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

Yahoo/Reuters ^ | 1/3/03 | Michelle Nichols

[Brett66]

Australia Plans 1-Km High Structure, Taller Than CN Tower
Thu Jan 2, 9:11 PM ET

By Michelle Nichols

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - The world's tallest man-made structure could soon be towering over the Australian outback as part of a plan to capitalize on the global push for greater use of renewable energy.

By 2006, Australian power company EnviroMission Ltd hopes to build a 1,000 m (3,300 feet) solar tower in southwest New South Wales state, a structure that would be more than twice the height of Malaysia's Petronas Towers, the world's tallest buildings.

Currently, the world's tallest free-standing structure is the Canadian National Tower in Toronto at 553 meters.

The 200 megawatt solar tower, which will cost A$ 1 billion ($563 million) to build, will be of a similar width to a football field and will stand in the center of a massive glass roof spanning seven kilometers in diameter.

Despite its size, the technology is simple -- the sun heats air under the glass roof, which slopes upwards from three meters at its outer perimeter to 25 meters at the tower base.

As the hot air rises, a powerful updraft is also created by the tower that allows air to be continually sucked through 32 turbines, which spin to generate power 24 hours a day.

"Initially people told me 'you're a dreamer', there's no way anything that high can be built, there's no way it can work," EnviroMission chief executive officer Roger Davey told Reuters.

"But now we have got to the point where it's not if it can be built, but when it can be built."

EnviroMission hopes to begin construction on the solar tower before the end of the year and be generating enough electricity to supply 200,000 homes around the beginning of 2006.

The company also hopes the project will save more than 700,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year that might otherwise have been emitted through coal or oil-fired power stations.

The company has signed agreements with Australian-listed Leighton Holdings Ltd and U.S.-listed Energen Corp to determine the commercial feasibility of the solar tower, which Time Magazine recently voted among the "Best Inventions of the Year."

NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

The tower has received the support of the Australian and New South Wales governments, which have defined it as a project of national significance.

EnviroMission plans to build the tower in remote Buronga district in New South Wales. The district is near the border with Victoria state and is 25 km (15 miles) northeast of Mildura town.

It will generate about 650 gigawatt hours (GWh) a year toward Australia's mandated renewable energy target, which requires electricity retailers to supply 9,500 GWh of renewable energy a year by 2010.

The Electricity Supply Association has said A$48 billion needs to be invested in electricity infrastructure during the next two decades to meet the country's growing demand. Davey said he is keen to keep the tower's costs as low as possible to ensure its success.

"We have proved that it does work and that it can be built, but what we have got to get a handle on is the cost and we are working very strongly through that now," Davey said.

The tower -- originally known as the solar chimney -- is the invention of German structural engineers Schlaich Bergerman, who constructed a 200 meter high demonstration power plant in Manzanares, Spain, in 1982.

The 50 kilowatt plant produced electricity for seven years and then closed down after having proved the technology worked. Schlaich Bergerman now work with EnviroMission.

The project has already been given clearance by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia and will be fitted with high intensity obstacle lights to warn aircraft in the area.

[xm177e2]

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?

[NormsRevenge]

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)

[RightWhale]

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.

[boris]

"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

[Lessismore]

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.

[BenLurkin]

Yes, watch out for SARUMAN:

[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."

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

[abishai]

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.