
Soros to Invest $1 Billion in Clean Energy - mjfern
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aMU3BkV3yqPU
======
eserorg
This is a _very_ poor business decision. If Soros goes through with this, he
is going to loose a ton of money.

On a cost-per-BTU basis, taking into account upfront CAPEX, cost-of-capital,
present-value discounted cash flow analysis (PV10, for example), storage,
processing, transport, and end-use thermodynamics, there are no known energy
sources in 2009 that are cost-competitive with hydrocarbons.

Which probably explains why such insanely large amounts of cash are flowing to
K-Street for Waxman Markey.

The only applications where using something other than hydrocarbons makes
business sense, is in applications where the cost of energy is not important.

For instance, telecommunications satellites. Or, closer to home, energizer
batteries at the grocery store. A single D-cell lead-acid battery has an
energy cost of $500,000 per kilowatt-hour. However, no one thinks of it in
those terms -- cost-of-energy is not an important factor for this niche.

Thinking of "renewable energy" sources as a replacement for hydrocarbons is a
huge mistake. Hydrocarbons are used in large-scale applications where cost is
the only metric that matters. And on that metric, it is impossible to compete
with hydrocarbons.

The best bet for "clean tech" is to target niche applications that are
underserved by hydrocarbons. Clearly, you're not going to use an internal
combusion engine to power your laptop. Rather, you're going to shell out
hundreds of dollars for a lithium ion battery -- and then charge that battery
from the grid, which is likely to be powered by coal or natural-gas power
plants.

To take a page from the enterprise software world, the problem with "clean
tech" and "green tech" startups is that they are trying to make a "value" sale
in a cost-driven market. That never works.

Unless, of course, you can get the federal government to tax the low-cost
producers to death.

~~~
blue1
> cost is the only metric that matters. And on that metric, it is impossible
> to compete with hydrocarbons.

Even if considering the cost of the side effects?

------
christopherolah
Speaking of Copenhagen, UNICEF is having a contest for high school students
from various countries to go to Copenhagen. It was a written/Youtube video
contest.

[http://globalclassroomstudentsdev.innovasium.com/en/involved...](http://globalclassroomstudentsdev.innovasium.com/en/involved/climate_competition/secondary_climate_competition.htm)

Some friends and I made an entry, though we don't expect to win (we didn't
have a proper video camera, proper editing, or any experience). Personally,
I'm inclined to say that the Youtube video part is a poorly thought out
attempt to ``get in touch with the youth of today.''

EDIT: Because it is very difficult to not select for the team with the best
video camera, audio, etc. Maybe UNICEF employees can sort through this,
somehow...

------
chrisb
Soros is quoted as stating "The science is beyond dispute" on global warming,
and is prepared to invest $1 billion as proof of his conviction.

Do you consider the science beyond dispute? Do you think it is primarily
caused by human activities or not? How much do you care, and what have you
done about it - if anything?

~~~
chrisb
For the record - I consider it way beyond dispute; mostly caused by human
activities; I try to limit my carbon footprint (not driving, etc...).

And I'm attempting to develop a "car conversion" kit to convert popular family
cars to be plug-in hybrids. Very interesting project involving designing and
building new wheel-hub motors + electronics and software.

Having been in software all my professional life, the largest shock when
moving into "real" manufacture is how slow it is to get stuff made -
considerably longer than a compile.

~~~
whatusername
Sounds fascinating - Any chance you can provide some links / Self Post /
Reddit IAmA on your progress/challenges?

