Google Makes Big Wind Investment

We heard Robert Godes talk last week about Google’s interest in the technology Brillouin Energy is developing, but it looks like the internet giant is still firmly committed to investing in traditional alternative energy. Today the company announced that it will buy the entire 240 megawatt output of a Texas wind energy company, Chermac Energy, which is expected to go online in late 2014.

In a blog post today, Google announced that this deal was made as part of their strategy to power their vast computing enterprise with 100 per cent renewable energy. Google will not use the power directly from the Texas wind farm, but will use this as a way to reduce their carbon footprint and input into the grid clean energy in exchange for power from the grid they are using for their power needs.

Does this give any indication about how interested they are in LENR? Perhaps — but perhaps not. Any company that expects LENR to be an energy source of the future still has to power its operations in the present — and who knows how long it may be before LENR powered electricity is going to be available to use. So maybe they do have hopes for LENR, but are pursuing wind as a short term strategy. On the other hand, if Google was firmly convinced of the future promise of LENR, one might reasonably expect them to be putting a lot of money into supporting it (they have billions of dollars available) since they are so committed to green energy. And to date there is no evidence they have spend anything at all on LENR. Maybe they just haven’t seen enough evidence to get excited about it.

  • Miles

    Since we are on the topic is new energy / green technology…

    If anyone is interested in Electric Vehicles, Wind, Solar or other Green Technologies, make sure to check out

    I’m not trying to steer anyone away from e-catWorld. Both eCatWorld & CT are my two main sources of information addiction.

    • Thinks4Self

      Thanks for the link!

    • fortyniner

      Thanks – some interesting articles and links.

  • Roger Bird

    I was watching a video interview with Dr. Batmanghelidj, M.D about the curative powers of water and how dehydration is often the cause of many other named diseases, particularly in older people. Very valuable. And he says something about water being free, and I remember that there are some big corporations that are trying to corner the market on water, believe it or not. And I am thinking, LENR is going to put those scum-bags in their place, when we can extract water from air, and not just in the Sahara Desert.

    • glen

      *for a modest capital outlay and so close to free ongoing input cost that it won’t really matter. I wonder if there are any suitible dessicant based condensors out there.

      What I wonder about is the business models, patent or no almost every gov’t in the world has compulsory IP aquisition and buy back licence laws. I’d say cost price +21% 7% to factory that makes it 7% rossi et al 7% tax in country of sale. 25yr licence.. You’d still be the richest man in the world on that.

  • Jim

    It’s like McDonald’s buying herds of cattle three years in advance; Google knows it will need the low carbon energy, and needs to secure it for the future, now.
    It’s like a portfolio diversification: for example, 35% reliable coal fired, 35% new gas fired, 17% wind, 8% solar, 4% bio-fuel, and 1% exotics.

    Hopefully they’ll put some of that 1% into LENR.

  • Christina

    Miles, thank you for the link. Christina

  • Sanjeev

    240 MW is way beyond the capabilities of lenr at this time, when all we have(heard of) is various hand built prototypes sitting in labs in at most KW range, that too in heat terms, no electricity.

    So its a wise decision to go ahead and acquire matured clean power techs like wind and solar, rather than wait for years and burn precious oil. This does not imply that Google has no interest in lenr, we now know that they are interested.(If you believe Godes words). But they can’t go ahead and procure a 100MW lenr plant for electricity needs, its not available.

    Perhaps in near future we will hear Google investing in R&D on lenr, and then Google using a small plant for heating or cooling, but its too soon to expect them setting up lenr power plants.

    • Andrew Macleod

      Same could be said for nuclear. It has way more output than what any LENR prototype has shown. What it really comes down to is volume. When compaired cubic meter to cubic meter I’m sure LENR will output more energy for the same volume and have less an impact on the environment. Wind energy is just that, converting our planets Eco system into electricity, what kind of long term effect could this cause? I’m sure there will be minor local variations weather patterns around the wind farms but we don’t know what we don’t know. Maybe I’m a pessimist but when the weather man can’t get it right half the time……

      • fortyniner

        Two points: Firstly, even the largest wind farms are harvesting only a tiny fraction of a percent of the kinetic energy contained in moving air, and only from the first 50m or so of the many kilometers of atmosphere in which there are significant air currents. Secondly, much of the energy in the wind eventually converts to heat through various forms of direct or indirect friction anyway, and all wind farms are doing is moving this conversion via electricity to slightly different locations. The net long term effect of wind power on the environment (other than on some unfortunate birds) must be zero, or as close as makes no difference.

        As you imply, the environmental cost of nuclear energy is now self evident, as is the cost in human terms. LENR seems to offer all the claimed (but not realised) advantages of nuclear power without any of the environmental costs, and in a far more inexpensive, (potentially) non-centralised and convenient form than wind power could ever offer.

        It is to be fervently hoped that a pilot CF plant that actually generates power can be demonstrated before the nuclear industry has managed to take its various proposed new builds to the point where the degree of contractual and financial commitment makes them irreversible in political terms.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          “Wind investments blow Pickens off the Forbes 400 list”

          Read more:

          • Roger Bird

            Pickens’ Plan was my previous energy excitement, until LENR came along. And then I lost interest.

            I am glad that Pickens’ is not so shallow that he thinks that he can’t be happy without being a billionaire.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            It’s very windy in Pickens country…the TX Panhandle. Some places the trees(if you’re lucky enough to find trees) will only have limbs on the leeward side.

            In my part of the woods, usually there’s barely enough wind to fly a kite.

        • Omega Z


          Wind & Solar are both much more detrimental then anyone will advertize. And Both can have drastic effects on weather patterns. Wind for example can cause droughts in some areas & floods in others by changing Air currents.
          This is Scientifically known but, Publicly suppressed. Solar causes similar problems in a different way.

          LENR will create it’s own problems, but to a much lesser degree & more manageable then current energy production methods.

          Note that I recently read an article about Solar & it’s true carbon footprint. All considered manufactured to end of it’s life-cycle will produce half the carbon produced by Coal power plants. Similar to results of switching from Coal to Natural Gas.

          One always plays up the others deficiencies while playing down or completely ignoring ones own deficiencies. Standard procedure in this world…

          • Roger Bird

            Please explain in detail what is the lifespan for solar, and also wind. I thought that they were sort of eternal.

          • fortyniner

            Omega – I agree that biased calculations are often used to support one or another preferred option. In the case of energy systems this usually means ‘overlooking’ significant portions of a complete lifetime audit, such as the energy required to make concrete and other materials used in unstallations (hydro, nuclear, wind), refining and transporting fuel and ‘legacy’ costs such as decommissioning and disposal (nuclear in particular).

            However I have trouble with the idea that a few ground level turbines, even when crowded into ‘wind farms’ can have any significant effect on ‘downstream’ weather. In the case of solar panels, these are simply absorbing energy that would otherwise have heated the ground (or roofs) under them – heat that is almost simultaneously released from the appliances that use the power generated.

            In both cases not only is the amount of energy concerned miniscule in comparison with the total energy available, but is also well within normal natural variations, so it seems to me that any effects should be proportional, i.e., negligible.

            I must admit that I have no facts to back this idea up, and have not made any calculations, so I could be wrong. If you have any links where I could update my knowledge, these would be appreciated.

          • Roger Bird

            I agree 100%.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I view wind, solar, gas, as transitional fuels, it will take at least a decade before LENR is the majority source of power. Google’s purchase of wind farm is probably just a good investment.

    • clovis

      i agree, and you know they could exchange the wind gen/set, too hot-cat easily, the infrastructure is all ready in place.

  • Sanjeev

    Brillouin in mainstream media. News is spreading and with $20M from Sunrise securities NY, they are more believable and transparent than competitors.

    • artefact

      A good one!

      • Blanco69

        Agreed! Brillouin appear to have both a decent process theory and a sharp approach to the business side of attracting the necessary investment to bring their products to the market.

        One thing that struck me when I listened to/watched Robert Godes is that he believes that Hydrogen is the “fuel” of LENR and not nickel. The nickel merely provides the lattice environment for the Hydrogen transmutation to take place. This sort of makes sense to me as it appears we haven’t had any real reports of anyone opening a used ecat chamber and finding it full of copper. What I find interesting about this is that I know we have heard comments from Rossi about how much energy is stored in Nickel and how much of the world’s nickel production will be needed to provide the world’s power requirements. The Rossi info to date on this, to me, suggests that he (Rossi) thinks that it’s the nickel that gets “used up” by the reaction. Remember the E=MC^2 chat a few months back. If you knew that LENR doesn’t “consume” nickel then why would you got into all that E=MC^2 stuff then?

        So there’s a confict in the hypotheses that I think will be interesting. Robert Godes seems pretty confident in his theory but Andrea Rossi seems a bit vague on his.

        I’m quite sure that sooner or later we’ll all know exactly what happens in a LENR reaction but it’ll be interesting to see who was closest.

        • Roger Bird

          I am going with Godes with a clean reaction and Rossi with a dirty reaction. Otherwise, McKubre would most certainly have noticed copper in the debris after a long run. But still, I bet that Rossi has something to teach Godes, and vice versa.

        • SteveW

          It’s looking more and more like the electro-magnetic pulse system that Brillouin is using is the correct path to commercially viable LENR. My question is how many pulses or how much time does it take to initiate a reaction? At what temperature range does the reaction occur at. The problem I see with Rossi’s secret catalyst/ heat system is that it is too dependent on heat to maintain the reaction. It just takes too long to start the reaction and then heat needs to be bled off in just the right amounts to keep the reaction going without going out of control. You can’t control the output heat that you want, the system controls how much heat you get. That’s just not very practical and hard to engineer products around. An electro-magnetic pulse is virtually instantaneous, on the other hand heating or cooling takes time, by the time the desired heating or cooling takes effect, it may be too late and the reaction may stop or go out of control and have to be stopped. If I was Rossi and his partner, I would be worried. I would be looking to form a partnership with Brillouin, Rossi’s secret catalyst and know-how and partners resources coupled with Brillouin’s electro-magnetic pulse (if they are at all compatible together). If not, Rossi may be able to make a book and movie deal.

          • Sanjeev

            Rossi also uses pulses to control his Ecat, if you noticed in the Levi’s report and in various videos. Rossi doesn’t allow anyone to measure those pulses because they are his commercial secret. However, I feel that, from what has been published, he has some trouble even with pulses and either meltdown happens or it stops working sometimes.

            So all three major players employ some kind of pulsing mechanism as a form of control with varying degrees of success. Others, like Celani, do not use pulses, and may be this is the reason that they are not in the game yet.

          • fortyniner

            I agree with Sanjeev and believe that Rossi has been using some kind of pulsed ‘driver’ from the outset – I believe that in Rossi’s case an oscillating EM field supplied from some kind of antenna. The catalyst story is probably either a red herring, or a side issue such as the addition of copper to his ‘fuel’ to enhance the ionisation of hydrogen.

            If anyone can now remember the construction of the bench (‘plumbing fittings’) prototypes, there was a serious anomaly; the device had two ‘heaters’, each with its own set of wires. One was an external annular unit described as the main heater, the other was located in the central reaction area but was described as an ‘auxiliary heater’.

            There is a problem with this description. This is that the band heater was fitted to the outside of the water jacket and therefore could never have heated the core as claimed. Clearly the reactor core heat was actually supplied by the ‘auxiliary heater’.

            This left the obvious question – what was the band heater there for? I speculated at the time that the band heater was in fact an induction coil, arranged to focus EM energy on the core. This could have been by energising the existing resistance coil with an RF frequency, or by replacing the nichrome wire with copper windings and feeding this with AC or ‘chopped’ DC. The stainless steel of the band heater casing and the reactor chamber would have allowed EM to pass through, and the copper cooling tube would only have attenuated the field to a limited degree.

            If this speculation was correct then as Sanjeev suggests, all three of the current ‘contenders’ are using pulsed drivers of one kind or another. This is also the principle behind the GEC GeNiE, which utilises a microwave driver acting on a palladium composite core (information that appeared on the first GEC sites, now long since removed). So the various reactors may just be variations on a theme – a simple matter of a ‘magic’ frequency, with many other workable physical configurations available to inventors.

          • Omega Z


            Many months ago, Rossi responded to a post about the 6 month cycle.

            It has nothing to do with the Hydrogen or the Nickel.

            It was because of the Secret Catalyst being Exhausted.

            This narrowed the many possibilities to me. It either has to do with specific Nickel Isotopes having been mutated away or a physical element added such as Lithium or something of that nature.

        • Omega Z


          Don’t read to much into what they say. Some of their Info on Rossi is out of date by about 18 months.

          1st, Rossi speaks of E=MC^2. Readers assume he speaks of the Nickel. Rossi purposely doesn’t indicate where the Energy comes from. No doubt it actually comes from the Hydrogen(Fusion) which causes conversion/mutation of the Nickel isotopes.

          Rossi & Focardi did initially think that the Nickel transmutation to Copper was the source of the Energy, but the quantities didn’t figure.

          They latter determined that Nickel to Copper was just a side effect. One they latter minimized to near zero.
          It’s now all about the Hydrogen & Nickel isotopes.

          Note that Brillouin has been working with a Wet system. They are just now moving into a dry system similar to Rossi’s E-cat. This may be necessary to get the High Temps. Regardless, there is a reason to move to dry systems or it’s likely they wouldn’t be going that course.

          Brillouin uses a Q-Pulse. Rossi uses something of a similar nature if not the same type of control. Rossi declines to Identify which.

          3rd. Party testers mention that Rossi doesn’t use a stable current, but no details. Current, Magnetic, and RF which Rossi has implied early on can all be Manipulated/Pulsed.

          As for the Nickel, Even Brillouin indicates replacement occasionally. Rossi has also said time periods will likely expand, However, he says the 6 month cycle is related to the Secret catalyst being exhausted at this time. Not the Nickel.

          Regardless of whom comes to market 1st, they will have company very soon. Likely months. Certain Entities are involved with All these Leaders & will see to it.

          To many to remember, but 2 Entities that have been & continue to be associated with all the leaders either directly or indirectly by personnel are NRL & NASA. EVEN the DOE.

    • Roger Bird

      It is also a great article to link for your friends who are not avid followers like us.

      • Magic Merchant

        We have a really clear and easy to understand presentation on the theory on Brillouins webpage.

        In for example the Rossi Reactors, do we have a similar simplified easy explanation of what he thinks is going on in his? (I guess the answer is no?)

        And for the Palladium Addicts, do we have it there?
        Ex Mitch Swartz?

        Mc Kubre tends to say that there seems to be several processes and some people say its a wide field …

        I want to ask if there is other just as simplified theories we can find somewhere? Most science papers are incomprehensible for someone without a technical background.

        These guys definitely have an advantage because they have simplified their theory. If it makes sense and it feels intuitively correct people wont be looking for “hidden cables” and when not finding them claim they have to be there anyway just very well hidden.

    • GreenWin

      “Those who remain skeptical that the “cold fusion” phenomenon is for real usually start with some version of the assumption that we already know all that will ever be known about nuclear physics and that another way to extract energy from an atomic nucleus is impossible. It sounds a lot like the skepticism that greeted the Wright Brothers’ first flights.” Tom Whipple, Falls Church News

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    Math Lessons – Prof. Sergio Focardi


  • If anyone wants to attend the ‘Energy of the Future’ conference at Nobel Week in Gothenburg Sweden this December, registration (free) is now open:


    Wonder if T. Boone Pickens sold them his interest in his Texas wind farm!