Re:Twice the height of the Empire State - massive solar towe...
by estel on Monday July 25, 2011 @05:41AM
(#2801954)
The other aspect you're missing is the probably somewhat larger energy consumption from non-residential properties.
Wikipedia [1] says that the energy consumption of the US is 25,000 TWh per annum. Looking at the top rated comment and picking instead a CF between the two (I used 0.6); we're looking at this tower producing in the region of 1TWh.
So you'd actually need about 25,000 of these towers to provide for the energy requirements of the US. Ouch.
Edit: obviously, this is for the complete replacement of all existing energy use with clean renewable electricity. The gross US electricity production is given [2] as 4344 TWh (2008).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_Unite...
Re:Twice the height of the Empire State - massive solar towe...
by tedkimble on Monday July 25, 2011 @01:13AM
(#2801438)
So at $750 million a pop, that's a little over $550 billion to power US homes. Or, roughly 50% of the annual budget of the military to power all US homes for 80 years!
Clearly back of the envelope numbers, but definitely something to be excited about.
Re:Twice the height of the Empire State - massive solar towe...
by ahlatimer on Monday July 25, 2011 @02:23AM
(#2801588)
Well, you can't only have these things powering US homes because I can't imagine they work that well at night.
Re:Twice the height of the Empire State - massive solar towe...
by erikpukinskis on Monday July 25, 2011 @04:03AM
(#2801775)
They do actually.
Re:Twice the height of the Empire State - massive solar towe...
by savramescu on Monday July 25, 2011 @05:32AM
(#2801934)
Truth be told, the article doesn't say how well they work at night. I don't think that it'll work just as good, but that doesn't mean it won't work at all.
Now, the EIA says there are about 5700 power plants currently operating in the US [2]. Continuing with the back of the envelope math, that's almost 8 times as many as would be necessary if they all produced as much as this one. Pick whatever factor you want for "non-home" energy, but we're dealing with the right order of magnitude.
Combine that with the clean energy aspect of it, and I don't see a lot of reason to be cynical.
[1] http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahsfaq.html [2] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=65&t=2