Green Energy

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 11 points 5 months ago

They clearly don't get outside much

parent

[–] Bogus007@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

I have the impression that since pretty much 20 years or even more, the number of published papers, where scientist repeated old theories or hypothesis and concluded the same, skyrocketed. This may not be in every field the case, but in some fields like ecology there is a certain tendency. Just recently a team published with large excitement a paper which showed that trees communicate via volatile organic compounds (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/05/04/993430007/trees-talk-to-each-other-mother-tree-ecologist-hears-lessons-for-people-too). Well, studies, which showed the same, were already done in the 80‘s.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] essell@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

This often represents an issue in the reporting not the science.

A new study which explores the details of those volatile organic compounds might be reported the same as a less robust, detailed or specific study from the 80s because it has to make a good headline now, just like it did back then.

There's also the need to keep updating research, to replicate old studies to prove the evidence still counts, especially in the field of ecology since so many are inclined to dismiss the science in that field which could literally kill us all.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Bogus007@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I see the problem how it is presented - sometimes like new findings. Replication is just replication and the question always remains if the results are just different due to new technics (computer, larger experiments) or due to errors. Does it really push science ahead? Is it really new. Don’t think so, because it just adds the information that the constellation (!) may affect the hypothesis, while the hypothesis is not said to be false at all. I hope you understand what I mean.

IMO you get new findings more often in astrophysics when they approach new dimensions of the universe and suddenly certain laws does not apply or in medicine where due to mutations and resistance new frontiers and challenges appear.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] essell@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Yeah, I totally agree that there's an issue. You seem the best suggesting that some scientists are wasting time.

What's your hypothesis on the motivation for that? Is it in individual or systemic Change that's needed?

I'm reminded of a quote...

There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical
experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the
boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius
which redefines and transcends those boundaries. Acknowledging
our debt to the former, we yearn nonetheless for the latter.

      -- Academician Prokhor Zakharov,
          "Address to the Faculty"

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Bogus007@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago

I think the problem is mostly systemic rather than individual. Most scientists do not enter academia in order to waste time. They are often curious and motivated. But universities and funding systems reward publications and other measurable output more than impact or risky new ideas.

IMO this is the reason why we see many researchers end up producing work that is technically correct but has little relevance. The system forces you to survive inside academia than to explore. As a consequence, the system can become self-perpetuating and disconnected from societal or industrial needs, which makes the entire situation far more worse.

So, these are all in general systemic problems, but one should not forget that individual scientists have also the responsibility for how they approach their work.

parent

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I get the tree jokes, but I think the idea here is that the output is in an easily-processsble form such that you just pipe it into a bioreactor or refinery and make ethanol or some fossil-fuel replacement.

And I guess these could be deployed on the ocean?

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] harambe69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago

We already had that. It's called algae.

parent

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

Why produce ethanol?

Producing and burning ethanol in internal combustion engines is more polluting, less efficient than using electric vehicles. So this can't be it.

Producing and burning ethanol for heat is more polluting, less efficient than heat pumps or solar thermal energy. So that's not it either.

The article mention chemical industry and:

[..] building blocks for products ranging from fertilizers to plastics

This leaves fertilizers and plastics. So this would have to compete with other ways to produce fertilizers, plastic and plastic alternatives (cardboard packaging, wood, glass...)

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 1 point 5 months ago

I didn't think deeply about this. At least airplanes are still most efficient with kerosine-like fuel. But making plastics would be super important, because it's such a powerful material.

parent

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 months ago

Trees: "holy shit you guys catch on slow"