using a series of pumps to carry water to the top of a tower standing up to 2,250 ft (685 m) tall, where it is cast across the opening as a fine mist. The mist then evaporates and is absorbed by hot, dry air, thereby cooling the air and making it denser and heavier than the warmer air outside the tower.
At the base of the tower, turbines are driven by the downdraft of air, and the water is recovered for re-use.
It strikes me that, to the extent that the wet air is more dense and sinks is merely extracting the potential energy put into the water by pumping it higher in the first place - i.e. it is little more than a claim for a perpetual motion machine, that will actually end up consuming more energy than it generates.
On the other hand, to the extent that the air is cooled down (and hence sinks) by the cool water is effectively extracting energy from the temperature differential between the water and the air. That's a legitimate source of power, but it means the water is unable to be re-used once the water has been warmed up by the air. (It also requires a large supply of cool water in a warm region.)
While they don't claim this is a free energy device (they say it is solar-powered), it is unclear where the sun comes into it.
I hope I am hopelessly missing the point, because it smells to me like a major scam.
Is there evidence (competing towers, working scale models, independent analysis of the plans, etc.) that show that such a tower can generate more electricity than it uses to supply cold water to the top of the tower. Alternatively, are there credible models suggesting it will never be a net-positive power generator?