Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Investing $2 Billion In Renewables
An anonymous reader writes: Bill Gates has dumped a billion dollars into renewables, and now he's ready to double down. Gates announced he will increase his investment in renewable energy technologies to $2 billion in an attempt to "bend the curve" on limiting climate change. He is focusing on risky investments that favor "breakthrough" technologies because he thinks incremental improvements to existing tech won't be enough to meet energy needs while avoiding a climate catastrophe. He says, "There's no battery technology that's even close to allowing us to take all of our energy from renewables and be able to use battery storage in order to deal not only with the 24-hour cycle but also with long periods of time where it's cloudy and you don't have sun or you don't have wind. Power is about reliability. We need to get something that works reliably." At the same time, Gates rejected calls to divest himself and his charitable foundation of investments in fossil fuel companies.
Always a dichotomy between renewables versus fossil fuels. Either you are hippy windmill-hugger or bad CO2-spewing coal monster.
Maybe, instead, he could throw few billions in direction of 4th gen nuclear power and give us another 1000+ years to focus on solving fusion and/or proper renewable energy research/storage etc?
The cost of the battery packs is still the biggest thing holding EVs back from being practical, and at the same time, if we can economically store electricity in a battery pack in a car, we can store it economically outside of cars for use during peak periods.
Other companies can make facilities like Fairbank's BESS, a 27MW 6.75 MWh UPS. While it can 'only' run for 15 minutes at full power, that's enough time to get other generators spinning.
With a sufficient number of them, you wouldn't need constantly spinning power to backup wind/solar.
I don't read AC A human right
I could not think of a better place to ask this.
But we have a way to turn electricity directly into heat. But there is no direct way to turn heat into electricity. It has to go thru a second step of mechanical energy to spin a magnet to create electricity. Why can we not turn heat directly back into electricity?
I don't see why he should divest from Fossil fuels - they are profitable! He is taking profits and plowing them back into renewables !! That's good (maybe not all - but 2B is alot of cash)
I've never been a fan, but increasingly, I find myself admiring what he is doing with his wealth and time post-microsoft.
Good for you Mr. Gates, use your money to try and do something positive in this world.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
Greetings, Slashdot time traveler from the year 2000. Welcome to the world of 2015!! You'll find that many things have changed here.
in reliability? Wow!
Testing the 'fool and his money is soon parted' proverb must be a lot of fun when you have so much to part with that it doesn't matter.
I've never been a fan, but increasingly, I find myself admiring his HUGE EGO, as I have one TOO, and what his HUGE EGO is doing with his VAST wealth (which I would like to have TOO).
I wish all the big money enviros like Bill Gates would completely divest of fossil fuel companies. That way folks like me could buy the stock on the cheap and rake in steady dividends. Come on Bill, put your money where your mouth is!
yet...
He's right - there's no current battery technology that will let us get all of our power from renewables. Even if we build the capacity, that level of daily cycling will destroy most batteries pretty quickly. What the focus should be on is peak-shaving and load smoothing, so that the power plants can efficiently ride a slowly changing average demand, rather than burning off excess supply to account for brief peaks.
Smart grid tech is where it's at. Batteries that can return power to the grid or charge at a higher level on demand. Appliances such as water heaters, air conditioners and refrigerators that can coordinate their power cycling. Electric cars that can charge at the office or pump power back into the grid, with a user-controlled minimum drive-home charge level.
Nuclear is a great source for baseload, but the challenge is meeting the need for a variable demand. Sure, we need more renewables and clean nuclear, but don't write off the fossil fuels until the storage tech catches up.
There was a time when people were very pronuclear, but the idiot motherfucking operators in Chernobyl and Fukishima fixed this problem.
TFTFY.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
A thought just occurred to me: Assuming in the near to medium-term future we had many many large installations of battery banks (ala-Tesla batteries, for instance) charging and discharging constantly, how much waste heat would be generated by this, and how much would that waste heat contribute to global warming (positively or negatively)? Purely theoretical, I know.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
You don't think he got to where he is by writing a bunch of checks, did you?
his future heirs will likely quietly mothball their fathers once glorious end-of-life decision to cure the world of global warming in favour of perhaps another yacht or mansion.
Nearly all of his money is going into his trust, which his kids cannot touch. His offspring are "only" getting a few million each.
The cost of the battery packs is still the biggest thing holding EVs back from being practical
Disagree though I do agree that cost is a major issue - I just think it is not the biggest issue. The biggest thing holding EVs back is refueling time. Range anxiety is THE most common argument against EVs. Despite the logical argument that most people don't actually drive all that far in a given day, people need/want a car that can drive them 400 miles without worrying about refueling because sometimes they need to do that. Many people cannot afford multiple vehicles and if they want to go visit their parents in the next state they don't want it to be a multi-day expedition nor do they want to rent a car. Long refueling times are something of a showstopper bug even if the problem is mostly one of perception most of the time.
The cost of the battery packs it is really a second order result because EV production is still too small to get full economies of scale. Costs have been falling and will continue to fall so long as the vehicles continue to improve. If they solve the recharge time issue a LOT more people would seriously consider buying EVs and the cost issue would resolve itself in due course. Until an EV can be refueled in under 15 minutes people are going to have range anxiety. I would say cost is a strong second on the list of things holding back EVs.
Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?
If nuclear reactors were as reliable as Windows..............
Gates made his money recycling other people's ideas.
There are some battery types which have a very high amount of charging cycles. Supercaps and NiFe batteries come to mind. Neither is great at energy density, but both can (assuming proper care taken) last for a very long time.
There are basically two fundamentally different ways how to install renewable energy.
Local, for home owners or e.g. boats and grid scale.
If you have a max demand of lets say 10kW, and the demand curve is mainly oscillating between 1kW and 5kw and only sparsely approaching 10kW, you can relatively easy figure how big your battery stack needs to be. Depending on: how long you want it to last in an emergency or dire situation. Also it is easy to make your rooftop solar plant big enough, like 1.5 to 2.0 times the peak demand.
Note: you are building up a plant as combination of solar power generation and battery storage fitting your own load pattern (and geographical location and orientation of the house etc. ... and your budget)
Switching the whole grid to renewables is a complete different matter. And storage technology is the least of all concerns.
The daily load curve of a grid looks like this: night from roughly 1:00 till 5:00 the load is at 40% (Germany) or 60% (France) and for the USA somewhere in the middle. That number is called "base load".
From roughly 5:00 to roughly 9:00 the load is ramping up rapidly to close to 100%. From roughly 21:00 till 1:00 the load is dropping down again to "base load".
Between 9:00 till 21:00 the load is varying between 85% and 100% depending on country and usage pattern (e.g. lots of AC in the USA, nearly no AC at all in Germany).
So: as long as your total installed wind + solar power is not at 100% of the daily demand curve: it makes no sense to store anything. Because you literally have no excess to store. This is basically the reason why in Germany most private roof top solar plants simply feed into the grid. And inhabitants simply draw from the grid.
To get your night load from storage, just the 4 hours from 1:00 till 5:00 (lets say it is 50% of peak), you need 4hours during daytime where you generate 140% of your peak load and store 40% of that somewhere.
On the other hand: wind is also blowing at night. So if your distributed wind plants can statistically feed more than 40% of your peak load constantly into the grid, and the grid can transport/distribute that power over your whole country: you don't need any storage at all, and you can safe the investment into 40% overproduction beyond the 100% peak as well as the storage.
I would assume that a country like the USA already has enough pumped storage to simply switch to solar and wind. For Germany that certainly is the case.
Pumped storage btw. is mainly used as reserve energy and balancing energy ... not simply as a "storage for excess production".
I would like if energy articles would focus more on stuff that really matters instead of bringing up the "storage myth" every now and then.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
TEs are ridiculously inefficient and aren't looking to be much better anytime soon
Because thermoelectric effect devices leak heat big time.
However there's also thermionics. The vacuum-tube version is currently inefficient - about as inefficient as slightly behind-the-curve solar cells - due to space charge accumulation discouraging current, but I've seen reports of a semiconductor close analog of it (as an FET is a semiconductor close analog of a vacuum triode) that IS efficient, encouraging the space charge to propagate through the drift region by doping tricks (that I don't recall offhand). The semiconductor version beats the problems that plague thermoelectrics because the only charge carriers crossing the temperature gradient are the ones doing so in an efficient manner, so the bulk of the thermal leakage is mechanical rather than electrical, and the drift region can be long enough to keep that fraction down.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
We may have to come to grips with the idea that it's just a hard sell. The long-term average death/illness rate may be much lower than say oil or wind, BUT people remember the "spikes" of accidents such as 3-Mile-Island.
It's just easier to sell an idea that kills lots of people gradually in a predictable rate than one that kills nobody for many years, but occasionally hiccups in a newsworthy way.
That's just the way it is. We can't change human nature, and mass nagging usually backfires. We probably have to just live with that fact unless somebody invents breakthrough persuasion technology.
Table-ized A.I.
Maybe the climate change skeptics are fueled by the bullshit coming from the global warming idiots (I mean global change).
There have been periods of global warming and global cooling. If the CO2 level climbs to where it was 50 million years ago human being would do just fine.
Coastlines rise and fall with and without humanity.
Three Mile Island in the US is what turned many Americans off to nuclear - at least for the old farts.
we have a way to turn electricity directly into heat. But there is no direct way to turn heat into electricity. It has to go thru a second step of mechanical energy to spin a magnet to create electricity.
You can go from electricity directly to heat because that increases entropy. You can't go from heat to anything useful because that decreases entropy, and entropy of a closed system only increases. The best you can do is a heat engine, working off a temperature DIFFERENCE. (Some of them also work backward as heat pumps, to go from electricity to heat more effectively, by also grabbing some heat from elsewhere to include in the hot end output.)
There ARE at least two major forms of electronic heat engines - direct from temperature differences to electricity, with only charge carriers as the moving parts: Thermoelectrics (thermocouples, peltier junctions, and thermopiles of them) and thermionics (both heat-driven vacuum diode generators and a FET-like semiconductor analog of them). Both are discussed in other responses to the parent post.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Tell them they and the NSA will have a new reason to spy on people and post boogieman terrorist stores so we can enjoy safe nuclear power.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Dumping: deposit or dispose of (garbage, waste, or unwanted material), typically in a careless or hurried way.
So either your point of view is that Bill Gates wasted two billion dollars on renewables because renewables are a waste.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
If Gates was REALLY serious about doing something to affect climate change, he'd start a company to bring online in the next 10 years a reliable replaced for the Uranium fuel cycle.
And that would be by developing safe, affordable Generation IV MSR's using the thorium fuel cycle.
Nuclear Energy doesn't add significantly to atmospheric CO2 and in fact can completely replace the reliance on fossil fuels for energy. The only 'problem' nuclear power has is an image problem with waste and safety (understandably so). MSR's are completely safe, with the reaction running at atmospheric pressure and high temperature. If the reactor spikes, it automatically moderates itself, and if the reactor loses main power, the reactor shuts down safely, without human intervention because of physics, instead of in spite of it.
Another benefit, these MSR's can process the nuclear waste from the uranium fuel cycle back into the thorium fuel cycle, and eventually out as safe.
Another benefit, thorium is plentiful, and the fuel cycle produces and the consumes the Uranium-233 that is fissioned to produce energy. Burning Uranium in our current reactors is both inefficient and wasteful. It's equivalent to burning platinum for energy.
We are fools not to invest in this tech and become the world leaders in the next nuclear revolution.
If we don't do this, China or India will. The science doesn't lie.
Nuclear isn't evil at all. Heavy water nuclear reactor are however, stupid. Totally stupid.
There are several nuclear designs which produce a fraction of the waste, cannot melt down and are non-proliferation. I expect that last item is exactly why they are not used.
We do not need more heavy reactor plants.
Tesla Supercharging stations.
Not good enough nor plentiful enough nor convenient enough nor standard enough. They take 45 minutes to get an 80% charge and over an hour to get a full charge. Plus they're not much use if you don't have a Tesla. They're a good effort in the right direction but not good enough by a long shot yet.
Cheaper batteries would lead to longer ranged EVs
With fast charging you don't need longer range EVs - we already have EVs that can do over 200 miles on a charge now with more on the way. With lighter batteries (at the same power output) you also would get longer ranged EVs so arguably you'd be better off trying to get a better power to weight ratio before worrying about lowering cost. I suspect that you'll see more car makers trying Tesla's model starting at the high end with EVs and then EVs will filter down to the lower end of the market from the luxury market as volumes build and technology improves.
Basically you won't get cheaper batteries unless you can build them in larger quantities. You won't get to build them in larger quantities until you can convince them that they can refuel their vehicles in a convenient manner. There is however hope that through development of hybrid cars we can keep developing the batteries and increasing economies of scale until recharge times and ranges and prices are low enough to make pure EVs practical.
If we can get all the 'second' cars most families have to be EV
Won't happen. You will see a lot of hybrids which might eventually accomplish the same end but you won't see pure EVs until the range anxiety problem is solved. To do that you need to be able to refuel them substantially faster than current technology permits.
the high cost of the battery pack limits range
The power to weight ratio is what fundamentally limits range unless you are using fewer batteries than you could for a given vehicle. Beyond a certain point cramming more batteries into a vehicle results in diminishing returns to range (eventually becoming negative) and there are practical considerations (like passengers and cargo space) that limit the number of batteries that can be used as well. A Nissan leaf is a tiny car with an absurdly short range and doesn't have a huge amount of space for a large battery pack no matter what the cost is. While it works fine, for most people it's pretty limiting.
creating range anxiety,
Range anxiety is based on a combination of limited range and long recharge times. You could give the batteries away and you'd still have the problem.
Still, Tesla is reportedly selling every car they can manufacture, which tells me that they don't need 400 miles, 250+ is enough.
Tesla is selling a specialty supercar that costs $100,000. Practicality is not a paramount concern to someone who can afford a vehicle that expensive. Believe me I'd buy one in a heartbeat if I could but I'd still have another car with a gas/diesel engine. Simply visiting my parents house would exceed its range and I do that at least once a month. (no there isn't a supercharger along the route and using one would cause an hour delay to the trip)
Because his goals and your interests are now aligned.
Broadly speaking, the Gates Foundation wants to improve the world. It doesn't care about making a profit, it just wants to get the most improvement for the money it has available to spend. It can choose freely what kind of energy production to promote, and it is clearly choosing based on a bang-for-the-buck basis.
When Gates was running Microsoft, his goal was to make Microsoft bigger. Microsoft's mission statement of "enabling people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential" was actually subordinate to the goal of growing Microsoft, which is why one-Windows-running-on-everything was promoted over, say, clear standards and interoperability for Office files.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
So very very cringe-worthy, it's like a freshman abusing the fuck out of a thesaurus while writing his very first college essay.
ummm slash dot is only for time travelers... current time users are doing it wrong, go back to your twitbook... also the lawn
Too bad the Oil Companies have more money than him. If only they would invest some of their billions embracing alternate fuel sources instead of fighting tooth and nail to keep the status quot.
And a few million other problems that are in the domain of solvable problems within acceptable time and resource constraints. Solve the BIG problem (useful, scalable, humanlike AI) and you solve the energy problem as a side effect.
Instead, Gates is chasing after problems in a random piecemeal way by simply throwing money at them. I hope it works, but the approach is not worth of someone of his intellect.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
The most achievement this sort of "philantropic" thing buys is the press coverage.
Honestly, his contribution to the state of computing is a costly holding back the state of the art for a couple decades. Not having to deal with the costs, direct and indirect, covert and overt, of using his software (often because "everyone else does it too", poor to nonexistent interop and related monopolistic tendencies) would have freed up quite a few man-hours, some of which could've been spent inventing better renewables. So this at best is a directed catch-up effort, but as noted in-your-face "philantropy" is really self-aggrandizement and actual achievements are a distant second in importance. Might as well expect North Korean scientist to fix it right up for you.
A mutually beneficial exchange of electrons with a parallel universe with slightly different physical constants.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Any attempt at stopping climate changes without reducing or even better, stopping animal consumption is pointless. Please look-up the Cowspiracy movie and " Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won't Work" from Richard Oppenlander. I made the move to a plant based diet for my family's health and mine, but for the planet, I don't care any more really, I know it's already too late. It's like Abba Eban said: "... men and nations do behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives ...".
Except this time, there will not be a second chance.
Yes, but like Buffett's kids, they will have cushy jobs "administering" dad's trust and won't have to do any real work if they choose to.
People treat it like it's inherently evil, when the truth of the matter is that any problems with it have been through mismanagement and poor planning.
It's not evil - just dangerous. Dangerous in a way that is challenging to mitigate. No amount of planning or good management or (probably) engineering will make fission power not dangerous. Sure we can mitigate it to some degree (thorium, etc) but we have no technology or management system that can eliminate the possibility of a serious incident. Plus even if our management was perfect (which is impossible though it's generally been very good so far) there is always the possibility of a natural disaster of sufficient scale overwhelming the safety features of the design or that a war or terrorist incident might result in unsafe operation of the plant. Nuclear is scary in a way that other forms of energy are not - even if sometimes this fear is irrational.
Furthermore there is the waste problem which nobody seems willing/able to adequately address. Perhaps worst of all, nuclear power has to address all the externality costs of its operation whereas fossil fuels do not. Fossil fuel plants get to dump massive amounts of carbon and other pollutants for free while nuclear is regulated probably tighter than any other industry in most places.
So while I think nuclear fission is a necessary part of the equation for the foreseeable future I don't think it has any realistic chance to be much more of the equation than it is now unless there are substantial technological breakthroughs, which we seem to be in no danger of making.
We can do better, and need to do better.
I have zero confidence that people will stop making mistakes or that the risk of nuclear fission can be made acceptably low to make it politically palatable ever again. I think the only type of nuclear energy that will solve the problem is if we can somehow figure out how to do fusion - and that is basically science fiction right now.
Wind and solar, while nice and clean, probably aren't going to ever be capable of delivering all the power the world needs/wants.
Unfortunately we probably cannot keep dumping pollutants (esp carbon) endlessly into the environment and expect there to be no consequences. For now the goal should be to minimize waste production and to force every form of energy production to cost the full price of its waste stream. I have no illusion that fossil fuels will go away in my lifetime but I strongly think we could substantially cut their use with renewables.
Many more people are dying falling off roofs installing solar panels than have ever died from a nuclear power plant.
Citation please.
We can't call them 'greens' or 'environmentalists' because they're really just supporting coal power, empirically.
No they aren't. The problem is that that coal and nuclear are necessary currently. There is actually one achievable option to minimize use of both and that is to reduce the demand. We've collectively shown no actual interest in doing that but that is effectively what you are arguing for if you argue against both nuclear and fossil fuels. It requires a fair bit of belt tightening that I think is unlikely but it is technically possible to a very substantial degree.
Covering 1/4 of New Mexico has been proposed as well
Please point out a single actually credible proposal to do that. Personally I think you are pulling "statistics" out of your hind end.
Ah, here is a fool that was looking at the right hand, while ignoring the left hand that was picking your pocket.
...then I took an arrow to the knee.
BHO has been throwing money at break through technology like Solendra since he was elected. None of it has panned out. At least Gates is spending his own money. I guess it is his to waste.
When Bill Gates says:
he's totally wrong.
For starters, there's Vanadium Redox. A flow battery (pumped electrolyte): Power limited by the size of the reaction device's electrode and membrane assembly. Energy storage limited by the size of the tanks. It's mainly used for utility-level energy storage down under (Oz or Nz, I think), because the patents are still fresh and the little startup doesn't want to license it to others. Vanadium is some substantial percentage of the Earth's crust so there's no shortage. Using the same element (in different sets of oxidation states - vanadium has (at least) 6 of 'em) for BOTH electrodes means leakage of small amounts of the element through the dilectric membrane doesn't poison the battery.
Lithum cells are already good enough to run laptops, cars, and houses, and are improving at a Moore's Law like rate. The elements are also not rare and the use of several nanotech techniques on the electrodes have drastically increased the lifetime and other useful properties. (We just had reports of yet another breakthrough within the last day or so, doubling the capacity and extending the life.) The fast-charge/discharge cells are also extremely efficient. (They have to be, because every horsepower is 3/4 kW, so even a few percent of loss would translate to enormous heat in an automotive application.) The main problem is to get companies to "pull the trigger" on deploying them - and risk their new production line being rendered obsolete before the product hits the market by NEXT month's breakthroughs.
Lead-acids need to be replaced once or twice per decade. But they have been the workhorses for off-grid since Edison's and Nikola Tesla's days, and still are today (though not for long, if Elon Musk and the five billion dollars of investments in his lithium battery plant have anything to say about it).
Nickel-Iron wet cells are a technology developed by Edison. They have more loss than lead-acids. But they literally last for centuries. If you have a moderately steady renewable source (like some combination of enough wind and a big enough windmill, enough sun and a big enough solar array, or a stream and a big enough hydro system) you'll have enough more power than you need to keep them topped off. They're just fine for covering days, or even a couple weeks, of bad generation weather, or down-for-maintenance situations. That IS what they were in at least one hydro plant I know of. (The problem is finding them: They last so long you only need to buy them ONCE, so there aren't many plants.)
That's just four FAMILIES of entirely adequate solutions. There ARE more.
So Bill is either uninformed, talking through his hat, or starting on the "embrace" stage of yet another:
- Embrace
- Extend
- Extinguish
- PROFIT!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Fuck.
Bill Gates can ejaculate 15 Billion if Merkel sucks his balls.
Here is a way to Buy the EU, aka Germany, and save Greece.
Ha ha.
I see you are confused. Yes, the climate changes. What's worrying is not that it's changing, but that it's changing so fast. Yes, coastlines rise and fall without humanity, but when the world depends on cities built on the coast, you can see that it's rather worrisome that we as a species are doing everything we can to ensure they will be flooded at some point. Humanity would not be "fine" if we had the CO2 levels of the Eocene - our staple crops rely on being grown where they currently are, and rely on the current amount of CO2. The more CO2, the less nutritious they are, requiring more of them to be grown. The warming means the viable land suitable for agriculture will shift towards the poles, often onto poor soil (thanks to glaciation and other natural processes) and without the necessary infrastructure that humanity has built up over the last 50 years, and often over international borders, creating political problems as well as humanitarian ones.
But I'm sure your half-assed, factually incorrect assumptions are true. Yeah. Definitely.
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!
(That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!
(That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!
(That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!
(That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!
(That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!
(That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!
(That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
at a time when PM David Cameron is cutting wind farm subsidies Bill Gates is investing $2 Billion In Renewables. Whose judgement would you back ?
http://www.photogold.co.uk
It is isn't matter of love-hate, it is just economics. Nuclear power is too expensive even with huge government subsidies as liability insurance waiver. No new nuclear power plants are build in the US for many years, nobody needs them at that price and no plants are build just because of love. You may as well build solar plants with some form of expensive energy storage, I doubt it would be much more expensive.
I have to admire him for just getting on with it in a sensible manner and putting his money where his mouth is, unlike some other wealthy individuals who make more noise about what other's should do while not investing on the scale that Gates does. I see the sense in not attacking old energy, but simply inducing growth in new energy technologies, it is a more creative and positive attitude that will get results without making enemies.