Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Maui
Posts: 586
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Maui »

JoeP wrote:Scott Adam's blog today: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1550732421 ... -challenge

excerpt:
This question is a subset of the more interesting question of how non-scientists can judge the credibility of scientists or their critics. My best guess is that professional scientists will say that complicated prediction models with lots of variables are not credible. Ever. So my prediction is that the number of scientists who ***fully*** buy into climate science predictions is closer to zero than 97%.

But I’m willing to be proved wrong. I kind of like it when that happens. So prove me wrong.
Oversimplification.
My response to Scott Adam here is that meteorologists would agree that weather forecast models are complicated with lots of variables. Sure we joke that weather forecasts are not "credible"... but that's different that saying the number of meteorologists that buy into weather forecast models is close to zero. The models are extremely useful even if not terribly precise. Climatologists acknowledge the same unpredictability and assign probabilities the same way meteorologists do.

Maui
Posts: 586
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Maui »

Props to charliem; truer words have never been spoken.

Maui
Posts: 586
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Maui »

pbelter wrote:Would you invest in a solar energy power plant?
Solar panels are great for decentralized energy generation like homes or traffic signs but solar power plants are extremely risky investment.
... but, but.... there was a *lot* of investment in solar plants in the real world this year-- 9.5GW worth vs the 2GW added for distributed generation (in the U.S.). So your comment here is contrary to the reality of the business today.

Since I know you like hockey-stick charts...

The situation is no different globally:
Image
source = BP

pbelter
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by pbelter »

Maui wrote:
pbelter wrote:Would you invest in a solar energy power plant?
Solar panels are great for decentralized energy generation like homes or traffic signs but solar power plants are extremely risky investment.
... but, but.... there was a *lot* of investment in solar plants in the real world this year-- 9.5GW worth vs the 2GW added for distributed generation (in the U.S.). So your comment here is contrary to the reality of the business today.

Since I know you like hockey-stick charts...

The situation is no different globally:
Image
source = BP
Heh, I looked at the graph first and I thought it was showing real estate prices before the 2007 crash, then I read your post...
I wonder how it would look like without the government subsidies squeezed out of profitable businesses?
Of course everybody is free to make their own decision with their own money. So I am not asking if any governments are investing but if you would invest your own money in solar plant? I wouldn't unless I strongly believed all the fusion startups are going to fail. Then I might. It was a decision I seriously considered 2 years ago and decided against.

Would you?
If the answer is yes then I have 2 followup questions:
Do you believe commercial fusion is possible within the next 10 years?
If it is, do you think it will be expensive enough to keep solar power stations profitable, including capital amortization?

The thing with government and big corporate investment strategies is that they have a crowd mentality that doesn't allow taking a breakthrough technology seriously. They can envision cars with 70 MPG and even try to mandate that they be build. They have harder time about implications self driving cars and would ideally outlaw them, but that is still somewhat within the realm of their comprehension. But if you tell them about a personal drone transporter that picks up people and flies them to work they are not capable of taking it seriously. Same with commercial fusion. Maybe unless its ITER, 50 year away, not during their term in office.

Paradigm shift is not their thing, they can adapt to it, not without resistance, but they cannot promote it until it becomes mainstream. You need an individual with vision and money, like Musk or Bezos to create paradigm shift like electric self driving cars or inexpensive orbital transport. Musk once said that he will keep SpaceX private to pursue his vision rather than focusing on the quarterly balance sheet.

Have you watched Bussard's talk "Should Google Go Nuclear?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8
This is what started this site after lively discussion on nasaspaceflight.com. If you haven't I highly recommend it.
After the talk came out I contacted my friend who managed a venture capital fund to see if he was interested. A small fund, but they still low 9 figures.

He wasn't interested, but he was big on solar.
This how large businesses with collective decision making think. They can take small risk and small profit over large risk and potential for large payback.

Now back to your graph. I see lots of investment going into solar.
100 years ago they were still investing in railroads big time.
So?
Last edited by pbelter on Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:16 am, edited 2 times in total.

pbelter
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by pbelter »

Maui wrote:Props to charliem; truer words have never been spoken.
This is equivalent to proposal that only professional politicians should be discussing politics, as only they can fully comprehend what is really going on in the country. We can only scratch the surface of what NSA and CIA know.
It is easy to fall into an intellectual trap that "experts know better".

Experts often get bogged in detail discussion about results while their assumptions are wrong.

I could write a long post about it but let me just quote Feymann again:

“Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of Experts”

pbelter
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by pbelter »

duplicate

Maui
Posts: 586
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Maui »

pbelter wrote: Do you believe commercial fusion is possible within the next 10 years?
I hope so. But even the groups out there with the most optimistic goals are in the ballpark 10 years for commercial power. Not too likely in 10 years is my guess.
pbelter wrote: I wonder how it would look like without the government subsidies
It would be disappointing if they haven't made a difference. Assuming they have, they've thus served their purpose by expanding the market which, in turn, reduces cost via economies of scale and increased development of the technology. Now we have a cost competitive, clean, low carbon energy source sooner than we otherwise would have. Soon we will be earning financial returns as well via lower cost power than we otherwise would have had.
pbelter wrote: If it is, do you think it will be expensive enough to keep solar power stations profitable, including capital amortization?
If fusion is available in 10 years and is cheaper than solar, then it is very likely to be cheaper than any type of plant. If we are worried about fusion making all existing plants obsolete, are you suggesting we shouldn't build plants of any type until fusion is here?

Here's my dream scenario: solar continues to drop in price and expand at a rapid pace, then have fusion come along in 10 years and destroy the market for solar.

But we don't know that will happen. People invest in what they feel are the most likely to pay off. If you think solar will be ruined by fusion, go invest in fusion. There are plenty of others that will bet on solar. Either way, it is a good thing.
pbelter wrote: Now back to your graph. I see lots of investment going into solar.
100 years ago they were still investing in railroads big time.
So?
So, railroads were (and still are to large degree) fantastic! Are you seriously questioning whether railroads were a worthy investment? Sure, I hope fusion comes along and surpasses solar, but it would have been horrible if all investing in railroads was cutoff the first time someone conceived of a personal automobile.

charliem
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 8:55 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by charliem »

pbelter wrote: This is equivalent to proposal that only professional politicians should be discussing politics, as only they can fully comprehend what is really going on in the country.
False analogy.
pbelter wrote: ... let me just quote Feymann again:

“Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of Experts”
Out of context.

--------

It's been some time since I got bored with discussing conspiracy theories, it was fun but useless. It was a phase, now I am in the next one, trying to understand the psychology behind how we think.

It's been illuminating, it looks like we, humans, are not half as "intelligent" as we think we are, and that of course includes me (bummer :P).

Yes, we are intelligent, but what we are not is very rational, and THAT is a fundamental piece in the process of transforming raw data into knowledge.

To be more precise, everyone is intelligent [to various degrees], but everyone behaves rationally only occasionally. One of the traits that signals the best thinkers between us is that they are rational more time that average (although not 100% of the time, that seems to be impossible).

pbelter's comment is an example of this. I'm sure he thinks he has presented a good counter-argument, to find that he has not we need to make an effort, because rational thinking is not natural for us; if you just look at the surface of it, his comment seem to have substance, if you analyze it, it has not.

For humans, rigorous logic is extremely taxing, we prefer going by analogies (we love our stories), that way you don't need to present all the facts, nor detail all the chain of reasoning. Just leave a few clues, if those clues are well chosen your audience will fill the gaps and reach the conclusion you want them to reach ... without even realizing that they have been duped.

Regrettably, this tactic is not only used by politicians, we all use it constantly ... although I have to recognize that they have perfected it to an art.

By the way, if there is one trait that, in my opinion, characterizes the average conspiracy theory follower, is their overconfidence in their own capacity for reasoning ... and their lack of awareness to their (our) shortcomings in that realm. Humility is such a scarce resource ;)

edit: spelling
"The problem is not what we don't know, but what we do know [that] isn't so" (Mark Twain)

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by choff »

If we ever do get fusion power plants the environmental movement will begin protesting the rising Helium levels in the atmosphere. The IPCC will put out a report complete with climate models showing how fusion power is bring about a new ice age. Little children will be schooled on how to reduce their Helium footprint, the Helium cap and trade industry will suck government budgets dry. Don't laugh, they were talking about Nitrogen as a replacement pollutant for CO2.

Given that people in the third world will give up cooking fires(especially indoor) with abundant fusion power I don't think we have to worry about rising heat levels.
CHoff

pbelter
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by pbelter »

choff wrote:If we ever do get fusion power plants the environmental movement will begin protesting the rising Helium levels in the atmosphere. The IPCC will put out a report complete with climate models showing how fusion power is bring about a new ice age. Little children will be schooled on how to reduce their Helium footprint, the Helium cap and trade industry will suck government budgets dry. Don't laugh, they were talking about Nitrogen as a replacement pollutant for CO2.

Given that people in the third world will give up cooking fires(especially indoor) with abundant fusion power I don't think we have to worry about rising heat levels.
Nah, Helium escapes the atmosphere, they will come back with something different.
No question that they will though.
The doctrine requires that everything that improves standard of living and gives people opportunities to prosper must be treated with suspicion and regulated or banned where possible as it endangers the position of haves vs have-nots.

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by choff »

Gates also believes we aren't prepared for a major Flu Epidemic.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38330823

Maybe it's the new go to now that climate alarmism doesn't sell.
CHoff

pbelter
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by pbelter »

charliem wrote:
pbelter wrote: This is equivalent to proposal that only professional politicians should be discussing politics, as only they can fully comprehend what is really going on in the country.
False analogy.
It is false because... because you say so? No argument here? Are you saying that in some fields we should listen to experts while other fields are exempt?
Care to justify?
charliem wrote:
pbelter wrote: ... let me just quote Feymann again:

“Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of Experts”
Out of context.
[/quote]

Why is it out of context? Feymann said those words during his speech about "What is science" where he promoted critical thinking approach to science rather then just blindly following experts because it is presumed they know better. I don't see how this could be more in context and to the point.

You lost me in the rest of your argument about some conspiracy theories and claim humans are not behaving rationally.

charliem
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 8:55 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by charliem »

pbelter wrote:You lost me in the rest of your argument about some conspiracy theories and claim humans are not behaving rationally.
And that is exactly the problem, that most of us, most of the time, can't see that we are not thinking clearly.

I read this book about 20 years ago, "Irrationality: The Enemy Within" by Stuart Sutherland, and it was an eye opener. Later on I studied more about the subject, did a bit of experimenting, and the more I knew, the more I realized humans are only partially intelligent.

Now, this may not be such a big problem as long as we are aware of our limitations and take corrective measures, but what if we are not aware? Then, THAT may be a problem.

Rationality goes through the window quite easily, for example if we try to reason about a subject we feel strongly about (conspiracies, anyone?), or if the ideas, facts, or train of reasoning clash with our world-view ... and the list of potentially perturbing influences goes on.

I have this friend. He is a bit of a conspiracy nut but that doesn't mean we disagree about everything. One thing we agree about is that critical thinking skills should be taught at schools. I've found that many conspiracy theory followers are of the same mind.

Now, this is odd; they seem to believe that critical thinking is what they do when, in my opinion, it is the exact opposite ;)

There is no way in which AGW proponents and AGW "skeptics" can have a fruitful debate, because both sides don't follow the same rules of logic (most often, conspiracy followers don't follow any set of rules of logic).

Which side is being rational, the one that says that there is a world-wide conspiracy of ... whoever (the subject can change), or the one that says that in the scientific community honesty is more common than dishonesty, and also that scientists know more about how the atmosphere and ocean work, that the average citizen ?

You know one difference between being rational or irrational, Pbelter? That when the rational person reads or listens to an argument that contradicts their ideas, they take the time to fully understand it, analyze it, and judge its merit, because it could actually teach them something new.

On the other hand, if you just jump at it, giving some kind of prerecorded answer, or only use your time and intelligence to look for ways to "counter-punch" but not the time to appraise it, then you are not being rational. That's not a discussion, that's a boxing match.

edit: spelling
"The problem is not what we don't know, but what we do know [that] isn't so" (Mark Twain)

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Diogenes »

charliem wrote:
Which side is being rational, the one that says that there is a world-wide conspiracy of ... whoever (the subject can change), or the one that says that in the scientific community honesty is more common than dishonesty, and also that scientists know more about how the atmosphere and ocean work, that the average citizen ?


I'll tell you which one is more dishonest. It is the one characterizing the position of it's opposition as "conspiracy mongering" when their position is more along the lines of pointing out this phenomena known as "Intellectual phase lock."



If you have studied the history of science, you are well aware of this phenomena. It has happened many times over the centuries. Remember Caloric? Remember Aether? Remember Geocentricism?


The history of science is rife with examples of prominent scientists proposing a theory upon which the bulk of the scientific community jumps, all to discover later that they were simply wrong. What we are seeing on such occasions is more an example of social dynamics and less a matter of "consensus" for reasons scientific.


That this current fad of "Global Warming" is popular among scientists, (mostly among those that have no knowledge of the field) is but the latest occasion of "intellectual phase lock" and not so much a conspiracy .


There is of course those that line their own purses by trumpeting a party line which has created lucrative government sources to fund them, and this might rightly be called a "conspiracy", but even this is not an example of what is generally implied by your usage of the world "conspiracy." It is more of an Adam Smith sort of "conspiracy."


“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”



Yes, efforts to create demand and monopolies exist throughout the business world, and it is no surprise that the same sorts of people might exist in corners of the scientific world, but this is a far cry from "alien abduction" or a "bigfoot" sort of thing.


Usage of the word "conspiracy" is intended to serve the purpose of deligitimizing the opposition through a social trick rather than addressing their valid arguments (negative feedback caused by dominant water vapor) and it is a dishonest trick.


It is an attempt to "otherize" the people opposed to the claims being made. It's a proxy for an accusation of "heresy."
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

ltgbrown
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by ltgbrown »

I don't normally post in these threads because I find it frustrating and a waste of my time. However, my son's future is dependent on the decisions we make today. To continue to remain silent is to leave to others the right of influence.

I find it interesting that people are even arguing about facts in order to justify their beliefs. Whether you like the implications or not, the planet is warming. To dispute this is the equivalent of questioning whether the Earth is spherical. The only thing you can question about the warming of the planet is whether it is due to humans. I tend to want to listen to the 97% of scientist and my own (having studied (and degreed in) physics) assessment of the data that says the rise in CO2 is caused by humans and that that is driving the warming of the planet. Regardless of whether you believe that or not, it does not change the fact that the planet is warming.

So, going back to the headline of this thread, if "Nearly two dozen of the world’s most successful business leaders, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists will invest up to $1 billion in a fund led by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to almost zero by financing emerging clean energy technology" are willing to put their money to develop "emissions-free energy to the world", I tend to think they may understand something. That something is that there is everything to gain and virtually nothing to lose in moving towards renewable energy, regardless of whether humans are causing global warming or not.

You want more manufacturing jobs in the USA? Then make it more expensive to transport, using fossil fuels, the products of manufacturing done with cheap labor, and fossil fuels. Tax carbon while innovating emissions-free energy in the USA! Like "nearly two dozen of the world’s most successful business leaders, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists" are trying to do. Stopping talking about conspiracies and start talking about jobs.

Glenn
I believe in global warming and that we humans are the cause of it
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"

Post Reply