Solar Towers -- A Possible Solution to the Looming Peak-Oil Crisis?

[Filius Nullius]

Solar Tower of Power

<>

Fellow Dems, would you believe me if I told you there is technology currently available that is capable of producing over 200 megawatts of renewable, pollution-free energy, that is shaped like an enormous inverted funnel (some say it looks like a gigantic bathroom plunger) and that, when constructed, will be over 1,000 meters tall? To put matters in perspective for metrically challenged individuals like myself, that is just a shade less than twice as high as the world's tallest building.

Well, it is true. The "Solar Tower" or "Solar Chimney" electrical power plant proposed by EnviroMission Ltd of Australia and SolarMission Technologies, Inc. of the U.S., holds great promise as a substitute for electricity generated by nuclear power plants and conventional power plants utilizing fossil fuel. I prefer the name "Solar Chimney" to "Solar Tower" because it is a more apt descriptive of the concept. However, it seems that most proponents of the technology and writers describing it have settled on the latter, so I will use that term for the remainder of this posting. For more information, read on or go to the Solar Mission Technologies site (<http://www.solarmissiontechnologies.com/index.html>) and also search in Google for "solar (tower OR chimney)."

This creative new type of electrical generating plant was selected by Time magazine as one of the best inventions of 2002, and it may eventually become one of the world's largest producers of clean (i.e., non-nuclear and non-fossil fuel) electrical energy. It is no exaggeration to say that it has the potential to completely revolutionize the way electricity for homes and industry and hydrogen gas for automobiles is produced in areas that receive at least moderately intense sunlight throughout the year.

Actually, an inverted funnel is exactly what the Solar Tower is. However, it is inverted because it collects and channels air, rather than liquid. A conventional funnel for liquids depends on gravity to do its work. This contraption works by defying gravity, but it is no Rube Goldberg device. As I will endeavor to show, it actually works and will immediately begin to pay for itself as soon as it is built. It may be the closest thing to a perpetual motion machine that mere mortals are able to devise. Once constructed, it uses no fuel whatsoever. Thus, once the costs have been fully amortized, we are talking about something that none of us ever thought we would see, a "free lunch," as long as we do not allow any person or group to patent the concept or obtain a monopoly.

Some of you undoubtedly already know of this wonderful invention, but many others certainly do not. I am therefore going to adopt the conceit, for purposes of this posting, that no one has heard of it. As a Democrat, the idea of these amazing structures being built throughout the land and ushering America (and the rest of the world, for that matter) into a new era of clean and abundant energy positively delights me, and I hope to instill that sense of wonder in all of you.

I also want to convey a sense of urgency because the time of peak petroleum production is approaching (if, indeed, it is not already here, as some believe), and we must begin to work on this project immediately. The reason is that the construction of these enormous devices will require vast amounts of materials, time, money and, last but not least, energy. The materials should not be a problem because they are not particularly high tech and are readily available, but time, money and energy almost certainly will.

Time is in short supply because, since Ronald Reagan came to power in 1980, we have allowed ourselves to live in a fool's paradise of artificial energy abundance, willfully choosing to ignore the fact that a day of reckoning would arrive sooner or later. Well, some now believe that the energy bill is coming due sooner, rather than later. Once we pass through the point of peak petroleum production, we will be on the back side or down slope of the supply curve. From that point on, demand, rather than supply, will begin to control energy prices. A time of spiralling inflation will return that will make it increasingly difficult to afford the energy that we need to maintain our profligate American lifestyle, let alone embark on massive construction projects.

If only we had a few of the billions of dollars that Bush and his cronies have spent on Iraq and the will to invest them here at home, rather than on foreign adventures, we might already be well on the road toward energy independence. Unfortunately, that did not happen so the money will have to be found elsewhere.

I am confident that capital can be assembled to construct one of these brilliant contraptions if the will can be found. To build a consensus on the need to do this, Democrats will have to educate the public about the inevitable energy crisis facing the nation. If we wait for cold, hard reality to arrive in the form of huge increases in energy prices, we may find that the opportunity has passed.

As Julius Caesar observed in the Shakespearean play bearing his name: “There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and miseries.” That is precisely the turning point at which we find ourselves today. At this moment in history, we face such a tide, and we (and future generations) need not be swept away by it if we seize the tools at hand and build a vessel in which we can be lifted by the flood and steer our way into the future.

Once one Solar Tower is built and demonstrates the feasibility of the concept, the road will be open to building more of them. The reason is that these things, while incredible in size, are not Mount Rushmores, built to stroke our national ego, rather than produce anything useful. A Solar Tower will produce electricity and therefore a revenue stream, a very large revenue stream at that. However, if we do not start right away, we may find, in the not too distant future, that we no longer can assemble the resources to undertake such ventures.

The Solar Tower plants currently being contemplated in Australia, China and the U.S. are truly massive in scale. The one planned for Australia will have a tower that is 1 kilometer (.62 miles) in height and a collector or "greenhouse" area under glass that is about 5 kilometers (3.2 miles) in diameter. A dramatic animated video demonstration of what a completed Solar Tower would look like may be viewed from a link on the home page of the SolarMission Technologies site. It provides an idea of the size of these plants and puts them in perspective with some of the other tall structures on the planet. Link: <http://www.solarmissiontechnologies.com/SolarTower%20Animation%202004.wmv>.

For instance, The height of the structure of the Empire State Building is 381 meters, a little over a third of the height of the Solar Tower that is currently under development in Australia. The Taipei 101 in Taipei, Taiwan, which is currently the tallest structure in the world, is just over half as high at 509 meters.

When completed, the Australian Solar Tower will be capable of generating 200 MW of electrical power and supplying up to 200,000 homes with all their electricity needs 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Best of all, once construction is completed, there are no fuel costs for the plants. Barring massive earthquakes or terrorist attacks that bring them down, such towers could last for many decades or even hundreds of years with proper maintenance. Once the construction costs have been amortized through the collection of user fees, it is likely that they will provide essentially free energy for a very long time, indeed.

Such a delicious prospect gives new meaning to the term "pie in the sky." Nevertheless, the feasibility of the "Solar Tower" concept has already been tested and proved. A prototype 50-kilowatt plant, built and operated from 1982-1989 in Manzanares, Spain by the German government using technology developed by the German engineering firm Schlaich Bergermann and Partners, demonstrated that the concept is not only feasible, but within easy reach of modern engineering and construction capabilities. See <http://www.sbp.de/en/html/home/solar_chimney_quicktime.html>.

The principle upon which the Solar Tower works is a simple law of physics: hot air rises. The tower structure collects air warmed by the sun under a semi-transparent covering and then funnels it into the tower. By making use of differences in temperature and air pressure that exist at the bottom and top of the tower, it operates in much the same way that a chimney with an open flue draws smoke out of a room. Increasing the height of the chimney to 1,000 meters simply makes the pressure differential between the top and bottom much greater and therefore increases the speed and power of the airflow. This enables it to drive bigger and more powerful turbines, which generate vastly greater amounts of electricity.

Olympic runners can attest to the reality of this pressure differential. It is why many of them train at high altitudes. The thin air makes it harder to breath and puts greater demands on their bodies, thereby increasing the training effect. When they run actual races at lower altitudes, the pressure is greater, which means that more oxygen is available, and they can run faster.

It is also analogous to the principles that drive electricity. If you increase the voltage or electromotive force between two electrical terminals (i.e., increase the electrical “pressure” differential), more electricity will flow, and it will do so faster. If you also decrease the resistance between the two terminals (i.e., build a tower or chimney to eliminate crosswinds and temperature inversions), the speed and volume of the flow will increase even more.

Hot air will be pulled from the periphery of the collector roof to the base of the tower, where it will pass through and drive 32 6.25 MW electrical turbines. At the base of the tower, the temperature will be as much as 80-100°F greater than the ambient temperature. This means that temperatures of 190°F would be common in the summer. However, under most of the glass skirt, the temperature of the air will be about 86°F, which is rather warm, but certainly not unbearable or dangerous.

For example, according to the SolarMission Technologies video, if the ambient temperature is 86°F, the temperature at the base of the tower would be 158°F. The air would cool as it rises within the tower and would exit the top at 68°F.

Wind speed in the tower will be about 38 feet per second (about 26 miles per hour). Wind speed throughout most of the solar collector will be about 20 miles per hour so it will not be a problem.

Continuous 24-hour-per-day operation of the Solar Tower will be ensured by placing sealed water-filled black tubes on the floor of the greenhouse. The tubes heat up during the daytime and radiate heat at night. They only need to be filled once. See the following Web page: <http://www.sbp.de/de/html/projects/solar/aufwind/pages_auf/principl.htm>.

The large circular glassed-in collection area at the base will be nearly perfect for greenhouse gardening and hydroponics. The water needs of the growing biomass can be at least partially supplied through the collection and recycling of water that will condense out of the hot air when it cools and passes over metal fins near the top of the tower. Actually, because of the higher humidity in the southeastern U.S., Solar Towers located there might have an advantage as far as the collection of water for agriculture is concerned.

During the day, the plants in the greenhouse will photosynthesize and produce oxygen as a byproduct. If large numbers of Solar Towers are constructed, this may actually be some help in reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Since the plants will mainly respire warm CO2 at night, that will reduce the net oxygen production somewhat, but it may also enhance the ability of the turbines to produce electricity in the evening.

Although massive in scale, the tower is relatively simple to construct because it does not have to incorporate offices or living space for humans or include elevators, stairwells, plumbing or windows. It only has to do two things: stand up and serve as a giant chimney through which hot air can rise and spin the giant turbines that generate the electricity. Since it is not a structure that would be occupied by people, it is unlikely to cause many human casualties even if it were to be completely destroyed by earthquake or terrorist attack.

No special materials will be needed. The circular tower will be built from ordinary steel-reinforced concrete using “slip form” construction (i.e., construction that uses a form that “slips” upward as each stage is completed). Tying structures spaced at roughly 300-metre intervals within the tower will reinforce the lightweight concrete. Radiating outward from the center like the spokes of a bicycle wheel, these braces will keep the tower in proper vertical alignment.

The 5 km-diameter greenhouse will be made of high-impact glass or semi-translucent polycarbonate attached to a metal frame. The prototype in Manzanares, Spain experimented with both materials and experienced no damage from the baseball-sized hailstones that occasionally pelted the project during violent storms.

The potential negative environmental consequences of generating power through fossil-fuel or nuclear power plants are well-known. In the case of fossil-fuel plants, they include CO2, SOx, NOx and particulate emissions leading to global warming, acid rain and smog and the cost of restoring the environmental damage caused by open-pit coal mines. As for nuclear plants, the hazards include the potential for nuclear melt-downs and wide-spread radiation poisoning of citizens, the contamination of regions surrounding nuclear plants for hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of years, the difficulty of safely storing lethal waste materials that have half lives measured in tens of thousands of years (raise your hand if you know of a civilization that has lasted even 5,000 years without violent regime change) and the creation of attractive targets for terrorists, to name only a few. In fact, nuclear plants have been called "weapons of mass destruction pre-positioned on American soil."

The Solar Towers, on the other hand, have a number of extremely positive characteristics, including 0 fuel costs, 0 harmful emissions, 0 nuclear waste and 0 environmental repercussions from a successful terrorist attack on a plant. As an added bonus, part of the electricity they produce can be used to power fuel cells that will produce hydrogen gas from water, which can be used as fuel for automobiles. The byproduct from this process is oxygen gas (O2), which, if released into the atmosphere, will help to reduce concentrations of greenhouse gases. When the hydrogen fuel is burned, it simply reverses the process and generates pure water.

Solar Towers also would be very difficult for terrorists to sabotage since massive amounts of explosives would be required even to dent it, and the solar tower itself is located about 1.5 miles from the periphery of the glassed-in area, a rather lengthy distance for a truck bomber to negotiate successfully. Since these plants rely on the sun, they can be positioned anywhere there is a reliable supply of intense sunlight, which is probably the case throughout the sunbelt. They therefore lend themselves to a distributed model of electrical generation that would make it difficult for terrorists to take out multiple plants simultaneously.

At a time when the nuclear industry in the U.S. is seeking tax credits, grants and regulatory waivers to build new nuclear and fossil-fuel plants, it seems only logical that the federal government should fast-track the construction of at least one Solar Tower in this country. No environmental concessions will be needed for a Solar Tower, but the same types of financial incentives being sought for nuclear and fossil-fuel electrical generation would certainly help to kick-start the Solar Tower movement. Why are our federal and state and governments willing to entertain the granting of concessions to the purveyors of technologies that have the potential of polluting and poisoning the environment while remaining adamantly opposed or, at most, apparently indifferent, to providing any kind of incentives to such promising proposals as the Solar Tower? I believe the American public would benefit from seeing a cost-benefit comparison of these plants with new fossil-fuel or nuclear power plants.

Plans are on the drawing boards or already underway to build these plants in Australia, China, the U.S. and other countries. For detailed information that almost amounts to a business plan for the Australian Solar Tower, see <http://www.aie.org.au/pubs/enviromission.htm>. Building such plants in Iran, North Korea and other developing countries could also offer a constructive solution to the current nuclear proliferation crisis.

A cost of up to AU$670 million has been predicted for the first plant in Australia. The initial cost projected for the first Australian plant is comparable with the AU$600 million cost of constructing a new 200 MW brown-coal power station and drying plant (the drying plant is necessary because brown coal is nearly 70 percent water by weight). A 200 MW black-coal plant in Australia would be less expensive at AU$440 million. AU$1 is currently worth about US$.77; conversely, US$1 is equal to AU$1.30.

As for the first U.S. Solar Tower, I am not sure how far the project has progressed. The shot in the arm for the local economy during its construction will be enormous. The first Solar Tower built in this country will cost about US$350 million and create over 2,000 jobs during its construction phase. <http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=9302015&BRD=2288&PAG=461&dept_id=474107&rfi=6>.

Accurate cost estimates for nuclear plants are difficult to find. I am certainly no expert, but, as best I can tell, they cost several billion dollars US per 1,000 MW of capacity.

Watever the cost of a Solar Tower may be in Australia, here or elsewhere, it will surely go down rapidly as an engineering infrastructure is created, construction techniques are perfected, materials manufacturing plants come online, a trained workforce is assembled and these components are replicated to more and more sites throughout the sunbelt.

The prices quoted above ignore the fact that the required infrastructure, techniques, etc. for coal-fired plants are already in place in Australia and the U.S. If those components had to be developed from scratch, the costs would be far higher. Moreover, these prices do not take into account the still largely unknown long-term environmental and health costs of sulphur, particulates and greenhouse gases emitted by coal-fired power stations. For example, each Solar Tower would abate some 920,000 tons (1.84 billion lbs.) of CO2 emissions annually from fossil fuels. That’s billion with a “b,” and we are talking about pounds of a gas that has to be highly compressed before it has any appreciable weight. They also do not take into account the cost of safeguarding nuclear wastes for hundreds or thousands of years or the incalculable expense of a serious nuclear accident or successful terrorist attack on a nuclear facility.

The first U.S. Solar Tower may be built in President Bush's old stomping grounds of west Texas, which could spark a new kind of energy boom there. See the mywesttexas.com link that appears above. Of course, this would be truly ironic since he has been so instrumental in loosening environmental regulations on conventional power-plant emissions. A site near the town of Monahans, Texas has been proposed as a suitable location due to the area's hot, dry climate, flat topography and existing energy infrastructure. However, if the plant is built at Monahans, workers would probably also be drawn from the surrounding towns of Midland, Odessa, Kermit and Andrews.

As you may have guessed by now, I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. However, if Republicans in "Bush Country" benefit from these fortuitous circumstances, that will be fine with me. I just want to see one of these “Earth-friendly” plants up and running. If that happens, the benefits from this technology will soon be apparent to everyone, and Solar Towers will begin to replace power plants that derive energy from fossil fuel and nuclear fission. They will also start generating clean hydrogen gas for automobiles that can help America finally begin to shake off its dependence on foreign oil. Nevertheless, the real winners from those developments will be not only the American people, but everyone on the planet.

Of course, some will inevitably object to these behemoths on aesthetic grounds and utter the familiar refrain, "Not in my backyard!" I can certainly understand why they may feel that way because these plants are unquestionably huge. Living immediately under these looming giants may be a little disconcerting to some, and I am sure there will be significant opposition in some areas from people living nearby.

I have read articles that say a Solar Tower will be visible from 80 km, which is just under 50 miles. However, that would require a clear day and an unobstructed view. Here in the southeast, we have lots of trees. Depending on one's location relative to a Solar Tower, I believe the landscape would screen it from view a considerable portion of the time if one is more than five or ten miles away.

I am not sure NIMBY will be a big problem out around Odessa and Midland, Texas where the first US Solar Tower may be built. They are already pretty used to oil rigs, pipelines and other energy production equipment. Of course, you wouldn't want to see them pop up in truly scenic locales, but there really aren't that many places in America that one can truthfully describe as pristine, except for national and state parks, monuments, wilderness areas, seashores, etc.

Personally, knowing that they are helping to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, reduce pollution from fossil fuels and reduce the threat from global warming, I wouldn't have a problem with them being in view anywhere I go. Hopefully, most of us will be able to get over any aesthetic qualms we have about these solar power plants in order to ensure a bright future for ourselves and our descendants.

In conclusion, two questions come to mind. First, why do we not already have at least one of these plants under construction in this country? Could it be that, once operational, these plants may help to reduce demand for coal, natural gas and gasoline in the U.S. and thereby decrease profits for Bush, Cheney and their business associates in the fossil-fuel industry who, after all, met in secret with the Vice President to formulate the Administration’s energy policy?

Second, why aren’t Democrats doing anything about this? Solar Towers have the potential to be a very "democratic" form of energy production if they are under national ownership with long-term contracts to private companies for their construction and operation. However, after the construction costs and a fair profit for the builder have been fully amortized, operating contracts should have short terms and be let out for competitive bidding. No one should be allowed to own such plants privately and convert the rest of us to energy and economic serfdom.

As we are fond of saying down here in the South, Democrats should be "all over this like white on rice." We should make sure the word gets out about the benefits of constructing Solar Towers so that never again will regulatory approval be granted in the United States for the construction of a nuclear or fossil-fuel power plant.

[Webster Green]

1. Welcome to DU!

Awesome Post!!:yourock:

[rfkrfk]

11. can the 'rest of the world', help out any?

I think this thing would be great,
if it was built and tested somewhere
other than the US.

[Filius Nullius]

53. "Build and test somewhere else"

You seem to be apprehensive that it might self-destruct, explode or something. All the engineers and architects seem to agree that it is definitely feasible. Part of the point is that it has nothing explosive or radioactive in it, will require no more than a handful of people to operate and is very safe to build and operate in an out-of-the-way place here in the U.S. I started to say "totally safe" but thought better of it; you know what they say about never saying "never." ;)

[ktowntennesseedem]

2. I second that welcome! Thanks for the very interesting post!

The link to their site and the video illustrating how it would work and what it might look like was pretty amazing. And I know how we can get the present government to start to work on one right away:

All we have to do is figure out a way to miniaturize it so that it will fit on the top of Hummers, and every Republican in America will want one for their own! (Aside from that, I imagine we'll have to wait till we have more Democrats in Congress and a Democrat in the White House.)

[patricia92243]

3. Your post was wonderful, and your attitude is delightful. Welcome to DU!

[dcfirefighter]

4. I think it's neat

but, at 200MW a pop, the US would need more than 3,000 of them. Not that its not doable, but you'd see a 1km tall tower from just about every point on the surface of the country. Of course, that's better than being able to see the air at every point in the country...

[TroubleMan]

6. This is the first one, possilby future designs will put out more energy

Just speculation on my part, but if they could up the output, and it actually works like it says it works, then we might have something here.

[patricia92243]

12. We would get accustomed to looking at them to the point that we would

hardly know they exist - just like we do with ugly telephone poles.

Also, when satellite dishes first came out, they were huge and set in peoples yard and we just ignored them until they got smaller (Thank goodness.)


Knowing how technology advances so fast, they would probably be smaller or somehow less obtrusive as years go by.

[phantom power]

19. These things can't be miniaturized.

The physics of it is that the smaller the tower, the less convection you will get. I'm sure you can get some leverage in terms of the wind turbines, but these things aren't ever going to become much smaller.

[Filius Nullius]

50. "Ugly telephone poles"

The adjective I would use to describe them would be "awesome," rather than "ugly." However, I agree that, despite their gargantuan size, they will, in time, become an accepted and unremarkable part of the landscape that future generations hardly notice. If they do notice them and comment, it will be to commend the ancient civilization who built them for its wisdom and foresight.

[NEOBuckeye]

5. I think you might have something there.

I happen to believe that there are many possible solutions to the Peak Oil/Energy Crisis. Dr. Hubbert himself pointed towards harnessing the energy of the Sun as one of those possibilities. It is perhaps the best and only one suitable for the long term sustainability of human civilization on Earth. The Solar Tower seems like it might very well be a component of a comprehensive, far reaching strategy to do just that.

I still say that we have quite a period of strife and hardship ahead of us before we arrive at the point where solar is providing us with the majority of our power, however. Big Oil and other major Commercial/Industrial/Financial interests with a stake in maintaining the status quo will do all that they can to block just this sort of thing from emerging, because it would utterly destroy their choke-hold on humanity. But whether they like it or not, the implications of Peak Oil will eventually drive them from power, if not destroy them entirely.

On the other hand, since the US is so bogged down by the cruelties of corporate/capitalist greed, it might just be a country like Australia, China or India, or even the EU which sees this as the way to go and takes the lead in preparing for the Post-Oil Age.

Welcome to DU!

[satya]

7. Very cool! Thanks. Clean energy that takes money out of the pockets

of the Bush Family Evil Empire is A-OK with me!

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[clem_c_rock]

8. Great post - Someone's actually presenting some sense here

You've done a bit of homework I see.

Thanks for the post and Welcome to DU!

[Poor Richard Lex]

9. great post, gives me hope

this is a simple idea really, a chimney, been around for thousands of years.

The only concern that comes to mind is aircraft operating around them. 1km towers all over the place would be a problem for air traffic, especialy around cities.

[lostinacause]

10. What a sales pitch. (Not implying that you are trying to sell it)

You did your research

A few small corrections:
1) A perpetual motion machine defies the laws of thermodynamics. (In this case solar energy is being added)
2) The reason why runners train at higher altitudes is due to absolute pressure not relative pressure. The absolute pressure is what determines the amount of oxygen in air.

Regardless; thank you for the information.

Regarding other renewable resources, two other places to look for non-renewable energy sources are wind and tidal. Wind turbines have become an integral part of the landscape approaching the foothills here in Alberta (Canada).

[Filius Nullius]

48. Perpetual Motion Machine

Of course, you are right. I meant "perpetual motion" in the figurative sense of there being no need for humans to do anything once it is set in motion.

I will take your word for the difference between absolute and relative pressure.

I agree that all kinds of alternative energy sources need to be investigated and used, if feasible.

[Filius Nullius]

49. Perpetual Motion Machine

Moderator, this was a mistake, in which I inadvertently duplicated the previous post. If possible, please delete.

[dutchdoctor]

13. Hate to burst your bubble, but this would never work.

The maximum capacity of the U.S. electricity grid is 905 gigawatt. (2002 number).
To reach that capacity you would need 4,500 of these 200mW solar towers.
Mind you that is only to generate all the electricity needed, you'd still need gas to power your cars and planes.
According to enviromission each solar tower covers about 10,000 acres, which is 100 square miles. The total land surface of the U.S. is 9 million square millions, which means that to generate enough electricity, you'd have to cover 5% of the country with 1km high solar towers. I don't think that's realistic. The real number would even be much higher because I don't think these towers can produce 200mW continually, capacity will drop dramatically in winter and when its dark.

[dcfirefighter]

14. I thought the area was 8 sq mi / tower

[dutchdoctor]

16. I made a typo, should have been square kilometers, too late to edit.

This official website says its 10,000 hectares (=100 sq km) I also misspelled the area of the U.S. it should have been square kilometers instead of square millions (DUH!) The numbers still add up and the conclusion still stands though

edited for clarification

[Strelnikov_]

17. As A Civil Engineer, I Like How It Notes It Will Be Twice As High

as any structure built to date. All for 200 MW. Wonder if anyone has really considered the superstructure and foundation requirements for this beast. What about seismic design for a structure of this configuration. Probably one reason the construction keeps getting pushed back. Just a Popular Science cover story at this point.

Not to mention, how does it address the looming liquid fuels crises, since it generates electricity. Why not just build wind farms?

Man's experience with massive structures of this type are not good. Look at the problems with the big dig popping up in Boston.

Since the 'tube' is just a tailpipe, I have wondered if the 'tube' could be constructed of fabric, and held aloft by buoyancy. That is, balloons, envision annular rings of balloons around the fabric tube core. The buoyancy rings could be held together by steel cable (light and strong). This would be a possible way around what I see as the prohibitive weight of a rigid 'tube' structure. Just thinking out loud. Without hard data, no way to know if it would be feasible.

[Filius Nullius]

26. "Burst Bubble"

You're not bursting my bubble. I just want to get a conversation started. I appreciate your input.

I believe your figure of 905 gigawatts for 2002 is high. I checked and found that the combined capacity for the U.S. and Canada for 2004 was 938,615 MW. The capacity for the U.S. alone was 828,631 MW. Let's round that up to 850,000 MW. The percentage mix for the U.S. was 51% coal, 19% nuclear (or "nukyuler," as Dubya would pronounce it), 15% natural gas, 9% hydro, 4% oil and 2% other. Subtracting hydro and "other" (which probably represents alternative energy sources, such as wind and photovoltaic, that would not be replaced), leaves 89%. Multiplying that times 850,000 gives 756,500 MW. Let's round that down to 750,000 MW since we have already rounded up substantially. Dividing 200 MW into that reveals that 3,750 Solar Towers would be required to replace all of the fossil-fuel and nuclear generating plants in the U.S.

I double-checked the diameter of a Solar Tower and found that some Web pages said it would be 3.2 mi. and others said 3.5 mi. Let's say it is 3.5 mi. Plugging half of that (1.75 mi.) into pi r-squared produces 9.62 sq. mi. However, there will surely be outbuildings and parking lots, and land in the U.S. is usually parcelled out in squares and rectangles, so let's say the area will be 3.5 mi. squared, which is equal to 12.25 sq. mi. When that is Multiplied by 3,750, the result is a Total Solar Tower Footprint (TSTF) of 45,937.5 sq. mi.

The total area of the U.S. is 3,539,227 sq. mi. Subtracting the total area of Alaska, which is 663,267 sq. mi., leaves 2,875,960 sq. mi. Dividing the TSTF by the total area of the lower 48 gives us 0.016 or 1.6% of the total land area. But let's say that only about 1/2 of the total area of the contental U.S. is suitable for Solar Towers. I have no idea whether that is reasonable, but let's use it for the sake of argument. That means that 3.2% of of the total suitable land area of the continental U.S. would be covered.

However, if the percentage of "other," i.e., alternative energy, were to increase substantially, that would decrease the number of Solar Towers required. Of course, the Bush Administration's energy policy is on its head. Next year, the Administration is phasing out the $2,000 tax credit for purchasing a hybrid vehicle, which gets over 50 miles per gallon, but will maintain the $25,000 tax write-off for a Hummer, which gets 10-12 m.p.g. Go figure. I don't even know what the current credit or deduction is for installing solar panels or other alternative energy generating equipment in one's home. I searched on the Web and could only find stuff pertaining to Canada. I am sure it is miniscule or has been phased out entirely, knowing how the President and his Administration are solidly behind energy conservation.

[dutchdoctor]

34. Thanks. Our numbers are not that far apart.

I would back up my number for U.S. energy consumption with links, but I can't find them anymore.
Anyway, your numbers are less than 10% apart from mine when it comes to energy consumption, so lets not go into that.

I also noted that when you calculate the area from the diameter stated on the enviromission website, you get a much smaller area than the area that is mentioned on the website of the wentworth shire council where the tower is planned, which says:

"The figures for the project itself are equally impressive. The tower complex cost, without attendant infrastructure, is estimated at $700 million; the tower will be one kilometer high - the tallest man-made structure on Earth and incorporate 700,000 cubic meters of concrete; the accompanying 'green house' will have a radius of 3.5 kilometers, cover about 10,000 hectares and require 38 million square meters of covering."

I think they would know how much land is involved, so I am going with their 10,000 hectares = 100sq.km. figure.


You're right of course that more sensible cars would reduce the amount of fossil fuel burnt, however, if hydrogen powered cars ever become reality, this is likely to INCREASE the amount of electricity needed, so we would actually need more solar towers, not less

Another thing: what would be the environmental effect of thousands of 1km high towers creating huge currents of circulating air? I am sure it would somehow affect the weather, but I am no weather expert.

[Filius Nullius]

37. "Numbers not that far apart"

Actually, I believe I got my original numbers -- 5 km. and 3.2 mi. from the SolarMission Technologies site: http://www.solarmissiontechnologies.com/project-collector.htm. I consider them to be the best site in this country. Perhaps I am just missing it, but I don't seem to be able to find the diameter on the Enviromission Ltd. site.

I just double-checked the SolarMission numbers by multiplying 5 km. x 0.6213712 mi./km., and I got 3.106856 so it is actually less than either figure I used. Whoever produced the Web site for them must have inadvertedly dropped the zero when they were rounding (or just rounded up to be conservative about the amount of area covered). Anyway, when you plug 1.6 mi. into pi r-squared, you get 8.0384 sq. mi.

Don't forget that the formula is pi r-squared, not pi d-squared. You get much larger numbers when you use the diameter, rather than the radius, since it is squared. Of course, when you do the numbers in km., you get larger numbers, too. 3.14 x 2.5-squared = 19.625 sq. km. However, the 100 sq. km. number is way off -- over 5 times too large (for the circle itself)!

When you square 3.2 mi. (to determine the size of the smallest square the circle would fit into), you get 10.24 sq. mi. Squaring 5 km. would, of course, give you 25 km.

As you say, using part of the electricity to produce hydrogen for automobiles will increase the number of towers needed. However, I do not see that as a reason for not building any of them. Energy is going to be needed to convert water to produce 2H2 and O2. The options for its source are basically threefold: nuclear, fossil fuel or nenewable sources, like sun and wind. I would vote for the latter.

The point you raise about the weather is a good one. It needs to be studied. The main effect that comes to my mind would be the possibility of creating rain clouds at heights of 1 km. that might not otherwise be there. However, I surmise that the effects would be mitigated by the fact that a portion of the humidity in the air exiting the tower is condensed and collected within the tower and recycled to the greenhouse to aid in the in vitro farming efforts. Of course, the flip side is that the air leaving the tower will be drier than would otherwise be the case and will therefore be less likely to produce rain. That might not be particularly good for desert areas. If the prevailing winds are west-to-east, and Solar Towers are built on the eastern edge of the desert that might not matter very much. Also, the relatively dry air that would be entering at the bottom of a Solar Tower located in the desert will have less humidity in it to begin with than one located in the southeastern U.S.

Anyway, looks like it will give the weathermen something else to think about, but I suspect the effects will be minimal.

[Filius Nullius]

51. "Maximum capacity of U.S. electricity grid"

You may be right about the size of the U.S. grid. I have seen figures that run both ways, but the Energy Information Administration of the Dept. of Energy seems to support your numbers: <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html> My info came from a PowerPoint slideshow on a Vermont govt. energy site (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, July 20, 2004): <http://www.cec.org/files/pdf/POLLUTANTS/Pres-Harold-Garabedian%20_en.pdf>. Of course, the Vermont source is later, but the EIA would seem to be more of a primary source since I believe DOE is responsible for collecting this information. I'm not conceding just yet, but I suspect I may have committed an embarrassing lapse of judgment in my selection of an authority. If there is anyone with wisdom out there who can sort this out, jump in. However, as you have said, the difference isn't great.

[davepc]

15. That a hell of a lot of habitat and acreage to wipe out for 200mw

Nuclear power is cheap, just as clean, safe, and tons more efficient, and has a much smaller footprint.

[iconoclastNYC]

18. If it is on unusable land

What is the problem? I don't think you'd see this stuff put on the best farmland...that land would be too expensive to purchase anyway.

If they can make these into hydropnic farms then its net benefit as far as land useage.

Our energy future will include solar, wind, hydro, biomass, nuclear, and new things like this. It will take all of these technologies to fix the problem with buring fossil fuels.

So people who do some quick math and say: "it would take 3000 of these" are really missing the point.

[phantom power]

20. Unused by who?

All land is habitat for animals and plants.

[iconoclastNYC]

21. Thanks for the insight.

WOW...i guess that includes the land under coal power plants too, huh?

Learn something every day!

[phantom power]

22. It sure does. Or, nuclear plants.

But you can generate gigawatts of power with, say, a nuclear plant, on much less than 25K acres.

[iconoclastNYC]

23. Put it in a dessert?

There is tons of land that goes unused that would be suitable for this.

[phantom power]

24. A desert would be the most effective location.

But deserts aren't empty wasteland, they are home to fragile ecosystems. Building a bunch of these things in a desert would have the same kind of impact as massive oil drilling in ANWR. In fact, it might actually be worse, considering the very large acreages involved.

I just want to raise the point that these things have their own kind of environmental costs, and they are significant. Combine that with the relatively small amount of power they actually generate, and they aren't very attractive.

In addition to a very large land footprint, the environmental cost of the construction materials alone would be significant, considering the enormous scale of these structures.

[iconoclastNYC]

25. DUH

Naysayers like you just love to point out the obvious.

What about strip mining and drilling to make fuel. This uses no fuel. This is basically free power. It would only take a few years for it to pay for itself.

What sort of power do you advocate? There is no form of energy creation that uses zero resources, but this one comes close.

And as far as a desert being a complex ecosystem. Newsflash this would replace coal and oil which is destroying the entire PLANET.

I'm so sick of naysayers pointing out facts that are obvious to everyone, are pretty irrelvant and who refuse to weight them against the downsides of what we have now, or the risks of doing nothing.

[phantom power]

27. I'm advocating nuclear power, not "doing nothing"

Solar towers aren't free. Building enough of them to actually satisfy our energy requirements would take enormous resources, and use up enormous amounts of land.

Satisfying the same energy demand with nuclear power would require far less land, and even far fewer raw materials.

Is that also obvious to you?

[whosinpower]

28. Yeah but

Nuclear power also uses resources that are not renewable.....same issue as fossil fuels. There is only so much uranium in the world. And, in the event of a nuclear meltdown, such as Chernobyl - just think of all the square miles that are unihabitable for oh say a 1000 years!!!!
If one of these towers collapsed - it would not poison the land, people, air and water for generations.

[Massacure]

29. The issue of how much uranium is in the world is a moot point.

Erosion puts it into the ocean faster than we will ever draw it. And there is enough of it that erosion will keep putting it into the ocean for longer than the Sun is around. Nuclear is only non-renewable if we plan on moving the Earth to a different solar system in the next 4.5 billion years, but we aren't capable of that yet.

Besides, Chernobyl's safety systems were shut down by the reactor scientist because they were trying an experiment. The Soviets were a bunch of idiots. On top of that, Soviet reactors didn't have containment structures like the United States reactors do.

[dcfirefighter]

30. How much does it cost to build a nuke plant

per 100MW?

Solar tower at 200MW (peak? average?, lets go peak, and say 100MW average).

Requires $350M in resources and materials, and 8 sq mi of land. It's made of completely recycleable steel, concrete, and glass, so at end of useful life, could be imploded. Operating costs include the costs of cleaning glass, maintaining wind turbines, and tower maintenance. I'd guess not more than $7M/yr.

What are the costs for one of the new nuke designs?

I'm fairly 'pro' nuke, but I think we aught collect the externalities as much as possible (and return them to the citizens) and allow 'the market' to sort them out.

[Massacure]

31. It depends. It would cost a lot less if the U.S. were less bureaucratic.

But right now it is about $4-6 billion for a 1,000 megawatt reactor. France built their N4 reactors with 1450 megawatts of capacity for $4.1 billion dollars though.

[phantom power]

39. Yes, but you need more of them

Let's say it is 100MW (avg). Using the "France" figure for nukes, we have $4billion per 1400MW.

We'd need to build 14 towers to equal that one nuke, so that's 14*350 = 4.9billion.

So, the cost per gigawatt is fairly comparable. But nukes use less land, and fewer raw materials.

It really comes down to risk assessment. Even accounting for Chernobyl, the data indicate low risk for nuclear power. I don't really know what the risks are for a concrete tower that size.

[Filius Nullius]

47. Chernobyl and other accidents

In your discussions, please keep in mind, not only Chernobyl and 3-Mile Island, but also the other accidents and near accidents that have occurred, including the Windscale Pile No. 1 accident, which occurred north of Liverpool, England in 1957 and resulted in the contamination of a 200-sq. mi. area there, and the Kryshtym accidents, which are believed to have occurred between 1953 and 1961 in the Ural Mtns. of the former Soviet Union. Both are among those listed at <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001457.html>. What is known about Kryshtym is described at <http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/CIA-Nader-Ural-AccidentsNYT26nov77.htm>. Note this account from an unnamed observer: "'Highway signs along the way warned drivers not to stop for the next 20 to 30 kilometers because of radiation. The land was empty, there were no villages, no towns, no people, no cultivated land, only the chimneys of destroyed houses remained.'" 25 km. would be equal to about 15.25 miles. However, the witness was talking about a linear driving trip through the contaminated area. It would more likely have been circular in shape, which would mean that an area of over 180 sq. miles would have been affected.

Of course, what worries me most is the "incident" that has not happened yet, which will occur when terrorists who have gotten their hands on some of the unaccounted material from the former Soviet republics explode a dirty bomb in the United States or some other western country. Do we really want to continue making more of these materials and expect future generations to keep safeguarding our radioactive excrement for thousands of years?

[NNadir]

32. Um, you should probably look at the Chernobyl exclusion zone.

It is what people call a "viridian park," an area of extreme environmental diversity and richness. There are many endangered species thriving there.

"During recent visits to Chernobyl, we experienced numerous sightings of moose (Alces alces), roe deer (Capreol capreolus), Russian wild boar (Sus scrofa), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), river otter (Lutra canadensis), and rabbits (Lepus europaeus) within the 10-km exclusion zone. We observed none of those taxa except for a single rabbit outside the 30-km zone, although the time and extent of search in each region is comparable."

http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chernobyl/wildlifepreserve.htm

Chernobyl, the existent worst case is about the best argument for nuclear power there is. Very clearly, the rather dubious claim of anti-nuclear activists (among whom I was once included) that life on earth would end upon the release of the entire inventory of fission products from a large reactor did not pan out. The problem of another Chernobyl has been more or less engineered away based on the experience of the accident itself and analysis that inevitably followed. Even so, the world could afford another thirty Chernobyls before it could afford the collapse of just one atmosphere.

The argument for these silly solar towers is pretty typical of what one sees in the face of our dire crisis: Head in the sand daydreaming, deep fantastic investment in the unproven, untested and unfunded technology with the magic word "solar" in it, to the exclusion of the safe, well developed and (now) almost perfectly understood scalable technology because it has the word "nuclear" in it. (Quick, why is an MRI not called an NMRI?)

Many thousands of nuclear plants will be built in coming decades, assuming that global climate change doesn't kill us first. (In fact the if there proves to be a reason global climate change doesn't kill us, it will be nuclear power.) As a result, there will be nuclear accidents, just as there are accidents with every technology. However I can assure you that such nuclear accidents as occur will never be on the scale of what will happen if those plants are NOT built.

[Filius Nullius]

38. Nuclear power

I guess the biggest problem I have with nuclear power, aside from the storage issue (which is a big one for me), is what I call the "Jurassic Park Dilemma" (don't get me started on Michael Crichton 'cause I believe he really soiled himself in his latest work "State of Fear"). You will recall that Malcolm, the guy who was the Chaos Theory expert in the book and movie, predicted dire consequences if the scientific equivalent of Murphy's Law ("If anything bad can happen, it will") ever kicked in, which, of course, it did in a "big" way. Although the odds of it occurring may be long, it only takes one "boo boo" with a nuclear power plant to commit a horrific crime against the planet and humanity. It is immoral to take that chance. We are talking about one of the most profound issues of generational equity here since, as we all can hopefully agree, we are only renting the Earth from future generations. There is no possibility of a major mishap with Solar Towers, and they are therefore far superior to nukes from a moral standpoint.

[Filius Nullius]

42. Post Script on Nukes

One more thing about nuclear power. After Chernobyl, 3-Mile Island and God only knows how many secret disasters in the former Soviet Union, expanding the use of nuclear power as the solution to our energy problems probably needs to be moved to the head of the "Top 10 List of Attempts to Test Fate." As Einstein once said, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." I'm speaking in generalities here, not calling anyone out or engaging in ad hominem attacks. I am just saying that, for myself, speaking as one member of the human race, don't add my name to the petition for more nuclear power.

[NNadir]

55. OK, we won't add you to the list of people who want to save the planet.

This is not an issue of moral neutrality however. You are either for saving the world, or you are against it.

The problem of global warming is not up for a vote. It exists whether people embrace stupidity or whether they embrace reality, just as the problem of the bubonic plague was related to rats and fleas and not to some offense to "god."

On the subject of nuclear energy and stupidity it is very clear how Einstein's famous dictum applies. I note that the peace activist and Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe, who died a few weeks ago at the age of 98, who knew Einstein personally, who worked with him, who was, in fact, a peer of Einstein's, and who solved problems that Einstein could not solve, was, since he helped to invent it, quite insistent that the world was in dire need of more nuclear energy. There's a full paragraph on the subject in Dr. Bethe's NY Times obituary.

(Would that Dr. Bethe's passing had garnered the attention of the death of the abysmally ignorant bishop of Rome, but we are living in a world of ascendant stupidity.)

No one should object to practical solar energy, proven solar energy, of which wind power is the finest example. To the extent that it is affordable and scalable, solar energy has many positives.

I have zero moral patience however with people who want to consider nuclear power in isolation, who think it is enough to say "Chernobyl" without demonstrating a single case of risk free power. It is extremely stupid in my view to consider anything in isolation from its alternatives as people seem to feel comfortable doing in the case of nuclear energy. Here's a fact: Every fucking person who gets in a car to drive to the store and get a container of milk, or for that matter merely lives in Los Angeles is taking a risk that dwarfs the risk of being killed in another Chernobyl type accident. The risks associated with solar energy other than wind are vastly higher than the risks associated with nuclear energy. This has been demonstrated time and time and time again and still people insist on this "flat earth," nonsense.

I know for a fact that the first case of a construction worker killed building one of these silly towers will be completely ignored, that the greenhouse gases generated in their construction will be presented as if they don't exist, that people will pretend that no habitats were destroyed by these vast land inefficient plants, etc, etc. Moreover the scheme is unlikely to work. Under our planetary circumstances which belong to all human beings, not just middle class American armchair energy ostriches engaged in futuristic daydreams, this is not merely ignorant; it is also immoral. I make this harsh statement this as the father of two young children. In my mind, anti-nuclear propagandists are trying to kill my boys, trying to cut their lives short.

Thus my fire.

There's a kind of shorthand that one can use in making an evaluation of thinking that is obviated when people evoke Einstein and Chernobyl in the same paragraph.

Is nuclear power safe? The answer depends entirely on whether or not you can think.

[Filius Nullius]

43. Naysayers

Thanks for the assist.

[Filius Nullius]

33. Would you believe Net Cash Flow of $92 Million per year?

9.62 or 12.25 acres (depending on how you calculate it) and $350 million in exchange for 200 MW of non-poluting, radiation-free energy, virtually in perpetuity? The Romans built concrete structures like the Pantheon that have lasted 2,000 years with no structural steel. Let's say a Solar Tower lasts, on the average, 1/10th of that or 200 years. 200 MW x 24 hrs./day x 365 days/yr. x 200 yrs. = 350,400,000 MWhrs. If we use 12.25 acres as the total footprint for the plant, that's 28,604,082 MWhrs. of electrical production per acre over the projected life of the project.

The national average retail price of electricity in 2003 across all sectors averaged $.0742 per kilowatthour. Source: Energy Information Agency, DOE. That's $74.20 per MWhr. Multiplying that by 350,400,000 MWhrs. per Solar Tower produces gross revenues of $25,999,680,000 (unadjusted for inflation), compared to an initial cost of $350 million and $0 fuel costs. Dividing the gross revenues over the 200-yr. lifetime by 200 yrs., the resulting annual revenues (again, unadjusted for inflation) would be $129,998,400.

Of course, there will be administrative costs, maintenance costs, insurance costs, etc., which may come to a few million a year. Let's say the annual expenses are $9,998,400/yr. (remember, there are no fuel costs, which are far and away the biggest cost of a conventional fossil-fuel plant), leaving $120,000,000 in annual net operating revenue in year 1.

Let's say the entire $350 million cost of building the Solar Tower is financed at 7% per annum over 30 years. If the loan is fully amortized, the monthly payment would be $2,330,000, and the annual total of the payments would be $27,960,000. Subtracting this from the $120,000,000 net operating revenue leaves annual net revenue of $92,040,000. Not too shabby a cash flow! With no prepayment penalty on the loan, you could pay it off in about 3.8 years.

I am far from being a financial wizard so someone should check my figures. Then, too, I am plugging in some numbers that I pulled from thin air. Nevertheless, even if I am high by as much as half on the net annual revenue of $92 million, it still looks like a fantastic winner to me!

[dutchdoctor]

35. How does that compare to the cash generated by agriculture?

I am ignorant on both financial and agricultural issues, so I'll be a coward and just ask the question without providing an answer.
Somehow I think there are more profitable uses for such large areas of land, perhaps by growing crops that can serve as biofuel?

[Filius Nullius]

40. Agricultural issues

I believe that is what the greenhouse is all about. By the way, unlike crops grown out of doors, those grown under the solar collector will be largely immune to droughts, pestilence, hail, etc. At worst, if someone goofs in a particular Solar Tower and allows, say, contamination by some kind of fungus to get in, the effects will most likely be limited to that facility.

[dcfirefighter]

45. Greenhouse algae biodiesel

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Regarding algae grown in open raceway ponds, no greenhouse:
"NREL's research showed that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from 200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780 square miles, roughly 500,000 acres), "

That is almost 10 Million gallons per square mile without green houses. From 10 square miles of greenhouses, that's 100 million gallons of biodiesel, at about $1 a gallon....

[One_Life_To_Give]

36. I get approx. 6136.4 acres

I don't know how you calculated the size to get 9.6 or 12.2 acres.
30 million square yards of collector is 6136.36 acres. Alternatively 3.5 mile diameter is 9.62 sq. miles which is approx. 6096 acres.

As a bulk energy supplier the site will only get paid Wholesale Rate for electricity of about $0.02 per KWH, or $20.00/MWH assuming no down time and constant 100% generation it would produce 1.75 million MWH's per year yielding a annual gross revenue of $35million, or approx. $5,800 per acre.

[Filius Nullius]

41. Acres

Please re-read my posts. I have been using square miles and square kilometers, not acres, in these discussions.

[One_Life_To_Give]

44. I did

From your post #33

9.62 or 12.25 acres (depending on how you calculate it) and $350 million in exchange for 200 MW of non-poluting

[Filius Nullius]

64. Acres vs. Sq. mi.

Sorry for not responding sooner. I've been out of town this weekend. You are absolutely right. I did say acres, but I meant sq. mi. in both places in post 33. I never did any calculations in acres. I must have read someone else's post and somehow got acres in my head for the units as I was writing that post. My apologies.

[Viking12]

56. 10,000 hectacres = 25,000acres = 38 Square Miles

Roughly estimated.

[phantom power]

57. Mathematica tells me it's 39.06 square miiles.

(as if we need four significant figures)

[One_Life_To_Give]

58. Didn't find the reference to 10,000 Hectares

I found referneces to the Diameter of the collector and to the area of the collector. 3.5 miles and 30 million square yards respectively.

DO you have a link for the 10,000 Hectares?

[Viking12]

59. Links

"The tower complex cost, without attendant infrastructure, is estimated at $700 million; the tower will be one kilometre high - the tallest man-made structure on Earth and incorporate 700,000 cubic metres of concrete; the accompanying 'green house' will have a radius of 3.5 kilometres, cover about 10,000 hectares and require 38 million square metres of covering."

The tower complex cost, without attendant infrastructure, is estimated at $700 million; the tower will be one kilometre high - the tallest man-made structure on Earth and incorporate 700,000 cubic metres of concrete; the accompanying 'green house' will have a radius of 3.5 kilometres, cover about 10,000 hectares and require 38 million square metres of covering."

http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/

The Solar Tower is hollow in the middle like a chimney. At its base is a solar collector -- a 25,000-acre, transparent circular skirt.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66694,00.html

[Filius Nullius]

65. Wholesale vs. Retail Rates

I admit that I know very little about electricity rates. Can you provide a source for that $0.02 per KWH?

So $.0542 out of the current avg. retail rate of $.0742 would go to the utility that distributes the power? Wow! If that is the case, it seems like a pretty steep tariff for the use of its distribution lines. Even sharecroppers get 50%. Do you know if that is a prorata portion of its costs plus a reasonable profit?

[Filius Nullius]

46. Plaudits and Criticism

Thanks to all for the critiques, as well as the back pats. It takes more than one point of view to have an interesting and healthy dialog.

I especially wish someone would dig into the numbers presented in "Would you believe Net Cash Flow of $92 Million per year?" This was just a "down and dirty" attempt to see if these things actually can generate a profit. The numbers really are pretty fantastic and difficult to believe. I am not a financier or accountant. Verification or repudiation is needed. Let the chips fall where they may! If anyone can expand on my comments, that would be great, too.

[Filius Nullius]

52. Kick

Any chance of kicking this to the main level? It covers a lot of territory.

[hunter]

54. Yeah, here's a kick...

..in the butt.

Here's the google "satellite view" of the Palo Verde nuclear generating station in Arizona. These are three reactors, 1270MWe each.

The cooling water comes from Phoenix as sewage.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Phoenix+Arizona&ll=33.387215,-112.865617&spn=0.051670,0.056562&t=k&hl=en

The flora and fauna of the American deserts would much rather see something like this than those acres and acres of solar farms you propose.

Yes, the Palo Verde plant could be replaced with dozens and dozens of very expensive solar plants, taking up more than ten square mile each.

I am so impressed!

But when I run the numbers, sorry, I've got to tell you, keep your bloody hands off of my desert.

[NNadir]

60. Gee, I could have written that...

...except I don't live a desert. :-)

:bounce:

[ChemEng]

63. Kick!!!!!

[Coastie for Truth]

61. Siemens

was doing some work on a prototype (math model ? Computer model?) a few years ago. They also had some MHD collectors/electrodes in the tower. They gave some papers - got some patents -- and then it was all over.

[Codeblue]

62. If we were to build these

a major restructuring of the U.S. electricity grid would be in order.

Hell, it already needs a major overhaul after that major blackout in the northeast. It is so inefficient that regardless, something needs to be done about it.