Researchers are reporting that they've made batteries and other energy-storage devices by printing layers of carbon nanotube–based ink atop standard photocopy paper. The result is a highly conductive sheet that can carry a charge and be easily incorporated into a flexible battery. Because of paper's low cost, that could help lower the price of batteries used in electric vehicles, wind farms, and other renewable sources.
In essence, the idea involves building a skeleton structure, wrapping it with elastic materials and then start filling it with concrete. A technique first tried in the 60's but now evaluated again with renewed interest as low-cost option for housing.
Hilarious critique to a quite important paper from Stanford trying to push the agenda of global warming ....
"You might therefore be surprised that, as I will discuss below, this paper is completely wrong. Nothing in it is correct. It fails in every imaginable respect."
If you read the comments it's because the guy doesn't want to put in the effort.
Also because I suspect the politics behind climate science favor only a particular kind of result.
just a footnote here, that climate warming aspect is not derived by an agenda of presenting the world with evil. If one looks at big journals with high outreach, it is not uncommon to find articles promoting climate warming as something not bringing the doom that extremists are promoting with marketing strategies. Here is a recent article in Science:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26612836
Science's role is to look at the phenomenon and notice what is observed. And here is one saying that the acidification of the ocean due to increase of CO2 (observed phenomenon) is not advancing destructively for coccolithophores (a key type of plankton that builds its shell out of carbonates), as we were expecting, but rather fertilises them! Good news in principle!
It could be as well argued from the more sceptics with high "doubting-inertia" that 'It could be because CO2 is not rising in the first place'', but one must not forget that one can doubt the global increase in T with statistical analyses, because it is a complex variable, but at least not the CO2 increase compared to preindustrial levels.
in either case : case 1: agenda for 'the world is warming' => - Put random big energy company here- sells renewable energies
case 2: agenda for 'the world is fine' => - Put random big energy company here - sells oil as usual
The fact that in both cases someone is going to win profits, does not correllate (still not an adequate statistical test found for it?) with the fact that the science needs to be more and more scrutinised. The blog of the Statistics Professor in Univ.Toronto looks interesting approach (I have not understood all the details) and the paper above is from JPL authors, among others.