Bill Gates Still Looking for an Energy Miracle

This is not the first time Bill Gates has discussed the need for an energy miracle to solve what he considers to be the critical need to avoid climate catastrophe, but a new interview in the November issue of the Atlantic shows that Gates is as concerned as ever about finding a way to cut carbon emissions to zero. The full text can be read here — but below are some of the key points he makes.

The free market can’t deliver a new energy technology fast enough because there’s no fortune to be made. “The incentive to invest is quite limited, because unlike digital products—where you get very rapid adoption and so, within the period that your trade secret stays secret or your patent gives you a 20-year exclusive, you can reap incredible returns—almost everything that’s been invented in energy was invented more than 20 years before it got scaled usage.”

Solar and wind, although growing very quickly still have a major problem with intermittancy, and energy storage is very hard to do at the scales needed. “There are many people working on storage—batteries are a form of storage, and there’s a few others, like compressed air, hot metals. But it’s not at all clear that we will get grid-scale economic storage. We’re more than a factor of 10 away from the economics to get that.”

Only an energy miracle can solve this dilemma “That’s why we really need to solve that dilemma, we need innovation that gives us energy that’s cheaper than today’s hydrocarbon energy, that has zero CO2 emissions, and that’s as reliable as today’s overall energy system. And when you put all those requirements together, we need an energy miracle.”

Gates is optimistic because of his faith in human ingenuity and innovation “I want to call up India someday and say, “Here’s a source of energy that is cheaper than your coal plants, and by the way, from a global-pollution and local-pollution point of view, it’s also better.”

We know that Bill Gates has shown some interest in cold fusion because of his visit to ENEA in Italy last year where he was briefed by cold fusion scientists there. We know that he sees ‘new nuclear fission’ as a solution, as he is a major investor in Terrapower, a company developing a travelling wave reactor which runs on nuclear waste.

Of all the new energy technologies out there, the E-Cat would seem to be the one that most closely fits what he thinks the world needs. It would seem that the energy miracle that Gates is hoping for could already be on the scene. To me it seems more than likely that Bill Gates is aware of the E-Cat. We know that Lowell Wood, who advises Gates on energy technology, was at the ICCF19 conference in Padua where Tom Darden spoke. However, Gates is not saying anything about it in public, so maybe he is not convinced of its viability.

It should be noted that even Andrea Rossi is not celebrating success at this point; he says that there is still more work to be done, and that “until something remains to be done, it is as if nothing has been done.”

  • bfast

    I also read your source article today, and was hoping it’d show up here. I find it interesting, we know that Bill Gates is aware of LENR research. He must either be skeptical, or must believe that it is not his place to bring this technology to public attention.

    He seems, however, to be touting TerraPower, a small scale fission reactor. TerraPower seems somewhat cleaner than traditional fission, but by no means super-clean like LENR. The fact that Gates is heavily supporting this solution would strongly imply that he is skeptical about LENR, at least about the timeline of its possible commercialization.

    • Ged

      If he really believed TerraPower was it, he wouldn’t be asking for a miracle. Distributed small scale fission, in the form of thorium, makes a lot of useful sense. It’s a much, much more mature field than LENR; but is apparently not his long term goal.

      • Omega Z

        Bill believes 200 Million$ worth in TerraPower. They are looking to build a small plant like 50mW, but they are running into regulatory problems at the moment.

        • Ged

          Regulatory issues have been the destroyer of basically all the fission nuclear power dreams. It’s really starting to seem like collusion in some cases.

          For instance, the 4S reactor by Toshiba; where is that? So much promise for a distributed, 30 year fuel cycle, community level (10 MW+) power plant that could live under a small plot of land from any normal residence, would be immune to meltdown, and would have onsite reprocessing of fuel which eliminates high powered nuclear waste ( ). It was marketed so any reasonable wealthy individual or community could buy one and become energy independent. And it’s no where to be found. The attempt to put one in Galena, Alaska simply… died with no explanation. I fear TerraPower may go the same way, but hopefully Bill’s clout will prevent that.

    • Gerard McEk

      The traveling wave reactor of Terra Power has much potential, because it can use Uranium 238 as a fission fuel and not just Uranium 235 which normal reactors use. U235 is relatively rare as it comes with only 0.7% in the Uranium ore (rest is U238).
      If I would invest in fission, I would develop a thorium reactor. That produces less higly redioactive waste that is much less long living.
      Obviously my preference would go to an investment in Rossi’s reactor with no dirty waste at all and a technology that would be safe in every house and vihicle. I guess Bill is aware of Rossi/Darden/IH and may invest when it is prooven next year.

    • Omega Z

      To date, Bill Gates has 1 Billion$ invested in new energy technology.
      200 Million$ of that is invested TerraPower.

      He intends to invest an additional Billion$ in the next 5 years into non traditional dark horse energy technology. That is what his visit to ENEA was about. Note that ENEA LENR interests are primarily Pd/D tech.

      These investments are not done through the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation of which would be publicly viewable. They are done from his personal funds. So unless he divulges the info, we wont know what he has invested in.

  • Winebuff67

    Why! Why would a man with the ca$h he wields not throw 20-30-50 mill at lenr and many other potential suitors to the carbon problem? It makes 0 sense.

    • Axil Axil

      He is investing in the cigar reactor with his buddies. He does not like to lose money in investments.

    • Ophelia Rump

      In literature they would refer to it as dramatic foreshadowing of events.

      He knows what is real. He knows how close it is to market.

      Gates is not a man to run around broadcasting specifics of his intentions.

  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    A quote from Mats Lewan, quoting Max Plank: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by
    convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
    because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that
    is familiar with it.”

    The new generation, fortunately, will not rely only on Bill Gates.

    A leader becomes a leader through his or her activity, when he or she strives and hungers for a breakthrough. Gates made it in the 80s, his was a disruptive invention. The propulsion for staying a leader eventually dies out, when the adaptation to the disruption is complete. To become a leader one must have more hunger than soft pillows and economic monopoly; Gates’s role today has a wonderful potential both as a Mentor and a Maecenas.

  • As I’ve said before, Bill Gates’ team got the first copy of my book An Impossible Invention when he was in Stockholm in March 2014. Hope he read it 😉 In any case, I really wonder if he’s in contact with Tom Darden. Shouldn’t be that difficult for them to connect…

    And a heads-up — will publish some interesting news on my blog tomorrow. I believe it could be important.

    • pg

      Publish it on this blog today!!!

      • 😉 I promised to wait until tomorrow.

        • pg

          Of course, just letting you understand the my (our) sense of anticipation.
          Thank you Mats.

    • Gerard McEk

      I am in full expectance Mats! What is your opinion about the Discrete Breathers?

      • I always thought resonance could be an interesting aspect of LENR and Discrete Breathers seem to touch resonance. I’m not able to assess the details though.

        • Ecco

          What’s your opinion of research by Leif Holmlid (professor emeritus of the University of Gothenburg)? There are several things in common between his experiments and those usually performed in the LENR field, especially gas-loaded experiments. However, if it turns out that Holmlid is right (and I personally think he is, so I might be biased), resonance probably isn’t directly related with the effects LENR researchers are observing, although it might be a useful tool for achieving them.

    • Sean

      I understand Sir Richard Branson is interested in clean energy. Also he is future minded and likes space exploration. Perhaps you can send him your book.

      • Good idea. By the way, when I put up this photo of Richard Branson as my profile image on Facebook, my mother said: “Oh, what did you do to your nose…?”

        • Dods

          Lol Mats, I was only thinking the other day that if they made a film you could play Richard Branson

          • blanco69

            Hopefully, we’ll have Richard playing Mats in a movie about Mr Rossi!!

          • 😀

          • GreenWin

            Popcorn – ancillary investment in “An Impossible Invention – The Movie”

        • Teemu Soilamo


    • Bob Greenyer

      Look forward to it Mats

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Looking forward to it with baited breath and maybe a little TOO much excitement.

  • Bob Greenyer

    This is an argument for longer patent validity so that the prize is bigger for those that would have the money to invest. Then there will be a need for an investors return tax on the product permanently extracting value for those that actually need no more – this is old school capitalism.

    I think this will NOT benefit humanity – if Rossi has what he claims, the 20 year patent will give him 19.5 years to make good on it – this will FORCE him to quickly roll out and even license everywhere to maximise return. Giving the patent say 50 years validity would just mean that each and every slight innovation could be milked for everything possible and no requirement to license.

    The new form of capitalism isn’t enabled by those that hold the keys to the money printing or already super rich, it is socially led product development, where the consumers enable the things they want – Kickstarter is one such example of this.

    Rossi is a prime example of this in practice, he has shown is that even when hardly anyone in the world believes or even knows about his product, he still has $3 billion in pre-orders, has there ever been a consumer product that is not known to work, even by its inventor, that has this level of pre-orders. $3 billion is enough to build a high tech silicon fab – and this is low tech manufacturing. If the report is favourable from the independent assessors, Rossi has two choices, go to the people who have pre-ordered and seek an advance (0 cost, 0 loss of rights, 0 on-going investor return tax, more difficult to handle) or go to the bank and seek a financing agreement (marginal cost, 0 loss of rights, 0 on-going investor return tax, easier to handle). Once proven beyond doubt, Rossi/IH need no more investors, just customers and/or licences. Extending patent life would be the worst outcome.

    When I first went to South Korea – I saw the problem first hand, every time a researcher gets finance – the go dark. The epitome of this was that Piantelli didn’t turn up… it took two years for him to consider speaking to the MFMP, and that cooperation stopped the moment there was another investor in the picture.

    Piantelli says this should be government funded – and I agree with him, more than that, it needs to be intergovernmental financing so that it is more open and collaborative – then these concerns by billionaires about not being able to make trillions before everyone gets access to an invention at its real cost will be alleviated, because everyone will own it from the outset.

    I like that some billionaires choose to give away some of their money, but – I would prefer that consumers and the poor the world over didn’t have to wish that the money was returned to them by a select few. The fact is most of the super rich do not do this and this is amply demonstrated in data released this week.

    1% own half the worlds assets. In the US, just 0.7% of the population has as much wealth as 90% of the US population. Do you really think this patent life lobbying by Bill Gates, who is in that 0.7% is going to favour 90% of the US population or the majority of humanity/the biosphere?

    I believe that individual humans are best placed to know where money needs to be spent, especially if they have family or friends – or an environment.

    • Right. Rossi is kind of old school and new school at the same time. Pragmatic in any case.

    • LuFong

      That $3 billion pre-order number has to be taken with a grain of salt. I myself have 2 orders in for home E-Cats (I think, it’s been a long time…) but depending on cost and whether I can even use the thing remains to be seen. I do not however doubt that if Rossi can produce a commercial ready 1MW plant with a COP at 10 or more, he will not have any problems getting buyers. What he now is selling however is not E-Cats but licenses and for that he needs the $3 billion number.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I have 2 pre-orders also.

        The final quote for my new gas boiler and chimney is in $3940 – I wish that I could have the New Fire heating my home instead.

    • Bob Matulis

      Agreed. Any extension in energy innovation patents would have to be carefully crafted to avoid the “tweaking and milking” you describe.

    • Omega Z

      Patents if extended- I would go along with 20 years from the point of 1st manufacturing. While their at it, Copyrights should be reigned in to 20 years as well. Currently, they can last as long as 100 years. People have a right to profit from their intellect just as they do for their physical labor.

      Something that many also overlook is that patents aren’t just about profit. It’s also about getting back your original investment. Imagine spending your life savings to start up a manufacturing facility & getting none of it back. It would be like you spent your life working for someone for free. You were but a slave.

      As for Government doing it. You can’t afford anything they manufacture.
      If you can build something for $500, your City council can get it done for $10K. The State will spend $50K and the Federal Government can do it for a mere $500K. Obviously, The City council prefers the Federal Government to do a task. It brings a lot more money to the city. Per the words of one of our city councilman. It’s better then tourism dollars.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I totally agree that the inventor of a product should yield most benefit – the reality is it is impossible for really important inventions, the New Fire is the most important. Unimaginable things of high value will be made possible with its reality and it will yield revenue for millennia, way beyond the lifetime of any one man.

        Where I would caution against the support of longer patents for disruptive physical technologies – is that if allowed to be lobbied into existence, then who do you think it best serves? The inventor is unlikely to be able to fend of the wall of money that the incumbent technologies owners can either call upon or leverage into existence. This means that they might be bought out – then – armed with the extended rights to the tech, the owners could then put it into deep freeze until they had milked their old tech for all its worth.

        This would be EVEN worse if it was 20 years from first manufacture – the carbon industry could buy and then sit on this until they had no carbon left – then they’d get 20 years to sell something that is too cheap to meter when consumers had fewer alternatives.

        I think 20 years is fine – especially for this tech… Rossi has a low tech (relatively) product that has seemingly worked for 7 months in a real installation… if proven, it is a ready to make product that will reward him with riches more than anyone could ever imagine spending.

    • Observer

      Billionaires returning the money to the poor? How did the poor generate the billions of dollars of value and how did the rich end up with it? The vast amount of the poor are poor because they are not participating in the generation of wealth, not because anything is being taken away from them. The majority of the world’s poor do not have a local factory to work at. If the factory owner did not come and build a factory, would the local populous have a greater or less share in the total wealth? Total participation in the creation and distribution of wealth is what creates a healthy society and economy. Do not condemn the accumulation of capitol when vast amounts of capitol are required for everyone to prosper.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I used to make people that earned $11m bonuses on top of their salaries look good – I used to write their speeches, edit their photos, analyse their data and prepare their presentations. The bulk of the people in the organisation of many scores of 10,000s earned much less than $10,000 per annum – the whole organisation got rich by skimming the real workers. I used to work way harder than the guys with the big bonuses.

        The real problem is that sustainable food production is not revered in the way it should be – people can do without almost anything – but food, no, everyone needs it – many of the worlds poor earn nothing feeding the richest and underpinning all of humanity that creates or funnels all value.

        Most “wealth” since 1970s in the world is debt based, it is based on the artificial credit driven asset bubbles in property, stocks etc. Real things now are being devalued across the board, not just food production.

        I do not condem accumulation of capitol where just, I question the origins of that capital and if that capital is fairly earned, for instance, one of my best friends (a maths genius) from university wrote a HFT program for Barclays Capitol – it brought barclays $500,000,000 in profit in the first year – it was a program – can you argue that the bonuses was for hard work and productive value? Let’s say you could, do you think that all those hard working, pension saving Americans that have their 401(k) plan values reduced by this kind of machine engineering, deserve to have lower wealth in their retirement?

        The act of creating debt is borrowing productive effort, from somewhere, from the future, the world has way more debt than at any time in history – it is a tax on the unborn.

        I object to capital that is locked away unproductively in things like derivatives and dead assets – I object to invention that is held back from its potential for good by vested interest that want to profit from ensuring artificial scarcity.

    • GreenWin

      It makes one wonder just what is the US government doing with its cold fusion patents? e.g. the U.S./JWK patent issued to Pam Boss, L. Forsely and the SPAWAR team? Where is the transparency on this? The patent belongs to the American people – yet it remains secluded inside the MIC led by Lockheed and NNSA.

  • georgehants

    As usual I differ in that a man who’s only goal is more profit should be irrelevant in any sane society.
    We have leaders who’s only goal should be the welfare, happiness and best for every member of the population.
    They have the responsibility to lead Cold Fusion and all production only for that purpose.
    Making personal wealth should be a very much secondary effect derived from that wise leadership.
    They have a massive scientific fraternity and an administration covering all areas that should find the correct answers to that goal.
    This is not an “opinion” but self-evident Fact, I think.

  • Manuel Cruz

    The problem with this argument is that focusing on CO2 is bullshit, because there is less correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature rise than between pirate shrinkage and temperature rise. Unlike real pollutants such as NOx or methane that are never mentioned by the corrupt media and politicians, CO2 is as innocuous as water vapor, because they are both air. And if we had to worry about pouring air to the atmosphere, we should worry more about water vapor as it has substantially more impact on temperature rise than CO2. According to their flawed theories, the E-cat would be a problem, not a solution, it is only a solution when you conveniently turn the blind eye to everything that might cause warming EXCEPT CO2, and you only care about minimizing that variable even if it rises substances that have actual impact the climate.

    Our problem is not CO2, is the scientific illiteracy of the postmodernist left that has infiltrated and corrupted academia.

  • Allan Kiik

    Who cares what mr. Gates thinks about energy or even miracles, remember, about 21 years ago he was sure the internet connection is not needed by most of the MS windows/office users, because they already have everything…
    Let’s follow the people with good intuition about future, mr. Gates is clearly not one of them.
    And yes, it looks like whining about delayed and low profit in energy investments, this is even more misguided than his historical ideas about internet.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Don’t forget ” 640KB of memory ought to be enough for anybody”. 😛

  • Allan Kiik

    “The heating levels have not tracked the climate models exactly, and the
    skeptics have had a heyday with that. It’s all within the error-bar
    range. To me, it’s pretty clear that there’s nothing that relieves this
    as a big problem. But when people act like we have this great certainty,
    they somewhat undermine the credibility. There’s a lot of uncertainty
    in this, but on both the good and the bad side.”

    No, mr. Gates, the uncertainty is different this time – almost all the recent research gets climate sensitivity value lower, step by step, as journals are publishing now more papers with conclusions differing from IPCC reports. And if the sensitivity is few times lower than what was believed when climate modeling started, then there is no problem at all, no bad side to talk about. CO2 itself is a good thing – all green plants just love it, and reward us with larger crops.

    Arguing for carbon tax in this situation is not much different from racketeering.

    • bachcole

      I agree that the whole CO2 hysteria is bogus. But it really does not matter in this context. Pollution in general is killing us, so Gates’ concerns are valid; it is just his focus on CO2 that is irrelevant. Hundreds of people every day die in Shanghai and Mexico City and most all other large cities because of pollution. And we have got to ask ourselves where autism came from. When I was young (1950’s), autism was unheard of.

      • psi2u2

        Well said as usual, Bachole. We agree that the focus on C2o is misplaced; that does not change the urgent need for a clean, abundant, cheap power source like LENR to replace coal, nuclear, and over time oil sources, all of which have huge environmental problems. Look at Fukushima, etc.

      • Omega Z

        Autism isn’t a new development. It’s found throughout history. Only the label is new 1st mentioned in the 40’s. It use to be under different labels some considered highly derogatory today such as retarded. Prior to that it was a slow person, or simple person & an array of many other labels.

        It’s much like cancer (once called consumption) & who knows how many other labels. Just a couple decades ago, there were those who thought cancer was a recent historical occurrence, but they now have conclusive evidence it was around 1000’s of years ago & appears to have been quite common.

        As to pollution, In the U.S. the primary pollutant in cities is car exhaust. That wasn’t always the case. When I was growing up, we burnt wood & coal in a pot belly stove in the front room & also in a cook stove in the kitchen. Eventually that was replaced with heating oil. At a latter time when moving into town, the oil burner was replaced with propane & eventually natural gas. It’s all just a natural progression.

        We have to keep everything in perspective. We didn’t start in utopia & trash everything. We started in a harsh world & gradually improved things. It is why I don’t get all freaked out when they show people in parts of the world where people don’t have clean drinking water. It is a historical norm. It merely means we have more work to be done.

        It’s also not an easy task. You can’t just provide people with facilities. You also need to educate them. People will literally crap in the drinking water source. But who are we to preach. Even in the developed world where people are educated, we still dump raw sewage into our water sources.

        As to Coal, Oil & Gas, properly utilized, it is a great improvement over past practices. Condemning it’s use getting to where we are as some do is silly. It has brought us to a technological point where we can move forward. Without it, we would probably live in a dark era baron of trees where famine and disease is rampant.

        It’s not where we started from, but where we’re headed. But to retain perspective, we can’t forget where we started. It is how we measure progress.

    • Star furnace

      Even if it would turn out that CO2 is not a problem for the climate, it will still be a problem for calcifying organisms in the oceans due to acidification.

      • Omega Z

        “climate change” is a false narrative. Used as an argument for wealth & resource redistribution. The ring masters of this false narrative know it’s false, but even if it weren’t, they really don’t care. They have a different agenda.

        They say the Oceans are absorbing CO2 and acidifying while at the same time are warming up. Which 1 is true? It can’t be both at the same time.

        They prefer to burn a tree in place of Oil. It’s supposedly carbon neutral. This is so out there. I would prefer to burn 50 tons of oil verses 1 ton of wood. That tree will absorb carbon far beyond that oil & the older the tree becomes, the more carbon it absorbs at an accelerated rate. Someone wasted their educational dollars. These people get it wrong every time.

      • Allan Kiik

        “Claims of impending marine species extinctions driven by increases in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration do not appear to be founded in empirical reality, based on the experimental findings we have analyzed above.”

        Every single alarmist claim vanishes when taken a little more close look, this acidification is one of the weakest.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      You are playing craps with our planet.

      • Omega Z

        Nature plays craps with the world dozens of times every day.
        One thing is certain, regardless what we do, it’s a matter of time before we crap out. It is beyond our control.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Right, cancel all the clean air/water regulations and let the planet become uninhabital for humans.

          • Omega Z

            “Right, cancel all the clean air/water regulations and let the planet become uninhabital for humans.”

            I’ve reread my post. Nope. I didn’t say that.

            But since you brought it up, Your response is everything I’ve come to expect from someone who has never had to deal with regulations. You should know that the vast majority of business people have no issues with regulations. In fact nearly all agree there needed.

            It is the stupidities in regulations they are opposed to. When a regulation would easily fit on a single page & they fill 200 pages with garbage. It is stupid. When you get half way through this garbage, It contradicts itself.

            When you’ve been in business & spent 1000’$ on meeting regulations, only to have a different agency come in & tell you at all needs removed under threat of closure & fines(Lawyer time$), then we can talk.

            Most regulations are garbage in the way they’re written. Mostly by people who don’t have a clue to the subject they are regulating. However, they do know the politician that hired or appointed them to their job.

            Clean water. You’ll find raw sewage has and is dumped in most of the waters in the U.S. by Government owned facilities all the time. That’s OK. The regulations seldom apply to them & even when it does they aren’t accountable.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            You said about me, “Your response is everything I’ve come to expect from someone who has never had to deal with regulations” I was a controller for a construction company who had many, many contracts with the Federal government, I know first hand about dealing with regulations. There are good regulations and bad regulations, I am also old enough to remember seeing Lake Erie on fire, we need regulations that will protect our planet. Throwing the good regulations out with the bad ones and not creating good new regulations is not the way forward.

      • Allan Kiik

        If you assume a problem with the planet, then it looks like it. If there is no real problem, only a mistaken hypothesis (as uncorrupted climate data so clearly show), what then? Hansen started this panic and all his predictions are falsified by now, by the reality itself, planet is safe, no need to worry any more. This was a weak hypothesis from the beginning, only corruption made it as big as it is now.

        Skyrocketing the energy prices is much more real game with real people suffering right now, not in the 100 years in the future.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          You seem like a very intelligent person. Please consider this as a possible explanation for your opinion on climate change.

          • Allan Kiik

            This was easy – of course climate change is happening right now, as it has happened at least 4 billion years, it never stopped changing. We can not stop this natural process, it will last until sun transforms to Red Giant and boil off the oceans.
            So, this is obviously the wrong question, you must be totally ignorant for answering ‘no’ to this.

            Are humans causing catastrophic changes in climate system with our greenhouse gas emissions, is a different question, and there is no smallest bit of evidence for that – everything looks normal in all climate datasets (without “adjustments”), nothing extraordinary is happening. The one and only place where CAGW is visible, are various more or less alarmist climate models…

          • jousterusa

            I think that perhaps Gates’ silence about the E-Cat is due to the fact that it’s probably hard to get a piece of it,, with all the funds needed already on hand and no stock or bonds available, As for Rossi, what he must complete is a simple means to transmute all his device’s heat to electricity.. I would warn him that in my experience. he doesn’t bother with people who reject an approach from him. Just after The American Reporter won Shea v Reno in the Supreme Court, a man came
            down and asked me, what I would say if Bill Gates offered me a million dollars for it. I told the truth: I would have to think about it. 20 years later, I haven’t heard from him again, but the world heard from Salon, which eclipsed us in a hurr. Today they are beyond broke, but we are still debt-free, so it’s not a real sad story..I’m happy.

          • Jarea

            Hi Jousterusa,
            nice to see you here again. How are you? I hope you are healthy and recovered.

  • blanco69

    I wonder why Bill Gates hasn’t openly invested in IH. We know that Gates is aware of Rossi, we also know that Gates is keen to invest in something. So…. I find it difficult to come to terms with a notion that Gates sees better potential in other players. Rossi is keen to point out that it wont be worth playing in the LENR game as a competitor once he starts manufacturing. So, as usual with this story, there are many aspects that dont add up. Sitting on the fence has never been easier.

    • LuFong

      It’s possible that Darden beat Gates to the punch. R&D is still basically a one man show (Rossi) and I don’t think R&D money is an issue. I can see Gates investing later on if the E-Cat technology pans out in in order to expedite it’s adoptance or to make it more readily available in 3rd world countries.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Actually, we don’t know how much Gates is aware of LENR.

        And as noted, among the elites and science community,
        they have it out real bad for LENR.

        As for making money? Well, of the all the potential energy
        sources we see today? LENR not only shows the MOST hope, but ironically ALSO has MOST potential to make lots of money.

        The main reason why LENR can make money is due to the fact
        of adoption rates, and it is a SMALL scalable technology. This technology is
        VERY much like a computer revolution.

        A huge mainframe computer used to cost millions – now you
        have a desktop model.

        A huge nuclear reactor used to cost a billion or so – now
        you can have a nuclear reactor on your desktop courtesy of Mr. Rossi.

        We not talking about some 20 billion dollar fusion plant,
        but something rather close to desktop PC. You take it home and plug it into
        your existing hot water system. So the “problem” with most new energy systems
        and making money – Gates is 100% correct with the ONE exception of LENR!

        LENR is a dream opportunity – much like what occurred with
        the rise of the internet. So eBay, Google, etc. are NOW house hold words and
        worth billions – yet only a few years ago did not exist.

        LENR is the same thing, and companies that adopt LENR and
        produce devices will becomes the next Microsoft.

        So MOST energy systems cannot be adopted fast, and take
        huge capital and don’t make the investors much money – the ONE exception is
        LENR – it is a new gold rush – likely the BEST opportunity for making money.

        We not going to see another Google or Microsoft tomorrow –
        but LENR is wide open in terms of opportunity. Rossi name will become a household word – not much different then Gates or Jobs or George Westinghouse.

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • MasterBlaster7

          Ya know,

          I’ve been thinking about it. And, I don’t think there is much money in LENR.

          Ok, drop the stone and take a step back.

          Coal, Oil and Gas are Trillion (with a T) dollar industries. LENR…well, F9, you could just about go to home depot and cobble one together for pennies. How much money is there in camp fires? What is the market cap for camp fires…think about it.

          The money that will be made may well be in shorting Coal, Oil and Gas. If you are Bill Gates, and you KNOW LENR is ABOUT to happen. You are making more money shorting Coal, Oil and Gas.

          Now, maybe IH or Cherokee goes from a 2 billion dollar company to a 250 billion dollar company. That is like 1 DELL in the 1990’s. Just one. Sure, money will be made, but not as much as you think.

          What comes after succesful LENR. What industries spring up. LENR car. LENR laptop battery. LENR home heating and electrical unit. That may be where the money is. But, not directly.

          It’s not like the Computer revolution…it is more like the Pharmaceutical industry. You make a lot more money selling palliatives than the cure. And, well, LENR is the Cure.

          Cure cancer and a lot of the medical industry collapses. Cure energy, and well….

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Actually, I like the camp fire analogy. The simple matter is
            who would have thought that a take home computer would be worth much?

            The simple matter is information and use of information
            is very valuable. As a result that silly little computer you take home is a
            very big industry – billions!

            And if that small camp stove could heat your house for
            pennies? Then yes, people would line to purchase such a device like they line up to purchase an iPhone. So yes, a little camp stove CAN cause a massive energy revolution.

            In the case of LENR, you go to home depot and purchase a
            dryer. It will plug into your standard wall socket, but the replacement cartridge for the heat will last say 5 years.

            Remember, HP made BILLIONS in the inkjet printer marketplace,
            and they sold printers at near cost (in fact often below cost!). Same goes for cell phones. Same goes for LENR devices. You purchase a stove or dryer or water heater. You then be purchasing replacement
            cartridges for a very long time.

            In fact part of (not all) HP woes is the rise of Facebook
            and other media. I used to spend LOTS of money printing out pictures on my HP printer. Between photo paper and color ink cartridges – I was spending a LOT of money every year. Now, I don’t even own an ink-jet (tossed it out in the garbage). And it been nearly 6 or more years since I printed a picture for showing to friends. However, the point remains – that printer market represented about 40% for HP at one time. (now, not much).

            The simple matter is yes, energy is the TOP consumption
            for nearly anyone who needs heat (heat for water, for cooking, or drying their clothing). Energy is #1 and is BEFORE computers! (it is right up there with food and housing).

            >And, well, LENR is the Cure.
            >Cure cancer and a lot of the medical industry
            >collapses. Cure energy, and well….

            A brilliant observation and point on your part. In effect
            LENR is an energy cure. This explains why such HUGE resistance to the technology exists (and I fear Bill Gates knows this!!! – and why he says nothing about LENR).

            The personal desktop computer revolution never came from
            IBM, Sperry, and Digital etc. They also had HUGE resistance. And I remember the slew of smaller computer companies that went bankrupt in town selling “mini” computers such as Sperry, Digital, Honeywell etc. machines became no longer competitive as business started adopting low cost personal computers. And ONLY when Apple hit 1 billion dollars in sales did IBM realize they cannot ignore this
            marketplace (but they ignored it as long as possible).

            The simple matter is that energy providers MUST jump on
            LENR, and then they can provide the replacement fuel and cartridges for years to come. If they ignore this revolution, then they will go the way of the dodo bird, or Sperry or Digital and the LONG list of computer companies that failed to adopt and embrace the computer revolution.

            On the other hand Dell made billions! So Sperry or Digital
            as a computer company COULD have changed and become the NEXT Dell, but that meant throwing out what they had that was putting food on their table – a very hard change to make.

            The local power and utility companies CAN embrace LENR
            and become the service provider – but their existing business model they have now will not work. So a big change is required. If they don’t adopt, then they will become footnotes in history like Sperry computers etc.

            The same goes for the French nuclear industry. They had a
            LENR program, and about 15 years ago, someone said why on earth are we researching something that will eliminate the need for our whole nuclear industry? Why are we investing in something that will eliminate all our jobs? As a result, they canned the program! (makes sense!).

            Of course, that is short thinking just like Digital. What
            the French nuclear industry should do is regulate LENR. Thus they lose some major parts of their industry (such as HUGE lucrative jobs dealing with nuclear waste (the cost of the waste makes them more money than anything else!!! – much like treating cancer as opposed to curing it!). While major parts of the French nuclear industry will go away if they adopted LENR, like Dell, they can make a serious go and keep many jobs if they change and adapt. In fact they could create more
            jobs (just like Dell did).

            So for new, or traditional energy companies, they can
            embrace LENR and live on. And as I pointed out, the opportunities for the next Apple to rise up from some “new” technology play is in fact LENR. I cannot think of ANY technology that has the opportunity that LENR has in terms of making money. Just look at the value of the energy industry now!

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • MasterBlaster7

            I don’t like the computer industry (as a whole) analogy. Its the die shrinks…for the last 40+ years Intel has been shrinking the chip creating a 2-4 year upgrade cycle. Many many computers need to be bought to keep up with the curve. Also, new programs to keep up with the advances in those die shrinks. Where LENR will, basically, happen once. A COP of 80-100 is about 99% efficient…thats 1 unit of energy in for 99 out. That is “good enough”; no upgrade needed. There will be upgrades to, say, COP 200 or 99.5% efficient, but, well, law of diminishing returns. And, there is no secondary ‘program’ market for it.

            The HP ink jet analogy is a really good one. So instead of DELL, lets use HP printers. Still 1 company that goes from 2 to 250 billion. First you sell the printer (e-cat) then the ink (e-cat fuel). But, remember there will be the generic market like the ‘knock off’ HP ink cartridges. And, and and….consider a ‘roll your own’ cottage industry. Stuff to think about.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            And yes, remember all those ink kiosks that sprung up in malls selling replacement cartridges! (and some were knock offs!).

            Much accept the issue of die size for computers. And the
            issue was not so much about upgrading over the years.

            That upgrade treadmill and die size issue occurred “after”
            the PC revolution started. The issue was traditional computer companies (or now energy companies) and their resistance to adopting the PC model or in this case the LENR model. IBM finally did jump in, but only after they felt they had to. Other companies (a long list) that were selling mainframe and mini computers did NOT jump in, and thus they went by the wayside. My point was that IBM jumped in, and other computer companies COULD have jumped in, and lost their mini computer business, but then morph into and become the next Dell. (and
            still make billions).

            So like right now the France nuclear industry does not want
            LENR, but another approach would be to embrace the LENR industry. You make less money, but at least become a major player in the new energy market.

            And as noted, while the hardware may not require
            upgrades, the replacement fuel cartridges will indeed become VERY lucrative business. You are in effect becoming an energy supplier to households – likely one of the most lucrative markets to be a player in.

            So I am saying that those players in energy are being shortsighted like those mainframe/mini computer vendors – they can choose to adopt these new energy markets, or risk going by the wayside.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Publius

            I doubt a technology (LENR) that has and continues to elude great minds will be something you can make useful by cobbling together parts from off the shelf. Try constructing your own $10 toaster that is useful and not a hazardous novelty. It’s likely the future of LENR may be continually improved devices with Brillouin control systems, IH fluidized beds, Lenuco fuel systems, Nanor built reactors, etc., etc. The point being, there is the potential for trillions of dollars in wealth with successful LENR commercialization.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Tesla Powerpack. BOOM, Scalable, > 1 GW energy storage solved.

  • Bob Matulis

    Perhaps unfortunate but it is good to recognize things as they are – this is human nature. Great insight by Gates – Perhaps he could lead the charge to increase the patent period for new energy generating innovations. Extend the period so that the financial incentive is there to drive the new tech. In the long run (30 or 40 years) the tech will be free to the world.

  • georgehants

    Welcome back Roger, true but we don’t all have to go along with that do we.
    If you agree the system is corrupt then that is one more vote for change.
    One only has to agree that Cold Fusion belongs to every person in the World for everyone of their benefits and not to a few manipulators of the system.
    A little like I agree with you that Homeopathy should be open-mindedly excepted that it helps people and only Research beyond present knowledge can determine if that is a artifact of the placebo or an independent effect.
    Water Memory is the best candidate at the moment to account for Homeopathy.

  • psi2u2

    “until something remains to be done, it is as if nothing has been done.”

    This is a classic example of why I have never found Rossi’s critics to be very credible.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      We must realize that both Rossi and Darden, due to not only the massive NDAs, but by their highly conservative nature, say things like “F9” practically out of habit now. It doesn’t mean things are going horribly. Horribly right, is more like it.

      • psi2u2

        I have to agree. Having followed this story since about 2011, my confidence level in both the reality of LENR and the credibility and honesty of Rossi has only grown exponentially. “Horribly right” — it would seem so.

        A shout out to Frank for making this discussion possible! My t-shirt arrived in the mail and I love it.

  • GreenWin

    There is probability that Mr. Gates has missed the early window on LENR. He is presently on line behind e.g. Carl Page (Advisory Board Brillouin Energy – president Anthropocene Inst), Cherokee Partners/IH, Woodford Equity Income Fund, Airbus Group Innovations, etc..

    Bill is deeply invested in the traveling wave fission reactor, which may come to fruition in China but will have a hard time with the “No Nukes” crowd in the west. However, the energy window is wide open for new physics — question is which entrepreneur / humanitarians are willing to challenge old school science and actually solve climate change?

    • Omega Z

      Note Carl Page was on the forums in late 2013 involving discussions about Rossi’s E-cats.

  • Omega Z

    According to Tom Darden in his recent interview, A lot of investment is being made in the LENR field.
    They are also keeping their mouth shut.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I prefer customer led capitalism – where the real need/want for the product by a consumer, funds the invention – without the inventor having to give up any rights or be beholden to other interests other than making the best product for the consumer.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Rossi now has a patent. Things will happen with or without Bill Gates.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Only if it is implemented fast enough.

  • pg

    Mats Lewan’ s upadate is now available on his blog.

    • Owen Geiger

      Wow. You can be sure Frank will have this on E-Cat World very soon.

      “Properly utilized the process has potentials of becoming an
      unlimited and sustainable energy source, producing essentially no
      long-lived radioactive waste.”

  • psi2u2

    You missed the fact that he’s Italian?

  • Anthony Richards

    Shorting the fossil fuel markets is easier said than done, I’d say, due to the uncertainty of the time scale for LENR. Can you short, say, 5 years ahead ?

  • malkom700

    A businessman of this caliber will to want to buy the whole e-cat thing at some point. This would be the twenty-first century´s Microsoft.

  • Anatoly

    It is interesting to know ho will evaluate” breakthrough solutions”
    We need green sustainable solution, if everything will end up in multiplication of currently technologies – what the waste of $$$
    I am offering my green solution for energy and transportation –
    Engine actuated by static pressure, evaluate it, finance prototype.