Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Q&A: Bill Gates on investments in energy technologies

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: Q&A: Bill Gates on investments in energy technologies

#21

Post by Noseshine »

sevenless wrote: post #20

> Gates doesn’t blame the paucity of miracle technologies on the absence of a price on carbon So governments introducing no regulations or taxes around carbon pollution isn't a problem? Would he have said that about ozone depletion or SOx/NOx emissions standards? This reads like a typical free-marketer's apology for Exxon lobbyists and paid denialists screwing up international cooperation on global warming. Also noth…

    > Also nothing in here about using less energy.
I think we will require a lot more energy than ever before. To produce clean water - possibly from ocean water (desalination) - and to add more and more A/C, possibly using different technologies than today (but they'll still require energy input). Water and heat are becoming more and more of a problem for vast regions. The Middle East already is next to unlivable, setting new temperature records (which will probably be broken again and again in the foreseeable future). We can move hundreds of millions or even billions of people to more livable climate regions, we can let them die, or we can use technology - and energy, plenty of it, on a huge scale.

Re: Q&A: Bill Gates on investments in energy technologies

#22

Post by [deleted] »

Noseshine wrote: post #21
sevenless wrote: post #20

> Gates doesn’t blame the paucity of miracle technologies on the absence of a price on carbon So governments introducing no regulations or taxes around carbon pollution isn't a problem? Would he have said that about ozone depletion or SOx/NOx emissions standards? This reads like a typical free-marketer's apology for Exxon lobbyists and paid denialists screwing up international cooperation on global warming. Also noth…

> Also nothing in here about using less energy. I think we will require a lot more energy than ever before. To produce clean water - possibly from ocean water (desalination) - and to add more and more A/C, possibly using different technologies than today (but they'll still require energy input). Water and heat are becoming more and more of a problem for vast regions. The Middle East already is next to unlivable, sett…

[deleted]

Re: Q&A: Bill Gates on investments in energy technologies

#23

Post by hannob »

niels_olson wrote: post #2

For carbon, why can't we just find a big hole and start dumping corn in?

There are actually proposals to do something like that, however it's more likely to be wood, not corn.

But this has all kinds of potential issues. The likely biggest one is that whatever you want to bury needs to be grown somewhere. It needs space where things can grow, that means space and soil that can't be used otherwise to grow food. If you cut down existing trees you're likely causing more emissions than you bury. If you create even stronger competition around fertile land you also create more carbon emissions through indirect landuse changes.

So yes, this is a potential option, but it needs to be carefully weighted against potential downsides.

Re: Q&A: Bill Gates on investments in energy technologies

#24

Post by visarga »

Roritharr wrote: post #3
niels_olson wrote: post #2

For carbon, why can't we just find a big hole and start dumping corn in?

Because the rotting process would create methane which would seep out easily, its wasteful and ethically questionable (people are still starving, so not even using corn as fuel is pretty horrible). Storing Carbon cheaply and safely is to me an unsolved problem. Especially if you want to do it without wasting tons of minerals (before someone talks about vacuumed dried algae or stuff like that).

What about Iron fertilization of the upper ocean to stimulate a phytoplankton bloom?

Re: Q&A: Bill Gates on investments in energy technologies

#25

Post by visarga »

fragsworth wrote: post #4
niels_olson wrote: post #2

For carbon, why can't we just find a big hole and start dumping corn in?

To an extent, that actually works to sequester carbon, but it's not clear that it's the most cost-effective way to do it. Nor would people be OK with the perceived waste.

I'm curious, what would be the most effective way to sequester carbon?

Re: Q&A: Bill Gates on investments in energy technologies

#26

Post by supercarrot »

Noseshine wrote: post #21
sevenless wrote: post #20

> Gates doesn’t blame the paucity of miracle technologies on the absence of a price on carbon So governments introducing no regulations or taxes around carbon pollution isn't a problem? Would he have said that about ozone depletion or SOx/NOx emissions standards? This reads like a typical free-marketer's apology for Exxon lobbyists and paid denialists screwing up international cooperation on global warming. Also noth…

> Also nothing in here about using less energy. I think we will require a lot more energy than ever before. To produce clean water - possibly from ocean water (desalination) - and to add more and more A/C, possibly using different technologies than today (but they'll still require energy input). Water and heat are becoming more and more of a problem for vast regions. The Middle East already is next to unlivable, sett…

fracking - 70 to 140 billion gallons anually

animal agriculture - 34 to 76 trillion gallons anually

at least we know what wastes a lot of water, the solution is simple, but is not as tasty.

as for heating, yes, it's quite a problem.

withouthotair.com is a great resource for the approximate numbers.

Re: Q&A: Bill Gates on investments in energy technologies

#27

Post by dredmorbius »

niels_olson wrote: post #2

For carbon, why can't we just find a big hole and start dumping corn in?

I ran numbers on energy equivalence of fossil fuels to wood in a recent comment. Very roughly, a ton of coal or barrel of oil equals a cord of wood (actually somewhat more, but close enough).

Given US timber production and multiplying by five to get an estimate of global timber ... estimated fossil fuel resources are equal to about 200,000 years of global timber production.

That's a lot of wood.

Even if you're only looking at a small recoverable portion, say 10%, it's 20,000 years.

Energy translates reasonably well to carbon. There's some allowance for natural carbon sinks. But truth is we're messing with the carbon cycle in a huge way.

Re: Q&A: Bill Gates on investments in energy technologies

#28

Post by dredmorbius »

tim333 wrote: post #5
Roritharr wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the rotting process would create methane which would seep out easily, its wasteful and ethically questionable (people are still starving, so not even using corn as fuel is pretty horrible). Storing Carbon cheaply and safely is to me an unsolved problem. Especially if you want to do it without wasting tons of minerals (before someone talks about vacuumed dried algae or stuff like that).

I like the idea of building stuff out of wood. Then we can have nice buildings and store carbon.

There's actually a really good idea in there.

After transport, building materials are a large energy consumer. Coming up with alternatives to concrete, steel, aluminium, and similar materials, possibly though biologics, whether low-tech like wood, or self-forming biocrete and biobrick.

Paving, especially.

Re: Q&A: Bill Gates on investments in energy technologies

#29

Post by dredmorbius »

visarga wrote: post #25
fragsworth wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To an extent, that actually works to sequester carbon, but it's not clear that it's the most cost-effective way to do it. Nor would people be OK with the perceived waste.

I'm curious, what would be the most effective way to sequester carbon?

Possibly shellfish, given past limestone deposites (calcium carbonate).

Re: Q&A: Bill Gates on investments in energy technologies

#30

Post by danmaz74 »

safeignorance wrote: post #13

Going for C=0 is an impressively ambitious goal. There is one thing I really like about this proposal. Gates believes our future depends upon scientific advances and resulting technological innovation, supported by modest and easy-to-justify infrastructure improvements. This breaks away from demand-side policy-centered approaches, yes. But more importantly -- to me, at least -- it breaks away from an over-reliance on…

Problem is, we have no idea how long it will take to find a breakthrough technology. But we have the problem now. Do we just invest in research and pray?
Post reply on HN