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?
Storing a few hours of power in a battery doesn't solve the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
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!
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 lot of people can't even maintain a home generator. For example, come a disaster, people hit the hardware stores and buy open frame construction generators that put out 4-10kw. However, they are obscenely noisy. After the disaster, they are shoved in the garage and forgotten about.
Well, come the next would be disaster, that generator is pulled out... and won't start. The E-10 gasoline in the tank has turned to varnish, the carb is clogged to uselessness, and in some climates, the windings on the armature are corroded, so it can't even get a current in the first place.
Good generators are expensive. Yes, one can buy a Harbor Freight special for ~$100, which is a clone of Yamaha's ET800 model, made in the 1970s... but it has no voltage regulation, and has very dirty power, where adding/removing a load may result in a 160 volt spike. A good Yamaha or Honda portable inverter generator costs five to ten times as much as the open framed models found at hardware stores... but are a thousand to ten thousand times as quiet, and have a lot better parts availability. To boot, power is extremely clean.
Or the generator gets maintained and oiled... and the person uses a "widow maker" cord to backfeed the house power, which is not a good thing for people working on the lines when power is out. Some pocos are so tired of this, they will pull an offending house's meter, and not reconnect power until the place puts in a up to code way of allowing for generator power (transfer switch [1], safety breaker interlock [1].)
In general, home generators are useful, but one can't expect them to realistically be used in a blackout situation.
[1]: Best of all worlds is a whole-house UPS with two power inputs. That way, the generator is independant of the mains power, and either or both (for a short time) cutting off would not affect power in the house.
You understand that is probably the exact reason, in this case, Bill Gates, is not divesting.
And hopefully, again, in this case, he is using the profits from that industry to help invest in renewables.
That would be 200% okay in my book. A robin hood of sorts for investments.
Precisely... the two ideas are independent.
If his investments are publicly-traded, selling his stake does nothing. The companies he's invested in won't lose his money, because he'd just be selling to another individual, so "his money" becomes "the other guy's money". If it's a private investment, where he may be contractually limited in what he can do, then the whole discussion is rather moot. He may be able to sell his way out of the investment, which would reduce the company's operating capital somewhat, but unless he's a major shareholder, the impact on the company will be minimal.
On the other hand, if he keeps his investments, he likely gets votes in how the company operates. Being Bill Gates, he probably gets a few more votes and can bend a few more ears than regular folks can. If the investments do anything, good or bad, that's where it lies... they give Mr. Gates the ability to push the fossil-fuel companies in a more environmentally-friendly direction.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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.
The biggest thing holding EVs back is refueling time.
Tesla Supercharging stations. Charging time circles back to the cost of the batteries. I drive two vehicles that are 200 miles(motorcycle) and 300 miles respectively. I don't have a problem with them.
Cheaper batteries would lead to longer ranged EVs, and bigger batteries can generally be charged in the same time as a smaller battery, you just use a higher wattage charger. So that helps take care of the charging time issue.
If we can get all the 'second' cars most families have to be EV, that's enough penetration to ensure charging stations all over the place, as well as other technologies to take care of the range issue.
One example would be a small generator trailer that provides about 12kW. A motorcycle engine provides enough power to keep even a heavy EV moving at highway speeds. Optimize it for fuel efficiency...
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.
I view it as the opposite. Or perhaps it's a negative circle - the high cost of the battery pack limits range, creating range anxiety, limiting sales, which limits the economy of scale for the battery packs, which increases their cost, which means that the manufacturers try to get by with the smallest battery pack they can, etc...
Still, Tesla is reportedly selling every car they can manufacture, which tells me that they don't need 400 miles, 250+ is enough.
I don't read AC A human right
In the future electric vehicles will be used instead of generators. Nissan already offer it in Japan. A Leaf with a 24kWh battery can run a typical house for a few days, depending on how frugal you are with the power.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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
the problem
Your statement implies that there's only 1 problem, which I dispute. When it comes to powering our civilization, there are many interconnected problems.
So which problem isn't being solved? The only one I claimed it would solve is the demand for power during peak periods. To be more specific, one of the problems with renewable energy today is that you need to keep a certain amount of 'spinning reserve' going in case the wind dies off and clouds cover the sun. If batteries become cheap enough, you can turn off the spinning reserve. It's only a small part of a much bigger picture, sure, but that means that it still needs to be addressed.
I don't read AC A human right
Even now, a Prius with an inverter on the traction battery bank can provide a decent amount of power. With a MEPS alternator, you can get 5kw+ from a truck or van, so even though it isn't electric the vehicle can double as a generator (and with the emissions controls on vehicles, that is a lot better for the environment.)
We are lurching slowly towards that, especially with motorhomes. For example, Roadtrek announced last week the addition of 200-1200 ampere-hour battery packs that charge from the engine. I worked on designing a Transit van conversion that would use a "hybrid" inverter so if plugged into a house (or a small vacation cabin), it would run the electricial system from the van's aux battery bank, then once the batteries hit 60% SoC, fire up a generator.
I wouldn't be surprised to see this technology filter into cars, be it plugging the vehicle in and using an alternator as a generator, or having the car's battery bank be used first.
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)
So very very cringe-worthy, it's like a freshman abusing the fuck out of a thesaurus while writing his very first college essay.
In response to the AC that triggered mlts's post, I didn't say one word about having house level generators. I was talking about the power company using the big-ass generators it owns and maintains, that are so huge it takes 15+ minutes to get them fired up from 'cold'. Basically, rather than having a few of them idling, using a fair bit of fuel to produce next to no power(they're most efficient at around 80-90% of capability), you shut them off because you have a humongous UPS providing power until they can be started.
As for maintenance, it's no different than keeping your gasoline lawn mower working, but then, I acknowledge that 'lack of maintenance' is the biggest killer of mowers out there. I've been running the same one for near 20 years, because I maintain it. Which consists of: new oil, air filter, and blade sharpening every year, new blade & spark plug as necessary. Most don't change anything, and thus the mower only lasts ~4 years.
Well, come the next would be disaster, that generator is pulled out... and won't start. The E-10 gasoline in the tank has turned to varnish, the carb is clogged to uselessness, and in some climates, the windings on the armature are corroded, so it can't even get a current in the first place.
Even non-ethanol gasoline will varnish up the carb in that situation. Arguably worse than the ethanol version will. It's more where they simply shove it into the backyard that you get corroded windings, even a car port will normally protect from that.
Or the generator gets maintained and oiled... and the person uses a "widow maker" cord to backfeed the house power, which is not a good thing for people working on the lines when power is out. Some pocos are so tired of this, they will pull an offending house's meter, and not reconnect power until the place puts in a up to code way of allowing for generator power (transfer switch [1], safety breaker interlock [1].)
Not that I excuse idiots, but do you know what generally happens when somebody plugs in such a cord when the main breaker hasn't been popped off? The generator's breaker pops because you're trying to feed the neighborhood.
Though I wonder what the power company would think my milspec manual interlock/transfer switch? - It's a piece of painted sheet metal riveted to the panel such that it will only slide when both the generator and the main breaker are off, and each position only allows ONE of the two to be on. IE to go to generator power I have to flip the main breaker off, slide the piece over(blocking turning main on), then flip the generator switch.
I don't read AC A human right
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.