air) and rises. You also put a coal powered plant next to it and also run the exhaust up the chimney/stack. This provides the particulates which water forms around to create clouds. The clouds block the sun, cooling down Australia and also when it rains well...it rains.
there are supposed to be heat absorbing elements on the base of each channel, enviromission's website has a simulator that explanes it better then i can, but the idea us these elements irradiate the heat to keep heating the air thus accellerating along the channels and spinning the turbines at night.
actually because deserts have very cold nights (because of a lack of cloud cover) there should still be a temperature differential that allows a structure to produce energy at night.
3000' feet seems to be a limiting situation. I think that having towers in the 800'(250m)would be more feasable. It would produce 5%-10% the power BUT the cost of going high becomes EXTREMELY prohibitive. A deseert community (i.e. Palm Springs, Las Vegas,... could build a series of 800' (250m) towers easier, quicker, and be more acceptable to the communities investment.
The big problem with these is not producing at night - that's where wind has them beat.
It's going to take a LOT of energy to build that tower. It's going to take a lot of land to collect the sun's energy with that setup. perhaps I'm alone in my thinking the the tower part of the design seems redundant, why does it need to be over 3000 feet high?
It's creates a bigger difference in temperature between the heated air at base and the air at the tower outlet at the top, since air gets cooler the higher you go. Thereby it creates a higher velocity of the wind passing the turbines.
How many amps per hour does this thing produce on a normal windy day? (I know you don't need wind, but if) It would be so awesome if all sky scrapers were adapted to use this technology (i.e. funnels on the sides of buildings) to light up most if not all electricity.... very awesome.
sorry dude- your idea doesn't work. The tower has to be hollow (the wider the better) and needs to have flat ground below it.
If you were going to build one in London or New York, it would make more sense to sell the thing for office space and use the money to build 3 more in the country side.
Should be @ work in every country this tech. already its: very Feasble very, Environment Friendly and if have been our source of Energy befor we wont be paying this much today for power. any way, I still to see when will be implanted a Technology to make our life esier, not just a way to explor a new way for a free BIG money.
no, feasibility IS a concern, do you know how expensive solar panels are? and at their current state are only converting about 30% of the light energy onto electricity...this will be a very expensive project but i guess the tourist attraction can pay for that..sure is gonna be hot up there might use some of the energy it makes to power the airconditioners
Maybe not. I noticed that the temperature rises as one approaches the base of the tower. I reason that a lot of the excess heat not being put into photoelectric effects is being redirected into the tower, causing the massive temperature difference which causes the wind tunnel effect, which very efficient. Scientists are also making some very interesting photovoltaic studies that allow for a 70% efficiency rate for solar cells. This is not to mention that it would be a new wonder of the world.
I would not think so. The key is that there is a large temperature difference between the top and the bottom. The clear plastic is a way to capture the heat near the desert floor. The mountain would have to be on the north side so that it does not shade the collection plastic. And, since the mountain would occupy the north side of the pie, it might be considerably less efficient. Maybe there are ways of capturing thermals without all that hardware.
holy sfdsf!!!?!?!? now that's one huge tower. Yet it's worth the benefit, anyway.
And oh, I liked both soundtracks. The first gave a sense of peace. The second gave a sense of hope, battle, and something revolutionary.
And, albeit revolutionary, it's a bit impractical, land-wise. It takes up a pretty large land field.
However, we also consider that such acts are beneficial in general. A great concept. Let's just hope that politicians and big oil doesn't KILL it before it begins.
When the tower is very tall, the weight of the air column may be very heavy to start the wind that powers the turbine. However, using the turbine(s) as a fan temporarily may be a way of starting it. But in general, having a fan blow on a turbine is not going to work (due to heat and friction); It's a perpetual motion machine.
If what is needed is just a chimney and hot air from below, than even fireplaces in houses can be used to generate electricity for the home. Can be a possibility if it is more efficient and affordable.
Yeah. That's a weird coincidence. Or rather conflict. Global warming gives the plant more power, which reduces dependence on plants that create global warming. This will cut down global warming, AND the output of the power plants. This will make us dependent AGAIN in oil, and increase global warming. Increased global warming will make us dependent on these more powerful measures AGAIN...and ad infinitum. Weird, lol :D.
The plant does not get its heat from global warming. The plastic sheet makes a greenhouse that captures heat. And then the large difference between the heat at the bottom of the tower and the top creates wind that can be harnessed with a wind turbine. Think of it as a solar-powered wind turbine.
Solar power, which is what this plant utilizes, relies on the sun. Global warming does not increase the temperature of the sun. It does raise global temperature, however this does not effect the temperature of the sun rays, it merely effects the earths atmospheric ability to disperse trapped heat.
The sun will still shine just as brightly, and will still heat up the 'greenhouse' around the tower.
If you like this video of the solar tower, find the Discovery Channel video (Youtube will not let me post the link) on the EnviroMission's solar tower. It is quite good. Click my alias, and you will see a list of my videos. Click the one with the hot air balloon. It is worth watching.
Discovery Channel in the US will be airing a full 60 minute segment on EnviroMission on Sunday, June 10 at 9pm or 10pm Mountain Standard Time. When permission is given, a 3 minute segment from that video will be put on the EnviroMission website. Also, Discovery will rerun the program over the month.
I dont think it will pay out in a country like Australia, where natural ressources are nearly for free. It woud make more sense in Spain for example. On the other hand the in Spain the ground is more expensive.
They are not nearly free...Australians pay a global price for oil, even if the oil comes from their country. Solar tower tech can be the technology to unshackle humanity permanently.
I recently wrote a paper discussing the problems and benefits associated with nuclear energy, particularly in Australia. I came to the conclusion that this tower would be far superior to nuclear energy, at least in Australia.
The logistics of building something this tall is another matter alltogether though... This tower would require a hell of a lot of funding. However, you could power the entire country off of them with zero emissions and they even operate at night. It's incredible!
Taipai 101 is 508 meters tall. This thing is twich the size BUT, it's a very simple structure. I don't see why it would need to be built of concrete...a simple foam like substance could be used...helicopters could be used to drop off the materials...it's not very hard to do. Stability...ground to tower top wires.
Um in Australia most the sunshine comes in on the northside (southern hemisphere ) build on the south ya be getting zero sunshine besides Australia really only got one real peak that is only about 2700 ft
i Believe this could work,i wish i could make a video like this with my models,i havent made a video of it yet, because the american govenment want to buy it off me,through private enterprise,its a machine that can go faster than any aircraft,and levitates off the ground,
ok, this is 1 huge mofo. but i dont really undrstand, are there just a bunch of mirrors heating air causing some kind of large-scale convection current that spins turbines? and how does 200 megawatts compare to nuclear plants now? And what's the point of the clear tram thinger?, is it supposed to b a tourist attraction?
This tower does use convection currents to generate the airflow, but it actually is a raised layer of glass/clear plate, which traps the air.
There will belots of these towers, since 200 MW is piss-poor. My computer+serverbox are eating half a megawatt as i type.
Luckily, Australia has a butt-load useless terrain
Whe i first heard of this i thought there would be a few turbines, but now i see there are heaps :(. Looks like the same maintenance problems that plague wind farms will crop up here.
This is a good idea in reducing greenhouse gases, if the energy used to produce the equipment is greatly offset by the energy generated by the setup in a short payback period.
One of the great things about this concept is you can still have the area under the plastic as farmland or whatever else you want to do with it. In cities, it is probably much easier to put photovoltaics on rooftops because of their higher efficiency.
Solar Towers have already been built, but not this same design...they don't appear as High Tech. One in Isreal, another in Spain. The MegaWattage is great! Imagine large wind turbines all along the inside of that tall tower. It's not for every location, but for Deserts with High Powered Grid access, the concept is worthy. Better than investing in Coal, Gas fired, large hydro, or Nuclear. Should last a long time too. (The visitor features are quite optional, and a little distracting, IMO)
looks great to me, id rather be within 2 km of this tower than 200km of a nuclear plant, and from above u could make a greek sundial clock .... lovely :) nice work with the graphics too RMIT!
EnviroMission via press release "EnviroMission Solar Tower Project Financial Commitment". EVM has received a formal commitment to provide the entire development and construction capital for EVM's first solar tower power station being developed in La Paz county Arizona to deliver the terms of a power purchase agreement with the SCCPA.
The financing is subject to the due diligence and the acceptance of related banking instruments by EVM's legal adivsors and bankers..."100% pure equity".
brettrodli 2 weeks ago
... and on the roof of the lower part can be fitted with solar panels.
renewblah 3 weeks ago
Pretty exciting PR found at the EnviroMission website: "Solar Tower Development Overview & 2012 Strategic Direction". Slowly getting closer to the construction of a solar tower.
brettrodli 1 month ago
so what exactly is the purpose of the tube
AwsomenessDefined 1 month ago
@AwsomenessDefined The difference in temperature from the base to the top creates a natural air flow with enough air speed to "spin" the turbines at the base of the tower, creating energy.
brettrodli 1 month ago
@brettrodli but why does it have to be that tall
AwsomenessDefined 1 month ago
@AwsomenessDefined The height of the tower provides greater velocity for airflow through the turbines. The original plan created a decade or so ago called for a very tall tower for optimum performance. EnviroMission has indicated in past press releases that the designs for the tower have a reduced height. For perspective, commercial building heights are increasing. The Burj in Dubai is 2,722 feet tall (829m).
brettrodli 1 month ago
@brettrodli BTW, if you haven't seen the Discovery Channel segment on EVM, you may want to take a look at it. The animation of the tower helps create a visual perspective, despite the filming taking place in Australia.
brettrodli 1 month ago
I bought the "Solar Chimney' book, It explains in detail, all of the details of the original experiment that was tested in Spain. It really nice that the outer edges can be used as a greenhouse , so not all the land is 'wasted' on the power plant. This is the most incredible solar design to date for a large-scale system! Thanks for sharing!
howardsolar 2 months ago
How is this different technically to the one they built in Seville, Spain?
basque777 4 months ago
@basque777 the one in Spain focuses the light from about 4000 mirrors onto a small spot at the top, where the immense heat powers a single turbine. The one show here just creates an up-draft of warm air, which is meant to power a number of fans at the base of the tower. The Seville system is much more efficient, as the temperature differential is higher and it can also be powered over night. see Gemasolar.
mrplease66 2 months ago
Not economical or viable...
Nuclear Power Stations can generate 1280MW, This station would generate 200MW
The tower its self is larger than the Empire estate building by far
In seville spain, they have designed PS10 solar tower which is far smaller yet generates 300MW of electricity
Sorry but back to the drawing board
Devilzwishbone2009 5 months ago
@Devilzwishbone2009 its not always about being the most economical. its about sustaninability and affect on the environment. without enviornment, economy wouldnt exist.
MissesDizaster 5 months ago
@Devilzwishbone2009
You're forgetting about maintenance & operation costs. There's no fuel - solar energy is free.
Secondly - this idea seems to be very simple; it may be much affordable than nuclear. Question is: HOW MANY facilities like this can be built with cost of nuclear power plant?
First shot and i found that cost of building Nuclear PP is 4,5mln Euro (6,39 mln $) per 1 MW of power.
If THAT costs ~320 mln $ (inlcuding 4 times lower efficiency) it could be good idea.
qnon 5 months ago
Beautiful.
vmorgun 6 months ago
can i build one in my back yard:)
brianmenendez 6 months ago
someday. someday i will put my name on the side of that. if its the last thing i do....
row907 6 months ago
This music sounds like it came straight out of an educational video from the 1980s.
hellomate639 6 months ago
1st ones gona be used to grow lots and lots of marijuana
trudaftgunpunk 6 months ago
I'd hate falling down that pipe...
Wait, thst video said the tower is that tall... WHAT THE HECK?!?!
legox50 8 months ago 2
That's a hell of a lot of seran wrap! :P
dmonat 8 months ago
All it seems that it would do since their is no information is shoot any air or Co2 from the ground into the air....Seems rather useless unless it filters or does anything different than what it showed...Almost seems like just a big windmill to harness air..Don't see how it reduces green house gases.
Acrimonious10001 8 months ago
@Acrimonious10001 i see your point. but the air always will be travling at 49 feet per second. and with the hight of the tower you could put at least 5 massive turbines in it. and also because of the heat at the bottem it could make energy with steam. there could also be soler panels. so woth all that it can produce the max amout of energy from the sun well producing all most no co2.
row907 6 months ago
XCritonX: So the Hover Dam and the Grand Coulee Dam prove that hydro-electric is not cost effective? Free marketers seem to forget how much the free market is a freeloader. From power production to medicine, the free market waits for government sponsored research to do the leg work, and then swoops in for easy profits once much of the development work has been done.
barrem01 10 months ago
Are you aware that the oil industry receives billions of dollars in government incentives every year. In fact the oil industry receives more incentives than any other energy sector.
GreenEdAlliance 11 months ago
So, this has a "fall zone" of almost a mile radius, a foundation that reaches into magma, and can't be anywhere near an airport approach. How much does it cost to build something like this, compared to a comparable (read "small") combined cycle gas plant? I"m all for alternatives, but this looks like a pagan altar, more than a power generating facility.
C24B9 11 months ago
Nice as a propaganda short film, but with no details, no specifications, scientific explanation or actual models.......just CG, do you really think this video is worth wasting YouTube time and space on ? Anything this big won't be decided by your average YouTube watcher. Assuming of course its effective and efficient.
Labyrynth1000 1 year ago
interesting..
MrDaldagnuur 1 year ago
3,000 ft tall - how would they build something that high?
SuperDundeeboy 1 year ago
@SuperDundeeboy In a flat area with stable ground and as little seismic risk or other natch' disasters as possible. In the USA I'm thinking the flat areas of the Edwards Plateau N of Del Rio or possibly some area of the Llano Estacado. In Australia that could be the Nullarbor Plain (near the coast & yet with no natural disasters to speak of.) Interesting that it stands an exact Km. The Burj Khalifa is only 800 m tall.
I wish people would get behind epic projects s/a/^ the way they used to.
JackRussellTerrier2 1 year ago
If the voting public would demand this type of energy, this world would be in a better place. But where is it written that the voting public can thank.
Daniel Morton
lampmanone 1 year ago
this thing is pretty ugly but for a good cause
TheNewCoolKidz 1 year ago
I'm totally for wind power and solar power and alternatives, but they still haven't pulled the wool over my eyes. I personally want both on my land, for personal use. However, CO2 is not what causes climate change. It's a bold faced lie. CO2 increases when the temperature rises, not the other way around. We've been having warm periods and ice ages all throughout history.
Cstrife234 1 year ago
Where does the excess heat at the base go? Why aren't fiberoptics being used to collect and channel the light for hydroponics and basic illumination? Why isn't the exterior covered in photovoltaic paint. Why aren't there more wind traps within the tube? Why isn't there a hydropump driven by water heated by the tower? If you are going to use the resources to build something like this you should take all of this into consideration.
PinkProgram 1 year ago
hmm terrorists?
DrDimk0o 1 year ago
money/cost wouldn't be a problem if we were in a resource based economy as suggested by the Venus Project / Zeitgeist Movement
turtleburps 1 year ago
How to tell if some new technology is cost effective:
If the idea is good and cost effective the private sector will voluntarily invest in it and you will see one built solely with private money. It will then make profit because it is more efficient than the alternatives.
If the idea requires public money (our taxes) then it is not a good idea. It must be such a bad idea that no one wants to invest voluntarily in to it so the money must be taken by force and spent on the project.
XCritonX 1 year ago
@XCritonX Dude your right Wall street has all the answers, they are so smart, nobody is smarter than them, not even you.
toocool3 1 year ago
@XCritonX Not necessarily, people were willing to invest in British Petroleum because they thought it was a company that was competitive. The idea of coal, nuclear, and oil is to drop all the costs of pollution onto the general public. They pay for the oil spills and health costs not your shareholders.
drmodestoesq 1 year ago
@XCritonX This would be true in an honest world but Big Oil companies make a billions of dollars a year and this solar tower only cost 700 million to make yet 4 years later and it still hasnt raised the money to build it. Regular investors wont invest in it cause they have their money already invested in Big Oil companies so why give money to the competion. Google is very big on green technology but they havent invested in it either. Stock prices are only at 45 cents a share.
UniverseNews 1 year ago
@XCritonX
"If the idea requires public money (our taxes) then it is not a good idea."
Sounds like the $17Billion in loan guarantees to build Nuclear Plants in USA.
itbarthur4u 1 year ago
@XCritonX Incorrect. If it is a good idea that won't make money for the oil industry, it is a bad idea. Think about it. The technology is simple, and easy to construct.
MrSmibby 10 months ago
@XCritonX
Your blanket statement is baseless and an udder simplification of how public policy and macro/micro economy works. I'm surprise there are so many people who agrees with you enough to garner thumbs ups. Please arm yourself with more knowledge. Start by googling - reading classical vs keynesian economics.
blankchip18 9 months ago
@XCritonX Good idea. Let's privatize our roads, too. Heck, let's privatize our governments.
MrStimpy77 6 months ago
just fitting our houses with solar panels would work too.
janande1 2 years ago
Crap like this is why california is giving out IOU's insted of tax refunds.
Lokivoid 2 years ago
The one question I have about this tower is why the greenhouse section is not filled with sea water. Water vapour is less dense than air so it would rise up through the tower. Then the distilled water would rain down in the immediate area creating a microclimate. The the high salt content water could then be either sold to Indonesia or the magnesium chloride could be sold to magnesium processors (perhaps using the electricity from the tower) or returned to the ocean.
drmodestoesq 2 years ago
An innovative concept to say the least.
TheCharlatanPolice 2 years ago
wow !
rickyherbal 2 years ago 2
EnviroMission Solar Tower Wins Southern California Public Power Authority: Press Release on Enviromission's website.
brettrodli 2 years ago
Large plants that use coal/natural gas produce a gigawatt, therefore you will absolutely need all five towers shown at the end to compensate. It seems it would be costly due to size and amount of panels needed, nevertheless, a good investment for the environment
atthadrivethru 2 years ago
Panels? What panels?
InfomaniacJack 2 years ago
there is no panels involved. They are glass plates. the light heat the ground. the air get heated. air flows to center because of temperature difference along the chimney. Also, the plates cross-sections are getting larger gradually before it enters the turbine hole.
whotookmynickkokokai 2 years ago
It seems that it will not be built in the near future, but it really is a good and reliable technology that will likely be built eventually. It is too bad that it isn't already being used instead of all of those non-environmental power producing methods.
justinjsaley 2 years ago
I offer a question, what if instead of the ground under the dome to water, would increase the power?
lorisdelta 2 years ago
before i learnt how the solar tower works, i thought this was a huge mirror array / dish.. n i was like what!! those people elevatorin' to the top are gonna get toasted!!! lolz
localbroadcast 2 years ago
supercool
ironbord 2 years ago
It's really? No news from company since 2007. Poorly information in official EnviroMission website. Anyway, what is building progression status? The building is started or not??? No information - no investment.
InXfactor 2 years ago
They ran into problems in their home country, Australia, because of the enormous coal lobby. Australia is a huge coal exporter so makes sense. So they went on to buy solarmission technologies in the us through a stock exchange deal. They finally aquired that company and now plan on towers in arizona i think. But I really hope they get some more support on the home market so that they can build the first tower in Mildura as planned.
InfomaniacJack 2 years ago
This thing is amazing. I hope to see more of them used, this is a great source of clean energy
NationalMan 2 years ago
Ground heat accumulated during the day keeps the tower producing at night - at a reduced rate of-course (but theres less demand anyway during nighttime).
ukthoughtpolice 2 years ago
What happens at nightime? No production?
How long does it takes to "warm up" the air before it flows with enough speed?
Can it be made at a smaller scale and still produce significant power?
What is the lifespan for this kind of mega-construction and what are the costs of maintenance?
appelezmoijoe 2 years ago
windmills slowdown airflo wich intern heaththe earth
urfavorits 2 years ago
turbins slow wind witch intern rapidle heats up the planet im 12
urfavorits 2 years ago
where does this project stands? I checked wikipedia and there is basically no news since 2007. The company (EnviroMission) still has a (pretty) website, but not much info on it.
ychack 2 years ago
Much to expensive and to inefficient compared to cheap thinfilm photovoltaic.
pegefounder 2 years ago
Carbon dioxide accounts for just 0.0383% of the atmosphere.
msg707 2 years ago
There are only wind turbines at the base because cold air or dense air at ground surface when heated up it creates convection or it raises in that way the flow and pressure of warm air ascending is greater and more efficiently used.
ymanganelli 2 years ago
why are there only turbines at the bottom? even though they would porduce less power higher up surely they should still utilise the full height of the tower
blah8460 2 years ago
I would imagine you can't put too many turbines in there, as you want the hot air to successfully evacuate the tower to be replaced with fresh air, rather than have alot of obstructions in the tower that would clog up the air flow.
KoyotoShadow 2 years ago
and require a lot more steal work, and be a lot harder to maintain, costing more, working less.
mryellow123 2 years ago
i heard it would take 7,000 of these mamoths to power the united states today. someone help me out here. it seems to me ironic and counterproductive to combat global warming by intentionally heating surface air temperatures over millions of acres of land.
Zontertes 2 years ago
200 mega watts is enough to power the rural communities in most of victoria and SW NSW (Australia) Compareed with other types of renewable energy this is second to none. America as a whole need to come up with a new statergy for 1) Fossil Fule consumption 2) Enviromenatlly savvy energy sources. So, Yes its Ironic that we have developed the tech to use the earths heat to provide power, but this would not be nessesary if capitalist didnt take the easy option for energy in the past.
shuffler13 2 years ago
is this your professional opinion?
syphor009 2 years ago 2
The History Channels Modern Marvels stated that it would take only 620 of these to power the US. At $700 million a pop that means that it would only cost $434 billion to power the US with an energy source that is always going to be here.
lapplbaum 2 years ago
i doubt this...
mrbdorr 2 years ago
it's too expensive to build.
VerystrangeMaster 2 years ago
Its only $700 million
The coal plant they are planning on building here in South Carolina is $2.2 Billion
plus, after the initial cost of construction there is nothing
podsednik22 2 years ago
This is good for developing countries due to the need for large amounts of land to build this.
MultiCamo 2 years ago
This thing is so cool
podsednik22 2 years ago
Look at the land mass required to generate 200 MWs, and I wonder what type of water use is required (these things look best suited for desert areas, where there usually is not a lot of water to waste.
AzPjb 2 years ago
I don't think any water is required
podsednik22 2 years ago 2
turbines need stream to work.
kumkeejjl 2 years ago
I pray that people don't rely on YouTube for technical information. Wow.
These are wind turbines. No steam required.
JonnyRawket 2 years ago
it doesn't need stream to turn the turbines: v=C-EvV90MeDY
kumkeejjl 2 years ago 2
is this effiecient for the cost to build....200 MW not bad...but damn thats huge
HOW MUCH?
adamberk07 2 years ago
if the turbines are at the bottom, why does so much money need to be spent on such a huge tower when it doesnt contribute anything no matter how high it is
danndan6 3 years ago
Except it does. It provides a temperature differential from the very hot air at the bottom to the very cold air at the top. If you just had a ring and no tower the hot air would "bleed" out the hole and it's speed would be greatly decreased.
By proving a "funnel" between the two temperatures you create a vertical "wind tunnel" that accelerates the hot air by "sucking" it up the tube.
Hence it's needed.
KaiLoi69 2 years ago
Overall, I have studied the cost and environmental consequences of buiding hydro-electric plants, versus the solar tower. Th recovery of costs and the availabilty of 35% of the land under the canopy for agriculture makes this project a winner. I wish to have one in Texas.
pelicanodechile 3 years ago
Cool, but I don't think it would be too high or planes would crash into it.
GunShard 3 years ago
Lmao. What plane have you been riding in? The thing is 3,000 fett, an airplane cruises at 34,000 feet. And besides, its two times larger than the Eiffel Tower, its not like its hard to see. Rofl.
littleravermouse 2 years ago
And all of that for a mere 200 megawatts ?
novola1972 2 years ago
Looks awesome, the first concept of this was apparently in 1903, i believe by a german, to have a solar chimney...
they should be building one soon i hope...when i a soon in a decade or so.
they are huuuuuuge
mrandrew89 3 years ago
I just saw the video of the pilot project. It showed the land under it became lush with vegetation. So, why not grow sugar cane, or corn and make bio-fuel? Or add solar panel fields inside? Solar panels also give off most of the energy that hits them as heat. Capture that, and use it in the wind tower.
Some one said it's less than 7% efficient. These are thoughts that could increase the efficiency of the project per acre with possible future upgrades. Point is, the land within is still useful.
Core5 3 years ago
in 2010 construction will be finished
1881113103824 3 years ago
if the radius is 1 km then it produces 200 megawatt on a surface that catches roughly 3.14 gigawatt
thats less than 7 % efficiency....
siogyumolcs 3 years ago
Bear in mind, there is NO FUEL needed, and it will abate 900,000 tons of CO2 annually. Let's not confuse efficiency with usefulness. It's not very efficient, but it is amazingly useful. -- Zehaas
zehaas 3 years ago
re: zehass
So why not instead use 30% efficient solarthermal power with heat storage?
greyfalcon. net/ solarbaseload
greyfalcon. net/ solarthermal
greyfalcon. net/ 92x92
Not to mention, it can be built at human level height, with far stronger structures, at a mere fraction of the cost, using already mass scaled materials.
greyflcn 3 years ago 2
Energy efficiency is low, cost efficiency is good though and will become better and better compared to alternatives as we run short on coal and uranium and energy certificates become more inportant.
InfomaniacJack 3 years ago
dose anyone actually know when they are gonna build this?
jughead274 3 years ago
why cant we build something like this here in the states.
nemsison 3 years ago 2
Because the oil companies sponsored every single president in the last few years.
cuivienel 3 years ago 2
Actually, enviromission is looking for possible locations in arizona and nevada.
InfomaniacJack 3 years ago
How great would it be to be the guy who performs upkeep and repairs at the base of the tower?
Ketou 3 years ago
I'm a big alternative energy advocate, but seriously, with construction costs, who is going to build something that is what, taller than the WTC? I live in NYC and we can't get a regular building built for corporate america with the same dimensions. Everyday there is some new story about the construction there.
karonise 3 years ago
Are planning regulations in NYC the same as they are in the middle of the Arizona desert?
grayajj 3 years ago 2
I doubt this tower would be two times taller than the empire state building, but tell that to the people of Dubai, the city of buildings, tall buildings, including the their own tallest, Burj Dubai. GOdDamn!!! Look like it came straight out of a comic book. Nope, that's 4 real.
vajyna 3 years ago
Ok, cool, it'll power a whole city in daytime, but I use most of my electricity at night (maybe you guys just use electricity in the daytime, as a secondary system it works, but it'll only produce about 30% of the power needed, the rest is used at night, and there's no way to store that amount of energy to use it in the night, unless of course we all had battery packs to store day supply for the night(which isn't such a bad idea either)
ivojara 3 years ago
the captured heat in the area around the tower will continue to radiate and turn the turbines even at night. the atmosphere around the top of the tower cools at night faster than the trapped heat at the base. not as efficient as daytime but still viable. also, this is an excellent way to transform a desert into lush vegetation over time.
vhulheim 3 years ago 2
Energy is produced 24/7
Heat is stored in the earth and enclosed water containers underneath the Solar plant continuing to warm the air and drive the turbines 24/7,
This is NOT photovoltaic power which disappears when the sin goes down.
grayajj 3 years ago
thats awesome. as an australian, it's good, but kind of pointless to intstall something like this because australia contributes less that 1% of carbon emissions. perhaps america should consider one
grutzner123 3 years ago
Seeing as this is for Australia perhaps an idea would be to use it as a solar still. The bottom greenhouse could be filled with salt water from Lake Eire or the ocean. The water evaporates (water vapour is less dense than air) and rises. You also put a coal powered plant next to it and also run the exhaust up the chimney/stack. This provides the particulates which water forms around to create clouds. The clouds block the sun, cooling down Australia and also when it rains well...it rains.
drmodestoesq 3 years ago
there are supposed to be heat absorbing elements on the base of each channel, enviromission's website has a simulator that explanes it better then i can, but the idea us these elements irradiate the heat to keep heating the air thus accellerating along the channels and spinning the turbines at night.
niscomok 3 years ago
actually because deserts have very cold nights (because of a lack of cloud cover) there should still be a temperature differential that allows a structure to produce energy at night.
notgay89 3 years ago
3000' feet seems to be a limiting situation. I think that having towers in the 800'(250m)would be more feasable. It would produce 5%-10% the power BUT the cost of going high becomes EXTREMELY prohibitive. A deseert community (i.e. Palm Springs, Las Vegas,... could build a series of 800' (250m) towers easier, quicker, and be more acceptable to the communities investment.
The big problem with these is not producing at night - that's where wind has them beat.
tapalmer99 3 years ago
It's going to take a LOT of energy to build that tower. It's going to take a lot of land to collect the sun's energy with that setup. perhaps I'm alone in my thinking the the tower part of the design seems redundant, why does it need to be over 3000 feet high?
dillj34555 3 years ago
It's creates a bigger difference in temperature between the heated air at base and the air at the tower outlet at the top, since air gets cooler the higher you go. Thereby it creates a higher velocity of the wind passing the turbines.
DanneMan80 3 years ago
of course it works, termites used this for several million years in principle..
not only solar but thermal energy can be used..
amet1980 3 years ago
100,000 homes, nah buiilding it isnt worth it
dunemoonbeam 3 years ago
Would be helpful if it was done in the metric system. Feet and Farenhiet mean nothing to me.
stewie847198 3 years ago 2
if u look at the end there were 5 of them near each other...
maths never was my strong point but i know that means 2 MILLION households.
misterruttle 3 years ago 2
proje güzel ama neticede güneş enerjisi ile çalışıyor.bukadar masrafa ne gerekvar?verimli solar toplayıcılar ile daha çok verim elde edilebilir.
animasyon çok iyi olmuş,emek verilmiş ama ÜTOPİK
suninox 3 years ago
you're telling me that massive thing can only power 400,000 households?
Aussiemoo 3 years ago
How many amps per hour does this thing produce on a normal windy day? (I know you don't need wind, but if) It would be so awesome if all sky scrapers were adapted to use this technology (i.e. funnels on the sides of buildings) to light up most if not all electricity.... very awesome.
FilmPA 3 years ago
sorry dude- your idea doesn't work. The tower has to be hollow (the wider the better) and needs to have flat ground below it.
If you were going to build one in London or New York, it would make more sense to sell the thing for office space and use the money to build 3 more in the country side.
peace
dietangel 3 years ago
its is hlollow and they coukd just send it throu lines
potpot106 3 years ago
Should be @ work in every country this tech. already its: very Feasble very, Environment Friendly and if have been our source of Energy befor we wont be paying this much today for power. any way, I still to see when will be implanted a Technology to make our life esier, not just a way to explor a new way for a free BIG money.
arpavac 3 years ago
no, feasibility IS a concern, do you know how expensive solar panels are? and at their current state are only converting about 30% of the light energy onto electricity...this will be a very expensive project but i guess the tourist attraction can pay for that..sure is gonna be hot up there might use some of the energy it makes to power the airconditioners
sqnshl 3 years ago
Maybe not. I noticed that the temperature rises as one approaches the base of the tower. I reason that a lot of the excess heat not being put into photoelectric effects is being redirected into the tower, causing the massive temperature difference which causes the wind tunnel effect, which very efficient. Scientists are also making some very interesting photovoltaic studies that allow for a 70% efficiency rate for solar cells. This is not to mention that it would be a new wonder of the world.
RedDaVincy 3 years ago
Didn't actually watch the video did you? Solar voltic panels/cells are not used.....
It is the thermal energy from the Sun which drives the turbines 24/7.
grayajj 3 years ago
cool I like it!
TandT2 4 years ago
lol! the size of it is huge! Beautiful way to make energi though. Keep up the good work and believe in a cleaner and greener planet :)
ChrizzyP 4 years ago
Does the funnel need to be in the centre of it, or can you build a wind pipe that goes up a nearby mountain?
easyeasy900 4 years ago
I would not think so. The key is that there is a large temperature difference between the top and the bottom. The clear plastic is a way to capture the heat near the desert floor. The mountain would have to be on the north side so that it does not shade the collection plastic. And, since the mountain would occupy the north side of the pie, it might be considerably less efficient. Maybe there are ways of capturing thermals without all that hardware.
milofonbil 4 years ago
this is very peaceful music
justgotbackfromnam 4 years ago
why not make that big circular ground cover a giant solar panel as well?
Sidlexic 4 years ago
I was thinking the same thing. But I wonder id the solar panels will block the heat.
tribluered 4 years ago
holy sfdsf!!!?!?!? now that's one huge tower. Yet it's worth the benefit, anyway.
And oh, I liked both soundtracks. The first gave a sense of peace. The second gave a sense of hope, battle, and something revolutionary.
And, albeit revolutionary, it's a bit impractical, land-wise. It takes up a pretty large land field.
However, we also consider that such acts are beneficial in general. A great concept. Let's just hope that politicians and big oil doesn't KILL it before it begins.
RiKnAp9296 4 years ago
Why not have fans inside of the tube that would generate more energy.
awake303 4 years ago
not really
Sidlexic 4 years ago
When the tower is very tall, the weight of the air column may be very heavy to start the wind that powers the turbine. However, using the turbine(s) as a fan temporarily may be a way of starting it. But in general, having a fan blow on a turbine is not going to work (due to heat and friction); It's a perpetual motion machine.
milofonbil 4 years ago
Did you actually watch the clip? The prototype in Spain worked - for years....
grayajj 3 years ago
If what is needed is just a chimney and hot air from below, than even fireplaces in houses can be used to generate electricity for the home. Can be a possibility if it is more efficient and affordable.
ArkitekturaMecanics 4 years ago
Was that a serious statement?
Dumbass, what do you think coal power is? And why do you think they are finding a solar alternative?
BECAUSE coal burning releases huge amounts of cO2 and is a huge waste of fossil fuels.
...
Eskimotto 4 years ago
so the global warming we do now will make these plants have more power later, sweet
jasonrj8992 4 years ago
Yeah. That's a weird coincidence. Or rather conflict. Global warming gives the plant more power, which reduces dependence on plants that create global warming. This will cut down global warming, AND the output of the power plants. This will make us dependent AGAIN in oil, and increase global warming. Increased global warming will make us dependent on these more powerful measures AGAIN...and ad infinitum. Weird, lol :D.
RiKnAp9296 4 years ago
The plant does not get its heat from global warming. The plastic sheet makes a greenhouse that captures heat. And then the large difference between the heat at the bottom of the tower and the top creates wind that can be harnessed with a wind turbine. Think of it as a solar-powered wind turbine.
milofonbil 4 years ago 2
Yet another stupid person.
Solar power, which is what this plant utilizes, relies on the sun. Global warming does not increase the temperature of the sun. It does raise global temperature, however this does not effect the temperature of the sun rays, it merely effects the earths atmospheric ability to disperse trapped heat.
The sun will still shine just as brightly, and will still heat up the 'greenhouse' around the tower.
Eskimotto 4 years ago
We still got solar panels. Soon or later we will have Fusion technology.
tribluered 4 years ago
maybe some day ... they've been working on it for 45 years already and have been 90% there since the 1970's.
milofonbil 4 years ago
If you like this video of the solar tower, find the Discovery Channel video (Youtube will not let me post the link) on the EnviroMission's solar tower. It is quite good. Click my alias, and you will see a list of my videos. Click the one with the hot air balloon. It is worth watching.
brettrodli 4 years ago
I find it slightly ironic that greenhouse gas emissions will be eliminated by using an absolutely fucking massive greenhouse.
luke666808g 4 years ago 4
LOL. well said
ChrizzyP 4 years ago
no actually the thing keeps working even at night... look at the other video on the one in spain..
tarvensays 4 years ago 2
wow that is HUEG!
Yggdrasill4 4 years ago
That's a lot of hot air. I wonder what it will do to the upper Troposphere... Will it stabilize the atmosphere in the region, thus reducing rain?
supertarget76 4 years ago 2
Discovery Channel in the US will be airing a full 60 minute segment on EnviroMission on Sunday, June 10 at 9pm or 10pm Mountain Standard Time. When permission is given, a 3 minute segment from that video will be put on the EnviroMission website. Also, Discovery will rerun the program over the month.
brettrodli 4 years ago
Seems like you'd want the power generation capability of these things to be closer to 1000MW each.
dinoflagelate 4 years ago
I dont think it will pay out in a country like Australia, where natural ressources are nearly for free. It woud make more sense in Spain for example. On the other hand the in Spain the ground is more expensive.
Depotmaster 4 years ago
They are not nearly free...Australians pay a global price for oil, even if the oil comes from their country. Solar tower tech can be the technology to unshackle humanity permanently.
uselogic 4 years ago
I recently wrote a paper discussing the problems and benefits associated with nuclear energy, particularly in Australia. I came to the conclusion that this tower would be far superior to nuclear energy, at least in Australia.
The logistics of building something this tall is another matter alltogether though... This tower would require a hell of a lot of funding. However, you could power the entire country off of them with zero emissions and they even operate at night. It's incredible!
Nurr0 4 years ago
Taipai 101 is 508 meters tall. This thing is twich the size BUT, it's a very simple structure. I don't see why it would need to be built of concrete...a simple foam like substance could be used...helicopters could be used to drop off the materials...it's not very hard to do. Stability...ground to tower top wires.
ThePanClasher 4 years ago
In mountainous regions could you build these on the southern side of the mountain to lower build cost's?
callmebigpapa 4 years ago
Um in Australia most the sunshine comes in on the northside (southern hemisphere ) build on the south ya be getting zero sunshine besides Australia really only got one real peak that is only about 2700 ft
seveprim 4 years ago
i Believe this could work,i wish i could make a video like this with my models,i havent made a video of it yet, because the american govenment want to buy it off me,through private enterprise,its a machine that can go faster than any aircraft,and levitates off the ground,
7405926 4 years ago
ok, this is 1 huge mofo. but i dont really undrstand, are there just a bunch of mirrors heating air causing some kind of large-scale convection current that spins turbines? and how does 200 megawatts compare to nuclear plants now? And what's the point of the clear tram thinger?, is it supposed to b a tourist attraction?
judaicspaz 4 years ago
This tower does use convection currents to generate the airflow, but it actually is a raised layer of glass/clear plate, which traps the air.
There will belots of these towers, since 200 MW is piss-poor. My computer+serverbox are eating half a megawatt as i type.
Luckily, Australia has a butt-load useless terrain
Whe i first heard of this i thought there would be a few turbines, but now i see there are heaps :(. Looks like the same maintenance problems that plague wind farms will crop up here.
mrkazman 4 years ago
Half a kilowatt. It cannot use half a megawatt, unless you are a Google server center :)
vetromaster 4 years ago
1/2 a MW is 500KW that must be one hell of a computer. You are off by a factor of 1000 your computer uses 500W
GreenEngineer07 4 years ago
A typical boiling water reactor type is from 150 MW (Smaller ones build in 50th-60th) to 1400MW (80th).
There can be other types. A very large CHPS (Combined Heat and Power Station) operating on natural gaz can have a 500 MW per boiler capacity.
vetromaster 4 years ago 2
This is a good idea in reducing greenhouse gases, if the energy used to produce the equipment is greatly offset by the energy generated by the setup in a short payback period.
communitywork 4 years ago
One of the great things about this concept is you can still have the area under the plastic as farmland or whatever else you want to do with it. In cities, it is probably much easier to put photovoltaics on rooftops because of their higher efficiency.
icuradik2 4 years ago
Also, the prototype built in Spain showed that the area under the collector area was great for growing plants! Cool!
ThePanClasher 4 years ago
Solar Towers have already been built, but not this same design...they don't appear as High Tech. One in Isreal, another in Spain. The MegaWattage is great! Imagine large wind turbines all along the inside of that tall tower. It's not for every location, but for Deserts with High Powered Grid access, the concept is worthy. Better than investing in Coal, Gas fired, large hydro, or Nuclear. Should last a long time too. (The visitor features are quite optional, and a little distracting, IMO)
pdxjules 4 years ago
But it sure is better looking than a huge coal powerplant.
yuyupil 4 years ago
looks great to me, id rather be within 2 km of this tower than 200km of a nuclear plant, and from above u could make a greek sundial clock .... lovely :) nice work with the graphics too RMIT!
girliecars 4 years ago