Coffeehouse Thread

21 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Bill Gates’ energy views are a turn-off

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Proton2
  • User profile image
    TexasToast

    I think Bill Gates has it right.  We don't need more poor countries using coal or oil for electricity.  It is better to start them on the right path with clean energy.  If they start out with coal or oil,  they wont get off of it and the whole world gets stuck with the pollution. 

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    "India and China figured that out for themselves" and are currently spewing tons of pollution into the air and strip mining for coal. Short term gains may be higher with fossil fuels, but I agree with Bill - renewables should be pushed in developing countries.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    @TexasToast: +1

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    @spivonious: +1

  • User profile image
    BitFlipper

    @Proton2: -1

  • User profile image
    CaRDiaK

    I agree with renewable in developing countries too. 

    Just like many of them skipped land lines and went straight to mobile. There are lessons that have been learn't and technologies that have been developed that can be applied to help these countries more efficiently.

    We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    LOL! Proton fail! Yeah let's post a article about energy written by a "third-rate business columnist" and get people to see the light. Let's smear one of the great philanthropists of our time so we can throw down some FUD on renewables and score more points for naked capitalism and the "stand on the shoulders of the poor so I can make a buck" (a.k.a. "if I don't somebody will") attitude that goes with it. Yeah let's screw up these developing nations and saddle them with the same first world problems we created for ourselves. Let's make more Chinas whose pollution is choking its cities and whose effects are felt around the world. The earth is vast; it can handle more sh!te dumped into the ecosystem. 

    And next on Fox News... 

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , CaRDiaK wrote

    I agree with renewable in developing countries too. 

    Just like many of them skipped land lines and went straight to mobile. There are lessons that have been learn't and technologies that have been developed that can be applied to help these countries more efficiently.

    I came to say this, but you beat me to it.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    Here are the system requirements.
    1) Energy production must be reliable.
    2) Energy production must be controllable based on hourly demands.
    3) Energy production must meets the current demand and 10 years down the road because they have to give themselves enough time to make more power plants, which takes years.

    Optional suggestions.
    1) Energy source does not rely on foreign resources to avoid price hike.
    2) Provide more jobs to the people.
    3) Cost effective.
    4) Environmental friendly.

    Until the requirements are met, or have been met by existing power plants, the optional suggestions are pointless. And as you can see, I ranked Environmental friendly the lowest.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    @magicalclick: That's exactly the problem.  You and everybody else ranks environmentally friendly as the lowest ideal.

    There is no 'god given right' to energy and power.  It's a luxury, and if the price of that luxury is to take a dump in my air, then please stop doing that.

     

  • User profile image
    Craig_​Matthews

    Stopped reading at 'left-wing'.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    , ScanIAm wrote

    @magicalclick: That's exactly the problem.  You and everybody else ranks environmentally friendly as the lowest ideal.

    There is no 'god given right' to energy and power.  It's a luxury, and if the price of that luxury is to take a dump in my air, then please stop doing that.

     


    I don't care food quality when I have nothing to eat. Simple as that.

    I am not going to be a hypocrite telling people to be more environmentally friendly, then, I buy some cheaper product from an environmentally unfriendly factories.

    If I am going to tell other countries to be more environmentally friendly, I will at least drive a EV or plugin hybrid right now. And I would have switched all my lights to LED. At least I contributed, even my country is still not perfectly environmentally friendly.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    elmer

    , magicalclick wrote

    Here are the system requirements.
    ...
    3) Energy production must meets the current demand and 10 years down the road because they have to give themselves enough time to make more power plants, which takes years.

    10 years is perhaps a bit long.

    California's Ivanpah solar power plant was 4-5years from construction start in 2009 to coming on-line in 2013

    Obviously, the thing cost megabucks, and at 390MW is relatively small-scale, but this is cutting edge technology, which should get better and cheaper as more are built.

    Ivanpah TimeLine

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    , elmer wrote

    *snip*

    10 years is perhaps a bit long.

    California's Ivanpah solar power plant was 4-5years from construction start in 2009 to coming on-line in 2013

    Obviously, the thing cost megabucks, and at 390MW is relatively small-scale, but this is cutting edge technology, which should get better and cheaper as more are built.

    Ivanpah TimeLine


    hmmmm... You do realize your timeline already shown it started this process on 2006, not 2009 right? And you do realize the government is interested in having one more power plant to even begin the pre-qualification. The requirement is there, so they don't have to open another pre-qualification before the first power plant completes.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    elmer

    , magicalclick wrote

    *snip*
    hmmmm... You do realize your timeline already shown it started this process on 2006, not 2009 right? And you do realize the government is interested in having one more power plant to even begin the pre-qualification. The requirement is there, so they don't have to open another pre-qualification before the first power plant completes.

    Planning, Funding and Construction are separate limitations.

    Ivanpah was obviously in Planning/Funding for the period before construction commencing in 2009. You don't suddenly get to a point and say - oh s**t we need a new power-station... let's start thinking about it. All govts are constantly planning for the future. In the case of California, it is part of their 33% renewable target for 2020, and they have multiple solutions in the mix.

    If developed nations want developing nations to use renewable energy, the solution is pretty simple - subsidise it for them.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    , elmer wrote

    *snip*

    Planning, Funding and Construction are separate limitations.

    Ivanpah was obviously in Planning/Funding for the period before construction commencing in 2009. You don't suddenly get to a point and say - oh s**t we need a new power-station... let's start thinking about it. All govts are constantly planning for the future. In the case of California, it is part of their 33% renewable target for 2020, and they have multiple solutions in the mix.

    If developed nations want developing nations to use renewable energy, the solution is pretty simple - subsidise it for them.


    I don't think you get it. They wont start thinking of a new plant right after the first one complete. After plant is built, they will rejoice for a year or two. And they some analysis come screaming, hey, it can't handle the projected demand 8 years later. Now, they will think that's BS because they still have plenty of energy. That's prevent they are screaming on terror at the report. They will start debating what to do. Tons of media coverage on why the first is so weak. And debating how to get money. Then they finally say, now lets build another one. Then, it starts your timeline picture.

    It is not a far fetched scenario here.

    subsidise? You mean unfair competition right? Because if you are fare, both clean and polluting proposals should have given the right to subsidise.

    Anyway, no point to discuss anyway. Guess what, you don't live there and you have zero influence in there. So, they will do what they believe is BEST for THEM. And most likely, not your green tech...

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    elmer

    , magicalclick wrote

    *snip*
    I don't think you get it. They wont start thinking of a new plant right after the first one complete. After plant is built, they will rejoice for a year or two.

    No, that's not how civil engineering projects work. 

    Firstly, a planning authority will typically have multiple projects and plans on the go at any one time. However, even if we say they only have one, they will start the planning process for the next project, once they have finished their planning work on the current project - i.e. once it has started the construction phase - and they will do so with knowledge of the estimated construction time-line for the current project. To do otherwise, puts themselves out of a job - a very un-government-like decision.

    Obviously, the more common-place the technology, the more accurate the forward estimates of demand, capacity and construction time, and transfer of technology from developed to developing nations can mitigate much of the risk-management in this area.

    Your last point is incorrect, in that it assumes the onus is on developing nations to shoulder the financial burden of the decision to use renewable tech. The onus is on the DEVELOPED nations (i.e. where *I* live) to subsidise the choice of renewables, if this is the outcome they want. It should not be viewed in terms of what THEY will choose, but in terms of what WE will choose.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.