zksmk

You can also unsubscribe from the community as soon as you've made the post. Agreed it's unintuitive, but it's a workaround that works for me.

The person that made that paper is a bit out of the mainstream, for what it's worth. Interpret as you wish, doesn't mean they're wrong, but y'know...

Honestly? Duckduckgo (or other privacy respecting search engine of your choice; Startpage, Qwant, Ecosia, SearX...) image search: "solarpunk art" , display: last month.

Interesting. Either something bugged out or I pasted the wrong thing (a blank), but this link should be the OP link: https://phys.org/news/2022-07-strange-phase-quantum-dimensions.html

Edit: I've edited it into the OP now.

Seems like a false dichotomy to me.

Oh, agreed, personally. There's room for all these technologies, and sometimes even a necessity for only some of them, due to a lack of proper alternatives in some places. And it's not always the same technology. There's no one size fits all answer, for every place on Earth.

This is a debate worth having only in a specific localized context, and not to find some generalized rule imo. I never understood why it had to be either/or.

nuclear safety requires something very near to 0 corruption

Oh definitely, I'd never want my country to build a nuclear fission plant, due to how incompetent and corrupt both the system and mentality around doing these kind of things is around here. I'd be way too worried the thing would explode (despite all the safety measures) because somebody washed some money through the project, the funding got cut beyond safety limits or somebody simply got lazy and didn't do proper maintenance, alas. Ty, but no ty, at least for another half a century, we're not mature enough. I'm sure this applies to many poorer and smaller countries across the globe.

Fusion I'd feel safe with, but that's a dream within a dream.

Said that, I never support the ‘‘renewables are intermittent’’ point

I do wish we had better developed and more universal grid storage tech than just pumped hydro. A large/continental-sized grid is cool and all, but energy independence is still important in geopolitics unfortunately, and simply in practical terms in general too.

Done with this simple trick! Desertification hates it!

That's human-powered right? I think i can see the chain there (plus why else have that seating setup if not for pedaling).

Judging by the size of that cargo section it must be pretty hard pedaling all that stuff in the back, assuming it's heavy packages. Seems like a workout. But then again, it's sort of like a rickshaw I guess, so doable? I hope the driver is paid extra accordingly. I assume it also has some gearing system that makes it easier on the legs but extra slow.

If it has an extra electric engine somewhere in there tho, why even have the pedals? Maybe the pedals are just for the empty trip back.

~~Overall I don't hate it~~ (let me rephrase that: I like it!), but I'm not the one pedaling. :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perovskite_solar_cell

Key takeaway of the wiki article:

Solar cell efficiencies of laboratory-scale devices using these materials have increased from 3.8% in 2009[3] to 25.7% in 2021 in single-junction architectures,[4][5] and, in silicon-based tandem cells, to 29.8%,[4][6] exceeding the maximum efficiency achieved in single-junction silicon solar cells. Perovskite solar cells have therefore been the fastest-advancing solar technology as of 2016.[1] With the potential of achieving even higher efficiencies and very low production costs, perovskite solar cells have become commercially attractive. Core problems and research subjects include their short- and long-term stability.[7]

This new advancement might fix their biggest flaw.

A graph showcasing the recent rapid progress with perovskite solar cell technology:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/ModulePVeff%28rev200708%29.png

Correct. That's the main supposed advantage of these vertical axis turbines, in the context of offshore.

... its concept has a simple, robust design with a low centre of gravity, while its moving parts are located close to the water surface, enabling easier, cheaper maintenance.

The lower center of gravity decreases the size of the submerged substructure and therefore also its costs, and there's also the fact a VAWT doesn't need a yaw system.

Main supposed benefit, aside from the supposed windflow benefits, that is:

When set closely interspaced in pairs, VAWTs increase each other’s performance by up to 15%, the UK-based institute said in its press release, triggering much media attention.

The researchers argue that VAWT’s in wind-farm array do not suffer from HAWT-related turbulent wake issues created by the first row, which decrease the output of the rows of turbines behind by up to 40%. Using vertical- rather than horizontal-axis machines would not only eliminate this problem, they suggest, but the VAWTs would actually enhance each other’s performance.

Which is both explained in more detail in the OP article, and most definitely put in question as well(!).

But yeah, costs are probably even more important than that:

...the larger scale of offshore wind turbines and improved materials indicate that VAWT designs may have certain advantages and benefits for floating offshore wind energy installations. For instance, VAWT designs have a lower center of gravity, which would reduce the platform costs. From a systems perspective, that could be a huge breakthrough for floating offshore wind, where the platform is the single largest contributor to the system cost," said Brandon Ennis, Sandia's Wind Energy Technologies Department offshore technical lead. "The turbine represents approximately 65% of the system cost for land-based wind plants, compared to only around 25% for deep-water offshore sites.

There are downsides too, it's a numbers game. That's why I'm curious what will the full large scale test by SeaTwirl in Norway show.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯