this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2025
33 points (78.0% liked)

Lunarpunk

571 readers
1 users here now

Lunarpunk is a subgenre of solarpunk with a darker aesthetic. It portrays the nightlife, spirituality, and more introspective side of solarpunk utopias. It can be defined as "Witchy Solarpunk." Aesthetically, lunarpunk usually is presented with pinks, purples, blues, black, and silver with an almost omnipresence of bioluminescent plants and especially mushrooms

What is Lunarpunk, And Can It Fix Solarpunk’s Problems?

Solarpunk Station - What is Lunarpunk?

What is lunarpunk? - Solarpunk Druid

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Imagine a world where solar panels continue to harness energy even when the sun isn’t shining. It sounds like science fiction, but advancements in technology are making this a reality. The idea of solar panels that work at night is not just an intriguing concept; it is a groundbreaking innovation poised to revolutionize the renewable energy landscape. This development could potentially bridge the gap in renewable energy production, offering a continuous source of clean power. As we explore this exciting innovation, we delve into the mechanisms, potential applications, and impact on our future energy needs.

Nocturnal solar panels might sound like a paradox, but they are based on a simple yet innovative principle. These panels utilize the concept of radiative cooling, where they emit infrared radiation to the cold night sky, creating a temperature difference. This temperature gradient can then generate electricity through thermoelectric generators. The idea is to harness the thermal energy that naturally occurs when objects release heat, allowing solar panels to produce electricity even in the absence of sunlight. This ingenious approach not only extends the functionality of solar panels but also opens new avenues for energy production.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SteveKLord@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I found those without much effort. I didn't say they were in the article. Just showing it's not necessarily theoretical which was your opinion. Calling something "bullshit" can come across as unnecessarily combative and you then just dismissed the article outright. Constructive would be to state why and what about it could be improved which is more appreciated. People are free to read for themselves.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Those links are useful. If the article included it it would be a useful article.

Constructive would be to state why

I did. I said it had no sources.

[–] SteveKLord@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 days ago

That's a criticism which is yours to have though it is not constructive nor is this. Your comment called it "bullshit" and effectively said "fake news". I made a simple request to be more mindful of your words. Pushing back further isn't appreciated.