Bill Gates Quotes

Why would we build a thousand mile pipeline taking almost a million barrels of oil from the most carbon intensive fuel source on the planet when wind energy is a whole lot cheaper and a whole lot cleaner.

Enlightened self-interest from those involved in hydrocarbons should lead to the support of technologies enabling the clean use of hydrocarbons, such as carbon capture and storage, and not to the defence of deniers and cranks.

The downsides of fossil fuels, notably their geopolitical and environmental risks, are not fully reflected in their market prices.

The playing field for renewable sources of energy—such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy—must be leveled with tax incentives that reduce the production costs for renewable energy technologies.

We don't believe carbon capture is a proven, scalable, commercially available technology.

The enthusiasm around carbon capture and sequestration was probably greater before the shale-gas discovery and the low prices were so prevalent.

Britain needs a diverse energy mix - home grown renewables, new nuclear, a switch from dirty coal to cleaner gas, and, when the technology is ready, carbon capture and storage. Diversity will keep the lights on and ensure we go green at the lowest possible cost.

Today, wind is the cheapest energy in America; solar is not far behind. In time, fossil fuels will only get more and more expensive.

The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.

The problem carbon is that everyone thinks we have an energy problem, we don't. We have plenty of energy. We have a carbon problem. Carbon is a material, so we have a material problem, not an energy problem.

There's no such thing as clean coal. It's non-existent. Theoretically, it might be possible, many years from now, to come up with a way to clean it as it's burnt. But there's not a single demonstration project in the United States. [...] Clean coal doesn't exist.

The big problem for atomic energy is that it can't compete on price with the new age of cheap shale gas and, to a lesser extent, clean coal.

As the cost of renewables plummets, the clean energy transition is increasingly driven by the business case.

We don't want to leave the coal in the ground, and that necessarily is going to involve better technology with regard to clean uses of coal.

The price to generate a megawatt or a gigawatt of energy is coming down year after year. We're learning how to print it, make it more efficient.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

Climate change is due to the use of energy for industrial growth, which has been and is overwhelmingly based on fossil fuels.

If aliens did visit us, I'd be embarrassed to tell them we still dig fossil fuels from the ground as a source of energy.

The thing you have to remember is, oil and gas are commodities, and the more we use them the more the price goes up, like any commodity. Solar, wind - they are technologies, so the more you use them, the more the price goes down.

By looking at climate change as a clean energy generation problem, we're setting ourselves up not to solve it.

We have to remove the CO2 that the industrial economy has already emitted, which otherwise will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and alter the Earth's climate irreversibly. It is possible to do this.

We have enough coal to last for 250 years, yet coal also prevents an environmental challenge.

Clean coal represents a breakthrough in the marketing of coal, but not in the science of burning coal.

Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket… Because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations. That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers.

Not using fossil fuels is tantamount to not using energy. It is economic suicide and eco-manslaughter.