More on LENR and Fusion from Fortune Magazine

After publishing an interview with Cherokee/Industrial Heat head Tom Darden, Fortune magazine has written another article about fusion as an energy source. The article is titled “Why Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, and others are betting on fusion”, and the focus of the article is about private sector investment into nuclear fusion projects, and explains how many wealthy business leaders are putting their own funds into companies who are working in the field. This article is also by Brian Dumaine, who did the interview with Tom Darden which was published yesterday.

Here’s an excerpt:

“America has six private-sector fusion projects underway, according to a new report by the research firm Third Way. PayPal co-founder and Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel has backed Helion Energy of Redmond, Wash.  Microsoft MSFT -0.59% co-founder Paul Allen has put money behind Tri ­Alpha Energy in Irvine, Calif., which has reportedly raised $140 million. And Bezos Expeditions, the investment fund of Amazon AMZN -3.63% CEO Jeff Bezos, is backing a Vancouver company called General Fusion, which so far has raised $94 million.”

The main thrust of the article is that private sector efforts are often more successful than government programs, and that more private investment in fusion might move the field along faster. The article mainly focuses on hot fusion projects, but there’s a paragraph about LENR which states:

“More recently scientists have been making some progress on a variation of this technology called low-energy nuclear reaction. That has led investors like Tom Darden, CEO of the $2.2 billion Cherokee Investment Partners, to create a North Carolina startup named Industrial Heat, which licensed the technology of Italian scientist Andrea Rossi. Last year Bill Gates visited the cold-­fusion facilities of the Italian national technology agency ENEA, but he has not invested, according to his office.”

Two articles in two days from Fortune covering LENR is quite a change from what we have seen in the media lately. Fortune is certainly a mainstream business magazine, which is widely read in business circles around the world, and it could mean that more serious attention will be paid to LENR in the business community.

  • Sanjeev

    Good to see a non-ridiculing, non-wiki based mention of LENR. Money makes everything look credible. LENR got money now.
    Slowly the msm will switch to LENR stories as if nothing happened only because their rich overlords begin thinking its serious.

  • Gerard McEk

    LENR has already proven over unity hundreds, maybe thousands of times, whereas hot fusion is still working in the area of 0.01% of the input power that is converted into nuclear heat. If the hot fusionists would know that, they would get very nervous, woudn’t they? Well, I guess not as long there is money to do it in the hot way, they continue and it is technically interesting isn’t it? Go on brothers, you never know where it will lead you.
    I just hope that LENR will get serious sponsor money also soon. The world needs it.

    • mcloki

      The momentum to keep Hot Fusion alive will be huge. Nobody wants to say the billions they fought for through the years is now worthless.

      • Sanjeev

        And so the fall will be huge too. They may all go bankrupt suddenly.
        Besides, the morals and ethics of the so called rational and scientific community will be questioned. This will have a big impact on how people perceive them, they may lose all trust just like the politicians and corporations that have lost it already.

        • Alain Samoun

          Yes! ITER,the international research project, has costed so far $50 billions,it won’t be finished before 10 years and probably won’t produce more watts that the first Nanor…One thing that we should understand is that all those billions spent are not lost for everybody, huge corporations make the money,mainly our money, that could be spent for other projects like LENR, photo-voltaic or wind projects

        • Frechette

          There are crony capitalists as well as crony scientists.

        • I would not say that the money spent into hot fusion is lost.

          You have to consider all the basic research which was made with that money. I guess 3/4 of the money flew into research whichs results can be used in totally different products.

          For example newest material research revealed superconductors which don’t need very low temperatures.
          This is also useful for magnet trains or quantum computer reseach.

  • Omega Z

    My understanding is that Bill Gates did invest in the Italian national technology agency ENEA. It was from his personal funds. Not the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation.

  • The reason the global warming hoax is currently so destructive is because that imagined threat is used as an excuse to force mandates and subsidies for renewable energy schemes, which don’t work except for hydroelectric power. When LENR is finally accepted as fact, all that money being pushed at government gunpoint into so-called “renewable”, but not sustainable, energy schemes will be pushed into LENR projects instead. While I believe government should keep hands off energy production, it will be far less destructive to the environment, our economy, and the human food supply when those who are afraid of global warming finally embrace LENR as the viable carbon free solution. BTW If you want to see and feel carbon dioxide, just breathe into your hand. We are made of the stuff, and we expel the stuff 24-7. By definition, when humans stop expelling carbon dioxide, they are dead. Death is the only truly carbon neutral option for humans. Life is a carbon based phenomena.

    • Alain Samoun

      “global warming hoax” That is mantra of the coal dinosaurs! Like the Koch brothers,it’s too old to even start a controversy about it. Wake -up Christopher we are on the twenty first. century!

    • GreenWin

      Is CO2 really a “pollutant?”

      • Bob Greenyer

        My father used to have huge paraffin burners into our 4 acres of tomato glass houses. This would raise temperature and CO2 to promote growth.

        What this test above fails to address is that climate change, however it is caused, results in more extreme weather. Some places get much dryer – others much wetter – yet others, both. In some cases areas get hotter or colder.

        Too Dry – top soil can blow away, most food crops fail
        Too Wet – top soil washed away causing permanent farmland damage or one seasons crop crushed / flooded.
        Too Cold – crops can be lost if frozen

        I met a guy from Tamil Nadu in Bangalore, a place where ground water is dropping 10s of meters per year. He said that after four years of drought where he could grow no food, they had a terrible flood that didn’t just wash the top soil away – it washed the village away.

        The above test completely avoids the topic of water availability

        • Ged

          Problem with all that is there is no evidence of the environment ever being stable. Quite the contrary, the only truth about Earth’s climate is that it is constantly changing. Really cold times, such as the ice ages, still had wild weather. It’s just large swaths of the planet was under miles of ice, so couldn’t feel the effects. Except for the effects of miles of ice. Meanwhile, the hottest times on the earth, like the Cretaceous or Mid Devonian, were teaming with more life and diversity than any other periods on this planet.

          If it wasn’t for the immense flourishing of life in the Cretaceous’ much hotter-than-now climate (making the Sahara a beautiful wetland instead of the desert it is today), large carnivorous creatures like Spinosaurus would not have been able to survive as there would never have been enough food. That was one of the mysteries of the Spinosaurus that was solved a few years back, as up to then they couldn’t figure out how it ever would have had enough to eat.

          So yeah, the only thing the climate ever, ever does, is change. Stability would be the only unprecedented state. For instance, in more recent memory, the middle east was a lush land and cradle of civilization, now it is a desert. Times change, but society just always needs something to freak out over (if one pays attention to trends, one will notice society always has One major thing it is freaking out over, and never less, and that freak out subject changes per generation–we just love doomsday senarios!).

          • Robyn Wyrick

            The notion of “Stable” is totally irrelevant. It’s not a question of whether the climate was ever stable, it’s a question of the tolerances of certain atmospheric gasses that Earth’s climate can accommodate while still experiencing the very gradual changes that appear to be the norm for the past millions of years.

            So forget “stable”; it’s a total straw man. Climate Scientists aren’t claiming the Earth’s climate was ever “stable” in the sense you pretend.

            What they are concerned about is rapid climate change (over decades or a few centuries rather than millions) based on gigantic amounts of greenhouse gasses being released into the atmosphere.

            I don’t see what is so unfathomable here: the local climate around cities is obviously changed by human activity (removing the trees, paving the ground, pumping CO2, Nitrogen Oxide, and other gasses). Repeated “Bad Air” days are an invention of modernity that swallow whole cities. And as mega-cities grow, you can watch the effect in satellite imagery in real time.

          • Ged

            Equating local land use changes to global shifts in climate is a strawman and completely unrelated. Albeit, local land use changes can change our perceptions by altering temperature in a local area (urban heat island effect).

            At any rate, according to ice core data, nothing about today is changing faster than has happened before. Nor are we are hot today as the past -four- interglacials. There’s nothing special about our interglacial in magnitude or duration compared to all past ones. But if you go even deeper into the past, such as the Cretaceous, it was around 1700 ppm CO2, and ocean temperatures were around 20-32 F hotter than today. Now, if one wants to say “that was then, and it was slow change” (which it wasn’t; ice ages also have a very rapid onset, with the last ice age taking at most a decade and at shortest 6 months to engulf a warm England in ice:–10-years.html . Now -that- is rapid climate change unlike the past several decades which have only changes by less than 1 C), then all one needs to do is look at modern life adapting very rapidly to extreme change, such as around the now active Kavachi underwater volcano , where even hammerhead sharks have adapted in a matter of years to survive an extremely different environment than their usual fair.

            The thing about humans, is we are short lived and believe whatever the world is facing now is the -most important- or has -only happened now- etc. We are biased to believing our experiences are the only ones that exist; but if you step back and look at the whole of time, nothing about now is special or different. The reason life even still exists is due to how adaptable it is, even to extreme change–and the climate is prone to extreme change all on its own, much faster than anything occurring today. If it happened once, in either direction, it can and will again.

        • GreenWin

          Bob, I merely asked if CO2 can be called a “pollutant.” This is not a climate site so I will comment only that climate changes, and always has.

          • Bob Greenyer

            “Too much of anything kills you” or so the saying goes.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Enron said it was.

    • Omega Z

      “when humans stop expelling carbon dioxide they are dead”

      Yes and then you start expelling that other dastardly global warming gas. Methane. Evil humans

      • Humans expel methane while living every day. I am told that men and women expel at a rate of about 14 times a day. If you eat allot of Mexican food, you might expel more often. Anyone got a match?

    • Alan DeAngelis

      In 1600 more than ninety-seven percent of the scientists agreed that the earth was the center of the universe.

  • HS61AF91

    On a more positive note, non other than Putin, himself, before the General Assembly of the UN, included these words in his speech: ”

    As part of our national contribution, we plan to reduce by 2030 the greenhouse emissions to 70, 75 percent of the 1990 level.

    suggest, however, we should take a wider view on this issue. Yes, we
    might defuse the problem for a while, by setting quotas on harmful
    emissions or by taking other measures that are nothing but tactical. But
    we will not solve it that way. We need a completely different approach.

    have to focus on introducing fundamental and new technologies inspired
    by nature, which would not damage the environment, but would be in
    harmony with it. Also, that would allow us to restore the balance upset
    by biosphere and technosphere (ph) upset by human activities.

    is indeed a challenge of planetary scope, but I’m confident that
    humankind has intellectual potential to address it. We need to join our
    efforts. I refer, first of all, to the states that have a solid research
    basis and have made significant advances in fundamental science.

    propose convening a special forum under the U.N. auspices for a
    comprehensive consideration of the issues related to the depletion of
    natural resources, destruction of habitat and climate change.

    Russia would be ready to co-sponsor such a forum.”

    Appears they are forging ahead with alternative sources, an certainly LENR is up there big time. The stagnant oil based fiat currency paradigm of world commerce and order may be breathing its last Oxygen in, Carbon dioxide out.

    • psi2u2

      Somehow I get the feeling Putin has been briefed on LENR.

  • MorganMck

    “The fossil fuel corporations are the most highly subsidized socialist businesses on the planet.”

    No the environmentalist’s favorite “green” technologies (wind & solar) dwarf fossil fuel subsidies on a percentage basis. None of these technologies deserve subsidies at this point IMO. They have all had plenty of time to mature and should now be able to compete on their own merits. To be clear, I include fossil fuel in the “deserves no subsidy” category.

  • Omega Z

    In the U.S., The Federal, State & Local governments collect well over 200 Billion$ “Every” year. Far more then that when you take in the taxes on wages & corporate profits.
    So Who subsidizes Who.

    Of course, if you get technical, nearly all the GDP exists because of them. That’s 5 Trillion in Government revenues. Yeah, without them, we backstep a 1000 years & burn trees.

  • Bob Greenyer

    One year – my dad lost all the glass in his greenhouses due to huge hail stones.

  • Omega Z

    Sorry-I can no longer find the original link- A refresher-
    We know Bill Gates had meetings with ENEA & his interest was LENR.
    University of Verona

    Initial speculation “WAS” that the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation was about to sign a funding deal with ENEA, But that was shot down & denied by the foundation.(Rumor was 1 Billion$ but I doubt it was that much)

    Here’s the deal. From Bill at gatesnotes-com
    “The Gates Foundation does not fund energy research (my investments are separate)

    This is why it’s difficult to know the facts. The Foundation is open to public disclosure. His personal investments are not.

    In regards to the article I can no longer locate, It specifically stated he provided funding to ENEA. Note: ENEA’s research covers multiple areas. It didn’t give an amount nor specify what it would apply to.

    But, he plans to spend another $1 billion in the next five years on “wild-eyed” energy tech companies. If he invested in LENR through ENEA, it would be the (ENEA) Mitsubishi’s: palladium LENR. Not the NI/H type that Rossi is doing.

    Previous investments Bill has made was a 200 Million$ in TerraPower(TWR)traveling wave reactor & additional investments in Liquid metal batteries developed by people at MIT & many others. A total of 1 Billion$ to date.

    During his ENEA visit, Bill said that he has been a believer in the Idea of LENR for several years and a sponsor of companies developing the technology.(NOTE: I’ve lost my reference this)

    Just my Opinion, I think many of the Big Boys are getting their feet wet. Testing the waters. Carl Page, the brother of Google CEO Larry Page was dappling about Rossi & the E-cat on quora-com in 2013.)

    Interesting Fact: Bill Gates meeting at ENEA was like 5 weeks after the Lugano Report became public…

    • quax

      Would be nice if he injected some funds into ENEA. A national research agency will publish openly and go where the science takes it.

      But their web page could use some TLC too, dead links galore:

  • C. Kirk

    So is your take on Dr. Rossi the same as your comment back in 2013 “There a more important things than to waste time on this clown show” Just curious…..

    • quax

      Commenting on this would be a waste of time 😉

  • psi2u2

    This is very good news.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Why don’t those hot fusion guy just add a catalyst (like nickel) to lower the energy on activation instead of building those big stupid contraptions?
    More money than brains.

    • Alan DeAngelis fusion guys…

      If I only had a brain.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        …energy of activation…

  • Ged

    That is CO2, not temperature.