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.

3 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Renewable versus fossil - where is nuclear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do you seriously think Billy boy isn't well aware of Nuclear?! Watch this:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates?language=en

  2. Re:Renewable versus fossil - where is nuclear? by Adriax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Thick concrete walls and extensive routine inspections are safety measures.
    Forcing plants to not process or reuse spent fuel is not.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  3. Re:Renewable versus fossil - where is nuclear? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The risks of nuclear are much larger than the estimates at the beginning of the nuclear age, which are used by the merry slashdot pro-nuclear band.

    And yet, to date, nuclear power has done less damage to the environment, as well as killing fewer people (by several orders of magnitude) than just coal mining, much less coal power in general.

    If we'd gone all nuke back in the 60's, we'd not have had the last half century worth of coal mining deaths, nor would we have the coal ash heaps piled untidily about our environment. And best of all, we wouldn't be talking about AGW, since CO2 levels wouldn't be this high by a significant margin....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"