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

Post Reply
happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

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

Post by happyjack27 »

right... i don't think that climatologists failed to take into account the physics of water in their climate models! :lol:

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 »

RERT wrote:Maui - thanks.
Likewise.
RERT wrote: I think it's a shame that people have been worn down by the ferocity of the discussion, to the extent that engaging with a different view is now unusual, and usually ends badly, witness this thread. I end up back more or less where I started, which is that the world would be a better place with less screaming and name calling, and more polite consensus building.
It would be nice if it worked like picking members of a jury. Each side can pick the other side's unreasonable characters and toss them out. Would be especially nice if that would happen in Washington.
RERT wrote: On matters of substance: I was reading yesterday on the falling costs of Solar power. It does seem that in maybe 10 years, the cost per installed watt of Solar might be less than that for coal. Unfortunately the back of my envelope says that the cost of intermittency will still be vastly greater than the cost of fuel, if you take LIon batteries as the cure for intermittency. The problem is not so much the cost per kWh, but the restricted cycle life, which is off from where it needs to be by at least a factor of ten. So I think that a 'moonshot' to get batteries to $100/kWh with a 10,000 cycle life would enable grid storage, domestic storage, and be close to making EV competitive. (Though as far as I can see EV can never compete with $25/bbl oil)
At equatorial latitudes, solar is already winning on cost. As per my earlier link, wind is now also cheaper than fossil fuel in some countries. Musk recently claimed that his solar roof system would be cheaper than a standard roof, even before electricity is factored in. I'm sure that last claim needs many asterisks, but the more and more places renewables keep working into the market, the more economies of scale and increased competition and innovation are going to put downward pressure on prices. We're at the tipping point.

That's not to say I think fossil fuels are immediately going away or even that renewables will soon be our primary source of power... but there's a lot of growth to be had before intermittency becomes a problem, at least in the U.S. Figures I've seen is that it doesn't become an issue until you get up to about 30% of the energy mix... and in the U.S., wind and solar are sitting at about 5% combined. We're not going to get to that percentage overnight... by the time we do, all of it will be cheaper still. Once we do get to 30%, a smart grid can help overcome a lot of the intermittency problem. I've seen estimates that you could get all the way up to 70% or so with wind. Batteries will also play a bigger in bigger role... but again there's no need for them to be immediately capable of completely compensating for intermittency. There are also situations where it may soon be relatively "free"-- vehicle-to-grid systems are being explored where plug-in cars can draw power during off hours and feed it back during high demand. As long as EVs are going to exist anyway, this is essentially "free" storage.

I agree, one "clean tech" that does have a ways to go before eclipsing the competition is EVs vs combustion engines. But the equation is going to keep getting better and better. We know of no real limit to how cheap batteries can eventually be made, but we do know that at some point oil will simply becomes unprofitable to pump anymore. In a sense EV's are working against themselves here as they contribute to lack of demand for oil and keep its cost low. So, yes, a ways to go on the economics... yet look at Tesla; it is still clearly possible to be in the EV business even at a cost disadvantage.

EDIT: Hey, timely article. Also, I wanted to point out that with a proper infrastructure in place, the ability to use your EV to buy power cheap and sell it back at a profit would help to offset what would otherwise be cheaper oil.

RERT
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 pm

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

Post by RERT »

I'm an optimist, and I agree with you that many of these problems will be solved.

The policy questions circulate around what governments should do. I'm very relaxed about the government spending $100bn on relevant research which should accelerate carbon reduction. I'm really not relaxed about making poor people all over the world pay more for their power, by ruling out the cheapest options. And grid reliability is a red-line: we don't experiment with ever increasing intermittent power, and find out by bitter experience how much is too much. South Australia seems to have had a dose of that. In the UK, government has run down spare capacity below reasonable levels by forcing coal plants to close. In my view that's just maladministration.

So, by all means execute a plan for renewable energy which engineers know works: but not one where there are gaps in technology or capital plans, or where the power stations work but the grid doesn't. Just go step by step and spend the money needed to be sure at each step. And please don't make the poor pay...

RERT
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 pm

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

Post by RERT »

On EV: 30 mpg I make about 5.3 cents per mile for fuel at $60/bbl.

I think grid power is something like 2 cents a mile for EV.

The numbers may well be off, but clearly there is point where there is insufficient cost advantage for EV to defray the capital cost of the battery.

Yes, the dynamics of oil prices/ EV are interesting. When prices get too high, EV creates demand destruction for oil. If prices then crash demand for EV evaporates. Probably one foresees constant cost improvements in EV putting an ever lower ceiling on oil prices. I guess eventually that price drops below the reserve replacement cost - new wells cease to be viable to fund oil for automotive use. Around here my crystal ball explodes. I think probably some other end use, maybe aviation, starts to be a big driver of oil prices. Anyway, interesting times....

krenshala
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

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

Post by krenshala »

RERT wrote:On EV: 30 mpg I make about 5.3 cents per mile for fuel at $60/bbl.

I think grid power is something like 2 cents a mile for EV.
I'm not sure of the kWh prices, but my Volt is ~45mi per 11kWh of charge used (~4mi/kWh) on average. On the other hand, just having the batteries for regenerative braking takes the engine from 33mi/gal to 42mi/gal (based on a pair of 3000mi round trip drives from TX to VA and back in the last 18 months).
RERT wrote:The numbers may well be off, but clearly there is point where there is insufficient cost advantage for EV to defray the capital cost of the battery.

Yes, the dynamics of oil prices/ EV are interesting. When prices get too high, EV creates demand destruction for oil. If prices then crash demand for EV evaporates. Probably one foresees constant cost improvements in EV putting an ever lower ceiling on oil prices. I guess eventually that price drops below the reserve replacement cost - new wells cease to be viable to fund oil for automotive use. Around here my crystal ball explodes. I think probably some other end use, maybe aviation, starts to be a big driver of oil prices. Anyway, interesting times....
From the math I've done on it, with my car, a 12A/220V charge session (~4hr for 11kWh) costing 0.5$/hr or less would beat 2.50$/gal gasoline for price per mile.

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

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

Post by paperburn1 »

I am looking for the article but there was a study done on EV and what the oil cost would have to be and if I remember correctly it was close to 100 dollars a barrel . We have been in that price range before twice and if psychohistory is any indication we will be in that price range again soon. This article was written in the 80s so there is no compensation for inflation and the cost of technology dropping to be included in those figures. I will try and find it as at the very least it is an interesting read.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

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 »

The problem with the AGW proponents is have a complete disregard for scientific method.
There are multiple factors influencing the global temperatures:

1. Periodic variations in the output of the fusion reactor called Sun.

The scientific method to see if that has any influence on the global temperature is to establish control group as in any reputable experiment. If the sun variations have impact than the same impact would be observable on Mars. There are in fact studies that showed that the ice caps on Mars were shrinking in line with the observed warming on Earth until about 1998 when warming trend on Earth peaked.

If AGW is real then Mars warming should have nothing to do with Earth warming. If the Sun is the culprit then they should be in sync.
Have you heard any of the AGW crowd looking for a control group and funding for more Mars climate research?
There is no need to since their church already revealed the truth to them. There is no more need to do research since they claimed "Consensus"

2. Variations in dust contend of the atmosphere and its impact on global albedo. Primarily due to industrialization of agriculture. Also known as Global Dimming.

Have you heard AGW proponents trying to get more funds to analyze the trend?

3. Variation of solar radiation reaching Earth due to changes in dust content reaching Earth as the Sun travels around the Galaxy.

I haven't heard about any studies in that regard and this is pretty obvious thing to check.

4. Variations in cloud formation and albedo changes due to changes in cosmic rays.

The amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth is influenced by changes in the Sun's magnetic field

5. Greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere, primarily water.

There is probably some impact here but it has a strong negative loop feedback.
- The hotter it is the more clouds, the more clouds the higher albedo effect.
- The more CO2 the higher the biomass that uses up the CO2. By some estimates the biomass grew by 13%. CO2 along with water is the most scarce nutrient for plants and a growth limiting factor. Commercial greenhouses heated by natural gas often pump the resulting CO2 back to the greenhouse to shorten the growing period (5-10%) and significantly increase crop yields.

It would be a very interesting study to see how increase of foliage affects the albedo.

Combining all the above creates an incredibly complex system but the AGW crowd doesn't care.

Their church told them AGW is real, all their priests told them and scientific method be damned.

It is time to stop the assault on science and the billions wasted to support this fallacy. If only a fraction of this wasteful spending was directed to real science like the fusion research, we would be living in a different world.

Hopefully this will change soon.

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 »

Okay, thanks for that pbelter.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

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

Post by happyjack27 »

pbelter wrote:The problem with the AGW proponents is have a complete disregard for scientific method.
There are multiple factors influencing the global temperatures:

1. Periodic variations in the output of the fusion reactor called Sun.

The scientific method to see if that has any influence on the global temperature is to establish control group as in any reputable experiment. If the sun variations have impact than the same impact would be observable on Mars. There are in fact studies that showed that the ice caps on Mars were shrinking in line with the observed warming on Earth until about 1998 when warming trend on Earth peaked.

If AGW is real then Mars warming should have nothing to do with Earth warming. If the Sun is the culprit then they should be in sync.
Have you heard any of the AGW crowd looking for a control group and funding for more Mars climate research?
There is no need to since their church already revealed the truth to them. There is no more need to do research since they claimed "Consensus"

2. Variations in dust contend of the atmosphere and its impact on global albedo. Primarily due to industrialization of agriculture. Also known as Global Dimming.

Have you heard AGW proponents trying to get more funds to analyze the trend?

3. Variation of solar radiation reaching Earth due to changes in dust content reaching Earth as the Sun travels around the Galaxy.

I haven't heard about any studies in that regard and this is pretty obvious thing to check.

4. Variations in cloud formation and albedo changes due to changes in cosmic rays.

The amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth is influenced by changes in the Sun's magnetic field

5. Greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere, primarily water.

There is probably some impact here but it has a strong negative loop feedback.
- The hotter it is the more clouds, the more clouds the higher albedo effect.
- The more CO2 the higher the biomass that uses up the CO2. By some estimates the biomass grew by 13%. CO2 along with water is the most scarce nutrient for plants and a growth limiting factor. Commercial greenhouses heated by natural gas often pump the resulting CO2 back to the greenhouse to shorten the growing period (5-10%) and significantly increase crop yields.

It would be a very interesting study to see how increase of foliage affects the albedo.

Combining all the above creates an incredibly complex system but the AGW crowd doesn't care.

Their church told them AGW is real, all their priests told them and scientific method be damned.

It is time to stop the assault on science and the billions wasted to support this fallacy. If only a fraction of this wasteful spending was directed to real science like the fusion research, we would be living in a different world.

Hopefully this will change soon.
pbeter, scientists account for all of these things.

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 »

Scientists do just not the ones you read about, because it is always those who spell doom that attract attention.

Have you heard the CO2 calculating the observed drop in solar activity into predicted temperature changes?
Any of them advocating using Mars as a control group?

Their mantra is man-made CO2 and that is the only thing they care about.

This comes from their how they think and how they have to protect their careers:

- I am a weather scientist not an astronomer, so what do I care about the Sun?
- They are giving grants for AGW research, I am taking them. If I don't someone else will (and people do research that supports their view so few dissenters will apply or if they do they cannot be as convincing when competing for the funds)

- You can't go against a dogma in academic setting and get a comfy tenure...

- Humans harm the planed and we cannot do good by accident, this comes form the prevailing anti-humanist philosophy at academia. Increase in crop yields because of CO2, greening of deserts, nah, that goes against the narrative. But polar bears melting, that's so heartbreaking. This in turns comes from the natural biologically wired human tendency to watch out for dangers. Nobody would listen to them if they said all is good, but a lot of people listen if there is a danger. That brings attention and financing.

It is all about human nature and protecting self interest.

On top of that there is the nature of the institutions. They always welcome findings that promote their agenda and let them grow.
Especially the biggest and baddest corporation out there - our unaccountable government and its officials.
If all the research gives them more power to tax people (carbon tax) and introduce more regulations, create more regulatory institutions and increase employment in existing ones - then go for it by all means. And of course sponsor research saying more of the same is needed. The more is done in this regard the more we find we have to do, as "time is running out". This is very reasonable approach from their perspective. If a marketing strategy works, escalate it so it works even better. Until nobody buys it any more.

It is all good for growth of their institution, gives them more power and money and after all it is not their money that they are spending.

Were I a government decision maker assigning grants with no background in science I'd probably fund it more, after all I have seen on TV how scary the global warming can be. And after all that is the only thing they show on TV because it is scary. And then it must be true because I have seen it so many times on TV.
Have you heard about the Oakland warehouse that burned down with bunch of people in it?
Have you heard about the warehouse in my city that didn't burn? Of course not, because it is not much of news story.
Last edited by pbelter on Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

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

Post by happyjack27 »

pbelter wrote:Scientists do just not the ones you read about, because it is always those who spell doom that attract attention.

Have you heard the CO2 calculating the observed drop in solar activity into predicted temperature changes?
Any of them advocating using Mars as a control group?

Their mantra is man-made CO2 and that is the only thing they care about.

This comes from their how they think and how they have to protect their careers:

- I am a weather scientist not an astronomer, so what do I care about the Sun?
- They are giving grants for AGW research, I am taking them. If I don't someone else will (and people do research that supports their view so few dissenters will apply or if they do they cannot be as convincing when competing for the funds)

- You can't go against a dogma in academic setting and get a comfy tenure...

- Humans harm the planed and we cannot do good by accident, this comes form the prevailing anti-humanist philosophy at academia. Increase in crop yields because of CO2, greening of deserts, nah, that goes against the narrative. But polar bears melting, that's so heartbreaking. This in turns comes from the natural biologically wired human tendency to watch out for dangers. Nobody would listen to them if they said all is good, but a lot of people listen if there is a danger. That brings attention and financing.

It is all about human nature and protecting self interest.

On top of that there is the nature of the institutions. They always welcome findings that promote their agenda and let them grow.
Especially the biggest and baddest corporation out there - our unaccountable government and its officials.
If all the research gives them more power to tax people (carbon tax) and introduce more regulations, create more regulatory institutions and increase employment in existing ones - then go for it by all means. And of course sponsor research saying more of the same is needed. The more is done in this regard the more we find we have to do, as "time is running out". This is very reasonable approach from their perspective. If a marketing strategy works, escalate it so it works even better. Until nobody buys it any more.

It is all good for growth of their institution, gives them more power and money and after all it is not their money that they are spending.
no, scientists account for the ones you listed.

you seem to have a very low opinion of scientists and a very high one of yourself.

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 »

I value critical thinking and pursuit of truth using the Scientific Method, with its 3 main tools:
- control group
- Ockham razor
- falsifiable theories

The AGW crowd is not very fond of those methods.
Scientist are individuals, not a monolithic group. If it were then no critical thinking would happen.

There a petition signed by 31,000 scientists with US addresses saying “no convincing evidence” for human induced climate change. you can easily google it.
Assuming that all 10% of those who believe AGW is unfounded managed to get and sign the petition and 99% of scientists believe that it is real, than we have 31 million scientists in the US. That means that roughly every 10th person is a scientist. This is just laughable.

Saying that you think that I think that I am very smart and scientists are not is just pure demagoguery on your side. What I tried to demonstrate is that the AGW people are very reasonable crowd given their objective to protect their self interest and financial well being and that creates positive feedback loop with the people funding them.

This is a forum for people who love science so if you want to have a reasonable discussion show me the problems with my reasoning rather than expressing options of what you think that I think.

I hope you can be more of a thinker than follower.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

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

Post by happyjack27 »

pbelter wrote: I value critical thinking and pursuit of truth using the Scientific Method, with its 3 main tools:
- control group
- Ockham razor
- falsifiable theories

The AGW crowd is not very fond of those methods.
Scientist are individuals, not a monolithic group. If it were then no critical thinking would happen.

There a petition signed by 31,000 scientists with US addresses saying “no convincing evidence” for human induced climate change. you can easily google it.
Assuming that all 10% of those who believe AGW is unfounded managed to get and sign the petition and 99% of scientists believe that it is real, than we have 31 million scientists in the US. That means that roughly every 10th person is a scientist. This is just laughable.

Saying that you think that I think that I am very smart and scientists are not is just pure demagoguery on your side. What I tried to demonstrate is that the AGW people are very reasonable crowd given their objective to protect their self interest and financial well being and that creates positive feedback loop with the people funding them.

This is a forum for people who love science so if you want to have a reasonable discussion show me the problems with my reasoning rather than expressing options of what you think that I think.

I hope you can be more of a thinker than follower.

bla bla bla.... scientists still account for everything you mentioned. and indeed, their models and simulations match observed temperatures.
No stream is large and copious of itself, but is fed and guided by so many tributary currents.

So it is with all intellectual greatness. It is simply a matter of "pointing the way" suggested by so many affluents, not whether one was richly or poorly gifted originally. -- Fredrich Nietzsche

4. Critical Thinking's Dirty Secret: The Importance of Background Knowledge:

http://criticalthinkeracademy.com/cours ... ures/51616
Last edited by happyjack27 on Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

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

Post by happyjack27 »

pbelter wrote: This is a forum for people who love science so if you want to have a reasonable discussion show me the problems with my reasoning rather than expressing options of what you think that I think.
The problems with your reasoning is that scientists already take into account everything you mentioned.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

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

Post by happyjack27 »

pbelter wrote:I value critical thinking...
..shortly followed by....
The AGW crowd is not very fond of those methods.

* personal attack (ad hominem)
* unsubstantiated accusation
* very easily disprovable

so you VALUE it, you just don' t DO it!

Post Reply