Sky-scraping Tower Will Power 100,000 Homes with Solar Hot Air
A 2,600-foot tower planned for the Arizona desert will be the world's second tallest structure and will be able to power 100,000 homes through hot air alone.
The solar updraft tower, designed by EnviroMission, will work by collecting hot air as it rises from the heated ground surrounding it. The very tall, narrow tower increases the strength of the hot air flowing upward, where it will turn 32 turbines along the way.
The tower will be able to produce 200 MW of electricity each day and, unlike solar power technologies, will be able to produce electricity at night too since heat from the ground will still be flowing upward and it will operate without the use of water.
This technology comes at a pretty steep price -- $750 million to build -- but since hot air is free, the operating costs going forward will be very minimal and the tower should last at least 80 years.
The tower will be made of concrete, which is a very carbon-heavy material, but the clean energy produced by the tower should cancel out the carbon emissions of making it within 2.5 years.
http://www.ecogeek.org/solar-power/3609-sky-scraping-tower-will-power-100000-homes-with-ho?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+EcoGeek+(EcoGeek)
via CNN
Email this
Hits: 3078
Comments
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by jakabsz, October 05, 2011
you wanted to say 200 MWhour instead of 200 MW? I don't how how big of an amount that is for one day, but MegaWatt is for sure the measurement unit for power (amount of energy exerted per unit time).
- -1
written by Seamus Dubh, October 05, 2011
@jakabsz
No they got it right MW is a unit of production (usuialy in a 24 hour period), while MWhour is a unit of consumption.
But I digress, by these number it would produce about 8 1/3 MW per hour
No they got it right MW is a unit of production (usuialy in a 24 hour period), while MWhour is a unit of consumption.
But I digress, by these number it would produce about 8 1/3 MW per hour
- -2
written by David Evans, October 05, 2011
I estimate the solar energy falling on the collecting area, averaged over 24 hours, at about 1,000 MW. A claimed output of 200 MW does not seem unreasonable.
- +2
written by pr_coms, October 05, 2011
The central idea of the technology has drawn little other than comments from what appears would be science blog editors - the syntax bothers one correspondent and the techspeak another. . .but what about the idea that a scaled solar technology is under development that WILL not use water and WILL have higher reliability than PV wind etc! I seldom see comments about bridges suggesting the bridge MAY take the weight of traffic. . . the engineering modelling available to even extreme engineering is robust and much tested. Just wondering Jeff what actual renewable technologies you support (by the way nuclear is not renewable Jeff!) either in principal or through actual investment? The world isn't flat and beyond those trees Jeff there is (er sorry...and just for Jeff...may be) a forest.
