TED Community » Bill Barhydt

More About Me

I'm passionate about

... financial inclusion
... history
... science & technology

An idea worth spreading

The opportunity to leverage the mobile phone to improve the lives of the "bottom of the income pyramid" is unprecedented in global history. Enabling money transfer, micro-finance, p2p lending, insurance/savings, mobile healthcare and mobile education via the mobile phone is an unprecedented opportunity to begin the process of lifting a billion people out of poverty. Everyone deserves the chance to become a self sufficient, positive contributing members of society.

Talk to me about

Mobile Money
Sketch
Europe
Moneyball
Skiing
Santa Cruz
Haiti

People don't know that I'm good at

Gardening
Cooking
Programming

My TED Story

At TED 2008 I met a TED Fellow who became my catalyst for creating the m-Via Foundation and our work in Haiti. She encouraged me to spend time with non-commercial organizations such as the US State Department, USAID and other organizations that have shown me how our company could ultimately do more than just help the middle of the income pyramid and focus on the poorest of nations that could also take advantage of what we have to offer. I am very grateful to TED for the role they have played in shaping the last few years of my life.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +151.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: Nuclear Energy vs Other Non-Fossil Fuel based energy sources

  Mar 23 2011: Andrew, this is really interesting. I'm going to read this with a little skepticism given the source (WWF) but I am genuinely excited to see what they have to say!
  
  Thanks for posting this!

• A reply on Conversation: Nuclear Energy vs Other Non-Fossil Fuel based energy sources

  Mar 21 2011: The article does explain where the data comes from. It's worth a read. IMO, a death is a death and if that death could be avoided by avoiding that form of energy then it is relevant. No?
  
  Regarding spent nuclear fuel and its impact on the earth, I can only point you to France as an example. They got it right. It scales and it is safe. Here is an article from the WSJ on this topic: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690627522614525.html
  
  From the article: "France, which completely reprocesses its recyclable material, stores all the unused remains -- from 30 years of generating 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy -- beneath the floor of a single room at La Hague."
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Nuclear Energy vs Other Non-Fossil Fuel based energy sources

  Mar 21 2011: I came across some data on deaths related to various energy sources. The data is measured in deaths/TWh for all energy sources. Here is the original link: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html He seems to provide good sources and a reasonable explanation of the calculations involved. I realize this is just one variable in a very complex equation on energy needs but to me it's a very important one.
  
  Here are the results:
  
  Energy Source - Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
  Coal – world average - 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
  Coal – China - 278
  Coal – USA - 15
  Oil - 36 (36% of world energy)
  Natural Gas - 4 (21% of world energy)
  Biofuel/Biomass - 12
  Peat - 12
  Solar (rooftop) - 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
  Wind - 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
  Hydro - 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
  Hydro - world including Banqiao) - 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
  Nuclear - 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
  
  My interpretation of the results is that eliminating all forms of energy above the solar line should be our collective goal. I believe that can only be done with an emphasis on nuclear. Many here disagree. The good news is that all of our choices in this thread appear to be safe in terms of mortality rates. Let the attacks re-commence...
  
  Thanks everyone for your passionate input on this debate.

• A reply on Conversation: Nuclear Energy vs Other Non-Fossil Fuel based energy sources

  Mar 19 2011: Good question.
  
  Just because the energy is there does not mean it can be easily tapped and brought to people at scale. As I said, if one government were to run a real world test and show that it works at scale, I'd probably become a supporter. I'm skeptical, but always open to a better way.

• A reply on Conversation: Nuclear Energy vs Other Non-Fossil Fuel based energy sources

  Mar 18 2011: Adam, my working assumption when I initiated the debate was that few people would (at least publicly) agree with me. The public has not disappointed! ;)
  
  You, correctly in my opinion, insinuate that we have a resource-abuse problem. I couldn't agree more. I don't know how to solve that problem. Maybe when our generation dies off our kids and their kids will be smarter about conserving resources then we were.
  
  For better or worse I've seen nothing of any realistic nature in the many great postings here to convince me that any other technology can scale to meet our needs on a global basis, to replace fossil fuels, the way nuclear can.
  
  I read the article you sent on off-shore wind. If one country would deploy it at scale it would sway my thinking. Your probably saw Gate's TED talk from last year on building better, cheaper and even more productive nuclear reactors (that he is investing in). In case you missed it: http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/02/bill_gates_goes.html

• A reply on Conversation: Nuclear Energy vs Other Non-Fossil Fuel based energy sources

  Mar 18 2011: I am not an apologist for anyone or anything. You don't know me, so please don't presume that you do. My intent here is to foster a civl debate among people that care about our future as it relates to our energy needs. If you have an opinion about our energy needs, please share it, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Thanks.

• A comment on Conversation: Nuclear Energy vs Other Non-Fossil Fuel based energy sources

  Mar 17 2011: Maven Research has been contacting radiation and energy experts to get their perspective on what is happening in Japan. They were kind enough to post some of their early findings via these experts... (Note: they don't actually say who the experts are so I guess we have to take it on faith that they really are experts. I sent them a note asking for a full disclosure, I'll report back on what they send me.)
  
  http://www.mavenresearch.com/blog/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear/

• A reply on Conversation: Nuclear Energy vs Other Non-Fossil Fuel based energy sources

  Mar 17 2011: Tao, you make a couple of excellent points. I have struggled with these issues in forming my own opinions. I remember reading "The Reckoning" as well back in the mid-80's which was a wake up call for me in a similar fashion.
  
  However, I simply don't see how countries like the US, China, India, Russia, etc can deploy wind, solar and hydro-electric at a large enough scale to replace fossil fuels. Nuclear, vis-a-vis, the French example seems to be the only viable option that scales.

• A reply on Conversation: Presenting ideas

  Mar 16 2011: good advice Harald and I agree 100%!

• A reply on Conversation: Nuclear Energy vs Other Non-Fossil Fuel based energy sources

  Mar 15 2011: Edward, I promise I will watch the trailer and then (probably) rent the movie. I never dreamed when I started this thread that I would get such impassioned responses. Most have been great, even the ones I don't agree with. A couple (below) have been personal attacks which I guess I can take but wasn't expecting.
  
  I still don't agree with your logic but I'm excited to take part in the debate and hope that we all get a little closer to the best possible solution because of it. I'll try and remember to let you know when I watch the movie!