speech
at the TED conference<\/a> and a post on his
blog<\/a>—are not beyond criticism. Though by no means his intention, Gates is encouraging a peculiar type
of 21st century passivity by government officials, investors, and activists
that has a high probability of leading to climate inaction. The “more innovation” meme repeated by Gates has
limits that need to be acknowledged.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Gates’ TED speech beautifully outlines the challenge facing
us, but I believe it falls down when it comes to solutions and their timing. He seems to feel that energy technology will
follow a different, “miraculous” path to commercial acceptance than almost
every other new technology.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
For Gates, the big deal is reducing the carbon intensity of <\/p>\n The largest portion of Gates’ TED talk was devoted to the <\/p>\n Gates is free to support whatever technology he likes, but <\/p>\n Strangely, he overlooks or strategically omits how most <\/p>\n Gates and others from the software world or its periphery seem <\/p>\n Miraculous or magical future “cheap” is stealing attention <\/p>\n Both of these wholesale power rates are more than existing, <\/p>\n Yet, why do we turn up our noses at the sure thing, that additionally <\/p>\n I would suggest, in agreement with Gates and other <\/p>\n While they have generally good intentions, Gates, Myhrvold, <\/p>\n Unfortunately this type of promise, issued by technologists, <\/p>\n Less fantastic and more real is to start building the Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Trouble mounts for Entergy following radioactive leaks at Vermont nuclear plant<\/a><\/p>\n Bloom: Thinking inside the box<\/a><\/p>\n The Climate Post: Climate bill + climategate = Bill ‘Climate’ Gates!<\/a><\/p>\n
energy to zero, and he seems to underestimate the value of energy efficiency,
as David
Roberts points out<\/a> in these pages. In his TED talk, Gates quickly ran by wind, solar PV, and solar thermal
electric, all renewable sources, citing the cost of energy storage and ancillary
services. Gates is placing his bets with
his friend and former employee\/partner Nathan Myhrvold, who is trying to build
a type of fast breeder nuclear reactor called a
traveling-wave reactor<\/a> (TWR). Gates
is an investor in Intellectual
Ventures<\/a> and TerraPower<\/a>,
the developer of the TWR. Fast breeder reactors could theoretically run on the
much more plentiful isotope of Uranium-238 as well as other heavy elements,
including nuclear waste. Additionally
they are supposed to be able to produce a nuclear waste of lower toxicity and
shorter half-life. However, scientists,
governments, and plant developers have been attempting to build and
commercialize fast breeder reactors for more than 50 years and most estimates place
their commercialization into the hazy and often
receding 10-to-20-year timeframe<\/a>.<\/p>\n
TWR even though he acknowledged in the question-and-answer period that it was
not a foregone conclusion that the reactor could be commercialized within the
20-year period that he allotted for the invention of new energy technologies. For what it’s worth, I support efforts to
build a cleaner reactor technology, especially one that could actually, rather
than theoretically, clean up the nuclear waste that we have created.<\/p>\n
in his role as a philanthropist he has gained the reputation of being someone
who tries to represent the best interests of humanity, not simply the parochial
interests of post-software venture capital.
Gates seems to believe that the still non-existent TWR technology will 20
years from now meet the “cheap” criteria that will be universally acceptable. He brands renewable energy as necessarily and
always “not cheap” or not cheap enough.<\/p>\n
technologies get cheaper in the first place: they enter the cost curve<\/a> through
deployment, they achieve economies of scale, new efficiencies are discovered,
and the basis for further innovations is created. How did the internet, the microchip, and the
cell phone get cheap? They were deployed
either via government procurement or through early commercialization at higher
prices to reward and incentivize innovation. In fact, Gates seems to have some kind of awareness of this when he is
not hoping for miracles. As Joseph Romm
points out in
a recent post<\/a> on this subject, Gates in a speech a
couple years ago<\/a> talked about how his software business benefited from the
installed base of ever-faster personal computers.<\/p>\n
to believe that in the field of clean energy, it will all be different: innovation
and cheap will come simultaneously, perhaps through acts of brilliance by their
friends or companies in which they hold shares. Maybe selling bits and bytes has given these leading technorati a false
impression of how physical products like electric generators are manufactured
and made more economical.<\/p>\n
and consequently funding from technologies that could enter or continue down
the cost curve now. Right now in the U.S., if we were not as
fixated on paying always and only the lowest price for power today and
distracted by the hope of technological “maybes” of the future, we could start pretty
much tomorrow replacing the output of the dirtiest baseload coal power plants
on a one-for-one basis for 20 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first generation
of concentrating solar thermal power plants with 16 hours thermal
energy storage<\/a>. Based on estimates<\/a>,
within a decade this price would be 10 cents\/kWh, if we were to enter the cost
curve in the first place and not continue dreaming and dithering. No technological miracles are required.<\/p>\n
paid-for coal baseload generators receive (3 to 5 cents\/kWh), but what is the
cost of the Holocene climate that has been so good to us and our ancestors? If we also are pushing for green jobs and green
economic stimulus, we are going to have to pay something via electric rates
and\/or taxes to make it happen. It can’t
all be cheap.<\/p>\n
has economic benefits at a time of need, and turn to the innovation casino in
the name of a spectral, maybe-someday “cheap”?<\/p>\n
innovation fans, that we spend the $10 billion per year on energy research, but
more importantly, spend $100 billion or more on deploying existing technologies
that cut emissions assuredly now or within a predictable timeframe. What do you do in the face of fast-approaching tipping points?<\/p>\n
the Breakthrough Institute crowd (as represented by Teryn
Norris in these pages<\/a>), and the Google guys are reinforcing a largely
American tradition where innovation and technological optimism put off hard
choices. “Invest in innovation and just wait for us to deliver the future to
you,” they say. “You can’t have too much innovation.” The
hope of “cheap and clean” contains the promise of instant gratification and an
easy path to worldwide sustainable development.<\/p>\n
has the effect of freezing us in our chairs behind our computer screens as
future consumers of technological brilliance. Furthermore and perhaps more devastatingly, it has the effect of
freezing policymakers and our leaders into living in the eternal “maybe.” “Maybe tomorrow,” they think, “technology and
innovation will release me from the hard choices I have to make today.”<\/p>\n
zero-carbon future today, which may have the unpleasant effect for some of
rupturing the bubble of miracles or utopian dreams. The hope for easy virtue distracts us from the
push to put clean energy generators online when they are needed at a price that
we as a society can easily afford.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/a.rfihub.com\/eus.gif?eui=2223\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"![the cost curve<\/a> throughdeployment, they achieve economies of scale, new efficiencies are discovered,and the basis for further innovations is created. How did the internet, the microchip, and thecell phone get cheap? They were deployedeither via government procurement or through early commercialization at higherprices to reward and incentivize innovation. In fact, Gates seems to have some kind of awareness of this when he isnot hoping for miracles. As Joseph Rommpoints out](\"http:\/\/www.etsap.org\/newslet\/issue5\/img\/1.gif\"){kind=link}