Innovating to zero! | Bill Gates
TED1 HN recommenders · 2011–2025
4.7M views · talk · dated · Uploaded 2010-02-20
Bill Gates' TED2010 talk on the energy future, arguing for zero global carbon emissions by 2050 and the need for energy miracles. He explains why he is backing a different type of nuclear reactor.
HN mostly cites it in nuclear power debates as Gates making the case that nuclear is needed for clean energy, with a few critical references to his views on population.
1:11:40MIT's Pathway to Fusion Energy (IAP 2017) - Zach Hartwig
MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center
1:38:49Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion? - Prof. Dennis Whyte
MIT Club of Northern California
52:11Václav Smil at Driva Climate Investment Meeting 2019
Nysnø Klimainvesteringer
22:20How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory
TED
15:50Can YOU Fix Climate Change?
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
12:50How close is nuclear fusion power?
Sabine Hossenfelder
15:29Life in Syntropy
Agenda Gotsch
23:11Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why
Joseph Everett - WIL
5 comments from Hacker News
None of those can replace coal / nuclear. EDIT: Here's Bill Gates explaining why nuclear is not optional: [VIDEO]
TED talk - Elon musk - [LINK] D10 conference - Steve jobs and Bill gates - [LINK] TED talk - Bill gates (Innovation to Zero) - [VIDEO]
Instead of using the money to research renewable or more efficient energy production, reduce pollution etc his foundation uses the money for vaccines and health services which surprisingly has as target, as he says in a ted video (link below), to decrease human population which he sees it as the major problem of today. [VIDEO] "The world today has about 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15%"
Your comment loses it's value when you're trying to poke all the holes. > Storage is also plunging in cost, and additional technologies are already in commercial use (iron flow, for example.) > HVDC transmission is spreading, with higher capacity, lower cost, and higher efficiency for moving electricity greater distances (in other words, it's less of a deal if it's really windy in one spot and not in another, and ideally-suited wind sites can be further from where electricity is needed.) How do you transform DC up and down? By converting it to AC. Running it through a transformer and converting it back, HVDC isn't gonna take over the world, certain stretches might be HVDC where beneficial but not all over the world. The difference with nuclear is that anyone can build and operate next-gen storage, so you're commercial right out the door. I could hook my UPS up to the grid and feed back, commercial success! > Wind and solar are as distributable and scaleable as you want. Not without storage, which is harder to scale than production of other kinds. > You don't need to worry about geological stability with wind and solar. I don't see the USP, there are plenty of geologically stable areas in most countries. > Wind and solar don't require tens or hundreds of megawatts of cold-start / post-operation (cooling) power. They have the added downside of only producing power when the weather guy says so. > Wind/solar don't generate waste that is weaponizeable. Good point, for now. > You d
Sorry, I didn’t double check indeed. I posted the wrong TED talk from him, see [1] at 4:21. There he says we need to limit climate change by limiting population growth. I think this is quite a hypocritical stance from someone who flies private jet all year. [1]: [VIDEO]