Bill Gates announces Green Tech Fund to Make Renewables Viable

UK International Development Secretary Justine Greening meeting with Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation during his visit to London earlier today. Picture: Russell Watkins/DFID

UK International Development Secretary Justine Greening meeting with Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation during his visit to London earlier today. Picture: Russell Watkins/DFID, source Wikimedia

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Entrepreneur Bill Gates has announced a one billion dollar green tech fund, to try to make renewables fit for purpose.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald;

If successful, the Paris meeting could spur a fundamental shift away from the use of oil, coal and gas to the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. But that transition would require major breakthroughs in technology and huge infrastructure investments by governments and industry.

Where that money would come from has been a question leading up to the Paris talks. Developing countries like India, the third-largest fossil-fuel polluter, have pushed for commitments by developed nations to pay for their energy transition, either through direct government spending or through inexpensive access to new technology.

India has emerged as a pivotal player in the Paris talks. The announcement by Mr Gates appears intended to help secure India’s support of a deal.

As US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton pledged that developed countries would send $US100 billion ($139 billion) annually to poor countries by 2020 to help them pay for the energy transition. Indian officials have demanded that the Paris deal lock in language that the money would come from public funds — a dealbreaker for rich countries.

This summer, Mr Gates pledged to spend $US 1 billion of his personal fortune on researching and deploying clean energy technology, but the people with knowledge of his plans said the new fund would include larger commitments.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/microsofts-bill-gates-to-start-multibilliondollar-fund-for-clean-energy-20151128-glacw0.html

This isn’t the first time a project to make renewables viable has been attempted. Back in 2014, WUWT reported about a similar attempt led by Google, which was a total failure.

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope … Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”

Read more: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

I applaud Bill’s enthusiasm – who wouldn’t want cheap magic solar panels, which eliminated the need to ever pay another electricity bill. But if the Google experience is any guide, it seems unlikely that another billion dollars will make a significant difference.

Advertisements

250 thoughts on “Bill Gates announces Green Tech Fund to Make Renewables Viable

  1. So, in other words , Gates and his fellow socialists have realized too late that they are losing the war against Humanity and have decided to go All In !!

      • It would be a sad way for Bill to spend all his money, since it’s a bottomless pit. But stupid is as stupid does.

      • Well the way to go ” all in ” on renewable energy, is to pick your power plant site, and put a fence around it.

        And then you prohibit ANY non renewables from entering the plant site.

        You have to run the entire operation from its purely renewables production.

        What is allowed OUT of your wizard plant, is the net energy (or other resource) over and above what it takes to run the operation.

        Of course, your plant site also has to deal with the refuse that is generated inside your plant.

        Now we would in practice allow you to trade tit for tat. So you could buy steel or concrete etc, but it would cost you energy wise, as much energy as it takes to get those from natural sources in their in situ state.

        Many so-called renewable energy schemes are not able to pass this reality check test.

        So have at it Bill, let’s see you make more renewable energy available, than it takes in any energy form to run your demonstration, in a zero based budgeting system.

        g

    • You are off you meds? Gates is not nor will ever be a Socialist.

      Take him up on the challenge, decentralize power and clean water generation. This is the key to saving billions of souls and it doesn’t require the UN!

      • I have watched with interest Mr Gates efforts in Africa. He uses his “tax protected” foundation to fund projects with him being personally promoted for his philanthropy. What Africans need are good jobs. What I want to see is Mr Gates move Microsoft to Africa and hire native Africans. Then, Mr Gates will be putting his money where his mouth is.

      • “You are off you meds? Gates is not nor will ever be a Socialist.”

        If I remember correctly, Gates was one of the early proponents of software copyright, thereby offloading the cost of enforcing his software licensing onto the taxpayer. He made his money from a government-granted monopoly on software distribution at a time when most software was given away for free, or written to order for individual customers.

      • Mr. Bill is a perfect example of live right, vote left. He is a socialist, just not when it concerns his own profit.
        Mark

      • Mr. McClure,

        1. If Marcus is “off his meds” — I hope he stays off.

        2. Just do a little research into the politicians and political causes Bill Gates, Jr. has supported GENEROUSLY and you will discover that they are largely socialist (Note: some would use the term “statist” instead). In the U.S., a “socialist” backs government control of the economy to a degree that cannot by any means be called “free market.” Usually, they run under the title: “Democrat.” There are many RINOS who run as “Republicans,” too.

        Janice

      • “If I remember correctly, Gates was one of the early proponents of software copyright, thereby offloading the cost of enforcing his software licensing onto the taxpayer. He made his money from a government-granted monopoly on software distribution at a time when most software was given away for free, or written to order for individual customers.”

        No, that is incorrect.The topic of software copyright first arose in the early 1960s, and it was companies like IBM and the other computer mfrs who lobbied for software to be allowed copyright protection. A major law was passed in the late 70s, at that point in time MS barely existed as a company, and had no influence on the law. http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise17.html

        As far as the point that most software was given away for free at that time, that is also incorrect. It was often bundled with the hardware (as with the IBM System 360), but it was hardly free. The entire freeware/open source movement did not take off until the late 90s/early 2000s, long after Gates made his fortune.

      • John McClure

        Wind and solar can’t supply the energy to do those things on a local or national level. To believe they can is not science but science fiction. Oh, yes, improvements can be made but that is just putting lipstick on a pig.

        Nuclear seems the only workable option but fortunately we have a couple hundred years of gas, oil and coal left — plenty of time for all the environmental luddites to die off.

        Eugene WR Gallun

        PS — In a number of my posts today I have been somewhat negative about Bill Gates. Actually he personally has been a big plus for humanity and i respect him. But projects like this, he needs to rethink.

      • Software isn’t useful without hardware to run it. In the early years of computing, the money was made on the hardware, and the hardware wasn’t much use without the software that came with it. It might not have been ‘free’, but it wasn’t something you could just copy and run on another machine with different hardware.

        “The entire freeware/open source movement did not take off until the late 90s/early 2000s, long after Gates made his fortune.”

        Not even remotely true. There was a ton of free software before the 90s, and Gates’ BASIC was one of the first attempts to make money on software in the early personal computer market, where most people gave it away for free.

      • “Software isn’t useful without hardware to run it. In the early years of computing, the money was made on the hardware, and the hardware wasn’t much use without the software that came with it. It might not have been ‘free’, but it wasn’t something you could just copy and run on another machine with different hardware.”

        In the early days, the OS (operating system) was bundled with the hardware, that is how IBM, DEC, Honeywell, etc sold their systems. But plenty of companies made company off of external software that was sold to complement that – transaction processing software, systems management tools, etc. CSC, SAP, BMC, Computer Associates are all examples of companies founded in the 60s to late 70s that sold commercial software. That model was well established before Microsoft was even incorporated.

        “Not even remotely true. There was a ton of free software before the 90s, and Gates’ BASIC was one of the first attempts to make money on software in the early personal computer market, where most people gave it away for free”

        Microsoft BASIC came out in 1976 – please tell me all the free compilers that were available for the ALTAIR before MS came out with their version. Lots of other companies were making money off PC software from the very earliest days – Lotus Software, Word Perfect, and Ashton-Tate are just a few of the companies that sold commercial software for PCs starting in the late 70s to early 80s. While there were some free tools, the market share of those was small, and more to the point, the commercialization of software you blame Gates for started long before Microsoft.

      • Bingo! We have a winner! Think of Soros buying up coal his funded faux green movements help depress the price on.
        Think of Buffet supporting the faux greens while his railroads rake in the profits for moving the Canadian crude on dangerous inefficient rail lines.

    • No. It means that if the US throws $100 billion at the renewables industry, Bill Gates will “invest” $1 billion to be in a position in the renewables industry to sell the govt whatever technology they want him to supply.

      • That’s not what is being proposed by Gates. He’s putting his own money where his mouth is, not your money or mine. I doubt that he’ll have much success, at least as far as wind and solar are concerned, but I wish him well in this endeavor.

      • I would believe Gates if he wasn’t positioning himself in an industry with significant levels of subsidies. Like Warren Buffet, you won’t find Gates chasing investments that don’t have significant taxpayer backstops involved.

    • Don’t believe Bill Gates promise until you see it. If history is a guide he will want more than matching funds from the taxpayers directly or indirectly.

      • Chris –

        The fact that he said that the private sector has never developed anything useful and the best R&D outfit in the world is the US Department of Energy. It’s right there in his Salon interview on October 29, 2015.

      • laughing target – I just don’t get the criticism of Gates here. As someone who has worked for many years with VCs and PE investors, I can tell you that almost all private money is short term – by short term I mean expecting a return in a maximum of 10 years. There is no way nuclear, hydrogen, fusion or other risky potential energy sources are going to get private money because the investment return horizon is beyond 10 years. Look at nuclear – after TMI, the US nuclear industry essentially mothballed their research. So there needs to be a government role in this, otherwise let’s just stop talking about all these technologies.

  2. This is how it should have been done in the first place. Private money, not public. I genuinely wish him well in the enterprise, provided it is done honestly (a big ask for someone who ran Microsoft). If we can all get access to cheaper and more effective energy than we can get from coal, gas and nuclear that would be wonderful. Unfortunately, there’s a looong way to go before that happens. I doubt $1bn will be enough, but of course others may put in.

      • Indeed, I don’t think Mr Rossi has taken one dime from any government regardless of whether his idea works or not.

      • I personally don’t begrudge Bill Gates one brass razoo of his fortune. I think he and M$ have benefited more people on this planet than did many of the giants before them.

        But it would be nice if he kept his social theories to himself, and concentrated on what he earned my respect for.

        g

      • Your both right and more importantly partnering is happening as we speak.
        I did a little wanderlust meandering for the Paris Agenda and came across a couple of goodies. This is the better one. A previous poster turned us onto to http://newsroom.unfccc.int/financial-flows/.

        That led me to http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/regional-climate-initiatives

        Which led me to http://www.c2es.org/business/belc

        All nuke friendly http://www.c2es.org/search/common?text=nuclear%20power

      • If Green Technology was viable it wouldn’t payments equally to more the cost of research, development and production. No other technology needs that much subsidy.

      • I’m increasingly seeing that classic green tech (wind/solar) isn’t viable without subs.
        What I am seeing is that China will have molten salt SMR within 5 years and we’ll imitate within 10.
        Feels like the oligarchs are trying to bridge us there.

        Do I think it’s a stupid way to get us there. Yup
        Do I think it’s based on a climate hoax. Yup
        Do I think we’d be better off burning fossils to bridge us to SMRs. Yup
        Do I think we would have built SMRs on our own. Not without being pushed.

        Anyway, tomorrow I’ll wake up, go fishing for the last mermaid and see how you guys tare into those thoughts. Btw, the genesis of my thought process was reading about how Thatcher wanted to never have to deal with the miners up her skirt or beholden to oil she didn’t have. She wanted nukes and couldn’t get there so she was tacitly a fan of the whole C02 nonsense. Obviously, she ended up with strange bedfellows.

      • Bill Gates could do us all a favor, by telling his software writers to get his “Office ” products, such as Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook, etc to all use the same user interface language.

        I do mathematics, and science writing and plotting and graphing, and I want to be able to do any and all of those things in all of those products.

        And stop moving stuff around so we can’t find where you hid it.

        It used to be that you could INSERT a page break under the INSERT tab in WORD. Dunno where it is now. It would be nice if you could also delete a page break in the same place.

        It would be nice if when you do insert and get the Greek alphabet table to do some scientific or math writing, that they would leave the Greek table up there till you are finished with it. Now they erase the table every time you select one character, and you then have to go and get the table again to type a second Greek character.

        Totally childish.

        I want to do super and subscripts in ALL Office programs, and I want to have an icon to select those like WORD has, but the others don’t.

        If I was Gates, I’d fire the managers in their Office suite department, and hire someone, who can make tem all taqlk the same language.

        And speaking of language; I’d like an icon that says 360 or IBM360, so that when I click on it, it turns M$Word into an IBM 360 selectric typewriter, that actually types the character I key, and does nothing but that.

        I don’t need a spell checker that has an English vocabulary suitable for a smart parrot or minah bird. MS Word spell checker or thesaurus, has maybe 5% of all of the words, I regularly use.

        g

      • +1000 Dave. It’s good kit and it just keeps on doing what it says it will. All of the derogatory comments about fanboys are by the by. Apple products just keep on keeping on.

      • George, you delete a page break by highlighting it and pressing delete (you can see it by pressing the paragraph button to show the formatting symbols), and it’s still under insert, but it’s labeled “Insert blank page” now.

        You can remap your characters on the symbol button (I have mine to type Greek when I press alt and the corresponding letter), or insert an equation that gives you quick access to all the common symbols.

        Finally, all of the programs aside from Access, which has very limited formatting at all, accept control-= and control-+ for super and subscript.

        While it’s not optimum user interface, these features do exist.

      • “Now that should work almost as well as Windows 1.0 right :)”

        There wasn’t actually a ‘Windows 1’ as such, it was just ‘Windows’.

        Not long ago while rooting in the attic, I found my ‘Windows SDK’, complete with all its documentation and its 1.2MB five & a quarter floppies!

    • You know, I like your sentiment. It’s a shame that Gates is wasting his money on research almost certain to end in a dead end, but it’s his money to waste, and perhaps they will find the miracle needed to make it viable. At the very least, it’s his money and his decision, not a politician spending other people’s money.

  3. Hey Bill, just imagine how many poor children’s lives around the world could be saved with that Billion dollars !!

    • Well….. a lot for awhile then they grow up and breed and you get more poor people.
      When I was a kid half the world was poor. 1.5 billion people. Now half the world is still poor. 3.5 billion pathetic souls. Get the picture?
      Course maybe some rich folks will figure out how to turn them into Caucasians and they’ll then take care of themselves.

  4. Keep up the clarion call Mr Watts.
    Handouts from the rich don’t change the realities of subsidized markets.
    Eventually, the scheme falls apart unless “someone(s)” are willing to continue paying.

    Meanwhile millions in developed lands with access to fossils are prevented from developing them and they die. This whole nonsense is needlessly killing the very people they are supposed to be helping.

    Btw, an excellent documentary on you tube.

    The video is dated as May 2015, but it seems older.
    Can use an update.
    I’m amazed that it has under 2000 views.

    • Good video to cite, Knute — thank you. It was published more than once on youtube, apparently. This link {without the { } gap in the middle between “you” and “tube” — to prevent a video control window from appearing here} goes to a version with over 250,000 views (originally aired in 2007 — yes, it is older than 2015).

      https://www.you { } tube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

      • Janice

        Evidently the gapless version sent me to the no load zone.
        I felt microharassed. I’m pretty sure I suffered brutal harm and won’t be able to find immediate happiness.

        Is it possible to send me a better link to the 250K plus viewers version ?

      • Hi, Knute,

        Re: “What I Learned About Climate Change…” by David Siegel

        It is full of lots of great facts and links to excellent resources to create a video, but, no. I do not think it would be advisable to try to boil his encyclopedia article (with editorial comments) down to a 15 minute video. His article would be a good resource.

        The best type of video that Mr. Siegel’s material could help produce is one aimed at a narrowly limited target audience of those who: 1) tend to vote Democrat; 2) think “environmentalism” and “vegan” are great ideas and who disagreed strongly with former President Bush; and 3) who think “liberalism” is great (etc…). These people need to be reached and Siegel, as “one of us,” will be listened to. It will not be very persuasive with those who: 1) think “vegan” is not “better for the environment” and is just a pseudo-religious practice; 2) who think voting for Obama (especially the second time) was a sign of intellectual impairment; and 3) who have studied windpower/solar/”sustainability” industry enough to know that such alternative power sources are nowhere close (i.e., Siegel’s cautions optimism would be seen by this audience segment as ignorant, thus, undermine his credibility to speak to other topics like CO2 science) to supplying the needs of developed economies, much less lift poor Africans and Indians and the like out of energy poverty (etc…).

        Siegel can really get into the minds of what would persuade one of the most hostile audiences: the true believers (in AGW and the “save the planet” stuff). More power to him!

        Hoping your day is going well, Knute,

        Janice

      • Thanks as usual Janice.
        Thorough, thoughtful and forthright.

        Typical busy Monday.
        Too much busywork interfering with moments of creativity.
        If it was easy, anyone could do “it”.
        Hope yours is swimming along.

        Don’t know if you’ve seen this.
        Figured I’d share.
        Looking forward to the unveiling.

        http://www.climatehustle.com/

        I sense that penetrating the cognitive dissonance will be the heavy lift concerning CAGW.
        The untruth is slowly being overwhelmed with the reality, but many will cling and many more will feel lost and betrayed. Even worse will be the unraveling of bad investments and monies lost. Some will be left holding a bag of little value. WUWT has been an excellent resource and I’m very thankful for people like you and others who exhibit impressive character, expertise and a self check based on minimizing fallacies.

        I probably need to go fishing and hunting for an extended time, remove the noise … get a better feel for what’s next. Maybe never come back to the real world … I say that but always do. Eventually, the pleasures of solitude run their course.

        There is always some next mass movement in the works.
        A fomenting sense of “injustice” has been fed to grow and if it’s not satiated by things like faux CAGW, it will find a home in some other movement. I think that’s the real change that we have witnessed in the past 10 years. Thinking out loud …

        What do you think ?

      • Hi, Knute,

        Thanks. Today is going okay. Thanks for the link to a video I was sent in a CFACT e mail awhile back. Haven’t watched it — likely very good.

        I think… you are a pleasure to “talk” to, but feel I ought to end our sort of off-topic conversation for this thread.

        I hope… you find a likeminded buddy and GET OUT OF TOWN…. into the real world of mountains and streams and meadows. Peace and quiet all day, then, jovial conversation and good food (heh, even just sauerkraut and wieners is good food! And Pepsi!) at night.

        Take care, out there,

        Janice

      • Thanks Janice
        Appreciate the inputs and pleasant demeanor, esp the blow by blow on the 2007 doc.
        I’m sure I’ll refer to that a few times as I craft my own message.

  5. Gates is a smart guy and willing to spend his own money. That takes some guts and has my respect.

    It’s very different from the well intentioned idiot who wants to spend gobs of other peoples money!

    • Agreed – if Gates wants to spend a billion dollars of his own money, on what is most likely a wild goose chase, its his money to spend. And there’s always an outside chance he will actually discover a useful breakthrough.

    • Right, Mike. How many readers of WUWT are aware of the contributions, of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, made towards the eradication of Polio?
      To date, since 1988, it totals more than US$1 billion! The Foundation has partnered with Rotary International to provide fee oral vaccines to the world’s poorest children in some very dangerous places.
      Credit where credit is well and truly due!

      • Polio is a problem with a very cost effective solution. Good for Bill gates.

        Producing electricity is not a technical problem. Providing clean water is not a technical problem. It is a public service provided to the rich and poor in the US and developed countries.

        However, when it comes to providing the equipment to produce electricity; one billion would not build a coal plant for small city. Bill Gates is an idiot or grandstanding to think that renewables are what the poor need.

      • “However, when it comes to providing the equipment to produce electricity; one billion would not build a coal plant for small city. Bill Gates is an idiot or grandstanding to think that renewables are what the poor need.”

        How exactly do you propose providing electricity for remote villages in Africa? Forget about coal or nuclear, the distribution costs would dwarf the costs of the power plants. Even in the wealthy US, it wasn’t until the Rural Electrification Act of 1935 that remote locations in the US got electricity, it wasn’t cost effective for the utilities to distribute power to those locations.

      • The money thrown away on “Green” initiatives are ridiculous. Solar panels have been the subject of government-funded-research since the mid 1970s. We are at 25% efficiency for the best-of-the-best panels out there.

        If you invested this $1b into transmission mediums for power to those remote locations and then left the maintenance up to the utilities, it would be cost effective all of the sudden. After all, that is what the Rural Electrification Act did. Then you could build a few nuclear plants and have the electricity actually start to reach the rural parts of the African countries instead of self-righteous people swooping in, installing a few solar panels with a water pump and a water heater, taking a photo-op, and then fluttering away.

        The villages that get this think it’s great until they decide to do anything else but have their water pump without manual pumping or a little bit of hot water – like hooking up a refrigerator to store their food without spoiling. Suddenly, they want real – and reliable – electricity.

    • Follow the money. Billions will be promised for ‘green’ power generation…..I’d like some too please.

      • Also don’t forget that all this technological bounty was brought to the masses by a couple of college dropouts like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Would or could these research projects or even big companies like IBM have done this?

  6. Hey Bill, if you would like to subsidize my power bill so that I may get my energy from renewables without costing me any more than I currently pay, the only person stopping you is yourself. If you do however, I bet even you would be surprised at how quickly you piss away your billions. And then what?

  7. They’ve run out of other peoples’ money and are now going to throw their own away! Imagine how much good that money could do if it was intelligently utilised

    • Marcus

      Conservative, liberal .. to be fair they all lie.
      One’s agenda merges with the needs of another and they become strange bedfellows.
      The big con here is that elites are scamming the world’s people and quite possibly denying them a better life via cheap, reliable and affordable forms of energy.

      It’s disgusting.

  8. Mr Gates wrote: “If we create the right environment for innovation, we can accelerate the pace of progress, develop and deploy new solutions, and eventually provide everyone with reliable, affordable energy that is carbon free. We can avoid the worst climate-change scenarios while also lifting people out of poverty, growing food more efficiently and saving lives by reducing pollution.”

    With regards to growing food(plants) more efficiently. Greenhouses are the best at this because they can manipulate the environment to make it best for growing.
    They use carbon dioxide enrichment generators to boost CO2 levels to triple the atmospheric levels, which currently, are still much too low for optimal plant growth and crop yields.

    It’s great if Mr. Gates wants to make renewable energy affordable and have it replace fossil fuels but the best thing we can do for growing food more efficiently is to INCREASE CO2………….so he has that backwards.

    Sunshine + H2O +CO2 +Minerals = O2 +Sugars(Food)

    You can state that CO2=pollution if you want based on a speculative theory but you can’t deny the irrefutable law of photosynthesis and the real world(not modeled or speculative) massive increases in world food production from just the increase in CO2.

    The Social Benefit of Carbon: $3.5 Trillion in Agricultural Productivity!

    http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf

    • Mike, great comment and link to CO2 science. The known benefits of the atmospheric increase in CO2; feeding close to one billion people with no additional water or land required, is overwhelming!

  9. Reminds me of Ted Turner pledging a billion dollars to the UN several years ago.
    What actual good did he do?
    What good will this do?

    Bill, don’t start a fund that others will need to support. Invest in it directly. Your personal money minus the tax shelters. Don’t start a “Rockefeller Foundation”. Start a “Bill Gate’s Own Personal Wallet” foundation.
    Carnegie built libraries. What would you build? A means to tear down what they contain?

    • If I understand the proposal, governments will fund basic research and the billionaires will select, productize and scale the technology for profit. Seems like business as usual.

  10. 1. Gates’ brilliant intellect is blinded by an emotional** attachment to “sustainability.”

    **(gotta be, for all the evidence is, so far, is against the conjecture about human CO2 which “sustainability” tech hustlers need to sustain their con game)

    and/or

    2. Despite knowing “sustainability” (largest hustles are Big Wind and Big Solar) is a bunch of baloney, his other investments require a BIG CASH INFUSION to keep them viable.

    In other words, he’s doing what his buddy Buffet did in 2013:

    Warren Buffett’s utility company { } just ordered more than $1 billion worth of wind turbines for the state of Iowa.

    http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/warren-buffetts-bet-on-siemens-nyse-si-wind/4129

    Private investment IS TERRIFIC, but…. highly likely the industries invested in by Gates will still be ultimately, intrinsically, dependent on tax subsidies and power rate surcharges to be non-negative ROI investments. It’s his money, yes, but, its basically extortion of public funds: “Here ya go, taxpayers! A big lump sum — now, you do your part… don’t want to? Ha! Statist regulations / tax policy says you are comin’ along for the ride! Wheeeee!” Whee.

    A short-term get-rich-quick opportunity for a few, unprincipled, Envirohustlers, but that’s like all that will come of it (and the propping up of Gates’ investments). As Mike Jonas already noted, $1 billion is unlikely to come close to solving the ENORMOUS technical failings of current wind, solar, and other “green” tech. The long-storage battery, windmill bearings, and solar inefficiency just to name a FEW tech issues are a long way from being solved.

    • aaaaa! I BLEW THE BLOCKQUOTE!!!!!!! sorry about that — mods, if you have the time, PLEASE REPLACE BOLD of: “Warren Buffett’s utility company { } just ordered more than $1 billion worth of wind turbines for the state of Iowa.”
      WITH
      BLOCKQUOTE of the same text.

      So sorry!

      [We are confused. Is a blown blockquote a blewcoat, or is a bluecoat one who rebeled against the redcoats? .mod]
      [Fixed OK? mod2]

      • Yes, you would have thought WordPress might have managed some sort of basic editing facility by now, we are well into the 21st century after all.

        Even Disqus have managed it.

      • Thanks, Cat Weazle. Your sympathy was appreciated. I don’t know how to write my edit request to the mods any more clearly, so, (sigh), apparently I’m stuck with my mistake. Oh, well! I’ll just use the opportunity this reply to you affords to say that ALSO, I meant to write “likely” not “that’s like all” — lol.

        My Christmas Wish: WUWT gets a major gift of first-class software support (another company than WordPress? — whatever it takes — yes, it would take some cash — that’s why it’s on my “wish list!”)

      • Bill Gates hates me too! While I will admit to computers helping me more productive. However, beta testing software was an unattended consequence.

    • Janice

      Yes, stop the meshing of agendas. It’s getting shriller by the day.
      Give me cheap, reliable power that I don’t have to bow to via someone’s sorry, misguided ego.

      What’s next ? Do I have to pay homage to the Pope in order to receive my daily allotment of fossil energy in Knuteville ?

      Here ya go Bill. Nanotech says they can provide spray on solar collectors. I’ll take two cans worth.
      And I want my money back if it doesn’t work.

      You seem to have an eye for communications. Please check this doc out and see what you think.
      How would you improve it ?

      Thanks for your time if you do.

      • Dear Knute,

        Thank you for your kind words. Okay. I will. …. heh, heh….. just trying to get rid of me for a couple of hours, eh?
        #(;))

        I’ll watch it — take notes, and post them here (if I come up with anything worth your while to read, yes, yes, Rrrrobert in Calgary, in MY opinion, worthwhile…. how could you confuse me with John Cleese? I’m much shorter… different hair color, too… hm ;) ).

        Bye for now….

        Janice

      • Thanks Janice
        Don’t mean to impose and only if you have the time.
        I saw potential in the video.
        I see weakness in the movement and the timing may be ripe for the counter doc to Gore’s.

      • This is a great documentary that did not get the play it should have because of its stupid conclusive title.

        You neversomething with what you want the audience to come away with. It’s like actors on a stage who start crying about whatever they are saying, hoping the audience will react the same way. Audiences laugh instead. It turns into farce or comedy.

        It should have been named something innocuous, like ‘Global Warming Issues in 2010 (date whatever)’ or ‘The Great Global Warming Debate’. Then the remarks from the scientist who actually gave newly-minted PhD Gore the results from the ice cores for his film, and which Gore misrepersented would have a sobering reaction. Gore either lied or he was incapable of understanding the data. Because of that stupid title, millions of people will not bother to click on this excellent film.

      • Thanks MRW
        Appreciate the feedback.
        I liked the overall style and themes of the doc, but you are right about the title.
        Could be time for a reboot and update with so much that has happened, yet so much the same.

      • Notes on: “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (2007) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
        – with a view to making it more persuasive to open-minded, but relatively ignorant of the evidence, seekers of truth about human CO2 emissions.

        11/29/15
        Applause Section:
        – Nice attention-grabbing intro.
        – Nice sound-bites from genuine scientists
        – British accent of narrator very good: 1) other British people find American accent annoying; 2) Americans’ ears will perk up and listen more carefully to the “different” sound (used in advertising all the time – little kids or a woman with a husky, little boy voice, and British accents – we LIKE that sound, unless overdone … or snobbish-sounding).
        – Use of term “lies” is GREAT – it is true and it is a powerful word.
        – Shikwati quote at [7:09] very powerful – “… African dream is to develop…”
        – And the African plow-and-ox segment is VERY effectively juxtaposed with following video of bustling developed world city
        passim clips of airliner flying overhead bringing 911 to mind = GOOD. Don’t take out if someone says, “poor taste.” It nicely, silently, reminds us that something else (here, Isl@m) and not “climate change,” is a real threat to the world.
        – Ian Clark is excellent, “rock star,” teacher – good to feature him much (if do a revised, shorter, more succinct, version of this video).

        OVERALL – Full of much good information. What is needed is a brand new video – shorter, different music. The CO2 storyline a bit less rambling. This video is a fine REVIEW for already well-informed viewers (who know enough to correct any small omissions/slightly mis-stated parts. LEAVE OUT THE SOLAR PART and the HERE’S OUR THEORY OF CLIMATE part (from about 28:00 on). Not strong argument – at least, not yet. Good speculation, unlike AGW, reasonably plausible speculation, but, still just speculation.
        @ Future Film Maker:
        Remember: the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AGWers. They have not yet made a prima facie case. You dignify their conjecture by countering it with conjecture of your own. Don’t go there. You only muddy the water. Stick with the basic, data-backed, facts: e.g., CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle; CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED; and the like.

        [00:27] Add Name/Title of speaker (not leave until second appearance of speaker).

        Comment: Otherwise, “Who is this dude?” (= “who cares what he says”) is all audience will think.

        [00:35], [00:41], [00:45], [00:50] “ “

        [00:50] Corrected script: “[Anthropogenic global warming advocates say that] if the CO2 goes up… . *** The fundamental assumption of the whole theory of [conjecture about] climate change … .”
        Comment: Without first correction, it is less clear and audience may mis-remember Dr. Ball’s remark as supporting AGW (even though his overall remarks clearly do not). Dignifying AGW with the word “theory” is inaccurate and lacking the scientist’s precision needed to make the speaker more credible to a technically saavy audience member’s mind. AGW is not a “theory” as science defines it. AGW does not even rise to the level of a falsifiable “hypothesis.” It is pure conjecture. This is a “keep your WHOLE audience in mind” edit: both non-tech and technical people will be listening.

        [1:10] Manmade Anthropogenic global warming … is no longer just a theory about climate …

        Comment: To be persuasive with those under 60 or so, gender-neutral terms should be used whenever possible; AGW should not be dignified with the term “theory,” it gives unspoken, but powerful, legitimacy to the AGWer’s fly-in-the-face-of-the-data speculation.

        [1:49] [1:55] [3:14] [4:10], [8:15] and passim — “… manmade human made or otherwise;” “manmadeanthropogenic global warming…” Note that it is not the scientists, the intellectuals, who use the sexist term…, but the narrator.

        [2:00] REPLACE Henry Mancini/”Pink Panther” sounding muzak music – sounds dated and to a younger person, just “weird” (not in a cool way).

        [3:19] “… scientific basis for the theory is crumbling [ there is no scientific evidence for the speculation of global warming].”

        [4:48] (Paul Reiter) – “… bibliographies… there are quite a number of dozens of non-scientists …

        [5:35] “… a theory unsupported conjecture about climate … “

        [6:20] ADD to Patrick Michael’s quote about jobs depending on global warming, specific industries: ”wind turbine manufacturers such as Siemens,” “solar cell makers such as __.”

        Note: For such add-in script, USE YOUNGER SCIENTISTS (under 35) – The older, wiser, look is GREAT, but, need to add 3 younger ones to keep the keep the film from appearing (to under-30 audience almost-not-listening-to-you members) to be “just a bunch of old guys who aren’t up on the latest.” MOST audience members, young and old, will not need the younger “look,” – but, this particular demographic does.

        [6:45] “… spitting fury…” – INSERT: video clip of an AGWer “scientist” harshly criticizing a skeptic scientist

        [~7:52] “… heretics… “ – ADD in (use one of the younger, added, scientists) a line or two about “den1ers” here.

        [10:16] REPLACE the 1920’s jazz music (yes, it was before “Let It Snow” in time as was the Medieval Warm Period before the “Little Ice Age” – but it is nonsensical – use instead, music from that era to “sound Medieval” (lutes and dulcimers)) – even “Let It Snow” is a bit jarring – better to use 1700’s merry-sounding melodies on fife and drum and the like.

        [10:48] GET RID OF THE GENUFLECTING BY THE SCIENTIST. Oh, boy. While I personally think what he did was just fine (though I do not do this myself), it is not at all a help to persuade the bulk of the audience and likely to undermine his credibility (and the film’s) with many.

        [10:58] GET RID OF “We’re Having a Heatwave” – this was a tune which nicely describes a real heat wave in the U.S. in the 1950’s, but NOT for Medieval times.

        Re: Church as stage: A bit is okay, for the wealth due to warmth of medieval time funded grand buildings, but, better to use a museum or other lovely building… or artwork depicting medieval prosperity as backdrop. TOO MUCH CHURCH (for this type of audience)

        [11:25 ] Back off and show ALL of climate history chart – need for perspective for it would show (and quite persuasively, I think) just how relatively cool temperatures are now. The stair steps get lower and lower as time progresses, never recovering the warmth of the past.

        And the chart itself is too crude.

        [11:50] Re: polar bear adaptation – ADD: “Thus, even if the human CO2 speculation turned out to be correct, it isn’t really a problem.”

      • [12:01] GET RID OF THE 1960’S MUZAK! — Need some rock!! Here, could use from 12:01 through the industry busy-busy-busy scenes – e.g., Eddy Van Halen track from “Panama” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxA4WgIZmO8 – Yes, Mr. Van Halen is from my era, however… when we got to talking about good guitar players, I asked the young man under 25 serving me at Red Robin not long ago whether he had heard of Eddy Van Halen and he lit up, “Oh, yeah!” (big smile) So, even if the rock isn’t the latest, good classic rock will do.

        [12:01 – fade in rock guitar music in under narrator] “… the culprit is industrial society.” [by here, music almost drowning out narrator, then, music only] CUT OUT ALL NARRATION – just use video (too much talking overwhelms …) WITH GUITAR – yea!  until…

        … [12:39] … Narrator back (over music, faded): “Industrial progress has changed our lives. But, has it also changed the climate?”

        [12:41] “According to the theory of manmade conjecture about human CO2 and global warming, …”

        [12:52] (P. Michaels) “… most of the warming …” – “… hasn’t looked at the basic numbers closely examined the data.”

        Comment: Leave out “most of” – this un-proven qualification of his statement greatly weakens his argument. There is no evidence that ANY of the 1900’s warming was caused by human CO2. Only speculation. – Remember: this video is about PERSUASION, not subtle nuances like, “Well, in laboratory conditions, CO2 seems like it might cause a little warming; not proven, but, we just can’t say for sure it doesn’t do SOMETHING.” Yeah, well, the burden of proof is STILL on the AGWers to prove CO2 DOES significantly drive the climate of the earth. This is not the venue for speculating by lukewarmers.

        Better to use “data,” than “numbers” – to better underscore the lack of evidence for human CO2 as a driver, i.e., the data does not support AGW at all.

        [13:35 – 14:18 and at 14:39] Great narration and scientist testimony – need to BACK OFF FOR LARGER PICTURE VIEW OF CHART.

        [14:48] (Dr. Ball) “Temperature went up until 1940 [. When Before this, CO2 production was relatively low. … and then in the post-war years … human CO2 production just soared, the temperature was going down.” After WWII, human CO2 production was increasing significantly,{pause – for – emphasis} but the temperature was going {short pause and emphasize next word} DOWN.” Dr. Ball in general needs someone to write a script for him to memorize (or read from teleprompter) – “fireside chat” style is NOT appropriate for this type of production. Need to be SUCCINCT and POWERFUL in words and in expression (volume, tempo, etc…). He has good content, though.

        [15:08] (Dr. Ball) “In other words, the facts did not fit the theory claim.”

        [15:28] Shorten other remarks/narration to INSERT: clip from Leonard Nimoy 1978 video sternly warning of the coming ice age: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUq0JnaIock

        [15:35-16:35] Calling CO2 a “greenhouse gas” is going to do more to confuse than to enlighten. Just hit the high points: 1) human CO2 is tiny percent of total CO2 which is tiny percent of total atmospheric gases; 2) WATER is 95% of total and, to boot, has evidence proving it drives climate. There is only speculation that CO2 boosts that effect in the open system we call “earth.”

        [17:10 – ~17:40 “… if it weren’t for greenhouse gases water vaporgreenhouse gas water vapor…” … “warming should be highest if it’s greenhouse gas CO2 that’s causing it… .”

        Comment: This section about “greenhouse effect” needs to be re-done. Water vapor is the only KNOWN effective “greenhouse gas.” This creates more confusion about the role of CO2 than clarity. Then, CO2 needs to be stated explicitly as the alleged cause, for that is what the AGWers are falsely asserting (to, thus, limit human CO2 emissions and sell more windmills, etc…).

        [18:00 +] John Christy bio – HENRY MANCINI-type MUSIC NEED TO BE REPLACE WITH ROCK. – Nice teaching sequence… however, need to replace “theory” with “[notion] that climate models are expressing… .”

        … With some criticisms, the film was fine from here until about 28:00 when Piers Corbyn starts to talk about his sun-weather predicting. After that, the film’s content quality deteriorates. (See my remarks above under “OVERALL”).

        THEN, film gets back on track with insights about politics, anti-consumerism, then, about ice caps, etc… .

        This comment is getting too long, so I’ll stop.

        If I were actually going to be involved in writing for/producing a “revised version,” I would take the time to keep on going … .

        Hope this was of interest to you, Knute. Your own observations would be just as good or better than mine. Thanks for paying me the compliment of asking. You’re a rare treat.

        Your WUWT pal,

        Janice

        P.S. I used a lot of bold, italic, and strike html code – likely blew some. I hope you can understand what I wrote in spite of any blown html tags.

      • [12:01] GET RID OF THE 1960’S MUZAK! — Need some rock!! Here, could use from 12:01 through the industry busy-busy-busy scenes – e.g., Eddy Van Halen track from “Panama” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxA4WgIZmO8 – Yes, Mr. Van Halen is from my era, however… when we got to talking about good guitar players, I asked the young man under 25 serving me at Red Robin not long ago whether he had heard of Eddy Van Halen and he lit up, “Oh, yeah!” (big smile) So, even if the rock isn’t the latest, good classic rock will do.

        [12:01 – fade in rock guitar music in under narrator] “… the culprit is industrial society.” [by here, music almost drowning out narrator, then, music only] CUT OUT ALL NARRATION – just use video (too much talking overwhelms …) WITH GUITAR – yea!  until…

        … [12:39] … Narrator back (over music, faded): “Industrial progress has changed our lives. But, has it also changed the climate?”

        [12:41] “According to the theory of manmade conjecture about human CO2 and global warming, …”

        [12:52] (P. Michaels) “… most of the warming …” – “… hasn’t looked at the basic numbers closely examined the data.”

        Comment: Leave out “most of” – this un-proven qualification of his statement greatly weakens his argument. There is no evidence that ANY of the 1900’s warming was caused by human CO2. Only speculation. – Remember: this video is about PERSUASION, not subtle nuances like, “Well, in laboratory conditions, CO2 seems like it might cause a little warming; not proven, but, we just can’t say for sure it doesn’t do SOMETHING.” Yeah, well, the burden of proof is STILL on the AGWers to prove CO2 DOES significantly drive the climate of the earth. This is not the venue for speculating by lukewarmers.

        Better to use “data,” than “numbers” – to better underscore the lack of evidence for human CO2 as a driver, i.e., the data does not support AGW at all.

        [13:35 – 14:18 and at 14:39] Great narration and scientist testimony – need to BACK OFF FOR LARGER PICTURE VIEW OF CHART.

        [14:48] (Dr. Ball) “Temperature went up until 1940 [. When Before this, CO2 production was relatively low. … and then in the post-war years … human CO2 production just soared, the temperature was going down.” After WWII, human CO2 production was increasing significantly,{pause – for – emphasis} but the temperature was going {short pause and emphasize next word} DOWN.” Dr. Ball in general needs someone to write a script for him to memorize (or read from teleprompter) – “fireside chat” style is NOT appropriate for this type of production. Need to be SUCCINCT and POWERFUL in words and in expression (volume, tempo, etc…). He has good content, though.

        [15:08] (Dr. Ball) “In other words, the facts did not fit the theory claim.”

      • [15:28] Shorten other remarks/narration to INSERT: clip from Leonard Nimoy 1978 video sternly warning of the coming ice age: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUq0JnaIock

        [15:35-16:35] Calling CO2 a “greenhouse gas” is going to do more to confuse than to enlighten. Just hit the high points: 1) human CO2 is tiny percent of total CO2 which is tiny percent of total atmospheric gases; 2) WATER is 95% of total and, to boot, has evidence proving it drives climate. There is only speculation that CO2 boosts that effect in the open system we call “earth.”

        [17:10 – ~17:40 “… if it weren’t for greenhouse gases water vaporgreenhouse gas water vapor…” … “warming should be highest if it’s greenhouse gas CO2 that’s causing it… .”

        Comment: This section about “greenhouse effect” needs to be re-done. Water vapor is the only KNOWN effective “greenhouse gas.” This creates more confusion about the role of CO2 than clarity. Then, CO2 needs to be stated explicitly as the alleged cause, for that is what the AGWers are falsely asserting (to, thus, limit human CO2 emissions and sell more windmills, etc…).

        [18:00 +] John Christy bio – HENRY MANCINI-type MUSIC NEED TO BE REPLACE WITH ROCK. – Nice teaching sequence… however, need to replace “theory” with “[notion] that climate models are expressing… .”

        … With some criticisms, the film was fine from here until about 28:00 when Piers Corbyn starts to talk about his sun-weather predicting. After that, the film’s content quality deteriorates. (See my remarks above under “OVERALL”).

        THEN, film gets back on track with insights about politics, anti-consumerism, then, about ice caps, etc… .

        This comment is getting too long, so I’ll stop.

        If I were actually going to be involved in writing for/producing a “revised version,” I would take the time to keep on going … .

        Hope this was of interest to you, Knute. Your own observations would be just as good or better than mine. Thanks for paying me the compliment of asking. You’re a rare treat.

        Your WUWT pal,

        Janice

        P.S. I used a lot of bold, italic, and strike html code – likely blew some. I hope you can understand what I wrote in spite of any blown html tags.

      • [15:28] Shorten other remarks/narration to INSERT: clip from Leonard Nimoy 1978 video sternly warning of the coming ice age (take the {gap} out to use link): https://www.you { } tube.com/watch?v=vUq0JnaIock

        [15:35-16:35] Calling CO2 a “greenhouse gas” is going to do more to confuse than to enlighten. Just hit the high points: 1) human CO2 is tiny percent of total CO2 which is tiny percent of total atmospheric gases; 2) WATER is 95% of total and, to boot, has evidence proving it drives climate. There is only speculation that CO2 boosts that effect in the open system we call “earth.”

        [17:10 – ~17:40 “… if it weren’t for greenhouse gases water vaporgreenhouse gas water vapor…” … “warming should be highest if it’s greenhouse gas CO2 that’s causing it… .”

        Comment: This section about “greenhouse effect” needs to be re-done. Water vapor is the only KNOWN effective “greenhouse gas.” This creates more confusion about the role of CO2 than clarity. Then, CO2 needs to be stated explicitly as the alleged cause, for that is what the AGWers are falsely asserting (to, thus, limit human CO2 emissions and sell more windmills, etc…).

        [18:00 +] John Christy bio – HENRY MANCINI-type MUSIC NEED TO BE REPLACE WITH ROCK. – Nice teaching sequence… however, need to replace “theory” with “[notion] that climate models are expressing… .”

        … With some criticisms, the film was fine from here until about 28:00 when Piers Corbyn starts to talk about his sun-weather predicting. After that, the film’s content quality deteriorates. (See my remarks above under “OVERALL”).

        THEN, film gets back on track with insights about politics, anti-consumerism, then, about ice caps, etc… .

        This comment is getting too long, so I’ll stop.

        If I were actually going to be involved in writing for/producing a “revised version,” I would take the time to keep on going … .

        Hope this was of interest to you, Knute. Your own observations would be just as good or better than mine. Thanks for paying me the compliment of asking. You’re a rare treat.

        Your WUWT pal,

        Janice

        P.S. I used a lot of bold, italic, and strike html code – likely blew some. I hope you can understand what I wrote in spite of any blown html tags.

      • [15:28] Shorten other remarks/narration to INSERT: clip from Leonard Nimoy 1978 video sternly warning of the coming ice age.

        [15:35-16:35] Calling CO2 a “greenhouse gas” is going to do more to confuse than to enlighten. Just hit the high points: 1) human CO2 is tiny percent of total CO2 which is tiny percent of total atmospheric gases; 2) WATER is 95% of total and, to boot, has evidence proving it drives climate. There is only speculation that CO2 boosts that effect in the open system we call “earth.”

        [17:10 – ~17:40 “… if it weren’t for greenhouse gases water vaporgreenhouse gas water vapor…” … “warming should be highest if it’s greenhouse gas CO2 that’s causing it… .”

        Comment: This section about “greenhouse effect” needs to be re-done. Water vapor is the only KNOWN effective “greenhouse gas.” This creates more confusion about the role of CO2 than clarity. Then, CO2 needs to be stated explicitly as the alleged cause, for that is what the AGWers are falsely asserting (to, thus, limit human CO2 emissions and sell more windmills, etc…).

        [18:00 +] John Christy bio – HENRY MANCINI-type MUSIC NEED TO BE REPLACE WITH ROCK. – Nice teaching sequence… however, need to replace “theory” with “[notion] that climate models are expressing… .”

        … With some criticisms, the film was fine from here until about 28:00 when Piers C0rbyn starts to talk about his sun-weather predicting. After that, the film’s content quality deteriorates. (See my remarks above under “OVERALL”).

        THEN, film gets back on track with insights about politics, anti-consumerism, then, about ice caps, etc… .

        This comment is getting too long, so I’ll stop.

        If I were actually going to be involved in writing for/producing a “revised version,” I would take the time to keep on going … .

        Hope this was of interest to you, Knute. Your own observations would be just as good or better than mine. Thanks for paying me the compliment of asking. You’re a rare treat.

        Your WUWT pal,

        Janice

        P.S. I used a lot of bold, italic, and strike codes – likely blew some. I hope you can understand what I wrote in spite of any blown tags.

      • Wow Janice
        You are a no nonsense do as you say type person.
        I’m honored you took the time to review the piece.
        I bookmarked the review.

        The next big question is do you think the impact of a 15 minute version is worth the effort ?

      • Dear Knute,

        My pleasure (and, thank you (smile, smile)). You are important. Answering you was also a good mental exercise for me (not that my thoughts were deep, just good exercise). So, win-win.

        15 minutes is too short. I do think that a 30 minute video would be worth the effort. Yes, indeed, the shorter the video, the article, the harder it usually is to write. It can, nevertheless, be done!

        Good night from the west coast of the United States,

        Janice

    • What I assume is that Bill doesn’t want me to use fossils if I have them at my ready.
      I’m fine with nuke power. Also fine with solar and wind and fairies blowing gas in the night.
      I am NOT fine with these pompous wealthy egos telling the little people how to live.

    • Correct. He is going to invest in projects that the US federal government will be funding. Why this isn’t apparent to everyone is because no one in the US understands the US monetary system.

  11. Good for him. It’s his own money, and he’s donating it. While I’m a fellow skeptic, cheaper energy would help in tremendous ways. I’d love to have my own set of solar panels. Cost and storage are the two major limiting factors why I don’t.

    If you’re an alarmist, this helps too, as regulations will never make a dent in the supposed CO2 problem. The only way they can get there is through technology breakthroughs.

    • Don’t be naive, he has no intention of spending HIS money for this project , promises mean nothing to a liberal !! ( look at Obama )

      • You’re right, Marcus. If everything at COP21 goes as planned, the US federal government will be funding this. Again, I reiterate, because no one in this country understands how the US federal government monetary system works–and that includes over 95% of the posters here–it is the soi disant 1%that will benefit, courtesy of the UNFCC. Just check out their website. They certainly don’t give a s**t about the remaining %.

      • MRW

        I’m sure you meant 97%, not 95%.

        http://newsroom.unfccc.int/financial-flows/

        Nice site. Follow the money, esp money that requires a ROR.

        Relatively new opinion for me … there really is SO much money tied up in green energy that it’s becoming too big to fail. IF the plug is pulled too quickly, if at all, a similar failure to the propped up mortgage industry will occur. It’s rather eery. I track RYDEX funds and see the same overall money flow out market signals I saw in the internet and mortgage bubbles. Crashes don’t occur when everyone expects them. Anecdotally, my institutional house contacts tell me that they are chomping at the bit looking for new green investments and at the same time that are accumulating hedge by buying coal and overleveraged oil.

        “Speaking on the eve of the Paris climate conference, the Fund’s Executive Director Héla Cheikhrouhou stated: “This publication will give our partners helpful guidance on the kinds of projects the Fund is seeking. The Fund’s mandate is ambitious, so we need to make sure that each of GCF’s investments really count. The Fund is targeting innovative, paradigm-shifting projects that will help drive the transition towards low-emission, climate-resilient development,” she said.”

        All the above being said, climate change is bull. Investors know it. They will however go along for the ride as long as the getting is good. Power brokers for the Dems see it as a way to bolster their voting core. Power brokers for the GOP don’t want to alienate any possibility of carving off Dem voters, so they play the uncommitted date.

        Wicked web.
        The science is dumb.
        The politics makes sense if you are into power.
        I wonder how long the economic charade will continue.

  12. Testing: am I on m0deration?? (tried THREE times to post same post and no “bad” words!)
    [Nothing in the queue. .mod]

    • Dear Janice, if any Mod tried to sensor you there would be a revolt on WUWT !!!

      (Or even if they tried to censor her… -mod)

      • Thanks, Mark (and your two cats, heh).

        Lol, if anyone used a sensor on me it would likely read: {{{ZANY ALERT!}}

        And, hey, Marcus, I didn’t even note the “sensor” thing — my brain just converted it instantly into the right meaning and I was “blind” to the misspelling (and no beer at all!! just my wonderful brain, oh, I like me!!! lolololo, well, no, NOT lololol — I am serious!).

        #(:))

  13. If anyone here thinks Bill will not require federal money, or Obama jumps on board with fed grants, I got a bridge to sell you.

  14. Here’s a suggestion for Mr Gates. Pick 10,000 private homes owned by average people, fit them with solar panels and all the required equipment to run off the grid. Follow the progress of how that works. If it is a good thing you would have proof to invest in that as a business. If it turns out badly you have proof that it is a fool’s errand.

  15. This snake oil salesman is at it again. He wants to force us to buy only what he’s heavily invested in – despite the fact that renewables do not work for the rest of us and aren’t even necessary since our earth contains all the natural energy we need until the end of time – coal, gas, oil is OURS. We don’t want no stinking substitutes. Let THEM eat cake. They can afford to. But the irony is that he uses more gasoline and oil than all of the poor people in America put together. I’m so sick of this scam and insulted that they think we’re that stupid.

  16. We need a non-fossil oil source to substitute for fossil fuels. I have identified just such a source.
    Harvest the Great Cetaceans
    It’s Environmentally Sound
    It’s Ecologically Responsible
    It’s Gaia Friendly
    And most importantly, It’s Sustainable

    What could go wrong?

  17. India is playing the victim card skilfully at COP21. From this article from the Independent:

    Piyush Goyal: Minister for power, coal, new and renewable energy, India

    “As a developing nation we would expect the Paris climate agreement to be in accordance with the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and equity. Developed countries should undertake larger emission cuts and provide adequate finance and technology to help developing nations fight climate change. The principle of ‘Polluter Pays’ must be respected during the climate change talks.”

    Now let’s look at India’s record. In 1973 India produced 6.3 million tonnes of steel and I don’t have a figure for aluminum. In 1973 the US produced 115 million metric tonnes of steel and 5 million tonnes of aluminum, or 23% and 42% respectively of world totals (figures for USSR and PRC for that year are not available or not reliable).

    Fast forward to 2013 and India produced 87.3 million tonnes of steel and 1.7 million tonnes of aluminum while the US produced 88.2 million tonnes of steel and 4.9 million tonnes of aluminum [aluminum figures are for N, America, including Canada. In 2013 Canada produced more than the US]. In other words, US steel production has gone down by 23% while India’s has risen by 1,385% in that period. US aluminum production has stayed flat (actually dropped, while Canada’s has risen by about the same amount) while India’s rose from negligible to about one-third that of the US and Canada. During the entire era of pending climate doom major carbon-emitting industries have largely moved out of the US and into China and India.

    Of the roughly 1,200 new coal-fired power plants current planned, nearly 75% are in India and China with 455 planned for India and 363 for China. See here.

    Getting back to Mr. Goyal’s statement above, to paraphrase the great Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride:

    You keep using that word “polluter”, but somehow I don’t think it means what you think it means.

    [Fast forward to 2103?? Chgd to 2013. Pls advise if that’s not right. mod]

    • Nice, informative, post at 3:58pm, Mr. Watt (and I think you’ve been promoted to a 9 by now :) )

      re: “India is playing the victim card skillfully … .” {with sarcasm ON}

      Incontheevable!

  18. Maybe he should have his goons at Microsoft force people to use renewables like they’re trying to force people to use Windows 10. And from my experience, they both “work” comparably.

  19. Must be nice to have a spare billion to pee up against the wall.

    Is there any evidence that windmills can be made more efficient? I thought the physics of those was well understood and there are no more large gains to be made. They have all sorts of downsides like killing birds too.

    Solar panels? Make them cheaper maybe. Still no power at night.

    Storage? There are lots of incentives for better energy storage besides renewable energy projects. Funny how this isn’t going so well since the lithium revolution. Zinc – air or aluminium – air may help but recharging and cost are problems.

    We could just build nukes instead. Problem solved, Bill. This will probably happen after some large energy disasters with deaths in the millions and collapsed economies. Wouldn’t want to be a greenie or anti nuke kook then.

    • I think battery technology has just about maxed out. How do you store this energy when the sun don’t shine, and when the wind don’t blow? (sometimes for days at a time). Batteries to power a large (or even a small) city.

  20. I didn’t take my first logic course until college, since Gates is a college dropout, he may have never taken logic, it isn’t very clear to me that Window was ever logically designed.

  21. Even supposing man-made CO2 emissions are creating some temperature increases, we shouldn’t be wasting the £billions and shouldn’t have wasted the £billions the world on WT’s and SP’s and even nuclear reactors through subsidies, tax breaks and guaranteed minimum prices, or even any donations to the Developing World. There’s plenty of gas available for a massive short term programme of Gas Turbines used solely as base load units for 15- 20 years with a follow-on run down of existing Wind Turbines and the larger Solar Panel schemes. Compared to the world’s massive on-going and planned Coal Fired PS capacity, this would save us 60% of CO2 per unit power generated.

    In a proper open free competitive market any meaningful and honest investment analysis of the total costs – including even a CO2 per unit power generated tax based say on Stern’s costings of remedying the future consequences of CAGW, would show that all renewable power systems currently available are grossly unreliable, inefficient and massively too expensive. The world, and particularly the Developing World, cannot afford or tolerate this! This is particularly so when their necessary ancillary works needed such as equal capacity standby’s for no/low wind and/or sun conditions and massive additional transmission works systems are allowed for. Nuclear is equally problematic and unacceptable, particularly given the project implementation periods needed, the potential risks of nuclear materials getting into terrorists hands and when toxic waste management and future de-commissioning costs are included. In such a proper market no one would ever have considered these green options and market forces alone would have produced the drive for innovation which could have created a new renewable energy system that only now Gates et al are seeming to be attempting.

    Oak Ridge USA has provided us with a renewable energy system which could fill the global energy gap – their successful Pilot Plant Thorium Reactor Plant that was run in the mid 1970’s. Calder Hall Uranium fuelled Nuclear Power Plant in the UK – the world’s first commercial Nuclear Power Station, was developed and commissioned within 13-14 years of dropping the first atom bomb, and the first successful pilot nuclear pile was constructed only a year or two before that in the USA, I believe by Fermi in Chicago. It follows then that given the will and a small proportion of current green subsidies money we should be able to get the much simpler, safer and quicker Thorium Plants up and running in some quantity well before gas runs out.

    China, and I think India, already have major Thorium R&D programmes, and I think using Oak Ridge data. The West has been de-motivated through subsidies of various forms and crony capitalism which have distorted and even destroyed the free market mechanisms we desperately need. The normal self-interest, self-survival commercial pressures on the West’s major companies have largely been avoided as unnecessary; they can survive and even succeed regardless!

    The above strategy would also have made some impact in driving the Greens into practical and honest debates and saved the world £billions. We never needed to, and we have never been able to, afford the IPCC and should have been spared their dishonest and hysterical alarmist proclamations and diktats! Typically, like most other UN actions and programmes, the UN has failed the world!

  22. Meanwhile real entrepreneurs are heading in an entirely different direction.

    Lead, Bill. Stop fad following for once in your life. With all that cash on hand, why not call the guy and see how you can contribute to the only credible solution out there instead of courting cockamamie nonsense going nowhere? No more gee-whizz populist mind-set crap, the world needs to move on – space and cancer beckon. Give up the habit of a lifetime – innovate don’t imitate.

    • But according to the the Sydney Morning Herald …

      If successful, the Paris meeting could spur a fundamental shift away from the use of oil, coal and gas to the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. But that transition would require major breakthroughs in technology and huge infrastructure investments by governments and industry.

      Another perspective featuring, among other things, the man himself. Compelling viewing for all useful idiots kicking up a fuss in Paris. Plus Ms Merkel and her resident nutter. Maybe Bill could have a word :-)

      • AJB

        Great video.
        Poor woman is a nut.
        Great primer on T reactors.

        The scuttlebutt I hear is that molten salt reactors are the new “old” thing, but it can’t gain traction because of the radphobia. China is making them. The West is behind.

        Bizarre times.
        Shake up the world over a carbon ruse.
        Unintentionally empower radical agendas.
        Waste at least a trillion on dead end alternatives.
        End up with T reactors.

        Reminds me of a scrum with multiple teams.

      • Is she a liar or an ignoramus? Anyone who can pack that amount of misinformation into a sentence has to be one or the other.

  23. He could be looking into liquid metal battery storage.
    There are a lot of areas in outback Australia that would do well with solar and good storage.
    I once worked as a jackaroo on a station with Southern Cross windmills to pump subartesian water for the cattle troughs and diesel generator,kerosene fridges, oil and wood fires and ovens.
    The lead acid batteries in parallel and series for 32 V lighting were all corroded and the owner could not afford to replace them.
    For Gates a billion dollars is a small sum.
    He must though have some new ideas on the table.

  24. Bill Gates just doesn’t get it.

    Moving information from place to place is completely different from moving a car from place to place.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  25. You know, the man is obviously senile but I’m not by any means against pushing more money into R&D of so-called ‘renewables’…I’m just against deploying whatever primitive tech we have right now at a mass scale.

    It’s sheer waste!

    I mean, the day that a solar panel lasts as long as 4th gen. nuclear reactors will I ever show my support. Until then, limit this tech to small villages and others living off grid.

  26. Water is the best renewable resource we have. Are you familiar with Mt. Elbert power plant?
    The power generated at Mt. Elbert derives from water originally pumped from Twin Lakes, which acts as the Mt. Elbert afterbay, and also from supplemental water delivered from Turquoise Lake to the forebay. The generators are designed to operate as a 170,000-horsepower electric motor which drives the turbines in reverse, and pumps water back up to refill the forebay. This pumping mode normally will be used during the very early morning hours, when power demands are low and surplus low-rate power is received from other generating stations. This pump-back storage principle is advantageous since the generating units can be started quickly and adjustments of power output can be made rapidly to respond to varying patterns of daily and seasonal power demands.
    http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Powerplant.jsp?fac_Name=Mount+Elbert+Powerplant

    Water power is not “green”.

    • The limiting factor with pump storage is energy density.

      For example, consider the amount of water you need to keep a 2Kw household heater running for 24 hours.

      Assume a 30m change in elevation (90f).

      The energy you need is:

      2Kw x 24 hours
      = 2000w x 86400 seconds
      = 172800000 joules

      Energy = Force x Distance = Acceleration x Mass x Distance
      172800000 = 9.8m/s^2 x Mass x 30m
      Mass = 172800000 / (9.8 x 30) = 587,755Kg of water.

      Almost 600 tons of water, to power a single 2Kw household electric heater. And this is without considering transmission losses and turbine efficiency.

      This is why reservoirs for hydro schemes are so enormous, and why pump storage is usually only good for a few hours grid stabilisation.

      • My micro hydro turbine dream of living remotely in the woods is shattered. You HAD to go and calculate that! That fantasy has been sustaining me for 15 years at least. Now I have nothing.

      • But the average larger consumer uses only 1KWHr so you only need 300 tonnes per day. Then if you speed it up, increase the gravity component you get a fourfold increasing so you only need a quarter of that.

      • “This is why reservoirs for hydro schemes are so enormous, and why pump storage is usually only good for a few hours grid stabilisation.”

        That’s the plan, to use it during peak demand.

    • There’s also thermal…Tapping directly into the the Earth’s core which generates a whopping 47 terawatts. Which is enough to eliminate all energy dependences until our population reaches beyond 23 billion.

      We have some pretty insanely huge machinery mining resources all across the globe yet none of it is being directed towards thermal:

    • In fact, hydro power is responsible for several orders of magnitude more deaths than nuclear power. Take the Banqiao Dam disaster, for example:

      Casualties

      According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, in the province, approximately 26,000 people died[14] from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

      Or the Sichuan earthquake, perhaps:

      BEIJING — Nearly nine months after a devastating earthquake in Sichuan Province, China, left 80,000 people dead or missing, a growing number of American and Chinese scientists are suggesting that the calamity was triggered by a four-year-old reservoir built close to the earthquake’s geological fault line.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06quake.html?pagewanted=all

    • @Eric

      I’m a computer nerd (not a scientist) and have built many exotic rigs (custom computers) over the years and so I’ve learned a thing or two during my youth on which methods work best (and which make your system go up in flames…which got me in trouble a few times) when overclocking. If the Earth’s core were a CPU, I would drill into it at strategic points to create conduits for transferring the heat out as quickly as possible (hydro, copper shafts, gases…or perhaps a combination of various technologies to get the heat out) while keeping the core as cool as can be. That’s just from an overclocker’s pov, but I do believe the same rules could be applied to the Earth’s core?

      All in all, it’s just transferring heat as quick as you can without burning up…

  27. I think the future energy will be LENR (aka cold fusion).

    A recent interview with Fulvio Fabiani who is in charge of Rossi’s test reactor was interviewed recently here:

    http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/

    I am betting that LENR technology is the “best” bet we have for a new energy.

    Also,Brillouin made this press announcement:

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/11/18/congress-views-brillouin-energys-lenr-wet-and-hht-boiler-reactor-systems-for-generating-thermal-energy-press-release/

    (at little bit “wishy that it really was a presentation to congress).

    So the state of LENR is very much like the PC computer industry in early 1970’s. Many are racing to commercialize this technology – it just a matter of time.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  28. Bill’s enthusiasm is just another example of his public masturbation frolics to gain attention from the masses. After all. His “contribution” is a “pledge” not a bank check (legal tender)!

    Ha ha

  29. I would applaud more if the US tax system didn’t give capital gains credits and perhaps other relief on the market value of shares passed over to a trust which gives the settlor such a position as Gates has. He gets the glory the taxpayer loses the tax base. Tax farming is a blight on the community and the multinationals are now extending it world wide.

  30. I am a prolific inventor, not because I am particularly creative, but it comes as a necessary part of product development.

    In my view, this initiative is going to hurt a lot of people. Now some people will get very rich. ( friends of Bill…) The general public will be left holding the bag. How? The addiction to state and federal matching funds. You know, private equity =25% which leverages, state money at 25% and fed money at 25% and dumb money, ISOs, and in-kind effort at 25%.

    In my opinion, the 1 billion dollar fund will be a loss for Bill ( except it is a tax write down) his friends will take the money and splurge with it, the taxpayers will lose 2 billion at least in matching funds, and there will be a whole lot of disappointed true believers and speculators who get the shaft when the enterprises fail.

    The green fund is a temporary market, unto itself.

    Normal entrepreneurs look at real markets, detect gaps and opportunities, devise a solution tied to a product, create IP, trade marks, satisfy the various regulators, sell the product, IPO, or exit, or turn the crank until the market dries up.

    There is nothing worse than technology looking for a market. Shoe-horning tech into a green market is a recipe for disaster.

    Now all this is good for me because it does reduce my competition. However, Buffet and Gates’ whims do influence other venture funds. Most people think green tech is a farce.

    BTW I am looking for a market opportunity for my next venture. If the opportunity is great, money is easy. Seriously.

  31. Green technology is neither green nor renewable. Perhaps he is referring to the drivers, which are nominally green and effectively renewable. Without prodigious intensive care through subsidies, indoctrination, and obfuscation, “green” technology would have ended as a miscarriage or stillbirth.

    Restating his proposal in a scientific frame of reference would improve his credibility and the viability of “green” technology. Deny your marketing schemes. Deny your prophets… or profits.

    • Well, ‘renewable’ would imply that the technologies are as self-sustaining as the core of our Sun…which they’re not.

  32. Money down a rat-hole. Unreliables are a waste of capital. There are a lot better things to do with that money.

  33. I sometimes get the feeling that some of the world’s richest men support causes they know are total BS just for good public relations.

    And it works. The radical left never give guys like this any guff, even though he’s the 1% of the 1% of the 1% of the 1%…

    • Please note that these rich a powerful men are usually members of the Bilderberg Society. Any clues as to why they spruic common core, global warming, renewables, and all the loony left ideas?

  34. I propose this as a new green tech.. Lets get some money!

    1) Engineer a green fog of air-buoyant algae cells. They use light and atmospheric H2O to eat CO2 and expire H2 into a huge vacuole which makes them float in the atmosphere. They excrete starch. The reproduce by budding and live long enough to make starch100X their body weight.
    2) Seed the atmosphere and create a planetary green fog 10 miles thick.
    3) License the algae a la Monsanto with patented genetic coding to every country and make out like a bandit in CO2 credit cash.

    Any takers?

    • To Paul Westhaver: Back in the early 1990s I was peripherally involved with a research project originating at Bristol university running a small Perkins diesel engine on dried chlorella algae that was to be produced in devices known as biocoils, which grew the chlorella fron the CO2 and NOx produced by the engine, truly a machine that consumed its own waste. The prototype ran satisfactorily and made an appearance as “Syd the Symbiotic Diesel” on the BBC science programme “Tomorrow’s World”. I still have some of the literature concerning this somewhere.

      Now, thereby hangs a tale!

      • catweasle666
        hmmm

        cat… sly sleazy mean creature
        weasle…pretty straight forward
        666… oh come on….

        Now how can I do a venture with a sly weaselly devil?

        They aerosol-ed algae as fuel?

      • “They aerosol-ed algae as fuel?”

        Yes, using compressed air injection as is used on some heavy fuel marine engines such as the Doxford.

        I had some discussions with the leader of the project involving a much simpler system using a gas turbine built from a turbocharger, similar to this project.

        http://www.rcdon.com/html/gr-6_turboshaft_engine_project.html

        Amongst other things, this would remove the necessity to dry the algae in order to atomise it, gas turbines don’t mind a bit of water.

        Unfortunately the BBC ‘Tomorrow’s World’ episode doesn’t appear to be in their archive, it only seems to go up the early 1980s, and the one in question would have been in around 1990 or 1991, at a guess.

  35. “In a blog post in July, Mr Gates wrote: “If we create the right environment for innovation, we can accelerate the pace of progress, develop and deploy new solutions, and eventually provide everyone with reliable, affordable energy that is carbon free. We can avoid the worst climate-change scenarios while also lifting people out of poverty, growing food more efficiently and saving lives by reducing pollution.””

    Gates says he wants to invest in research and development of “carbon free” electrical energy generation. He says he will invest one billion dollars of his own money.

    Lots of comments criticizing him for this stance. Why? Seriously, why? Not only is it his money to do with as he pleases but I agree that research, development, and innovation are just what is needed. Private enterprise can often do things which governments can’t or won’t do ….. (some examples are pharmaceuticals, computers, and rockets. There are many others.).

    Educate me if I’ve missed something. Otherwise I suggest a rethinking of the criticisms.
    .

    • First of all, AGW has never been elevated to theory…We have yet to observe it. Second, none of the ‘climate models’ have been verified since that would take at least a thousand years to actually verify if i’m not mistaken…

      It’s a sham in other words.

  36. I disagree with all this negativity.

    Observations:
    It’s Bill’s money and he is an intelligent man. He has correctly discovered that current green energy technologies are not green and produce little useful energy. (We wrote that in 2002.)
    Technology is always improving and will find a way, in time, to make new forms of cheap abundant reliable energy, which is the lifeblood of modern society.

    Objective:
    The simple objective should be an energy generation system that competes with fossil fuels on a total cost basis – that is, it costs about 4-5 cent/KWh all-in, including OpEx and CapEx, long term and produces reliable abundant energy.

    Secondary Objective:
    To get off the grid, because grid costs can triple the total cost of household electrical power.

    These are current costs here in southern Alberta.

    In comparison, grid-connected wind power costs about 20 cents/KWh (4-5 times fossil fuels) and solar even more. Intermittence and lack of a “super-battery” makes grid-connected “green” power even more expensive and often utterly worthless – a liability instead of an asset, since it can destabilize the grid.

    The big question is this – why does anyone demonize CO2 and fossil fuels? Atmospheric CO2 is the basis of all carbon-based life on Earth and atmospheric CO2 is not dangerously high, it is alarmingly low. That is the harsh reality that so many people are ignoring.

    One of the next Ice Ages will be an extinction event for all carbon-based life on Earth, as terrestrial photosynthesis shuts down when atmospheric CO2 drops below about 150ppm. This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper.

    More CO2 in the atmosphere is good – a lot more CO2 is even better. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are utter nonsense.

    All carbon -based life on Earth relies entirely on abundant atmospheric CO2.

    Regards to all, Allan

    .

    • If the problem were CO2…you ‘may’ have had a point….The problem is our geopolitical environmen and its desecration of the sciences. It’s not about the health or continuance of humanity, it’s about obtaining complete and utter control over the masses. Just like, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, and all of those mass manipulative dipshits.

      • Hey dog – easy now, down boy! :-)

        You may have a valid point but all I can do to oppose these warmist “manipulative dipshits” and their “desecration of the sciences” is to point out that they have the science completely wrong, I believe that over time the public is gradually accepting our honest position, starting with the most intelligent people and then moving down the food chain.

        I am much more gentle than you in my terminology, respectfully referring to these alleged scientists and their supporters as “scoundrels and imbeciles”. One does not want to overstate one’s case or be too pejorative.

        Here are some previous comments on CO2 starvation on Earth:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/14/matt-ridley-fossil-fuels-will-save-the-world-really/#comment-1883937

        I have no time to run the numbers, but I do not think we have millions of years left for carbon-based life on Earth.

        Over time, CO2 is ~permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks, so concentrations get lower and lower. During an Ice Age, atmospheric CO2 concentrations drop to very low levels due to solution in cold oceans, etc. Below a certain atmospheric CO2 concentration, terrestrial photosynthesis slows and shuts down. I suppose life in the oceans can carry on but terrestrial life is done.

        So when will this happen – in the next Ice Age a few thousands years hence, or the one after that ~100,000 years later, or the one after that?

        In geologic time, we are talking the blink of an eye before terrestrial life on Earth ceases due to CO2 starvation.
        ________________________

        I wrote the following on this subject, posted on Icecap.us:

        On Climate Science, Global Cooling, Ice Ages and Geo-Engineering:
        [excerpt]

        Furthermore, increased atmospheric CO2 from whatever cause is clearly beneficial to humanity and the environment. Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2 deficient and continues to decline over geological time. In fact, atmospheric CO2 at this time is too low, dangerously low for the longer term survival of carbon-based life on Earth.

        More Ice Ages, which are inevitable unless geo-engineering can prevent them, will cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations on Earth to decline to the point where photosynthesis slows and ultimately ceases. This would devastate the descendants of most current [terrestrial] life on Earth, which is carbon-based and to which, I suggest, we have a significant moral obligation.

        Atmospheric and dissolved oceanic CO2 is the feedstock for all carbon-based life on Earth. More CO2 is better. Within reasonable limits, a lot more CO2 is a lot better.

        As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on Earth, I feel it is my duty to advocate on our behalf. To be clear, I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms, but I really do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. They could be very nice. :-)

        Best, Allan

  37. Why are we still splashing other people’s cash around, crashing about in the dark, searching blindly for an alternative source of cheap renewable energy – whilst other regions of the world are cracking ahead with deployment of large scale hydropower?
    Hundred’s of billions spent on unproven technology, phony ideas and unending hype and we still have no source of renewable energy that comes near to competing with hydro. Nothing comes close. And the falling price of solar PV has nothing to do with subsidies. The trend in costs/watt predate the age of subsidies.
    But as is often pointed out – even if solar PV was free, it doesn’t work for half the day.
    So where is the result of the hundreds of billions in investment in innovation and subsidies?
    Can anyone name one single innovative technology that has come close to competitive performance in the market? Has ALL the money gifted to innovators been completely wasted?
    We’ve effectively been dishing out money to pay innovators to discover an alternative to hydro.
    Something that will do what hydro does – provide dispatchable cheap renewable energy.
    All that money seems to have been burned. Because they have totally failed.
    Meanwhile, the Chinese are cracking on with massive deployment of hydro – both at home and abroad.
    How much more money are we going to waste searching for something that has already been found?
    Another billion will do nothing. Hundred’s of billions have already been tipped down the toilet and I can not see one useful innovation that this extravagance has bought.
    http://atomicinsights.com/the-three-gorges-dam-why-china-is-run-by-engineers/

  38. Looks like Gates has taken advice from the Rockefeller play book by donating to a foundation instead of paying taxes.
    “Although Bill Gates might try to say that the Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really “donating” anything, but instead of paying taxes to the state coffers, he invests his profits in where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions. On the contrary, their “donations” finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world. ” http://wariscrime.com/new/blackwater-monsanto-bill-gates-war-machines/
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/03/05/wikileaks-exposes-unholy-alliance-of-us-government-bill-gates-and-monsanto.aspx

  39. What is the old saying, Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime…..Never mind. Is it the 30th yet, still waiting for my government check to come in.

  40. Bill Gates is now talking on green energy. This is to safeguard their profit interests, like all other MNCs such as Chemical input technologies, Genetically Modified seed technology, nuclear power technology, etc a bad policy.

    To protect their income they are dumping everything on global warming – a safe goat.

    To meet the greed of few MNCs, these technologies are destroying the natural resources and spreading pollution [air, water, soil & food]. This in turn is creating new diseases. To cure them bulk drug manufacturing industry polluting the environment and again creating more diseases. This is a vicious circle. So, we created pollution and that is leading to more energy consumption.

    The IT sector is high energy intensive activity and also it is the area that is generating huge quantities of E-waste with every other day introducing new technologies by replacing the old – a high profit driven.

    All these are concentrated to urban areas and urban areas increasing the energy consumption non-linearly going up and up over rural areas. Let us ask Gates, has he got any plan to bring down energy consumption in IT?

    We are not identifying the problem but to safeguard the few NMCs interests UN agencies are working day and night spending billions and trillions of public money and creating health hazards. UN must stop this.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • Rrrrrobert of Ottawa — Please pardon my calling you “Rrrrobert of Calgary” above. Will try to remember.

      • “Janice Moore

        November 30, 2015 at 9:43 am”

        What’s the distance between the two? Sounds like it might be a round trip to the pub in Australia.

  41. 29 Nov: AP: CLIMATE COUNTDOWN: Gates sparks multinational plan to spend billions on clean energy tech
    By SYLVIE CORBET, KARL RITTER and SETH BORENSTEIN
    Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, President Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande will launch a joint initiative on Monday after a diplomatic push in recent weeks ahead of the Paris climate conference.
    A key goal is to bring down the cost of cleaner energy. At least 19 governments and 28 leading world investors, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, billionaires George Soros and Saudi Prince Alaweed bin Talal, and Jack Ma of China’s Alibaba, have signed on so far…
    The business leaders are making their pledges conditional on governments also pledging more money, said a former U.S. government official who is familiar with the plan…
    It also remains to be seen how much of this money will involve repackaging old promises, and whether the future funding will be approved in U.S. or other budgets…
    http://www.startribune.com/calm-before-the-storm-as-paris-prepares-for-climate-summit/357837541/

    29 Nov: Motley Fool: Travis Hoium: Why Growth Is the Enemy of Solar Stocks
    It may sound strange, but growth has led to the downfall of most stocks in the solar industry.
    But time after time, the companies that grow the fastest have been abysmal investments. Suntech Power, LDK Solar, Yingli Green Energy, and SunEdison are just a few of the former industry highfliers that have gone from darling status to bankruptcy, or that teeter on the verge of financial insolvency. They also provide a similar story of growth, debt, and massive losses that couldn’t be overcome by even more growth…READ ALL
    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/11/29/why-growth-is-the-enemy-of-solar-stocks.aspx

  42. Bill Gates made his billions by luck. Now that he’s got them he has no idea what they are good for and takes witch doctors’ advice on renewables and other junk like that.

    • Bill Gates made his billions by being a scoundrel- standard industry model. Now he want to break the laws of physics- the only way that solar and wind will ever be economically viable.

  43. Mr. Gates has that just fabulous estate to use as proof of concept. Let him load it up with green projects and flip the switch to the power company.

  44. I object:
    “Developing countries like India, the third-largest fossil-fuel polluter,”

    I don’t consider CO2 a pollutant in spite of the EPA. so this is a mid-statement from the get go. When did you stop beating your wife?

  45. A number of things come to mind.

    1. Bill can afford it; $1 billion is pocket change to him.
    2. You can be sure he will be sucking in the subsidies; he is a rent seeker.
    3. He will not be affected by the policies he advocates.
    4. No windmills or solar farms will be built within view of his estates.
    5. He will feel good about himself for having done his bit to “save the planet”.

  46. “If we create the right environment for innovation, we can accelerate the pace of progress, develop and deploy new solutions, and eventually provide everyone with reliable, affordable energy that is carbon free …”.
    =========================
    In other words world leaders will be gathering in Paris shortly to commit their hapless constituents to an ever increasing proportion of energy supply which is unreliable and unaffordable.

  47. Why is it that the very wealthy feel comfortable speaking for the rest of us when it comes to the world we deserve? For all his billions he hasn’t enough money to pop a blister on the climate’s butt. The shortages and expenses of a green economy we will face will not be felt by him. I’d have a whole lot more respect for him if he spent his money keeping the furnaces going in the the homes of elderly Brits this winter. That will never happen because he really doesn’t care about solving problems, and his views on population control belie his ambitions. http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html

    He makes AlGore look like a saint.

    • Elitists like Bill and Obama make rules that everybody else must obey !! They are Elitists, so they think they should be immune from their own stupid ideas !

  48. “I am NOT fine with these pompous wealthy egos telling the little people how to live.”

    Exactly how I feel. Besides being a nuclear safety expert I am renewable energy expert in Washington state. When we were done building new reactors, I thought I would become an environmental engineer. Two local environmental problems are feedlot manure and semi-arid forest health. Well established engineered solutions of anaerobic digestion and biomass gasification fix the environmental and produce electricity while reducing ghg emissions.

    What did I learn? Like nuclear power, there are many proven engineered solutions. However, wind and solar are the politically correct solutions.

  49. I’m sure someone MUST have already said it.

    A FOOL and his money.. is soon parted.

    Did you know that Dick Smith stores don’t sell ONE SINGLE Australian made product !!

    I actually went into a store and asked a few months ago. !!

    • Tricky Dicky sold out to Woolies in 1982 for $22 million. In Sept 2012, Woolies sold DSE to Anchorage Capital Partners for $94 Million. Dick Smith is also AGW/ACC follower.

  50. At least Bill Gates recognizes that wind and solar are unlikely to be the answer. He also apparently knows about LENR having visited a prominent researcher in Italy.

    It looks like LENR (cold fusion) shows the most promise. Industrial Heat LLC has built a commercial 1 MW thermal LENR plant that has been running well at a customer’s site for nine months as part of a year trial. The results will be published in Feb/Mar 2016. .It is operating well according to Norway’s largest newspaper Aftenposten and other independent sources.

    LENR provides very cheap, safe, pollution free energy, with no radiation and no waste products. Contrary to what you read in the press even Fleischmann and Pon’s original 1989 experiment has been replicated. It required the Palladium to be more highly loaded with Deuterium than the early replicators did. Group-think conventional science and the DOE tried to commit infanticide of the field and should be held accountable. See http://www.lenrproof.com for a basic introduction.

    • It looks like LENR (cold fusion) shows the most promise.

      Of course. It’s designed specifically to look just like that.

      Doesn’t work, of course,. But it sure looks good to gullible idiots.

    • Bill Gates does not make significant amounts of electricity. Same with LENR.

      There is unfinished reactors in Washington State. While finishing them would make Bill very unpopular in his Seattle backyard 200 miles away. He would be a hero in Richland, Washington where they love nuclear, wind, and hydro.

      I can provide Bill a list of good projects in his backyard. It is not a secret and they have been waiting for funding for 20 years. Bill is only interested producing press releases that impress the ignorant.

  51. Green/Leftism is not about achieving tangible results. It is all about having good intentions.

    Anyone got road to a hell, needing paving?

  52. Strewth! Don’t get Gates to fund it. It’ll be a master b@lls up just like Window$. To fix windows…use the car analogy. Stop the car (Well it would have anyway). Open the windows, open the doors, get out, walk around the car, get in, close the doors, close the windows and start the engine. Everything runs fine, until the next GPF/BSOD.

  53. Gates is in this for easy money! Like Branson, like Gore, like the British Royal family, like all the rest on the receiving side of the green “revolution”.

  54. If we spent the $billion on thorium molten salt reactors we could have a safe clean supply of electricity …forever…or near as damn it.

    • Hari who is we? Bad news, you will be dead long before we run out of anything. Also do you have any experience with dirty power plants.

      Frankly, you sound like those silly California school children taking about dirty coal plants. They have never seen one. They learned it from even sillier California school teachers who also have never a dirty coal plant.

      I have seen dirty coal plants. Downtown where I grew up. People heated houses with coal too. It snowed grey.

      I have not seen any lately. The coal industry either closed or installed pollution controls. We stopped heating houses with coal. The air is clean.

      Problem solved.

  55. I note that Mr. Bill vain not spent so much money, because until now in vain spent several thousand times more than what it offers. That climate change research that takes place in the current form, is just a bottomless pit, whose mouth insatiable politics, not science.
    If you can get to that gentleman was, I will suggest to him how this problem can be solved quickly simpler, fairer and more natural than it is now taking place.
    With this billion dollars, which he offers for a new technology, he and I will investigate and prove all the true causes of climate change. Now of that money I’m not looking for anything, except my cost to participate, and when it is proved that what I offer, exactly, then certainly that I and BIL become rich by virtue of mankind to return to the path of natural law. We’ll ask us to pay for those who can annually futile and unknowingly lose hundreds of billions of dollars.
    TAKE THIS IS STRICTLY SERIOUSLY !!!
    NIKOLA

  56. I feel sorry for the people and holy life on the planet, which Vissi believe some models, the wrong mathematical predictions and political manipulation, but what we allow laws of nature and our consciousness, which is related through intuition with all causes of phenomena in the universe.
    Climate change on the planet, not just on our own, depend exclusively, from the mutual influence of the planets and the sun. When you take science as the basis of research, everything will go right through.
    I again, as anonymous in science, I must warn you, at least those who use their consciousness and intuition, not politicized erroneous theory that the human factor is so small compared to the relationship of the planet, as well as a man smaller than planets.
    In previous worthless and false works of all kinds, spent so much money, in vain, that it may resolve the matter in the right way, and that throughout the planet could equalize the impact of these changes.
    My proof, that no one so far refused to publish it, without my payment is:
    Four influential planets causes the sunspot cycle, every 11.2 years .This are only indicators of climate change on the planet, while the rest cycles and other planets in relation to the sun, are much longer and more intense and causing changes inside the planet that making changes in the behavior of all the planets.
    I draw the attention of all scientists of the impact of that, if you have the will, to this way of thinking is applied and will see that they made a mistake, because it will come to amazing results, which so far has not been the case. NUDIM correspondence: !!!
    Download this in Paris, let them know that all their decisions and agreements have nothing to do with the true causes of phenomena around us and in us.

    • What do you mean by ‘clean’? All power plants in the US are required to demonstrate insignificant environmental impact. I would rather live near the coal plants that supply power to Seattle and Portland than live the the cesspools called green cities.

      Wait I already do.

  57. We can’t all live on cheap, clean Bonneville Power so the middle class will just have to work harder to pay for the elite schemes.

  58. Bill Gates ponies up one billion dollars to advance clean, renewable energy sources for the world.
    The recent nuclear arms treaty with Iran freed up one hundred and fifty billion dollars to a fundamentalist religious government whose stated ideas of the future are in direct opposition to western countries.
    I wonder who is going to get the most bang for their buck here.

  59. There are plenty of alternatives but I doubt Gates will invest in any that don’t support existing corporate powers. His charitable works almost exclusively support multinational corporations.

    Here is a list- http://peswiki.com/index.php/Congress:Top_100_Technologies_–_RD

    I have a close friend who was involved in a company 30 years ago that developed a working engine that could power a car for 50,000 miles on a $20 canister of catalyst. While preparing their IPO big oil came in with an army of lawyers threatening patent infringement. They had to fold.

    I recently witnessed an LED being powered by dark energy which comprises about 70% of the universe.

    https://gust.com/companies/quantum-power

      • Retired Kit P

        November 30, 2015 at 12:10 pm

        “You have a friend who is a con artist.”

        No he is one of the most ethical businessmen you would ever hope to meet. I’ve done deals with him. We gave up on a very lucrative deal because the marketing department was misrepresenting facts. We were going to get the hard science done for them but the marketing guys wanted a quick buck.

        Why did big oil feel the need to enlist an army of lawyers?

    • gyan1 –
      Would you mind helping me out with a minor banking snafu? It seems that this close friend of mine who just recently died had $20,000,000 in an offshore bank account (Nigeria? I can’t recall). His dying wish was that it be transferred to me here in the States. I don’t really want to explain to the government how I suddenly came by $20-million, so here’s what we could do. If you’ll send me your bank account number, I’ll transfer in the money to your account and then forward it to my account. I’d be willing to share $5-million of my good fortune with you if you would be so kind as to help me in this manner. What do you say; are you in?
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      P.S. to Retired Kit P
      Did that look about right or should I have misspelled some of the words?

      • Wait up… that last answer was rather rude and abrupt. Sorry.

        gyan1, the explanation before the introduction is that Magnetic energy is taken directly ex vacua and used to replenish the permanent magnets of the MEG device, which therefore produces a source of energy that, in theory, can be replenished indefinitely from the vacuum.

        But in the summary, I make it as a contradiction to their statement in the introduction that there is “more output than is input by the operator” because they state clearly that the energy in the permanent magnet is replaced by Jv from the vacuum. So there is a source of energy. What I didn’t look at was the amount of energy available and what interferences there may be from other electromagnetic sources. (Will this puppy work while sitting beside your toaster?)

        As near as I can make out (can’t get to the references and I won’t have time to chase them down), the explanation for the current produced by a vacuum is covered by O(3) electrodynamics. Now I won’t attempt to fool anyone by pretending to be familiar with O(3) electrodynamics. It looks interesting, but at this point in my life, I’d rather be fishing than delving into that topic.

        I’m going to hold back on buying an MEG until Ford offers it as options on the F-150.

      • HR

        I like your answer. I have never been wrong about a con artist. One of the interesting thing about victims of scams is that they often are still believers.

        One of the fun things I got to do for the big power company I worked for around 2000 is investigate local renewable technologies. One of the problems with smart inventors is that they do not understand the power industry. It is a business with thin margins and lots of regulations. For all practical purposes, coal is as close as you can get to a free and unlimited resource.

        What the con artist always offers is free and unlimited energy. The goal is not to work to make electricity but to get rich by scamming investors.

  60. Oh, puhleeze! If you’re going to throw stones get your facts right. Bill Gates may be a crony capitalist and I believe could better use his money funding third world micro-entrepreneurs, but he followed up on what Jobs and Woz did with the Apple II using Visicalc and put personal computing in the hands of ordinary people and third party providers. While Jobs went the other way with the MAC, invoking IP protections.
    He did this by tricking IBM into funding MS Dos (as PC Dos), thinking they would have an exclusive money maker.

    As to ‘Free Software’… where? Only if you wrote it. And used command line for everything. I was there.

    The point remains, though. It should NOT in any way be backed up with government funding. Tax Exemptions are NOT government funding.

  61. It works for Bill because of government subsidies. The government guarantees no failure – to its friends, it seems.

  62. Bill Gates was always a quasi-socialist liberal at heart. I am surprised some readers don’t realize that. He got rich the way most liberals get rich, by rigging the system to favor themselves. And his so-called philanthropy is really just a way to boost his already bloated ego, and to give him power to try and influence the world. It is a favorite pastime of every liberal billionaire – create a foundation to get favorable tax status (at the taxpayer’s expense) and then use that foundation as a vehicle to further your own objectives.

Comments are closed.