Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates Announces A New $1 Billion Clean Energy Fund (fortune.com)

And "he's got several billionaire pals on board." An anonymous reader quotes Fortune: Nearly two dozen of the world's most successful business leaders, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists will invest up to $1 billion in a fund led by Microsoft-co-founder Bill Gates that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to almost zero by financing emerging clean energy technology. The Breakthrough Energy Ventures Fund includes John Doerr, chairman of venture firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Alibaba founder Jack Ma, Khosla Ventures founder Vinod Khosla, former energy hedge fund manager John Arnold, Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, and SAP co-founder Hasso Plattner...

The new fund, which will have a 20-year lifespan, is designed to be both broad and scientific -- two seemingly contradictory focuses -- in its investment approach. The fund will not be confined to a specific segment of the investment pipeline, which means it will put money into startups at the earliest of stages all the way to companies that have reached commercialization.

Gates said Sunday that "Our goal is to build companies that will help deliver the next generation of reliable, affordable, and emissions-free energy to the world."

10 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Deja vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Er?

    Surely the salient differences are

    - Gates isn't in government
    - he didn't run for election on the basis of 'draining the swamp' of corruption
    - he didn't run for election on the basis of representing individuals against globalists

    Do you even know for sure that Gates is a liberal?

  2. I guarantee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By the year 2050 we will still be running coal, natural gas, and oil fired power plants. Fossil fuel generation will still be greater than 50% of all electric generation.

    We may be forced into electric cars, or hybrids, but they won't be replacing power generation with zero emissions technology that quickly.

    1. Re:I guarantee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By the year 2050 we will still be running coal, natural gas, and oil fired power plants. Fossil fuel generation will still be greater than 50% of all electric generation.

      You think?

      Why just this morning, I watched an oil report on Bloomberg TV about the natural declines in oi production in many countries. And there was that huge discovery in Texas last month.

      And consider that even though it wasn't a regulatory requirement, many power plants switched to Natural Gas - cheap Natural Gas is what is kill coal: not the EPA as some Republicans insist.

      Here's my predication: as oil supplies dwindle, its cost will go up. As "green" technology improves, its costs will go down.

      At one point - soon (thanks China!*) green energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels.

      .

      *China is going crazy with green energy investment. They are developing it and the manufacturing capability for it. And while we round eyes are arguing about whether global warming is real or now, they are doing something about it and we will be dependent on them for solar panels and other "green" energy in the future because we are short sighted and stupid.

    2. Re:I guarantee by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you base this on what exactly ? Blind faith ?
      Considering that for every power plant you could build with fossil fuels a renewable plant will cost less and be done in 2 years rather than 15, and deliver cheaper electricity - that seems unlikely. And those numbers are *right now* - we can expect the price of renewables to drop and keep dropping, there is almost no chance of fossil fuel generators getting cheaper.

      Sheer political malfeasance could achieve that outcome - but nothing else could.

      Only an insane person (or a politician who took a very big bribe) would replace an aging fossil plant with a new fossil plant today. It makes no economic sense.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  3. Re:Deja vu by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Er?

    Surely the salient differences are

    - Gates isn't in government - he didn't run for election on the basis of 'draining the swamp' of corruption - he didn't run for election on the basis of representing individuals against globalists

    Do you even know for sure that Gates is a liberal?

    I don't care if Gates is liberal or conservative, he seems to be sane and rational on a bunch of stuff ranging from Pandemics like Malaria to clean energy and climate change so I applaud his efforts.

  4. Re:Deja vu by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh Trump drained a swamp allright. Then he took all the aligators that used to live in that swamp and put them in his cabinet.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  5. Re:Deja vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, we can't read your mind, so how about giving us an example?

    Because the most relevant example I can think of is Gates' push to eliminate Polio, of which you, myself, and everyone else are *included* in that "special" group. Literally the entire planet is included in that group.

  6. Re:Carrots are usually better than a stick. by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > if using clean energy can be made to actually be significantly cheaper and more convenient

    Done and dusted then. Clean energy is already significantly cheaper than fossil energy (solar to coal difference is massive already: solar plant costs per kilowhat hour is now roughly half of what it is for fossil plants), and convenience ? It takes 5 to 7 years to bring a coal plant online, and that's assuming everything happens on schedule - 15 years in practice is not unheard off (and nuclear STARTS there).
    A typical solar plant of the same capacity takes 2 years to build, and they are almost always on time, require less manpower to maintain and have fewer outages and far fewer safety concerns at every level.

    And that's without even considering the hidden costs like the healthcare for all the millions of people who get respiratory illnesses when you build a coal plant in their town.

    The trouble is there is ALREADY massive and heavy-handed government intervention: in favour of fossil fuels. Intervention which has proven to be politically almost impossible to be remove since the 'party of small government' and it's ilk around the world abandon all their rhetoric when it comes to defending the donors in that industry from upstart competitors who are cheaper, more reliable and cleaner. The market isn't free and doesn't operate like a free market - so your claims about what a free market would do has no relevance to any discussion about the energy market.
    Now since we can't get rid of the political influence on one side, the best we can try to achieve is to gain equal or greater political influence on the OTHER side so the two can cancel each other out.
    Arguably there are good reasons the market isn't free. Fossil fuel production requires massive capital investment with a very low per-unit profit margin, and any economist will tell you that is the definition of a natural monopoly. They always have local monopolies because a market CANNOT exist between them - it's mathematically impossible.
    So, it's quite sound economics, when you are facing a natural monopoly industry to actually get government involved - since there is going to be a monopoly anyway, you can make it official and extract some good concessions to mitigate the worst effects of that monopoly from consumers.

    The problem happens when eventually new technology arrives which changes the numbers. Fossil fuels are not natural monopolies, they can be done on smaller scales, different types can coexist and compete - the initial investment is relatively low.
    Suddenly there is the possibility of a market that didn't exist for the previous 120 years. But the things done during that 120 years, are proving harder to undo than would be ideal.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  7. Re: Deja vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You might want to look up the definition of penultimate.

  8. Re:In other news.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then it hits you: Electricity was never $0.07/kWh, it's just that someone else was paying part of your bill!

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC