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?
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.
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.
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
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)