The reason I mention this is because right now, it's all about google becoming the next Microsoft, but I don't think that's fair on google.
As far as google, they'll lose more and more of the fire from their early days as they get bigger and older, but they still have a fairly strong ethical core for any company their size and I think that will help as they age.
It is certainly pretty disputable that computing adoption was in anyway accelerated by the exsistence of Microsoft since they have essentially been rent collecting and pushing up prices for everyone to join in.
Sadly, my view is that we're 10 years behind where we should be because progress is anchored to Internet Explorer, and will be for another 10 years at least.
I will happily call IE evil because Microsoft have used it as a weapon in numerous attempts to seize control of something they didn't create, don't understand and above all have no right to mess with.
PR is a crucial part of Google's strategy, because it's very easy to switch search engines.
Granted, Google is more directly involved in positive projects as a corporation than Microsoft has been, but "The world is a worse place because of Microsoft" is a very shallow view, and IMO very wrong.
Anyway, if the goal is to slay Poverty, a private foundation probably won't cut it. We need to do away with the current fractional reserve banking system, nullify most national debts, localize production and distribution of common goods (especially food), build things to last (no programmed obsolescence), and stop thinking that GDP growth is a good measure of wealth (it was a good predictor, but now we tend to cheat).
But the amount of collaboration needed to do that looks so huge that it may be easier to build a Friendly AI.
Again, my point isn't to diss Bill's charity work. But arguing that we should tolerate abusive monopolies in our tech industry because the owners might one day get rich and give the money to poor people is ... borderline insane, honestly.
After the immediate state rebase + fed and state tax rebate I am only paying ~3cents/Watt
Any particular number you want to know? Say the system costs 24K, MA does a straight rebate to the installer so you would only have to write a check for say 18K, and come next tax year get 6K from the fed and 1K from MA back so the 24K system would cost you ~12K. The SRECS pay that back between 3-7 years and that is guaranteed $300/MW till 2020 so by doing the install this summer I should pay it off around 2018 and have extra income until 2020. Oh and it doesn't count against property tax for 20 or 40 years (forget which).
The main reason I am doing the switch is that it is a small investment that is _extremely_ stable with 1) a 100% return with interest in ~6 years on the electricity 2) increasing the value of the house by ~20K (more than post tax check!) and 3) will continue to generate electricity/tax free income for as long as I live in the house potentially the equivalent to the initial cost several times over. Not a bad small investment.
* Electric usage est, electric cost growth est (power costs more every year in MA), sun hours (obtained from various government sites) est, SREC payback est, power est, angle of house and roof.
Where I live there is a 1500 euro subsidy for the installation, putting the payback time (assuming constant energy costs) at around 7 years; with opportunity costs accounted at deposit account rates around 11.
I haven't decided yet but I think it's already an OK investment (not great but OK), mostly because of the subsidy; without that it would require significant increases in energy costs over the next couple of years to make it attractive.
Sinking to more consumer-oriented search, anticipating what you want before you know you want it is another (creepy) way for search to improve, that Google has specifically talked about.
One interesting idea I've heard in regards to storing electricity is using electric cars as batteries. Granted, this would require a massive retooling of our grid and our transportation system -- not to mention the question of where we will find all the resources to make so many batteries -- but it's still interesting.
What's troubling to me is all the sensationalism surrounding nuclear, which seems to suffer from lots of near-religious objections. Nuclear is dangerous but even in the worst scenarios (like the Fukushima Daiichi plant) the damage is far less onerous than the continued operation of coal plants.
Requiring 100% replacement/utility is not a useful position. If we want to reduce (notice I didn't say eliminate) use of fossil fuels, then we have to pursue a mix (including fossil fuels).
Edit: You didn't actually require 100%, but this edit is an easier correction than a correction.
"If" that is true, then a time-shifting bank of such supercapacitors could presumably solve the very real issues you raise.
The other no-storage option is to retain water at hydro facilities during the day and use more at night to balance the solar production.
That gives us plenty of time to see if the liquid metal battery will work out, or to start building reservoir pairs.
It has been going on for what, 20 years now? It is never going to change until we ignore them until they actually bring about their ideas.
http://inventors.about.com/od/timelines/a/Photovoltaics.htm http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/... http://www.reddit.com/r/Frugal/comments/hn7jn/while_were_on_...
We could start building a 100% solar/nuclear solution in the US today. The technology is there, and it would only be the construction time. Our energy costs would go up, but not significantly. However, if the technology keeps on this curve, unsubsidized solar will be cheaper than coal soon.
We aren't doing this today because the power companies know that the curve is coming soon. Why invest prematurely, outside basic research projects?
Solar is already in plenty of niches - from highway signage to parking kiosks. Every niche helps increase production, which reduces price per unit.
This is why I support subsidies - unlike for oil or nuclear, they're actually working to get costs down.
If there was a strong public demand for renewables grid parity wouldn't be that far off. Unfortunately, we're a little too obsessed with other things at the moment, like politicians posting lewd photos online or which television shows to DVR.
