In the same vein as the other thread - getting solar energy on the moon - what about getting renewable energy from the same principles that form lightning?

If there is this charge differential in the atmosphere at all times, can't we theoretically tap into it? I'm imagining a very tall tower from the ground to an upper level of the atmosphere, that exaggerates conditions the way a storm might (there is no scientific consensus on how this is done yet), and triggers a controlled lightning strike every x amount of seconds, contained within the tubular tower.

Storing this energy is another feat altogether, but with new materials like Graphene maybe this will one day be possible.

Let's make the giant assumption we can some day be able to do all these things - the end result would be pretty cool. You could build these anywhere, with a relatively small footprint (smaller than fields of solar cells at least).

Is this at all feasible, or am I missing something big here?

I think your confusing two separate concepts.

Lightning is caused by hailstones rubbing together so your only going to get energy when a storm passes over.

Nikola tesla did propose collecting energy from the ionosphere but I don't know if anyone has gotten this concept to work.

theorically it's possible, but not economically possible. i think i've read an article about it before.

it something about occuring probality, and storage capability and longevity.

anyway, AFAIK, you can store electricity from lightning.

http://www.weatherimagery.com/blog/harnessing-lightning-power/

It's massively difficult - logistically speaking - and utterly pointless.

Lighting comes as a high peak of 1 TW that last about 30 microseconds (numbers out of WP:EN). Just run the nembers, 1*10[sup]12[/sup]*30*10[sup]-6[/sup]=30*10[sup]6[/sup]=30 "MWs" / (60*60) = ~.01 MWh = 10kWh per lighting - this is admittedly very simplified. This is very little, Even catching all the lightings around - 16 Mil, according to WP:EN - doesn't really make it more meaningful.

Anyway, the power distribution creates a serious difficulty. Routing this amount of energy is difficult and even superconductors won't change this very much. Don't even get me started on the mind-boggling amount of circuitry required to deal with ripples and quality of electricity.
But even supposing you find a way to store this (super-giga-ultra-capacitors) and to condition the output well enough, we would be dealing with a power source that is not only intermittent but also rather unpredictable.
For high energy output the grid would be heavily dependent on the device. An eventual failure could have dramatic consequences. Contrary to the popular belief, big generators don't provide a safer power supply. Big generators eventually make the grid more fragile, especially when they go offline fast and unpredictably , shifting away Gigs of power in a short time.
For low but prolonged energy output, released over many hours, then this is not much of a big deal. Traditional power sources are viable for this size and dispatchable. Hydro and wind power would have no problem in supplying the same amount of energy on a more predictable and constant basis. The delivered power is so little even PV can play with this. The idea of long-term storage just does not seem to have any sense to me. Most generators, to be considered "efficient" must run at least for 75% of the time (this number varies, 75% is the percentage used to design hydro power around here).

As more and more data is acquired about solar and wind power, utilities are improving their dispatch algorithms to use better those power sources. This started many years ago and will likely require at least another decade of evolution. Lighting-power would present the very same problems, raised to... a power.
I don't think I'll see this in my lifetime. More realistic resolutions include solar arrays on moon beaming down power - and that's already beyond what I consider realistic - and making electricity out of shit. Wait, this already happens.

Looking at the link right now.