[RightWhale]

Wow! They're actually going to do this?

[Dan Day]

Wild.

[Dan Day]

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.

Let's see... An essentially flat circular glass building with 414.2 MILLION square feet of glass... What size army of window washers is it going to take to keep this thing clean as dirt and dust settle down on it?

And one good hail storm could ruin their whole day.

[shadowman99]

It's Isengard!!! Saruman is going to build his army there!!! Dont fall for it!!!!

[Riley]

It's only a matter of time before that French lunatic that climbs everything gets there and climbs it.

Pretty cool idea-- I hope they do build it.

[boris]

"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."

Five hundred and sixty three million American dollars to build a plant that produces only 20% of the power that a 'standard' fossil or nuclear plant develops....

What a fine investment.

What an innovative use of real estate.

--Boris

[RJL]

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.

They are worried about greenhouse gases, but here, they are merely bypassing the greenhouse gases and directly creating global warming using a huge greenhouse!

[Richard Kimball]

This is pretty interesting. If it costs 553,000,000 American to build, and will actually supply 200,000 homes, that comes out to less than three grand per household. This makes it all come down to operating costs. If you get 20 years out of it before significant maintenance, that puts the per household cost at approximately $140 per year for the structure itself. This seems pretty reasonable.

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.

I'd be curious as to what the comparative expenses would be. How much per household (average) is the cost of the plant and the fuel used per annum? I know the South Texas Nuclear Plant nearly bankrupted Austin, TX with cost overruns, although the generating capacity far exceeds what this would produce.

Hey Boris! I know you're negative on this, but you seem to understand a lot about the industry, so how much would they save on not having to purchase fuel? Would it be enough to offset construction costs?

[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)