http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower

I think you usually need to start an actual discussion about the topic.

I shall start....

As far as I understand, this is a very large solar collector, VERY VERY large. This is their main downfall -- they take up large amounts of land and are quite an engineering undertaking.

-AntonK

According to model calculations, an updraft power plant with an output of 200 MW would need a collector 7 kilometres in diameter (total area of about 38 km²) and a 1000 metre high chimney.[2] The 38 km² collecting area is expected to extract about 0.5% of the solar power (1 kW/m²) that falls upon it. Because no data are available to test these models on a large-scale updraft tower there remains uncertainty about the reliability of these calculations.[20]

doesnt seem worth it... since mirror farms with boiling towers produce more, with less space.

-MT

I agree. Mirrors are cheap and can often be used to focus the energy much better. Then again if we had a method of creating cheap, efficient and environmentally safe solar panels, this would be a moot point, wouldn't it?

-AntonK

the only value in a solar updradft tower... is that around it...
we could buil a city... or even within it...

since its so large, we might as well.

-MT

Actually, you couldn't. That area needs to be in direct sunlight and needs to be clear, or else you will block the air flow and thus the entire process is worthless. I would rather build a city, and have every roof and every building covered in cheap solar panels (whenever those become available).

-AntonK

This forum is nonsense - bunk. And so is the article under Wikipedia. Read the discussion page. I just posted the following comment to the first discussion:
"Questions about this article? I see now scientifical basis that substantiates any of this. This entire thread should be deleted so as not to propagate science fiction. Where are the controlled scientific studies and proof that such an apparatus could work?"

Below the first Discussion forum, the second states:

"== Self-promotion? ==

This article appears to be written by H. Alfred Goolsbee, [[User:Proton44]]. This would explain the promotion of http://wiki.solartower.com, which despite its amateurish appearance is listed as the first external link, and also the emphasis given to enviromission.com and SolarMission over other promoters and implementors of this idea. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 05:47, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear to be self-promotion. Mr. Goolsbee has also been busy finding solar and fuel-cell related articles on Wikipedia, and adding links to his project at the bottom.

I moved the Benefits and History sections to [[Solar chimney]], as they don't apply specifically to his Solar Tower brand. I also copied the intellectual property section, it's in both articles. I wasn't sure what to do about capitalization - in the chimney article, I'll remove most mentions of Solar Towers. In this article, I think we should use lower case "solar tower" or the term "solar chimney" when we refer to a generic solar chimney, and "Solar Tower" only when referring to the activities of the companies using that brand. Since this article is not an advertisement, we don't need to use trademark symbols - Mr. Goolsbee, please don't reinsert them. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 13:21, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've removed the duplicated ''Intellectual property...'' section from [[solar chimney]] before reading the above... it seemed to refer only to this particular design, not the more general concept. They seem vague about exactly what they're claiming... [http://www.enviromission.com.au/index1.htm the enviromission website] reads in part ''EnviroMission owns the exclusive licence to German designed Solar Tower technology in Australia'', which doesn't seem to affect other solar chimney designs, but it's an interesting turn of phrase. Why German designed? Is this qualification intended to extend the claim to all German work, or to restrict it to only German work?

The claim in the now moved history section that ''no patent was granted'' following the building of the German prototype is another interesting turn of phrase. Was one applied for? If so, why was it denied? [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 20:36, 17 Oct 2004."

As a Wikipedian, I have filed a grievance with the administrative committee that this article be removed entirely.

yeah

My opinion personally on Wikipedia is that while the information needs to be tightly watched and judged, I have no problem with having an article on this topic. My reason is simple. There is a paper proposing this system and it was published by what appears to be a peer reviewed journal. That means that at least someone thinks this is a valid idea (perhaps not a good one, but at least valid). Which means I think a Wikipedia page about is a good idea.

-AntonK