"...the tower will neutralize its entire existence impact in less than 20 years through the clean energy it will generate"
That's a ridiculous statement. It's impossible to make that calculation without using the very worst pseudo-scientific estimates.
Furthermore, the expected lifetime of solar panels is about 12 years. What will be the "environmental impact" of replacing those panels before the building has repaid the universe for its existence?
But please, let's ignore the environmental impact. Does the building make economic sense? Can it produce electricity cheaper than if it were burning oil or natural gas taking into account the building's cost?
The 10 MW Tower proposed for Dubai is quite a renewable energy machine. The skyscraper pumps out 10 times the amount of energy it needs to export power to the surrounding neighborhood.
Studied Impact, the architects who designed the 10 MW Tower, note that the tower has three energy producing systems: a horizontal axis wind turbine, a concentrated solar power armature and an updraft tower.
The architectural firm, which is led by Robert Ferry, notes:
The 10 megawatt measurement is the capacity of the tower. Based on local meteorological data the 3MW CSP and 2MW SU will operate for 2,400 hours per year. The 5MW HAWT would be operational for approximately 1,600 hours per year and much of that operation will be during the night when the other two systems are inoperable. The yearly output then of the building will be approximately 20,000MWh. The estimated embodied energy in the structure, the finishes and the construction of the 130,000m2 (GFA) building is estimated at 360,000MWh and the tower will neutralize its entire existence impact in less than 20 years through the clean energy it will generate—the first skyscraper ever to do so.
Pretty heady stuff. Inhabitat adds that the 10 MW Tower will be set off in a lot where it has clear access to sunlight on all sides.
Here are a few images via Studied Impact:
