We Need Clean-Energy Innovation, and Lots of It

http://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Energy-Innovation

by ph0rque • 11 years ago

106 74 11 years ago

melling3• 11 years ago

Didn't Google drop RE<C because they realized current technologies weren't enough?

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google-engineers...

"Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach," wrote Google's Ross Koningstein and David Fork in a piece published yesterday in IEEE's Spectrum"

crpatino• 11 years ago

You cannot combat climate change by producing electricity cheaper than coal. If that was the case, the market would find a way not to replace coal, but to consume the extra on top of coal.

toomuchtodo2• 11 years ago

If that was the case, the market would find a way not to replace coal, but to consume the extra on top of coal.

That's not how PPAs and generation works. Nuclear power is already barely viable in the Illinois market (dominated by Exelon) because wind sells its power so much cheaper.

There's a new generation facility coming online near Vegas that's going to be selling solar at around 4 cents/kwh, the lowest price in the nation.

Cheap renewables don't get consumed above existing fossil generation; cheap renewables push out existing fossil fuel generation. For an example, see Germany and how their utilities can barely keep some generation running because they don't get enough revenue with solar dominating during daylight hours.

Solution: Continue to heavily subsidize solar, wind, utility-scale battery storage. Continue to shut down coal plants. Purchase peaking combined cycle natural gas generators, put them into non-profits (because they won't be profitable) to meet the generation gap until enough utility-scale battery storage can allow renewables to be firmly dispatchable resources (they can be relied on to provide power at a constant rate, vs intermittent resources). Profit (or rather, help stop climate change).

shoo3• 11 years ago

a fundamentally different approach

Here are some ideas:

1. adjust the rules regulating the market (e.g. price greenhouse gas emissions correctly)

2. introduce a tax on advertising to discourage unnecessary consumption

3. ensure the price of products and services includes full life cycle costs of disposal and pollution

4. replace the whole "economic growth" philosophy with something else that is consistent and reconcilable with planetary ecological limits

5. encourage non-coercive measures to discourage population growth (e.g. access to contraception, family planning, give women increased options for education and employment), particularly in the more affluent countries which have very high per-capita environmental footprints

6. discourage population growth as above, and provide increased economic opportunities, for people living in less affluent countries, since people are able to move between countries to seek better opportunities for themselves. Or instead invest in the rather less ethical "Fortress $(countryname)" approach to keep out the people unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong part of the globe.

Tangentially, you may be interested in Donella Meadows' "Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System" [1].

[1] -- http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-place...

Retric2• 11 years ago

Wind is often < Coal, even some solar can beat coal. (EX: Hawaii) So, they needed a new focus.

shoo3• 11 years ago

I am glad to see Gates throwing his money and influence in a progressive direction.

we need to be able to power all sectors of the economy with sources that do not emit any carbon dioxide.

Yes. That said, I think a lot of the optimistic future trajectories for world climate models rely on the assumption of CCS technology permitting negative net carbon emissions later in the century. On the positive side: hypothetically if the technology were to exist we could get away with some emissions; negative side: this technology doesn't actually exist.

But when it comes to preventing the worst effects of climate change, the investments I make will matter much less than the choices that governments make.

I completely agree. A global price on carbon would help here. It's going to be difficult for clean-energy alternatives to compete with existing energy sources such as coal, that (i) are priced in a way that ignores the negative externalities of greenhouse gas emissions, and (ii) are heavily subsidised. The global economy needs to be appropriately regulated in order to coerce it into doing more useful activities.

Scientists generally agree that preventing the worst effects of climate change requires limiting the temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, and that doing so requires the biggest emitters to cut emissions 80 percent by 2050 and all countries to essentially eliminate them by the end of the century.

Indeed!

These are solvable problems.

Here I disagree. We are not going to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. We missed that window by a few decades.

It would still be a VERY good idea to limit temperature rise to +3 degrees Celsius, or something, instead of ending up with a world where it is +4 degrees C and still rising.

I recently finished reading the book "Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming" by McKenzie Funk. I am actually more optimistic about the future now: we still have geoengineering options available, such as pumping sulphur into the atmosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight heating the world by a fraction of a percent.

It's worth pointing out, however, that:

* geoengineering gives us a means to partially/completely address one of the symptoms (temperature rise) of the problem, and continue to avoid addressing the causes. other symptoms: nitrogen cycle disruption, species mass extinction, extinction of non-renewable resources, extinction of renewable resources (global fish stocks), ...

* geoengineering options will also cause some climate change, and these changes will not be uniformly or fairly distributed over the world. All things being equal, powerful countries will run geoengineering projects, and as far as it can be predicted and controlled, the climate will be adjusted to preferentially favour the countries running these projects.

* the long-term, large-scale secondary consequences of things we do that seem like a good idea are not always anticipated!

* geoengineering options are akin to patching a highly complex system by adding more complexity to patch a symptom. this requires upkeep and potentially makes the entire thing more fragile.

Bluestrike2• 11 years ago

Geoengineering might make the entire system more complex, but it sure beats the alternative. None of the more viable options that have been proposed have potential side effects worse than what we'll expect if we do nothing. And while it might just be treating the symptoms, it also gives us the time necessary for technological innovations to change the causes of those same symptoms. Electric cars, improved and more efficient power systems (fourth gen reactors, improved renewables, and better battery tech for starters), cleaner production systems, even the eventual benefits of building orbital manufacturing infrastructure will all combine to solve many of the root causes we're struggling with.

delbel• 11 years ago

Wake me up when we start building fast breeder reactors that recycle nuclear waste [1], and start building large scale thermal depolymerization plants to turn our trash into oil. [2] I also want to know how he think we should address this mini-ace age that it appears I'll be spending half my life in.[3]

1. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186023-russia-bets-its-en...

2. http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil

3. http://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-ag...

tstactplsignore• 11 years ago

You should read your sources:

"The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times by the year 2030"

A grand solar minimum would have little to no effect on our warming climate.[1][2] The work this paper is reporting on did not even make any claims about climatic changes, and the impact of a grand solar minimum has been extensively explored in the literature with the conclusion being that it will be a fraction of the anthropogenic warming trend. It's not entirely your fault, that's some pretty bad pop journalism from livescience.

1. http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-d...

2. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-...

Retric2• 11 years ago

Wind is cheaper than safe nuclear power, so spending a lot on R&D for a more expensive version of Nuclear seems pointless. Nuclear can work well for huge boats and subs, but on land it's extremely expencive and only gained traction through huge subsides.

sanxiyn• 11 years ago

Wind has low power density, so it requires much more space. This probably is not a problem for US, but a serious problem for other countries.

prawn• 11 years ago

I'm really impressed not only at Gates' actions post-Microsoft, but that he makes the effort to explain them in such an accessible and public way. I think that's a really positive step and others in a similar position could learn from him.

thirdreplicator• 11 years ago

Yeah, I hate Windows and IE as much as the next techie, but Bill Gates is a great man -- period. I'm a fan. In his early days, he was just thinking business is just a game, so he was kind of ruthless in his business practices. But now that he has already made it, it's great to see his true colors and how deeply benevolent he is. I'm going to start following his blog posts on renewable energy.

UserRights2• 11 years ago

Very cool comment :)

hackuser4• 11 years ago

But when it comes to preventing the worst effects of climate change, the investments I make will matter much less than the choices that governments make.

How can he stay out of politics, in that case?

The Republican Party aggressively opposes any climate change policy, from research to reduction to mitigation. They aggressively support the fossil fuel industry. The Koch brothers, whose combined wealth is on Gates' scale, spend billions to advocate similar positions. The Fox media network, from Fox News to the Wall Street Journal, push propaganda supporting these positions. (These statements are not partisan simply because one party looks bad. Much of it is factual -- clearly that's the GOP's position -- and if you accept the science of climate change, I think their claims clearly fall within the realm of propaganda.)

There is no media outlet that pushes back or calls any of the above on their propaganda, except those too small to matter, and the Democrats are passive.

The best investments Gates could make for climate change might be a political organization and/or a media network. I can guess why he doesn't, but I'd be interested to know. I wonder if he hoped, like many geeks, that he could avoid it and just do good things.

radmuzom• 11 years ago

Surprised that you are getting down-voted for saying the right thing. As I am not American, I never took any interest in American politics. So I was never aware of the right wing propaganda machine - till I subscribed to Wall Street Journal. I was shocked that it's considered to be a "good" newspaper by some - of course, I have cancelled my subscription now - it was the single most important event in my life as it made me extremely liberal and progressive (as a reaction to the pure nonsense produced by the journal).

mixmastamyk• 11 years ago

It's now owned by News corp, same as Fox.

melling3• 11 years ago

Well, it's a little unclear what course of action people are proposing. Political rants aren't that helpful. If people knew they could save a few bucks installing solar they would. Consumers vote with their wallets.

Do we need to make solar cheaper or more efficient, for example? More battery research?

hackuser4• 11 years ago

I was never aware of the right wing propaganda machine - till I subscribed to Wall Street Journal. I was shocked that it's considered to be a "good" newspaper by some

This puzzles me too, to a degree. Most educated people can recognize the propaganda on their editorial page, and most know, based on Fox News Channel, that the owners have very low journalistic standards and are willing to publish deceit. WSJ reporters even appear as Fox correspondents now (at least, when I watched briefly a few months ago). Why would smart people still trust the WSJ?

To address one counter-argument, the NY Times is not the same; it's editorial page has much higher standards. I don't agree with everything, but rarely to I read blatent lies and propaganda.

I suspect it's simple branding. The "Wall Street Journal" brand carries integrity, and people don't think skeptically about it.

Htsthbjig• 11 years ago

"till I subscribed to Wall Street Journal. I was shocked that it's considered to be a "good" newspaper by some"

What shocks me is that people don't see propaganda in ANY newspaper.

I have studied propaganda and psychology, because it interest me and frankly, because it is very useful for making money with your company. I would recommend watching "The century of the self" for a great overview of the subject before going deeper on what interest you.

Now I find propaganda everywhere. Have you heard the phrase "the land of the free" or "opportunities". It is propaganda. People that have never traveled around the world will hear the phrase and believe it without doubt.

In fact, those phrases are used for the contrary. Every time "land of the free" is used it is for removing yet another freedom, leaving the people with the empty phrase that was true 100 years ago, while removing the freedoms that sustain it one by one.

For example, Obama will talk loud about freedoms, while making it smaller the amount of money you could extract of your own bank account without reporting. He will let police confiscate your wealth if he thinks so(to buy army grade weapons), it will spy on all your communications, harass you on airports, and bail too big to fail institutions with your money.

buckbova• 11 years ago

The GOP's position is to not let climate change be the catalyst for wealth redistribution, by any means.

hackuser4• 11 years ago

I agree that's "a" position, but there is much more. By itself, it doesn't explain why they try to defund research, deny the facts, etc.

The only pattern I can find to explain it is that they might see the issue as part of the 'culture war' with liberalism, and so they reject it outright as part of their effort to reject liberalism. (But that's a huge generalization about the thoughts of tens of millions of people.)

vixen99• 11 years ago

Wealth 're'-distribution? So where was the wealth distributed from to start with? It wasn't; by and large it was earned as businesses across the world know very well.

copsarebastards• 11 years ago

How can he stay out of politics, in that case?

What makes you think he's staying out of politics?

Voters don't like the idea of people buying politicians. If the public sees that a politician has been bought, they are less likely to vote for them. So if you're investing in politicians, you don't want to make that information public--that's the quickest way to decrease the value of your investment. Publicly staying out of politics is a smart political move for a person whose primary influence on politics is monetary.

The Koch brothers are a good example of this--the only reason we know that they have been funding Republican and Tea Party campaigns is because of good investigative journalism. They don't go out and announce it. In fact, in interviews they have pretended not to have even heard of the organizations they fund.

It would surprise me greatly if Gates doesn't similarly already have his hands in politics, but the thing Gates has that the Koch brothers don't is soft power[1]. I doubt any major news source will try to write an exposé on Gates' funding of X lobbying organization or Y "grassroots" movement, because most journalists (and people) agree with Gates' goals. Even Fox News would be putting their own goals at risk if they wrote such an exposé, because there's a risk that it would actually bring attention (and funding) to organizations that oppose Fox News' goals.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

afarrell2• 11 years ago

One avenue to explore would be genetically engineering strains of corn, rice, and wheat that have nitrogen-fixing bacteria. This would have the impact of reducing the vast quantities of fossil fuel we spend on the Haber-Bosch process and also free poor farmers from having to spend money on artificial fertilizer.

I am however utterly ignorant of the difficulty of doing this. I doubt this research would be funded by Monsanto or other companies which sell artificial fertilizer.

danieltillett6• 11 years ago

I am however utterly ignorant of the difficulty of doing this.

It is very difficult since the symbiotic relationship needed is difficult to recreate - it is not just a matter of introducing a few new genes.

Even doing this would not avoid the need for the Haber-Bosch process. The symbiotic bacteria just can’t produce the amount of organic nitrogen that we need to get into modern crops to have them produce at the level we need to feed everyone. Even crops like legumes which have the symbiotic bacteria are supplied with artificial nitrogen when grown under modern agricultural conditions.

danieltillett6• 11 years ago

What we need is to buy up all the FF energy companies and have them not dig/pump/burn the carbon they control. While the FF industry is large, it is not that large and it would be totally possible to just buy it all up and shut it down.

This approach would have the nice side-effect of removing the economic motivation for climate changing denial and all the anti-science propaganda that results.

Animats• 11 years ago

No, we don't need clean energy innovation. And that's a problem.

Right now, there's an oil glut and a natural gas glut. The US may be self-sufficient in energy in about four years without even trying. The fear that fossil fuels will run out in the near term is gone. This has taken the pressure off the need for alternative energy.

danieltillett6• 11 years ago

There is still the need to do something about the GHG’s we are dumping into the atmosphere. This large uncontrolled geoengineering experiment may not go so well given the current usage of fossil fuels.

guscost4• 11 years ago

I'm fairly well convinced that farming is a much more significant geoengineering experiment, but not a peep out of the CO2 folks about that. Are you sure that one or the other will definitely have good or bad effects? Can you explain the logic if so?

willyk• 11 years ago

the need for energy innovation is a both a short term and long term problem, that extends beyond the availability fossil fuels -- which IMO are best kept in the ground if possible/as soon as innovation permits (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/keep-it-in-the...)

cmarschner• 11 years ago

I agree with much of what Gates writes, but at least in Europe this is more or less common sense. Although there is a lot of inertia, and there could be much more government-funded research, we are slowly getting there - not by presidential decrees, but through a slow process of expert groups, democratic decisions, and small innovations. But it all is offset by the fact that as these 450 million people are trying to reduce their - arguably high - footprint, at the same time 2-3 billion people are in the process of getting access to the same energy resources that we are trying to get away from. And half of the world's biggest polluter's population is voting for a party that is so far off common sense that their horrible example could continue for decades.

All this makes me pessimistic that mankind can fix the problem in my lifetime, and I will have to tell my daughter: i'm deeply sorry. We screwed up.

A breakthrough in innovation seems to be our only chance.

UserRights2• 11 years ago

TWR is NOT clean energy.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/22/twr-vs-ifr/

TheSpiceIsLife5• 11 years ago

Great to see someone else linking to bravenewclimate.com - this is a sorely under-read and under-linked resource.

Also, I used to live in Adelaide where Barry Brook held the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change. He then moved to Tasmania about a year after I did, thereby fixing our electricity related emissions because Tasmania's electricity is almost entirely hydroelectric.

ZeroGravitas6• 11 years ago

I'm sure I read last week that Gates had invested 200 million in a software company to more efficiently extract oil and gas, which seems to contradict his stance here.

Can't find the article now, was titled something like "Silicon Valley taking on the Fossil Fuel Industry".

TheSpiceIsLife5• 11 years ago

Regardless of whether we burn oil and gas for energy we will still need them for other purposes like lubricants and feedstock for chemical processes, so it doesn't necessarily contradict.

BrandonMarc• 11 years ago

About 10 years ago a new company appeared, with great promise for a clean-energy future. With the awkward name XsunX, their goal was to produce what they called "power glass" ... a type of glass that contained barely-visible solar cells and wiring. Tie it appropriately into a building's electrical system, and viola! a window becomes a power generation source.

The notion was that since the modern aesthetic is glass skin for large buildings, then why not let that new skyscraper in London, NYC, Houston, etc generate some of its own power from the acres (yes, acres) of glass covering its exterior?

The solar cells would be less efficient for a variety of reasons, and most windows wouldn't face direct sunlight all day, but these inefficiencies would be countered by volume: the entire building would be covered in solar cells.

Fantastic idea! And ... it fizzled. The XsunX website still exists, but you have to find really old press-release PDFs buried within to find any mention of Power Glass.

Use the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, though, and you'll see their website years ago focused almost entirely on Power Glass and its promise.

I really wish this idea could take off ...

We Need Clean-Energy Innovation, and Lots of It

Related Stories