KPCB company searching for a green new energy source

[jlumartinez]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opi ... uture.html

Maybe they could be interested deeply in Polywell

[scareduck]

Others have dropped cash on similar IEC technologies:

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9721240-7.html

[MSimon]

http://www.kpcb.com/initiatives/greentech/index.html

Quote from the url:

Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers are actively investing in Greentech innovation and entrepreneurs. Scientists agree the number one trend on the planet is urbanization, as four billion people move from rural to urban living in the next 50 years: they all want need clean water, clean power and clean transportation. At the same time we face climate crisis. Atmospheric CO2 levels are at an all-time high, with accelerating growth. We are addicted to increasingly expensive oil. Scientific breakthroughs in biology and materials technology mean there’s never been a better time to start and grow a great green venture. Greentech could be the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century. It is an unprecedented challenge that demands great innovation, speed and scale.

KPCB has announced an historic alliance with Generation Investment Management and its chairman Al Gore who has become a KPCB Partner. The combined network, expertise, vision and global reach of Gore, Generation and KPCB will help our entrepreneurs change the world.

====

From the first url:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opi ... uture.html

Bill Joy co-founded Sun Microsystems. He is now a partner in the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, based in Menlo Park, California

===

This has nothing to do with saving the planet. It is rent seeking pure and simple.

[scareduck]

This has nothing to do with saving the planet. It is rent seeking pure and simple.

So, you're saying that the point of getting Al Gore on board is to elicit subsidy from a hypothetical Clinton II administration?

[MSimon]

That was the Enron Plan for success.

How about the GE Plan:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... -buck.html

Taxing the competition out of business.

I have no problem with making alternatives cheaper than current systems. What I object to is taxing the current systems out of business before we have better available. If better was available no taxes would be required.

Any thing Al Gore is working on is pure political scam.

I'll believe this is for real when Al gets China and India on board.

[scareduck]

I have no problem with making alternatives cheaper than current systems. What I object to is taxing the current systems out of business before we have better available. If better was available no taxes would be required.

Things I have never understood about the myriad carbon tax proposals:

1) They are mostly regressive, i.e. they hit the poor hardest.
2) Those that involve rebates to the poor to make up for this fact miss the point that this is also where most of the carbon ends up being consumed, thus failing to achieve the intended effect.
3) Rebates also have the defect of being a hidden wealth transfer scheme, a fact that will eventually surface and require political consideration, possibly derailing (in the US, anyway) the whole thing.
4) Those proposing rebates need to explain what will prevent the government from ultimately just spending the money, as with Social Security revenues. (Oh, sure, they have internal IOU's... let's see the value of those once revenues slow.)
5) If the government spends carbon taxes, that makes state revenues dependent on that source. This means the government actually has a perverse disincentive to eliminate carbon-based fuel use. France had/has a similar problem in that they use cigarette taxes to (partially?) fund their national health care system.

Carbon taxes are a remarkably bad idea for many reasons, and you would think that even self-described "progressives" would understand this directly, especially for reason (5). On the other hand, I suspect there is a lot of the "watermelon" effect here, i.e. scratch a "green" and you will find an ill-disguised "red" underneath.

[Nanos]

I'm sure its pretty common that these watermelon agent provocateurs can be found in almost every green related group around these days, more particularly noticable when they gain power and silence their own membership whenever anyone voices desent among the ranks.

A lot of greens I talk with have quite sensible views on things, yet are not the ones making green policies, those people are either almost impossible to chat with, or when questioned about what they have actually done for X years, are unable to give you anything more than flimflam.

[JoeStrout]

I have no problem with making alternatives cheaper than current systems. What I object to is taxing the current systems out of business before we have better available. If better was available no taxes would be required.

Not true, for two big reasons (and probably a number of smaller ones). First, the cost of polluting is easily externalized, i.e., fostered onto other people (most importantly neighbors and future generations), rather than borne by those responsible. That leads to a classic prisoner's dilemma situation, where the individually rational choice leads to the worst outcome for the entire group. Second, switching from anything to anything almost always incurs significant up-front costs, even if it's going to be cheaper in the long run. Companies (especially publicly-held ones) often have to focus on maximizing current profits, leading to the short-sighted continuation of current processes in such a situation.

Taxes help correct these problems by forcing polluters to bear (internalize) the cost of the problems they cause, rather than foisting them off on neighbors or future generations; and by making switching to better alternatives more economically feasible despite the need for new infrastructure.

Some form of carbon tax is by far the most sensible way to push production of better technologies. Governments are horrible at picking and developing winning technologies, but markets are very good at it -- when those markets have the right incentives.

Any thing Al Gore is working on is pure political scam.

Anybody who would make such an idiotic statement is a right-wing nut job so intent on grinding a political axe that they have lost their ability to see or think clearly (at least on political topics).

[JoeStrout]

Things I have never understood about the myriad carbon tax proposals:

1) They are mostly regressive, i.e. they hit the poor hardest.

Often true; there are ways to offset that, but maybe that's not the point. If we fail to curb our carbon emissions, the consequences will hit the poor hardest too (look at New Orleans for an example). Better a small amount of suffering now than a much larger amount of suffering later.

2) Those that involve rebates to the poor to make up for this fact miss the point that this is also where most of the carbon ends up being consumed, thus failing to achieve the intended effect.

No. If we phase in, say, a gasoline tax, then the market will develop alternatives to gasoline, quite apart from any rebates. Bob Sixpack isn't going to choose to pay more per mile than he has to just because he's getting a $2000/year credit on his taxes.

3) Rebates also have the defect of being a hidden wealth transfer scheme, a fact that will eventually surface and require political consideration, possibly derailing (in the US, anyway) the whole thing.

Whether it's politically feasible is quite separate from whether it's the right thing to do. Taxing fuels in proportion to their net carbon emissions is absolutely the right thing to do, because it internalizes (and makes immediate rather than remote) their true costs, and will help the market develop cleaner alternatives. But it's probably not politically feasible in this country, which tends to act (en masse) like a bunch of spoiled children. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it; it just means that we probably won't.

4) Those proposing rebates need to explain what will prevent the government from ultimately just spending the money, as with Social Security revenues.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Rebates would be immediate, not deferred, unlike Social Security. (More likely they'd be tax credits, so they'd be money the government simply never sees.)

5) If the government spends carbon taxes, that makes state revenues dependent on that source. This means the government actually has a perverse disincentive to eliminate carbon-based fuel use. France had/has a similar problem in that they use cigarette taxes to (partially?) fund their national health care system.

That's a good point. You do want to take care to make sure incentives are all pointing in the right direction. A good solution would be for income from the carbon taxes to be spent only on alternative-energy research. Trust me, the researchers and entrepreneurs doing that research are not going to worry about the loss of the research money that would result from success, since success would bring far greater profits than the research grants ever did.

Carbon taxes are a remarkably bad idea for many reasons, and you would think that even self-described "progressives" would understand this directly, especially for reason (5).

No, they're a remarkably good idea, and none of your points above are serious problems.

On the other hand, I suspect there is a lot of the "watermelon" effect here, i.e. scratch a "green" and you will find an ill-disguised "red" underneath.

This is far too subtle; why don't you come right out and say that environmentalists are commies? Then you can hop in your pickup truck and go pal around with Rush Limbaugh (if he happens to be out of drug rehab at the moment).

[MSimon]

You know climate changes cause war.

If it gets too cold food is hard to grow and people fight over the remains.

We are within 1 deg C of a Little Ice Age. I'd like a little more margin than that. Let us hope temps keep rising. If the sun spots don't return soon though I fear the worst. Some solar guys think we are in for a Dalton minimum. Global temps have been flat for about the last 8 years. Is it a stall in the trend or an inflection point? Something else to worry about. BTW the IPCC does not consider solar cycles. Such a comprehensive group.

In any case we are going to need those reactors to heat real greenhouses and grow food if it gets cold outside.

BTW I guarantee that cutting the cost of electricity in half, cutting plant cost by 70%, and cutting the lead time to build a plant to a year would attract some attention.

I'll bet we could sell China one a week until they figured out how to make their own.

Let me also note that I am seeing about one blog article a day on Bussard fusion. The Buzz is definitely picking up.

==

I really object to the use of government to destroy our current energy producers. It should be no problem out competing them.

In any case as a true lefty (not many of us left) I'm against giving any corporation control of the levers of government power.

I have never understood why so many people think that putting a (government's) gun to people's heads is a good idea.

"Any extension of the Government into business affairs -- no matter what the pretense and no matter how the extension is labeled -- will be bound to promote waste and put a curb on our prosperity and progress." --Thomas Alva Edison

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

A corporation (not in league with the government) has to entice you. Government uses the threat of violence and real violence to keep you in line. Which is your preferred method? Enticement or violence?

I'm an enticement kind of guy myself. Better, faster, cheaper. Make it so good that even the stupidest will want something different.

Let me note that CO2 is not an externality to trees. They need it for growth. The more the better. Below 200 ppmv some plants will not grow. The optimum is some where around 5,000 ppmv. Our current level is around 400 ppmv. Again, I'd like to see more margin. For the trees.

Be nice to the trees. Take an extra long drive in the country with you Hummer today. Leave all the lights burning. Take an extra extra hot bath. If we all do out part it will help the trees a lot.

[Nanos]

Thats something I never seem to get an answer for when I ask a green just how many trees do you need per person to offset all their CO2 ?

I plan to plant an awful lot of trees (I like woodland..) when I get a chance.

[scareduck]

Things I have never understood about the myriad carbon tax proposals:

1) They are mostly regressive, i.e. they hit the poor hardest.

Often true; there are ways to offset that, but maybe that's not the point. If we fail to curb our carbon emissions, the consequences will hit the poor hardest too (look at New Orleans for an example). Better a small amount of suffering now than a much larger amount of suffering later.

"Small"? But the point was to force people to change their habits! How can that happen without hitting them hard in the pocketbook? And if that doesn't happen by cutting a certain group out by virtue of income (and this will be a very large group), how can we expect to effect the desired change?

2) Those that involve rebates to the poor to make up for this fact miss the point that this is also where most of the carbon ends up being consumed, thus failing to achieve the intended effect.

No. If we phase in, say, a gasoline tax, then the market will develop alternatives to gasoline, quite apart from any rebates. Bob Sixpack isn't going to choose to pay more per mile than he has to just because he's getting a $2000/year credit on his taxes.

This response is a non-sequitur. Bob Sixpack pays less because he doesn't have to under some income-tested carbon tax. And as I said, for this to work it has to apply to everyone, not just those who can afford it. A carbon tax only applicable to the top 30% of society (say) won't help, nor will a 5% tax on the top 50-60%. As we're discovering now, even tripling the price of gasoline has made only very modest changes in consumption. Part of the process of a carbon tax will be discovering how much will make a difference; will it mean a 100% tax? A 200% tax? 300%?

Moreover, there's a strong argument to be made that getting carbon fuels out of the hands of the poor is exactly what needs to happen. Making them unaffordable for as many people as possible should be the policy prescription that high carbon taxes emphasize.

3) Rebates also have the defect of being a hidden wealth transfer scheme, a fact that will eventually surface and require political consideration, possibly derailing (in the US, anyway) the whole thing.

Whether it's politically feasible is quite separate from whether it's the right thing to do. Taxing fuels in proportion to their net carbon emissions is absolutely the right thing to do, because it internalizes (and makes immediate rather than remote) their true costs

Which are what? The problem I have with this calculation is that so-called "externalized" costs are largely hypothetical and in any event difficult to prove.

and will help the market develop cleaner alternatives.

But carbon fuels are a necessary part of shipping windmill parts, building nuclear power plants, etc., making the end results more expensive. Discuss.

But it's probably not politically feasible in this country, which tends to act (en masse) like a bunch of spoiled children.

God forbid individuals should want things like cheap energy, clean water, etc. I must be in the wrong forum...

4) Those proposing rebates need to explain what will prevent the government from ultimately just spending the money, as with Social Security revenues.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Rebates would be immediate, not deferred, unlike Social Security. (More likely they'd be tax credits, so they'd be money the government simply never sees.)

Perhaps I'm not being clear about how Social Security works. Social Security revenues go into the general fund, and have since 1968. The Social Security Administration gets IOUs from the government, and gets to cash those in at some future date. My point is that when Social Security got started, part of the deal to get the money was that individuals would have accounts and the government wouldn't spend it along the way. Lyndon Johnson changed that... and if that can happen to the "third rail" of American politics, it will certainly happen to something like a carbon tax, which to the government will look like a gasoline tax on steroids.

5) If the government spends carbon taxes, that makes state revenues dependent on that source. This means the government actually has a perverse disincentive to eliminate carbon-based fuel use. France had/has a similar problem in that they use cigarette taxes to (partially?) fund their national health care system.

That's a good point. You do want to take care to make sure incentives are all pointing in the right direction. A good solution would be for income from the carbon taxes to be spent only on alternative-energy research.

See above. It won't happen.

Trust me, the researchers and entrepreneurs doing that research are not going to worry about the loss of the research money that would result from success, since success would bring far greater profits than the research grants ever did.

I worry more about what the mischief the government will do with even more treasure.

On the other hand, I suspect there is a lot of the "watermelon" effect here, i.e. scratch a "green" and you will find an ill-disguised "red" underneath.

This is far too subtle; why don't you come right out and say that environmentalists are commies? Then you can hop in your pickup truck and go pal around with Rush Limbaugh (if he happens to be out of drug rehab at the moment).

I'm no friend of Limbaugh or the Bush administration for that matter; Limbaugh is a partisan apologist, and Bush II has been an unmitigated disaster for the country, espousing radical theories of presidential power that sneer at the roots of constitutional checks and balances. But that said, I also fear for any social engineering that starts with the words "we should", because they imply the primacy of government in society.

This is one reason, further, I am gravely concerned about whispers I hear around here that there may be a "Manhattan Project"-style WB7 engineering project. The major problem with this is that the very promise of proton-boron fusion is that it is supposed to be cheap, yet by throwing lots of money at the problem, it opens the door to the very things that have afflicted tokamak fusion, high cost and disappointing results. Big budgets beget big budgets, and soon the endgame of "cheap" is long forgotten. It gets back to the old engineering adage: fast, cheap, good, pick two. Private funding must never forget economics, which is one reason that the efforts at Tri-Alpha Energy may be more effective, even if they end up taking longer to get there.

[MSimon]

What a Manhattan Style Project buys you is speed.

Given the cost of the War in Iraq (which I think is money well spent - a topic for another day), spending a few billion a year for 3 or 4 years is not a waste if at the end we can accelerate the price decline of oil.

If it shaves $10 a bbl from the price of oil (due to the decline of the fear factor) it will pay for itself.

I actually favor government ownership of this technology. They will license it to a number of firms and there will be competition. Something that might not happen so fast if one firm controlled the technology.

Think of the patent wars of the early days of electricity. Or radio.

[scareduck]

I actually favor government ownership of this technology. They will license it to a number of firms and there will be competition. Something that might not happen so fast if one firm controlled the technology.

Perhaps. But the problem then becomes how do we make sure it's developed so it is cheap?

Think of the patent wars of the early days of electricity. Or radio.

A different situation. A number of individuals had designed significant but interlocking improvements that couldn't operate without each other; when World War I got going, the government got frustrated with the constant squabbling and forced and created a pool out of which all the claimants were paid. But the point was that private money financed all those patent holders. Bussard's device, if it ever is made to work, was financed with Navy dollars, though Bussard himself (and presumably, his estate) holds the patents to the devices, which puts EMC2 Corp. in an interesting legal position. But I'm sure the Navy has other levers they could use to prevent its "premature" commercialization.

[MSimon]

I don't think the US could control this any more than they could control fission.

There is too much information out that gives at minimum a starting point. The end point being known, it then justs becomes a matter of grinding out the work.