Why Bill Gates Supports America's Climate Legislation (nytimes.com) 128
Bill Gates wrote a New York Times opinion piece Saturday arguing that it's immediately clear we're experiencing the effects of climate change. Just in America, "Extreme heat and drought are affecting tens of millions of people, as floods and wildfires ravage communities from Appalachia to California."
So he's urging the U.S. Congress to "face down the climate crisis" while "strengthening our country's energy security, creating opportunities for businesses and improving the lives of Americans," by supporting a massive climate-spending bill being voted on this weekend in the U.S. Senate. Gates calls the bill "our best chance to build an energy future that is cleaner, cheaper and more secure." Many of the technologies we'll need to reach net-zero emissions don't exist, are in early stages of development or are still too expensive to scale up. At the same time, more mature technologies like solar, wind and electric vehicles must be deployed more quickly in more places. Through new and expanded tax credits and a long-term approach, this bill would ensure that critical climate solutions have sustained support to develop into new industries....
With those incentives and investments, this bill would catalyze a new era of American innovation. The ability of America's universities and industries to innovate remains second to none, yet the country risks falling behind as other countries race to build their own clean energy economies. This legislation would help turn American energy innovations into American energy industries and unlock huge economic opportunities in the energy market. If it becomes law, few nations would have the capacity for producing homegrown clean energy like the United States. America could quickly become a leader in the deployment of clean energy at the scale required.
Solving climate change is perhaps the hardest challenge humanity has ever faced. It will require fundamentally transforming how we power our communities, move goods, build things, heat and cool buildings and grow food — basically how we do everything. We need to do it rapidly with a cohesive and coherent plan if we want to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
The country has an opportunity to set an example by offering a vision of what's possible — and then by making it happen.
Gates also writes that the legislation "would begin to transform the parts of our economy that are hardest to decarbonize, like manufacturing, which we must do to reach net-zero emissions...
"Businesses are waiting on the sidelines for a strong signal from government that clean industries are a solid long-term investment. Passing the Inflation Reduction Act would send that message and enable private capital to supercharge our clean energy future with even greater confidence."
So he's urging the U.S. Congress to "face down the climate crisis" while "strengthening our country's energy security, creating opportunities for businesses and improving the lives of Americans," by supporting a massive climate-spending bill being voted on this weekend in the U.S. Senate. Gates calls the bill "our best chance to build an energy future that is cleaner, cheaper and more secure." Many of the technologies we'll need to reach net-zero emissions don't exist, are in early stages of development or are still too expensive to scale up. At the same time, more mature technologies like solar, wind and electric vehicles must be deployed more quickly in more places. Through new and expanded tax credits and a long-term approach, this bill would ensure that critical climate solutions have sustained support to develop into new industries....
With those incentives and investments, this bill would catalyze a new era of American innovation. The ability of America's universities and industries to innovate remains second to none, yet the country risks falling behind as other countries race to build their own clean energy economies. This legislation would help turn American energy innovations into American energy industries and unlock huge economic opportunities in the energy market. If it becomes law, few nations would have the capacity for producing homegrown clean energy like the United States. America could quickly become a leader in the deployment of clean energy at the scale required.
Solving climate change is perhaps the hardest challenge humanity has ever faced. It will require fundamentally transforming how we power our communities, move goods, build things, heat and cool buildings and grow food — basically how we do everything. We need to do it rapidly with a cohesive and coherent plan if we want to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
The country has an opportunity to set an example by offering a vision of what's possible — and then by making it happen.
Gates also writes that the legislation "would begin to transform the parts of our economy that are hardest to decarbonize, like manufacturing, which we must do to reach net-zero emissions...
"Businesses are waiting on the sidelines for a strong signal from government that clean industries are a solid long-term investment. Passing the Inflation Reduction Act would send that message and enable private capital to supercharge our clean energy future with even greater confidence."
I don't think he's helping (Score:1)
The fact that it's HIM, makes half the people (wink, wink) hate the message as well as the messenger.
He'd better shut up if he wants to further the cause.
Re: I don't think he's helping (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Only subsets of the tech world harbor resentment for him, and frankly, most of that resentment should be aimed at Steve Balmer.
Absolutely not. Microsoft under Gates was provably worse-behaved than Microsoft under Ballmer (and this was literally proven in court by the USDoJ.)
You're absolutely right that Gates is perceived positively by most people though, especially since his fake-ass philanthropic endeavors began, and made him even richer than before.
Re: (Score:2)
His philanthropic efforts are far from fake. He's just given away $20 billion. https://www.newsweek.com/bill-... [newsweek.com]
Some further details. https://www.vox.com/future-per... [vox.com]
Re: I don't think he's helping (Score:4, Interesting)
His philanthropic efforts are far from fake. He's just given away $20 billion. https://www.newsweek.com/bill- [newsweek.com]...
Yeah, did you RTFA? He gave it away to the fund he's in sole control of disbursement of. The fund which makes investments and decisions that are profitable for Bill Gates. It's a way for him to spend his money in ways that make him more money without paying taxes on making that money.
Re: I don't think he's helping (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea how the parent got modded up but it should be -1 alternative facts.
So you are saying that
The fund which makes investments and decisions that are profitable for Bill Gates. It's a way for him to spend his money in ways that make him more money without paying taxes on making that money.
is untrue? Odd. It has been true for quite some time. When did Bill remove himself from controlling his "charity"? When did Bill stop requiring the purchase of Microsoft products to benefit from his "charitable actions"? Alternative facts indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Gates is so good at philanthropy that Warren Buffet is using the Gates Foundation to give away money.
You mean the Warren Buffet whose mortgage company helped keep down the darkies [theguardian.com]? Tell us more about how he cares more about making a better world than about profit.
If you have to bring up Buffet to try to justify Gates you have already failed.
Hey, why was it that Melinda broke up with Bill after his palling around with Epstein came out, anyway? Surely that was all above board, too. Now Billy Boy is solely in charge of disbursement of the foundation's billions. Let's hope Melinda at least can avoid stairs.
Re: (Score:3)
That money is invested in order to earn a return to be spent on the endowments charitable purpose. The gains go back to the the founders
Re: I don't think he's helping (Score:3)
Billionaires committing crimes and then spending their ill gotten gains in ways of their choosing is not a viable strategy for funding social needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the other half think that because he doesn't wear a MAGA hat that he's a liberal commie trying to put nanochips into vaccines.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people in the country think Bill gates is a benevolent philanthropic saint who "made their computers."
How true is that today, though? He comes across more as a creepy asshole that Melinda divorced as soon as she could after his association with Epstein came out.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowadays, Bill Gates is better known as that pervert who frequented Jeffery Epstein's underage sex island multiple times.
I think that most of the goodwill he earned by donating medical care to Africa has been blown away.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't quite understand why rich people end up in so many non-consensual sex scandals. If I was 1% that rich, I'm pretty sure I could find plenty of girls to bang and I'm not even beautiful. Why they end up going for coerced partners is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was 1% that rich, I'm pretty sure I could find plenty of girls to bang and I'm not even beautiful. Why they end up going for coerced partners is beyond me.
People want what they can't have. Rich/powerful people can get the best looking partners easily. I guess that doesn't excite them.
Bill Gates holds TESLA short. (Score:1)
Bill Gates [benzinga.com] holds a muli-billion dollar short position against TESLA. How serious can we take Bill Gates when he says he wants to stop climate change?
Also, Bill Gates has been buying up farmland [foxbusiness.com] all across America. He's got 270,000 acres last time I looked. Remember this next time you go to the grocery store and find extortionate prices, or worse, empty shelves.
Re: Bill Gates holds TESLA short. (Score:3)
If the court forces Musk to close his Twitter deal those Tesla shorts may look like a mighty fine move.
We can both want Tesla to continue to succeed but also recognize that their stock may be still widely overvalued.
270k acres sounds big and scary but that is basically a 20x20mi square. Is he really going to destroy the agriculture industry with that? A single ranchland can usually be as large or larger than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bill Gates holds TESLA short. (Score:2)
From what we know about the contract and what has been submitted in court so far it's not looking good for him.
Hard to say this was some genius 4D chess move now, especially when he just said the CEO of Twitter should "debate" him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh is there a problem with capitalism now?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe EVs are a good idea and Tesla's business prospects look terrible. Both can be true.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who thinks Bill Gates is part of some global depopulation/cannibalistic pedophile/whatever conspiracy is too far gone to be worth bothering about. I should also point out that many of those same people also think he was executed by the military at Gitmo under the direct orders of TFG, who they believe is secretly still the president.
You can't reason with people like that.
Gates sure as hell shouldn't let those lunatics control what he says and does.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And then there's people that actually know what Soros does and hate his actions, but they get clumped into the pile of wackos.
Re: I don't think he's helping (Score:2)
The magic of controlled opposition is very real, and thus the damage done by denying it is too. Ask a Viet Nam vet what it was like to win hearts and minds in a village only to have bullets coming from inside the village when they were defending it against Viet Cong.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes you don't even need to manufacture the opposition.
There's wacky people on every large enough group, and all you have to do is give those a megaphone and paint the whole group as that.
nope (Score:3, Insightful)
Bill Gates supports the legislation because it has funding for nuclear, and he's invested in nuclear.
Stop putting Bill Gates on a pedestal. He's a career criminal who set computing back a decade. What do you think that cost? When hotmail ditched BSD for Windows and had to install twice as many servers, was that good for the environment?
Re: nope (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, we should stop using electronics because of their carbon footprint.
You should stop using electronics because of your trolling output.
Re: (Score:2)
Can never imagine anyone, anywhere, at any time doing anything if it's not for profit?
Re: (Score:2)
Can never imagine anyone, anywhere, at any time doing anything if it's not for profit?
What does "anyone" have to do with anything? This isn't "anyone". It's Bill Gates. It's not like we don't know who he is. It's not like we don't know his history of deliberate malfeasance at the expense of an entire industry to enrich himself. There's no reason to imagine that he's changed, and every reason to recognize that he hasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Betting on nuclear energy is a win win. If we build out 4X more nuclear power capacity like some have demonstrated that we will need [youtube.com], then great the investment will return over many years and society will continue to prosper. If there is serious investment in nuclear energy. Then the amount of money will hardly matter. The economy will be pretty fucked when we start rotating black outs on a national or world-wide basis. Having a power grid running only 5 days a week makes it pretty damn hard for commerce to
Re: (Score:2)
s/If there is serious investment in nuclear energy/If there is NOT a serious investment in nuclear energy/
I should spend 20 seconds reading my own posts.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Bill Gates aside
He shits up everything he is involved with, you cannot just ignore his influence.
how is nuclear a bad thing for USA energy?
It has never kept its promises. If these new reactors do that, then that will be great, but the safest assumption based on history is that they will not.
And that "nuclear waste" is a gold mine of energy in the right type of reactor, can get seven times more the energy out of it.
Show me the commercially viable right kind of reactor in operation with a proven safety record. Oh, no such thing exists? Yeah, I knew that.
Re: (Score:2)
Show me the commercially viable right kind of reactor in operation with a proven safety record
We can't build that thing nobody's built yet.... Because nobody's built it before. That's why you need a proven safety record before it exists - makes the whole thing easier.
Re: (Score:1)
We can't build that thing nobody's built yet.... Because nobody's built it before.
That is not at all what I said, nor what I implied, so you either just failed spectacularly at reading comprehension or you're making shit up because you don't have a valid response to what I actually said. Either way, do better.
Just to draw you a map to what I actually said, with which and both hands you probably still won't be able to find your ass, we don't know whether we can successfully build such a thing because nobody's built one before. But you persist in talking about them as if they were a fait a
Re: (Score:2)
So what do I propose we actually do right now? First, build more renewables and storage, which we already know we can build faster and cheaper than nuclear.
What makes you believe renewable energy and storage would be faster and cheaper than nuclear? The IPCC seems to believe nuclear power is cheap enough.
https://nei.org/news/2022/ipcc... [nei.org]
Perhaps there's some studies to look at?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It looks like nuclear power is cheaper than rooftop solar or offshore wind. But what of build times?
http://large.stanford.edu/cour... [stanford.edu].
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
According to the linked article from Stanford it takes five years for the NRC to approv
Re:nope (Score:4, Informative)
It has never kept its promises.
Exactly what promises would those be exactly? And which power source is so perfect that you think it is better? I promise you there are worse problems with every other power source than nuclear fission. Loss of life per watt generated, nuclear is the best. Least amount of environmental impact, still nuclear wins. Want to provide good quality of life for people, still nuclear. The problem with nuclear has always been the public and the media and not the technology itself. Want to get rid of nuclear waste? Let us reprocess it. Want it to load follow? Approve new SMR designs that can do that. Want it to make unicorns...sorry we can't do that one. Anti-proliferation, allow us to use Thorium. The only thing the history of nuclear power proves is that most people are scientifically illiterate and probably shouldn't be involved in engineering decisions. But please give us your response, I'm sure it will be filled with well researched criticisms that aren't at all based upon misunderstandings of physics and engineering. I'm sure the guy who designed nuclear reactors for NASA is wrong and you in your armchair wisdom understand the physics of energy production better than the engineers who do it for a living.
Show me the commercially viable right kind of reactor in operation with a proven safety record. Oh, no such thing exists? Yeah, I knew that.
Let me introduce you to a Medical Isotope Reactor [world-nuclear.org]. There are 100s in operation around the world. They have been a thing for 60 years at this point. They have never had a serious safety issue and they make the materials used by Oncologists to fight cancer with radiation. They are the single most valuable tool used to fight cancer in human history. Better to let us think you are a fool than to post and remove all doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Loss of life per watt generated, nuclear is the best.
This and all other pro-nuclear arguments are horseshit until all of the nuclear waste that's currently sitting around in pools (which require continual monitoring and maintenance) or dry casks (which require periodic inspection because embrittlement causes them to rapidly corrode and leak) has been safely managed. Until then, it is still presenting both active and potential hazards.
Sure, it is a concern. And so far how many deaths have been attributed to nuclear power generation?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it is a concern. And so far how many deaths have been attributed to nuclear power generation?
It's few, nobody is arguing that it's many so far — even the people who think it's many times what is claimed would have to admit that this still makes a small number. But it is just unacceptable to keep kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with, because if that keeps happening then it does become a problem. The longer we keep things half-ass contained, the more likely it is that at some point the containment will fail. This has been borne out repeatedly.
What's equally well kno
Re: (Score:2)
My position is coal and oil are well known killers. The long term target may be solar and wind if we can actually make that happen, possibly supported by natural gas or other less dirty generation methods. However Nuclear so far has shown to be less deadly than coal and oil, if it can be done economically. I feel like it can be done economically if it is done right, but I'm also not smart enough to say what "right" actually is.
Maybe in the long run the human race is screwed unless we reduce power consump
Re: (Score:2)
My position is coal and oil are well known killers.
My position is that false dichotomy is a well-known logical fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
My position is coal and oil are well known killers.
My position is that false dichotomy is a well-known logical fallacy.
The data's position is that even wind and solar kill more people than nuclear and fossil fuels kill 10000x more people. It is nice you have a position but the data says you would rather kill people than to learn about power production. It also says you would rather win an internet argument than save people's lives. People like you are monsters.
Re: nope (Score:2)
Again, that argument is bullshit until the waste is solved, and it now is not. It's the same argument as for coal. And it was shit for coal, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Show me the commercially viable right kind of reactor in operation with a proven safety record. Oh, no such thing exists? Yeah, I knew that.
Show me the commercially viable energy storage that's going to keep the streetlamps lit when the sun no longer shines on solar panels. Show me the factories that will make all the solar panels. Show me the factories that will make the windmills. Where are the battery factories for all these electric vehicles to replace the hydrocarbon burners? Oh, right, we are going to build them. That's what I've been told about every renewable energy solution, we are going to build them.
Where's the commercially viab
Re: (Score:2)
And that "nuclear waste" is a gold mine of energy in the right type of reactor, can get seven times more the energy out of it.
Well don't put Bill Gates aside. TerraPower uses depleted uranium as the bulk material in its reactor design.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their original technology was exactly that. Seems that since everyone has nuclear weapons, we might as well just worry about making efficient power. They do have some other designs that don't really offer much. Some of their more recent designs involve HALEU.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure? Because that means the main thing that reactor is good for then is making nuclear weapons.
Making weapons grade plutonium requires cycling the fuel rods in and out of neutron flux in short periods of time, if that doesn't happen then plutonium-239 can be transmuted into plutonium-240. The first makes nuclear bombs go boom, the second makes nuclear bombs turn to shit while in transit to the drop zone.
The RBMK reactors at Chernobyl were built to be "dual use", capable of producing weapon grade material while producing power. This meant not having any containment dome, because that would get in th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to argue about a particular company, whether their investment and grant sinkhole or not doesn't invalidate use of nuclear power to avoid carbon pollution.
The industry is made up of individual companies, and this is supposed to be the most promising nuclear power startup in decades. Also, the only promising nuclear power startup in decades. Since there's really no other game in town right now, there's really also no point in talking about any other kind or brand of reactor.
Reduce gas prices (Score:1)
The climate is fucked if we don't reduce the price of gas. Before you use not-thought-out logic like "gas usage causes climate change" .. yes, it does .. but a collapsed economy, followed by a fascist government, and then war .. what does that do for climate change? If Biden doesn't reduce the price of energy, the economy go into a deep recession and then Trump will win in 2024. How's your climate going to do then?
Re: Reduce gas prices (Score:3, Interesting)
Gas around me has dropped over $0.50 In the past month.
The silly take is that Biden did in fact make that happen when he tweeted out that companies should lower prices and they have every day since then, but if you really think energy markets react to tweets...
If the question is why don't prices fall as fast as they rise, that's not really up to a law of any kind, that's an industry question.
What can Biden do as President to lower gas prices? He already did an EO about reserves, he can suspend the gas tax b
Re: Reduce gas prices (Score:3)
Re: Reduce gas prices (Score:2)
They absolutely can if they enact policies hostile to oil exploration and oil refining
Re: Reduce gas prices (Score:2)
Only on Federal lands really, they can be overridden by Congress and none of that really has an outsized effect on current prices today and if even if it did that's due to speculative futures traders.
Re: Reduce gas prices (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly all of our gasoline comes from middle east oil.
Re: (Score:2)
What part didn't you understand in "USA was self-sufficient" with regards to oil before Biden came in?
Everyone understands just fine that it's false. We produce (mostly) light crude and export (mostly) heavy crude and finished products. We could produce enough oil for our own use, but instead we export a bunch, so we still have to import more. We literally export petroleum products to other countries because it's cheaper than shipping them across the country. These products are produced on the western end of the country, yet California still has to pay fuel prices which are not explained by shipping or by t
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel prices have dropped about 25 cents from the peak in Humboldt. Diesel is $6.99+, it's $7.15 at my nearest station in fact. It's cheaper to make diesel than gas... premium is about $6.50.
Oil and it's refinement is a global market with market forces. If you can figure out how to predict and manipulate it to such a degree you'll be a wildly wealthy person.
Oil companies are currently making record profits, even when adjusted for inflation. They have figured out how to predict the prices... by manipulating them.
Isn't price gouging supposed to be illegal during a public health emergency?
Re: (Score:2)
If the question is why don't prices fall as fast as they rise, that's not really up to a law of any kind, that's an industry question.
It's explainable fairly simply. Gas stations operate on extremely small margins -- only a few cents per gallon; gas stations with convenience stores can make a better profit from the convenience store sales. When there's a rumbling that oil costs will be going up, the station owners raise prices so that they'll be able to cover their next gas delivery, and they won't lower their prices until the price they're paying for gas actually drops. So the pump prices rise slightly in advance of oil price rises, and
Re: (Score:2)
The US has very little control over gas prices. If you think otherwise you understand very little about the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Trump 2024 and more fascism would make WWIII more likely, which, as a consequence of nuclear winter would reduce humans by say, 90%. For the survivors climate change would no longer appear as a major problem in regard of the others.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump was the first POTUS in the 21st century where Russia did not invade one of its neighbors.
Re: Reduce gas prices (Score:2)
If we don't count the continued military operation in Eastern Ukraine throughout the entire 4 year term then sure, but what's your point?
Re: Reduce gas prices (Score:2)
Cool theory, how do you prove it? Be specific.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool theory, how do you prove it? Be specific.
Elect Trump as POTUS again?
I'm not saying that we should or should not do that, only that is a specific action by which we might prove the theory.
Re: Reduce gas prices (Score:2)
It's not a prediction about the future, it's a claim about events that already happened.
This guy would need to show something Trump did and a commensurate reaction by Russia, something more than just timing and coincidence.
Actions have already happened that would affect the future even if Trump were elected again. Russia is not likely to engage a new war if they are still embroiled in Ukraine in 2024 which might be the case after then, or their forces need time to recover.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An impeachment is an accusation, the House brings up charges in an impeachment then the Senate holds court. The Senate cleared Trump of the accusations. So, how is this "losing"?
I don't like Trump, and I'd prefer he just fade away like most every other former POTUS does but the claims of Trump being impeached as proof of being a "loser" is a bunch of bullshit. All the impeachment did was give Trump the opportunity to claim he was the victim of an unfounded attack. If I accuse you of murder and you come
Re: (Score:3)
There have only been 4 POTUS in the 21st century and Trump was the only one-termer so far. Russia didn't invade anyone during Bush or Obama's first term. Trump allowed Russia to fester in Donbas and also did nothing about the Taliban.
Re: (Score:2)
If Biden doesn't reduce the price of energy, the economy go into a deep recession and then Trump will win in 2024. How's your climate going to do then?
Trump asked Congress to fund nuclear powered icebreakers for the US Coast Guard, and asked the US Coast Guard to produce a report on how a nuclear powered icebreaker would fit into their operations.
https://www.defensenews.com/na... [defensenews.com]
Trump would be great for the environment because it means the Coast Guard and Nay would get the nuclear powered ships they want. Democrats voting on building warships would not poll well, so they vote on keeping the old oil fired ships in service where they'd be polluting the air
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The climate is fucked if we don't reduce the price of gas. Before you use not-thought-out logic like "gas usage causes climate change" .. yes, it does .. but a collapsed economy, followed by a fascist government, and then war .. what does that do for climate change? If Biden doesn't reduce the price of energy, the economy go into a deep recession and then Trump will win in 2024. How's your climate going to do then?
Petrol in the US remains amazingly cheap; about half the price it is in the UK.
While I take your general point, the US would be better off looking at efficiency rather than price cuts to something which is already cheap.
Wants money to fund his nuclear energy project (Score:1)
"Many of the technologies we'll need to reach net-zero emissions don't exist, are in early stages of development or are still too expensive to scale up."
Here he is making up a problem that doesn't exist to justify his nuclear energy project which is in early development and too expensive.
The truth is that existing wind, solar, etc. technologies have been shown to be entirely sufficient to cover all of our energy needs.
He's just after a government handout.
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is that existing wind, solar, etc. technologies have been shown to be entirely sufficient to cover all of our energy needs.
Please read this [cam.ac.uk]. Then explain what is wrong with the absurd mountain of research in that book that says you are wrong. You don't get to ignore parts of science you don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
First, we electrify transport. Electrification both gets transport off fossil fuels, and makes transport more energy-efficient. (Of course, electrification increases our demand for green electricity.) Second, to supplement solar-thermal heating, we electrify most heating of air and water in buildings using heat pumps, w
Re: (Score:3)
That publication is 15 years old so out of date and irrelevant.
For more recent information:
Jacobson, M.Z., 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything, Cambridge University Press, New York, 427 pp., 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Jacobson's 2015 "Stanford University study" on transitioning the 50 states to WWS was cited in House Resolution 540 (2015)[12] as the scientific basis for the first proposed legislation in the United States for the country to move to "100% clean renewable energy.
Re: (Score:3)
Your comment about the Green New Deal from 2020 is now out of date.
https://newrepublic.com/articl... [newrepublic.com]
Centrists arenâ(TM)t the only ones making peace with nuclear energy. Those further to the left are coming around, too. In an articleâ"and developmentâ"that did not get as much attention as it deserved, Patrick Cockburn wrote early this year in Harperâ(TM)s magazine on Green New Deal champion Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezâ(TM)s evolution toward cautious support of nuclear energy. Cockburn also reported that although there are still environmentalists who virulently oppose all nuclear power, the youthful Sunrise movement, foregrounding the climate crisis, has been moving toward a more nuanced approach to the issue.
I'd link to the Harper's magazine article mentioned but it appears to be behind a paywall.
The Green New Deal has been changed to include nuclear power. I guess you will have to find another argument. You could try using that Jacobson paper from 2020 but then that just gets back to the Green New Deal agreeing with it in 2020 and then rejecting it in 2022. Was the paper wrong? Or has it simply become out o
Re: (Score:2)
What does the Green New Deal have to do with anything?
I thought we were talking about the legislation (Deficit Reduction Act) that passed today.
Re: (Score:2)
I made no comment about the Green New Deal.
Here's Jacobson's latest work update 2022
https://web.stanford.edu/group... [stanford.edu]
The world needs to switch away from using fossil fuels to using renewable sources of energy as soon as possible. Failure to do so will lead to accelerated and catastrophic climate damage, loss of biodiversity, and economic, social, and political instability. This book describes how to solve the climate crisis, and at the same time eliminate air pollution and safely secure energy supplies for
Re: (Score:2)
Mark Z Jacobson is a discredited snake-oil salesman. The national academy of science has discredited his work and his response was to sue the scientists that called him out on his bullshit. If you think we can solve climate change with only wind water and sunshine(and that it will be cheaper than doing nothing) I have a bridge to sell you.
Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar [pnas.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not this Mark Jacobson?
To date, he has published five textbooks and over 175 peer-reviewed journal articles. He has testified four times for the U.S. Congress. Nearly a thousand researchers have used computer models he has developed. In 2005, he received the American Meteorological Society Henry G. Houghton Award for "significant contributions to modeling aerosol chemistry and to understanding the role of soot and other carbon particles on climate." In 2013, he received an American Geophysical Union Ascent
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that Jacobson. He is a snake-oil salesman. A conman who sues people he disagrees with. 175 papers just means he is prolific conman. It does not mean he is right. Most of those papers are bullshit since not a single one provides a viable solution to the intermittency problem JUDGE RULES ‘100% RENEWABLES’ RESEARCHER MUST PAY ATTORNEY FEES FOR HIS DUBIOUS LAWSUIT [energyindepth.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you can't refute the science, just attack the man. The last refuge of the basement dwelling scoundrel.
Re: (Score:2)
I already cited a link attacking his bullshit science. Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar [pnas.org] Literally the first thing I did. And the man deserves to be attacked.
Well, if you can't refute the science, just attack the man. The last refuge of the basement dwelling scoundrel.
You claim I'm making an ad hominem attack and then you make an ad hominem attack. Fucking hypocrite.
Are you Mark Z Jacobson? Cause if you are fuck you. If you're not, you a simp for a scumbag conman
Re: (Score:2)
Some papers organized by topic (please see Curriculum Vitae for full list)
Roadmaps for transitioning the world, countries, states, cities, and towns to 100% clean, renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) in all energy sectors
A path to sustainable energy by 2030 (Scientific American, 2009)
Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials (Energy Policy, 2011)
Providing all global energy with wind, wate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's just after a government handout.
I see how this works. If someone is supportive of nuclear power then they are just looking for a government handout. If someone is supportive of wind and solar power then they are just concerned about global warming.
Here is my thinking, they are all concerned about global warming AND looking for a government handout. I don't see why one excludes the other.
Business are waiting? (Score:1)
Businesses see what's going on, are aware of the catastrophic effects this will have on their clientele and workforce
And still have to wait to make sure it will be profitable to not continue shooting themselves in the foot and the rest of the world in the head.
Be it Bill Gates or Elon Musk, just remember they ain't doing *shit* unless they can profit from it.
I want to like (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said:
1. The Gates Foundation in TOTAL is the equivalent of 1 year of NIH funding. The NIH funds more benefit for humanity in a single year than the Gates Founation will do in it's entire existence. You also have the NSF, NASA, AFOSR, ARO, DARPA, etc. etc. In other words, the Gates Foundation is a DROP IN THE BUCKET. Then there's the US foreign aid that also does a lot of good (even tho it's highly flawed at the same time).
2. People on slashdot love to hate on tax dollars and federal programs, but the federal research agencies are responsible for inventing nearly every single good thing that ever came along in tech. The Gates Foundation's impact barely even moves the needle. On anything.
3. As I've gotten older, I've come to detest billionaire, actors, singers and influencers making statements about which they are clearly NOT EXPERTS. Both sides are bad at this. On the conservative side: you know what Peter Thiel is an expert on? back-end corporate payment and monitoring systems. He's no better than your local homeless guy when it comes to opinions on other issues regarding how society should be shaped. On the liberal side, you know what Greta Thunberg is an expert on? Literally nothing. ESPECIALLY not climate change. She's a teenager. No teenager is qualified to lead anything beyond the local volleyball team.
4. When these people spout off about technical and scientific topics that they know nothing about, they crowd out the actual experts. It's hard enough for the scientists, the engineers, the policy experts, the legal experts and other experts in government and in universities to get their message through. If all these famous people actually wanted to make a difference, they would be using their popularity to say "hey everyone, we should listen to the experts". This leads me to believe that most of what they do is grandstanding and self-serving.
5. People who like the Gates Foundation will say "they do things differently than the government and will succeed where government will fail". Really? Really? Cause I know how the government allocates grant money. It's brutally efficient. Most tax money that goes to research is doled out by a committee of actual, bonafide experts in the field. It's called peer review. So, the Gates Foundation thinks it can do malaria mitigation better than a room full of people with PhD's in infectious disease, human biology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, law degrees and public policy experience? You think that room of people is gonna miss something that a few non-profit employees in a Gates Foundation office will catch? Maybe. But don't bet on it.
Re: (Score:3)
People on slashdot love to hate on tax dollars and federal programs, ...
You really needed to put the word "some" at the start of that sentence.
Many of us see federal programs as necessary, and some of us even see them as valuable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That’s like the handyman who only has a hammer in his toolbox. Everything looks like a nail. There’s some validity to that philosophy. Governments have a natural tendency to grow and dont like to shrink. But grover norquist types are 1-dimensional and kinda boring.
Yeah right (Score:1)
Oil rules (Score:3)
Every SANE person backs this starting point (Score:2)
It may just be a starting point but it's a necessary step that responsible people back.
I know Gates is a rational actor even if he's now obsessed over making a lasting mark on earth using his power since he realized his life is miserable unless he's exercising his power and not in a way that only leaves a bad legacy behind (Windows.)
We don't need to hear whenever Gates does something sensible like "Bill Gates does not think the world is flat."