There are lots of other reasons others have pointed out, but I think it's also worth pointing out the economically bad timing of 3D TVs. Big-screen TVs got established in part because they were released during an economic boom when credit was cheap. Remember those people mortgaging their house to buy a TV?
3D TVs were released in the aftermath of an economic crash when credit was almost unobtainable. I think if manufacturers had a few more years of patience with the market, they might see a different result.
This is not exactly news. On the one hand, it's true; solar is considerably cheaper than anything else in large swathes of the developing world and has been for a while now. It's only going to get more-so. However, that's only the case if you use it to offset grid usage; a complete off-the-grid solar system, with enough storage to see you through the night and the odd cloudy day, is still going to cost you more over its life than the equivalent grid supply. The costs are heading down, and it's not far off being worth doing in some places, but it's not there yet. There are a few cases where supply costs aren't the only consideration where solar-with-storage is already reliable for other reasons; we came across a mining outfit with a very large crusher and a very unreliable grid. Every time the grid cut out, their crusher stopped, and someone had spend a couple of hours climbing through it clearing out the half-crushed rubble before they could restart it. Concerns about the 'unreliability' of renewables are a very first-world thing, where the grid alternative has several nines of reliability; when there are more sevens than nines involved in the grid reliability, renewables suddenly look pretty reliable.
But. On the other hand, the cost numbers are a bit deceptive. The comparison, especially in the first world, is always for _new build_ capacity. So if you're looking to add 100MW capacity and the choice is between solar-with-storage and a new 100MW coal plant, solar might well out-perform coal in a few years. But if the choice is between 100MW of existing coal capacity and 100MW of new-build solar-with-storage, there's no competition and won't be, probably ever, for two reasosn: One, you've already spent the sunk costs of the coal plant and they're being amortized over the remaining life of the plant, so replacing it with solar means there is a sudden 'cost' to account for, which you've actually already spent but which you were planning to make back in the years to come but now can't. And two, because almost all the costs of renewables are in the construction phase (ie there is no fuel to buy), you need the money sooner than you do with fossil fuels, so you don't get to spend the money on something else. As a crude example, suppose you have two 100MW projects, each with a life of 20 years, one coal and one solar. The coal plant costs $50 million to build and you'll spend $50 million on fuel evenly over its 20 year life, while the solar plant costs $100 million to build with no operating costs. The overall cost is equal, but with the coal plant you have $50 million to invest in something else until you actually need the coal, while with the solar plant you've already spent your whole $100 million.
The exact difference depends on the (assumed) discount rate, and what number to use is a matter of considerable controversy. See eg. the Stern review, which assumed a very low discount rate, to make spending now look more competitive than spending in the future. To go back to the example, assuming a discount rate of 3%, the solar project has to cost around $88 million to be competitive with the coal project.
"Scientists are crap in bed: official."
Certainly lines up with my experience.
Technical measures that prevent address spoofing are quickly becoming obsolete anyway; AFAICT, the recent attacks on Krebbs and Dyn, the two biggest DDoS attacks ever, didn't use spoofed source addresses. A spoofed address is only useful in an amplification attack, where you send a small request which provokes a much larger response; then if you don't spoof the source address, you get a huge firehose of responses coming at you and it's you that gets DDoSed, not the target.
In this case, the attackers didn't bother spoofing source addresses, because they didn't use an amplification attack; they just used a huge botnet all making ostensibly-valid requests and each device dealing with the response individually. It looks like the only way we have of preventing this sort of attack is to make the devices secure - easier said than done.
The main costs in onshore wind are the grid connection and the cost of steel & fabrication of the tower sections. Between them, over 50% of the cost of the resulting energy. There is progress being made still in lighter, more flexible towers, but I'm not sure how much further there is to go; these days a 1% gain is a big win, while ten years ago a 10% gain was perfectly feasible (eg individual pitch control reduced tower loads by ~ 10-15%). The cost of the grid connection is largely out of the control of the project developer and no-one who is able to reduce it has any incentive to reduce it, so don't look for big savings there. Sure, there's another 40% or so of the costs that can be optimised, but that's spread over lots of small things, so eg halving the O&M costs will not make a big difference to the overall cost of energy. It's hard to see steel getting a lot cheaper than it is, so it seems likely that onshore wind is approaching its long-term cost.
Offshore is another matter. An offshore turbine is just an onshore turbine that's bolted to a support structure that's in the water (more or less) so the costs of the turbine itself are pretty similar to onshore. The main thing holding up the cost of offshore wind is being able to hire a suitable construction ship on a day when the whether is suitable. So yes, development of specialised construction ships that can operate in worse weather, and expansion of the fleet of such ships, is the big factor in bringing that cost down - though it's unlikely to ever match onshore wind. Floating turbines are also a concept that cuts these costs significantly - no need to drive piles into the ocean bed to anchor the support structure - though you do still need some seabed structure for the grid connection etc. I don't think anyone's quite ready to start building large fleets of these (though there are plenty of prototypes around).
Grid connection is a bugger, whether it's for a grid-scale wind farm or a residential solar panel. Way too much of the cost of these systems is just getting the thing connected to the grid. Feed-in-tariffs don't help here, as they make the metering more complicated (you have to measure imported and exported power separately, instead of just measuring net power imports). Someone ought to do something about that. Cheaper inverters and simpler meters FTW.
Off the top of my head:
1. "Every year we hear about people dying in plane crashes. This does not have to continue..." But air travel is already the safest mode of travel. Hear all those people screaming for new technology to make road travel safe? No? Well, they're the same ones that will take this up.
2. "Passengers might board a capsule at a local bus station and wake up in another city on the other side of the country, or planet, after a road, air and rail journey during which they didn't leave their seat." They don't seem to realise the blindingly obvious point that this is making air travel *worse*. Air travel already involves sitting in a seat for too long. Why would I opt for a mode of travel that exchanges a few minutes of having to be polite to people in the aisles for one that involves several hours more in the same damn seat?
3. If you want to see just how off-their-faces unrealistic this is, look no further than this sentence: "Clip-Air's researchers, who are also looking into the possibility of using biofuels or liquid hydrogen as alternative fuels, have already initiated some contacts with the aerospace industry." Oh, great! You're launching publicity for a total redesign of the entire global air freight and passenger industry and you've *already* initiated some contacts with the aerospace industry??? Really??? What made you do that so soon??? And looking into hydrogen as a fuel source for this is basically admitting, "It's so far off the page that we might as well throw in any futuristic-sounding crap we can." If you're doing this seriously, get one thing right at a time. Don't complicate it by also trying to introduce a fuel that no-one else has managed to make work yet.
People who consider themselves "aviation visionaries" (yes, an actual term used in the article) always, always get excited about this kind of thing for no good reason. They *think* people want revolutionary concepts that change how they board planes and let them work out then drink themselves silly in a trendy bar while they're in flight. What people *actually* want are revolutionary new concepts that cut the cost of air travel.
Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. False, as you point out - supposing that the premises are true, the number of inhabited worlds may or may not be infinite.
According to , the winner achieves 95.4% efficiency - not actually that impressive as inverter efficiencies go.
If you don't understand why this isn't going to happen, you need to be kept away from grid design.
Replacing the AC network with a DC network would mean either replacing or substantially modifying the entire fleet of existing generation plant, all distribution and conversion equipment, all industrial equipment powered by electricity and most appliances. You might well be right that you can achieve better efficiency in a new network with DC than with AC; when you have to replace the entire electricity system, from spinning turbine to phone charger, it just ain't gunna happen.
Maybe, though Hack-a-Day say it involves an "incredible thermal management solution," which doesn't sound like they've actually bumped the energy efficiency up that much.
Why were Google so keen to have an inverter that maximises power density? Why not maximise energy efficiency?
Ideally you'd like to minimise cost of energy. But I guess it's fairly difficult to construct a competition around this: It depends too much on production scale and the prevailing cost of electricity. But why power density as a substitute?
Their idea of an offer you can't refuse is an offer... and you'd better not refuse.