Bill Gates Says Texas Shows America's Clean-Energy Future (gatesnotes.com) 120
"If you want to see what the cutting edge of next-gen clean energy innovation looks like, it'd be hard to find a place better than Texas," Bill Gates wrote recently on his blog," saying "amazing companies" are breaking ground across the state. "Each one represents a huge boon for the local economy, America's energy security, and the fight against climate change."
The world is undergoing an energy transition right now, fueled by the development and deployment of new clean energy technologies. The pace of innovation at the heart of this transition is happening faster than many people (including me!) dared hope. The progress makes me optimistic about the future — and excited about the role that American communities will play, especially in places like Texas.
Breakthrough Energy and I have invested more than $130 million into Texas-based entrepreneurs, institutions, and projects. It's a big bet, but it's one I'm confident in. Why? Because of the people. Nearly half a million Texans work in the oil and gas industry, and their skills are directly transferrable to next-generation industries. This workforce will help form the backbone of the world's new clean energy economy, and it will cement Texas's energy leadership for generations to come.
Many of the companies I'm seeing on this trip already employ or plan to employ oil and gas workers. One of those companies is Infinium, which is working on next-generation clean fuels for trucks, ships, and even planes. I'm visiting their first demonstration plant in Corpus Christi, where they're turning waste CO2 and renewable energy into electrofuels — or eFuels — for trucks. They've already signed a deal with Amazon, and sometime soon, if you live in the area, you might get a delivery supported by Infinium eDiesel. The key to Infinium's approach is that their fuels can be dropped into existing engines... I'm especially excited about the work they're doing on sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF — which could reduce emissions from air travel by as much as 90 percent, according to company estimates. Infinium is in the process of converting an old gas-to-liquid plant in West Texas into a new facility that will increase the company's capacity for producing eFuels ten-fold. Breakthrough Energy's Catalyst program has invested in this first-of-its-kind plant, and I can't wait to see it when it's done.
Another company I'll see is Mars Materials. They're a Breakthrough Energy Fellows project working on a different way to reuse CO2. The company is developing a clever technique for turning captured carbon into one of the key components in carbon fiber, an ultra-light, ultra-strong material that is used in everything from clothing to car frames... The Mars Materials team relocated from California to Texas in part because of the skilled oil and gas talent that they could access in the state, and they aren't the first Breakthrough Energy company to do that. I'm going to check out their lab, where their scientists are hard at work optimizing the conversion process.
Both companies assume abundant CO2, Gates writes, but "fortunately for them, Texas is also in the process of becoming a capital for direct air capture... A recent study found that Texas has the greatest DAC deployment potential in the country and could create as many as 400,000 jobs by 2050." Already a direct air capture "hub" in Kingsville, Texas is expected to create 2,500 jobs over the next five years, while Houston has been selected as the site for one of America's seven Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs.
"If you want to catch a glimpse of our country's clean energy future," Gates writes, "you should head on down to the Lone Star State."
Breakthrough Energy and I have invested more than $130 million into Texas-based entrepreneurs, institutions, and projects. It's a big bet, but it's one I'm confident in. Why? Because of the people. Nearly half a million Texans work in the oil and gas industry, and their skills are directly transferrable to next-generation industries. This workforce will help form the backbone of the world's new clean energy economy, and it will cement Texas's energy leadership for generations to come.
Many of the companies I'm seeing on this trip already employ or plan to employ oil and gas workers. One of those companies is Infinium, which is working on next-generation clean fuels for trucks, ships, and even planes. I'm visiting their first demonstration plant in Corpus Christi, where they're turning waste CO2 and renewable energy into electrofuels — or eFuels — for trucks. They've already signed a deal with Amazon, and sometime soon, if you live in the area, you might get a delivery supported by Infinium eDiesel. The key to Infinium's approach is that their fuels can be dropped into existing engines... I'm especially excited about the work they're doing on sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF — which could reduce emissions from air travel by as much as 90 percent, according to company estimates. Infinium is in the process of converting an old gas-to-liquid plant in West Texas into a new facility that will increase the company's capacity for producing eFuels ten-fold. Breakthrough Energy's Catalyst program has invested in this first-of-its-kind plant, and I can't wait to see it when it's done.
Another company I'll see is Mars Materials. They're a Breakthrough Energy Fellows project working on a different way to reuse CO2. The company is developing a clever technique for turning captured carbon into one of the key components in carbon fiber, an ultra-light, ultra-strong material that is used in everything from clothing to car frames... The Mars Materials team relocated from California to Texas in part because of the skilled oil and gas talent that they could access in the state, and they aren't the first Breakthrough Energy company to do that. I'm going to check out their lab, where their scientists are hard at work optimizing the conversion process.
Both companies assume abundant CO2, Gates writes, but "fortunately for them, Texas is also in the process of becoming a capital for direct air capture... A recent study found that Texas has the greatest DAC deployment potential in the country and could create as many as 400,000 jobs by 2050." Already a direct air capture "hub" in Kingsville, Texas is expected to create 2,500 jobs over the next five years, while Houston has been selected as the site for one of America's seven Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs.
"If you want to catch a glimpse of our country's clean energy future," Gates writes, "you should head on down to the Lone Star State."
Just keep supporting fossil fuels (Score:4, Insightful)
All of these projects are designed to keep supporting the fossil fuel infrastructure with green-washing thrown in.
eDiesel and other eFuels are inefficient but they keep fossil infrastructure in place.
All of the CO2 capture technologies are inefficient but also keep fossil fuel infrastructure in place.
Re: (Score:3)
We still need liquid/gas fuels for aviation, construction equipment and so on, so it makes sense to keep some of the infrastructure in place. Air to Fuels may not be efficient but it may still contribute less to global warming than extracting virgin petroleum out of the ground.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to see a full end-to-end cost/benefit analysis comparing fossil fuels to synthetics. Extracting, refining, and delivering of fossil fuels have significant costs associated with them. A CO2 capture plant producing synthetic fuel can be anywhere you have both electricity and water available. And only the synthetics have a full CO2 cycle - you're sequestering as much as you release.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes more energy to make synthetic fuels than you get out of them. Also, when you burn them you create pollution (particulates, nitrogen compounds, etc.).
Much more efficient to just use the electricity directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Aviation it can be helpful for takeoff thrust, but non-essential for construction. There are plenty of examples of real-world all-electric construction equipment and the huge benefits it can offer. Hybrid electric/hydraulic is also out there for things that use legacy attachments.
Re: (Score:2)
Most construction can be battery electric. More torque, simpler and more reliable gear, and overnight charging so it is always ready to go in the morning. No need to bring fuel to site regularly.
It's already happened with power tools, and now vehicles are being replaced by electric ones too.
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever is cheapest will be what is done
Nothing is cheaper than solar energy. Followed closely by wind. Then there is a huge gap to the next cheapest thing.
I'm afraid that capitalism doesn't ensure that the cheapest solution wins, but the solution that protects existing monopolies.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing is cheaper than solar energy. Followed closely by wind. Then there is a huge gap to the next cheapest thing.
This makes no sense - if solar/wind were the cheapest alternatives, why do we need to subsize them? We subsidize the basic research, the productization, the manufacture, the installation, and the purchase of wind/solar projects/deployments.
Why are people investing in all the other, more expensive and un-subsidized energy generation options?
How about sticking to the facts for a change? (Score:2)
Here's a daring, original idea. Since Slashdot was presumably set up to enable intelligent educated people to debate technical matters rationally, why not try a different approach?
First find out what the facts and figures are - and then decide how you feel about them.
So many of these threads are nothing but someone who FEELS nuclear is awful and wind/solar are perfect, being replied to by someone who FEELS the opposite.
Hint: this is not a fact: "Nothing is cheaper than solar energy. Followed closely by wind
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hint: this is not a fact
Wrong:
https://ourworldindata.org/che... [ourworldindata.org]
It seems you should take your own advice.
First find out what the facts and figures are - and then decide how you feel about them.
Here's another fact: Fossil fuels are subsidised at a rate of a 14 million USD per minute:
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/... [imf.org]
Re: (Score:2)
capitalism has favored the mode which keeps the lights on 24/7.
If you ignore rolling blackouts.
And the fact that France had to take many of their nuclear reactors offline last year because they couldn't be adequadely cooled, substituting the energy with wind and solar from Germany.
Meanwhile, most light houses and some traffic lights use solar, because that actually keeps the lights on 24/7.
Re: (Score:2)
Like we are going to store grid level backup power in lithium batteries!
That's exactly what Queensland is doing.
Pumped hydro is the best solution where available, but it's not available everywhere. China is experimenting with liquid nitrogen as storage, cheap and easy to scale. And there are many other proposed solutions, most of which will probably not be needed.
Buffer storage is needed for coal and nuclear because they take hours to respond to load changes.
Solar responds within milliseconds, it only needs a buffer for the night, but you can put solar anywhere, you don't eve
Re: (Score:2)
I get the concept of pumped hydro but [,,,] Has anyone done this at full scale yet?
Norway.
Re: (Score:3)
Then for the market pressure to work we have to have the government place additional taxes to account for the missing costs else we face a tragedy of the commons.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, cuz Bill Gates doesn't know the first thing about green energy, but you know everything cuz you've read it all on the internets! :D
Re: (Score:2)
Eye roll.
Re: (Score:2)
All of these projects are designed to keep supporting the fossil fuel infrastructure with green-washing thrown in.
eDiesel and other eFuels are inefficient but they keep fossil infrastructure in place.
All of the CO2 capture technologies are inefficient but also keep fossil fuel infrastructure in place.
So what? You think they're delaying the transition to electric airplanes? You think they're preventing a 100% renewable electrical grid with what? Enough battery storage for N days of discharge during a period of sustained heavy cloud & low wind?*
Sure they're green-washing, they're also throwing in a ton of money that wouldn't be available otherwise. The goal isn't to make sure the "bad guys" lose, the goal is to slow down / halt climate change.
If carbon capture and eFuels turn out to be part of the ans
Re: (Score:2)
All of these "e" alternatives are polluting, take more energy that just using the electricity directly and delay the necessary transition to renewable energy.
Fossil fuel companies love these polluting "solutions" since it gives them an excuse to keep their drilling, pipelines, refineries, etc. running.
They don't slow down climate change. Since they are so inefficient, they actually increase CO2 and pollution.
Gates et al are investing in these things to make money, not out of the goodness of their hearts.
Re: (Score:2)
All of these "e" alternatives are polluting, take more energy that just using the electricity directly and delay the necessary transition to renewable energy.
Fossil fuel companies love these polluting "solutions" since it gives them an excuse to keep their drilling, pipelines, refineries, etc. running.
Sure, but the fact they profit doesn't mean it can't help the environment. Frankly the best way to succeed is if helping the environment is profitable.
They don't slow down climate change. Since they are so inefficient, they actually increase CO2 and pollution.
Seems dubious, it could reduce economic viability, but its dubious it would reduce emissions except in the cases of some badly designed test installations.
Gates et al are investing in these things to make money, not out of the goodness of their hearts.
His charity work is done with a businessman's eye, but his heart seems to be in the right place.
I doubt he'd be in on this if he thought it would hurt the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
All of these projects are designed to keep supporting the fossil fuel infrastructure with green-washing thrown in.
eDiesel and other eFuels are inefficient but they keep fossil infrastructure in place.
All of the CO2 capture technologies are inefficient but also keep fossil fuel infrastructure in place.
You say this like it's a bad thing. But in order to claim fossil fuels are bad you either need to come up with an alternative for their use, or analyse the situation where they wouldn't exist.
Fossil fuels won't go away. EVER. Our lives depend on them for so much more than just spinning a gas turbine and driving you to work. The reality is ultimately that unless you can come up with all manner of alternatives to, for example, creating polymers, synthesizing fertiliser, moving heavy long haul transports, keep
Re: (Score:2)
Electrify everything.
Solar, wind, batteries, hydro are good, cheap, renewable, non-polluting energy sources.
There are very few things that can't be converted to electricity.
Fossil fuels (and their "e" substitutes... H2, "green" methane, eDiesel, eJetfuel, etc. ) are polluting, inefficient and cause serious environmental damage.
As a society we are dying from the pollution from fossil fuels. We need to get off of them ASAP.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's your magical battery that accomplishes all this?
Where's the magical plane that runs on only electricity?
I'm guessing your answer is a variant of the no true scotsman fallacy. Such as "well, we don't really need planes anyway".
You know what happens when you cut people off from reasonable fossil fuels ( say, natural gas) without a replacement?
They go back to the old standbys - coal, wood, whatever - that are way worse than what you just banned.
Re: (Score:2)
It's foolish to invest in fossil fuel substitutes which prolong the pollution.
Better to invest in renewable energy and electric infrastructure.
There is no chance of people being cut off from fossil fuels. We need to make sure they are not cut off from renewable energy.
Re: (Score:2)
You say this like it's a bad thing.
It is. That infrastructure is expensive, unnecessary, and a risk to public health. It is in place because it makes some important people money, people who didn't pay for the infrastructure with their own money.
And it stays in place as long as it keeps them making money, no matter the cost to others. Especially because of the cost to others, which acts as a barrier to market entry.
in order to claim fossil fuels are bad you either need to come up with an alternative for their use, or analyse the situation where they wouldn't exist.
No, the claim that fossil fuels are bad only requires evidence that supports that claim. And there is plenty of evidence.
And
Re: (Score:2)
If we limit ourselves to only 100% clean energy, it will take longer to get to that goal, than it will if we employ many transitional technologies. Just because a catalytic converter doesn't eliminate 100% of a car's harmful exhaust, doesn't make it useless. The 99% reduction they provide is still very beneficial, while we transition away from traditional fuels.
It's not all or nothing. Every technology that is _cleaner_ helps.
Re: (Score:2)
Renewable energy is cleaner and cheaper than any fossil fuel (or ersatz fossil fuel).
Don't waste money building fools fuel infrastructure just to keep polluting.
Re: (Score:2)
Renewable energy is cleaner and cheaper than any fossil fuel (or ersatz fossil fuel).
This is a true statement.
Don't waste money building fools fuel infrastructure
This is impractical. If money were no object, then yes, stop today. But the fact is, we don't have an infinite amount of money. Not even the government has that. We have to find a way to actually *pay* for the transition to clean energy.
You direction is more important than where you are. We can't magically jump from 1 to 100. But if we keep going in the right direction, we'll get there.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we have a limited amount of money.
If you're going to spend money, spend it on renewables, not dead end fools fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
If spending on fossil fuels makes it cleaner, or if renewables burn cleaner, we get the same result, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Fossil fuels (even synthetic "e" fuels) are not cleaner and they waste energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Renewable energy is cleaner and cheaper than any fossil fuel (or ersatz fossil fuel).
I think you might need to be more specific. Ethanol, for example, is renewable, it's made from corn, but it's also a "ersatz" fossil fuel.
Do you mean electricity, as in EVs? If so, yes, EVs are great as a commuter car, *if* you live in a house (not an apartment) where you can charge it overnight. They're not at all a good road trip car. So fine, cleaner and cleaner, but not a replacement for a gas-powered car.
And good luck finding a way to replace jet fuel. There is no "clean" technology that can propel a p
Re: Just keep supporting fossil fuels (Score:2)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/0... [nytimes.com]
Even if more companies do decide to start offsetting their emissions, there are cheaper ways to do so, including by preserving forests and paying for renewable energy. For example, it currently costs between $500 and $1,000 to capture a metric ton of carbon dioxide with direct air capture, compared with just $10 to $30 per ton for most carbon credits today.
âoeItâ(TM)s very expensive,â said Mr. Robock. âoeAnd so itâ(TM)s not going to be a solution in
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I can't read your article, it's paywalled.
Every new technology, carbon capture or otherwise, is expensive in the early stages. Then over time, the price comes down.
Oil executive defends oil industry. Is that a surprise?
You still didn't define "renewable" energy, which would include burning ethanol, or how that's better than fossil fuels. You also didn't address the fact that in many cases, there is no "clean" technology replacement for fossil fuels.
Re: Just keep supporting fossil fuels (Score:2)
The world spent an estimated $7 trillion subsidizing the production and consumption of fossil fuels in 2022, according to a recent report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This represents the highest amount ever spent propping up the fossil fuel industry, more than double the amount spent just 5 years ago.
Most of these subsidies take the form of below-market prices, tax breaks, and other incentives provided to fossil fuel producers and consumers by governments around the world. These policies encour
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we disagree about subsidies.
Re: (Score:2)
The world spent an estimated $7 trillion subsidizing the production and consumption of fossil fuels in 2022, according to a recent report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
What an utterly meaningless number.
Most of these subsidies take the form of below-market prices, tax breaks, and other incentives provided to fossil fuel producers and consumers by governments around the world.
Please define these tax breaks, and make sure to explain how those tax-breaks are different from every other industry that enjoys similar tax-breaks.
The subsidies artificially lower prices for fossil fuels, distorting energy markets in a way that favors carbon-intensive energy sources over renewable alternatives.
These "subsidies" are pure fantasy, there are no "subsidy" checks written by any of the world governments that allow fossil fuel companies to lower prices.
What subsidy makes exploration more affordable?
What subsidy makes drilling rigs cheaper?
What subsidy makes pipelines cheaper?
What subsidy make oil tankers cheaper?
What subsidy makes refineries cheaper?
The ONLY way governments make fossil fuel cheaper is by releasing millions of barrels of crude oil into the market for months on end to alter the supply/demand dynamic in the international oil market to influence upcoming elections.
Canadian here. The Federal government just spent C$38 billion on a pipeline, that's a thousand dollars per Canadian, so that we can deliver cheap oil down the coast to America. In Alberta, they don't make the oil companies cleanup their mess, things like old wells. Eventually the tax payers will be stuck with the bill, perhaps C$100 billion, though the Alberta government claims only $33 billion. Many an oil company also refuses to pay their municipal property taxes, somewhere C$245 million is owed, the Prov
Re: Just keep supporting fossil fuels (Score:2)
We did pay a lot of money to build out that fossil fuel infrastructure; it would be nice to find a way to keep using it that also reduces or eliminates CO2 emissions. Discarding it would be wasteful.
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping it running will push the climate further into crisis.
These are known as "stranded assets". The companies should have known that they would have a limited lifetime except they thought they could get away with continuing to pollute.
Re: (Score:2)
Who paid a lot of money for the fossil fuel infrastructure? Pretty sure it was the fossil fuel industry - I don't think we built municipal pipelines, oil refineries, or other infrastructure items.
Re: (Score:2)
Who paid a lot of money for the fossil fuel infrastructure?
If you've ever bought gas, you helped pay for it.
Even if you never bought any gas, your tax dollars paid for some of it, in the form of subsidies.
Re: (Score:2)
Lost me there...
Re: (Score:1)
Gates hasn't been right about much in a while. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Their "clean" projects are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry as a hedge; a way to sabotage / slow-walk the advancement of clean tech against their core revenue streams.
If Gates is saying that's America's clean energy future, he's technically right, just not in the way he intended it to mean. When you see the way conservatives are handling the clean energy and EV transition, it's obvious we're gonna just endure more stalling tactics and kicking of the can until the climate truly does shit itself. Then it will be surprised Pikachu faces all around.
Re:Gates hasn't been right about much in a while. (Score:4, Interesting)
Economics, far more than policy, is driving the clean transition, and it'll do so with or without them. Their games may let them survive a while longer, but they will have very little power to shape the future. However, Texas is a lost cause in my opinion. It has an ideological preference for the short con.
Slow the walk? (Score:3)
Checking the Fuel Mix reports from ERCOT [ercot.com], who manages our grid in Texas:
Wind generated 3% of our electricity in Texas in 2007.
Wind generated 24% and solar generated 7% of our electricity in 2023.
The fossil fuel industry must be very inept if they're trying to sabotage/slow down renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you find nothing interesting about the dichotomy of 24% vs. 7%?
Not particularly, and I say this as someone working in the power industry in Texas. Wind had all the federal and state subsidies and shit first, plus turbines were cheaper than solar panels, per watt produced, at these scales (turbines are quite efficient, especially compared to older solar panels). Installation can also be easier and cheaper, as a wind turbine needs a good solid base, but that base footprint is relatively small. Meanwhile a set of solar panels putting out an equivalent amount of wattage
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of California, that state isn't even in the top 10 for wind power generation. https://www.chooseenergy.com/d... [chooseenergy.com] Texas generates more than twice as much wind power as any other state.
As for solar power, yes, Texas lags behind California in total solar power generation, but Texas is now #1 in new solar power installations. https://www.ecowatch.com/solar... [ecowatch.com]
Yes, it's ironic that the oil state would also be the green energy leader.
Reflects historical costs (Score:2)
Solar used to cost* a lot more than wind power, so wind was deployed at scale first.
2009 wind = $135/MWh, solar = $359/MWh
2011 wind = $71/MWh, solar = $159/MWh
2013 wind = $70/MWh, solar = $104/MWh
2015 wind = $65/MWh, solar= $192/MWh
2017 wind = $45/MWh, solar = $50/MWh
2019 wind = $41/MWh, solar = $40/MWh
Solar's playing catchup now that its costs have dropped - Texas solar boom project updates [pv-magazine-usa.com]
2015 correction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Texas is about as technically and economically progressive as motherfucking Russia. Their "clean" projects are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry as a hedge; a way to sabotage / slow-walk the advancement of clean tech against their core revenue streams.
How did you get modded Insightful? Texas generates more than twice the wind power of the next closest state in the US and is second only to California when it comes to solar generation. And of course the oil and gas industry is hedging their bets. They see the writing on the wall, just like everyone else, which is why they’re all rebranding as “energy” companies and pivoting into new sectors. And while they’ve certainly sabotaged things in the past, the market is out of their hands a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not denying any of the ingredients you mention, but the fact that they've remained bitterly subordinate to the fossil fuel industry and its values is the entire point. There's a deep structural bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Texas is about as technically and economically progressive as motherfucking Russia. Their "clean" projects are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry as a hedge; a way to sabotage / slow-walk the advancement of clean tech against their core revenue streams.
Texas is kicking the ass of every other state in wind energy production.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, there is always for hope. There is a benevolent tendency in history to spite l
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I take the good when I can. Hitler liked animals. He also pushed for VW beetle production. Are both terrible because of the association?
Ironically the GOP in Texas is anti green energy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
A few years ago (2022) when the entire state suffered a week of power blackouts due to extreme cold
Wrong - "the entire state" did not suffer a week of power blackouts, parts of the state did. parts did not.
You know who suffered worst? The folks that signed up of those spiffy new internet energy companies that bought their electricity on the spot market, those "clever" folks saw their electricity bills skyrocket. Those folks suffered the worst financially. The folks that suffered the most personally were those families that lost heat and watched their water pipes burst because their houses weren't properl
Re: (Score:2)
You know who suffered worst? The folks that signed up of those spiffy new internet energy companies that bought their electricity on the spot market, those "clever" folks saw their electricity bills skyrocket. Those folks suffered the worst financially. The folks that suffered the most personally were those families that lost heat and watched their water pipes burst because their houses weren't properly winterized (running water pipes in uninsulated exterior walls and in uninsulated attics, for example).
WTF are you smoking? The people who suffered the worst were the ones WITHOUT power for days in freezing conditions. What kind of monster are you to ignore actual suffering to complain about people who were hurt "financially"?
The vast majority of Texans never suffered power loss for such an extended period.
Why do you lie about facts which are easily disproven?
I lived in the northeast for decades and saw countless winter storms that took down power lines and caused huge numbers of residents lose power for days. The difference is that homes in the northeast are better insulated and almost no one heats their homes with electricity - it's too expensive - but in Texas, electricity is cheaper, so electric heat is more common.
So you don't live in Texas but you're absolutely sure what happens in Texas. You do realize that gas plants were also affected so how are your wrong assumptions working out?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Windmills has nothing to do with the gas lines freezing. https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:3)
If we follow your prescriptions and convert completely to wind and solar and eliminate all gas/oil/nuclear power, then what would have happened during any wind storm anywhere?
WTF are you smoking? Where in my statement did I remotely say "Convert everything to wind and solar". I NEVER said anything like that. You are lying. The recommendation was to winterize plants meaning EXISTING plant equipment should be made to work under cold winter conditions.
The primary problem was that the gas plants weren’t running when the wind turbines froze over.
That is a lieM [utexas.edu] "Per a February 25, 2021 report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA),Texas natural gas production fell by almost half during Winter Storm Uri . . ." During the week of the storm, gas plants were operating al
Re: (Score:1)
You can't winterize windmills and solar panels. Solar panels stop working at night and in winter storm (due to cloud coverage). Windmills freeze over everywhere in storms like the ones in Texas, ice formation is a complex problem and not the same everywhere. Hence why during storms, especially winter storms, even "the North" shuts down their airfields and windmills, because heavy ice from cold + rain is different than moist air getting attached to the blades. Yes, you can have de-icers but that is expensive
Re: (Score:2)
You can't winterize windmills and solar panels.
1) The wind turbines that operate during the harsh winters in Canada [statcan.gc.ca] and northern US states like the Dakotas says that is a lie. 2) Who said anything about solar panels? They need to be cleared of snow for them to work. 3) Solar panels were not an issue in the Texas storm unlike the GOP blame game; solar panels continued to work. Starting out with lies and strawman arguments, again, I see.
Solar panels stop working at night and in winter storm (due to cloud coverage).
Which has nothing to do with the Texas storm in question which were about prolonged sub freezing conditions. You do unde
Re: (Score:1)
Here is some scientific information, which you could've easily googled: https://iowacapitaldispatch.co... [iowacapitaldispatch.com]
Yes, de-icing is possible to an extent, but it's not going to keep the wind turbines operating through all events, which the article above clearly states.
Hence why even on airplanes, de-icing of both wings and their own turbines is possible, to an extent, during heavy winter storms, ice accumulates too quickly even for the de-icing to work.
Natural gas is processed. Exactly what I said why PRODUCTION of g
Re: (Score:2)
Here is some scientific information, which you could've easily googled: https://iowacapitaldispatch.co... [iowacapita...atch.co...] [iowacapitaldispatch.com]
You literally wrote: "You can't winterize windmills . . . " That is a lie and you know it.
Yes, de-icing is possible to an extent, but it's not going to keep the wind turbines operating through all events, which the article above clearly states.
You are the king of the strawman arguments and lying. I NEVER said wind turbines can be kept up in ANY and ALL conditions. What was said is the industry did not winterize their operations in ten years despite recommendations.
Exactly what I said why PRODUCTION of gas at the WELL which is the article YOU quoted doesn't matter to the CONSUMPTION of said gas in either home or energy plants.
Again you seem not to understand any points. How does it feel to be so wrong all the time?
I never said that the winter caused some plants not to operate, I said the sudden demand for 'cold' plants to spin up is what caused the outages
That is pure idiocy and you know it. You seem to ignore the fact that SUPPLY crashed during that week. You
Re: (Score:1)
Again, winterizing wouldn't have helped during this event. It doesn't help in any ice storm, all turbines have to shut down during ice storm. The mistake Texas made was not shutting down the turbines earlier because the weather forecast had poorly indicated its severity. Wind turbines should be shut down before any wind or ice storm, they have brakes for that exact purpose so they are not ripped apart by imbalance in the blades or high rotational speeds. That is something I learned in the 90s during my EE e
Re: (Score:2)
Again, winterizing wouldn't have helped during this event. It doesn't help in any ice storm, all turbines have to shut down during ice storm.
Citation needed. Remember, I do not accept anything you say as true given your penchant for lying.
The mistake Texas made was not shutting down the turbines earlier because the weather forecast had poorly indicated its severity.
Citation needed.
Wind turbines should be shut down before any wind or ice storm, they have brakes for that exact purpose so they are not ripped apart by imbalance in the blades or high rotational speeds
Citation needed. You do know the winter storm was mostly about prolonged subfreezing weather and snow, right? You do know cold temperatures and snow happens all the time in winter in the north right?
That is something I learned in the 90s during my EE education, but sure, don't believe the guy that wrote a thesis on renewable energy.
[sarcasm]And your EE education completely validates everything you said about the petrochemical and energy industry[/sarcasm]. That's like saying a chemical engineer is an expert in integrated circui
greenwashing (Score:3)
What is this? Sounds like Greenwashing of CC by Bill Gates. What happened to his work on Nuclear energy?
Texas ? ... Really? (Score:3)
Bill Gates Says Texas Shows America's Clean-Energy Future
Let's hope that's without massive power outages thanks to an absence of weather proofing enabled by Texas' deregulated energy market that caused massive amounts of damage to Texan energy users who will now not be compensated. The reason being that the power companies whose 'business models' (a.k.a. incompetence and greed) caused the mess in the first place can't be held liable for it due to Texas' deregulated 'business friendly' energy market.
he forgot something (Score:2)
maybe a couple of companies are doing good, but we can't forget texas has a lot of bitcoin mining companies as well
Was this an SNL skit? (Score:2)
I feel like we are in a movie scene where the car salesman says ' Yep, this baby has all the newest tech! you are looking at the future of innovation!' But instead of slapping the hood and the wheels fall off a bird hits the windshield and all the cars in the parking lot explode.
Of course, Bill Gates cares about the environment (Score:4, Informative)
He's totally not astroturfing for Infinium because he has a vested interest in its success [hydrogeninsight.com], and totally not rooting for Mars Materials because he's invested in the company [magazynbiomasa.pl].
Remember people: don't be fooled by Bill Gates. He's still the psychopathic ruthless entrepreneur he was when he was running Microsoft. He hasn't turned into a harmless old man concerned with doing good around him. His Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, just like all the other billionaires' foundations, has nothing to do with philanthropy and everything to do with hiding their wealth and not paying taxes [nytimes.com]. If you're not convinced, just browse its portfolio [gatesfoundation.org] and see for yourself tne number of disgusting corporations it's invested in.
And here, old Billy is selling you his latest investments. He doesn't give two shits about clean energy.
What does a guy who ran a computer company (Score:3)
I know, that sounds like I'm trolling, but I'm really not. I'm pissed that we all hang on his every word because he's really, really rich.
I care because he's so wealthy that he has real impact on public policy and my life.
One unelected man who used illegal monopolistic tactics shouldn't have that much power. Great man theory is a lie. Money is power and power corrupts.
As for Texas clean energy, their state legislature is already passing laws to ban it.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't know about energy infrastructure. He knows about investment.
He's invested in those Texas companies he visited. What you're reading on his blog is PR.
What is he even know about investment? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He took his billions of dollars, and paid the experts to explain it to him. Part of the requirement for his investment is explaining to him how it works. He has effectively had hundreds of hours of tutelage from the people doing the scientific research, and from the people turning the results into real products. He is well informed.
Your hatred for success has blinded you.
Re: (Score:2)
Being tutled, does not make him well-informed. It sounds to me that he's just an easy mark. Why is he making pronouncements in the first place? I do not see him starting any energy companies. I do not trust him further than I can spit a two-headed rat.
Re: (Score:2)
He is amazingly and stupendously wealthy. He has teams of people informing him of facts. The ONLY reason you shouldn't care is that his goals likely do not line up with your goals; otherwise, he is supremely more informed than you are.
Can you mine bitcoin with it? (Score:1)
At this point Texas's is wasting more power doing literally nothing of value than all the combined alternate energy projects in the entire country. Fuck Bill Gates for promoting that shithole state.
I would believe it (Score:2)
if it wasn't Bill Gates who said it.
If you want to live under (Score:2)
the Texas Taliban then fine, go.
Not Under the Texas Govenor and Lt Govenors Rule (Score:2)
Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton cater to the oil industry and try to damage renewables in every way they can. EV's have an inequitable yearly tax levied upon them over ICE vehicles. The excuse is gasoline taxes lost for road use. The average ICE vehicle gas usage is less than $100/yr in gas taxes. Whereas a new EV is taxed @ $400 the 1st year and $200 per year there after.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And cold temperatures stop their fossil generating plants from running. https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com] What's your point?
Re: Odd Texas weather might have a say (Score:4, Insightful)
Texas natural gas production dropped almost 50% (Score:2)
Natural gas is our biggest source of heat and electricity in Texas. With ~50% drop in production, natural gas failed big time when we needed it most.
Natural Gas Weekly Update: for week ending February 17, 2021 [eia.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It stopped 1 fossil plant from starting when the solar/wind went offline.
And the GP's link pointed to 1 solar plant that was "destroyed". What's your point? And I use the world "destroyed" in quotes because Fox News being Fox news provide two cited links in their article. The first links to an article about putting solar panels on the pentagon, and the second links to the summary page for all of Texas news. They couldn't even properly cite their own stories.
The windmills froze first.
But everyone always says windmills were intermittent and not to be trusted, the whole purpose of the gas is there to be a t
Re: (Score:1)
Texas is actually big enough (it's the size of 14 European countries combined and relatively flat) to have an east-to-west distribution of wind. Hence why Texas has been the place to look for these projects as California (distributed mostly north-to-south with many obstacles) isn't suited for wind power. At least that was the promise of wind.
Windmills are intermittent and not to be trusted, except according to the green folks you just install more windmill to solve that problem. Which is true to an extent u
If only there was a way (Score:3)
For a forum for geeks, this sure is ancient technology.
Re: (Score:1)
if you want us to read anything fix your fucking enter key
Re: (Score:1)
if you want us to read anything fix your fucking enter key
He doesn't go for modern technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Today we learn about a new way to organize and style our thoughts and information. It's called a paragraph [wikipedia.org]. It makes what we write a lot more readable and people actually want to read it, because if you produce a solid wall of text, like the example above, nobody is going to read it and instead just post snide comments about how you should use paragraphs to make it readable.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that there's a real likelihood of you-know-who being elected president again, I think Gates is more on the nose about this than even he realizes. Texas, warts and all, is America's "clean energy future". A few virtue-signaling green energy projects and a massive fossil fuel industry which refuses to change - that's our future.
Re: (Score:1)
That isn't what we already have?