The Breakthrough Energy Coalition

The Breakthrough Energy Coalition - in which a collection of very wealthy people get off their butts to support development we desperately need.

THE WORLD NEEDS WIDELY AVAILABLE ENERGY that is reliable, affordable and does not produce carbon. The only way to accomplish that goal is by developing new tools to power the world. That innovation will result from a dramatically scaled up public research pipeline linked to truly patient, flexible investments committed to developing the technologies that will create a new energy mix. The Breakthrough Energy Coalition is working together with a growing group of visionary countries who are significantly increasing their public research pipeline through the Mission Innovation initiative to make that future a reality.

Names involved include Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, Mark Benioff, and many others

http://www.breakthroughenergycoalition.com/en/index.html

https://youtu.be/YhgIY-Vghj4

Reduce some people's ability to profit from old energy technologies, and you'll see an explosion of new ones.

I think that's just backwards: the explosion of new energy technologies is already happening; and that is what is going to accomplish the effect of reducing the potential for profit from extracting fossil fuels.

For example, here's a 2014 patent for forming liquid silicon from heated gasses. As the technology improves in such manners, costs have been and are dropping, making solar energy more cost-competitive with petro-energy.

The key now is storage, because the sun doesn't shine at night. Tesla Corp. is already offering home storage units, and that business will be growing as more players get into the field.

IMHO, the world is going to renewable energy at a gathering pace. Come 2020 or 2024, the leadership of a Breakthrough Energy Coalition might become increasingly superfluous, because other people are already putting dollars (and Pounds, and Euros, and Yen, and Renminbi, etc.) to work in pursuit of big profits from enabling renewable energy.

A couple more stories about that:
(1) Solar Power became grid-competitive in 2013 (link to Motley Fool)
(2) Solar Will Eclipse Oil in Late 2015 (link to Markman Capital Insight)

Um, yeah, a bunch of wealthy people get together and offer to put a lot of money into developing renewables (a worthy goal, most certainly), but only if the governments do it, too. Way to show your leadership and support of something vitally important, guys. I mean, nothing says "I'm here to help" like delivering "follow our preferred policy or you get nothing" ultimatums.

Ovinomancer said:

Um, yeah, a bunch of wealthy people get together and offer to put a lot of money into developing renewables (a worthy goal, most certainly), but only if the governments do it, too. Way to show your leadership and support of something vitally important, guys. I mean, nothing says "I'm here to help" like delivering "follow our preferred policy or you get nothing" ultimatums.

Click to expand...

It isn't an ultimatum. It is a recognition of empirically supported practical realities, and offers the incentive of increased investment to those who join in.

Government is *better* at supporting basic research. Private investing is *better* at turning basic research into consumer products. This is utilizing known efficiency and competencies. Such a program does need an increased flow of basic research to be successful - they are promising to go through the basic innovations more aggressively than normal. If we don't expand the research, they'll run through prospects and have nothing more to work with.

These folks are announcing a program of well-considered investing with greater patience than normally found in the private sector, increasing confidence that funding the basic research will yield consumer results more quickly.

Basically, they are telling the world that they're setting up to drink from the fire hose, so open up the valve, please!

Umbran said:

It isn't an ultimatum. It is a recognition of empirically supported practical realities, and offers the incentive of increased investment to those who join in.

Government is *better* at supporting basic research. Private investing is *better* at turning basic research into consumer products. This is utilizing known efficiency and competencies. Such a program does need an increased flow of basic research to be successful - they are promising to go through the basic innovations more aggressively than normal. If we don't expand the research, they'll run through prospects and have nothing more to work with.

These folks are announcing a program of well-considered investing with greater patience than normally found in the private sector, increasing confidence that funding the basic research will yield consumer results more quickly.

Basically, they are telling the world that they're setting up to drink from the fire hose, so open up the valve, please!

Click to expand...

I disagree that public/private research is inherently better in either direction. Private is usually more interested in application, true, but that doesn't make private basic research any less better than publicly funded basic research.

If these guys are serious, they'd kick in their funds without delivering ultimatums to government to follow their preferred policy objectives. This is nothing more than the rich trying to dictate to government, which only escapes your notice because you agree with the goal. I also agree with the goal, renewables deserve more research (god knows they aren't ready for primetime yet), but I disagree that a cabal of the rich dictating policy to government for their help is in any way a proper outcome. Either they need to show leadership and start the ball rolling themselves, or we should all recognize what this is -- publicly displayed lobbying with fat offered rewards.

I am not sure this reads as an ultimatum either. Being realistic and saying "Hey Government, this isn't going have the kind of success it potentially could without additional backing. We need to all come together to finance and prioritize this line of research."

They use the word requires because, really, it does. This sort of endeavor needs a huge backing. Governments should be one such backer, they are here to serve the people, and a renewable and clean fuel source is certainly in the people's best interest.

It also looks like it needs the pretense at least of objectivity from the Governments perspective. Since technically, that should be only biased towards achieving the set out goal and providing service to the people.

Ovinomancer said:

I disagree that public/private research is inherently better in either direction. Private is usually more interested in application, true, but that doesn't make private basic research any less better than publicly funded basic research.

Click to expand...

It is pretty clear that, in terms of covering the possible research space, public funding is far more effective and efficient. The lack of bounds or need to answer to a stockholder keeps the research far more open-minded and creative.

If these guys are serious, they'd kick in their funds without delivering ultimatums to government to follow their preferred policy objectives.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but no, you're just wrong here. These individuals don't have the scope, expertise, or indeed the funds to carry it themselves. The challenges we face will *not* be solved by just the corporate, or just the government side of things. Cooperation is absolutely required and essential, and any positive inducement to that end (like, we will invest and grow business in your country if you are on board) is a good thing.

Moreover, lack of a carrot it not a stick. This is only an ultimatum if the governments were *entitled* to their investment, and they were threatening to remove it. There is no entitlement. They offer an incentive to those who work with them. That's pretty standard, and does not constitute an ultimatum.

This is nothing more than the rich trying to dictate to government, which only escapes your notice because you agree with the goal.

Click to expand...

Rude. I have warned you before to not speak as if you were a mind reader. Stop, now, please and thank you.

I disagree that a cabal of the rich dictating policy to government for their help is in any way a proper outcome.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I think you might need to spend a good deal of time speaking against Super Pacs and other corporate money in elections before you'll make anyone believe you actually hold that stance.

Umbran said:

It is pretty clear that, in terms of covering the possible research space, public funding is far more effective and efficient. The lack of bounds or need to answer to a stockholder keeps the research far more open-minded and creative.

Click to expand...

No, it's not clear, and please tell me you don't think the government doesn't fund according to policy needs.

I'm sorry, but no, you're just wrong here. These individuals don't have the scope, expertise, or indeed the funds to carry it themselves. The challenges we face will *not* be solved by just the corporate, or just the government side of things. Cooperation is absolutely required and essential, and any positive inducement to that end (like, we will invest and grow business in your country if you are on board) is a good thing.

Click to expand...

Neither does the government. Instead, both provide funds to people that do. Please tell me you didn't make an argument that assumed I thought Bill Gates was going to conduct research. And if you really think Bill Gates has no idea how to organize, fund, and manage a research endeavor, please explain his wealth.

Moreover, lack of a carrot it not a stick. This is only an ultimatum if the governments were *entitled* to their investment, and they were threatening to remove it. There is no entitlement. They offer an incentive to those who work with them. That's pretty standard, and does not constitute an ultimatum.

Click to expand...

It's an empty statement. The government is never going to actually follow through, because the government doesn't have the discretionary funds to do so. If it's not a bald attempt to lobby, then it's pointless grandstanding. If they actually thought it the serious issue that they claim, they'd be doing actual work towards it, not just pointlessly lobbying for a government policy.

Rude. I have warned you before to not speak as if you were a mind reader. Stop, now, please and thank you.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. But you do strongly agree with the goals stated, correct?

Interesting. I think you might need to spend a good deal of time speaking against Super Pacs and other corporate money in elections before you'll make anyone believe you actually hold that stance.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't have to do any such thing to show that I hold such a stance. I haven't done such here because it hasn't come up. I'm actually perfectly happy stripping many personhood rights from corporate entities, including the rights to political speech. You'd hate it because I apply that evenly, including to unions and NGOs. I've held and expressed that view for a long time, in many other places. Just because you haven't seen it to your satisfaction doesn't mean I don't. You complained about me assuming your thoughts and then your go and pitch this little bit of snideness? Stay classy, Umbran, stay classy.