It's really too bad that they're having all this trouble, but it's not surprising. New techs are always harder to get off the ground, esp. if they are on such a massive scale.

If it works well, I bet that they'll start popping up in deserts all around the globe.

Good post Warren, thanks.

I heard China is still working with EnviroMission to build the technology in some of their provinces.

I have been following this topic very closely and I am truly disappointed with the governments decision to go with the less innovative, less efficient, less powerful and less elegant proposal. Once again the Australian government has proven that it lacks the vision and creativity to deal with climate change in a meaningful way. I feel this decision was simply a gesture to keep environmentally concerned citizens off their backs while they pursue their own agenda of nuclear power. Here was a chance to take a step forward and back a new technology that is uniquely adapted to the Australian environment, rather than simply investing in a technology that is already close to its maximum limitations with little room for improvement.

It is interesting that the German engineering firm who did the design work for this is one of the leading stirling engine solar firms in the world, with an incredible track record of projects, most in Spain.

Many of these have been built and in operation for years - not a pie in the sky proposal. Check out their website and click projects; it is remarkable how far they are ahead of us, yet get next to no press for projects that have been chugging away making solar power for years.

Visit the Schlaich Bergermann and Partner website at www.sbp.de

With all due respect, they built one of these and ran it for 8 years then decommissioned it. The engineers that designed it in the first place went on to build stirling engine systems instead. Neither the Spanish or the Germans who funded it ever had any inclination to do another one.

This has been studied extensively and the conclusion is always the same: its a cool idea but building the worlds tallest tower isn't exactly cost effective. The Guardian had an article where they stated the amount of carbon produced in a massive construction project like this would never be offset by the carbon neutral power production. Half the people think its real asset would be tourism, the other half feel it would be a blight on the countryside. Other studies have pointed out that a similar level of investment would result in double the electical production using wind power or other technologies. Then there is the construction time; building the world's highest tower isn't a trivial project. The reflector systems they chose to fund instead could be operational before the even the foundation work is done on the tower. There has been a lot of study on this and most of it comes to the same conclusion; gee, its kind of neat, but it just doesn't make sense.

Check out the wikipedia entry on this. Unfortunately, when you look closely at all the tons research done on this it is pretty clear why they didn't build any follow-ups to the 1982 project; this just isn't a very good way to make solar electricity.

Jimmymimjim, I'm not sure where you're looking.

What I see when I look, which is a lot is that they're having the same trouble that Stirling generators or even solar thermal collectors are having and that's finding financing for the project.

I've researched the tower quite a bit and I think it's dying because of misinformation like the bogus claim that it couldn't pay back the CO2 debt.

NOT photovoltaic.

These sterling concentrators are great. Each one being independent, is much better for energy security.

PV on a large scale is just silly.

PV on a small scale is silly.

Mr. Anonymous, it would be helpful if you provided facts to back up your assertion.

Small-scale PV keeps the generation of electricity at the source of its consumption, eliminating long-distance line losses. It also prevents terrorism attacks and accidents - build a massive PV farm and one crashed plane takes the whole thing out. It keeps the power to make power in the individual's hands, kind of like voting.

Where is your facts to back up your assertion? Prevents terrorism? Please. There is nothing scary about a solar plant blowing up. Do you even know how much line loss there is? It's very little. Small scale costs too much. Mid scale might be a better idea.

Excellent review. We are adding a link from Planeta headlines

Jimmyminjim;

As a person who has spent the last several years trading energy stocks and is now looking for "green energy" stocks, I must totally disagree with your logic. Eviromission is one stock, I am currently considering heavy investment in.

Back in 1988 when the prototype was decomissioned, oil traded @ $14.87bbl ($25.55bbl inflation adjusted), Ng traded @ $1.89 and electricity @ $8.39. Energy was so cheap, the Canadian oilsands was a pipe dream. Today, countries around the world including China have a stake in the Canadian oil sands because it is so profitable. Oil is currently trading at roughly $60.00bbl, Ng @$7.75 and electricity @$31.00. And believe me, oil and the rest will continue to climb. The cost of exploration has become extreemely expensive, and the results are poor at best. It has actually become cheaper to buy a company and its reserves than to explore, but reserves eventually run out. On a construction cost basis, not only is the solar tower somewhat comparable to the cost of an Ng plant in the US, the environmental benefeits, I believe, far outweigh any difference in price. All that is currently needed in the US for a project like this to take off, is a change in government. In the mean time, China isn't waiting. Private investment there (in the millions) has already paved the way for a project to begin.

A good sign of its potential. IMHO

This technology has been around for a very very long time. The technology was first proposed in 1931. Then a prototype was built in the 1980s, by Jörg Schlaich in Manzanares/Spain. Much later, in 2000, the idea was revived by Roger Davey, who incorporated EnviroMission with the goal to build one of these in the Australian outback.
How anybody can believe that this is "innovative" technology is beyond me. Major progress has been made in recent years in solar cells, and in solar thermal technology, but since the 1980s there has been no new development in Solar towers at all. The only thing that has been happening is that Mr Davey has been promoting the Solar Tower, and he is very good at it.
It is good to see that the Australian government has been smart enough not to invest in this obsolete technology, and go for cutting edge concentrating photovoltaics instead

The problem with the solar tower has always been the high capital costs. It will never be funded by traditional financing, interest repayments would be prohibitive.

However, if the solar chimney could be funded through either government investment and/or equity based deals then the situation changes entirely. Its running costs are amongst the lowest of any generation methods. It has no fuel costs, insurance would be low. It may take 10 years for investors to get back their initial investment (Slightly misleading as they would have their shares in the company) but after that electricity would be sold at over an 80% profit margin.

Added to this are the potential tourism income, agriculture income and desert reclamation opportunities. I think the Australian government may have missed an opportunity here, and I doubt environmission will recover from this blow. Shame, it would have been something special.

BTW - regarding the comment about outdated technology. The stirling engine being advocated was proposed in the early 19th century, around 1805 I vaguely recall.

There is no experience with running one of these whatsoever, so the claim that running costs are among the lowest in the industry is without merit. In fact, the prototype in Manzanares, Spain was destroyed by induced vortices, and the plastic roofing of the greenhouse desintegrated. Since the conversion efficiency is a factor 20 or 30 lower than concentrating thermal or photovoltaic systems the solar collector area needs to be correspondingly larger; the cost of maintaining such a huge greenhouse may very well turn out to be a major liability.
And what all of this has to do with agriculture I don't understand; to make the desert bloom you need water, and lots of it too, the last thing you need is a greenhouse.
Tourisme? Well, when I visit Australia I want to see the Great Barrier Reef, Uluru, the dolphins at Koombana Bay, Katoomba, Kakadu National Park, places like that. The last thing I want to see is a phallus symbol in the middle of nowhere.

can i just say that $125mill is nothing. and it bugs me when australia makes out its something huge and that they are trying to be green. yet they flit away $220mil on a highway upgrade.

roads are important and grid lock anti green, but clean energy deserves alot more attention. howard turns around and wants to stick in billions of $ worth of nuclear. Australia is so small, its a shame we arent pushing 100% green