Talk:Solar Tower Buronga

The article World's_tallest_structures says the Solar Tower Buronga is in NSW. The present article says construction will start in Mildura.

Mildura is in Victoria, albeit right on the border with NSW. Buronga is in NSW.

There is clearly something wrong here.

The EnviroMission website says Buronga in Wentworth Shire. Early proposals were to build it near Cullulleraine in Victoria, I think. Hence the confusion. --ScottDavis 15:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Worlds first

The Solar One plant referred to in Heliostat works on a totally different principal - the solar panels concentrate the sunlight on a collector which heats water to generate power. The Buronga plant, if built, will use hot air to turn the turbines mounted in the tower. --Dagdaireland 11 August 2005

See Heliostat which has a discussion about another solar power plant that also claims to be the first and one that has been in operation for many years. Vegaswikian 23:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

• I oppose accept merging Solar Tower and Solar Tower Buronga. The former is about the general technology and design, the latter is about a single proposed construction. The merge would be like merging Suspension bridge with Golden Gate Bridge, for example. However, the Development section of Solar Tower could perhaps be merged or moved into this article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC). Conversations below have convinced me. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

These two pages are both about the very same structure; it like having two articles, one about Golden Gate Bridge and another one about Golden Gate Bridge (San Francisco). There is already a third article about solar chimneys in which the generic concept is discussed. JDH 14:08, 29 January 2006

No - continuing the analogy, solar chimney is more like bridge. The analogy does not work perfectly, as there are lots of suspension bridges already built, but no solar chimneys yet, other than one prototype. I believe all three articles should exist, but that the info in them could be better distributed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• And why do you think it is necessary to have *two* articles about *one* single structure that EnviroMission wants to build somewhere in the outback of Australia but that hasn't even been built yet? If there were *two* of those, then perhaps it would be appropriate to have *two* articles, but not now.

• Support the merge. Solar Tower is a registered name (cf solar tower), and Solar Tower Buronga a proposal to use the technology it describes. Considering the speculative nature of the whole thing, it's generous to have an article on this organisation at all IMO, rather than just merging it all to solar chimney. But merge these two, and then it may be worth trying to remove the promotional material from the results. See also energy towers and solar power tower. Andrewa 20:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons as Andrewa. I think the name of the merged article should be Solar Tower Buronga to avoid confusion with the solar tower article. I'll add a directional merge tag, if someone disagrees, please feel free to change it and don't let it stop you from otherwise supporting the merge. -- Kjkolb 10:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Celcius 08:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

5 articles? That sounds wrong...

• Solar chimney - Passive solar energy for local ventilation
• Solar Tower - The concept of solar towers (advanced chimneys)
• Solar Tower Buronga - A specific solar tower
• Energy towers - Watercooled air drives turbines
• Solar power tower - wtf?

Here's my suggestion. Delete Solar power tower - it's basically a disambiguation page with a horrible name. Energy towers is a theoretical project and does IMHO not need a separate article - it can easily be a paragraph in Solar Tower along with Solar Tower Buronga. Make Energy towers a disambiguation page for the whole thing and keep Solar chimney as it is a separate concept altogether. Celcius 08:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that solar power tower should be deleted. I think that it should be made into an article about the first entry. It's the best name people have come up with for the heliostats pointed at a large central receiver design (Solar One, Solar Two, Solar Tres and Sandia's plant). I agree, solar chimney should stay as it is. Solar Tower and Solar Tower Buronga should be merged. Energy Tower should be deleted unless proof of its notability can be given, a merge, as you suggested, might be acceptable. After the merge(s), a disambiguation page for solar power tower (after it is made into an article), solar tower and Solar Tower Buronga might be good idea. -- Kjkolb 08:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok - I missed the Solar One article... that would make you right. I just looked it over again and Solar Tower already contains most of both Energy towers and Solar Tower Buronga - so it's pretty much just a matter of deleting them. That leaves us with Solar chimney, Solar Tower and Solar power tower with Solar One to be merged into Solar power tower in due time. We badly need a disambiguation page - Solar tower (lowercase "t") - confuses the matter even more. Does anyone disagree? :) Celcius 09:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Why delete? Why not just redirect? Or is that what you mean? Andrewa 16:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes - redirect. Gardar Rurak 04:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok - I believe this has been up for discussion long enough and there seems to be consensus so I'm going ahead with the mergers. I'm creating a dismabig page as well. Feel free to poke me if something goes awry :) Gardar Rurak 19:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

See also

See Talk:Solar updraft tower Talk:Solar updraft tower/Archive 2 for much discussion of this particular proposal. Andrewa 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)