My post had just been published before a flood of reactions began to materialize.

  As I suspected, their answers came in mixed. Some, deeply concerned, read into the ideas I had stated, showed appreciation, asked some questions, or simply noted that it was an interesting viewpoint.

  Most? Pessimistic, defiant, and cynical. These folks were not just skeptical; they ft-out despised my ideas. While they don't criticize using strong arguments or solid data, they unch an attack with ignorance cloaked in overconfidence.

  User Reinhardt remarked: "How funny! An ignoramus who doesn't dare even show his identity presents a case like he is the inventor of the century! If you know so much, why don't you prove to us your concept is better than the current system?"

  The user named Yuki observed: "Oh, here we go again. People who read a journal or two and think that automatic weapons have been developed by centuries-old stupid folks. You think if it were this simple, the action would already have been taken?"

  The user named Minhor asked: "I don't know whether to ugh at the stupidity of your reasoning or admire the nerves you have in stating such silliness with such bravado. Honestly, do you think this ridiculous theory can fix a working sor panel model that has been around for decades?"

  I read through each of the various comments patiently, none of which were rebuttals containing valid analysis. They were but empty rhetoric, arguments based on authority with no evidence, ridicule without logical reasoning, and basis-less conclusions.

  How entertaining.

  I began typing my response, rexed and organized.

  Only James: "@Reinhardt. I understand your skepticism. However, science does not work with blind trust in someone's authority or identity. If you would like proof, I've already expined the core mechanism behind it in my original post. Should you have ideologies that technically counter my argument, I'm all ears."

  Only James: "@Yuki. You need to understand I am not saying that the scientists working in this field are stupid. On the contrary, they have made so much progress, but this does not mean that every model out there now is optimal. If we keep on adopting the belief that certain things cannot be improved just because they have been running for decades, we won't be progressing. If you do have certain objections toward the mechanisms I wrote about, I would love to hear them."

  Comments reappeared--and this time some sounded harsher.

  The user is named Hector: "Yes, some kid who read up on a theory and then wants to teach everyone how sor energy works. You think we're stupid? This is just a theoretical ideal that cannot be put into practice!"

  I sighed before responding professionally.

  Only James: "@Hector. I don't think any theory can be, at some point in time, dismissed as 'just theory' before it is tested and validated. All great inventions started from some concepts sounded 'unfeasible in practice.' However, if with all that, you have data providing that the model I've described has some invalidities that would prohibit its application, I will be all ears."

  Amidst much skepticism, some of the quieter voices have been more curious to be more precise.

  Not everyone here just outright rejected my idea, some are actually starting to see this possibility that can be excavated further.

  They aren't just physical scientists. Economists, energy engineers and public policy specialists have joined the discussion; at least judging by the shape of the questions they ask.

  User named Cami:"Your expnation is quite interesting, @Only James. But I am still not wholly convinced. Even with high efficiency, how do you overcome the very expensive initial cost? Mass production of high-quality sor panels is still very inaccessible to most markets, especially for countries that have not got any solid industrial capacity."

  I read her comment, then replied in the same tone.

  Only James: "@Cami. Good question. Initial costs are the single biggest barrier to adoption. In this regard, we are unable to get lost in the cost of entry without considering operational costs in the long term. Sor panels have a very low maintenance and a long operational life, which pys about with the cost in the long term. Furthermore, we are progressing in the production of semiconductor materials; perovskite or tandem technology is gradually coming to be avaible at much lower production costs. Integration with energy subsidy schemes or tax incentives is really one way to facilitate market penetration."

  More comments poured in soon thereafter.

  User called Calhan: "Your technical expnation is quite reasonable, but I would like to ask from the energy distribution system's point of view. The sor panels produce electricity in an erratic pattern, plus they do so only efficiently during the day. How is this problem regarding power fluctuations remedied without overloading the grid?"

  Only James: "@Calhan. Power fluctuations are a big challenge for sor energy systems, but there are ways of combatting them. A workable solution is a grid-scale energy storage system based on batteries, allowing excess power to be stored for nighttime or when sunlight is weaker. Technologies such as pumped hydropower storage and grid level supercapacitors can also help bance grid loads. Combine this with hybrid energy systems utilizing sor energy, and other energy resources could lessen the impact of such fluctuations further."

  User named Zhao: "I am a materials engineer, and I am interested in the perovskite you mentioned. I know perovskites have high efficiency, but they still have long-term stability issues due to degradation from moisture and heat. How do you think perovskites can be commercially integrated without these problems?"

  Only James: "@Zhao. This is a good question. Perovskite stability is indeed a major challenge, and several methods may be used to work around this. One is to use polymer-based coating protection or organic-inorganic hybrid materials to reduce the degradation due to moisture. Some research is also beginning to develop mixed halide-based perovskites with better resistance toward environmental effects."

  The discussion continued to flow, and by and by, more and more scientists from various fields participated.

  The physicists talked about energy conversion efficiency, the economists discussed the impact of rge-scale implementation, and the materials engineers munched on the proposed technology's durability.

  This answered everything calmly, methodically, and without exaggeration. Not to beat somebody else but to keep this discussion on the right track.

  In a matter of hours... This discussion is no longer just a normal debate. It's becoming something much bigger.

  As I expected, this discussion will not end with the topic of physics. What began as a topic on sor panels expanded, widened, and padded into other fields.

  User named Everett: "@Only_James. I think that's less about technical efficiency than it is about a system of economic systems. If we genuinely wish to shift that dependence from conventional energy to renewables, how does that factor into the resistance from the fossil fuel industry? No matter how good the technology is, they have too much economic influence."

  I read the question calmly, and of course, this was already getting to politics and macroeconomics. This I had expected.

  Only James: "@Everett. Resistance on the part of the conventional energy industry is indeed one of the main challenges to the global energy transition. They have too much economic influence. Conventional-self-have invested a big chunk to maintain the status quo. Nonetheless, this transition does not have to take a direct route toward conflict. With certain regutions and economic policies, we have considered providing the right incentives-that is, through renewable energy subsidies equivalent to current fossil fuel subsidies-there will be opportunities where even oil companies could develop an interest in investing in the clean energy sector."

  I had hardly pressed the 'send' button when Aiko joined the talk.

  User Called Aiko: "@Only_James. That sounds fair enough, but is this transition theoretically sound within a short time frame? The typical market is still controlled by global oil prices, and there is not enough developable infrastructure in renewable energies to make them the main repcement energy for fossil fuels. Would there be an economic model that could guide us through with this transition and not cause an energy crisis on that side?"

  Only James: "@Aiko. That's a fair question. If we're talking about short-term scenarios, an immediate transition could indeed prove impossible. However, there are certain economic models that could be brought in to hasten the transition somehow while not entirely shaking the market to its core. One such model is making the cap-and-trade system stricter, with very high-emitting producers needing to buy permits from clean-energy-producing companies. That will create an incentive for industries to switch over. Another approach is using a decentralized model with smart grids, whereby individual consumers can generate and trade their own energy. That reduces dependency on the fossil-fuel-based central systems."

  This struck another conversation; the economists were now busy replying to their colleagues.

  User named Marcel: "@Only_James. If the cap-and-trade system gets tighter, isn't that going to introduce distorting factors to the market in the short term? If the price of emissions is too high, small energy companies may have to close for good before they can ever switch to renewables."

  User named Liu: "This is right, but the smart grid that @Only_James has mentioned could change this dynamic. If we can make inter-consumer energy trade work smoothly, there will no longer be energy distribution monopolies set up by huge companies, eliminating the amplification of market distortions due to emissions regution."

  I have seen how this discussion began to grow by itself, with economists busy arguing with fellow economists as before; only the argument was getting deeper every minute.

  Engineers and materials scientists have stayed with it all along, but now it is starting to sink in for them that what they are recommending will have enormous economic implications down the road.

  But, you know what? I haven't even said half of what I could have said.