Article doesn't exactly explain 250% more than what? Definitely not more than currently available solar cells which are around 20% efficient. Because that would mean 50% for perovskite cells and that's of course not the case.

How is turning plastic into fuel sustainable in any way?

In other European countries they try to use hydrogen to decarbonize steel production. Remains to be seen which solution is more efficient.

When we emit 40 billion tonnes a year, 2 billion tonnes are just greenwashing. We have to invest all we can spare on avoiding carbon emissions, the rest we can manage by improving photosynthesis, like planting trees etc.

It's of course a model, an experiment and not a descriptive explanation. But it ends up with a similar accumulation of wealth like we observe in unregulated capitalism.

> employees find ways to game the system

That always happened, since the beginning of employment. And it always was an arms competition, a game of cat and mouse.

Sure, that's why I think we should drastically improve the rules, contrary to the religion of the free market , the failing of which I think is best described in the so called Yard Sale Model.

I don't think gamification as such is the bad thing. It's the lack of intelligent rules which cause harm for a large number of participants in the game. But I still think all rules can improve and the game can become much better.

It's funny how uneducated people always ask others to educate themselves.

Carbon capture is a stupid end-of-the-pipe solution. The money should only go to roll-out renewable energy technologies replacing any carbon release from happening. Of course the fossil lobby tries to shill for this nonsense.

A lot of the money justified for science has no economic use.

Well, if you follow the link about neutron radiation it says

> Neutrons may be emitted from nuclear fusion or nuclear fission,

You really think you are the informed person here capable to research such a complex topic?

To name one, as a starter you may educate yourself about neutron flux and its consequences for commercial operations of nuclear plants. And insulting out of ignorance doesn't make you look smarter.

That's because like many enthusiasts you reduced your opinion on favorable aspects only, ignoring all economic, scientific and technological problems - such as obviously your sources.
A reddit comment of course cannot be sufficient to compensate for all that lack of knowledge.

> running stable 24/7 while not being bound to its location's weather or environment?

Nothing anyone really is needing basically. The transition to 100% renewable energy from many sources including storage is actually happening. Mainly because big power and money, aka government and corporations, already have understood that this is the only viable future. High tech fans from the social web can't change that.

Nuclear energy, fission or fusion, is still a technology causing more problems than it can solve. In general a centralized expensive and complex high tech is seen as outdated by many. Decentralized cheap low tech is much more resilient, safer and easier to adopt globally in the poorest countries too.

People will feel less frightened for this to come out of the sink than from snakes or rats.

> decide

Often not a free decision I guess.

Company desktops are Windows and the private people prefer mobile devices.

Scientists will be pleased by all resources left to them by the military.

> German leaders literally caused the worldwide renaissance for coal.

Except those who claimed that bullshit actually did it silently.