This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Yet another "Never mind the maths the concept is so sexy" press release. As any engineer knows piezo is pants at power generation.
What was more interesting is the sidebar link:-
on converting carbon dioxide and water to jet fuel. Given that we already have an efficient and widespread energy distribution and utilisation system for vehicles based on liquid fuels that sort of approach sounds far better than over complex hybrid and battery based methods. Sunlight concentration looks ineffective outside of the Sahara desert but there are catalytic methods that work, albeit not very efficiently, for electrical conversion. Surely a decently funded scientific effort could develop efficient catalysts. Liquid fuel generated from fashionable renewable sources seems an obvious, safe way of bridging the unreliability gap. Night time nuclear would do fine too.
A chemically reliable feedstock would minimise the pollution from IC engines as the running conditions could be tightly tuned. Especially in an engine with constant peace combustion pressure such as Professor Timoneys initially simple modification of the TS3 opposed piston diesel. The full, maximum efficiency, design is scary by 1960's technology tho'. Doable now I think.
Locally re-cycling power generated CO2 emissions is the sort of thing that a real green should fall in love with. Big high capacity per unit volume batteries are dangerous. Get a half decent internal short going and they will explode in a big way. Lithium and other nasties all over the place. Very Green. Not that CO2 emissions can have much effect on climate anyway. Earth's temperature is stabilised by cloud cover. In my neck of the woods clouds reflect about half the incoming solar so any warming effect due to CO2 or other gases just means more cloud which rapidly limits temperature rise.
Interesting radio show a day or two back.
Another inventor, complete with middle European accent, was explaining that because air is so much less dense than water, a water turbine to produce the same amount of electricity as a wind turbine would be so much smaller.
His proposal was that we have fleets of sailing ships exploiting the more extreme weather conditions and with water turbines fitted to the hulls to take advantage of the consequent 4-5m/sec speed through the water.
The electricity is then used to electrolyse the sea water to produce hydrogen which is compressed.
Questioned about the dangers of operating in the more severe weather conditions, he said the effects on larger vessels would be less. He accepted that robot ships would be desirable.
He is apparently working on the costs.
SO this is another "nice" idea.
A long chain of conversions. No discussion of efficiency and apparently it is all "established" technology.
No question about how big the vessels need to be nor how many to generate a usable amount of electricity nor the energy (CO2) now committed to producing wind-jammers of the type last seen in the pre-war years.
And if they are following the worst weather there is the prospect of vast fleets of vessels marauding the seas and likely causing all sorts of issues for other shipping.
A quick google finds a few sources on this.
"“Such a project has to be calculated very carefully,” he says, “and compared to other renewable energy sources regarding the cost per kilowatt hour.” "
But not to conventional energy sources?
Of course, this is fully to be trusted since it appears in that paragon of scientific authenticity, the New Scientist https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18970-sailing-ships-could-harvest-fuel-from-the-oceans/
which says the idea originates with Max Platzer and Nesrin Sarigul-Klijn at the University of California.... (not Nether Wallop, but close?).
The Radio 4 program is "The Power of Wind" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b076nx1l (start in around 16 minutes)
Now maybe this is all perfectly feasible, perfectly valid but down the years I have become ever more cynical and ever less trusting of what scientists say. The proof ought to be in the pudding, in the eating, but......
....and however plausible the basic technology, the missing element is the cost benefit.
Revenue > Expense. You can amortise the expenses to make the equation work, you just have to make sure that maintenance and upkeep are part of it.
It helps when for "revenue" you can rely on subsidies.
I would guess that some of these schemes are really trying to source subsidies and grants. It beats making something that is cost competitive. On the other hand I wonder if all that ingenuity that goes into these various schemes might not be better employed pursuing better solutions.