Short Answer: Hoax
Long Answer: Why it's considered a Hoax
The system would generate power, but in general it would generate far less power than a flat 2d array because with today's solar panel technology, panels produce the most energy when they are perpendicularly facing the sun. It would
never create more power than a flat fixed array (except possibly at high latitudes with tracking, see
long answer 2).
Building upwards confers no advantage to building flat other than reduced space.
Building upwards means the panels above good shade the panels below, so they take in less power.
Panels angled ground-wards or not perpendicular to the sun will never receive as much sun as those perpendicular to the sun.
Long Answer 2:
How it might work
First understand You'll never get 20x the power with a 3D array, not even +20%.
The most you could get get is what you would have gotten with a 2D array.
The farther towards the poles you go the lower the sun is in the sky. Let's say you lived at 68° latitude the sun's path through the sky is +/- ~22°, so the yearly elevation of the sun would be between 45° at the height of summer to the horizon (0°) in winter. In which case a vertical structure with the panels at 68° would be just as good at panels on the ground with a 68° tilt. This is because both would on average be perpendicular to the sun. However, it is easier to spin a column, so in that
scenario might produce as much as a 2D array with solar tracking for cheaper. The further towards the poles you go, the more effective the system as the shading issue becomes less.
@upnorthandpersonal can probably comment on that a lot more.
What about those downward facing panels?
It's hard to imagine a good use case for them, probably better to build a second tower. BUT.... If you had high ground albedo (e.g., always fresh snow on the ground) then panels angled towards the ground would pick up energy reflecting from the ground at a loss.