>>I wonder how effective it would be as a manmade thermal? >> > > Can anyone compare its size to a strong natural thermal? 15 m/s (30 knots) > is pretty strong, but the collection area may not be that different to a > natural thermal's. Just a bit more concentrated and reliable. > > I haven't seen a figure for the width of the tower, but I'm guessing it > will be less than the size of a natural thermal? I think I'd like to let > it disperse a bit, ie. join it well above the tower, which is already 1 km > high. >
There was a fairly comprehensive article about this thing a few months ago in the Bulletin. The scale of the structure is colossal. Greenhouse collection area is 50 acres or so, and the diameter of the tower at the base is about the size of the Melbourne Cricket Ground, ie fairly big. Tapers towards the top but still much biger than your average factory smokestack which are already reasonably reliable (if smelly) thermal sources. I suspect this thing would be the source of a nearly permanent Monster thermal. Costs to build it are projected to be about twice as much as for an equivalent coal fired power station, so it is no certainty to get built. Graham -- * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information.
