from Noel Wauchope

I am happy to see my article up, however I did make a big mistake in the first line.

The David Aeurbach article was not in the Saturday Paper. It was in Slate http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/12/mark_zuckerberg_s_hacker_philanthropy_can_we_trust_it.html

I think the time is here to accept their money even if they have underlying motives.
Some things will turn up that can be monitarily exploited but that can be all good to.
No exclusive rights as to ownership should be entered into.

One would hope that the money might go to positive uses. But how much better if it went to implementing the existing truly clean technologies, rather than being distracted into research - and particularly, into research into dirty nuclear technology.

After all, this is about tax-payer money.

Noel
Look, I understand where you got this stuff about affordable solar power and so on, but there are serious problems. If you hunt around you'll find articles about Indian villages rejecting attempts to install PV panel projects.. they want "real" electricity (ie conventional). You'll want to check out why they are doing that.. Alternative power simply cannot replace conventional power at the moment, hence the need for research.

'Tax payer money', Christinamac?

Actually, it appears that it is NOT about tax payer money. The billionaires can invest their money into whatever schemes they wish.

This type of philanthropy sometimes does destabilise public efforts and changes the research agendas with no public or political oversight. There have been multiple complaints about how the Gates Foundation program has affected public efforts in disease control in Africa with a focus on technological solutions rather than public or community solutions. However they have come up witjh some pretty good stuff that wouldn't have been funded publicly.

But maybe they are learning, maybe not.

That being said, I very much disagree with Noels view that their money should be spent on deployment of existing technologies. Research dollars are very difficult to obtain from public funds for truly blue-sky research. Spending the money on implementation requires a long-term commitment from governments and the public and private philanthropy would only reduce this commitment and be a very short-term thing. A few billion dollars may seem a lot, but it really isn't when you spread it over multiple countries and years. A few billion concentrated and spent on a focused research effort however leaves advances in knowledge and a legacy for future generations. Implementation efforts for existing technologies leaves future generations with aging infrastructure.

They should be able to research whatever the hell they want. In fact this is the kind of money that SHOULD be diverted to research to aid countries that cannot afford to fund their own.

Also, money that goes into deployment of existing systems should come from the public purse in the countries that need them, to ensure public ownership.

Noel, I know that you are scared about them researching nuclear technologies, because that is what you always write about, but it seems that is not all they would be researching and they could come up with something pretty good.

They want to spend their money on developing knowledge for the future? I say let them at it.

Noel, this article assumes that you know what to do in order to fine-tune the climate, while simultaneously not causing detrimental effects that would outweigh the supposed benefits of the proposed action.

You don't.

This fact completely invalidates your argument.

Well, these folk didn't get where they are by being thick between the ears or afraid of a challenge or thinking outside the box.

I agree with BEA and that we must explore all the avenues open to us, and if the very best of these all but walk out the door and are taken up en masse by the poorest nations, with a little help from genuinely concerned philanthropists, all well and good!

If they want to build many small reactors at their own expense and if those reactors could be cheaper than coal, thorium, with no weapons spinoff, we should invite them here.

Simply put, we can't have the current coal industry and a future, one or both have to go?

Unless those who are mindlessly bound and determined to earn all their income from coal or its use, are prepared to invest in allied industries that then produce so called clean coal as well as additional income streams!

But only if we finally force them to bit the bullet and compete on a level playing field with some of the emerging or lower cost carbon free/neutral technologies! If that then forces idealogues and denialist dinosaurs to go broke and get out, that can be no bad thing?
Rhrosty.

Perhaps if they spent their money directly at the third world, particularly in other areas like education, for women especially and on birth control, water conservation, innovative food production etc the energy issue would be less of a priority, probably not much profit in that so let's forget that happening

Additionally, the mantra underlying the entire article is climate change. If this is so, can the author advise what the worlds nominal temperature should be so we can all benchmark the mix of energy which will be needed in the future to mitigate climate related problems, if there are in fact going to be any?

Cheers Geoff

The Gates Foundation and a bunch of others already do that Geoff. Public health, education, birth control, food production etc., you name it.

This is additional to that and with a focus that seems to be lacking from major governments.

As Jardine always says: Governments can't innovate, so if we're going to innovate our way out this, then this is probably a better way than having Gates buy a bunch of soon-to-be obsolete solar panels for Africa. Innovation, if it happens will help everyone. It's the rising tide that lifts all boats.

Hi Geoff, in many cases improving food production is limited by water availability. Overcome by recycling or desalination water!?

And this takes energy, as does keeping the lights on, so the most disadvantaged can get some schooling, in the only hours available to them!

Cheap energy is the missing factor in clean safe water for the masses or improved food production or even algae production, which by the way mate, only uses 1-2% of the water needed by traditional irrigation! and pound for pound, spirilina (Green blue algae type) is the most nutritious food on the planet!

You and your family have a nice as possible xmas.
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Thanks Rhrosty, the same goes for you and your family.

I agree energy is crucial in the mix, we just have too many vested interests keeping innovation at bay. It is always about the money, greed wins every time.

Cheers Geoff

Geoff
Well if it's not about the profit, it's about the loss, which is less productive, not more.

Actually Geoff, the Gates foundation has been doing a lot for research in diseases, such as malaria, that affect developing countries. There's actually not a lot of profit in malaria and such diseases, which is why there's actually not usually as much research dollars that go into it, especially from pharmaceutical companies.

Credit where credit's due, these guys are actually throwing money at problems and don't expect a monetary return. The tech billionaires have lucked into their wealth and realise that they don't need most of it.

I wouldn't put them in the same ranks as the older superrich families and corporations that grew up that way just want to protect their treasure.

from Noel Wauchope
With regard to Bugsy's comment. Yes, it IS about tax-payer money, because the Breakthrough Energy Coalition is working with the US Government's Mission Innovation, meaning that public funds will be joining in with philanthropists' funding.

Having said that, I have to concede that Bugsy has made some other good points here, especially that they might go on to research useful things other than nuclear technologies.

Also, I am in complete agreement about the good work that Bill Gates has done for public health in promoting vaccination programmes - so many lives saved in preventing infectious diseases.

I say - let them do whatever research they like with their own money- but hope it doesn't mean diverting tax-payer money into pointless nuclear distractions.