We need an energy miracle

[begreen]

Bill Gates is pouring a couple billion toward this goal and is challenging others. His conclusions won't resonate with everyone, but his perspective is still worth hearing out.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/

 

[jackatc1]

The facts warts and all.
I wish him success.

 

[woodgeek]

As usual with tech, Bill Gates is 5-10 years behind the curve. And yet is seen as a tech visionary.

We will need to roll out wind/solar tech as it exists and EVs as they are currently on the drawing board for 2016/7, that is, affordable and 200+mi range. None is a miracle.
Diurnal storage for RE will be battery based, and research is still underway. The first battery tech that reaches scale probably exists right now. Also not a miracle.
Seasonal storage? Still needs fleshing out, but could be some combo of long-distance transmission, load shifting, and H-storage. A miracle might be nice, but prob not required.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

We already have the solutions to clean energy production. The difference in my electric rates between coal power and renewables is 1 or 2 cts a Kwh. Peanuts! The masses will not adopt clean energy solutions unless they are actually cheaper than the dirty ones.
We will however blow unlimited amounts of money on things that do absolutely nothing for us. Look what we spend on things like needless wars ,weapons,sports,pets,gambling,smoking,drugs ect ect. But to suggest we spend a little more for clean energy and to stop climate change, you may be branded as a tree hugging whacko.

 

[begreen]

The problem with clean energy is storage. Mass storage solutions like pumping to a reservoir work in some locations, but not others like the desert where the sun is king. Expecting a miracle in battery tech is in alignment with Gate's point. Our grid technology is old and not nearly ready or in place to regulate and redirect wind and solar power on a vast scale yet. We need to turn a large portion of our resources to solving these problems. Diverting some of our obscenely large military budget seems like a good place to start. We also still are not aggressively working on conservation. This is a national security issue yet too many are complacent and will not probably react until we get into crisis mode.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Probably nothing substantial will happen until seawater starts creeping into the living rooms of the right people. At that point im sure it will be way too late to do anything about it. Theres is not much long term thinking going on by the people running things. I dont see this changing any time soon.

 

[begreen]

That's why I'm glad Bill Gates is involved. He hangs around with many influential people and putting a couple billion in as a nudge is not trivial.

 

[smokydaddy]

We already have the solutions to clean energy production. The difference in my electric rates between coal power and renewables is 1 or 2 cts a Kwh. Peanuts! The masses will not adopt clean energy solutions unless they are actually cheaper than the dirty ones.
We will however blow unlimited amounts of money on things that do absolutely nothing for us. Look what we spend on things like needless wars ,weapons,sports,pets,gambling,smoking,drugs ect ect. But to suggest we spend a little more for clean energy and to stop climate change, you may be branded as a tree hugging whacko.

Absolutely agree with you! Using the "dirt" energy sources will turn to us with hundreds trillions of debt in near futute from our mother nature.

 

[Circus]

The answer is obvious but it'll never fly while alec owns our state and federal governments. Carbon tax. Method details are trivial.

 

[mass_burner]

The answer is obvious but it'll never fly while alec owns our state and federal governments. Carbon tax. Method details are trivial.

Details are trivial? There's a way around everything. What's to stop polluters from starting a dozen shell companies who plant a few trees a year and "buy" their carbon credits.

 

[begreen]

The real miracle would be holding human greed in check.

 

[woodgeek]

That's why I'm glad Bill Gates is involved. He hangs around with many influential people and putting a couple billion in as a nudge is not trivial.

Or more likely, he will simply take credit for the solution(s) after we get there.

 

[begreen]

That's a bit prickly. I think he has a bit more humility than that. The Gates Foundation has done a lot of good in the world, especially in world health.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

The real miracle would be holding human greed in check.

Greed is the driver behind a lot of it. And its hard to change the dark side of human nature,like hunting the last tuna into extintion, or the last whale or elephant or Rhino. Also bordering on extinction are clean water and air and a healthy non toxic food supply. For a species that supposed to be intelligent ,its a pretty poor showing. We are still animals first and thinking,rational beings only occasionally.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

That's a bit prickly. I think he has a bit more humility than that. The Gates Foundation has done a lot of good in the world, especially in world health.

Copy that BG .You cant fault a guy who is giving most of his wealth to charity,even if he was slow to get started , sort of like his good friend Warren buffet.

 

[woodgeek]

Sure. The guy makes billions for 20 years stealing the innovations of others, engaging in misinformation campaigns to destroy competitors and holding back progress, then gets religion in retirement and gives money to some worthy causes in public health.

Just nothing on his resume indicates he is an innovator or tech 'visionary' or knows anything in particular about energy or climate. His demonstrable skills are making money by stealing ideas and giving some of that money to charity.

 

[woodgeek]

Copy that BG .You cant fault a guy who is giving most of his wealth to charity,even if he was slow to get started , sort of like his good friend Warren buffet.

Don't even get me started about our friendly uncle Warren.

 

[mass_burner]

Also, folks like BG, WB, are too close to the people that will potenttially be hurt or benefit from their actions. They are subject to extreme pressure when someone doesn't like what their doing. And if their "just doing it to be a good guy" , it's not worth the hassle .

 

[DBoon]

In 10 years we'll all look back and realize that the miracle started more than two years ago - solar PV capacity expanding 30% per year (10x growth every 7 years), wind generation already equal to nearly 5% of US electricity supply, coal stocks and production plummeting, etc.

This curve, to me, tells it all http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iQYuKSosjb3U/v1/-1x-1.jpg
(from this article http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-30/seven-reasons-cheap-oil-can-t-stop-renewables-now)

Once clean energy is cheaper, it is just a matter of people making the obvious cost-based choices, dealing with those who will be the "losers" (the old companies, the electric companies, etc.) in the shift to the new technologies, and scaling up the technologies fast enough in terms of production, supporting elements (e.g. battery storage) and management change (e.g. electricity grid balance). "Cheaper" doesn't require political solutions, carbon taxes or anything else - it just fits with the way our economy runs today.

It is happening now, no miracles needed. We just have to make it go faster.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

PP&L ,,My electric company saw the writing on the wall years ago. They have sold off most of their generating capacity and are just an electricity delivery company now. So no matter how cheap the generating side gets,they will be making their money frm owning the poles and wires and not from making the stuff. Even if you go solar you still need them for grid tie.

 

[jharkin]

I think we all agree that Bill Gates, while a business genius, is not a certifiable tech genius like , say Jobs (who was reportedly a true a#@*(&#@(& in person as well).

But that doesn't prove everything he says in this case wrong... And I think the core point has a lot of truth to it - A revolution in the physical world of big energy is not going to come anywhere near as easy as revolutions in the digital world have. I wish I could be but i just dont buy the "technology will save us" utopia vision.

For every one of you guys here Ive met with PV on your roof and a Prius or leaf in t driveway, Ive met 10 people in real life driving a 12mpg F150 to get groceries. And this is in progressive New England.

I think technology can save us, but I agree with this article that its going to take a lot of hard work and effort.

 

[woodgeek]

I agree Jeremy, it won't be as fast as say, the smartphone revolution, which was basically at 0 in 2007 to near saturation now just 8 years later. It's going to take more like 20 or 30 years. But the bigger point is that wind and solar are out of the lab, and on an exponential rollout curve. In many markets they represent a big share of new capacity additions...and normal fleet replacement takes ~30 years.

EVs are not curiosities like 5 yrs ago, nearly everyone has at least heard of them or knows someone who has one (and loves it). Once we get multiple 200+ mi affordable EVs on the market (~2017), and people test drive them, get to know their low operating/maintenance costs, I think they will blow past the eco crowd into the 'fun car' crowd. The Prius was a failure IMO because it sucks to drive, and the value proposition is not there unless you log a LOT of miles. A fun to drive car that is cheaper and greener than a Prius...where can I get one? Fleet replacement takes 10 years, so lots of EVs on the road by 2030.

And to continue my crabbiness on this thread, after growing up in MA, and living in Chicago, LA and now Philly, I do not consider New England to be particularly 'progressive'.

 

[begreen]

I have to add that philanthropy is not a new religion for Bill Gates. It runs in the family. Bill Gates' Sr. has a history of philanthropy and he passed this on to his kids. They've done a lot of good with their success and wealth.

Agreed that EVs are not curiosities anymore. They can be very practical vehicles. We love the Volt. About 80% of our driving is all electric.

 

[iamlucky13]

Once we get multiple 200+ mi affordable EVs on the market (~2017), and people test drive them, get to know their low operating/maintenance costs, I think they will blow past the eco crowd into the 'fun car' crowd.

If that happens, then yes it will be a big boon for electric car sales, but there's nothing on the horizon like that. I don't consider a $40-$50,000 car affordable. At best, it's the lower end of luxury car pricing. I'm really curious to see what things look like in 10 years, but the electric car pricing has a long ways to go.

And yes, I know Elon Musk claims the Model 3 will be $35,000 (which is still not in the "affordable" category - an $18,000 Honda Civic is affordable. A $33,000 BMW 3-series is not.) and available next year. However, Musk doesn't deliver anything either on time or on budget - and I'm pointing this out as a fan who has been following his work for over decade, long before most people had a clue who he was. He does cool stuff, but you have to take his performance and price figures with a big grain of salt.

The Model S was supposed hit the market in 2010 at $60,000. It came in at $70,000 in 2012. The Model X was slated for 2013 first delivery. It actually happened two months ago.

Likewise, his SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket was supposed to cost $27 million and start launching payloads in 2008. It debuted at $54 million with its first test launch in 2010, and first customer launch 2012.

The Prius was a failure IMO because it sucks to drive, and the value proposition is not there unless you log a LOT of miles.

The Prius has been pretty far from a failure - some of their competitor's best models don't even sell as well as the Prius. 2014 sales were 207,000 Priuses, versus 110,000 for the Mazda 3. Nissan's Altima outsold it at 335,000 units, but their second best model, the Sentra, only garnered 183,000 sales. Despite not being fun to drive, it's been quite popular. It's carbon emissions are almost as low as the Model S, too (based Tesla's own figures).

And the payback time has actually gotten pretty reasonable, depending on what car you're comparing too, even with our current low fuel prices. At $24,200 starting price, it's down to a mere $1130 price premium over the Camry, which it's closer to in size than the $17,230 Corolla. While that works out to a 225,000 mile payback compared to the Corolla, it's only a 29,000 mile payback compared to the Camry. There are Prius' out there that have exceeded 225,000 miles, though:
http://priuschat.com/threads/300-000-mile-club.137360/

 

[jharkin]

And to continue my crabbiness on this thread, after growing up in MA, and living in Chicago, LA and now Philly, I do not consider New England to be particularly 'progressive'.

Well to carry on the crabiness... if you think New England is a problem how are you going to get all the red states to buy into clean energy and electric vehicles?