3 ms·

Bill Gates “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need”.

pydry 5y ago
https://m.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gates-nuclear-plans/a-59751405 https://m.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gates... His huge investment in modular nuclear reactors may not be all it's cracked up to be.
- credit_guy 5y ago
  He invests in a lot of things. The book is not about nuclear reactors.
  - pydry 5y ago
    The book advocates for more public investment in nuclear energy and advocates against using too much solar and wind. He is personally has many billions sunk into the nuclear startup Terrapower, which is also taking a grant of roughly $4 billion in taxpayer cash while demonstrating... mixed results at best. You dont see a potential for a slight conflict of interest with this book?
    - credit_guy 5y ago
      Maybe 5% of the book is about nuclear power. He does not hide his positive attitude about it, or his ownership of Terrapower, but he does not sound at all gung ho. If anything he advocates more for offshore wind. But most of the book is about describing the problem, not prescribing solutions. I found it to be very informative. Personally, I was less pro-nuclear after reading the book than before.
newyankee 5y ago
I found a typo in one of his solar calculations, which seemed weird given how influential the book is going to be.
- credit_guy 5y ago
  What is the typo?
  - newyankee 5y ago
    His solar calculations IIRC were off by a factor of 10 in terms of what amount of energy could be extracted from a given piece of land. I do not have the book now otherwise I could've pointed it out. I think he was calculating the footprint of different forms of energy. Thumb rule is that at 20% efficiency a PV panel can get 200 Wp energy per sq m which translates to 200 MW per sq km. Leaving aside space for equipment, gaps, roads etc one can easily have a thumb rule of 100 Mw peak per sq km. I believe his book had this calculation as 10-20 MW per sq km. This assumes 1 KW peak irradiance. Off course things will change based on latitude, season etc and one has to adjust for these factors however Solar is a no brainer in tropical and temperate climates alike at this point in my opinion.
    - credit_guy 5y ago
      He states 5-20 w/m2 (same as MW/km2) with a footnote that the theoretical one is 100 w/m2 but noone has achieved that yet.
      - newyankee 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park This has a ~ 40 MW/ sq.km output with a lot of it still being open space for different reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamuthi_Solar_Power_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamuthi_Solar_Power_Project This one has ~ 64 MW/ sq km output https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility This one in US seems to be about ~ 53 MW/ sq km So definitely he is purposely understating the potential of solar. Because it does not include future growth of tandem solar cells (Si + perovskite) taking it to more than 25-30% efficiency, or the fall in costs if they continue (albeit at a slower pace). Co-located Wind & solar power plants at suitable sites can be even more efficient with their reliability and capacity factors increasing if batteries added to the mix.
muldoc 5y ago
It doesn't seem smart to me to take advice from a got-lucky, business billionaire that brought us Windows, with a cult following and marketing power of a country, than any run-of-the-mill real scientist.

https://m.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gates-nuclear-plans/a-59751405 https://m.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gates... His huge investment in modular nuclear reactors may not be all it's cracked up to be.

credit_guy 5y ago
He invests in a lot of things. The book is not about nuclear reactors.
- pydry 5y ago
  The book advocates for more public investment in nuclear energy and advocates against using too much solar and wind. He is personally has many billions sunk into the nuclear startup Terrapower, which is also taking a grant of roughly $4 billion in taxpayer cash while demonstrating... mixed results at best. You dont see a potential for a slight conflict of interest with this book?
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    Maybe 5% of the book is about nuclear power. He does not hide his positive attitude about it, or his ownership of Terrapower, but he does not sound at all gung ho. If anything he advocates more for offshore wind. But most of the book is about describing the problem, not prescribing solutions. I found it to be very informative. Personally, I was less pro-nuclear after reading the book than before.

newyankee 5y ago

I found a typo in one of his solar calculations, which seemed weird given how influential the book is going to be.

credit_guy 5y ago
What is the typo?
- newyankee 5y ago
  His solar calculations IIRC were off by a factor of 10 in terms of what amount of energy could be extracted from a given piece of land. I do not have the book now otherwise I could've pointed it out. I think he was calculating the footprint of different forms of energy. Thumb rule is that at 20% efficiency a PV panel can get 200 Wp energy per sq m which translates to 200 MW per sq km. Leaving aside space for equipment, gaps, roads etc one can easily have a thumb rule of 100 Mw peak per sq km. I believe his book had this calculation as 10-20 MW per sq km. This assumes 1 KW peak irradiance. Off course things will change based on latitude, season etc and one has to adjust for these factors however Solar is a no brainer in tropical and temperate climates alike at this point in my opinion.
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    He states 5-20 w/m2 (same as MW/km2) with a footnote that the theoretical one is 100 w/m2 but noone has achieved that yet.
    - newyankee 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park This has a ~ 40 MW/ sq.km output with a lot of it still being open space for different reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamuthi_Solar_Power_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamuthi_Solar_Power_Project This one has ~ 64 MW/ sq km output https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility This one in US seems to be about ~ 53 MW/ sq km So definitely he is purposely understating the potential of solar. Because it does not include future growth of tandem solar cells (Si + perovskite) taking it to more than 25-30% efficiency, or the fall in costs if they continue (albeit at a slower pace). Co-located Wind & solar power plants at suitable sites can be even more efficient with their reliability and capacity factors increasing if batteries added to the mix.

muldoc 5y ago

It doesn't seem smart to me to take advice from a got-lucky, business billionaire that brought us Windows, with a cult following and marketing power of a country, than any run-of-the-mill real scientist.