Solar Power and Solar Panels

By Kdanc86 on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

Are you sure its …
Are you sure its big enough?

By spamvigilante on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

No kidding …
No kidding Mortsdans? Please cite your source. How much cheaper would these other methods of producing electricity be? How did you calculate the results? Do you think that you are so special as to be able to make asinine assertions without any requirement to back them up with something based in fact or reality?

Be honest Mortsdans, you pulled that comment right out of the south end of your digestive tract.

By mortsdans on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

all im saying is …
all im saying is that this wind tower thing would cost way more than it is worth. for the same price you could make much more electricity from nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric… or really anything…

By etellurian on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

pthompson2010, …
pthompson2010, innovation and legislation though you suggest that innovation does not need legislation. Perhaps legislation needs innovation to offer purpose for our institutions including political. Everyone needs a job.

Peace,

E-T

By pthompson2010 on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

@etellurian …
@etellurian innovation is key, legislation is deadly, keep the goverment out of it, if it is a good idea and it needs to be done, the market will create a demand for it, if the government gets involved, they will just screw it up and waste tax payer dollars,

By drmodestoesq on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

I agree Mr. …
I agree Mr. GreatInca. Every time one of these armchair computer graphics types (and I’m not accusing this inventor or idea) sits down at a computer they start adding this boutique technology which is largely about looking futuristic. We all know in reality that it would be a simple rebar reinforced concrete tube. Look at a 2000 foot t.v. masts in the middle of nowhere. They’re bare bones constructions. Even with that, an unproven technology would have a hard time finding investors.

By Darkwizzrobe on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

Agreed I mean we …
Agreed I mean we have new forms of nuclear power like Thorium and IFR that can make a lot more energy than this engineers nightmare. I mean this is suppose to be bigger than a skyscraper and will probably take decades to build and all you are getting is 200 megawatts and they want to build 5!?!

By Ivailopena on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

Interesante, pero …
Interesante, pero cuanto cuesta? MIentras la opcion en el uso de las energias renovables sea costoso no podra ser considerada una opcion economicamente viable

By Ivailopena on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

Interesante, pero …
Interesante, pero cuanto cuesta? MIentras la opcion en el uso de las energias renovables sea costoso no podra ser considerada una opcion economicamente viable

By etellurian on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

Innovation and …
Innovation and legislation not war.

Peace,

E-T

By akyeren on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

maybe terrorist …
maybe terrorist attraction.

By pthompson2010 on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

if richard branson …
if richard branson can send folks into space using profit as motive, surely someone can build a few of these things that actually work well without having to rely on government funding, not to sound like a tool but, Walmart could invest the capital and get into this business fairly easy I would think, or exxon, not that they owe it to anyone to do so, but imagine what it would do for their image and imagine if they coudl make it profitable

By TheCharlatanPolice on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

An innovative …
An innovative concept

By MrLovelyturtle on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

if someone fall …
if someone fall down from top of it
he must die
and it burned

By bamboali on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

tourist attraction …
tourist attraction

By GreatInca on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

Hmm… trees under …
Hmm… trees under the heat ‘collectors’ Doesn’t seem very efficient. Fancy monorails and glass elevators? Not cheap or economical either.

By cjvchile23 on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

what a gay video!
what a gay video!

By spamvigilante on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

Against government …
Against government spending that isn’t necessary or profitable? To WHOM? Did you find it acceptable that Halliburton’s stock price more than doubled due to the invasion of Iraq?

But a wind tower that produces megawatts of electricity without harmful radiation or carbon emissions is a problem for you.

Wow, talk about misguided. I hope you at least profited from the KBR spinoff from Halliburton. What, no money in the stock market? Another boob who kowtows to the GOP without rational thought.

By mortsdans on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

uh… idk where u …
uh… idk where u are getting this from. i am against all gov spending that isn’t necessary or profitable. from dems or republicans. i just want to keep my money instead of it all going to waste for something stupid. like a wind tower cough

By subzerotime420 on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

Nice in theory, but …
Nice in theory, but someone get the funding and the land and then try it.

By ultravincent on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

Sorry but the guy …
Sorry but the guy was right.
“MW per second” means power divided by seconds and it’s nonsense.
kilowatthour is power MULTIPLIED by time, aka energy.

By OUstrmchsr on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

This has not been ” …
This has not been “invented”. It goes off the basic principle of a chimney. Like the ones in the middle ages. It;s not new and no, they should not get the Nobel Prize.

By OUstrmchsr on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

1 Watt is one joule …
1 Watt is one joule per second. 200 megawatts is 200,000,000 joules per second. It’s not megawatts per second.

By Zwangsman1 on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

PHOENIX, Oct. 27 / …
PHOENIX, Oct. 27 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — EnviroMission Limited (Pink Sheets: EVOMY – News) US power purchase negotiations to deliver the first of two, 200 MW Solar Tower power stations, have been given the green light from Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA).

Solar Tower power station developments planned for Arizona have been approved by SCPPA as suitable renewable energy projects to facilitate the goals of its members’ renewable portfolio standards (RPS).

By spamvigilante on Jan 23, 2010 | Reply

Yeah, unlike your …
Yeah, unlike your support for Hank Paulson’s $1.4 trillion in TARP spending with no government oversight. That was okay because he was a Bush appointee, right?