The latest issue of MIT Technology Review lists ten (not-yet-proven) breakthrough technologies. Two that caught my eye:
Solar panels that are twice as efficient as current designs. Although I strongly oppose subsidizing current solar industries, I do hope for a “solar singularity,” meaning that at some point solar power becomes more efficient than other sources of energy and then continues to increase its advantage.
A new circuit breaker that would allow the electric grid to operate on direct current, which
can efficiently transport electricity over thousands of kilometers and for long distances underwater
My electrical engineering training always said that AC was better than DC for long haul. AC travels as a wave, rather than moving electrons. AC is also easier to “step down” and up. The only thing I can think DC would improve is not having to convert solar power and battery energy to AC for transmission.
Never mind, I just read up on it and guess HVDC does have some benefits.
An interesting list. Better solar cells and DC power transmission strike me as things which improve efficiencies but don’t alter existing society all that much. Several Items — temporary social media and big data crunching — seem to be more of what we’re already doing. Deep learning, prenatal DNA sequencing, and additive manufacturing are the things with real potential for social disruption.
My 2 cents.
Meh. We’ve been just a few years away from solar power for longer than I’ve been alive.
I’ve been following this for a while. It is starting to look like it might be legit.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/
We had a breakthrough in the 50-ies. It’s called “nuclear power”. It provides abundant, cheap, clean power. Or rather, it would if it weren’t one of the major casualties of government regulation. Solar power is a toy.
I’m curious why solar winning would be an obvious improvement? Yes, if solar gets twice more efficient, that would be wonderful. Would it be more wonderful, though, than oil becoming twice as plentiful?
The main difference between the two that I can think of is that oil involves international trade. My instinct is that more trade is typically a good thing, even for oil. As bad as people of different countries can be when they are squabbling over a resource, I think it is even worse when people don’t need each other at all.
It’s the difference between Saudi Arabia and Chad. A horror everyone knows, and a horror nobody cares about.