New research shows densely populated countries in Southeast Asia and West Africa could harvest effectively unlimited energy from solar panels floating on calm tropical seas near the equator.

  • micutio
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Very interesting visualisation of the sea conditions. Being based in Singapore I can attest to the very calm waters around here. However, the available area will shrink quite a bit if you consider that the waters around Singapore and the Strait of Malacca are a major shipping lane. A traffic density of that level effectively prohibits any offshore installations. Would have been nice to factor that into the graphics.

  • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I wonder how much of it would be sapped up by the air conditioning required to survive near the equator after temperatures rise a few more degrees.

  • greengnu@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    So cut the amount of energy going to the life that produces the oxygen we need to survive…

    • mindrover@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, with they way ocean temps are skyrocketing, maybe it doesn’t hurt to siphon off a bit of that energy.

  • pizzaiolo@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    For countries in the equator it’d probably make more sense to have land-based solar panels, since they’re cheap. African countries probably have the land to spare.

  • narF@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We still haven’t figured out how to make solar panels that produce more energy in their lifespan than what it take to build them.

    This seems like greenwashing… We won’t solve the climate crisis by generating more energy if we don’t stop using fossile fuel…

      • narF@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Does it include recycling cost? And more importantly, does it include the batteries to store that electricity? Batteries are not clean nor renewable. For example, just look at how cobalt is mined today and how it ruins ecosystem and populations.

    • airbck@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If by generating more energy you mean converting it from renewable sources through physical processes rather than fossile Ressourcen in chemical than yes, we do solve climate crisis by exactly doing that.

      • narF@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, and no. It’s not as easy. We do need to switch to renewable energy if we want to solve the crisis, but more importantly we need to stop using fossil fuel. Unfortunately, if you look at history, every time we discovered a new energy source like solar, hydro or wind, we never actually stopped using the older energy sources. For example, if you look at coal, we use more coal today than ever before in history, despite having found “better” options like petrol.

        So yeah, it cool that we have new ways to build solar panel, but unless we actually stop using fossil fuel, then it won’t stop the crisis.

        • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We do need to switch to renewable energy if we want to solve the crisis, but more importantly we need to stop using fossil fuel.

          What you’re saying: “We do need to do A, but more importantly we need to do A”.

          And for some reason, while doing that, you’re spreading disinformation about how to actually do A. What’s going on here?