Another use for Sinclair smokestack?

In both Australia and Spain, they have used greenhouse structures that allow the sun's rays to heat interior surfaces, which in turn heat an airflow that is fed to the base of tall smokestacks. See Wikipedia's “Solar Updraft Tower.”

The article does not mention that a type of turbine could be used on top of the smokestack. This turbine has the added advantage that it could deliver power, when there is no sun, from wind in any direction, if the bottom is closed off. I've tried this and it works.

I've heard that it's going to take new industries to pull us out of this recession. Could this not be one of those new industries? Across our country, there must be thousands of plants that have gone out of business, but whose smokestacks are still there. Unfortunately these smokestacks will usually be in high-population areas where there is little adjacent space on which to build the necessary greenhouses.

The Sinclair site might be a fortunate exception where there is sufficient low-cost land, near the smokestack, to build the required size greenhouse. But might it be more cost-effective to tear down the smokestack and cover the area with solar-electric panels? Would these be less susceptible to flood damage?

Bob Gehring

Cedar Rapids