
Bill Gates et. al. launch massive clean-energy fund to fight climate change - jseliger
http://qz.com/859860/bill-gates-is-leading-a-new-1-billion-fund-focused-on-combatting-climate-change-through-innovation/?linkId=32225791
======
batbomb
Us at the DOE are freaking out about the questionnaire Trump sent out, hinting
at 10% off-the-bat cuts (to all accounts other than 050, aka Defense), ARPA-E
dissolution, political retribution to anyone related to climate science, Rick
Perry rumors, etc... We've been running in continuing resolutions so long
we've effectively been losing funding at the rate of 2%/year (to be fair, this
isn't exclusive to us)

Even with all this money from billionaires, most climate research makes
extremely heavy use of DOE facilities, namely light sources, and works best
with the close development loop.

So far, these circumstances seem specific to the DOE, so that's at least a
little bit comforting. NSF is somewhat insulated from the standpoint that NSF
directors are appointed every 6 years and the current one will get through
most of Trump's term. No clue about the NIH. NASA is similarly not in as dire
of a situation from the looks of it.

~~~
dreamcompiler
Remember what DOE was like when we had a Nobel prize winner running it? He did
a lot of good, but he still didn't change the culture much. I expect the same
inertia will work in our favor with Trump. Passively resist as much as
possible, and try to outlast the new idiots at the top.

~~~
clarkmoody
> Passively resist as much as possible, and try to outlast the new idiots at
> the top.

This is why the federal bureaucracies are essentially unconstitutional: people
within the rule-making structure are unaccountable to voters, but their
decisions have lasting influence on the economy and on people's lives. For
instance, many federal agencies define new felony-level crimes (that wreck
lives) without a new law being passed by the legislature.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of people within government have a good heart and
genuine motives. Also don't think I'm supporting Trump here. Just take a step
back and look at the sentiment of your comment holistically: you're hopeful
that institutional inertia will allow you to continue toward your goals within
government in spite of the people's choice of the "idiot at the top."

~~~
dreamcompiler
I've railed about bureaucratic inertia my whole career. I'm completely aware
of the irony of it possibly being a good thing in these weird times.

~~~
batbomb
One good thing that could potentially come out of it is a divorce of the
Office of Science from the DOE, and closer ties with the NSF and Universities
(Department of Research+Office of User Facilities?), but I'm sure UC/Bechtel
would oppose this.

I'm personally not likely going to be affected much, outside of wage freeze,
unless the government decides it doesn't care about finding earth-ending solar
system objects, but it's hard enough trying to do science in the USA and the
wage gap between the non-clearance employees in the DOE and industry is
increasing. If it gets much harder, brain drain from the Office of Science to
europe is probable - more so than a migration to industry I'd imagine.

------
kumarski
I've seen several opportunities/companies that could do the half a gigaton and
meet the other criterion really fast, but raising money is a grind:

* Advanotech.com - makes fully functionalized silicon nanoparticles at a fraction of the current cost. This automatically gives a performance enhancement to batteries that hits double digit percentiles.

* [http://www.powertechwater.com/](http://www.powertechwater.com/) also does something pretty awesome by removing solids from brackish water.

I hope that whoever leads up this fund has deep chemistry competency to be
able to fund things that will move the needle on gigatons of carbon emissions.

Bill Gates's statements on energy have been far more in line with the
realities of minerals, carbon emissions, and lithospheric realities the
statements of many other billionaires.

------
paulsutter
The 20-year life of this fund is very significant.

Every VC fund I know of is a ten year fund, which means they expect to invest
the full fund and collect their return within 10 years. Which in practice
means they actually want to get an exit in 5-7 years, ruling out much energy
technology investment.

A 20 year fund adds 10 years to their time horizon, which will put many more
energy technology investments within their "strike zone"

> The BEV fund, which has a 20-year duration, aims to invest in the
> commercialization of new technologies that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions

------
mathattack
Very interesting. I always thought that climate change is a tough problem
because it requires cooperation, but that some uber-billionaire might say,
"I'll write the 100 billion dollar check to make this happen" (Assuming an
expensive technical solution exists without a good short term P&L) It would be
the ultimate legacy for them. "I was the one that saved the planet" I worried
that it may be too big for one fortune. It looks like several may be required.

~~~
kitsuac
It would have some interesting implications, politically. The democratic sense
of "The People" rejected the issue and failed to take care of it through
democratic and mundane day-to-day decisions. But the uber-wealthy who are
often considered absolute enemies of "The People" had to step up and save the
entire planet.

~~~
mathattack
Is it possible that solving the great challenges of humanity today (global
poverty, climate change, nuclear non-proliferation) stretch the ability of
democracies to solve?

I'm an anti-elitist libertarian at heart, but the "let everyone do as they
will" mindset may cause problems. (And I understand that elites get it wrong
much of the time)

~~~
jacobolus
I think democracy would be in much better shape if there weren’t such massive
campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry to a wide range of
politicians.

~~~
kitsuac
But that's a reflection of "The People" and their will. People want their
existing jobs and status quo. They care about next week's pay check. Not a
theoretical tidal wave that people they don't know say will happen if they
don't stop working on fossil fuels and switch to being a cashier at Wendy's.
To separate that reality of will from democracy would make it no longer
democratic.

~~~
Maarten88
Campaign Contributions are imo clearly not a reflection of the will of the
people. They are a reflection of business interests, protecting the status quo
and working against balanced arguments on public policy.

A reflection of The People would be simply their democratic vote, informed by
balanced and unsubsidized arguments from both sides.

~~~
int_19h
> What if The People's democratic vote is to commit collective long term
> suicide for short term gains?

I mean, obviously, individually, it's up to each person to choose. But when
the majority chooses for everyone (including the minority), is the minority
bound to respect that decision?

------
alexc05
I wish they'd set up an ETF of some sort. I'd happily put in a share of my
retirement savings in order to assist in that. I'm sure a sizeable portion of
the coasts would too. Sure $1B from Gates will have an impact, but I could
imagine a climate change fund growing pretty large.

~~~
deepGem
I think it's a almost impossible to launch an ETF for this kind of effort. An
ETF has to track publicly trackable entities such as commodities, currencies
or public stocks. Even the Private Equity ETFs track publicly listed Private
Equity companies, not their holdings. From what I understand this fund will
primarily invest in very early stage private entities.

------
fsargent
It's a pity that charity is the best way (currently) to find solutions to
these issues. Market mechanisms could create an incentive if only we put an
appropriate price on carbon. Then industries would be falling over themselves
to develop clean energy.

~~~
vinay427
Putting a price on carbon isn't much of a market mechanism. I'm not saying I'm
opposed to the idea but it seems like you're putting lipstick on what many see
as a pig.

~~~
ako
Why not? Ensuring that the true cost of a product is factored in its price
will make people reconsider their purchasing options, and it may potentially
show that alternatives are competitively priced.

~~~
briandear
And who exactly determines the 'true' cost?

~~~
witty_username
That does not matter unfortunately as realistically a carbon tax would be
below the lower bound estimate of the 'true' cost due to political
considerations.

But, even ignoring politics, people have estimated the effects of climate
change so it's possible; but there's going to a spectrum of answers.

------
gns24
This very thorough analysis of the potential for wind energy in the US
concludes that the great plains have massive potential for fantastically cheap
wind power generation, with some sites having potential capacity factors well
over 65%.

[http://rameznaam.com/2015/08/30/how-steady-can-the-wind-
blow...](http://rameznaam.com/2015/08/30/how-steady-can-the-wind-blow/)

The point at which energy storage becomes an issue is a long way off if you
connect the country with HVDC lines. Building such lines would be a great
achievement for this fund. However, I guess the political question will get
hit at that point: will the government be as keen to let private investors
build new power infrastructure as it is for them to build new oil pipelines?

------
wallace_f
Just FYI, a carbon tax can combat climate change while _raising revenue._

~~~
T-A
Thus making you dependent on said revenue, so you end up not wanting to get
off carbon.

~~~
witty_username
No, there are different parties involved.

Government wants companies not to get off carbon for the $$$; but companies
want to get off carbon (to some extent) as they would not have to pay carbon
taxes.

It's just like any other tax. Companies are good at tax avoidance (note: this
is legal unlike evasion).

~~~
T-A
> No, there are different parties involved

Yes, and the party doing the taxing is also the party controlling things like
import duties on solar panels.

> It's just like any other tax

Exactly. And once you introduce it, others like it will be sure to follow.
Except they will be levied on the alternative energy sources which are
cannibalizing carbon, because the state coffers demand it.

~~~
witty_username
Well, the government can issue bonds (hope I'm using the right word) against
that carbon tax to get a steady stream irrespective of the carbon emitted
(other people would bear that risk of how much carbon tax would be collected).

Actually, companies producing more carbon due to government is not really a
severe problem because the carbon tax compensates for the carbon produced (at
least in theory).

------
vinay427
The full list of partners can be found here:
[http://www.b-t.energy/coalition/who-we-
are/](http://www.b-t.energy/coalition/who-we-are/)

Most of these individuals have already been outspoken on environmental reform
so it's welcome though not especially surprising to see them here.

------
indexerror
They have Mukesh Ambani on board. He has a special interest in not letting
renewable resources flourish as he is the chairman of Reliance Petroleum. A
little good PR doesn't hurt though, so why not.

~~~
querulous
if you were a petroleum producer, wouldn't you want to get in on the ground
floor of the thing that makes you obsolete?

~~~
nojvek
If I were a petroleum producer, I want to get in the ground floor. If it does
make me obsolete, I can adapt and become the big shark in the new ocean.

Did you know BP solar is one of the largest producers of solar?

------
boona
It's nice to see that private individuals are stepping in to make a
difference. The Obama administration was terrible at picking winners to back;
I think tech types will do a much better job, especially considering it's
their money.

------
E_Dobroslav
These types of things have, historically, been terrible investments.

~~~
peller
Couldn't you have said the same thing about investing in internet businesses
in 2002? And you'd have been correct - but oh so wrong.

~~~
E_Dobroslav
I'm suspicious of vague "feel good" investments. Investing in particular
approaches or technologies that look profitable, yes, putting a billion
dollars into a vague "feel good" pot isn't a recipe for success.

~~~
peller
I'm not convinced that statement applies to this particular fund's goals. The
first greentech "boom" you mentioned in another reply, to me was very much
like the dot-com boom. Everybody wanted in on the gold rush, and very few of
them actually knew their (engineering) stuff. Even those that did, many got
taken out with the fall. Classic hype cycle:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle)
My point is, given that most of the tech is now economically competitive (or
about to be), these guys are betting that we're entering the "slope of
enlightenment." And given some of the names on that board, I'm inclined to
believe they know what they're doing.

~~~
mistermann
Good point I think, the timing does look about right. This would be a bit
similar to smart phones, as well as VR where we're now on try #2 and I think
the technology is good enough this time to get a large number of early
adopters on board.

------
samfisher83
New head of the EPA doesn't believe in climate change. Maybe gates can
convince him that climate change is real? A billion dollars or even 10 isn't
going to be able to change much if the government doesn't get some what
involved.

------
TheMagician0
Would BEV actually create an impact on this?:
[http://www.metaculus.com/questions/223/will-we-keep-the-
glob...](http://www.metaculus.com/questions/223/will-we-keep-the-global-
temperature-rise-to--1-c-in-2020/)

------
askvictor
What would happen if they started buying up coal to lock it away? My naive
view is that it would form a sort of a carbon price.

------
skolos
Makes total sense.

Just recently I had discussion with my wife about climate change, why
billionaires won't just solve the problem and what we can do to help? What is
the best nonprofit to donate?

The conclusion of our discussion was that the problem is much bigger than what
billionaires can solve with direct money, governments could do something, but
politics is in the way, so the only hope is that technology will help. Hence
the best way is not to donate to nonprofits, but invest in tech companies that
might help with climate change. And get rich while doing that.

~~~
Maarten88
Politics can amplify or inhibit success in the market by setting policy, and I
think it will be very hard to innovate around this problem.

I'd expect these investors to pick places to invest where government policies
will not work against their objectives, which probably is China and EU, not
US.

------
frik
As long as Bill Gates understands atomic energy as "clean energy", and even
wants to build small micro-size atomic reactors for home owners he should just
retired, and does what he understands best - as this is clearly way over his
head. They should start to use his properties as long term dump site for his
micro-sized atomic reactors. Maybe he should visit the ground atomic disaster
ground zero zones in Ukraine and Japan for a week.

------
noobermin
Just thinking out-loud and wanting opinions: contrast this with the public
funding model, how sustainable or effective is this model of private funding
of research?

~~~
cossatot
They're not mutually exclusive. For example, I've done consulting work for a
private geothermal energy LLC (AltaRock) that does a fair amount of R&D funded
by the DOE (and maybe NSF?) and other public sources, though I believe that
the company is also venture-backed.

A lot of the hard part of the development in geothermal is fighting with
problems that aren't very solved scientifically, particularly understanding
the dynamics of stress and temperature in the upper several km of the earth's
crust near active volcanoes. I was working with AltaRock on these issues,
which are chewy enough that NSF doesn't consider the baseline levels of
knowledge good enough to fund research in, as NSF wants science to be at a
point where some sort of obvious scientific outcome is highly probable before
they will fund it.

I assume that this is pretty widespread in cutting-edge R&D: Those involved
find themselves working at the ragged edge of the known universe, even if both
academic scientists and the general public think of the topic as pretty
mundane.

So I view a fund like this one as quite complimentary to public funding: At
some level, venture-type funding that has a high risk tolerance can help get
projects off the ground to the point where they can get funding from both more
conservative government funds and more typical institutional investors.

(Full disclosure: I also own a private geoscience research company that
solicits a lot of public funding as well as doing consulting and non-fundable
research, but it's really just a shell for me to try to get paid to do cool
science, rather than a nascent company focused on growth.)

------
mrfusion
I hope they consider funding mits sparc/arc reactor.

~~~
DennisP
That really looks like the lowest-risk option for near-term practical fusion.

Tri Alpha has gotten over $500 million for a more-ambitious but riskier
approach, so hopefully ARC has a shot at getting funded.

------
downandout
It's nice to see a group of people with the resources to potentially make
something happen take an approach to this issue that doesn't involve politics,
fines, incessant regulations, or taxpayer money. This initial $1 billion will
likely burn up fast, so I'd also like to see them open the fund up to everyone
and see how many of the people that made climate change such an enormous
political issue during the Presidential election actually put their money
where their mouth is and try to get something done instead of just
complaining. As an added bonus, if the fund eventually produces a clean energy
company that can achieve price parity with conventional sources, they'll get
an enormous return on their money.

~~~
subsection1h
> _the people that made climate change such an enormous political issue during
> the Presidential election_

Climate change was discussed during the presidential debates for precisely 82
seconds. If climate change can be considered an issue of this election, then
the "people that made climate change such an enormous political issue" are the
people who made the following ridiculous, attention-getting statements about
climate change:

[https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/54o7o1/donald_trum...](https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/54o7o1/donald_trump_absolutely_did_say_global_warming_is/d83lqqb/)

~~~
downandout
Trump's position on climate change was discussed at length in the liberal news
media and was cited by liberals as a reason to vote for their candidate. It
was also reported that in the wake of their loss, a Hillary Clinton campaign
staffer yelled at his co-workers during a post-election meeting that he was
going to "die of climate change" [1] because of Trump's election, and this
sentiment seems to be a widely held belief among liberals. So yes, it was made
into a major campaign issue by the media despite an apparent lack of
discussion about it during the debates.

Anyway my point was that opening a fund like this up for public participation
would give those that so loudly claim to care deeply about this issue an
opprtunity to actually do something other than protest or complain online
about it.

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-
democratic...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-democratic-
national-committee_us_5824cb95e4b0ddd4fe7954e8)

------
jv22222
I was just having a conversation with my wife yesterday. I was positing that
global warming could probably be fixed by technology if Gates, Zuckerberg and
others clubbed together and made it happen.

It's so strange to see that exact news on the front page of HN the day after.

------
bobsgame
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to
make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

~~~
gns24
And yet the Chinese are installing new wind capacity far faster than the US.
How does that work?

~~~
cyphar
[It's a Donald Trump quote.]

~~~
bobsgame
:-)

------
taivare
They offer now knowing they won't get government cooperation at least in the
U.S. had Hillary won they would have been looking to the tax payer. I am all
for them doing this the timing seems suspicious.

~~~
emcq
Did you read the article? They've been working towards this for a while, and
likely would have started regardless:

"Gates had last year announced his intention to personally invest an
additional $1 billion in clean energy technology. He was also among the 28
wealthy individuals and families signed on to the Breakthrough Energy
Coalition, a group broadly committed to investing in this area. The new fund,
which includes many of them, is a next, concrete step toward actually
deploying their capital."

~~~
mikeyouse
To further your point, here's a WSJ article from Nov of 2015 where he
discussed setting up this exact project:

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-gates-launches-energy-
innov...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-gates-launches-energy-innovation-
fund-at-paris-climate-conference-1448877338)

