Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough

[kingofsurrey]

23 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If there was no patent, and the wealthy (Gates) along with government shared the costs of developing the technology for the sake of saving the planet, what is wrong with that shift in how we do things?  Yes, it's closer to socialism, but (Maybe?) the sharing of ideas and costs among governments (the people) is the only way this planet will survive?  The old way of patent, develop, profit has got us into this climate mess.  I'm suggesting a paradigm shift.  Jimmy, I thought you were a lefty?  Heck, I'm sounding like the lefty here.  

Bill Gates needs a few more bucks.......

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Bill Gates needs a few more bucks.......

King who was that already super rich guy that, when asked when enough money was enough, he said NEVER.  The rich are addicted to being rich, and will always put their desire for the "Golden Calf" ahead of all else.  

[kingofsurrey]

13 minutes ago, Alflives said:

King who was that already super rich guy that, when asked when enough money was enough, he said NEVER.  The rich are addicted to being rich, and will always put their desire for the "Golden Calf" ahead of all else.  

I think his name was Loui Eriksson .  

[DrJockitch]

6 hours ago, xereau said:

People that believe they are saving the world by driving electric cars, need to drive for 11 years to offset the carbon emissions from what it cost to mine the metals to make the battery which they use to drive around in.  Sounds awesome, right? Well, the average lifespan of an electric car's battery is six years.  I think you can do the math, aye? The technology isn't there yet, and those wishing it was, is nothing more than just that.

This is a dramatic overstatement and depends where you produce the battery.  The Chinese battery production is much less efficient, but if they were to adopt NA standards the environmental impact of producing an electric car is up to 66% less.  Even at current standards though, the lifetime carbon footprint of an electric car is much less.   This is emerging technology as well and will improve.

Also, if you read the article they mentioned that this process could actually be a zero emission route to produce hydrogen.  The biggest issue in producing fuel cell vehicles has been that hydrogen production is a horribly energy intensive until now.

Edited November 22, 2019 by DrJockitch

[BrockBoester]

Bill Gates

 

The ultimate good guy

 

That'd be funny if Elon Musk was evil (which he probably is) and then he and Gates had a technological showdown to determine the fate of humanity!

[Junkyard Dog]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'll have you know I'm a Liberal capitalist thank you very much. 

Isn't that just a Libertarian? 

[Crabcakes]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Fabulous clean technology.  Why does the company have to patent it though?  If we really want to (you know) save the planet, then why not make this technology free to all, and even go so far as to help others make it work in their cities and countries?  Why does the Almighty dollar, and human selfishness always have to supersede what's best for humanity?  My God people suck dirty Leaf socks.  

Money is certainly a good incentive to innovate.  This may have taken a great deal of time, money and brains to develop.  I have no problem with somebody who can out compete fossil fuels, reduce demand and take a big step towards putting them out of business.  Doesn't that man deserve a lot of money?  Besides, one person who makes a killing in green tech is going to encourage others to do the same

[Crabcakes]

18 minutes ago, BrockBoester said:

Bill Gates

 

The ultimate good guy

 

That'd be funny if Elon Musk was evil (which he probably is) and then he and Gates had a technological showdown to determine the fate of humanity!

Gates following in the footsteps of Andrew Carnegie and giving back to society.  Carnegie, 19th century railroad baron, gave away the equivalent of $65 Billion.  He built the library that bears his name at Main and Hastings.

[48MPHSlapShot]

Good ol' capitalism.

[rizzuto&hatoum]

Just riffing on a no patent scenario (after reading this article and the other article on Drudge about Putin and the 5 dead scientists who were building a super weapon) -

 

Putin gets hold of it. Weaponizes it.

Using AI and mirrors to weaponize the concentrated solar energy. A form of a ray gun or cannon?

 

 

[Western Red]

4 hours ago, Darius said:

trying to find out if this company is traded on one of the stock exchanges, probably too late!

 

 

 

Not yet, they will be though. Going public in 2020 I heard.

[Wilbur]

4 hours ago, xereau said:

Its not always sunny everywhere. The batteries lose efficiency at a rate that makes them economically unsustainable, and, here is the kicker, the carbon dioxide to mine the rare earth minerals to make their "world saving technology", is killing the world (according to their own metrics).

This is just another scam, and its probably got billions of tax dollars behind it, because, well, all of the so called philanthropists do.

 

4 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Because Rare Earth Elements has no environmental or political impact now?

Doesn't this system use mainly mirrors?  Not solar panels?

[JM_]

3 hours ago, Alflives said:

If there was no patent, and the wealthy (Gates) along with government shared the costs of developing the technology for the sake of saving the planet, what is wrong with that shift in how we do things?  Yes, it's closer to socialism, but (Maybe?) the sharing of ideas and costs among governments (the people) is the only way this planet will survive?  The old way of patent, develop, profit has got us into this climate mess.  I'm suggesting a paradigm shift.  Jimmy, I thought you were a lefty?  Heck, I'm sounding like the lefty here.  

I'm centre-lefty.

 

I understand your intent, its good. But you're trying to get rid of a key motivator for new technology generation. You just won't get as many good ideas if the government is funding it, in large part because that means bureaucrats and politicians will be deciding what gets funded, not the market. 

 

The patent system is really cool. You are making a "disclosure" which means you have to present enough info so that someone 'skilled in the art' can also make your invention. That allows other smart and motivated people to find new and better ways of making your idea. Replacing that with government decision making will kill a lot of innovation. 

 

You will also drastically limit the number of people trying to make new things. 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Jimmy McGill

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Isn't that just a Libertarian? 

kind of, I actually do like a number of things in their platform actually, but I support social programs more than they do. 

[Junkyard Dog]

24 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

kind of, I actually do like a number of things in their platform actually, but I support social programs more than they do. 

Kind of like you on the right side though. 
 

I like a free market capitalist market with nothing too crazy when it comes to social programs. 
 

I love the fact that we have the freedom of choice we get to make. Beautiful time we live in. 

[DIBdaQUIB]

9 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

not at all. I want as much development and capitalism as possible so we can tax the crap out of it. 

So you're a capitalist with a social conscience.

[Ray_Cathode]

16 hours ago, aGENT said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html

 

*Video in link

 

 

Solar has a massive shortcoming - it does not generate power at night, especially in winter when the days are short and power demand is high, so it has to be 100% backed up by some other form of power that can be brought on line quickly - like hydro-carbon.  This is exactly the problem with wind power - it is so unreliable that Ontario has paid billions to have it (at a cost multiple times that of hydrocarbon power) but we have to back it up with hydrocarbon - it is so unreliable that it can't be relied on - instead it is sold into the New York power grid at a massive loss. But it does provide a fantastic living for the ex head on the Ontario Liberal party - so you can feel good about that. And like solar wind power is hell on birds and bats and one has to account for the problem that it is mostly manufactured out of products derived from oil, chemicals that are hard to replace or source, and then there is the clean-up afterward. German, which abandoned atomic power for solar, now has started building coal fired plants because of the massive cost of subsidizing solar - see also, Spain.

Until there is a VIABLE alternative, all costs considered, there is nothing dumb about hydrocarbon power - and by the way solar as a source of power is much older than hydrocarbon - its just that we had to wait for the trees to grow before we cold burn them.  And ther is the fact that the increase in CO2 has been coincident with massive growth in crop yields and the re-greening of the planet.  Plants that have increased CO2 available grow faster and require less water - additional CO2 is extremely valuable in marginal drought areas.  And also, during the last ice age, CO2 levels dropped to about 170-180 ppm - most plants need 150 ppm to survive - but at 180 ppm plant growth is extremely stunted.  Greenhousers generally increase CO2 levels in greenhouses up to levels of 1000 to 1300 ppm in order to enhance crop growth. The times when the earth was most productive of life had far higher CO2 levels than that even.  

One of the major problems with the global warming conjecture is that they have no definition of what the proper temperature is nor have they made any effort to discover it - they have simply assumed that the existing world of fifty years ago (or earlier) is optimal.  But if the standard of the optimal level is flourishing life, then that assumption must be questioned - because it clearly is not for most plant life, and it is plant life that ultimately supports all animal life.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

[aGENT]

32 minutes ago, Ray_Cathode said:

Solar has a massive shortcoming - it does not generate power at night, especially in winter when the days are short and power demand is high, so it has to be 100% backed up by some other form of power that can be brought on line quickly - like hydro-carbon.  This is exactly the problem with wind power - it is so unreliable that Ontario has paid billions to have it (at a cost multiple times that of hydrocarbon power) but we have to back it up with hydrocarbon - it is so unreliable that it can't be relied on - instead it is sold into the New York power grid at a massive loss. But it does provide a fantastic living for the ex head on the Ontario Liberal party - so you can feel good about that. And like solar wind power is hell on birds and bats and one has to account for the problem that it is mostly manufactured out of products derived from oil, chemicals that are hard to replace or source, and then there is the clean-up afterward. German, which abandoned atomic power for solar, now has started building coal fired plants because of the massive cost of subsidizing solar - see also, Spain.

Until there is a VIABLE alternative, all costs considered, there is nothing dumb about hydrocarbon power - and by the way solar as a source of power is much older than hydrocarbon - its just that we had to wait for the trees to grow before we cold burn them.  And ther is the fact that the increase in CO2 has been coincident with massive growth in crop yields and the re-greening of the planet.  Plants that have increased CO2 available grow faster and require less water - additional CO2 is extremely valuable in marginal drought areas.  And also, during the last ice age, CO2 levels dropped to about 170-180 ppm - most plants need 150 ppm to survive - but at 180 ppm plant growth is extremely stunted.  Greenhousers generally increase CO2 levels in greenhouses up to levels of 1000 to 1300 ppm in order to enhance crop growth. The times when the earth was most productive of life had far higher CO2 levels than that even.  

One of the major problems with the global warming conjecture is that they have no definition of what the proper temperature is nor have they made any effort to discover it - they have simply assumed that the existing world of fifty years ago (or earlier) is optimal.  But if the standard of the optimal level is flourishing life, then that assumption must be questioned - because it clearly is not for most plant life, and it is plant life that ultimately supports all animal life.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

Try actually reading the article.

[JM_]

13 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Kind of like you on the right side though. 
 

I like a free market capitalist market with nothing too crazy when it comes to social programs. 
 

I love the fact that we have the freedom of choice we get to make. Beautiful time we live in. 

it is. Green tech has the hurdle of having to be both viable and cheaper that current tech. It has to be cheaper because it costs companies to switch ways of doing things. But tech like this in the right scenario (SEBC, AB,SK) could be fantastic. 

[aGENT]

17 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

it is. Green tech has the hurdle of having to be both viable and cheaper that current tech. It has to be cheaper because it costs companies to switch ways of doing things. But tech like this in the right scenario (SEBC, AB,SK) could be fantastic. 

#role of government