
Bill Gates: ‘We Need an Energy Miracle’ - cryptoz
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/?single_page=true
======
OrwellianChild
Excellent excerpt:

 _They have this statement that the cost of solar photovoltaic is the same as
hydrocarbon’s. And that’s one of those misleadingly meaningless statements.

What they mean is that at noon in Arizona, the cost of that kilowatt-hour is
the same as a hydrocarbon kilowatt-hour. But it doesn’t come at night, it
doesn’t come after the sun hasn’t shone, so the fact that in that one moment
you reach parity, so what?

The reading public, when they see things like that, they underestimate how
hard this thing is. So false solutions like divestment or “Oh, it’s easy to
do” hurt our ability to fix the problems. Distinguishing a real solution from
a false solution is actually very complicated._

I really wish there was more nuance in the discussion about energy at this
level. Folks rarely consider the entire system when evaluating energy sources,
costs, consumption-side infrastructure, etc. The only way to move forward is
to consider all these problems at once.

Unfortunately, this is hard, and difficult to put in a headline. Witness: this
great interview is called "We Need an Energy Miracle".

Might I propose another: "Energy Infrastructure is Hard."

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I though Gates made a few bloopers, and the one you quote is one of them.

Solar power filling in the daytime energy peaks in places like Arizona is the
low hanging fruit, something we can achieve with today's technology and even
today's politics (mostly). It marks the point where, even without
externalities priced correctly and fossil fuel subsidies not yet removed,
where clean energy can get a foothold in the market and be installed even by
people who do not care about climate change, just saving money. And it
therefore supercharges the positive feedback loop where more solar deployed
makes the next panel cheaper.

Gates describes a world where people are complacent about this being an easy
problem to solve, I see a world where powerful vested interests push the line
of "fuck it, its too late to do anything anyway, and solar is a communist scam
that doesn't work anyway".

He makes the same mistake about EV cars, undermining people's enthusiasm
because in many US states the power comes from coal. I assume anyone that
brings that up and doesn't immediately say "of course the solution is to shut
the coal stations, even just shifting to natural gas, never mind a mix of
solar/wind/hydro/nuclear/gas, is a big improvement" is part of the problem,
not the solution. I'll have to hope Gates was poorly quoted here as its such a
poi tless gotcha.

He also mangles the negative pricing thing, which he should be celebrating as
a valid price signal to encourage more flexible fossil fuel plants, storage
and demand management.

All in all, I'm pretty disappointed, it feels like he's been reading some
biased sources and not seen through their spin. Which, considering he clearly
understands there's a problem here that needs solved, is a great shame.

~~~
OrwellianChild
Lots of stuff here, and thanks for the engagement! I'm going to take these
paragraph-by-paragraph for clarity:

1) I think Gates' point was that what works for Arizona midday doesn't
necessarily work for Pennsylvania or Washington. While the math might pencil
out in the ideal case, he's concerned that the focus will leave R&D in more
efficient solar before we get a universally cost-efficient solution for
photovoltaic. I think he'd agree with you that the goal is to have people
motivated to go solar for selfish reasons (to save money). I think he'd
disagree with you that you can price based on removing existing subsidies and
market bias towards fossil fuels, since those subsidies are in place and the
externalities aren't yet priced.

3) Problem is, we can't just shut down the coal stations without eating an
enormous cost in terms of lost power production. For most energy planners, the
goal is to let existing (massively expensive) infrastructure age-out and
transition to renewable/carbon-neutral infrastructure on the new installation
side. Otherwise the costs are untenable.

4) While negative pricing should incentivize investments in storage, I think
Gates is looking at the imbalance in the incentives that led Germany to that
point. A negative price indicates that there was over investment in
infrastructure, and they're still stuck with the coal plants for base load.
Similar to my comment on #3, you can't just shut off existing coal/oil/natural
gas without hitting someone with the bill. Making that the taxpayer's problem
is not going to go over well, and the companies are going to lose tons of
money if their investments in those plants can't pay off over their 30-60 year
projected lifespan.

------
petergatsby
It's not necessary to exclude the possibility of a Carbon tax, but it's
certainly not the only, or most likely to be tenable, solution. Gates' own
Creative Capitalism probably offers a better path towards zero emissions.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Gates, and basically all economists, argument is that without correctly
pricing externalities, capitalism (creative or otherwise) not only doesn't
help, it actively makes things worse, as people can make fortunes by digging
up and burning the fossil fuels that will wreck the global climate.

Those incentives need to be realigned, and almost certainly will at some
point, though probably much later than someone who believes in the power of
market forces would like. The initial work will mostly be done via central
planning and government regulation.

It's even possible, like the VW scandal has reverberations in consumer
confidence in their brand, that global warming has the potential to discredit
capitalism in the eyes of the public, if a carbon tax doesn't get introduced
soon enough to see capitalism as part of the solution and not just the
problem.

~~~
petergatsby
I think you're right; market forces, left alone, are unlikely to realign
incentives within a desirable time-frame. This seems to explain Gates' stance.

However, the creative capitalist would argue that rather than penalizing
fossil fuel companies (via Carbon tax), governments would do better to reward
innovators via more 'green tax credits' and like financial incentives. You get
the same* overall impact, just with less political push-back and more R&D,
driven BY capitalism.

And by the way, Gates invented "Creative Capitalism"
([https://www.fpsct.org/uploaded/faculty/johnsonc/U_S_History/...](https://www.fpsct.org/uploaded/faculty/johnsonc/U_S_History/Unit_5/Gospel_and_Gates.pdf)).

------
johnmoore
He should just talk with Tony stark, after all he did build it in a cave with
a bunch of scraps.

