Originally posted by googlefudgethey estimate that 3% of the incoming sun's energy will be output as electricity,
not very efficient however. and has possible effects on the local climate.
however this is not the most important measure of efficiency for a power station.
the important measures involve incoming money, and resources, and the outgoing electricity and pollution/waste.
when efficiency is measured in this way it seems to be very efficient.
an indication of the financial efficiency is on the Performance and Financial Projections page
http://www.watervilleresearch.com/companies/special/273-3.html
"The financial analyses performed indicate that under most conditions the Solar Tower Project is able to generate power at cost levels at least equal to those of other renewable resource facilities, primarily wind power, and in certain instances for larger sized Solar Tower Project configurations where construction and operation economies scale are more pronounced, equal to or lower than current conventional gas-fired and some coal-fired plants."
(sorry about the copy and paste ... i should have not started that other thread as well)
the effects on the local environment of such a huge structure would be dramatic ... but surely this is not as awkward as the environmental impact of global warming or radioactive waste.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
indeed. I have read articles about these towers. one sugestion is that under the collection area you put green houses which produce large crops in high humidity. and the exess water raises the energy of the rising air thus generating more energy. however it was noted that the setup is less efficient than solar pannels which take energy directly from the sun, and there are possible difficulties keeping it clean which is a big factor in how efficent it is. also if you do up the humidity to gain more power (and produce food, never a bad thing) if working on large scale, you could potentially produce cloudes which occlude the sun and reduce you power output even further. the effects are deafenately tiny compared with those of global climate change but that doesn't mean they should be ignored. also you were comparing this to nuclear which doesn't stop when it gets dark, which is a problem as you need to build massive power storage which is, currently, expensive and inefficient. as an experiment it should definately be done, but i don't veiw it as a great hope for the worlds (or austrailias) energy problems
Various types of alternative sources of energy are available from one region to another. The answer does not have to be nuclear.
Nevertheless, I predict that Australia will become the new "Middle East" in terms of its huge uranium deposits.
Another observation is that Australia is one of the most geographically stable and sparsely populated continents on earth. If nuclear waste is to be produced and stored anywhere then it may as well be in Australia.
The risk of nuclear waste being released or stolen in transit between continents can be overcome by having nuclear reactors in Australia and converting the energy into a safe state (hydrogen?) for transport to other continents, with the waste being stored at its source.
Australia can make money by the provision of energy and storage of waste.
I look forward to being referred to as Shiek Sambo69.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by flexmoreSolar power might reduce gas emmissions but it's not as environmentally friendly as everyone thinks. The silicon components are derived from sand deposits and the process of harvesting the silicon destroys the environment.
to replace these smelly coal dinosaurs, should we use nuclear or solar power plants?
i do not understand why we even consider nuclear power in australia.
the solar tower simply looks better.
http://www.watervilleresearch.com/companies/special/273-1.html
And coming from Australia we can appreciate our beaches (though nuclear power pants have to be situated near water systems so I think they'll be compromised anyway).
Originally posted by Sambo69thats not actually a bad idea. i remember that it was put forward by a former prime minister for australia i think and there was a huge outcry. Id rather rely on uranium from australia than oil from other unstable areas.
Various types of alternative sources of energy are available from one region to another. The answer does not have to be nuclear.
Nevertheless, I predict that Australia will become the new "Middle East" in terms of its huge uranium deposits.
Another observation is that Australia is one of the most geographically stable and sparsely populated continents ...[text shortened]... ision of energy and storage of waste.
I look forward to being referred to as Shiek Sambo69.
of course there are questions over safety but surely they can be over come by extremely tight regulation.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by Sambo69I think most countries are looking to replace Uranium with plutonium since it generates less waste and can be recycled.
Various types of alternative sources of energy are available from one region to another. The answer does not have to be nuclear.
Nevertheless, I predict that Australia will become the new "Middle East" in terms of its huge uranium deposits.
Another observation is that Australia is one of the most geographically stable and sparsely populated continents ...[text shortened]... ision of energy and storage of waste.
I look forward to being referred to as Shiek Sambo69.
Originally posted by davidtravellingHis idea was to store waste. My idea extends it to include production and transport.
thats not actually a bad idea. i remember that it was put forward by a former prime minister for australia i think and there was a huge outcry. Id rather rely on uranium from australia than oil from other unstable areas.
of course there are questions over safety but surely they can be over come by extremely tight regulation.
Originally posted by Sambo69dont worry, im not accusing you of being unoriginal, i was just commenting on the fact that australians seem to be against it (well the storing of it given the reaciton to his comments) but it could make economical sense.
His idea was to store waste. My idea extends it to include production and transport.
mind you, hopefully the pilot fusion reactor they are setting up in france will bear fruit and sort us all out. thats if it doesnt blow up half of france (not necessarily a bad thing?! 🙂)
Personally, I'm against it.
For what it is worth, I majored in Physics at university and specialised in alternative sources of energy.
As I said in another thread, the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on invading Iraq would have been far better spent on developing alternative sources of energy.
We are a pathetic species.
Originally posted by davidtravellingAt the current rate and with current attitudes, it will develop from a fact of life to a fact of extinction.
we make bad choices, always have done always will, fact of life - at least we seem to be (slowly) waking up to our influence on the planet.
Originally posted by Sambo69You're against what? Research in fusion?
Personally, I'm against it.
For what it is worth, I majored in Physics at university and specialised in alternative sources of energy.
As I said in another thread, the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on invading Iraq would have been far better spent on developing alternative sources of energy.
We are a pathetic species.