Indyvidual,

It sounds like you're referring to the "solar updraft tower." The idea garnered significant attention and seemed promising, but faced several challenges that have so far prevented it from becoming a mainstream solution.

The biggest challenges include the high initial costs and the large physical space required for construction. Additionally, the efficiency of these systems has not yet reached the levels of more mature renewable technologies like wind and solar photovoltaics. The concept also struggled with funding and attracting sustained interest from both the private and public sectors.

But that's not to say the towers will never become a reality. The renewable energy sector is dynamic, with continuous research and development, so technologies that may not be as viable now could become more practical with advancements in materials science, engineering, and cost reductions.

There must be very many teal MPs smiling at the moment.
As well as would-be teals, and Labor and Green MPs.
Peter Dutton's commitment in favour of a nuclear
powered net zero option will have them all thinking
about what Liberal seats might now be in play.

NDIS genius and expert on how to chuck public money around, Bill Shorten, snarled that, “The economics of Peter Dutton’s proposal just don’t stack up at all” - even though he then admits that Dutton “hasn't revealed his costs”.

That's real genius. Costs that have’t are not known to Shorten are not stacking up!

No wonder he has done such a brilliant job with the NDIS.

Dutton needs to combat this sort of buffoonery by revealing the costs, which he says will be a ‘pleasant surprise. Pleasant or not, he needs to put up before he says another word on the matter, even if just to protect his reputation as a realistic contender for PM.

John Daysh,
I seem to recall talk about the tower being a Km tall. That'd be quite some construction. I'd think using mountains with a vertical shaft would be more effective re costs. Particularly along the Great Dividing Range in the prevailing South-Easterlies !
I don't think there'd be an energy greener than that & no manufacturing pollution.

Poor Peter Dutton. He's out of his depth with his
nuclear power plans. The plans have been hit with major
criticisms, plenty of questions, and being
uncosted doesn't help.

According to news sources "it's hard to take Peter
Dutton's nuclear proposal seriously. No costing, no clear
timeline, no easy legal path."

We're told that "deep scepticism over Dutton's nuclear plan
is warranted."

Dutton proposes that he will make nuclear power a reality
within a little over 10 years. Experts tell us that given
the enormous obstacles this seems like a pipe dream.

There's more at the following:

http://theconversation.com/no-costing-no-clear-timelines-no-easy-legal-path-deep-scepticism-over-duttons-nuclear-plan-is-warranted-232822

Yes Foxy of course Dutton is out of of his depth.
He is only a poliician after all.
The CSIRO are now quoting $8 Billion for a large scale station.
The Finish one cost $9Billion somethings.
So lets call it $10Billion. So 10 X 7 = $70Billion seems like a
bargain to me. What we have already spent W/S is way above that.
A price to the grid will have to be set to repay it over 80 years.
I should be able to work that out assuming they are 1 Gwatt stations.
Hmm, came up with $2.85 Kwhr, Hmm easy to slip a zero here and there.
It might turn out to be 28.5 cents a kwhr to repay over its lifetime.
Will do it back the other way.
A figure for maintenance has to be worked out also but there should be
plenty of advise available on that.
I wonder what coal stations cost ?
When they talk about installing on existing sites there are enormous saving to be made.
The first saving should be the turbines themselves, millions saved there;
The adjacent switch yard containing the grid controls and transformers.
Again millions and millions saved there on each station.
Best Foxy we learn to understand all this as we will hear plenty more !