| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Bill Gates: 'Cute' Green Tech Won't Solve Energy Crisis | |
|
||
| Time: 10:37 EST/15:37 GMT | News Source: PC Magazine | Posted By: Andi Stabryla | ||
|
Microsoft founder Bill Gates on Tuesday warned rich nations of the limitations of "cute" energy-efficient technologies, like individual solar panels, and advised spending more money on R&D to make energy cheaper for developing countries. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 322 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:28:09 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (173.13.97.180) at 5/5/2011 3:58:17 PM |
|
I agree with most of his points. I will say, however, that we could reduce our CO2 footprint by 30% (and make the United States nearly completely energy independent) through large scale adoption of concentrated solar power.
I wrote a blog post on this a while back: http://www.robertdowney.com/post/2008/04/21/From-Peak-Oil-Doomsayer-to-Energy-Optimist.aspx 30% isn't 90%, but it's a pretty good amount. Once we have large amounts of surplus electricity, it would provide subsantial motivation to create longer range electric vehicles. Large scale adoption of these vehicles gets us another 40% of the way there. So now we've got a 70% reduction in CO2 emissions. A large portion of the remaining 30% has to do with things that are harder to fix... stuff like fertilizer production, plastics, etc. But I'd say 70% is pretty damn good. |
| #2 By 8556 (173.27.244.6) at 5/5/2011 4:07:14 PM |
| I believe that the Army Core of Engineers should allow mini hydroelectric power generators along every river that can provide the nation with electricity. The Mississippi, which is 1/2 mile from my home (and 40 feet lower), is a powerhouse that is going untapped for various political reasons. Out 10+ feet from the banks the water pressure is powerful year round, even below the frozen top foot or so. Why aren't we utilizing technology that even the Romans took advantage of throughout Europe? |
| #3 By 9589 (174.111.18.152) at 5/5/2011 4:55:07 PM |
|
Gates ought to stick to creating great software and stop preaching about how we can encumber our country to an even greater extent that it already is with brain dead notions of pouring tax dollars into energy technologies that are 6-10 times more expensive even after massive government subsidization than existing technologies. For example, do you want to see solar companies fold tomorrow? Stop government subsidies today. Wind "power" is in the same genre - way too expensive and dodgy - when it stops blowing it sucks. Don't get me started with "altertantvie fuels" like ethanol. Wow! Its production actually creates a greater "carbon footprint" than conventional fuels and it costs more to make. Meanwhile, it just doesn't get any better - if your plan is mass murder of poor people by starvation - due to record grain prices.
Meanwhile, there is going to be NO massive distribution of wealth from those that have worked their assess off for it- the developed nations - to the less developed ones. They are just going to have to find their own path to wealth. You know - working their asses off like we do every day. This was proven by that last two conferences on so-called global warming. The one two years ago fizzled. And that was with the most powerful liberal assembly in power in decades here in the US. There was the expectation of 100 billion dollar transfer to developing nations - they got bumpkus. The one last year was a complete bust. No one of any importance even bothered to show up. We have more fossil fuels - coal, oil, and gas than anyone on the planet. That coupled with the technological prowess to develop nuclear power could make us completly energy independent, but we lack the politcal will to make it happen. So, we spend billions sending our young men and women to fight people that hate us and want us dead in distance lands to ensure "energy security" while transferring still more billions to those very same people to purchase energy we have in ample quantity in our own countrym but refuse to develop. |
| #4 By 9589 (174.111.18.152) at 5/5/2011 4:55:32 PM |
|
double post . . . This post was edited by jdhawk on Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 16:56. |
| #5 By 2332 (173.13.97.180) at 5/5/2011 5:45:06 PM |
|
jdhawk - While we do have subsantial quantities of coal, we do not have more "oil, and gas" than anyone on the planet. First, gas is dervied from oil. Second, oil production peaked in the United States in the 70s. This is commonly referred to as "Hubert's Peak".
So while roughly 50% of all known US oil reserves remain in the ground, they're not really economically feasible to obtain. (Unless $250+ / barrel oil becomes common place. Which it could.) There are other things like oil shale and tar sands, but they have their own extraction issues. I'm with you on nuclear power for the most part (as is Gates, if you actually read the article), but even the most ideal situations for high efficency reactors would make us depedenant on foreign sources of uranium within 75 years. Solar power *is* the future (although probably not photovoltatics - at least not without a few major breakthroughs) - and it's in the form of concentrated solar power. But, as you will see if you read my blog, CSP is extremely "front heavy" on the costs. Because of that, private enterprise is extremely unlikely to build up the required infrastructure and plants. That's where the government comes in. They need to "make the market". |
| #6 By 28801 (68.44.220.197) at 5/6/2011 6:24:48 PM |
|
#3: Yea, let's keep burning through finite resources and polluting the environment, corrupting our water table with fragging liquid, and ignoring what most scientists agree is man-made or at the very least man-accelerated global warming.
We should take the oil company subsidies and invest more in alternative energy sources that are clean and renewable like solar and wind. That said, I kind of agree with you about ethanol. |
| #7 By 9589 (76.6.121.211) at 5/8/2011 10:19:16 PM |
|
Ha ha ha ha ha ha . . .
#6 - Global warming, that's a good one!!! Do do do do do do . . . . There never was man-made or any other kind of GW. It's all a hoax. Yet, our government alone has spent 73 billion of our dollars (money it doesn't have - we're broke), so far, attempting to prove that it exists. What they have to show for our wasted taxes dollars is a bunch of e-mails exposing the lies, subterfuge, and fraud by those that some still call "scientists." Lest we forget, some of these very same scientists were calling for the "end of the earth as we know it" 40 years ago because of, wait for it . . . , global cooling - which, natch, was OUR fault as well. You just can't make this crap up. |
| #8 By 15406 (209.87.228.158) at 5/9/2011 7:50:18 AM |
| #7: You're an even bigger prat that I originally thought. |
| #9 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 5/9/2011 9:56:50 AM |
| #7: Let me guess, you're still waiting for a birth certificate, right? |
| #10 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 5/9/2011 10:30:04 AM |
|
RMD, While I agree solar is cute. It's not a generation issue. It's a storage and transportation issue when it comes to solar.
As far as Government making the market... there is no need. As other forms of fuel become more scarce the up front cost of the solar farms will make sense (they don't now, at all). Without some form of storage of the energy for transportation or peak times Solar will continue to be the hobby green energy it is. Usually I'll say time will fix those problems but most talking about batteries are saying we need a huge breakthrough to really knock that out of the park. And if you're talking about being Dependant even on the new form of energy... battery raw materials aren't here in the US. Also, your $250 number is pulled out of your ass. The number, stustained, for Shale and Tar sands is closer to $90 ongoing to warrant putting together processing plants to extract that oil... and the US/Canada have a huge cache. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 322 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:28:09 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
