Hey Rumble; how about answering.

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
22,854
25,607
1
An altered state
Knox posted a thread about Bill Gates saying the math just doesn't work for solar, wind, and batteries and you never commented on it. I asked you about it in the Texas utilities thread you started and you ignored it. So I'm asking again, with some quotes from the article Knox posted;


America consumes energy equivalent to 15 oil supertankers per day;

When the world’s 4 billion poor people increase energy use to just 15% of the per capita level of developed economies, global energy use will rise by the equivalent of adding 15 more supertankers (an America’s worth) per day."
  • "All of the annual output from what will become the world’s biggest battery factory—the $5 billion Tesla gigafactory under construction in Nevada—can store just five minutes worth of annual U.S. electric demand.
  • It would require 40 years worth of production from 100 gigafactories in order to build a battery ‘tank’ farm capable of storing enough electricity to match the energy held in the oil tank farm at Cushing, OK, (one of many oil depots in the U.S).

    to match grid-scale availability, photovoltaics would still be about 400% more expensive than conventional grid power because of the extra production equipment and storage needed to ensure availability at any time.
  • Solar, wind and battery technologies have improved 150 to 250% in the past half-decade, in terms of energy produced per dollar of capital. Shale technology, measured the same way over the same time, has improved over 400%.
  • Shale technology has added 100 times more energy supply to America in the past decade than has solar."
"Google launched an Apollo-like project called “ RE<C“ to develop renewable energy that would be cheaper than coal. After Google cancelled the project in 2011, Google’s lead engineers reached essentially the same conclusion as Bill Gates."

So, what say you?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,678
5,068
1
Knox posted a thread about Bill Gates saying the math just doesn't work for solar, wind, and batteries and you never commented on it. I asked you about it in the Texas utilities thread you started and you ignored it. So I'm asking again, with some quotes from the article Knox posted;


America consumes energy equivalent to 15 oil supertankers per day;

When the world’s 4 billion poor people increase energy use to just 15% of the per capita level of developed economies, global energy use will rise by the equivalent of adding 15 more supertankers (an America’s worth) per day."



    • "All of the annual output from what will become the world’s biggest battery factory—the $5 billion Tesla gigafactory under construction in Nevada—can store just five minutes worth of annual U.S. electric demand.
    • It would require 40 years worth of production from 100 gigafactories in order to build a battery ‘tank’ farm capable of storing enough electricity to match the energy held in the oil tank farm at Cushing, OK, (one of many oil depots in the U.S).

      to match grid-scale availability, photovoltaics would still be about 400% more expensive than conventional grid power because of the extra production equipment and storage needed to ensure availability at any time.



    • Solar, wind and battery technologies have improved 150 to 250% in the past half-decade, in terms of energy produced per dollar of capital. Shale technology, measured the same way over the same time, has improved over 400%.
    • Shale technology has added 100 times more energy supply to America in the past decade than has solar."
"Google launched an Apollo-like project called “ RE<C“ to develop renewable energy that would be cheaper than coal. After Google cancelled the project in 2011, Google’s lead engineers reached essentially the same conclusion as Bill Gates."

So, what say you?

The article was so bad I didn't think anyone took it seriously. But looks like somebody believed it..... sheesh.

Now I have to trace through all the drivel, thanks a lot.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
102,999
55,903
1
The article was so bad I didn't think anyone took it seriously. But looks like somebody believed it..... sheesh.

Now I have to trace through all the drivel, thanks a lot.

Denial.... Well done.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,678
5,068
1
Knox posted a thread about Bill Gates saying the math just doesn't work for solar, wind, and batteries and you never commented on it. I asked you about it in the Texas utilities thread you started and you ignored it. So I'm asking again, with some quotes from the article Knox posted;


America consumes energy equivalent to 15 oil supertankers per day;

When the world’s 4 billion poor people increase energy use to just 15% of the per capita level of developed economies, global energy use will rise by the equivalent of adding 15 more supertankers (an America’s worth) per day."



    • "All of the annual output from what will become the world’s biggest battery factory—the $5 billion Tesla gigafactory under construction in Nevada—can store just five minutes worth of annual U.S. electric demand.
    • It would require 40 years worth of production from 100 gigafactories in order to build a battery ‘tank’ farm capable of storing enough electricity to match the energy held in the oil tank farm at Cushing, OK, (one of many oil depots in the U.S).

      to match grid-scale availability, photovoltaics would still be about 400% more expensive than conventional grid power because of the extra production equipment and storage needed to ensure availability at any time.



    • Solar, wind and battery technologies have improved 150 to 250% in the past half-decade, in terms of energy produced per dollar of capital. Shale technology, measured the same way over the same time, has improved over 400%.
    • Shale technology has added 100 times more energy supply to America in the past decade than has solar."
"Google launched an Apollo-like project called “ RE<C“ to develop renewable energy that would be cheaper than coal. After Google cancelled the project in 2011, Google’s lead engineers reached essentially the same conclusion as Bill Gates."

So, what say you?


America consumes energy equivalent to 15 oil supertankers per day;

When the world’s 4 billion poor people increase energy use to just 15% of the per capita level of developed economies, global energy use will rise by the equivalent of adding 15 more supertankers (an America’s worth) per day."

  • "All of the annual output from what will become the world’s biggest battery factory—the $5 billion Tesla gigafactory under construction in Nevada—can store just five minutes worth of annual U.S. electric demand.
  • It would require 40 years worth of production from 100 gigafactories in order to build a battery ‘tank’ farm capable of storing enough electricity to match the energy held in the oil tank farm at Cushing, OK, (one of many oil depots in the U.S).

    to match grid-scale availability, photovoltaics would still be about 400% more expensive than conventional grid power because of the extra production equipment and storage needed to ensure availability at any time.
  • Solar, wind and battery technologies have improved 150 to 250% in the past half-decade, in terms of energy produced per dollar of capital. Shale technology, measured the same way over the same time, has improved over 400%.
  • Shale technology has added 100 times more energy supply to America in the past decade than has solar."
"Google launched an Apollo-like project called “ RE<C“ to develop renewable energy that would be cheaper than coal. After Google cancelled the project in 2011, Google’s lead engineers reached essentially the same conclusion as Bill Gates."

So, what say you?


There is nothing posted above from story on Bill Gates. The story you linked to is an "interpretation" of an interview with Gates in the Atlantic. The author pulls quotes out from Gates and then adds his own "perspective". I think the entire article is a pretty bad hatchet job.

Here is my suggestion: Instead of having Mark Mills tell you what he thinks Bill Gates thinks, why not just read the original interview with Bill Gates. I don't think you will find the same point of view.

Here is the link to the Gates interview - http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/

A few small differences I noticed:

Mark Mills
Bill Gates Is Right on Energy: "Bringing Math Skills to the Problem"​

Remember the "Bill Gates is right on energy" part as you read below, lol.

Bill Gates interview in the Atlantic
Those who study energy patterns say we are in a gradual transition from oil and coal to natural gas, a fuel that emits far less carbon but still contributes to global warming. Gates thinks that we can’t accept this outcome, and that our best chance to vault over natural gas to a globally applicable, carbon-free source of energy is to drive innovation “at an unnaturally high pace.”

When I sat down to hear his case a few weeks ago, he didn’t evince much patience for the argument that American politicians couldn’t agree even on whether climate change is real, much less on how to combat it. “If you’re not bringing math skills to the problem,” he said with a sort of amused asperity, “then representative democracy is a problem.”​

What a difference context make doesn't it! The math skills quote is in relation to climate denier politicians. Gates wants to transition to carbon free source of energy and do at an unnaturally high pace. Kinda sounds like he is pushing for the elimination of fossil fuel companies doesn't it? That's definitely not how Mark Mills "interpreted" his interview was it?

Let's play again!

Mark Mills
“[W]e need innovation that gives us energy that’s cheaper than today’s hydrocarbon energy, that has zero CO2 emissions, and that’s as reliable as today’s overall energy system. And when you put all those requirements together, we need an energy miracle.”

Bill Gates interview in the Atlantic
That’s why we really need to solve that dilemma, we need innovation that gives us energy that’s cheaper than today’s hydrocarbon energy, that has zero CO2 emissions, and that’s as reliable as today’s overall energy system. And when you put all those requirements together, we need an energy miracle. That may make it seem too daunting to people, but in science, miracles are happening all the time.

Some quotes from Gates that I'm sure you will find agreeable.

I’m a big believer in foreign aid, but the climate problem has to be solved in the rich countries. China and the U.S. and Europe have to solve CO2 emissions, and when they do, hopefully they’ll make it cheap enough for everyone else. But the big numbers are all in the developed economies, where China’s defined into that term.​

Yikes! He is proposing not waiting for other countries to go first! Oh no!

When I first got into this I thought, How well does the Department of Energy spend its R&D budget? And I was worried: Gosh, if I’m going to be saying it should double its budget, if it turns out it’s not very well spent, how am I going to feel about that? But as I’ve really dug into it, the DARPA money is very well spent, and the basic-science money is very well spent. The government has these “Centers of Excellence.” They should have twice as many of those things, and those things should get about four times as much money as they do.​

What! Government spending is good! He is out of his mind! Quadruple funding! He must of been the one that designed the windows 8 interface!

Yes, the government will be some-what inept—but the private sector is in general inept. How many companies do venture capitalists invest in that go poorly? By far most of them. And it’s just that every once in a while a Google or a Microsoft comes out, and some medium-scale successes too, and so the overall return is there, and so people keep giving them money.
Speechless.......

 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,678
5,068
1
Knox posted a thread about Bill Gates saying the math just doesn't work for solar, wind, and batteries and you never commented on it. I asked you about it in the Texas utilities thread you started and you ignored it. So I'm asking again, with some quotes from the article Knox posted;


America consumes energy equivalent to 15 oil supertankers per day;

When the world’s 4 billion poor people increase energy use to just 15% of the per capita level of developed economies, global energy use will rise by the equivalent of adding 15 more supertankers (an America’s worth) per day."



    • "All of the annual output from what will become the world’s biggest battery factory—the $5 billion Tesla gigafactory under construction in Nevada—can store just five minutes worth of annual U.S. electric demand.
    • It would require 40 years worth of production from 100 gigafactories in order to build a battery ‘tank’ farm capable of storing enough electricity to match the energy held in the oil tank farm at Cushing, OK, (one of many oil depots in the U.S).

      to match grid-scale availability, photovoltaics would still be about 400% more expensive than conventional grid power because of the extra production equipment and storage needed to ensure availability at any time.



    • Solar, wind and battery technologies have improved 150 to 250% in the past half-decade, in terms of energy produced per dollar of capital. Shale technology, measured the same way over the same time, has improved over 400%.
    • Shale technology has added 100 times more energy supply to America in the past decade than has solar."
"Google launched an Apollo-like project called “ RE<C“ to develop renewable energy that would be cheaper than coal. After Google cancelled the project in 2011, Google’s lead engineers reached essentially the same conclusion as Bill Gates."

So, what say you?


Another interview with Bill Gates in renewable just in case you thought the Atlantic one is and outlier.

http://qz.com/470592/by-bill-gates-...n-of-my-own-money-into-clean-energy-research/

Aug 2015

As I argued in this 2010 TED talk, we need to be able to power all sectors of the economy with sources that do not emit any carbon dioxide.

I do see some encouraging progress on climate and energy. Environmental advocates deserve credit for getting climate change so high on the world’s agenda. Many countries are committing to put policies in place that reflect the impact of greenhouse gases. The cost of solar photovoltaic cells has dropped by nearly a factor of ten over the past decade, and batteries that store energy created by intermittent sources like solar and wind are getting more powerful and less expensive. Since 2007 the United States has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions nearly 10%. Since 1990 Germany has reduced its energy-sector emissions by more than 20%.

World leaders will take another critical step this December at a major meeting in Paris called COP21, where they will discuss plans to reduce global CO2 emissions significantly. COP21 can build a strong foundation for solving the climate crisis—but we will need to go even further.

My own personal investments include companies working on new batteries and other storage methods and advances in solar technology. The nuclear design I am investing in would be safer than previous designs and would go a long way toward solving the nuclear waste problem. I spend a lot of time with the CEOs and scientists at all these companies discussing how to build a business around an innovative idea and take a product to market. If government research budgets open up the pipeline of innovation, not only will I expand my investments, but I believe other investors would join me in taking these risks.

Another important step will be to ensure that the energy market accurately reflects the full impact of emitting carbon. Today the market is not factoring in what economists call the negative externalities—the health costs, environmental damage, and so on. If the market takes these into account, renewable energy will be more competitive with fossil fuels, which will attract more innovators to the field. Many countries and states are experimenting with different ways to price carbon. Whatever approach we take, it should create incentives to develop new energy solutions while also giving energy companies enough certainty to plan and execute the transition to zero-carbon sources.

We can also be smarter about how we use subsidies. The IMF estimates that direct subsidies for fossil fuels amount to nearly $500 billion a year worldwide, shielding consumers from their true costs. Some subsidies for deploying renewable energy are also very inefficient, creating big incentives to install solar panels where it’s often not sunny or wind turbines where it’s not windy. We should be looking for ways to reduce these subsidies and invest the savings in the basic R&D that will help solve the problem.



I don't know, it look like Bill Gates is not really pushing for more fossil fuel extraction does it? It looks like he is investing a couple of billion dollars of his own money in renewable R&D. What do you think or what say you?
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
22,854
25,607
1
An altered state
Another interview with Bill Gates in renewable just in case you thought the Atlantic one is and outlier.

http://qz.com/470592/by-bill-gates-...n-of-my-own-money-into-clean-energy-research/

Aug 2015

As I argued in this 2010 TED talk, we need to be able to power all sectors of the economy with sources that do not emit any carbon dioxide.

I do see some encouraging progress on climate and energy. Environmental advocates deserve credit for getting climate change so high on the world’s agenda. Many countries are committing to put policies in place that reflect the impact of greenhouse gases. The cost of solar photovoltaic cells has dropped by nearly a factor of ten over the past decade, and batteries that store energy created by intermittent sources like solar and wind are getting more powerful and less expensive. Since 2007 the United States has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions nearly 10%. Since 1990 Germany has reduced its energy-sector emissions by more than 20%.

World leaders will take another critical step this December at a major meeting in Paris called COP21, where they will discuss plans to reduce global CO2 emissions significantly. COP21 can build a strong foundation for solving the climate crisis—but we will need to go even further.

My own personal investments include companies working on new batteries and other storage methods and advances in solar technology. The nuclear design I am investing in would be safer than previous designs and would go a long way toward solving the nuclear waste problem. I spend a lot of time with the CEOs and scientists at all these companies discussing how to build a business around an innovative idea and take a product to market. If government research budgets open up the pipeline of innovation, not only will I expand my investments, but I believe other investors would join me in taking these risks.

Another important step will be to ensure that the energy market accurately reflects the full impact of emitting carbon. Today the market is not factoring in what economists call the negative externalities—the health costs, environmental damage, and so on. If the market takes these into account, renewable energy will be more competitive with fossil fuels, which will attract more innovators to the field. Many countries and states are experimenting with different ways to price carbon. Whatever approach we take, it should create incentives to develop new energy solutions while also giving energy companies enough certainty to plan and execute the transition to zero-carbon sources.

We can also be smarter about how we use subsidies. The IMF estimates that direct subsidies for fossil fuels amount to nearly $500 billion a year worldwide, shielding consumers from their true costs. Some subsidies for deploying renewable energy are also very inefficient, creating big incentives to install solar panels where it’s often not sunny or wind turbines where it’s not windy. We should be looking for ways to reduce these subsidies and invest the savings in the basic R&D that will help solve the problem.



I don't know, it look like Bill Gates is not really pushing for more fossil fuel extraction does it? It looks like he is investing a couple of billion dollars of his own money in renewable R&D. What do you think or what say you?
-----

My own personal investments include companies working on new batteries and other storage methods and advances in solar technology. The nuclear design I am investing in would be safer than previous designs and would go a long way toward solving the nuclear waste problem.

Seems he is investing in R & D instead of wasting money on not-ready-for-prime-time systems, just like I have been saying. And also nuclear, again like I have stated.

Some subsidies for deploying renewable energy are also very inefficient, creating big incentives to install solar panels where it’s often not sunny or wind turbines where it’s not windy. We should be looking for ways to reduce these subsidies and invest the savings in the basic R&D that will help solve the problem.

Again, what I have been saying...get rid of subsidies and put the money into research.

Since 2007 the United States has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions nearly 10%.

If he was being honest, he should have pointed out that almost all that reduction was because of HVHF/fracking.

So the article you posted says he wants more research to get better systems, the one Knox posted he says that the math doesn't work for current systems. No contradiction there.