Solarpunk technology

2425 readers

1 users here now

Technology for a Solar-Punk future.

Airships and hydroponic farms...

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

poVoq@slrpnk.net

KeraKali@slrpnk.net

bot@slrpnk.net

217

MIT Passive Desalination system could produce freshwater that is cheaper than tap water, scales down to the size of a suitcase. (news.mit.edu)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to c/technology@slrpnk.net

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

According to MIT, this technology works even at small scale, with one the size of a suitcase able to desalinate 6 litres per hour, and only needing to be serviced every few years.

Here's a video detailing how it works.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why frame it as "nuclear or renewables"? We need both.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We don't need both. Both would just make it easier.

What we don't have is time. Nuclear is slow to bring online, and we've lost a lot of the expertise associated with it. We don't have 20 years to retrain the personnel, educate the public, and get the designs done and built, at scale. Solar and other renewables are ready to go now.

The only weakness is energy storage/buffering. That can be covered by either additional storage, or over supply, combined with supplementary usage, like desalination, or hydrogen/hydrocarbon production.

Don't get me wrong, nuclear should be part of the solution, but we no longer have time to wait on it anymore.

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The effects of climate change and other environmental disasters will be with us for hundreds of years. We have time and should think long term. Nuclear is a reliable source of massive amounts of energy that we can use for carbon capture, cleaning water, and creating fuel.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm not disagreeing with you on the long term. I'm disagreeing on the 5-20 year range. If we give politicians the out of "waiting for nuclear to carry the base load" they will take it, and we will be completely fucked (or rather our children will be).

Nuclear needs investment, and will let us continue to grow, post fossil fuels. It will take time to regain the knowledge base we have already lost however, as well as building the next generation of nuclear power stations properly (as opposed to the old modified bomb factories).

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Yes agreed, renewables are the best immediate option and it's urgent that we change