Australia Plans 1-Km High Structure, Taller Than CN Tower (Solar Power Generation)

The 50 kilowatt plant produced electricity for seven years and then closed down after having proved the technology worked.

Why would they shut down, if they proved the technology worked?

I assume it wasn't very economical. It might work, but can building it five times as high make it profitable?

Now if this guy could do the same feat over the Aussie Candle, we might have a real story ;-o

Fri Jan 3, 4:03 AM ET

A streaker jumps over the stumps on the second day of the fifth cricket test match between Australia and England in Sydney, Friday, Jan. 3, 2003. Australia are 5 for 237 with Waugh 102 not out at stumps chasing England's first innings of 362. (AP Photo/Dan Peled)

40 football field sizes of these bad boys in the mojave desert?

That's just the tower. The glass enclosure is 5 miles or so in diameter.

"One problem I've always had with nuclear is that the true cost of generation is usually hidden. The cost of de-commissioning plants is astronomical, as is disposal of expended waste."

The high cost of nuclear plants is a direct result of "intervenors" (NIMBY) who will not and cannot be satisfied. Studies, hearings, suits, and the price of the plant goes up 10x, 100x...

The nuclear waste problem is a non-problem. The French (lousy engineers) solved it long ago. You vitrify the high-level waste, seal it in stainless steel and plant it inside a mountain. As in "Yucca".

It is a shame Dr. Petr Beckmann passed away. Access to Energy is just not the same without him. Anyway, he once observed that the total amount of high-level waste from all the nuclear plants in operation would "fill a football field to a depth of X feet" (I don't recall the height). The waste (fly ash etc) from fossil plants is enormously greater in volume and it is USELESS.

As he pointed out, more radiation is released from combustion of fossil fuels (directly into the environment due to combustion) than all the nuclear plants in the world. See, coal and hydrocarbons contain natural levels of radionucleides, which are released when they are burned.

Beckmann calculated the "numbers of cancers per year" caused by release of radiation from fossil fuels and found it dwarfed the risk from nuclear plants. If you can find a copy of his wonderful book, The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear, grab it and read it. Finest kind, finest mind.

--Boris

Los Angeles county has about 21,200 miles of public roads. If the roads are 50 feet wide on average, we get 21200 x 50 x 5280 = 5,596,800,000 square feet of roadway. Since this is more than the requisite 154 square miles, we can power California by roofing over the roads of LA with solar cells. It'll also provide some shade.

Yes, watch out for SARUMAN:

"Los Angeles county has about 21,200 miles of public roads. If the roads are 50 feet wide on average, we get 21200 x 50 x 5280 = 5,596,800,000 square feet of roadway. Since this is more than the requisite 154 square miles, we can power California by roofing over the roads of LA with solar cells. It'll also provide some shade."

And it will still cost $300 billion. More, actually, due to the complex and earthquake-proof construction which would be avoided by a big array in the desert.

BTW you would also want (in the desert) complex and expensive solar tracking hardware and software since you are not on the equator.

Also since you are trying to pull a fast one and talking about 'public roads' which includes all side streets and residential streets, alleyways, etc., you might anticipate another $100 billion for lawsuits from homeowners' associations. Even on the freeways only, you'd get suits--and probably huge damage awards when somebody gets hurt in a crash and lawyers figure out how to blame it on the "roof".

--Boris

Don't be so paranoid. Actually its hiding a huge superlaser designed to destroy Martian spaceships if they ever decide to attack and harvest our bodies for food.