Talk:Solar power tower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

11:00, 29 January 2006 Dalf m (this is probbly a disambiguation page not a stub but I am not sure yet so I have not changed it)

This looks like a disambiguation page to me as well. There are articles/stubs on each of those subjects. However, the real problem is the confusion about Solar Tower and Solar tower: one is supposed to be a power station, while the other is equipment used in astronomy. Historically the astronomical equipment takes precedence; the use of the term "Solar Tower" for a power station is confusing and probably inappropriate. I wouldn't know how to fix that though. JDH 14:00, 32

It appears the article has been corrected as there is no mention of "solar tower" The link to Nevada One is very helpful, even though it uses parbolic solar throughs instead of a tower, as Nevada One has some information on solar power tower etc. Neil

Contents 1 photo 2 Resolving the Disambiguation Issue 3 Comments on Picture/Humidity 4 Does light actually heat?

[edit] photo

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Resolving the Disambiguation Issue

It might be a good idea to use Solar Tower (astronomy) and Solar Tower (Power Generation) or something to that effect to avoid confusion for astronomers.

[edit] Comments on Picture/Humidity

I am aware that, when viewing the picture for this article, there appears to be some humidity that is made apparent by the concentration of the solar energy. How much energy is wasted by heating the ambient humidity? I would argue that, if the humidity were removed using a recirculating draught in proximity to the tower, then the overall efficiency could (arguably) be increased as less light would be diffracted away (as always with these things, some poor soul would have to do the mathematics).

Dust and windblown sand might be even greater problems in the desert, where these things would usually be sited. I think the dew point temperature is pretty low most of the time in deserts. You might be seeing dust rather than humidity getting lit up near the beam focus. --Teratornis (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does light actually heat?

Would it be worthwhile for people to point out that (at a naive level) there is no reason for why light should heat up objects (surely it is infrared radiation which is responsible for heating up objects?). Perhaps there is some process that could convert the higher frequency light radiation to Infra-Red. Is this what causes the Solar Power towers to actually heat up the focal points of the reflected radiation? If that latter assertion (cunningly masked as a question) is correct - then would it not be possible to modify mirrors so that any incident UV radiation could be transformed into IR so as to be reflected onto the focal point? Not forgetting that 99% of incident UV radiation is UVA (with energy per photon of about .493-.616eV for non ozone depleted parts of the globe) would florescent mirrors not translate into a higher intensity of radiation being focused onto the central focal point than might be possible with normal mirrors (ie: metallic mirros - or, even worse from the point of view of UV, glass-based mirrors).

Perhaps my reasoning is flawed. I'm quite sure that the above is not original research - I am, in effect (naively) asking how mirrors that reflect light can heat up objects in a way which one would expect to correspond to infrared radiation.

ConcernedScientist 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

An object reflects light according to its albedo i.e. reflectivity. Any light the object does not reflect, it absorbs. Absorbed light generally turns into heat and warms the object. The exception would be any light that drives a chemical reaction as in photosynthesis or generates an electrical current as in photoelectricity. Presumably the design of the power tower collector maximizes its absorption of incident light (or actually, as much of the incident radiation bouncing off the heliostats as possible). Optical mirrors reflect infrared radiation quite well, as you can verify experimentally by bouncing the IR beam from a remote controller onto a television set. You can stand behind the television, and as long as you can see the front of the television in the mirror, you can beam the remote right at the television's reflection in the mirror, and operate the television without difficulty. I'm not sure how well the heliostats reflect ultraviolet. I'm pretty sure glass absorbs a lot of UV, so if the heliostat has a glass face with a silvered backing, all the light it reflects would make two trips through the glass, which might attenuate the UV. For faster response on these kinds of questions, try the Reference desk, as few people will check the talk page of an infrequently-edited article like this one. --Teratornis (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)