5 ms·

Bill Gates: ‘We Need an Energy Miracle’

36 points by cryptoz 11y ago

petergatsby 11y ago
It's not necessary to exclude the possibility of a Carbon tax, but it's certainly not the only, or most likely to be tenable, solution. Gates' own Creative Capitalism probably offers a better path towards zero emissions.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  Gates, and basically all economists, argument is that without correctly pricing externalities, capitalism (creative or otherwise) not only doesn't help, it actively makes things worse, as people can make fortunes by digging up and burning the fossil fuels that will wreck the global climate. Those incentives need to be realigned, and almost certainly will at some point, though probably much later than someone who believes in the power of market forces would like. The initial work will mostly be done via central planning and government regulation. It's even possible, like the VW scandal has reverberations in consumer confidence in their brand, that global warming has the potential to discredit capitalism in the eyes of the public, if a carbon tax doesn't get introduced soon enough to see capitalism as part of the solution and not just the problem.
  - petergatsby 11y ago
    I think you're right; market forces, left alone, are unlikely to realign incentives within a desirable time-frame. This seems to explain Gates' stance. However, the creative capitalist would argue that rather than penalizing fossil fuel companies (via Carbon tax), governments would do better to reward innovators via more 'green tax credits' and like financial incentives. You get the same* overall impact, just with less political push-back and more R&D, driven BY capitalism. And by the way, Gates invented "Creative Capitalism" (https://www.fpsct.org/uploaded/faculty/johnsonc/U_S_History/Unit_5/Gospel_and_Gates.pdf https://www.fpsct.org/uploaded/faculty/johnsonc/U_S_History/...).
johnmoore 11y ago
He should just talk with Tony stark, after all he did build it in a cave with a bunch of scraps.
OrwellianChild 11y ago
Excellent excerpt: They have this statement that the cost of solar photovoltaic is the same as hydrocarbon’s. And that’s one of those misleadingly meaningless statements. What they mean is that at noon in Arizona, the cost of that kilowatt-hour is the same as a hydrocarbon kilowatt-hour. But it doesn’t come at night, it doesn’t come after the sun hasn’t shone, so the fact that in that one moment you reach parity, so what? The reading public, when they see things like that, they underestimate how hard this thing is. So false solutions like divestment or “Oh, it’s easy to do” hurt our ability to fix the problems. Distinguishing a real solution from a false solution is actually very complicated. I really wish there was more nuance in the discussion about energy at this level. Folks rarely consider the entire system when evaluating energy sources, costs, consumption-side infrastructure, etc. The only way to move forward is to consider all these problems at once. Unfortunately, this is hard, and difficult to put in a headline. Witness: this great interview is called "We Need an Energy Miracle". Might I propose another: "Energy Infrastructure is Hard."
- sounds 11y ago
  It eventually gets reduced to the name of the company that capitalizes on the solution most successfully. "Oh, they're using Panasonic batteries." "He drives a Tesla." "Google it." I still think emc2fusion.org is worth a second look. Unfortunately, a number of really useful writeups were on talk-polywell.org which dreamhost hosed.
- ksec 11y ago
  It is exactly why we need huge innovation on battery, or any other way of energy storage system. ( Super Capacitor that is Super Cheap ? ) And somehow get this into every house, office etc.
  - OrwellianChild 11y ago
    It seems like there might be some miscommunication here. Gates' entire point was that there isn't a silver bullet solution. Battery storage improvements will help extend the reach of solar, but will still add cost - cost that isn't currently calculated into the equation most of the time in comparison to legacy fossil fuels.

36 points by cryptoz 11y ago

It's not necessary to exclude the possibility of a Carbon tax, but it's certainly not the only, or most likely to be tenable, solution. Gates' own Creative Capitalism probably offers a better path towards zero emissions.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Gates, and basically all economists, argument is that without correctly pricing externalities, capitalism (creative or otherwise) not only doesn't help, it actively makes things worse, as people can make fortunes by digging up and burning the fossil fuels that will wreck the global climate. Those incentives need to be realigned, and almost certainly will at some point, though probably much later than someone who believes in the power of market forces would like. The initial work will mostly be done via central planning and government regulation. It's even possible, like the VW scandal has reverberations in consumer confidence in their brand, that global warming has the potential to discredit capitalism in the eyes of the public, if a carbon tax doesn't get introduced soon enough to see capitalism as part of the solution and not just the problem.
- petergatsby 11y ago
  I think you're right; market forces, left alone, are unlikely to realign incentives within a desirable time-frame. This seems to explain Gates' stance. However, the creative capitalist would argue that rather than penalizing fossil fuel companies (via Carbon tax), governments would do better to reward innovators via more 'green tax credits' and like financial incentives. You get the same* overall impact, just with less political push-back and more R&D, driven BY capitalism. And by the way, Gates invented "Creative Capitalism" (https://www.fpsct.org/uploaded/faculty/johnsonc/U_S_History/Unit_5/Gospel_and_Gates.pdf https://www.fpsct.org/uploaded/faculty/johnsonc/U_S_History/...).

johnmoore 11y ago

He should just talk with Tony stark, after all he did build it in a cave with a bunch of scraps.

OrwellianChild 11y ago

Excellent excerpt: They have this statement that the cost of solar photovoltaic is the same as hydrocarbon’s. And that’s one of those misleadingly meaningless statements. What they mean is that at noon in Arizona, the cost of that kilowatt-hour is the same as a hydrocarbon kilowatt-hour. But it doesn’t come at night, it doesn’t come after the sun hasn’t shone, so the fact that in that one moment you reach parity, so what? The reading public, when they see things like that, they underestimate how hard this thing is. So false solutions like divestment or “Oh, it’s easy to do” hurt our ability to fix the problems. Distinguishing a real solution from a false solution is actually very complicated. I really wish there was more nuance in the discussion about energy at this level. Folks rarely consider the entire system when evaluating energy sources, costs, consumption-side infrastructure, etc. The only way to move forward is to consider all these problems at once. Unfortunately, this is hard, and difficult to put in a headline. Witness: this great interview is called "We Need an Energy Miracle". Might I propose another: "Energy Infrastructure is Hard."

sounds 11y ago
It eventually gets reduced to the name of the company that capitalizes on the solution most successfully. "Oh, they're using Panasonic batteries." "He drives a Tesla." "Google it." I still think emc2fusion.org is worth a second look. Unfortunately, a number of really useful writeups were on talk-polywell.org which dreamhost hosed.
ksec 11y ago
It is exactly why we need huge innovation on battery, or any other way of energy storage system. ( Super Capacitor that is Super Cheap ? ) And somehow get this into every house, office etc.
- OrwellianChild 11y ago
  It seems like there might be some miscommunication here. Gates' entire point was that there isn't a silver bullet solution. Battery storage improvements will help extend the reach of solar, but will still add cost - cost that isn't currently calculated into the equation most of the time in comparison to legacy fossil fuels.