I remember reading about that a couple of years ago. They were going to build that here! Dammit!!

EDIT:

Best comment:

TYpical Australian Government,walking around with it's head up its arse so it can't see the woods for the trees. SO SO TYPICAL...that's why this country is just going NOWHERE!
comment paulgo - July 21, 2011 @ 07:49 pm PDT

Mobydisc said...

Will the proposed carbon dioxide emissions tax facilitate the development of projects like this?

As far as I know, all money generated is used to fund the tax collectors and fund the many compensation schemes in place to help people with the tax. It's supposed to be revenue neutral.

(no)

Damn, I remember reading about this in New Scientist quite a long time ago, now here it is about to be built. Overseas.

Unbelievable that the Australian government doesn't support this type of development isn't it?!

How do we get a direct line to the government to demand they answer why they don't encourage this type of development?? [}:)]

SomeOtherGuy said...

My understanding was that there was a fair chunk of the money set aside to help fund new sources of renewable energy. The rest would go into the assorted compensations. Overall it would be neutral.

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/securing-a-clean-energy-future/#content07

Oh, you're quite right. That's cheered me up a bit :)

^^^^ sounds great ,now where can i apply for one of those cleaner energy green jobs

I'd like to see the prototype.
i just have my doubts about whether this thing will actually work.
There must be a working model somewhere, $700,000,000 prototype?? big gamble.

The guy just sounds like a revolutionary con-artist. All the same i hope it works.

laceys lane said...

where's ours and why isn't it bigger

laceys lane said...

hmm, not to many deny something has to be done about our planet, but this tax hasn't got much to do with that- it never did. australia is seen as easy pickings

That's where it is - in the Land Of Denial.

Yep, the prototype was in Spain (in 1982) and generated 50KW energy. The chimney also fell over after 7 years.
This company has no assets, only debt. They are looking for someone to spend the $750,000,000 for a 200MW facility - this is not good bang for buck.
Claims that it is maintenence free are dubious - There are around 200 turbines required and at a minimum they will need regular maintenence.

There is no funding in place to build the device, only options to buy the energy.

This is an experimental plant - untried, untested, no working prototype since 1989. Conceptually brilliant, but horrendously expensive. The only equity the company has is IP (against which they have already leveraged 50% debt/equity) so the company has no direct investment in the business model.

Hopefully there is a country out there that has a spare $billion to spend bringing this to life.

JB

you should probably think about changing your avatar

My point is that it is an expensive way of generating electricity. Just because it is "green" doesnt mean it should be funded at any cost.
Right now they are looking at governments to fund it, no corporate will touch it because it is too risky (cost/benefit doesnt add up).

Who will pay the cost to build? With no guarantee of efficiency, structural integrity or performance it is extremely difficult to find a construction financier. This project has been for sale for at least 7 years now and even now Arups are still working on how to actually build the structure (according to Enviromission's Annual report).

There would be plenty of customers for the output, but in this economic climate (pardon the pun) few people willing to fund construction.
Why not build a 50MW prototype to demonstrate the technology and prove construction costs?
Why not prove the technology before taking funding from already proven initiatives?

I have worked in a green industry where funding was withdrawn because of a rival energy source "not telling the whole truth" about costs. They got the funding based on a "miscalculation" of an order of magnitude!!!!!!

Once you have spent $750M and it only produces 100MW what do you do? If it falls down after 7 years (like the prototype did) what do you do? Once the $750M is spent and the project is 50% complete what do you do? Keep pouring money into it?

What I dont like is that it is untried, untested and currently unbuildable. If I were a financier I would want to have a prototype built first - because if it doesnt work there is no inherent value in the asset (if it doesnt perform as expected).

Be under no allusions - EnviroMission have no intention of building this - they want someone else to build it (and wear the risk) and they take the royalties for the IP.

JB

colinwill78 said...

you should probably think about changing your avatar

probably my warped mind but this one somehow seems appropriate...

SomeOtherGuy said...

Thanks for the knowledgeable assessment JB. You've given me some food for thought.

Where I'm coming from is that sometimes, you've just gotta take the plunge. The Opera House (and I guess to a lesser extent the Bridge and the Snowy scheme) were originally untried, untested and potentially unbuildable. How much would it cost us to import this technology? How much do we miss out in earnings by letting someone else do it? It just seems that if we're going to move away from coal (and one day we have to, like it or not) then we either develop technology ourselves or else pay to import it.

I do agree that it would be nice if someone forked up the cash on spec, maybe 10 years ago it would have happened, but I cannot see it happening in the immediate future.
But, if there were a working prototype it would help sell the idea. I actually think that $750M is good value for energy innovation, 200MW output and the opportunity to demonstrate leadership in the field IF it works.

But to answer your question - I dont think there is any cost of not being on the bleeding edge. If they build one in the US I think it would only make construction of one here cheaper (as they will have ironed out some of the issues). The technology is licenced from Enviromission so that doesnt have any impact on cost, and there is nothing to import - it will be a major civil engineering project here too with local fabrication.

Personally I would love to be involved in a project like this - how friggin cool would it be?

JB

Trant said...

JayBee said...
Personally I would love to be involved in a project like this - how friggin cool would it be?

I think another question that would have to be answered is what would happen if someone climbed to the top, stood at the edge of the chimney and opened a parachute?

Would we see the birth of a new sport?

No but rather the worlds largest human meat mincer.

evlPanda said...

Google will:
newatlas.com/google-invests-168-million-in-solar-power-tower/18383/

I think that's different technology -- mirrors instead of greenhouses.

I agree that it's confusing

To give it some context Gunns are chasing 1.4 billion to build a pulp mill in northern Tasmania. My gut feeling is that that is not going to happen but who really understands the thought processes of the international financiers.


As far as base jumping off the solar tower is concerned, build it and they will find a way to jump off it. Most would probably choose to jump away from the tower but there would have to be some temptation to jump into that massive man made thermal......with who knows what result.