51 ms·

A critical step to reduce climate change

346 points by mhandley 7y ago

YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
This is all good, but the reality is we'll not have enough renewables any time soon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption We should seriously consider solar geo-engineering. Not as the ultimate policy but to buy time.
- czechdeveloper 7y ago
  I really hope not. We don't even know all consequences of geo-engineering. Well, we know it will lower yield of crops on which we depend to feed ourselves. Future is green or none at all.
  - llukas 7y ago
    We already did geoengineering in form of burning fossils. Reversing this is also geoengineering.
  - alluro2 7y ago
    Why not both - our current "forward" momentum is increasing greenhouse gases and, even if we switch fully to renewables with minimal carbon footprint in a very short time-frame, that momentum will continue to have effects. If we apply the "backward" momentum and start removing carbon while also switcing production to green, it should stop the negative effects more quickly. Of course, I'm all for thorough planning and extensive, well-funded and organized research first - unfortunately, we can't seem to start doing one of these things seriously, let alone all three...
    - czechdeveloper 7y ago
      Removing CO2 is not geoengineering in my book. That is reversing what we did and I'm all for that. Geoengineering is for example emitting particles to atmosphere to lower amount of sunlight hitting earth. This will cause sky to change color, lower yield of crops and possibly other unknown consequences. That I would rather live without. That is last resort think, not first think to do. We don't even have carbon tax, plane fuel is not taxed etc. and we already talk about geoengineering. This is crazy.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    If carbon emissions dropped to zero today, there is enough carbon in the atmosphere to permanently raise the temperature and potentially enough to kick off nasty positive feedback loops like permafrost methane. Assuming we could hit zero today is of course wildly optimistic. Even reaching an equilibrial state of carbon inflow and carbon outflow would mean approximately halving emissions, rather than tinkering around the edges.
  - chr1 7y ago
    > we know it will lower yield of crops that is true only for one kind of geo-engineering: emulation of volcano eruption, and that's indeed not the kind of geoengineering we need. What we need instead is a much finer control over weather to prevent +35 and -20 in cities, drive more water to deserts, and make arctic warmer without melting all of greenland ice sheets.
  - jpfed 7y ago
    The way around that is to use particles that block/reflect EM radiation that is not useful to plants. For example, glass or silicon gel.
- llukas 7y ago
  You are being misled by the graph. Here is why: https://physicsworld.com/a/a-gross-miscalculation/ https://physicsworld.com/a/a-gross-miscalculation/
  - simonh 7y ago
    So basically the chart is based on fuel consumption not actual energy output. Most fossil fuel consumption is inefficient to the tune of about two thirds of the input fuel being wasted. So the graph down-plays the contribution of renewable sources and nuclear by a factor of about 3x in terms of substitution for fossil fuel sources.
fxfan 7y ago
Not debating on what the US govt should do- I think Mr Gates should seek funding elsewhere if the govt is not going to be a cooperative player. EU is both interested in reducing the effect of man made climate change and of course in new energy technology
Zanni 7y ago
The article mentions traveling wave reactors and molten salt reactors being developed by Terra Power. Any relationship or synergy between these two, or are they orthogonal efforts?
- jabl 7y ago
  I suppose there would be some synergy in general nuclear knowhow, fuel supply (that is, making available a supply of HALEU or RgPu which is not something the current global nuclear supply chain is providing) and maybe in terms of reprocessing. But the reactors themselves are quite different.
rorystaa 7y ago
It appears that the link is broken
- lorenzhs 7y ago
  Link contains a bunch of unnecessary parameters but works for me. Maybe try the "clean" link? https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/A-critical-step-to-reduce-climate-change https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/A-critical-step-to-reduce-...
  - muterad_murilax 7y ago
    Doesn't work either. Even if I go to https://www.gatesnotes.com/ https://www.gatesnotes.com/ and click the link on the frontpage I reach the "Oops!" page.
- teehetki 7y ago
  Here's a working link https://www.gatesnotes.com/energy/a-critical-step-to-reduce-climate-change https://www.gatesnotes.com/energy/a-critical-step-to-reduce-...
jamisteven 7y ago
Something I have been thinking about for years: black attracts heat, right? So why do we not have a worldwide initiative to turn anything that is black to white. Primary uses I am thinking are roofs of houses, and pavement on streets. I remember as a kid painting roofs on my Dad's commercial properties in Florida with reflective paint in order to reduce cooling costs of the properties, which ended up working pretty well. If climate change really is the threat they say it is, why are we not starting with the simple and obvious solutions first that are super easy to deploy/implement?
- adrianN 7y ago
  Increasing the albedo is one geoengineering strategy that is being discussed regularly. But it doesn't help with other negative aspects of increased CO2 concentrations like ocean acidification.
- teshier-A 7y ago
  Do you have any idea how much surface there would be to cover outside of your own backyard for this to be effective ? Are you aware that 1/3rd of the Earth's surface is covered with snow at some point of the year but that snow cover has been declining for decades ? It truly boggles my mind that you think painting stuff white is the first step to take to take on climate change.
  - llukas 7y ago
    http://www.whiteroofproject.org/faq http://www.whiteroofproject.org/faq It can reduce energy consumption for start... and you already might need to paint your roof...
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    Part of the problem with climate change is that it's too big for anyone to intuitively comprehend. The scope of the disaster (both in timescale and magnitude) is beyond anything humans deal with in their everyday lives, so laypeople are prone to unhelpful observations.
- voisin 7y ago
jabl 7y ago
Bill Gates gets it. We need to step on the gas and deploy boatloads of wind, solar, nuclear, batteries, pumped hydro, long-distance transmission, energy efficiency measures, CCS, demand response, and whatnot. Yes, it will cost a lot. But leaving our children with an increasingly hostile planet isn't a tenable option either (and one which will be even more expensive as well).
- lazyjones 7y ago
  > We need to step on the gas Nice metaphor...
  - travisjungroth 7y ago
    Maybe “get the lead out” would be better?
  - _pmf_ 7y ago
    Really nice, because a ramp up in mass production of these things causes a lot of emissions that will take 50+ years to recover from.
  - Fuzzwah 7y ago
    In current Formula 1 parlance; we need to increase our torque demand.
- rooam-dev 7y ago
  How could be people convinced about importance of this if it doesn't or won't impact them enough? Yes, "think about our children" is good, but in the end people are still selfish and will think that it's not their problem.
  - mojomark 7y ago
    > How could be people convinced about importance of this if it doesn't or won't impact them enough? As engineers, I feel it's our responsibility to make environmentally friendly solutions that are simply more economically viable than the unclean/unsustainable alternative. I'm working on the oceanic shipping industry myself.
lazyjones 7y ago
I'd like to know who he thinks the "we" is in this article. Several countries are already using ~100% carbon-neutral electricity and the USA and Europe are progressing rapidly. The main culprits are developing nations and China, so it's "them" who should be doing something urgently and "they" have a whole slew of other problems not covered by Gates' US-centric perspective. Reasonable approaches would be to bring manufacturing back to countries that use mostly clean energy (oh, and modern approaches to labor and human rights) and to tax imports from developing countries with poor CO2 record heavily until they fix their issues.
- kristopolous 7y ago
  So what's the right approach here? Could there be a BDS-like movement on things created with dirty energy? If there was a "made with renewable energy" certification on products, I'd certainly consider paying a premium and even being inconvenienced into finding them. Maybe even a version of the better world shopper (https://betterworldshopper.org/ https://betterworldshopper.org/) which does exclusively energy grades and then have forward-thinking grocery stores start to to put the grade on the label. I'd certainly shop at a store with that system at every conceivable opportunity.
- teebot 7y ago
  You could not be further from the truth. Carbon emissions per capita is way higher in the US and in Europe than in China and India.
  - hollerith 7y ago
    China, 7.5 metric tons per person in 2014. Switzerland, 4.3. Sweden, 4.5. France, 4.6. Spain, 5.0. Italy, 5.3. UK, 6.5. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
    - zamfi 7y ago
      Cherry-picking data much? That same article lists the EU overall at 8.6 and US at 17.
stinos 7y ago
But because the world must balance the need to eliminate carbon emissions with economic growth I read this often, and everytime can't help but wonder: must the world really strive for economic growth? Is just stability not enough? Isn't unbridled growth a major cause of the situation we're in now (and not just with respect to climate, but also the wealth of other environmental problesm, even disasters, the earth faces)? Note: these are honest questions. I don't know how econmics really work. Maybe I'm naive, and I perfectly get for some 'more more more' is the key aspect in life. But is that really required?
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  Growth does not imply consumption of resources. It can simply be technological advances. Finding better cures for cancer is also growth. Of course mankind would continue without better cures for cancer. But I find it difficult to argue that we shouldn't look for better cures.
  - Oletros 7y ago
    But the growth talked is "economic growth"
    - bubblewrap 7y ago
      Curing cancer is also economic growth.
- flexie 7y ago
  Well, it's easy for us to sit here in the developed world and talk about how the world doesn't need growth. There are billions of people for whom more of the same means more poverty. When everybody in Africa, South America, Asia, heck even the poorer parts of Europe and North America, has access to clean water, food, education, healthcare, safety, justice etc. we can discuss whether we really need growth. Growth may not be as needed in our parts of the world, but it sure is for a lot of people.
- pjc50 7y ago
  If there is population growth, there must be economic growth, or every new born mouth makes the rest of the world poorer. That tends to turn people on one another. Zero population growth is now possible; zero growth in resource usage may be compatible with economic growth.
reactspa 7y ago
Does anyone know why nobody talks about how air-conditioning might be causing warming? Related: Scott Adams' Tweet https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1126546466623746050 https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/112654646662374605... Scott Adams' Video of Giant Room at Wynn Las Vegas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1SP-tinmPw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1SP-tinmPw
aiyodev 7y ago
> We can do even more. By investing in energy innovations... Ok. Do it. You promised to give away your entire net worth years ago but you're still worth $100 billion. What's the hold up?
- point78 7y ago
  I have to agree with you. Put your money where your mouth is.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  I imagine the vast majority of that net worth is tied up in investments and not immediately available to spend. It's not just sitting in his bank account.
  - aiyodev 7y ago
    The threat of climate change isn't significant enough for him to liquidate his investments?
    - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
      He's already liquidating them pretty quickly to fund the vast amounts he's ploughing into eradicating polio and malaria, and projects to provide access to clean water, contraception and decent sanitation in the developing world. It wouldn't surprise me if the linked article doesn't mark the start of a shift in focus to address climate change as well. You may not be a fan of Bill Gates but when it comes to putting his money where his mouth is he has a pretty decent track record in recent years. Edit to add: When you hold more assets then anyone else there's a limit to the rate that they can be liquidated without completely disrupting the global economy.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- simonh 7y ago
  So what you seem to be suggesting is he should spend his entire net worth all in one go right now and then walk away, and if he doesn't he's a fraud? If that's what you mean, it doesn't seem to me to be a very effective strategy when tackling long term problems, especially as new problems keep coming up. No investments means no revenue to tackle new problems. Do you really think committing everything up front would be a better use of his resources?
D_Alex 7y ago
The article lists three important solutions for transition to clean electricity. But there is also a fourth important solution, one that I think HN crowd can help with: demand side management systems. Essentially, this aims to match energy utilisation to energy production. One idea which needs implementing ASAP is a way to use EV batteries as a flexible storage device, so that you charge the battery when there is a surplus of power, and perhaps release a bit of energy when there is a deficit. To do this in a user-friendly way is not trivial, but surely not that hard either. And yet no current or planned EV seems to be offering this. Can someone get onto this please :)
- ljcn 7y ago
  > And yet no current or planned EV seems to be offering this. In the UK, Ovo customers can do vehicle to grid transfers from their Nissan Leaf, with an appropriate charger. https://www.ovoenergy.com/electric-cars/vehicle-to-grid-charger https://www.ovoenergy.com/electric-cars/vehicle-to-grid-char...
  - D_Alex 7y ago
    Nice find! This is exactly what I had in mind! It is curious that this system is only compatible with Nissan leaf though. Perhaps we should work on a standard?
- Brometheus 7y ago
  Available right now from Germany: https://www.energymeteo.com/products/virtual_power_plant/the_virtual_power_plant.php https://www.energymeteo.com/products/virtual_power_plant/the...
  - D_Alex 7y ago
    This is very interesting, but note that in the diagram on the linked page, the "consumers" are "not controllable" - so it seems that this does not address the demand side management opportunity.
- atupis 7y ago
mhandley 7y ago
One thing I don't hear discussed much is that we really need enough renewables installed so that on good days for solar and wind, we're actually generating much more than 100% of demand. This then substantially reduces the fraction of the time we depend on expensive storage. This only works though if we have additional variable demand that can kick in when things are going well, both to stabilize the grid and to provide a profitable market for energy. This is where technologies like Prometheus are developing could fit in really well - generating carbon-neutral aviation fuel from atmospheric CO2 and electricity, so we can decarbonize those parts of the economy that cannot switch directly to electric power.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Dumblydorr 7y ago
  I think it more likely that utilities (or someone) will begin buying up heating, cooling, and other flexible demand so that they can use a much higher % of their renewables efficiently.
- jabl 7y ago
  Problem with many of these schemes is that they are capital intensive, so if you can run them only when there's an oversupply of renewables on the grid, well, the economics are going to suck. I do think that synthetic fuels is a likely solution for things like long distance airplanes which are very hard to decarbonize otherwise.
cies 7y ago
> electricity generation is the single biggest contributor to climate change—responsible for 25 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions and growing every day To put it in perspective: livestock clocks in at 18% and transportation at 13%. [1] But greenhouse gas emissions is not all that counts, there's also acidification, eutrophicatoin (phosphor pollution) and land use. Livestock clock in very high on all these points. [2] We need land for forest: reduce footprint while re-creating habitats. Good to know Bill also invests on that side of the picture. [3] [1] http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts [2] https://phys.org/news/2018-05-reveals-foods-markedly-environmental-impacts.html https://phys.org/news/2018-05-reveals-foods-markedly-environ... [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/21/how-bill-gates-backed-vegan-beyond-meat-is-winning-over-meat-eaters.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/21/how-bill-gates-backed-vegan-...
- paganel 7y ago
  We need a change in culinary habits, eating meat each day for seven days a week isn’t pheasible on the long run. And I don’t think people will flock to eating artificial meat, I don’t think real milk has been replaced by soy milk. Also, a fact left unsaid by most of the people commenting on this, we need to reverse the engines of economic growth, this planet doesn’t have the resources of providing a middle-class lifestyle for 7 or 8 billion people. In essence, I’m saying that Malthus was right, and the longer we fight against his ideas the longer it will take for us to complain about stuff that I’m afraid is already outside of our control. I’m not really sure what sort of event will bring the next environmental state of equilibrium, we used to rely on wars and lack of antibiotics for that in centuries past, but I’m sure it won’t be pretty.
  - fiblye 7y ago
    I think the effort to get people to stop eating meat and XYZ favorite food isn't going to work. A lot of people eat what they eat because they don't really have much food choice. And with some people pushing weird options like bugs as a protein source while the rich will surely keep eating normal old burgers, life is starting to feel like a bad scifi movie. I think the absolute biggest and most immediate solution is eating less. Not less beef. Not less pork. Just less of everything. Obese people can easily consume 2x or more of the food a non-obese person takes in. In America alone, about 1/3 of the country is obese. Doing incredibly rough math here, cutting the calorie consumption of that top 1/3 in half would be the equivalent of 1/6 of food consumption vanishing. As someone from a rural family full of almost-carnivore 400+ pounders, getting them to cut their calories to ~2500 calories a day would be like half the neighborhood and their consumption simply vanishing. And that's not even factoring in the gas we need to burn to accommodate the greater mass on airplanes, in cars, etc. Dropping the average weight of obese countries by 1/3 would put a big dent in emissions.
Krasnol 7y ago
Bill Gates: somebody buy my nuclear stuff, I already invested so much
diegoholiveira 7y ago
Bill forgot the only thing that can truly be a game changer: Nuclear Fusion. In the long run, this is the only solution that can provide the amount of energy required by our modern society.
- Yajirobe 7y ago
  > our modern society You probably mean future society, as this technology is not really viable yet (in its current form).
- Tepix 7y ago
  Citation needed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- olau 7y ago
  I don't think so, not for the foreseeable future at least - fusion has to be cheaper than fission to be interesting, and fission is probably too expensive at the moment already.
- votepaunchy 7y ago
  Fusion is also the only energy source which will allow us to reverse the worst effects of climate change (melted ice caps in particular).
  - Brakenshire 7y ago
    Very unlikely that fusion will have any impact on climate change on the timescale which is necessary. The cuts need to be made over the next 20 years, even if we had the technology, it would take a lot longer to scale up.
  - mcv 7y ago
    Not sure why only fusion power would allow that. Solar power is making use of energy that's already heating our planet without us making use of it. Turning solar radiation into electricity instead of heat, makes more efficient use of energy we already have without having to generate more of it from different sources, like fusion. And the amount of sunlight we receive is enormous. If we could make use of a significant faction of that, it would provide more energy than we ever need. There's no reason that can't do anything that fusion power will ever be able to do on Earth. The only real advantage fusion power has over solar is that it's independent of the sun and can be used in deep space. Well, once it finally works.
chriswarbo 7y ago
It always interests me that lithium batteries are used in situations with such different constraints: from mobile phones (lightweight, compact, frequent irregular (dis)charging, etc.) to grid storage (controllable (dis)charging patterns, weight and size are less important). I wonder which other, less battery-oriented, chemical reactions have been investigated for grid storage. For example, non-rechargable aluminium batteries have been suggested for electric cars ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery ); I could certainly imagine a substation topping up the grid by corroding a huge heap of metal (aluminium is abundant, but heavier materials could be used since they don't need to be mobile). The interesting dynamic with such non-rechargable "batteries" is how they're manufactured: they would come from surplus production at times of abundant energy. AFAIK energy-intensive processes like aluminium smelting are already used to balance the grid (either directly, with contracts between both parties; or indirectly, by changing energy prices). Are the round-trip efficiencies of such reactions too low? Are the energy quantities too low? Would this just be an indirect (and hence less efficient) form of the existing load balancing?
- mlindner 7y ago
  The problem is "lithium batteries" is too wide category. There are vastly different chemistries that just happen to have lithium in them that all get grouped into "lithium batteries". All those applications you mention, for most they each have their own dedicated chemistry. This is a good approachable article that goes over all the common types of lithium batteries. https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium...
Khanhanhan 7y ago
What about reducing the consumption of energy? According to Wikipedia [1] there is a huge difference in consumed kWh per capita in different regions. It seems relatively obvious why EU why are using 5x more energy than Africa, but can someone explain why US is using 2x more than EU? Between 1990 and 2008 US reduced the consumption by 2%, could the cut be larger? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Trends https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Trend...]
johnchristopher 7y ago
Totally off-topic. I like the design of the site so I looked up the source. There's something like 25 000 lines of JS and CSS o_O.
netwanderer3 7y ago
These solutions are touching only the technical aspects and I believe most experts probably know exactly what to do, but that doesn't mean they can actually do it simply because its execution depends largely on politics. We can have one country practicing it but another just doing the complete opposite to ruin it for everyone, then realistically we don't really make any progress at all no matter how much effort we put in. For any climate change solutions to really become effective, it will definitely require a joined global effort. That's where our root problem is, until we can solve that the rest are just useless noises.
imhoguy 7y ago
Why not biomass? For millions of years the nature balanced CO2 itself with plants, water cycle and fires. Massive reforestation would help with water retention problems, biodiversity etc. Solar, wind, batteries, nuclear sound big but they are not environmentally neutral (massive and toxic mining of rare materials, noise, poluting production, toxic recycling, disruption of airflow[1]). Burning fosil fuels is dead-end way but do we want to make this planet a complete artificial wasteland full of solar panel, wind farm, battery and radioactive landfills because "we wanted to stop CO2 emissions at all costs"? [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-power-found-to-affect-local-climate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-power-found-...
- Dumblydorr 7y ago
  Simply put: biomass is not a good technology. You need huge,huge fields to produce enough crops for turning into biofuels. Those fields need water, space, pesticides, and labor, it's simply not economical compared to solar or wind on the same location.
- jabl 7y ago
  Massive biomass plantations don't really help biodiversity. The arable land of the earth that isn't already used for growing food or cities is desperately needed for nature. And as another poster already pointed out, biofuels are horribly poor in terms of energy produced per area. There's simply not enough land on the earth to produce enough biofuel to run our civilization. For a most egregious example of this, see the ongoing disaster in Indonesia where pristine rainforests are cleared away to make room for palm oil plantations, so us Westerners can feel good about using biofuels. Heartbreaking.
kimar 7y ago
One obvious step that seems to be missing is having governments acknowledge this as a top priority. Make carbon-based energy production expensive enough that these technological innovations are the only alternative. It seems like a classic case of the Innovator's Dilemma[1]. We are so economically dependent on carbon fuels that the incentives to develop and adopt renewable energies are not yet strong enough. Shouldn't governments do more to speed up that adoption curve? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma
- pif 7y ago
  > One obvious step that seems to be missing is having governments acknowledge this as a top priority. It is missing because it's not possible! Any government who doesn't have economy at its top priority will be overthrown. Economy can at most be slightly slowed down in order to push green policies, but that's it: anything more, and next government will be voted on the promise to restart coal mines!
JacKTrocinskI 7y ago
I am all for renewable energy but what worries me the most is that our world population in out of control. At what point do we factor this in and start doing something about it? Even with renewable sources of energy can we sustain such growth? I understand nobody wants the government telling them how many kids they can have but I just don't see how we can keep on going this way, and I think a decrease in the population rate would help the climate out as well maybe even more so than renewable energy.
- gnclmorais 7y ago
  I don’t think it’s the number of people the problem, but rather the demand for resources a few people from the Western world create.
  - tremon 7y ago
    That's not an either-or question. Both population growth and per-human resource demand need to decrease for our society to survive the next 100 years.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- jonathanstrange 7y ago
  Many predictions of population growth converge to a value between 9 and 12 billion, maybe followed by a slow long-term decline after 2050 or so. This would be high but manageable with proper resource distribution. These are more pessimistic predictions, of course, but the more optimistic ones are based on the observable trend that higher standards of living correlate with lower birth rates.
- jhrmnn 7y ago
  The world population will saturate around 10B. It's not really something to worry about for two reasons: (1) From what I've read, there's very little that can be done about it in terms of policy. (2) The largest effect has been caused by the exponential growth in the last couple of centuries. The additional 50% won't bring anything radically different.
appleflaxen 7y ago
One fundamental step that we could take tomorrow is ending the subsidies and tax breaks on oil, and reassigning them to renewable energy sources. Why we haven't done this already: special interests controlling our government.
paulcarroty 7y ago
If anyone can help for climate change - it's easy: don't eat beef. Really. Сattle produce TONS of methane. Less consuming => less market share.
- jacknews 7y ago
  Cows are also among the most inefficient at converting food to ... food, and responsible for a large part of habitat destruction world wide (eg cutting the Amazon for pasture), which is I think an equally serous problem to global warming.
charliebrownau 7y ago
* Weed Plant for Paper/Fuel/Wood * Nuclear over Coal * 100% Ethanol over petrol/ethanol mix * Replace Garbage under ground with Bio gas/Bio fuel recycling centers * Open Source design/plans/information of all tech in today's world * Ban on GMO food , instead 100% organic Its almost like its an SCAM for censorship, control , money and power
Illniyar 7y ago
That graph is quite misleading, it should be a percentage of total usage, if we wanted to show progress. Global energy consumption could have grown just as much, making progress zero. This graph shows things more accurately: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy From 2000 energy consumption has increased by 50%. Every type of energy usage has increased except traditional biofules (wood basically). I think the key thing to take from this graph is that renewable energies aren't replacing older methods, simply new demand is proportionally being supplied by newer method (and even that by a minuscule amount).
- Dumblydorr 7y ago
  Good point, bill's graph suffers from numerator analysis, only showing production but not the overall percentage based on the total. The graph you posted is sobering. Looking at coal, there is a tiny dip in it, wow that's all the death of coal we hear about. Its still going to be phased out for 20 years globally, nevermind the phaseouts of oil and natural gas which will take even longer. We have a long way to go, let's keep striving!
skrap 7y ago
Hello Bill Gates (who will never read this). You are a solutions guy, and a technology guy. Unsurprisingly, your blog lists lots of good technologies and solutions. But climate change has shifted from a technological problem to a policy problem. We can solve climate change with a cocktail of existing tech, but we need public policy to make it happen. The biggest thing you (Mr Gates) can do is get directly involved in policy-making. US politics only empowers the ultra-rich, and you are sitting on the sidelines. Get your face on TV, in front of Congress, and in the Oval Office. The rest of us can't, so you have to. [edit for clarity]
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > But climate change has shifted from a technological problem to a policy problem. There is no such thing as shifting from a "technological problem" to a "policy problem". Technology creates the landscape on which political choices are made. Where a problem cannot be solved due to political costs, technology can provide alternative solutions that are more politically tenable. We may have a "cocktail of tech" ready for fighting climate change, but it's not of the right mix; it doesn't have the right political taste. Getting Gates involved in politics? That's not without its own risks, and it may not be the best use of his time.
  - mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
    > but it's not of the right mix; it doesn't have the right political taste. What's that have to do with the technology?
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      I described it above. Technology offers options for policy. Our climate-solving cocktail of 20 years ago involved things like drastic reduction of car use in favour of mass transit, and mass deployment of nuclear power to replace fossil fuel plants. We would be in much better shape today if that was done, but that set of solutions was (and still is) politically untenable - so technologists had (and still have) to invent different solutions, that are easier for politicians to implement.
RickJWagner 7y ago
By being completely non-political, Bill Gates earns my attention. I like his ideas.
agent008t 7y ago
How good, realistically, are our climate models? What are the probabilities of the various outcomes if current trends continue? It would be really interesting to know if the research has been verified by any independent researchers not employed in academia - ideally from the world of finance, where evaluating correctness of methodology and models is absolutely crucial. Ideally they would also be highly sceptical of the predictions and have a pro-economic growth bias.
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
  Why is a pro-economic growth bias relevant?
  - agent008t 7y ago
    Because they would likely have a higher hurdle for being convinced that we may indeed need to sacrifice economic growth to change the course of humanity's future for the better. If they do their research and are convinced, it would mean a lot more to me than if someone who supported the conclusions of environmentalists' apriori reaches the same conclusion. If there is any such bias among climate scientists (e.g. people that go into climate science already hold certain beliefs about what should be done politically, and inadvertently favour the models / parameters / methodology that support their beliefs), this would help mitigate it to some extent.
- viraptor 7y ago
  > ideally from the world of finance, where evaluating correctness of methodology and models is absolutely crucial Isn't it only crucial to the group doing the analysis? Financial world thrives on information asymmetry. If you have more information / better models, why would you share it publically instead of extract as much as you can from that difference? (Unless it's a one-off invest/short-publish-benefit case)
  - agent008t 7y ago
    Not sure I understand what you are asking. What I mean is that in (non-academic, applied) finance - unlike many other disciplines - you relatively quickly get feedback on the predictive power of your models. Like climate, finance is also a complex system. You have to always be critical of the steps you took to arrive at your model and focus on your research methodology. Therefore I would trust someone who was successful in financial model research to perform that "audit" of sorts. Someone like David E. Shaw, for example.
VBprogrammer 7y ago
On a journey in the car the other day I was looking at all of the Oil Seed Rape grown in the British country side. Diesel cars can be run with minimal modifications on straight vegetable oils. I wondered how much land we'd need to be self-sufficient on car transport. We fill the car with fuel roughly once a week. So that's 40 litres a week or 2000 litres a year. Looking on wikipedia I found the yield is about 1000 litres per hectare. So for our purposes we'd need at least 2 hectares (about 5 acres or 2 rugby fields). There are 24 million hectares in the UK. However there are 38 million registered vehicles (and some of them will be using a great deal more fuel than we do). That's without any allowance for the energy use in growing and pressing, land use for other crops or housing, or suitability for crop land. And that's just transport not the various other energy requirements we have. I'm not sure what the point was but it made me quite sad.
sigi45 7y ago
Whenever i hear something about Trump and see all those people following him and playing / taging along, i get very frustrated and unhappy. We all should be able to fix climate change while in parallel Trump is President and we don't care about that? How does that work? I'm 32, i might just not create children, accept our faith and will enjoy what still exists.
syllable_studio 7y ago
I'm excited to see a "Subsurface pumped hydro" solution on his list. This is an idea I thought of recently and have since found other projects working on it. https://blog.syllablehq.com/can-we-create-the-worlds-largest-battery-deep-below-sea-level/ https://blog.syllablehq.com/can-we-create-the-worlds-largest...
- ambicapter 7y ago
  Personally I'm waiting for us to directly inject heat into the Earth's core, and retrieve it when needed.
perfunctory 7y ago
Let's imagine the government got their act together and decided to act on climate change. I firmly believe that simply investing in R&D, reforming industry and rebuilding infrastructure will not be enough. Whatever policy is introduced to fight climate change it will have to include, one way or another, radical reduction in consumption. We might as well pretend that that policy is already enacted and start behaving accordingly. - less flying. - less meat more plants. - take some days off. reduce commute. - if you have any fossil investments... for love's sake, why do you still have fossil investments?!
- hairytrog 7y ago
  The only way to do this is a radical change in government from democracy to autocracy. The only way to do that is a catastrophic war or resource shortage.
  - perfunctory 7y ago
    Not necessarily. Prohibition was introduced by a democratic government, wasn’t it? Not that it worked very well. But airlines and airspace might be easier to control than alcohol smugglers.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
viach 7y ago
It seems to me that climate change can only be stopped using unpopular decisions. And unpopular decisions can't be applied globally in a heterogeneous world. I think it is called "the tragedy of commons".
gdubs 7y ago
These solutions make sense to me. To get there, I think we need a price on carbon. Use the revenue to pay a dividend, to make it palatable to the general public. Ratchet it up aggressively over the next five to ten years. Let people trade credits to spark innovation, reforestation, etc. Basically follow the Behavioral Economics of a 401k plan. Get people to start contributing anything, then get them to commit future raises and bonuses to the plan. The more “out of sight, out of mind” the better.
agentultra 7y ago
I think one thing overlooked with solar panels is their short lifespan and the toxic chemicals they leak into the environment when they are disposed of. There isn't much regulation on how to handle the material waste from solar panels, wind turbines, etc. And with the current threats to the oceans, fresh water, and soil from climate change, agriculture, and industry... it doesn't seem to me to be the one we should rely on. Nuclear has been, and maybe should be, the way to go. Even with the horrible accidents that have happened, it is safer than coal and has caused less human harm as far as I can tell. I'm sure most people who are experts on this know more. Maybe we should bump nuclear from a footnote to the leading header: nuclear with a light mix of other renewables. However none of this is useful if there isn't a unified push from all countries across the world to rally together and make this happen from policy all the way down. This is a problem facing humanity, not any one nation -- but people everywhere.
hairytrog 7y ago
Nuclear startup companies need more than words of support. They need financial backing and they need it now. There are on the order of 50 startups in North America trying to commercialize new nuclear technologies. A few have billionaire backers, a few others are receiving government grants. All are under funded. In a world where a web service can be prototyped in weeks and complex hardware can be prototyped in months, the investment community is not taking nuclear startup proposals seriously. We get it - you want to make money as fast as possible. If we want to see operational Generation IV nuclear power in the next decade, investors need to recalibrate their investment timeframes. This means we have to wait longer and make larger bets. The human mind is tuned to yearly seasonal cycles which is fine if projects can be tested on that time scale. But for something as complex and risky as nuclear power, we need to think in five or ten year cycles. To all the people with money advocating for climate protection and low cost power for the developing world - enough talk - nuclear startups want to get to work, and they need financial backing. Next time you fund a company focused on fintech, weed, or low-paying gig economy jobs, consider that you could be investing in Generation IV safe nuclear. The contrast is stark between companies that shuffle money around or capitalize on addiction versus companies that produce the most basic resource of energy.
- yeahitslikethat 7y ago
  The long view is gone. Let's just imagine we cannot stop climate change. Who's working on that problem?
billgatesxp 7y ago
bill gates here... just kidding
bsmith 7y ago
This is all well and good (really), but I'm a bit disappointed that the entire post omits the word "efficiency." Yes, we must do everything he mentions – but we waste a TON of energy. Reducing our demand will only make any other solution(s) easier to achieve. One salient stat: it's estimated that commercial office buildings in the U.S. waste about 30% (!) of the energy they consume. Shameless plug: my startup (bractlet.com) uses physics-based simulation models to try and claw back most of that 30%. If you're interested in that sort of thing, I'd love your feedback on our website/offering. Feel free to email me: brian@bractlet.com
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
perfunctory 7y ago
"It’s easy to be overwhelmed by climate change and what to do about it. Global greenhouse gas emissions, for example, went up again last year—another reminder that we must act quickly if we want to prevent the worst-case scenarios of our warming planet. Still, as I learn about all the new ideas to address this challenge, I am optimistic that with the right mix of solutions we can deploy right now and new innovations we can build a path to a carbon-free future." I bet if you google it you will find exactly the same statement written by somebody 10 years ago. And I bet somebody will write it again 10 years from now. When will we stop fooling ourselves that technology is gonna save us?
JoshTko 7y ago
Climate change sounds as innocuous as daylight savings. We should call it the impact it will happen to people. Maybe climate caused catastrophe, or climate extinction, anything but climate change.
11235813213455 7y ago
I think the best solutions are very down to earth, non-ironically. Plant many many trees, stop deforestation, stop people eating up on Amazon forest, they're literally destroying the Earth lung while it needs a bigger lung. Of course it'll need changes, people will need to stop over-consuming about everything, reduce their meat consumption drastically, and stop many other negative habits. One that upsets me are pets, how come more than 1 billion people have pets? Just imagine the huge impact on climate if they were all to replace them by plants
robomartin 7y ago
This is truly disconcerting. The fact that someone like Bill Gates writes (and presumably believes) something like this is of real concern and an indicator of just how far askew this whole business of climate change has gone. Everything he proposes is pointless. I've written about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19732189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19732189 Here's my challenge for anyone to undertake. I don't care how much or how little you know about the domain. See if you can refute this and then we can have a conversation. If you know basic college Physics even better. Step 1: Take a look at this graph. It represents ice core atmospheric composition data for the last 800,000 years. Yes, it is VERY accurate information. https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical... Step 2: Measure the slope of the rise from minima to maxima. Get a sense of what you might call the average rate of change over this 800,000 year period. My numbers are, again, roughly: Increase of 100 ppm atmospheric CO2, about 25,000 years. Decrease of 100 ppm atmospheric CO2, about 50,000 years. Step 3: Understand the crucial point (in caps for emphasis only, not shouting): THE ABOVE MEANS THAT IF HUMANITY DID NOT EXIST IT WOULD TAKE THE PLANET ABOUT 50,000 YEARS TO REDUCE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 BY 100 PPM. Think about that for a moment. Step 4: Now explain how installing bunches of solar panels, wind farms and converting the entire transportation infrastructure to use these energy sources will REVERSE climate change. Step 5: Really think about the above. Hopefully you've realized the absolute futility of these proposals. I would call them "demented" but the more accurate term is "political". They are not rooted in any kind reasonable scientific basis. Realize that if humanity evaporated from this planet next Monday it would take around 50,000 years for a 100 ppm drop in CO2. IF HUMANITY EVAPORATED FROM THIS PLANET. Then answer this: How, pray tell, is anything less than us leaving this planet going to deliver results any faster than about 100 ppm in 50,000 years? Step 6: This is for extra credit. Some out there are talking about reversing climate change (which, for the most part is code for atmospheric CO2 accumulation) in 50 years. Great. For 100 points: Explain how we are going to achieve a 1000x improvement of the natural rate of change without destroying the planet in the process. You see, anything we do will require energy and resources. And nothing is 100% efficient. Which means the byproducts of this massive planetary-scale undertaking is far more likely to cause more damage than to fix anything at all. You don't speed-up a planetary scale process a thousand-fold without serious --unknown-- consequences. Again, any time you find yourself saying "but, but, but, solar and wind power are clean and renewable" remind yourself that it would take 50,000 years for a 100 ppm reduction if we left earth with all of our toys in tow. That is reality. Now what? No clean energy then? No, of course not. But not for these fake reasons. Here's a research paper you can read that will set you straight as far as the relationship between renewable energy sources and climate change. The conclusion, paraphrasing, is: Even if we deployed the most optimal forms of all renewable energy sources globally, atmospheric CO2 concentration would continue to increase exponentially. https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-... Pour that into your cup, sip on it for a while and then go re-read the Gates memo. We want clean and renewable energy for other reason. It will make human life better. We want nuclear also, which is FAR, FAR better than the other sources. What we do not want to do is continue the lie that this will "save the planet". It will not. It will make things better but the solution to atmospheric CO2 accumulation will require an approach and technology that we have yet to imagine.
ackfoo 7y ago
Climate Change is a new religion. Just like in those old-timey religions, we blame all of our natural disasters on this god, even when there is no evidence of a connection, or, in fact, evidence to the contrary. Hail storm? Climate change. Cat 5 hurricane? Climate change. We must have angered our God. And,just like those old-timey religions, we must sacrifice to appease our god. Recycle or god will become angry and send another storm! Buy an electric car or god will raise the sea level and wipe you out! And, just like those old-timey religions, we ostracize the heretics. Deniers! Compost them! And, just like those old-timey religions, Climate Change is messianic. It will be here in a hundred years! No! Fifty years! No, twenty! And, finally, just like those old-timey religions, Climate Change is an enormous self-serving lie that relieves our guilt and fear by allowing us to engage in an energetic debate about something that we can't easily do anything about. We are in middle of an enormous mass extinction. The oceans are filled with plastic. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are becoming an existential threat. These and many other environmental crises are immediately solvable, but that would require us to admit that our economic and social systems are broken and actually make changes. So keep worshipping Climate Change like it won't get fixed automatically when we're all dead from all the other fixable environmental problems for which we have actual evidence right now. It's much better than actually doing something.
jacknews 7y ago
I think biochar is a CCS technology that works right now, and could be deployed/encouraged at vast scale. Small-scale farmers char their agricultural wastes rather than just burning it (perhaps in simple earth kilns) and bury it in their fields, capturing carbon, and improving the soil at the same time.

346 points by mhandley 7y ago

This is all good, but the reality is we'll not have enough renewables any time soon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption We should seriously consider solar geo-engineering. Not as the ultimate policy but to buy time.

czechdeveloper 7y ago
I really hope not. We don't even know all consequences of geo-engineering. Well, we know it will lower yield of crops on which we depend to feed ourselves. Future is green or none at all.
- llukas 7y ago
  We already did geoengineering in form of burning fossils. Reversing this is also geoengineering.
- alluro2 7y ago
  Why not both - our current "forward" momentum is increasing greenhouse gases and, even if we switch fully to renewables with minimal carbon footprint in a very short time-frame, that momentum will continue to have effects. If we apply the "backward" momentum and start removing carbon while also switcing production to green, it should stop the negative effects more quickly. Of course, I'm all for thorough planning and extensive, well-funded and organized research first - unfortunately, we can't seem to start doing one of these things seriously, let alone all three...
  - czechdeveloper 7y ago
    Removing CO2 is not geoengineering in my book. That is reversing what we did and I'm all for that. Geoengineering is for example emitting particles to atmosphere to lower amount of sunlight hitting earth. This will cause sky to change color, lower yield of crops and possibly other unknown consequences. That I would rather live without. That is last resort think, not first think to do. We don't even have carbon tax, plane fuel is not taxed etc. and we already talk about geoengineering. This is crazy.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  If carbon emissions dropped to zero today, there is enough carbon in the atmosphere to permanently raise the temperature and potentially enough to kick off nasty positive feedback loops like permafrost methane. Assuming we could hit zero today is of course wildly optimistic. Even reaching an equilibrial state of carbon inflow and carbon outflow would mean approximately halving emissions, rather than tinkering around the edges.
- chr1 7y ago
  > we know it will lower yield of crops that is true only for one kind of geo-engineering: emulation of volcano eruption, and that's indeed not the kind of geoengineering we need. What we need instead is a much finer control over weather to prevent +35 and -20 in cities, drive more water to deserts, and make arctic warmer without melting all of greenland ice sheets.
- jpfed 7y ago
  The way around that is to use particles that block/reflect EM radiation that is not useful to plants. For example, glass or silicon gel.
llukas 7y ago
You are being misled by the graph. Here is why: https://physicsworld.com/a/a-gross-miscalculation/ https://physicsworld.com/a/a-gross-miscalculation/
- simonh 7y ago
  So basically the chart is based on fuel consumption not actual energy output. Most fossil fuel consumption is inefficient to the tune of about two thirds of the input fuel being wasted. So the graph down-plays the contribution of renewable sources and nuclear by a factor of about 3x in terms of substitution for fossil fuel sources.

fxfan 7y ago

Not debating on what the US govt should do- I think Mr Gates should seek funding elsewhere if the govt is not going to be a cooperative player. EU is both interested in reducing the effect of man made climate change and of course in new energy technology

Zanni 7y ago

The article mentions traveling wave reactors and molten salt reactors being developed by Terra Power. Any relationship or synergy between these two, or are they orthogonal efforts?

jabl 7y ago
I suppose there would be some synergy in general nuclear knowhow, fuel supply (that is, making available a supply of HALEU or RgPu which is not something the current global nuclear supply chain is providing) and maybe in terms of reprocessing. But the reactors themselves are quite different.

rorystaa 7y ago

It appears that the link is broken

lorenzhs 7y ago
Link contains a bunch of unnecessary parameters but works for me. Maybe try the "clean" link? https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/A-critical-step-to-reduce-climate-change https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/A-critical-step-to-reduce-...
- muterad_murilax 7y ago
  Doesn't work either. Even if I go to https://www.gatesnotes.com/ https://www.gatesnotes.com/ and click the link on the frontpage I reach the "Oops!" page.
teehetki 7y ago
Here's a working link https://www.gatesnotes.com/energy/a-critical-step-to-reduce-climate-change https://www.gatesnotes.com/energy/a-critical-step-to-reduce-...

jamisteven 7y ago

Something I have been thinking about for years: black attracts heat, right? So why do we not have a worldwide initiative to turn anything that is black to white. Primary uses I am thinking are roofs of houses, and pavement on streets. I remember as a kid painting roofs on my Dad's commercial properties in Florida with reflective paint in order to reduce cooling costs of the properties, which ended up working pretty well. If climate change really is the threat they say it is, why are we not starting with the simple and obvious solutions first that are super easy to deploy/implement?

adrianN 7y ago
Increasing the albedo is one geoengineering strategy that is being discussed regularly. But it doesn't help with other negative aspects of increased CO2 concentrations like ocean acidification.
teshier-A 7y ago
Do you have any idea how much surface there would be to cover outside of your own backyard for this to be effective ? Are you aware that 1/3rd of the Earth's surface is covered with snow at some point of the year but that snow cover has been declining for decades ? It truly boggles my mind that you think painting stuff white is the first step to take to take on climate change.
- llukas 7y ago
  http://www.whiteroofproject.org/faq http://www.whiteroofproject.org/faq It can reduce energy consumption for start... and you already might need to paint your roof...
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Part of the problem with climate change is that it's too big for anyone to intuitively comprehend. The scope of the disaster (both in timescale and magnitude) is beyond anything humans deal with in their everyday lives, so laypeople are prone to unhelpful observations.
voisin 7y ago

jabl 7y ago

Bill Gates gets it. We need to step on the gas and deploy boatloads of wind, solar, nuclear, batteries, pumped hydro, long-distance transmission, energy efficiency measures, CCS, demand response, and whatnot. Yes, it will cost a lot. But leaving our children with an increasingly hostile planet isn't a tenable option either (and one which will be even more expensive as well).

lazyjones 7y ago
> We need to step on the gas Nice metaphor...
- travisjungroth 7y ago
  Maybe “get the lead out” would be better?
- _pmf_ 7y ago
  Really nice, because a ramp up in mass production of these things causes a lot of emissions that will take 50+ years to recover from.
- Fuzzwah 7y ago
  In current Formula 1 parlance; we need to increase our torque demand.
rooam-dev 7y ago
How could be people convinced about importance of this if it doesn't or won't impact them enough? Yes, "think about our children" is good, but in the end people are still selfish and will think that it's not their problem.
- mojomark 7y ago
  > How could be people convinced about importance of this if it doesn't or won't impact them enough? As engineers, I feel it's our responsibility to make environmentally friendly solutions that are simply more economically viable than the unclean/unsustainable alternative. I'm working on the oceanic shipping industry myself.

lazyjones 7y ago

I'd like to know who he thinks the "we" is in this article. Several countries are already using ~100% carbon-neutral electricity and the USA and Europe are progressing rapidly. The main culprits are developing nations and China, so it's "them" who should be doing something urgently and "they" have a whole slew of other problems not covered by Gates' US-centric perspective. Reasonable approaches would be to bring manufacturing back to countries that use mostly clean energy (oh, and modern approaches to labor and human rights) and to tax imports from developing countries with poor CO2 record heavily until they fix their issues.

kristopolous 7y ago
So what's the right approach here? Could there be a BDS-like movement on things created with dirty energy? If there was a "made with renewable energy" certification on products, I'd certainly consider paying a premium and even being inconvenienced into finding them. Maybe even a version of the better world shopper (https://betterworldshopper.org/ https://betterworldshopper.org/) which does exclusively energy grades and then have forward-thinking grocery stores start to to put the grade on the label. I'd certainly shop at a store with that system at every conceivable opportunity.
teebot 7y ago
You could not be further from the truth. Carbon emissions per capita is way higher in the US and in Europe than in China and India.
- hollerith 7y ago
  China, 7.5 metric tons per person in 2014. Switzerland, 4.3. Sweden, 4.5. France, 4.6. Spain, 5.0. Italy, 5.3. UK, 6.5. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
  - zamfi 7y ago
    Cherry-picking data much? That same article lists the EU overall at 8.6 and US at 17.

stinos 7y ago

But because the world must balance the need to eliminate carbon emissions with economic growth I read this often, and everytime can't help but wonder: must the world really strive for economic growth? Is just stability not enough? Isn't unbridled growth a major cause of the situation we're in now (and not just with respect to climate, but also the wealth of other environmental problesm, even disasters, the earth faces)? Note: these are honest questions. I don't know how econmics really work. Maybe I'm naive, and I perfectly get for some 'more more more' is the key aspect in life. But is that really required?

bubblewrap 7y ago
Growth does not imply consumption of resources. It can simply be technological advances. Finding better cures for cancer is also growth. Of course mankind would continue without better cures for cancer. But I find it difficult to argue that we shouldn't look for better cures.
- Oletros 7y ago
  But the growth talked is "economic growth"
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    Curing cancer is also economic growth.
flexie 7y ago
Well, it's easy for us to sit here in the developed world and talk about how the world doesn't need growth. There are billions of people for whom more of the same means more poverty. When everybody in Africa, South America, Asia, heck even the poorer parts of Europe and North America, has access to clean water, food, education, healthcare, safety, justice etc. we can discuss whether we really need growth. Growth may not be as needed in our parts of the world, but it sure is for a lot of people.
pjc50 7y ago
If there is population growth, there must be economic growth, or every new born mouth makes the rest of the world poorer. That tends to turn people on one another. Zero population growth is now possible; zero growth in resource usage may be compatible with economic growth.

reactspa 7y ago

Does anyone know why nobody talks about how air-conditioning might be causing warming? Related: Scott Adams' Tweet https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1126546466623746050 https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/112654646662374605... Scott Adams' Video of Giant Room at Wynn Las Vegas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1SP-tinmPw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1SP-tinmPw

aiyodev 7y ago

> We can do even more. By investing in energy innovations... Ok. Do it. You promised to give away your entire net worth years ago but you're still worth $100 billion. What's the hold up?

point78 7y ago
I have to agree with you. Put your money where your mouth is.
SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
I imagine the vast majority of that net worth is tied up in investments and not immediately available to spend. It's not just sitting in his bank account.
- aiyodev 7y ago
  The threat of climate change isn't significant enough for him to liquidate his investments?
  - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
    He's already liquidating them pretty quickly to fund the vast amounts he's ploughing into eradicating polio and malaria, and projects to provide access to clean water, contraception and decent sanitation in the developing world. It wouldn't surprise me if the linked article doesn't mark the start of a shift in focus to address climate change as well. You may not be a fan of Bill Gates but when it comes to putting his money where his mouth is he has a pretty decent track record in recent years. Edit to add: When you hold more assets then anyone else there's a limit to the rate that they can be liquidated without completely disrupting the global economy.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
simonh 7y ago
So what you seem to be suggesting is he should spend his entire net worth all in one go right now and then walk away, and if he doesn't he's a fraud? If that's what you mean, it doesn't seem to me to be a very effective strategy when tackling long term problems, especially as new problems keep coming up. No investments means no revenue to tackle new problems. Do you really think committing everything up front would be a better use of his resources?

D_Alex 7y ago

The article lists three important solutions for transition to clean electricity. But there is also a fourth important solution, one that I think HN crowd can help with: demand side management systems. Essentially, this aims to match energy utilisation to energy production. One idea which needs implementing ASAP is a way to use EV batteries as a flexible storage device, so that you charge the battery when there is a surplus of power, and perhaps release a bit of energy when there is a deficit. To do this in a user-friendly way is not trivial, but surely not that hard either. And yet no current or planned EV seems to be offering this. Can someone get onto this please :)

ljcn 7y ago
> And yet no current or planned EV seems to be offering this. In the UK, Ovo customers can do vehicle to grid transfers from their Nissan Leaf, with an appropriate charger. https://www.ovoenergy.com/electric-cars/vehicle-to-grid-charger https://www.ovoenergy.com/electric-cars/vehicle-to-grid-char...
- D_Alex 7y ago
  Nice find! This is exactly what I had in mind! It is curious that this system is only compatible with Nissan leaf though. Perhaps we should work on a standard?
Brometheus 7y ago
Available right now from Germany: https://www.energymeteo.com/products/virtual_power_plant/the_virtual_power_plant.php https://www.energymeteo.com/products/virtual_power_plant/the...
- D_Alex 7y ago
  This is very interesting, but note that in the diagram on the linked page, the "consumers" are "not controllable" - so it seems that this does not address the demand side management opportunity.
atupis 7y ago

mhandley 7y ago

One thing I don't hear discussed much is that we really need enough renewables installed so that on good days for solar and wind, we're actually generating much more than 100% of demand. This then substantially reduces the fraction of the time we depend on expensive storage. This only works though if we have additional variable demand that can kick in when things are going well, both to stabilize the grid and to provide a profitable market for energy. This is where technologies like Prometheus are developing could fit in really well - generating carbon-neutral aviation fuel from atmospheric CO2 and electricity, so we can decarbonize those parts of the economy that cannot switch directly to electric power.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Dumblydorr 7y ago
I think it more likely that utilities (or someone) will begin buying up heating, cooling, and other flexible demand so that they can use a much higher % of their renewables efficiently.
jabl 7y ago
Problem with many of these schemes is that they are capital intensive, so if you can run them only when there's an oversupply of renewables on the grid, well, the economics are going to suck. I do think that synthetic fuels is a likely solution for things like long distance airplanes which are very hard to decarbonize otherwise.

cies 7y ago

> electricity generation is the single biggest contributor to climate change—responsible for 25 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions and growing every day To put it in perspective: livestock clocks in at 18% and transportation at 13%. [1] But greenhouse gas emissions is not all that counts, there's also acidification, eutrophicatoin (phosphor pollution) and land use. Livestock clock in very high on all these points. [2] We need land for forest: reduce footprint while re-creating habitats. Good to know Bill also invests on that side of the picture. [3] [1] http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts [2] https://phys.org/news/2018-05-reveals-foods-markedly-environmental-impacts.html https://phys.org/news/2018-05-reveals-foods-markedly-environ... [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/21/how-bill-gates-backed-vegan-beyond-meat-is-winning-over-meat-eaters.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/21/how-bill-gates-backed-vegan-...

paganel 7y ago
We need a change in culinary habits, eating meat each day for seven days a week isn’t pheasible on the long run. And I don’t think people will flock to eating artificial meat, I don’t think real milk has been replaced by soy milk. Also, a fact left unsaid by most of the people commenting on this, we need to reverse the engines of economic growth, this planet doesn’t have the resources of providing a middle-class lifestyle for 7 or 8 billion people. In essence, I’m saying that Malthus was right, and the longer we fight against his ideas the longer it will take for us to complain about stuff that I’m afraid is already outside of our control. I’m not really sure what sort of event will bring the next environmental state of equilibrium, we used to rely on wars and lack of antibiotics for that in centuries past, but I’m sure it won’t be pretty.
- fiblye 7y ago
  I think the effort to get people to stop eating meat and XYZ favorite food isn't going to work. A lot of people eat what they eat because they don't really have much food choice. And with some people pushing weird options like bugs as a protein source while the rich will surely keep eating normal old burgers, life is starting to feel like a bad scifi movie. I think the absolute biggest and most immediate solution is eating less. Not less beef. Not less pork. Just less of everything. Obese people can easily consume 2x or more of the food a non-obese person takes in. In America alone, about 1/3 of the country is obese. Doing incredibly rough math here, cutting the calorie consumption of that top 1/3 in half would be the equivalent of 1/6 of food consumption vanishing. As someone from a rural family full of almost-carnivore 400+ pounders, getting them to cut their calories to ~2500 calories a day would be like half the neighborhood and their consumption simply vanishing. And that's not even factoring in the gas we need to burn to accommodate the greater mass on airplanes, in cars, etc. Dropping the average weight of obese countries by 1/3 would put a big dent in emissions.

Krasnol 7y ago

Bill Gates: somebody buy my nuclear stuff, I already invested so much

diegoholiveira 7y ago

Bill forgot the only thing that can truly be a game changer: Nuclear Fusion. In the long run, this is the only solution that can provide the amount of energy required by our modern society.

Yajirobe 7y ago
> our modern society You probably mean future society, as this technology is not really viable yet (in its current form).
Tepix 7y ago
Citation needed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
olau 7y ago
I don't think so, not for the foreseeable future at least - fusion has to be cheaper than fission to be interesting, and fission is probably too expensive at the moment already.
votepaunchy 7y ago
Fusion is also the only energy source which will allow us to reverse the worst effects of climate change (melted ice caps in particular).
- Brakenshire 7y ago
  Very unlikely that fusion will have any impact on climate change on the timescale which is necessary. The cuts need to be made over the next 20 years, even if we had the technology, it would take a lot longer to scale up.
- mcv 7y ago
  Not sure why only fusion power would allow that. Solar power is making use of energy that's already heating our planet without us making use of it. Turning solar radiation into electricity instead of heat, makes more efficient use of energy we already have without having to generate more of it from different sources, like fusion. And the amount of sunlight we receive is enormous. If we could make use of a significant faction of that, it would provide more energy than we ever need. There's no reason that can't do anything that fusion power will ever be able to do on Earth. The only real advantage fusion power has over solar is that it's independent of the sun and can be used in deep space. Well, once it finally works.

chriswarbo 7y ago

It always interests me that lithium batteries are used in situations with such different constraints: from mobile phones (lightweight, compact, frequent irregular (dis)charging, etc.) to grid storage (controllable (dis)charging patterns, weight and size are less important). I wonder which other, less battery-oriented, chemical reactions have been investigated for grid storage. For example, non-rechargable aluminium batteries have been suggested for electric cars ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery ); I could certainly imagine a substation topping up the grid by corroding a huge heap of metal (aluminium is abundant, but heavier materials could be used since they don't need to be mobile). The interesting dynamic with such non-rechargable "batteries" is how they're manufactured: they would come from surplus production at times of abundant energy. AFAIK energy-intensive processes like aluminium smelting are already used to balance the grid (either directly, with contracts between both parties; or indirectly, by changing energy prices). Are the round-trip efficiencies of such reactions too low? Are the energy quantities too low? Would this just be an indirect (and hence less efficient) form of the existing load balancing?

mlindner 7y ago
The problem is "lithium batteries" is too wide category. There are vastly different chemistries that just happen to have lithium in them that all get grouped into "lithium batteries". All those applications you mention, for most they each have their own dedicated chemistry. This is a good approachable article that goes over all the common types of lithium batteries. https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium...

Khanhanhan 7y ago

What about reducing the consumption of energy? According to Wikipedia [1] there is a huge difference in consumed kWh per capita in different regions. It seems relatively obvious why EU why are using 5x more energy than Africa, but can someone explain why US is using 2x more than EU? Between 1990 and 2008 US reduced the consumption by 2%, could the cut be larger? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Trends https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Trend...]

johnchristopher 7y ago

Totally off-topic. I like the design of the site so I looked up the source. There's something like 25 000 lines of JS and CSS o_O.

netwanderer3 7y ago

These solutions are touching only the technical aspects and I believe most experts probably know exactly what to do, but that doesn't mean they can actually do it simply because its execution depends largely on politics. We can have one country practicing it but another just doing the complete opposite to ruin it for everyone, then realistically we don't really make any progress at all no matter how much effort we put in. For any climate change solutions to really become effective, it will definitely require a joined global effort. That's where our root problem is, until we can solve that the rest are just useless noises.

imhoguy 7y ago

Why not biomass? For millions of years the nature balanced CO2 itself with plants, water cycle and fires. Massive reforestation would help with water retention problems, biodiversity etc. Solar, wind, batteries, nuclear sound big but they are not environmentally neutral (massive and toxic mining of rare materials, noise, poluting production, toxic recycling, disruption of airflow[1]). Burning fosil fuels is dead-end way but do we want to make this planet a complete artificial wasteland full of solar panel, wind farm, battery and radioactive landfills because "we wanted to stop CO2 emissions at all costs"? [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-power-found-to-affect-local-climate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-power-found-...

Dumblydorr 7y ago
Simply put: biomass is not a good technology. You need huge,huge fields to produce enough crops for turning into biofuels. Those fields need water, space, pesticides, and labor, it's simply not economical compared to solar or wind on the same location.
jabl 7y ago
Massive biomass plantations don't really help biodiversity. The arable land of the earth that isn't already used for growing food or cities is desperately needed for nature. And as another poster already pointed out, biofuels are horribly poor in terms of energy produced per area. There's simply not enough land on the earth to produce enough biofuel to run our civilization. For a most egregious example of this, see the ongoing disaster in Indonesia where pristine rainforests are cleared away to make room for palm oil plantations, so us Westerners can feel good about using biofuels. Heartbreaking.

kimar 7y ago

One obvious step that seems to be missing is having governments acknowledge this as a top priority. Make carbon-based energy production expensive enough that these technological innovations are the only alternative. It seems like a classic case of the Innovator's Dilemma[1]. We are so economically dependent on carbon fuels that the incentives to develop and adopt renewable energies are not yet strong enough. Shouldn't governments do more to speed up that adoption curve? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma

pif 7y ago
> One obvious step that seems to be missing is having governments acknowledge this as a top priority. It is missing because it's not possible! Any government who doesn't have economy at its top priority will be overthrown. Economy can at most be slightly slowed down in order to push green policies, but that's it: anything more, and next government will be voted on the promise to restart coal mines!

JacKTrocinskI 7y ago

I am all for renewable energy but what worries me the most is that our world population in out of control. At what point do we factor this in and start doing something about it? Even with renewable sources of energy can we sustain such growth? I understand nobody wants the government telling them how many kids they can have but I just don't see how we can keep on going this way, and I think a decrease in the population rate would help the climate out as well maybe even more so than renewable energy.

gnclmorais 7y ago
I don’t think it’s the number of people the problem, but rather the demand for resources a few people from the Western world create.
- tremon 7y ago
  That's not an either-or question. Both population growth and per-human resource demand need to decrease for our society to survive the next 100 years.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jonathanstrange 7y ago
Many predictions of population growth converge to a value between 9 and 12 billion, maybe followed by a slow long-term decline after 2050 or so. This would be high but manageable with proper resource distribution. These are more pessimistic predictions, of course, but the more optimistic ones are based on the observable trend that higher standards of living correlate with lower birth rates.
jhrmnn 7y ago
The world population will saturate around 10B. It's not really something to worry about for two reasons: (1) From what I've read, there's very little that can be done about it in terms of policy. (2) The largest effect has been caused by the exponential growth in the last couple of centuries. The additional 50% won't bring anything radically different.

appleflaxen 7y ago

One fundamental step that we could take tomorrow is ending the subsidies and tax breaks on oil, and reassigning them to renewable energy sources. Why we haven't done this already: special interests controlling our government.

paulcarroty 7y ago

If anyone can help for climate change - it's easy: don't eat beef. Really. Сattle produce TONS of methane. Less consuming => less market share.

jacknews 7y ago
Cows are also among the most inefficient at converting food to ... food, and responsible for a large part of habitat destruction world wide (eg cutting the Amazon for pasture), which is I think an equally serous problem to global warming.

charliebrownau 7y ago

* Weed Plant for Paper/Fuel/Wood * Nuclear over Coal * 100% Ethanol over petrol/ethanol mix * Replace Garbage under ground with Bio gas/Bio fuel recycling centers * Open Source design/plans/information of all tech in today's world * Ban on GMO food , instead 100% organic Its almost like its an SCAM for censorship, control , money and power

Illniyar 7y ago

That graph is quite misleading, it should be a percentage of total usage, if we wanted to show progress. Global energy consumption could have grown just as much, making progress zero. This graph shows things more accurately: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy From 2000 energy consumption has increased by 50%. Every type of energy usage has increased except traditional biofules (wood basically). I think the key thing to take from this graph is that renewable energies aren't replacing older methods, simply new demand is proportionally being supplied by newer method (and even that by a minuscule amount).

Dumblydorr 7y ago
Good point, bill's graph suffers from numerator analysis, only showing production but not the overall percentage based on the total. The graph you posted is sobering. Looking at coal, there is a tiny dip in it, wow that's all the death of coal we hear about. Its still going to be phased out for 20 years globally, nevermind the phaseouts of oil and natural gas which will take even longer. We have a long way to go, let's keep striving!

skrap 7y ago

Hello Bill Gates (who will never read this). You are a solutions guy, and a technology guy. Unsurprisingly, your blog lists lots of good technologies and solutions. But climate change has shifted from a technological problem to a policy problem. We can solve climate change with a cocktail of existing tech, but we need public policy to make it happen. The biggest thing you (Mr Gates) can do is get directly involved in policy-making. US politics only empowers the ultra-rich, and you are sitting on the sidelines. Get your face on TV, in front of Congress, and in the Oval Office. The rest of us can't, so you have to. [edit for clarity]

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> But climate change has shifted from a technological problem to a policy problem. There is no such thing as shifting from a "technological problem" to a "policy problem". Technology creates the landscape on which political choices are made. Where a problem cannot be solved due to political costs, technology can provide alternative solutions that are more politically tenable. We may have a "cocktail of tech" ready for fighting climate change, but it's not of the right mix; it doesn't have the right political taste. Getting Gates involved in politics? That's not without its own risks, and it may not be the best use of his time.
- mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
  > but it's not of the right mix; it doesn't have the right political taste. What's that have to do with the technology?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I described it above. Technology offers options for policy. Our climate-solving cocktail of 20 years ago involved things like drastic reduction of car use in favour of mass transit, and mass deployment of nuclear power to replace fossil fuel plants. We would be in much better shape today if that was done, but that set of solutions was (and still is) politically untenable - so technologists had (and still have) to invent different solutions, that are easier for politicians to implement.

RickJWagner 7y ago

By being completely non-political, Bill Gates earns my attention. I like his ideas.

agent008t 7y ago

How good, realistically, are our climate models? What are the probabilities of the various outcomes if current trends continue? It would be really interesting to know if the research has been verified by any independent researchers not employed in academia - ideally from the world of finance, where evaluating correctness of methodology and models is absolutely crucial. Ideally they would also be highly sceptical of the predictions and have a pro-economic growth bias.

paulryanrogers 7y ago
Why is a pro-economic growth bias relevant?
- agent008t 7y ago
  Because they would likely have a higher hurdle for being convinced that we may indeed need to sacrifice economic growth to change the course of humanity's future for the better. If they do their research and are convinced, it would mean a lot more to me than if someone who supported the conclusions of environmentalists' apriori reaches the same conclusion. If there is any such bias among climate scientists (e.g. people that go into climate science already hold certain beliefs about what should be done politically, and inadvertently favour the models / parameters / methodology that support their beliefs), this would help mitigate it to some extent.
viraptor 7y ago
> ideally from the world of finance, where evaluating correctness of methodology and models is absolutely crucial Isn't it only crucial to the group doing the analysis? Financial world thrives on information asymmetry. If you have more information / better models, why would you share it publically instead of extract as much as you can from that difference? (Unless it's a one-off invest/short-publish-benefit case)
- agent008t 7y ago
  Not sure I understand what you are asking. What I mean is that in (non-academic, applied) finance - unlike many other disciplines - you relatively quickly get feedback on the predictive power of your models. Like climate, finance is also a complex system. You have to always be critical of the steps you took to arrive at your model and focus on your research methodology. Therefore I would trust someone who was successful in financial model research to perform that "audit" of sorts. Someone like David E. Shaw, for example.

VBprogrammer 7y ago

On a journey in the car the other day I was looking at all of the Oil Seed Rape grown in the British country side. Diesel cars can be run with minimal modifications on straight vegetable oils. I wondered how much land we'd need to be self-sufficient on car transport. We fill the car with fuel roughly once a week. So that's 40 litres a week or 2000 litres a year. Looking on wikipedia I found the yield is about 1000 litres per hectare. So for our purposes we'd need at least 2 hectares (about 5 acres or 2 rugby fields). There are 24 million hectares in the UK. However there are 38 million registered vehicles (and some of them will be using a great deal more fuel than we do). That's without any allowance for the energy use in growing and pressing, land use for other crops or housing, or suitability for crop land. And that's just transport not the various other energy requirements we have. I'm not sure what the point was but it made me quite sad.

sigi45 7y ago

Whenever i hear something about Trump and see all those people following him and playing / taging along, i get very frustrated and unhappy. We all should be able to fix climate change while in parallel Trump is President and we don't care about that? How does that work? I'm 32, i might just not create children, accept our faith and will enjoy what still exists.

syllable_studio 7y ago

I'm excited to see a "Subsurface pumped hydro" solution on his list. This is an idea I thought of recently and have since found other projects working on it. https://blog.syllablehq.com/can-we-create-the-worlds-largest-battery-deep-below-sea-level/ https://blog.syllablehq.com/can-we-create-the-worlds-largest...

ambicapter 7y ago
Personally I'm waiting for us to directly inject heat into the Earth's core, and retrieve it when needed.

perfunctory 7y ago

Let's imagine the government got their act together and decided to act on climate change. I firmly believe that simply investing in R&D, reforming industry and rebuilding infrastructure will not be enough. Whatever policy is introduced to fight climate change it will have to include, one way or another, radical reduction in consumption. We might as well pretend that that policy is already enacted and start behaving accordingly. - less flying. - less meat more plants. - take some days off. reduce commute. - if you have any fossil investments... for love's sake, why do you still have fossil investments?!

hairytrog 7y ago
The only way to do this is a radical change in government from democracy to autocracy. The only way to do that is a catastrophic war or resource shortage.
- perfunctory 7y ago
  Not necessarily. Prohibition was introduced by a democratic government, wasn’t it? Not that it worked very well. But airlines and airspace might be easier to control than alcohol smugglers.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

viach 7y ago

It seems to me that climate change can only be stopped using unpopular decisions. And unpopular decisions can't be applied globally in a heterogeneous world. I think it is called "the tragedy of commons".

gdubs 7y ago

These solutions make sense to me. To get there, I think we need a price on carbon. Use the revenue to pay a dividend, to make it palatable to the general public. Ratchet it up aggressively over the next five to ten years. Let people trade credits to spark innovation, reforestation, etc. Basically follow the Behavioral Economics of a 401k plan. Get people to start contributing anything, then get them to commit future raises and bonuses to the plan. The more “out of sight, out of mind” the better.

agentultra 7y ago

I think one thing overlooked with solar panels is their short lifespan and the toxic chemicals they leak into the environment when they are disposed of. There isn't much regulation on how to handle the material waste from solar panels, wind turbines, etc. And with the current threats to the oceans, fresh water, and soil from climate change, agriculture, and industry... it doesn't seem to me to be the one we should rely on. Nuclear has been, and maybe should be, the way to go. Even with the horrible accidents that have happened, it is safer than coal and has caused less human harm as far as I can tell. I'm sure most people who are experts on this know more. Maybe we should bump nuclear from a footnote to the leading header: nuclear with a light mix of other renewables. However none of this is useful if there isn't a unified push from all countries across the world to rally together and make this happen from policy all the way down. This is a problem facing humanity, not any one nation -- but people everywhere.

hairytrog 7y ago

Nuclear startup companies need more than words of support. They need financial backing and they need it now. There are on the order of 50 startups in North America trying to commercialize new nuclear technologies. A few have billionaire backers, a few others are receiving government grants. All are under funded. In a world where a web service can be prototyped in weeks and complex hardware can be prototyped in months, the investment community is not taking nuclear startup proposals seriously. We get it - you want to make money as fast as possible. If we want to see operational Generation IV nuclear power in the next decade, investors need to recalibrate their investment timeframes. This means we have to wait longer and make larger bets. The human mind is tuned to yearly seasonal cycles which is fine if projects can be tested on that time scale. But for something as complex and risky as nuclear power, we need to think in five or ten year cycles. To all the people with money advocating for climate protection and low cost power for the developing world - enough talk - nuclear startups want to get to work, and they need financial backing. Next time you fund a company focused on fintech, weed, or low-paying gig economy jobs, consider that you could be investing in Generation IV safe nuclear. The contrast is stark between companies that shuffle money around or capitalize on addiction versus companies that produce the most basic resource of energy.

yeahitslikethat 7y ago
The long view is gone. Let's just imagine we cannot stop climate change. Who's working on that problem?

billgatesxp 7y ago

bill gates here... just kidding

bsmith 7y ago

This is all well and good (really), but I'm a bit disappointed that the entire post omits the word "efficiency." Yes, we must do everything he mentions – but we waste a TON of energy. Reducing our demand will only make any other solution(s) easier to achieve. One salient stat: it's estimated that commercial office buildings in the U.S. waste about 30% (!) of the energy they consume. Shameless plug: my startup (bractlet.com) uses physics-based simulation models to try and claw back most of that 30%. If you're interested in that sort of thing, I'd love your feedback on our website/offering. Feel free to email me: brian@bractlet.com

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

perfunctory 7y ago

"It’s easy to be overwhelmed by climate change and what to do about it. Global greenhouse gas emissions, for example, went up again last year—another reminder that we must act quickly if we want to prevent the worst-case scenarios of our warming planet. Still, as I learn about all the new ideas to address this challenge, I am optimistic that with the right mix of solutions we can deploy right now and new innovations we can build a path to a carbon-free future." I bet if you google it you will find exactly the same statement written by somebody 10 years ago. And I bet somebody will write it again 10 years from now. When will we stop fooling ourselves that technology is gonna save us?

JoshTko 7y ago

Climate change sounds as innocuous as daylight savings. We should call it the impact it will happen to people. Maybe climate caused catastrophe, or climate extinction, anything but climate change.

11235813213455 7y ago

I think the best solutions are very down to earth, non-ironically. Plant many many trees, stop deforestation, stop people eating up on Amazon forest, they're literally destroying the Earth lung while it needs a bigger lung. Of course it'll need changes, people will need to stop over-consuming about everything, reduce their meat consumption drastically, and stop many other negative habits. One that upsets me are pets, how come more than 1 billion people have pets? Just imagine the huge impact on climate if they were all to replace them by plants

robomartin 7y ago

This is truly disconcerting. The fact that someone like Bill Gates writes (and presumably believes) something like this is of real concern and an indicator of just how far askew this whole business of climate change has gone. Everything he proposes is pointless. I've written about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19732189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19732189 Here's my challenge for anyone to undertake. I don't care how much or how little you know about the domain. See if you can refute this and then we can have a conversation. If you know basic college Physics even better. Step 1: Take a look at this graph. It represents ice core atmospheric composition data for the last 800,000 years. Yes, it is VERY accurate information. https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical... Step 2: Measure the slope of the rise from minima to maxima. Get a sense of what you might call the average rate of change over this 800,000 year period. My numbers are, again, roughly: Increase of 100 ppm atmospheric CO2, about 25,000 years. Decrease of 100 ppm atmospheric CO2, about 50,000 years. Step 3: Understand the crucial point (in caps for emphasis only, not shouting): THE ABOVE MEANS THAT IF HUMANITY DID NOT EXIST IT WOULD TAKE THE PLANET ABOUT 50,000 YEARS TO REDUCE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 BY 100 PPM. Think about that for a moment. Step 4: Now explain how installing bunches of solar panels, wind farms and converting the entire transportation infrastructure to use these energy sources will REVERSE climate change. Step 5: Really think about the above. Hopefully you've realized the absolute futility of these proposals. I would call them "demented" but the more accurate term is "political". They are not rooted in any kind reasonable scientific basis. Realize that if humanity evaporated from this planet next Monday it would take around 50,000 years for a 100 ppm drop in CO2. IF HUMANITY EVAPORATED FROM THIS PLANET. Then answer this: How, pray tell, is anything less than us leaving this planet going to deliver results any faster than about 100 ppm in 50,000 years? Step 6: This is for extra credit. Some out there are talking about reversing climate change (which, for the most part is code for atmospheric CO2 accumulation) in 50 years. Great. For 100 points: Explain how we are going to achieve a 1000x improvement of the natural rate of change without destroying the planet in the process. You see, anything we do will require energy and resources. And nothing is 100% efficient. Which means the byproducts of this massive planetary-scale undertaking is far more likely to cause more damage than to fix anything at all. You don't speed-up a planetary scale process a thousand-fold without serious --unknown-- consequences. Again, any time you find yourself saying "but, but, but, solar and wind power are clean and renewable" remind yourself that it would take 50,000 years for a 100 ppm reduction if we left earth with all of our toys in tow. That is reality. Now what? No clean energy then? No, of course not. But not for these fake reasons. Here's a research paper you can read that will set you straight as far as the relationship between renewable energy sources and climate change. The conclusion, paraphrasing, is: Even if we deployed the most optimal forms of all renewable energy sources globally, atmospheric CO2 concentration would continue to increase exponentially. https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-... Pour that into your cup, sip on it for a while and then go re-read the Gates memo. We want clean and renewable energy for other reason. It will make human life better. We want nuclear also, which is FAR, FAR better than the other sources. What we do not want to do is continue the lie that this will "save the planet". It will not. It will make things better but the solution to atmospheric CO2 accumulation will require an approach and technology that we have yet to imagine.

ackfoo 7y ago

Climate Change is a new religion. Just like in those old-timey religions, we blame all of our natural disasters on this god, even when there is no evidence of a connection, or, in fact, evidence to the contrary. Hail storm? Climate change. Cat 5 hurricane? Climate change. We must have angered our God. And,just like those old-timey religions, we must sacrifice to appease our god. Recycle or god will become angry and send another storm! Buy an electric car or god will raise the sea level and wipe you out! And, just like those old-timey religions, we ostracize the heretics. Deniers! Compost them! And, just like those old-timey religions, Climate Change is messianic. It will be here in a hundred years! No! Fifty years! No, twenty! And, finally, just like those old-timey religions, Climate Change is an enormous self-serving lie that relieves our guilt and fear by allowing us to engage in an energetic debate about something that we can't easily do anything about. We are in middle of an enormous mass extinction. The oceans are filled with plastic. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are becoming an existential threat. These and many other environmental crises are immediately solvable, but that would require us to admit that our economic and social systems are broken and actually make changes. So keep worshipping Climate Change like it won't get fixed automatically when we're all dead from all the other fixable environmental problems for which we have actual evidence right now. It's much better than actually doing something.

jacknews 7y ago

I think biochar is a CCS technology that works right now, and could be deployed/encouraged at vast scale. Small-scale farmers char their agricultural wastes rather than just burning it (perhaps in simple earth kilns) and bury it in their fields, capturing carbon, and improving the soil at the same time.