For those wondering about some renewable energy sources
newatlas.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/
Runs off sunlight, no fuel needed.
Runs day and night.
Powers 150,000 standard homes, generates 200MW
Pays for itself in 11 years
Works for 80 years
Skip to 5;37 in the video to find out why this Australian company decided it was better to build this in the States than Australia. Tragic imho.
I remember reading about that a couple of years ago. They were going to build that here! Dammit!!
EDIT:
Best comment:
Will the proposed carbon dioxide emissions tax facilitate the development of projects like this?
I remember the proposed tower out near Mildura. I don't believe governments should be subsidising projects like this but they should not be blocking them either.
Australia isn't short of either useless land and sunlight.
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?? [}:)]
Vote for Abbott and take a step back , renewables are here and are viable.As much as Labour has stuffed up , at least they are trying.If nothing else at least the carbon tax will drive investment in cleaner energy.And Aus has the chance to be at the cutting edge , i hope we dont blow it.
^^^^ 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.
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
^^^
I'm not sure I understand your point, JayBee. If there was a tried, tested, sure-fire bullet-proof way of producing base load clean, cheap, renewable energy then it'd already be widely used wouldn't it? There's not much point developing something that's already been developed. Sure development costs, but then if some other country develops it then Australia ends up having to buy it off them, and that costs too.
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
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.
Whatever happens with this, renewables won't be viable in this country until the surplus of large scale RECS are taken up (another government mistake). It is assumed this will happen sometime in 2014.
All other projects have to be either subsidised by the government (eg the Solar Flagships) or developed by an IPP who need the load to sell or trade. It is very hard for a small independant renewables business getting a project off the ground as the likes of AGL/Origin aren't offering up too many PPA's.
This industry is very complex - don't try and simplify it!
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.
From the gizmag link
"
Then, raise that tower up so that it's hundreds of meters in the air - because for every hundred metres you go up from the surface, the ambient temperature drops by about 1 degree. The greater the temperature differential, the harder the tower sucks up that hot air at the bottom "
Hmmm? Making gains from the adiabatic lapse rate? If this is an example of how well they've thought it through then they might not get as much power as they think.
Might just be the person writing the article.
