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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
250 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 29, 2015 3:59 pm

Here is an up and coming prospect for Gates’ Board of Directors…
http://poorrichardsnews.com/13-year-old-suing-north-carolina-because-of-global-warming-loses-lawsuit

Reply to  dbstealey
November 29, 2015 4:12 pm

More are headed … http://ourchildrenstrust.org/
Hansen and his offspring spearheading one in Oregon.

John M
November 29, 2015 4:11 pm

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.

Marcus
Reply to  John M
November 29, 2015 9:52 pm

Windows 10 sucks…period !!!!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Marcus
November 30, 2015 2:37 am

Yes it does. I am going back to Windows 7 as soon as I can find a way to backup my stuff as I was able to do before.

Reply to  Marcus
November 30, 2015 5:14 am

Well, WINDOWS is renewable but not vice versa.

November 29, 2015 4:14 pm

I thought this Gates guy was supposed to be “smart”. I guess he doesn’t have a BS meter in regards to CO2/global warming/climate change/statistics, etc.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 29, 2015 4:29 pm

He doesn’t have BS in anything he doesn’t have a BA in anything he’s a dropout.

Mike Borgelt
November 29, 2015 4:15 pm

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.

Reply to  Mike Borgelt
November 29, 2015 4:47 pm

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.

November 29, 2015 4:24 pm

Normal people rent a hall for their wedding; this guy rented an island and flew there in a helicopter.

November 29, 2015 4:27 pm

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.

cassandra
November 29, 2015 4:28 pm

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!

AJB
November 29, 2015 4:29 pm

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.

AJB
Reply to  AJB
November 29, 2015 7:01 pm

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 🙂

Marcus
Reply to  AJB
November 29, 2015 10:03 pm

OMG…she’s certifiably insane !!!

Reply to  Marcus
November 29, 2015 10:36 pm

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.

Reply to  AJB
November 30, 2015 4:00 am

Great video!

Billy Liar
Reply to  AJB
November 30, 2015 1:56 pm

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.

Lewis P Buckingham
November 29, 2015 4:33 pm

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.

Eugene WR Gallun
November 29, 2015 4:34 pm

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

catweazle666
November 29, 2015 4:37 pm

Even Bill Gates hasn’t got that much money…

Dog
November 29, 2015 4:38 pm

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.

old construction worker
November 29, 2015 4:40 pm

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”.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 29, 2015 5:19 pm

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.

Grey Lensman
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 29, 2015 10:27 pm

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.

old construction worker
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 30, 2015 3:00 am

“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.

cassandra
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 30, 2015 3:48 pm

What about the pump efficiency , say 75%? That increases the water volume needed by 33%!

Dog
Reply to  old construction worker
November 29, 2015 4:56 pm

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:

catweazle666
Reply to  old construction worker
November 29, 2015 4:57 pm

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

Dog
Reply to  old construction worker
November 29, 2015 5:18 pm

@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…

Dog
Reply to  Dog
November 29, 2015 6:09 pm

@Eric
Drilling into Yellow Stone was my first thought….That is one massive caldera that is ready to pop at any moment. What if we could syphon that energy?

dp
Reply to  Dog
November 29, 2015 10:32 pm

The blowout in the gulf of Mexico would pale in comparison to a blowout of pressurized magma. It’s been tried. http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-15/news/mn-503_1_puna-geothermal-venture. It has happened twice and in both cases the wells were shut down/sealed. The conditions can rapidly go out of control as happened at Lake Peigneur in Louisiana. A little bad luck goes a long way at the edges of technology.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Dog
November 30, 2015 2:12 pm

Here’s what you can do by drilling into a volcano for geothermal heat:
http://www.jonfr.com/volcano/?p=1514

albertkallal
November 29, 2015 4:45 pm

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

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 29, 2015 5:02 pm

death = proof of concept ?

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 29, 2015 5:14 pm

I know Eric..I was yanking your chain. 🙂

albertkallal
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 29, 2015 5:52 pm

Well obviously this is not a traditional fusion reaction. I fully admit cold fusion is a bad name). LENR is a far better description. (and better yet is this is some form of electron capture).
So none of 1000+ papers since the time of Pons and Fleishmann saw gamma radiation when observing the LENR effect.
United States Navy was just awarded a patent for LENR. And they did not see make any note of gamma radiation.
US Patent Granted to US Navy for “Excess Enthalpy Upon Pressurization of Nanosized Metals with Deuterium
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/11/10/us-patent-granted-to-us-navy-for-excess-enthalpy-upon-pressurization-of-nanosized-metals-with-deuterium/
And Industrial heat (the company that purchased US rights to Rossi’s LENR technology) also not seen gamma radiation.
And the test results from Stanford Research Institute (who tested the Brilloun reactors) did not see gamma either.
And the presentation at CERN last month also made no mention of gamma.
CERN To Host Seminar on “The Anomalous Heat Effect on D/H loaded Palladium”
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/09/03/cern-to-host-seminar-on-the-anomalous-heat-effect-on-dh-loaded-palladium/
However, the AirBus patient DOES suggest at higher levels that gamma radiation does exist:
Files Patent for LENR ‘Power-Generating Device’
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/22/airbus-files-patent-for-lenr-power-generating-device/
And Russia:
New Paper by Moscow State University Team Confirms Rossi and Parkhomov Experiments in Nickel-LAH System (Update: English Translation by Bob Higgins Available)
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/04/new-paper-reports-confirmation-of-rossi-and-parkhomov-experiments-in-nickel-lah-system-published-by-moscow-state-university-team/
I can go on and on – there also papers coming out of China now.
So labs are replicating LENR all around the world, and papers are being published all around the world on LENR, but it does not work and they all missed gamma radiation?
The snowball is starting to bounce down the hill on LENR – it not really a question of the effect being real – but who will get to market first.
Like the global warming issue – a bit of time and research on this issue will convert any skeptic as to the validity of LENR.
Regards,
Albert D. Kallal
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

Marcus
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 29, 2015 11:00 pm

Eric, correct me if I’m wrong , but I thought FUSION released very low radiation !!!

November 29, 2015 4:48 pm

Is this the same bill gates that wants to use vaccines to control population? Lets keep in mind elitists don’t do things for the greater good.

601nan
November 29, 2015 4:52 pm

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

Kevin O'Brien
November 29, 2015 4:58 pm

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.

Paul Westhaver
November 29, 2015 4:59 pm

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.

n.n
November 29, 2015 5:01 pm

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.

Dog
Reply to  n.n
November 29, 2015 5:40 pm

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

Michael Jankowski
November 29, 2015 5:04 pm

I hope this is more successful that his hurricane-killing machine.

November 29, 2015 5:06 pm

Wasn’t Bill Gates one of the primary movers behind Common Core?

Marcus
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
November 29, 2015 11:05 pm

Yes, the elitist dumbing down of America !!!!

jorgekafkazar
November 29, 2015 5:07 pm

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

LarryFine
November 29, 2015 5:11 pm

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%…

karabar
Reply to  LarryFine
November 29, 2015 5:20 pm

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?

Paul Westhaver
November 29, 2015 5:13 pm

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?

catweazle666
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 29, 2015 5:33 pm

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!

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  catweazle666
November 29, 2015 6:00 pm

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?

catweazle666
Reply to  catweazle666
November 30, 2015 12:53 pm

“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.

David in Michigan
November 29, 2015 5:13 pm

“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.
.

Dog
Reply to  David in Michigan
November 29, 2015 5:54 pm

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.

Marcus
Reply to  Dog
November 29, 2015 11:09 pm

Your being to kind…it’s a pyramid SCAM !!