back to article Gates: Renewable energy can't do the job. Gov should switch green subsidies into R&D

Retired software kingpin and richest man in the world Bill Gates has given his opinion that today's renewable-energy technologies aren't a viable solution for reducing CO2 levels, and governments should divert their green subsidies into R&D aimed at better answers. Gates expressed his views in an interview given to the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. CAPS LOCK

    So, to sum up, give my companies money...

    .... I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that Bill would operate in his own personal interests. c.f. Malaria...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So, to sum up, give my companies money...

      what a hateful little creature you are.

      1. CAPS LOCK

        Hahaha, I loled at your combination of naivity and gullibility until...

        ... I looked at the rest of the thread. So you're one of Bills minions. How's that working out for you? But you're bang on with your appraisal of my character though.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. JCitizen
      Megaphone

      Re: So, to sum up, give my companies money...

      Bill is full of it - wind has now reached coal in parity by cost analysis. This was made possible by changing the design of the blades to something that is very economical to manufacture. They make these things in my back yard so I'm pretty familiar with the industry. The ONLY thing holding this off becoming a primary source of power, is there is no way right now to store the excess energy that could be generated every day. Right now, if you visit a wind farm, you will see many towers with the blades feathered, or the generator locked, because there is no where to go with the load. There is almost never a day with wind below 7 mph here, and that is the limit to make enough difference to actually make money to receive a return on investment. It only takes 28 days, on average, to pay off a single tower, if the wind maintains a speed above that figure for the entire month.

      I've been proposing gravity storage, as in building an electric cog railway into the Rocky Mountains, that can generate electricity on the way back down hill. If there were money used to that end, then I'd say it would be worth it. Wind energy subsidies have already been canceled by the US congress, because it is already making the Midwest very rich. They transmit all they can to California, but the grid can only take so much voltage at a time - hence the need for storage. Another idea is to turn the salt water caverns nearby, into a huge electric saltwater battery. I really think this is solvable - but the coal miner unions and the natural gas industry are in cahoots to cancel this advantage out. They have noisier lobbyists in Washington than the wind energy sector.

  2. elDog

    The richest pragmatist in the world.

    And kudos to him for being so.

    The fervor of most current green technologies is stoked by those that have an interest in making them so.

    However it is also important to keep exploring new technologies and new uses for old technologies.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: The richest pragmatist in the world.

      Green subsidies have nothing to do with the environment - they are a way of taxing poor people to give rich homeowners a tax break.

      If you introduced a campaign for road safety, gave a tax rebate on Chelsea tractors paid for by a hike in bus fares people would object, do the same with solar feed-in tarrifs for Teslas and it's a green revolution.

      1. Charles Manning

        Re: The richest pragmatist in the world.

        "Green subsidies have nothing to do with the environment - they are a way of taxing poor people to give rich homeowners a tax break."

        No, it's more about letting the eco-smugs feel good about themselves while flying their private jets to the next speaking engagement where they will tell everyone else to reduce their living standards.

    2. itzman

      Re: The richest pragmatist in the world.

      it is even more important to keep doing back of envelope calculations on new technologies and new uses for old technologies to demonstrate they cannot ever work at all economically and therefore no not need billions invested in them.

  3. Swarthy

    In addition

    Could we do something about the interminable lawsuits and injunctions that stop nuclear plants from being built? The US could drastically cut it's carbon emissions (and electricity prices) if it weren't more difficult to build a nuke plant than it is to put a man on the moon. Actually, I guess they are about the same - we haven't done either since the 70's.

    1. cray74

      Re: In addition

      "Could we do something about the interminable lawsuits and injunctions that stop nuclear plants from being built?"

      This. And maybe something to push us to the thorium-U233 fuel cycle.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. itzman
          Mushroom

          Re: In addition

          ..." uranium, by all sensible definitions, is 'renewable'."....

          Try telling Greenpeace that.

      2. url

        in my ill-informed world

        It seems entirely obvious that thorium,is literally the best option now, and in the medium term

        1. ScottDrysdale

          Re: in my ill-informed world

          Yes thorium would be excellent for the long term but engineers always support "field proven" solutions to meet cost/schedule deadlines while minimizing risks...... and will walk away to protect their reputation if necessary. At this time several of the SMR technologies have been properly "field proven" in mines, ice breakers etc.

          Some favor Toshiba's 4S. But I am not sure if Bill Gates travelling wave reactor is ready for prime time just yet. Windturbines and Solar panels are all the radical, non-technical environmentalists tend to push because they don't know any better and do not want to go against Greenpeace strategy to demonize all forms of nuclear power.......

    2. Steve Crook

      Re: In addition

      Invade Austria?

    3. Hans 1

      Re: In addition

      >The US could drastically cut it's carbon emissions (and electricity prices) if it weren't more difficult to build a nuke plant than it is to put a man on the moon. Actually, I guess they are about the same - we haven't done either since the 70's.

      Well, nuke power is not it ... how much does it cost to decommission a nuke reactor ? How much does it cost to build a new one ? When will you need to decommission the bulk of your plants in the US? I am unsure, in France, it is estimated to be 3bn/reactor, they have 50 to decommission, 30 to build @10bn a piece - now, that is close to 450bn to be found over the next 20 years, knowing that no provisions have been made in France for decommissioning the plants. The sector already has its woes without even considering decommissioning the old plants ... so, how is it in the US ?

      I do not believe what Gates is saying, as usual, BS to promote his personal profit ... where exactly are those 98% of 52bn you were supposed to give to charity, Mr Gates ? Still in your pocket? I thought so ...

      1. Swarthy

        Re: In addition(@Hans 1)

        First: 3bn, what? 3bn Euro, Pounds, Dollars?

        Second: As to where the money may come from for building and decommissioning, in the UK 'leccy is about 10 pence per kWh (US is $0.12-0.15, so similar). Lets assume a medium-small plant: 1500MW, That is 1,500,000kW*£0.1/kWh=£150,000/hr, run that for 20 years and you have earned £26.29bn. I think £3bn could be affordable.

        On the point of my original comment: The last nuke plant in the US to break ground, broke said ground in the late 70s. 40 years of pointless (and almost always stricken down) lawsuits have caused the plant to not be built, because the lawyers are too expensive.

        1. JCitizen
          FAIL

          Re: In addition(@Hans 1)

          The original plant system that was adopted in the US (at least) was purposly designed to accept only a proprietary system of fueling. This was the only way they could get the greedy industrialists to actually make a working system. Obviously this has become an economical wreck, but if the proper design is built like Admiral Rickover proposed, the spent fuel laying around would become a valuable fuel source.

      2. ScottDrysdale

        Re: In addition

        Check out the newer SMRs - Small Modular Reactors for simple, safe, low cost and faster implementation - currently used on newer ice-breakers that rational environmentalists are strongly in support of these days!

  4. sisk

    This isn't entirely accurate. True no battery today can handle the demands of renewable energy, but modern flywheels handle it just fine and scale to pretty massive levels. And the only reason it's so blasted expensive is because the prices are artificially inflated. True we're never going to power the whole world with the current crop of renewables, but we can do a whole lot more with them than what Bills giving them credit for. And, frankly, we have to do something. Even if climate change isn't man-made (I swear one day I will sit down and do the research to figure out which side of the debate going on in the scientific journalism is full of hot air) we still have to worry about pollution and whatnot.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You've got two downvotes because your intention is to read up on climate change rather than accept it as gospel.

      Greens are pathetic.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I guess that he actually got the down votes for proposing flywheels are a viable solution.

        Look at how much renewable would be needed for say somewhere like London during the winter months and how much land you would need to actually power that 24/7.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          If that's the case, colour me surprised. You have more faith in people than I do.

    2. Dan Paul

      Stop proposing....

      Pie in the Sky solutions that have never been done. That would be a good start.

      Realize that IT GETS DARK AT NIGHT! No sun, no solar power. No sun, little wind. We need power 24/7/365 not just when the wind blows. NUKES ARE THE ONLY SOLUTION!

      80% of civilization lives where there is a WINTER season! Electric Heat is inefficient and expensive. Gas or oil is the only thing that will work right now and I'm not going freeze to satisfy anyone elses green fantasy.

      Stop blaming Man for the miniscule amount of CO2 we put out compared to all the other infrared light absorbing gas sources from nature including water vapor and Methane. AGW is a frikkin fallacy foisted on us by feckless efftards.

      Tell developing nations they have to control their stack emissions exactly like the rest of us do. Clean sulfur free fuels and fuel oils and refining of same as well as coal did more for the atmosphere than anything else in history but the China and India ignore their pollution at OUR expense and it is greater than anything we put out across ALL developed nations combined.

      1. Nunyabiznes

        Re: Stop proposing....

        "Tell developing nations they have to control their stack emissions exactly like the rest of us do. Clean sulfur free fuels and fuel oils and refining of same as well as coal did more for the atmosphere than anything else in history but the China and India ignore their pollution at OUR expense and it is greater than anything we put out across ALL developed nations combined."

        Well to be fair we did it to them first. We certainly learned a lot about emissions and air quality the hard way, and just like teenagers, those "developing" nations aren't willing to take us at our word - they insist on learning those lessons just like we did.

      2. kmac499

        Re: Stop proposing....

        Yes it get's dark at night but if a crazy idea like these infrared solar panels ever works

        http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827915.000-is-night-falling-on-classic-solar-panels.html#.VY2tmVIsBgg

        then a big rethink maybe on the cards.

        I fully expect future power generation and distribution to be some sort of hybrid mix.

        Domestically generated solar power

        Nationally generated nuclear power (hopefully thorium)

        with local or regional storage and regeneration plants using hot salt, liquified air, vanadium flow cells or even good old fashioned batteries; whatever is appropriate for the area. Such local regeneration stations would fill the same ecological niche as the old and soon to be lost Gasometers buffering supply and demand.

        Combine all of this with some serious energy efficiency drives and it might all just work

        I love disruptive technologies..,, just wish I could reliably see the next one coming

      3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Stop proposing....

        >Realize that IT GETS DARK AT NIGHT! No sun, no solar power.

        >80% of civilization lives where there is a WINTER season!

        80% of the US population lives somewhere that needs AC.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: Stop proposing....

          "80% of civilization lives where there is a WINTER season!

          80% of the US population lives somewhere that needs AC."

          And plenty of the world lives in an area where BOTH conditions exist, usually in turn, which means the area requires climate control for most of the year: double whammy. That's why the heat pump is popular in these kinds of areas: one device that can handle either temperature extreme as needed.

        2. itzman

          Re: Stop proposing....

          Nowhere NEEDS aircon. People lived everywhere before aircon.

          1. Dr. Mouse

            Re: Stop proposing....

            "People lived everywhere before aircon."

            People also lived most places before central heating, electricity, cars, paper... That doesn't mean we should get rid of them.

            It's easy for us Brits to slam people using air conditioning, as it rarely gets so hot that it is needed. But when you look at hot places, they would be much less comfortable and much less productive without it. There would also probably be more deaths.

            Take a look at, for instance, Qatar. My friends just returned from an 18 month spell out there. In the middle of summer, it reached 50+ degrees C. Now, I know that the indigenous peoples survived without AC there for a long time, but they were a much smaller population, did not live as long, suffered much larger child and elderly mortality rates... Surely using a little electricity to reduce deaths and support a larger, more productive population is worth it?

      4. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Re: China and India ignore their pollution at OUR expense

        Right.

        Continue conveniently ignoring the pollution WE have created during the past century at EVERYONE's expense for OUR OWN benefit.

        Hint : we live in INDUSTRIALIZED countries. China and India are industrialiZING. You can't seriously expect them to not want what we have, now can you ? Neither can you tell them to not do what we did.

      5. Tom 13

        Re: Tell developing nations they have to control their stack emissions

        There's a simple, easy way to implement the core of that idea without going as far as you did:

        Impose an import tariff on all good manufactured in a country that doesn't meet your standards to buy real offsets for the pollution. Provide the manufacturer with the option of voluntarily meeting your standards and having one of your inspectors check the plant to avoid the tax.

        I don't think you'd even need a treaty to effect the change, just a simple law passed wherever you happen to live. Everybody would benefit.

    3. Visionar

      It really is based upon energy density and nuclear is 5 million times denser of an energy source vs wind. One nuclear prevents 250,000 acres of raptor and bat killing winf farms or square miles of bird blast solar thermal. R&D should go into the molten Salt Reactor, it can't blow up, melt down, make weapons and will be cheap to build. MSRs don't need water, an expensive pressure dome, 170 atmosphere plumbing or triple redundant cooling and power back up systems. They are far less complex to build on an assebly line than a Boeing 787 that have to fly safely for decades. www.energyfromthorium.com

    4. itzman

      Flywheel storage?

      Er no, flywheels cannot handle it just fine.

  5. Efros

    Current Renewables are a Band-Aid

    I've always felt that the current renewable technologies are for the most part individual or small scale solutions. They can be used to minimize a family's or small community's use of fossil fuels, but when it comes to providing power for major conurbations they tend to fail in terms of capacity and/or reliability given that a lot of them are dependent upon unpredictable natural phenomena. That being said it should be written into building codes that new construction must use available technologies to minimize the occupiers grid usage, In the meantime we really do need to start building nuclear power stations, power consumption is only going to go up and with no massive increase in the availability of fossil fuels and environmental concerns about their continued usage, steps need to be taken now to avoid an energy drought in the near future. Let's face it, the one's who will suffer the most are those without a voice. Barring the arrival of a Mr.Fusion we are going to be in deep shit unless governments start acting now.

    1. CanadianMacFan

      Re: Current Renewables are a Band-Aid

      Scotland just announced that in 2014 they got 50% of their electricity from renewable sources. That's some band-aid! I do agree that we should be updating building codes periodically to reflect new technologies.

      1. itzman

        Re: Current Renewables are a Band-Aid

        Scotland can announce what it likes. The fact remains that when the water in the damns is low, the wind ain't blowing and the sun ain't shining 100% of Scotland's energy does NOT come from renewable sources.

        Or from Scotland.

      2. Charles 9

        Re: Current Renewables are a Band-Aid

        That's also some claim when Germany is in such tight electrical straits they've had to buy a sizable chunk of their electricity from France lately. Would love to see this claim backed up with some hard data and plenty of details that spell out exactly what they mean by renewable sources.

        1. Peter2 Silver badge

          Re: Current Renewables are a Band-Aid

          http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

          At the time of writing the 8GW of installed wind farm capacity in the UK is generating 3.21GW. Our 8GW worth of wind capacity appears to have generated up to 5GW 8 times in the last 12 months.

          We constantly max out the 2GW connector from France to reduce our emissions (otherwise we'd have to use the CCGT (gas) plants were built to "back up" the wind capacity. Wind output has not equalled the amount of gas based power produced in the last 12 months, though it managed exceed the amount of coal used on one day. This apparently because a couple of coal plants have gone green by burning trees (sorry: biomass) instead of coal, which reduced the coal power total, but keeps the power output, CO2 emissions, and most importantly qualifies them as a "green" plants which lets them claim renewables subsidies.

          http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/

          France sells electricity to quite a lot of people. Germany generally exports renewables to france by day when the wind is blowing and they have a low demand, and imports the rest of the time, most heavily by night.

        2. Chemist

          Re: Current Renewables are a Band-Aid

          "That's also some claim when Germany is in such tight electrical straits they've had to buy a sizable chunk of their electricity from France lately."

          I've mentioned here before that a comprehensive analysis of Germany's electricity stats (2014) can be found at :

          http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/data-nivc-/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-2014.pdf

          Page 6 ;- first 11 months of 2014 total generated electricity ~470 TWh

          46% coal, 9% wind, 7% solar,

        3. itzman

          Re: Current Renewables are a Band-Aid

          Would love to see this claim backed up with some hard data and plenty of details that spell out exactly what they mean by renewable sources.

          Try http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france

          Some data on German exports and imports to France

  6. Nunyabiznes

    nuclear

    A lot of people seem to be scared that if we have lots o' radiated power that the genie is going to be let out of the bottle. News for them: That genie is suffering from old age at this point.

    Western nations are going to have to accept that some day all of our security theater will not stop some motivated group from setting off a nuke in one or more of our nations.

    1. itzman

      Re: nuclear

      I am not clear as to what exact linkage you think there is between nuclear power and nuclear weaponry.

      They dont use the same technology, the same elements or the same enrichment processes.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Thorium Salt reactors.

    Clean, efficient, safe and from what I understand can be used to burn up our existing nuclear waste stock piles.

    No so great for making weapons however.

    1. cray74

      "Clean, efficient, safe and from what I understand can be used to burn up our existing nuclear waste stock piles."

      Fast reactors do better at burning transuranic waste than most molten salt reactors, which tend to be thermal rather than fast. The continuous molten salt reprocessing needed to efficiently produce uranium-233 does give some interesting opportunities for waste "burning" in thorium reactors, though.

    2. itzman

      Thorium Salt reactors.

      Not as clean, efficient, safe or from what I understand able to be used to burn up our existing nuclear waste stock piles as people think they are..

      Slightly harder to make a safe weapon from than uranium 235, true, but are terrorists worried about getting radiation sickness themselves?

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Why don't we change tack on this issue ?

        Instead of worrying about terrorists and nukes, let's get reactors and cheap energy in place so as to improve EVERYONE's living standards so terrorists won't have so much misery to motivate them.

        A well-fed man living a comfortable life makes a terrible terrorist - unless he's a psychopath, obviously.

        1. Tom 13

          Re: Why don't we change tack on this issue ?

          Those are pure Progressive lies. The terrorists are the ones who are well off. Just look at OBL.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Why don't we change tack on this issue ?

            > Those are pure Progressive lies. The terrorists are the ones who are well off. Just look at OBL.

            It doesn't work if a select few are well off and educated if everyone else is destitute and uneducated.

            Surely we have learned this time and time again throughout history.

            Osama Bin Laden may have been well educated and wealthy but he has a sea of easily-lead people living in political and economic strife to fuel his power-crazed agenda. And don't be misled yourself: Osama's aims are not religious, they are entirely political.

      2. moonrakin

        Re: Thorium Salt reactors.

        ahem - safe weapon?

        I know what you're trying to say but still....

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Thorium Salt reactors.

        > Not as clean, efficient, safe or from what I understand able to be used to burn up our existing nuclear waste stock piles as people think they are..

        Thorium reactors produce waste, sure, but the half life of most of the waste products are significantly shorter than the equivalent ones from the more traditional processes. And the fuel is burned up to a much greater extent than uranium fuel rods which become "spent" well before the useful fuel is burned. Traditional nuclear power stations really are awful in the grand scheme of things.

  8. Jim84

    Nuscale

    Nuscale power have an interesting SMR rector that uses standard uranium oxide fuel rods. The big innovation is that they have designed the rector so that there are no powered pumps or moving parts, and the whole thing sits in a giant pool of water. If the plant loses power then the magnetically suspended control rods drop, and the thing winds down to a power level where it can air cool itself forever long before the water pool evaporates.

    Because it is small the rectors can be factory built, avoiding cost overruns and long in field construction times.

    Because it is small the complex can be built in a hole in the ground (basically a bunker) rendering it earthquake and airplane proof. And if you stuck it on a hill it would be Tsunami proof too.

  9. Paul Shirley

    very old news, deliberately ignored for too long

    FFS we knew research was the best investment 25yrs ago. Even economists finally worked out a decade ago it was more cost effective than what's actually happened if started early.

    Unfortunately state level investment was one of the things the obstructionists have managed to block for those years. Unsurprisingly with no pressure to change the energy industry also sat on their arses till belatedly forced into pointless crap like smart meters.

    Looking at the tiny number of PV panels in my city, if we're getting 5.8% from that few of them now, that's pretty spectacular. And a real pity we don't have the benefit of 20yrs focussed research on cost and solving the storage&network problem, from people who don't have old industries to defend. The subsidy has been a damn expensive way to achieve cost reduction.

    1. itzman

      Re: very old news, deliberately ignored for too long

      And a real pity we don't have the benefit of 20yrs focussed research on cost and solving the storage&network problem, from people who don't have old industries to defend.

      Well, we dont. We have something like 150 years of research into energy storage from people who have every incentive to make it work, because its a highly lucrative market and in no way competes with conventional electricity generation.

      In fact it complements ANY energy generation...

      The reaosn why we dont have any large scale energy storage at a sane cost is simply because there is no way to achieve it with known science, let alone technology technology, and unless you believe that new science comes into being because people wish it to, like magic or pixie dust, then spending billions on con men in laboratories won't make it happen any quicker either.

      1. Charles 9

        Re: very old news, deliberately ignored for too long

        The closest thing we have to an energy storage innovation is the US Navy's research into artificial hydrocarbon production. They at least have a genuine incentive to push this through (their carriers have power to spare and the carrier jets need plenty of jet fuel to stay in the air), so if they can't do it, odds are no one can.

      2. Geoff (inMelbourne)

        Re: very old news, deliberately ignored for too long

        An excellent - very large scale, very efficient - energy storage technology is hydroelectricity.

        Excess electricity is used to pump water uphill. That's right, pump water uphill into a dam.

        The stored energy can be returned at any time by letting the water flow downhill through the hydoelectricity power station. The efficiency is superior (and the scale larger) than any battery.

        This has been happening efficiently and reliably in Australia for many decades.

        Look up Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme for details.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_Mountains_Scheme

        The Jindabyne Pumping Station is the main 'uphill' water pump for off-peak energy storgae.

        http://services.eng.uts.edu.au/cempe/subjects_JGZ/eet/snowy2.pdf

        Australia has a huge amount of coal, and coal fired electricity generators tend to produce excess electricity during off-peak hours (ie: at night). That excess is used to pump water uphill, which can be reclaimed later as hydroelectricity.

        The only point of dispute after all these decades is this:

        Is the resultant hydroelectricity *green* ?

        (It makes a difference for tax incentives, and also for the right to sell to consumers as 'green power'.)

        1. Lionel Baden

          Re: very old news, deliberately ignored for too long

          I wouldn't say it was green, if it's being pumped back up by coal powered stations, but it is efficient and less wasteful.

          If they cut down on coal use and pumped it back up the hill using renewables, then yes that would be green.

          1. Peter2 Silver badge

            Re: very old news, deliberately ignored for too long

            If we put a dam on every single suitable location in the UK (ignoring the political backlash of forcing people out of their homes to flood those locations) then we still wouldn't have sufficant energy storage capacity.

            The only form of energy storage we have is:-

            1) pumped storage (different from hydro- it's insanely space intensive and bad news if the dam breaches. The grid has 2GW worth)

            2) Electrical storage (hillariously impractical for anything more than keeping a few racks of servers up for long enough to fire a generator up) Used by many readers of this site to supply low killowatt range power for up to an hour, but not attached to the grid because you simply can't supply multiple gigawatts in this manner.

            3) A big pile of coal next to a coal plant. 25GW attached to the grid, but it takes a while to get a good fire going so notice is required that it's needed.

            4) Lots of gas storage next to a CCGT plant. 25GW attached to the grid, which needs bugger all notice to bring online.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Government says renewable no good

    Even governments are now saying that all the large scale renewable projects do not give their hyped output and are not cost effective.

    The US Energy department has found that all the large solar projects are struggling to even get 50% of supposed output and that is before they kill off vast numbers of protected birds.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/high-tech-solar-projects-fail-to-deliver-2015-06-13

    And the UK government admit that green policy is costing more than it returns.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/6/25/government-admits-benefits-of-green-policy-less-than-cost.html

  11. MrColdWaterOfRealityMan

    And had Mr. Gates pushed for a humanlike scalable AI years ago, we'd have answers to this problem (and literally millions of others) by now.

    1. itzman
      Paris Hilton

      we'd have answers to this problem (and literally millions of others) by now.

      And had Mr. Gates pushed for a humanlike scalable AI years ago, we'd have answers to this problem (and literally millions of others) by now.

      How quaint. So the assumption here is that the only thing that stops a new dream technology from appearing is that not enough people are employed to dream it up?

      That if we - say - spent a trillion on 'scientists' and 'technologists' to create a perpetual motion machine, we would inevitably discover laws of physics that make it possible? Just by spending money?

  12. MrColdWaterOfRealityMan

    Wrong emphasis and too late.

    And had Mr. Gates pushed for a humanlike scalable AI years ago, we'd have answers to this problem (and literally millions of others) by now.

    1. Denarius
      WTF?

      Re: Wrong emphasis and too late.

      you mean AI is possible ? How so ? Expert systems, even workable Google selfdriving cars , sure. I have not seen a mathematical refutation of Roger Penrose "The Emperors New Mind" or Shadows of the Mind. Much as I think reality is cracking when I agree with Bill G, he is right about R&D on technology, especially if the beancounters are kept at bay. Useful big payoffs occasionally.

      1. Chris Miller

        @Denarius

        I agree, though I would point out that Penrose's argument would not mean that AI is impossible, just that it's impossible using anything equivalent to a Turing Machine. Sir Roger (I know, because I've heard him say it) absolutely accepts that the human mind is a product of the human brain, and that there's nothing magical or spooky going on between our ears - it's just that it can't possibly be emulated simply by following an algorithm (no matter how complex).

  13. Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face

    Oh for the days of coal, steam and carrier bags full of free Pit Head Bath soap from family members who were miners.

  14. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    BTW the US Govt pumped *billions* into PV tech in the late 70's and early 80's

    It did lower the cost of the panels somewhat.

    As for "a tonne of software companies whose names will never be remembered,"

    We could start with Go Corp, Novel and Netscape for starters.

    1. Havin_it
      Headmaster

      Re: BTW the US Govt pumped *billions* into PV tech in the late 70's and early 80's

      >Novel

      I dunno about forgetting them, but a good portion of the commentariat seems to have forgotten how their name was spelt. So the, er, novellty may already be wearing off at the very least!

  15. Mark 85

    Nukes....

    we know they work. We know where the pitfalls are. Yes, we should have them. However, here in the States.. say the "N" word (Nuke not the other) and people start shaking in their boots, going pale, and generally become antagonistic. Maybe the "duck and cover" generation need to die off before the fear goes away.

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Nukes....

      "Maybe the "duck and cover" generation need to die off before the fear goes away."

      No, because they teach the next generation and keep stoking fears of Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the nightmare scenario of a 9/11 attack on major nuclear plants.

      1. Denarius

        Re: Nukes....

        perhaps Charles, risk assessment comes into vogue again. As in how idiot human factors play a major causative role in the "accidents" As for other deliberate events, a read of the technology article on how hard, dangerous and generally fatal attempts to steal and manufacture nuclear weapons from powerplants would be to the terrorists. Electronics Australia July 1987? ITIRC, had a reprint of article. Was a hilarious read on a greenie pushed nightmare.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: Nukes....

          "perhaps Charles, risk assessment comes into vogue again. As in how idiot human factors play a major causative role in the "accidents" As for other deliberate events, a read of the technology article on how hard, dangerous and generally fatal attempts to steal and manufacture nuclear weapons from powerplants would be to the terrorists. Electronics Australia July 1987? ITIRC, had a reprint of article. Was a hilarious read on a greenie pushed nightmare."

          But that was nearly 30 years ago. We know some people CAN be that damn crazy and they may have found ways to get around the dangers if they're that bloody determined.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: Nukes....

      The problem wasn't so much the Duck and Cover generation. It was their kids Marty! Something has to be done about their kids. You know, the ones who practically ODed on Hanoi Jane in China Syndrome.

  16. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    “Innovation really does bend the curve.”

    Is that to straighten it out again or put a knot in it?

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Great idea Bill! Let's start cutting subsidies for power generating industries.

    What say we start with Oil and Coal, since they get most of the subsidies (at least here in the USA)?

    And then we can cut the ones for renewables, since the playing field will be level.

    What's that? We'd push the world economy into a recession? Well that would certainly reduce our demand for energy...might not be a lot of fun though...

    1. David Dawson

      Subsidies

      Repeat after me 'tax breaks do not equal a subsidy'

      1. Tom 13

        Re: Subsidies

        Meh. It depends. If the "tax break" is structured in such a way that it is only possible for one company (or a small handful) to get it, it's a subsidy. If it's the sort of tax break generally available to any business, it's not.

        Personally I'd rather we did away with ALL business tax breaks and just gave them a lower flat rate. But we'll never get that past the busybodies who want to engineer the economy form the Congress/Parliament.

    2. dagnew

      Don't leave nuclear out of the subsidized group - not only federal R&D and tax breaks, but insurance - no insurance company will insure them so the taxpayer does (Price-Anderson Act), and Wall Street won't finance them without taxpayer-paid loan guarantees.

  18. edkellyus

    StratoSolar

    Bill says he favours R&D into innovative new approaches. Unfortunately innovation is often surprising and hard to distinguish from science fiction or magic like cold fusion. StratoSolar solves the three problems of solar....cost, intermittency and storage with an innovative engineering solution that does not involve magic. Unfortunately, like most innovation it is sufficiently surprising to be summarily dismissed.

    Sometimes the innovation is to fix what is broken with an existing solution. StratoSolar does that for today's PV.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: StratoSolar

      Since when has man EVER tethered heavy balloons over TEN MILES in the sky (to get over both the clouds and the airplanes)? What materials would you use that could still be lighter than air? Since the only two gasses useable for the job are so tiny, what kinds of materials will be used that will be completely gas-tight (to include hydrogen and helium gas) and able to withstand extremes of temperature that tend to occur outside the troposphere? How can StratoSolar overcome the political obstacles bound to occur because the only way to supply solar power at night is to have them halfway around the world, where other countries may not be so cooperative?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: StratoSolar

      Nurse. Meds please

    3. Mark 85

      Re: StratoSolar

      Three posts and all praising this idea. Major stockholder are we?

  19. Davie Dee

    nuke plates take time to build and wont win anyone any elections due to the complexities and misunderstandings around them , Giant bloody windmills covering the landscape is a PR Coup, it looks good for the Majority of people which don't live anywhere near them, its simple to understand, no burning, CO2 Free SAVE THE WORLD!!! so if tapped correctly can greatly effect public opinion.

    This is the fundamental problem with our country (and most other for that matter) Politicians decide this stuff and they have their own interests at the heart of all their decisions, not whats best for us (unless it helps them too) or anything longer than their period in office because why do something someone else will get credit for.

  20. TeeCee Gold badge
    Facepalm

    He's close....

    As I have observed before, getting a meaningful agreement on what to do about warming is proving impossible, so the chances of anything we're doing now (or looking to do in the foreseeable future) making any difference at all is somewhere around fuck all.

    So, yes, stick the money into R&D, but R&D to find answers to living with a warmer climate, not into yet more pointless greenery.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: He's close....

      Well, according to some scientists, the R&D may have to be put into more ubiquitous cooling technology and more portable power sources given that some parts of the world may literally become too hot to live in if things continue. This is because we have a breaking point in terms of heat & humidity (think around 100 degrees in high humidity that means we keep soaking up more heat than we can sweat off), beyond which our bodies can't keep up and we succumb to heat maladies.

      1. uncredited

        Re: He's close....

        Cooking the humidity in the air might be considered a breaking point yes...

      2. itzman

        Re: He's close....

        According to some other scientists, we are about to enter a new and destructive ice age.

        According to some Christian sceintists, God is going to come down next week and sort out the sheep from the goats and then its barbecue time.

        According to so Islamic Scientist, he alrday did and they are in charge of the barbecue, thank you very much.

        1. dagnew

          Re: He's close....

          There's a difference between Christian scientists and scientists who are Christians. Same for the other isms.

  21. CanadianMacFan

    Status quo on fossil fuels

    So we're supposed to pack up the renewable energy sources while waiting for some magical innovation that will come decades from now because any type of incentive from the government for them is bad business. Yet during this time we're supposed to keep on burning fossil fuels, which even if you don't think cause global warming spew out a host of other pollutants and cause other problems during extraction, as if nothing was wrong.

    Gates isn't an expert about the environment so I won't pay much attention to him. If I want to learn how to create an illegal monopoly then I'll give him a call.

  22. Claverhouse Silver badge

    The Walrus and the Carpenter

    "Now there’s a tonne of software companies whose names will never be remembered," he told the FT interviewers.

    Almost as if they were strangled at birth.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Eeek!

    I feel vaguely dirty for somewhat agreeing with Bill Gates. He's rather far from being my favourite person on the planet.

    (raises hand) I consider myself to be decidedly green-tinged in my politics, and was actually a member of the UK's Green Party for about three years, some years ago. I mean, it just makes sense to me to make best use of whatever forms of power you can get, bearing in mind all the costs involved in making the equipment to make the power , reliability of the source, decommissioning it when it needs replacing, effect on the environment etc.

    Some places solar will make sense, in other, wind might; more suitable house designs on new build homes (trombe walls and suchlike), heck even using horses and oxen for power where that makes sense (and I'd hazard a guess that where those do make sense they're doubtless alredy being used and have been used for a very long time). There are a few cases where tidal might be workable. Hydroelectric of course has largely been done (and IMO is now being over-done with plants being set up on dams where no dam should be) But I do not and never have believed that All of that kind of thing is the answer. Yes, in an ideal world, we'd all have been sensible enough to keep our collective numbers down to about 3 billion or so. Clearly, collectively we aren't that sensible (or enough of us aren't that it doesn;t actually matter what anybody else thinks on that particular subject) so..

    Coal - better types of coal-fired plant to minimise waste, and as for the CO2, what about feeding it direct into greenhouses to help produce food?

    Nuclear - for gods sake why the hell not? Just because in the past designs for reactors have allowed bad things to happen doesn't mean to say that progress halted at that point, and that better, simpler, safer designs can't be produced, and no, I have no objections to living close by a modern nuclear power plant. Right now, in 2015, I'm far more likely to be killed by a car, a fire in the flats I live in, or my hypertension going from mild to malignant than I would be from a nuclear power plant situated right next door, were one to be built there. Probably more chance of being killed by lightning, come to that, and that's a natural phenomena.

    Space - yes, we DO need to get out there and settle for a number of reasons, first so as to avoid species extinction from a possible killer asteroid hit on Earth, but that aside there's a vast amount of resources and solar power available to proces same out there. Particularly nasty manufacturing processes could be shifted off-world (forgive me if I don't get too upset if several square kilometeres of the lunar surface get affected by a chemical plant in Mare Tranquillitatis goes foom - it'd only be any human casualties I'd be worried about).

    Being Green - for me it's about making best and most efficient use of what we've got to hand so that we can keep things here on Earth as pleasant as possible, and I see no point in crippling our ability to do so by denying ourselves the use of perfectly good tools simply because they might go wrong or be used to bad ends. Hammers and saws can build homes but they can also kill people - should we ban them?

    And as for population, well, I'm still of the opinion that we've more than an optimal number of humans on this planet, but (and putting any arguments about what constitutes a good economic system aside for the moment - that's a whole 'nother argument) the one thing that history shows has reliably caused a decrease in our breeding rate in the last couple of centuries is wealth. Wars and disease have barely caused a blip in our population growth, but greater average per capita wealth has worked every single time.

    We need to help the poorest parts of the world to become as wealthy as we are as quickly as possible/as is sesnible taking into account circumstances, social and environmental effects. And yes, we need nuclear., along with better farming practices (back to a sensible level of crop rotation, and for gods sake, some serious research into how not to kill off the worlds natural pollinating insects!), and a touch more sanity in health provision (no, it isn't desirable to keep everybody alive as long as it technologically possible; it's desirable to keep everybody fit and healthy as long as is practical, and to allow those of us who reach a point where life is no longe renjoyable to exit this mortal coil painlessly and with dignity, rather than only after years of suffering waiting for courts to decide on whetehr we should be allowed to call an end to our own lives or not).

    Keeping us poor in resources and/or power won't make us greener. History shows it'l simply encourage us to breed more and make matters worse. If you truly want a Green-er planet, we need nuclear power, and we need to get into space in a big way.

  24. Flick Rick

    Well...

    How about shifting the truly colossal subsidies the hydrocarbon giants receive (you know, the ones with astronomical profits) to R&D?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well...

      But without them, how would you keep the hydrocarbon giants from packing up and moving to another country? Better 10% of something than 100% of nothing, you know...

      1. dagnew

        Re: Well...

        How about 0% of something. That's what Exxon-Mobil has been paying in U.S. income taxes lately, and it's not the only one.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: Well...

          Can you PROVE that with IRS records?

          1. dagnew

            Re: Well...

            No, I cannot, and I apologize. Although I've read a few articles over the past years stating that the oil giants have paid no (or almost no) U.S. income taxes, a search of the web indicates that this is far from clear.

            On one hand http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/How-much-Tax-does-Big-Oil-Actually-Pay.html says: "In 2011 the three oil giants mentioned above paid more income tax than any other American corporation. ExxonMobil paid $27.3 billion in income tax, Chevron paid $17 billion, and ConocoPhillips paid $10.6 billion."

            While Mother Jones states in a 2011 article, "And over the past two years, Exxon Mobil’s net tax on its $9.9 billion in U.S. pretax profits was a minuscule $39 million, an effective tax rate of only 0.4 percent."

            In a 2009 article, CNN states, "Exxon paid the most taxes last year of any U.S. company, by far -- but not a cent went to the IRS for income taxes." http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/2.html

            And Citizens for Tax Justice states, "Not a single one of the [top earning] companies paid anything close to the 35 percent statutory tax rate. In fact, the “highest tax” company on our list, Exxon Mobil, paid an effective three-year tax rate of only 14.2 percent. That’s 60 percent below the 35 percent rate that companies are supposed to pay. And over the past two years [2009-2010], Exxon Mobil’s net tax on its $9.9 billion in U.S. pretax profits was a minuscule $39 million, an effective tax rate of only 0.4 percent" report at http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2011/06/twelve_corporations_pay_effective_tax_rate_of_negative_15_on_171_billion_in_profits_reap_624_billion.php#.VZJ0kFVViko

            Unsurprisingly, the answer does not appear to be clear, 'tho I'm dubious of the reporting by oilprice.com.

            1. Tom 13

              @ dagnew

              Your first clue should be that the only sources you can link to that say Exxon isn't paying taxes are all Progressive agitation centers posing as news organizations.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    focus fusion

    There is currently only a small amount of money going to aneutronic focus fusion R&D, yet the progress is promising. A candidate for a $Bill(Gates)ion or two?

  26. dagnew

    There's an awful lot of pie-in-the-sky thinking about nuclear here. Nuclear is a 70-year-old industry that has ALWAYS relied on heavy subsidies. Those who think it's not so dangerous have been misled by it's massive lobby (I know that some of you will scoff, but the final toll from Chernobyl will probably approach 2 million - radiation does not leave a calling-card when it induces cancer). And it's track record is not good: more than 1% of all power reactors have melted and breached containment. As for using 'spent fuel' that creates more waste than it consumes. And there's certainly a connection between nuclear power and weapons - the creation of massive amounts of plutonium being the most obvious one. Add to this that the 'next generation' is unproven, it's centralized, it creates, then wastes massive amounts of heat, that the fool is always greater than the proof, it requires a security state, and that we still don't know what to do with the waste (see WIPP).

    See RMI's Reinventing Fire http://www.rmi.org/reinventingfire and Jeremy Rifkin's 4-minute analysis https://youtu.be/mwIvGJJ_dtU

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "There's an awful lot of pie-in-the-sky thinking about nuclear here. Nuclear is a 70-year-old industry that has ALWAYS relied on heavy subsidies."

      Is that not true of just about ANY OTHER FUEL in use today? Think about the big petro subsidies, for example.

      "I know that some of you will scoff, but the final toll from Chernobyl will probably approach 2 million - radiation does not leave a calling-card when it induces cancer"

      Neither does radioactive COAL. And BTW, people LIVE near these radioactive coal seams. Ask the people of Cornwall, England, why they live near a known source of radiation (including the infamous radon).

      "And it's track record is not good: more than 1% of all power reactors have melted and breached containment."

      And let's not forget about oil well and tanker spills, coal mine fires, and coal waste dam breaches (as West Virginians and Italians can attest firsthand). Pick your poison. Oh, and BTW, neither solar nor wind are panaceas, either, given they require vast tracts of sensitive land and/or exotic materials that are tough to mine and process (which typically result in toxic byproducts).

      "Add to this that the 'next generation' is unproven, it's centralized, it creates, then wastes massive amounts of heat, that the fool is always greater than the proof, it requires a security state, and that we still don't know what to do with the waste (see WIPP)."

      Microreactors are centralized? If so, I'd hate to think what you think of the big gigawatt reactors that are in use today. As for the waste, why not use the fuel more efficiently so we end up with less of it that isn't dangerous for so long.

      1. dagnew

        I wrote not a word in favor of coal or nuclear, slam them all you like. I do think the subsidies to nuclear are greater, "subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often exceeded the value of the power produced" according to http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf.

        I'm aware that there's no free lunch, but when a solar panel or wind turbine fails there's no release of thousands of terabequerels radioactive pollutants. I don't know what microreactors you're referring to, I've only heard of nuclear reactors *on the drawing boards* in the 200 MW range, which I would consider centralized. But the idea of plutonium in every neighborhood, and the security issues that would raise, doesn't strike me as a solution to our problems.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Centralized reactors like the ones in use right now rate in the gigawatts. Megawatt reactors tend to only be enough to handle a moderately-sized urban community. Put it this way. What's harder to steal? One large source of plutonium or hundreds of little ones. By spreading them out, you not only reduce the radiation footprint per location, but you make each one too small to be worth stealing and too difficult to steal from a bunch of them. Plus if they're failsafe by design, they can be sealed up so that the only way to get at them is basically to blow them up: not exactly clandestine. Put this way, it'd be far easier for terrorists to gain control of a uranium mine (which is why no one can deny Iran the atom—it has local uranium mines so has a complete in-house processing chain; they can do everything by themselves).

          As for the wind and solar reactors, don't think about when they fail. Think about when they're built. They usually require exotic resources like rare earths. These exotic materials usually require extensive mining (meaning tailings dams, which can break if you ask West Virginians and Italians) and processing (with toxic byproducts). Also recall, the only production reactor failure in the United States (Three Mile Island) actually was contained. No one died, and very little radiation got out (the people of Pennsylvania probably got more radiation flying an airplane). And that's an old reactor, not one of the newer Generation III and cutting-edge Generation IV ones which are much-better-designed (Gen IV are meant to be passively fail-safe).

          1. dagnew

            @ anonymous -

            "Centralized reactors like the ones in use right now rate in the gigawatts. Megawatt reactors tend to only be enough to handle a moderately-sized urban community."

            This country still has 22 reactors of essentially the same design as Fukushima, they're all substantially less than a gigawatt, and they were known defective in 1972.

            "What's harder to steal? One large source of plutonium or hundreds of little ones. By spreading them out, you not only reduce the radiation footprint per location, but you make each one too small to be worth stealing and too difficult to steal from a bunch of them."

            It only takes about 5 kg of plutonium to make a bomb. But terrorists would more likely just explode the reactor or it's spent fuel storage - pre-deployed radioactive weapons.

            "Plus if they're failsafe by design"

            If. Biggest little word in the English language. Very popular amongst the nuclear crowd for the past 7 decades.

            "As for the wind and solar reactors, don't think about when they fail. Think about when they're built. They usually require exotic resources like rare earths. These exotic materials usually require extensive mining (meaning tailings dams, which can break if you ask West Virginians and Italians) and processing (with toxic byproducts)."

            Can you say 'Hanford', 'West Valley', 'Sellafield', or 'La Hague' to name a few? Permanent environmental destruction.

            "Also recall, the only production reactor failure in the United States (Three Mile Island) actually was contained. No one died, and very little radiation got out..."

            Keep repeating the lie and people will believe it. The owners of TMI claimed for years that no fuel melted as well (nearly half did). They claimed that not much radiation escaped, AND that the stack monitors didn't work, which doesn't add up. If no one was harmed, why did the industry pay $15 million in settlements (contingent on gag orders)?

            "And that's an old reactor, not one of the newer Generation III and cutting-edge Generation IV ones which are much-better-designed"

            The industry has always promised that all of the reactors were safe (even the Mark 1's which they knew were not). You believe the same old claims, I do not. The real problem is that 1 bad day after 40 years of perfect operation is enough to bankrupt the operator (hence Price-Anderson) and make thousands of square miles uninhabitable.

            1. Charles 9

              Well, as they say, no guts, no glory. If America had gotten cold feet after Apollo 1, they wouldn't have won the Space Race. Every technology available has its problems, and NO site in my memory has been SO contaminated as to be completely uncleanable: even Hanford, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. And before you say nuclear is the only bad thing around, consider Love Canal, Times Beach, and Bhopal, all victims of chemical, not nuclear disasters, so it's a case of pick your poison. We need lots of power, we need it soon, and none of the alternatives has the oomph without side effects (including wind and solar, both of which require exotic materials with their side effects of toxic byproducts). Show us a proven and completly green (from resource extraction to disposal) power generation technology able to feed a yottawatt of power to the world and perhaps we can start talking. Otherwise, we'll have to take what we've been dealt. And things CAN improve. Otherwise, someone would've found a way to cause stuff like a pebble bed reactor to catastrophically fail (no way found yet).

              1. dagnew

                "NO site in my memory has been SO contaminated as to be completely uncleanable: even Hanford, unless you can demonstrate otherwise."

                Since completion of cleanup of Hanford is scheduled for 2040, no one can say if it's 'cleanable' but on can say that the site is one of the most contaminated on the planet, it's been that way for about 70 years, and the Columbia River is still at risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site#Cleanup_era

                I never said that "nuclear is the only bad thing around" - that would be very foolish. Nor did I say we must use a "completely green" technology, that would also be foolish. But "have to take what we've been dealt"? What does that mean? We must take whatever GE and Westinghouse develop (to profit their stockholders)?

                Pebble bed reactors are yet another pie-in-the-sky, largely THEORETICAL solution to nuclear's thus-far dirty promises. To my knowledge just 2 pebble bed reactors have been built, 15 & 300 MW, both in Germany. Both have been closed: the thorium one after an accident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

                China has two PBMRs under construction, expected to produce 210 MWe combined, beginning AROUND 2017. At the end of 2012, China had installed 76 GW wind power capacity. That's nearly 400 times the EXPECTED PBMR output 5 years earlier. This is the shining promise of nuclear?

                1. Charles 9

                  "China has two PBMRs under construction, expected to produce 210 MWe combined, beginning AROUND 2017. At the end of 2012, China had installed 76 GW wind power capacity. That's nearly 400 times the EXPECTED PBMR output 5 years earlier. This is the shining promise of nuclear?"

                  China can afford to do the wind turbines. Not only are they less concerned about toxic byproducts, but they have lots of rare earths lying around to use. this combination cannot be said elsewhere. Plus China's facing the same problems wind farms elsewhere are having: the sources are nowhere near the sinks, and running transmission lines are expensive, reduce efficiency, and introduce additional points of failure.

                  BTW, China's hedging its bets. They're building plenty of nuclear reactors, too, and by the numbers, their reactor output will be comparable to their wind potential with the added benefit they can build them closer to the populated areas.

                  "But "have to take what we've been dealt"? What does that mean? We must take whatever GE and Westinghouse develop (to profit their stockholders)?"

                  Like I said, got any better ideas? Wind and solar have toxic byproducts in their manufacture (so they're not really "green"), their long-term longevity cannot be assured, and since they're intermittent, they cannot be used as baseload power. And yes I know about solar thermal which is one of the few solar techs that can still generate at night, but the largest one in the world's can't even supply 1% of the power needs of nearby Los Angeles County, so scale's an issue. And I've heard enough alternative power pipe dreams to fill a book, so I'd like to see something rather more realistic.

  27. ScottDrysdale

    FCVs soon to outpace BEVs and we need Hydrogen NOW!

    Bill Gates is correct..... Sadly the wind turbines and solar panels can't keep up with demand in time to get FCVs and BEVs successfully launched in a manner timely enough to stay ahead of climate change issues.

    The only viable option for high volume, "neat" hydrogen production is SMRs, i.e., the new super safe and clean small modular reactors. The vast majority of the world's engineers are very much in favor of SMRs which are the best "fit-for-purpose" solutions that are also "FIELD PROVEN"..... and that is extremely important...... no time to allow for the roll-out and ramp-up of unfinished R&D concepts that are destined to fail en-masse.

    Newer SMRs are super safe and clean (to hell with Greenpeace - they don't want solutions) too busy building their empire which is threatened by good solutions.Check out chapter 38 of the book "Smelling Land" by Phd Engineer/Professor David Sanborn Scott" for solid information.

    BTW.... CAR WARS has begun! Toyota's new FCV Fuel Cell Vehicle becomes available to the public within the next two months providing powerful incentive to build and/or extend the hydrogen refueling infrastructure immediately!

    1. Charles 9

      Re: FCVs soon to outpace BEVs and we need Hydrogen NOW!

      "The only viable option for high volume, "neat" hydrogen production is SMRs, i.e., the new super safe and clean small modular reactors. The vast majority of the world's engineers are very much in favor of SMRs which are the best "fit-for-purpose" solutions that are also "FIELD PROVEN"..... and that is extremely important...... no time to allow for the roll-out and ramp-up of unfinished R&D concepts that are destined to fail en-masse."

      Just so we're on the same and to stave off a potential counterpoint by dagnew, can you provide concrete evidence of these SMRs in use right now under actual field testing and how these designs are failsafe even under sabotage conditions? I've been trying to find this information myself, but no luck; not even Google's been my friend in this (all I find is news releases and speculation).

  28. Greg Vezina

    NH3 has been proven a viable option Mr. Mr. Gates. Your foundation wouldn't fund the NCMS research?

    The research into using ammonia as an energy currency, fuel and cor CO2 conversion and utilization needed has been done. A simple search of "ammonia fuel" - "ammonia car" and "ammonia cleantech" to find out how much proof there is that this works in many different applications around the world today, and there have been several new technologies including ammonia engines invented in Canada by UOIT university and in Japan by Toyota, as well as commercial demonstrations of wind to ammonia plants, ammonia fuel cells powering remote cell towers in Africa and dozens of others, and for decades coal and natural gas has been converted to ammonia and urea to capture and convert the CO2 into a valuable safe commodity, or CO2 from coal power plants using ammonia into valuable carbon based chemicals. We have technologies to use brown and green energy in better ways but the vast majority of the general public and even scientists doesn't know about them.

    There is a two century history around multiple ways of using ammonia in different ways from the early 1820s when the first engine was built and ran a small locomotive, to Lam’s ammonia motor in 1869 that was used to power the Saint Charles Avenue Streetcar in New Orleans, to ammonia engines built by Rudolph Diesel before invented the high compression diesel engine which ignited an injected mixture of whale oil and coal gas.

    French solar energy pioneer engineer Charles Tellier combined using solar energy and ammonia. In 1885, he installed a roof-top solar collector very similar to the flat-plate collectors used today for heating domestic water. His collector system was composed of ten units made of two iron sheets riveted together and connected by piping to form a single array. The collector plates were filled with ammonia, and after exposure to sunlight, sufficient pressure was created in the ammonia gas to power a water pump that Tellier had placed in his well, at the rate of some 300 gallons per hour during daylight. (See:http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/ammonia/ammonia.htm)

    There were several on road trucks and cars operated on ammonia in Italy, Norway and Belgium in the early to mid 1920s, and in Brussels from 1944-1946 a dozen ammonia powered buses were driven over 100,000 km without a single accident or injury.

    During the 1960s there was a major effort by the US Military called the Energy Depot Project which had as an objective the production of a fuel from indigenous materials - earth, air, and water. Fuel possibilities included hydrogen, ammonia and hydrazine. There was also a substantial amount of work done using ammonia as a rocket fuel, including using it for the x-15, the fastest aircraft ever built.

    The University of Tennessee's ammonia-fueled urban vehicle competed in the 1972 Urban Vehicle Design Competition; de¬signed and built by undergraduate engineering students working under Prof. Jeffrey Hodgson, the team finished fifth in a field of 65 entries (the vehicle actually had the second highest raw score).

    By 1978, actors Jack Nicholson, Marlon Brando, Joanne Carson and others were involved with Prof. Herbert F. Mataré in an unsuccessful solar hydrogen to ammonia project that ultimately failed because two of the founders were convicted of fraud. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM)

    Subsequently, several of the investors from Canada organized a new company working with many of their staff and successfully converted and drove a 1981 across Canada, arriving on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Nov. 5, 1981. My family and I headed that effort. (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vwmzkn0paM)

    In 2008 we converted a diesel fuelled 2007 Dodge Truck and a 2008 gasoline fuelled Ford Crown Victoria to run on NH3. (See: http://nh3fuel.com)

    By 2000 work to develop new ammonia manufacturing, energy, fuel and other related technologies took off around the world. And by 2014 there has been 11 Ammonia Fuel Conferences in the US with the 12th. in Chicago on Sept, 20 to 23, 2015, attended to by companies, universities and researchers from all over the world including from the UK, Canada, South Korea, China, Japan, the EU and elsewhere. (See: http://Nh3fuelassociation.org)

    In the past decade dozens of ammonia fuel and energy based technologies have been demonstrated and several commercialized or in commercial demonstration, including ammonia fuel cells, engines, retrofit conversions, and electrical storage systems. (see: PROLOG. An introduction to the paper by Ahlgren. The Dual-Fuel Strategy: An Energy Transition Plan https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=15-IEPR-04)

    Just looking at the The Dual-Fuel Strategy: An Energy Transition Plan reference list alone is a huge eye opener.

    (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abstractReferences.jsp?arnumber=6235977)

    Most importantly, long proven hydrocarbon conversion into ammonia and urea and other related CSS technologies already in use around the world have been verified by the IPCC in in Section 7.4.3.2 Fertilizer manufacture, of their Fourth Annual Assessment Report, as being so practical that other CSS technologies may not be viable at all. (See: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-4-3-2.html)

    The University of Ontario Institute of Technology has several ammonia engine and fuel use patents or patents pending, including, "Methods and apparatus for using ammonia as sustainable fuel, refrigerant and NOx reduction agent" which uses the NH3 to provide heating and cooling without consuming the fuel as other applications do, a technology that also noted in research going back to the US energy depot project in the mid 1960s. (See: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110011354)

    Toyota, Asian Industries in Japan got a patent in 2010: Ammonia burning internal combustion engine, Patents EP 2378105 A, EP 2 378 094 A1 (See: http://www.google.com/patents/EP2378105A1?cl=en)

    We have worked with UIOT on several projects including a recent Harper Government funded Clean Rail study of replacing diesel fuel in locomotives, "Comparative study of ammonia-based clean rail transportation systems for Greater Toronto area." The conclusions confirm the viability of this technology and that even using 50% ammonia with diesel would substantially reduce operating cost and emissions below expected future levels and using 100% ammonia and low cost commercially available hydroxy technology would increase efficiency by as much as 35% or more, reduce fuel and maintenance costs by 50% or more, and totally eliminate CO2 and NOx emissions entirely. (See: https://ir.library.dc-uoit.ca/handle/10155/431)

    The Harper federal government has recognised ammonia as a fuel, energy currency and viable technology for CO2 capture and conversions into ammonia and urea (as has the IPCC since 2007 as noted below), and the federal government has been funding research into ammonia fuel cells, wind to hydrogen (then ammonia) production in remote sites, and other research as noted in the attached policy letter from the attached October, 2013, policy decision from the Federal Minister of Natural Resources. (see pfd: http://frankraso.ca/images/documents/ammonia/NRCAN-2012-10-16.pdf)

    The Wynne Ontario government refuses to classify NH3 as a fuel or energy currency, even though both federal governments on Ottawa and Washington have and the SAE did so over 100 years ago.

    The Ontario Liberals prefer to give $billions on 20 years green energy subsidies to select technologies proposed by companies owned or promoted by Liberal party insiders of South Korea's Samung, thereby preventing all competing technologies from entering the marketplace. (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/mcguinty-government-changed-green-energy-rules-to-benefit-liberal-linked-firms-court-filing-charges)

    (See: Ammonia — the real green energy | Guest Columnist | Opinion | Toronto Sun

    http://www.torontosun.com/2014/11/12/ammonia--the-real-green-energy)

    Here is a link to radio show that former Ontario Environment Commissioner ("ECO") Gord Miller was on talking with me and the host about how good a solution using ammonia in these ways really is:

    Greg Vezina and Ontario environment Commissioner Gord Miller (1:03:45 - 1:10:00)

    Gord Miller confirms viability of ammonia and province of Ontario ignoring the benefits. (1:05:35)

    Greg Vezina on: Ammonia Fuel and Energy (1:12:00 - 1:50:00)

    (See: https://soundcloud.com/jimfannonshow/aquaponics-gord-miller-ont-eco)

    Greg Vezina

    Chairman and CEO

    C.A.E.C-Canadian Alternative Energy Corp.

    Hydrofuel®TM Inc.

    Web: http://nh3fuel.com

    Email: gvezina@nh3fuel.com

    Phone: 1 (905) 501-0010

    (Trademarks Reg. in Canada, USA & EU)

    1. Greg Vezina

      Re: NH3 has been proven viable Mr. Gates, yours and Clinton's foundation wouldn't fund research?

      Clarifications of: Clinton Foundation Research not undertaken; and link to The Dual-Fuel Strategy: An Energy Transition Plan

      “A Well-Conceived Experimental Installation”: Possible NH3 Fuel Transportation Demonstration Projects

      7th Annual NH3 Fuel Conference, SEPTEMBER 27, 2010

      https://nh3fuel.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/clintonfndt_nh3fuelconferencev3.pdf

      In the past decade dozens of ammonia fuel and energy based technologies have been demonstrated and several commercialized or in commercial demonstration, including ammonia fuel cells, engines, retrofit conversions, and electrical storage systems. (see: PROLOG. An introduction to the paper by Ahlgren. The Dual-Fuel Strategy: An Energy Transition Plan https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=15-IEPR-04).

      204491 - 5/4/2015 part 1 - pdf.

      http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/15-IEPR-04/TN204491_20150504T125450_William_Ahlgren_comment_to_AB1257_Natural_Gas_Act_Report.pdf

      204490 - 5/4/2015 part 2 - pdf

      http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/15-IEPR-04/TN204490_20150504T125450_William_Ahlgren_comment_to_AB1257_Natural_Gas_Act_Report.pdf

  29. Greg Vezina

    NH3 has been proven a viable Mr. Gates, yours or Clinton's foundation won't fund research?

    The research into using ammonia as an energy currency, fuel and CO2 conversion and utilization needed has been done. A simple search of "ammonia fuel" - "ammonia car" and "ammonia cleantech" to find out how much proof there is that this works in many different applications around the world today, and there have been several new technologies including ammonia engines invented in Canada by UOIT university and in Japan by Toyota, as well as commercial demonstrations of wind to ammonia plants, ammonia fuel cells powering remote cell towers in Africa and dozens of others, and for decades coal and natural gas has been converted to ammonia and urea to capture and convert the CO2 into a valuable safe commodity, or CO2 from coal power plants using ammonia into valuable carbon based chemicals. We have technologies to use brown and green energy in better ways but the vast majority of the general public and even scientists doesn't know about them.

    “A Well-Conceived Experimental Installation”: Possible NH3 Fuel Transportation Demonstration Projects

    7th Annual NH3 Fuel Conference, SEPTEMBER 27, 2010

    https://nh3fuel.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/clintonfndt_nh3fuelconferencev3.pdf

    There is a two century history around multiple ways of using ammonia in different ways from the early 1820s when the first engine was built and ran a small locomotive, to Lam’s ammonia motor in 1869 that was used to power the Saint Charles Avenue Streetcar in New Orleans, to ammonia engines built by Rudolph Diesel before invented the high compression diesel engine which ignited an injected mixture of whale oil and coal gas.

    French solar energy pioneer engineer Charles Tellier combined using solar energy and ammonia. In 1885, he installed a roof-top solar collector very similar to the flat-plate collectors used today for heating domestic water. His collector system was composed of ten units made of two iron sheets riveted together and connected by piping to form a single array. The collector plates were filled with ammonia, and after exposure to sunlight, sufficient pressure was created in the ammonia gas to power a water pump that Tellier had placed in his well, at the rate of some 300 gallons per hour during daylight. (See:http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/ammonia/ammonia.htm)

    There were several on road trucks and cars operated on ammonia in Italy, Norway and Belgium in the early to mid 1920s, and in Brussels from 1944-1946 a dozen ammonia powered buses were driven over 100,000 km without a single accident or injury.

    During the 1960s there was a major effort by the US Military called the Energy Depot Project which had as an objective the production of a fuel from indigenous materials - earth, air, and water. Fuel possibilities included hydrogen, ammonia and hydrazine. There was also a substantial amount of work done using ammonia as a rocket fuel, including using it for the x-15, the fastest aircraft ever built.

    The University of Tennessee's ammonia-fueled urban vehicle competed in the 1972 Urban Vehicle Design Competition; designed and built by undergraduate engineering students working under Prof. Jeffrey Hodgson, the team finished fifth in a field of 65 entries (the vehicle actually had the second highest raw score).

    By 1978, actors Jack Nicholson, Marlon Brando, Joanne Carson and others were involved with Prof. Herbert F. Mataré in an unsuccessful solar hydrogen to ammonia project that ultimately failed because two of the founders were convicted of fraud. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM)

    Subsequently, several of the investors from Canada organized a new company working with many of their staff and successfully converted and drove a 1981 across Canada, arriving on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Nov. 5, 1981. My family and I headed that effort. (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vwmzkn0paM)

    In 2008 we converted a diesel fuelled 2007 Dodge Truck and a 2008 gasoline fuelled Ford Crown Victoria to run on NH3. (See: http://nh3fuel.com)

    By 2000 work to develop new ammonia manufacturing, energy, fuel and other related technologies took off around the world. And by 2014 there has been 11 Ammonia Fuel Conferences in the US with the 12th. in Chicago on Sept, 20 to 23, 2015, attended to by companies, universities and researchers from all over the world including from the UK, Canada, South Korea, China, Japan, the EU and elsewhere. (See: http://Nh3fuelassociation.org)

    In the past decade dozens of ammonia fuel and energy based technologies have been demonstrated and several commercialized or in commercial demonstration, including ammonia fuel cells, engines, retrofit conversions, and electrical storage systems. (see: PROLOG. An introduction to the paper by Ahlgren. The Dual-Fuel Strategy: An Energy Transition Plan https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=15-IEPR-04)

    Just looking at the The Dual-Fuel Strategy: An Energy Transition Plan reference list alone is a huge eye opener.

    (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abstractReferences.jsp?arnumber=6235977)

    Most importantly, long proven hydrocarbon conversion into ammonia and urea and other related CSS technologies already in use around the world have been verified by the IPCC in in Section 7.4.3.2 Fertilizer manufacture, of their Fourth Annual Assessment Report, as being so practical that other CSS technologies may not be viable at all. (See: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-4-3-2.html)

    The University of Ontario Institute of Technology has several ammonia engine and fuel use patents or patents pending, including, "Methods and apparatus for using ammonia as sustainable fuel, refrigerant and NOx reduction agent" which uses the NH3 to provide heating and cooling without consuming the fuel as other applications do, a technology that also noted in research going back to the US energy depot project in the mid 1960s. (See: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110011354)

    Toyota, Asian Industries in Japan got a patent in 2010: Ammonia burning internal combustion engine, Patents EP 2378105 A, EP 2 378 094 A1 (See: http://www.google.com/patents/EP2378105A1?cl=en)

    We have worked with UIOT on several projects including a recent Harper Government funded Clean Rail study of replacing diesel fuel in locomotives, "Comparative study of ammonia-based clean rail transportation systems for Greater Toronto area." The conclusions confirm the viability of this technology and that even using 50% ammonia with diesel would substantially reduce operating cost and emissions below expected future levels and using 100% ammonia and low cost commercially available hydroxy technology would increase efficiency by as much as 35% or more, reduce fuel and maintenance costs by 50% or more, and totally eliminate CO2 and NOx emissions entirely. (See: https://ir.library.dc-uoit.ca/handle/10155/431)

    The Harper federal government has recognised ammonia as a fuel, energy currency and viable technology for CO2 capture and conversions into ammonia and urea (as has the IPCC since 2007 as noted below), and the federal government has been funding research into ammonia fuel cells, wind to hydrogen (then ammonia) production in remote sites, and other research as noted in the attached policy letter from the attached October, 2013, policy decision from the Federal Minister of Natural Resources. (see pfd: http://frankraso.ca/images/documents/ammonia/NRCAN-2012-10-16.pdf)

    The Wynne Ontario government refuses to classify NH3 as a fuel or energy currency, even though both federal governments on Ottawa and Washington have and the SAE did so over 100 years ago.

    The Ontario Liberals prefer to give $billions on 20 years green energy subsidies to select technologies proposed by companies owned or promoted by Liberal party insiders of South Korea's Samung, thereby preventing all competing technologies from entering the marketplace. (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/mcguinty-government-changed-green-energy-rules-to-benefit-liberal-linked-firms-court-filing-charges)

    Ammonia — the real green energy | Guest Columnist | Opinion | Toronto Sun

    (See: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/11/12/ammonia--the-real-green-energy)

    Here is a link to radio show that former Ontario Environment Commissioner ("ECO") Gord Miller was on talking about how good a solution using ammonia in these ways really is:

    Greg Vezina and Ontario environment Commissioner Gord Miller (1:03:45 - 1:10:00)

    Gord Miller confirms viability of ammonia and province of Ontario ignoring the benefits. (1:05:35)

    Greg Vezina on: Ammonia Fuel and Energy (1:12:00 - 1:50:00)

    (See: https://soundcloud.com/jimfannonshow/aquaponics-gord-miller-ont-eco)

    Greg Vezina

    Chairman and CEO

    C.A.E.C-Canadian Alternative Energy Corp.

    Hydrofuel®TM Inc.

    Web: http://nh3fuel.com

    Email: gvezina@nh3fuel.com

    Phone: 1 (905) 501-0010

    (Trademarks Reg. in Canada, USA & EU)

  30. Bob Armstrong

    I guess simply not spending it and move the government towards profitability is out of the question .

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You got it. Governments by nature cannot be profitable because they engage in necessary endeavours that are huge money sinks. Things like a standing army (a basic requirement of sovereignty) and benefits for the helpless. Plus they're under constant pressure by the citizenry to not overtax them. A surplus to them would smack of overtaxation.

This topic is closed for new posts.