Motley Fool on Investing in Fusion — the Holy Grail (Mentions Rossi and National Instuments)

An article and video on the Motley Fool investment website is looking at ways to invest in fusion — the Holy Grail, as they refer to it. Motley Fool contributor John Licata does not seem to make a big distinction between hot and cold fusion, mentioning the hot fusion research and Andrea Rossi in the same breath. I suppose as an investor, the actual mechanism is not nearly as important as the efficiency of the system, and Licata seems impressed by Rossi’s claim of a net positive fusion — where more power is input than output.

As far as investing goes, Licata talks about investing in National Instruments, a publicly traded company, as a means to invest in fusion. He says that all the engineers involved in fusion are using NI software and hardware. I’m not actually sure if that’s the case any more. Rossi did have early dealings with NI, and praised them for their work, but at one point went with some other measurement system. Since joining up with the new American partner we don’t know if NI equipment is being used in the current testing or R&D work.

Some people have in the past mentioned having more discussion about investment opportunities here on E-Cat World. By nature, investing is a risky business, and I am very hesitant to give investment advice when it comes to LENR — there are so many unknowns and variables at play in the field. LENR has the potential to be highly disruptive, and there may be many winners and losers in its wake, and it’s not at all clear who those may be.

  • GreenWin

    While appearance of direct LENR investment vehicles may be few, there are some reasonable plays in alternatives that are better positioned to adapt to New Fire. Take for example two multi-billion dollar utility companies, Sweden’s State owned Vattenfall AB ($22B annual revenue) and US NRG Energy ($9B annual.) Both companies have been heavily invested in fission/fossil generating plants. Both are selling off these assets in a pragmatic manner. Vattenfall is even selling some of its wind farm investments.

    Vattenfall we know is aware of LENR as implemented by Rossi’s E-Cat. And it is reasonable to assume that NRG’s CEO David Crane is aware of at least what Vattenfall knows, and possibly more. NRG has begun field tests of the NRG Beacon10, a 10kWe CHP appliance providing heat, hot water and electricity to residents.

    Another interesting angle is how fossil companies seem to be knuckling under to “climate” demands for carbon taxes. A NY Times article linked to by Buck covers fossil industry willingness to pay for carbon as a simple business expense – thereby preserving the value of oil field assets. But facts are somewhat different in exactly WHO is paying for “climate saving” carbon taxes.

    “In Canada, which would not like to see its massive oil sands reserves wind up as stranded assets, government subsidies will cover 65% of the $1.35 billion costs to add CCS to a Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and Marathon Oil oil sands production project. The $1.35 billion CCS project called Quest that will gather carbon dioxide emissions from an oil sands upgrading project in Canada and pipe the carbon to a site 80 kilometers away for storage underground. Government subsidies will cover the majority of the project cost, with the industry partners covering only $485 million of the cost of construction of the CCS facilities.”

    Taxpayers in Canada pay Shell, Chevron, and Marathon Oil to install “climate” equipment that extends asset value for those companies. Really?

  • maryyugo

    Hi. Is this discussion censored? Are you only publishing comments from people who believe Rossi is telling the truth?

    • ecatworld

      Not all comments are approved for publication here –this is a site for people who take the E-Cat and Andrea Rossi seriously.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    LENR would put an end to zero-sum games.
    If energy becomes essentially free, will anyone give a damn
    about a stock market?

    • Alan DeAngelis
      • Omega Z

        Alan D

        People take episodes of Star Trek out of perspective. Trek is Not a Utopia And in Fact appears to be just a Much Better Functioning Capitalist System then we have. Only Circumstances allow them to have a different view of Money. Resource limitations are greatly Alleviated.
        Note-In Trek, Their Currency of Choice is Credits. A Rose by any other name is still a…

        There are Still Wealthy people & Corporations. There are still Requirements to work/contribute. There are still pay grades according to ones job/position held. There are still small corners of Society that are poor or suffer due to there refusal to participate. If One is fiscally & mentally capable, One needs to Contribute to Benefit from the Fruits of Society. THERE Is No Free Ride… Even in Trek…

        Aside from Just being a SciFi TV Series, What is different.
        Note that Resource Limitations are the biggest Culprit/Cause of Disparity in the World. Even if you could freeze frame the world & adjust things to be balanced, As soon as any shortage appears, Prices/Cost go haywire. Income disparity quickly develops.

        There’s 2 ways to deal with this. Rationing which always ends Bad. Or Rationing by letting Market Prices do it’s thing. (Yes, this is a form of Rationing) Higher prices reduces demand. Higher prices also lead to increased product when it becomes a Financial Positive to do so. BUT, Your left with an Income disparity & long before this disparity is corrected, The next shortage hits.

        The Trek Difference As Implied in the show-Their Greatest asset is Cheap Clean Abundant Energy. Anti-Matter Reactors. This in tern allows many new Technologies that otherwise would not be possible or sustainable. All the things envisioned with LENR. Relatively Abundant resources. Food, Water, Etc… Near total recycling which is Energy Intensive. Thus “less” resource limitations. And Disparity gradual comes into balance over time. Cost/price becomes Primarily based on Value of Labor/Service without the disruption of resource limits. Shortages.

        Note that there will probably always be some disparity, but if minimized, One could see a change in mentalities & views of money would change with it becoming less important when all basic needs are met..
        And Remember, Star Trek is SciFi. Realty may never reach that Level. Were talking Real People, Not Actors acting out a script…

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Oh sure but I do wonder how LENR will change things. If
          you’re fond of reality, you might enjoy the science historian James Burke’s old TV series “Connections”.

          • Omega Z

            I hope you don’t take my post to be negative. It’s just many people cherry pick scenes from Trek & such & twist it’s reality. My intent was informational.
            I’m personally a Big Fan of SciFi such as Trek. They can aspire people to better themselves & society. Even reveal perils to be avoided along the way such as a Skynet scenario.

            The Origin of Cell phones of today was inspired by Trek. At least those involved with it’s early development claim it as such. And they also envision it working Triple duty in the Future as a Tricorder(analyzing the environment around us) & a Medical Diagnostic device.
            So 3 Trek devices in one.

            They also Imply, that anyone willing to put in the effort can benefit in their society. Something Greatly lacking in our World. I know many who are very willing to work for a living, but the means/jobs just aren’t there.
            Cheap Plentiful Energy(Like LENR) would go a long way in alleviating this And a System such as theirs becomes attainable. Even the change in mentality needed to do so. In Time.

            • Alan DeAngelis

              Too negative? Never. I enjoy your comments. I’m not a
              trekkie but I find myself thinking about space colonization. There’s plenty of
              nickel (iron-nickel asteroids) and hydrogen (in the form of water ice) in the
              asteroid belt. Gerard K. O’Neill envisioned space colonies with a sum
              total area 10,000x that of earth’s. All building material would first be taken
              from the moon and then from the asteroid belt (not from earth’s gravity well).
              O’Neill’s colonies were to be powered by solar energy. With LENR, we could move even farther from the sun. Perhaps totally new economic systems would be able to evolve on autonomous space colonies far from the terrestrial kleptocracies.

    • LENr is not free, even if the fuel is nearly free.
      most cost is investment in the reactor, and turbines…

      a bike have no fuel cost, but it is not free like a beer.
      It can be cheaper, or free like speech.

      LENr maye make you free from the oligopolies, from grid, from high tech companies, from patents, …

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Some points related to investing: 1) As long as LENR produces only heat, its direct market effect is limited, but nevertheless fission and renewable investments might collapse and fossil fuel prices might fall to some extent. 2) If LENR produces electricity, it can replace fission and coal completely, natural gas partly and oil to small extent. In this phase, major energy price reduction is expected. 3) In all phases, any sector where the bottleneck is energy cost (such as air traffic) can be expected to grow. 4) In car industry the situation is unclear: will the final solution be direct LENR car, electric car, ammonia car, hydrogen car or something else. Until the smoke clears, industry might continue with gasoline.

    • Omega Z

      I have to disagree, Even low grade heat(150`C) would have a Hugh market.

      Nearly Every bushel of crop in the U.S. is exposed to low temp heat at least once if not multiple times for varying periods of time. The Moisture content has to be maintained at a certain point. If it’s to high, it can spoil/rot & you also get docked on the price for additional drying fees.

      Nearly every stitch of fabric we wear or used in furniture Etc.. Multiple times.
      Most of all the materials used in home manufacturing.
      Nearly all processed foods we eat/canned Etc…
      Oil from Tar Sands, Etc..
      Many of the above may require multiple use of low grade heat each and this is just a fraction of what could be listed.

      Then It could also be used for heat absorption Refrigeration.(Food or A/C)
      There is a tendency of, Out of site, unaware.
      There are many who would want the H-cat for it’s electrical generation plus the heat, but others who may want both High & Low temp depending on their needs & Dependent on cost point of course.

  • About investing, first notice is that there is no public call for investors today.

    Second is that some big traded corps are concerned, but from far and they are late.

    I have wrote an answer on quora about the investing strategy.

    the ideas are:
    – be careful, even good technology can get bankrupt
    – even losers can be winner if they move well
    – investor may over react, durrying old corp that may be nice, or pushing new corsp which may lose
    – best bet is to invest in improbable options, that are underpriced… like survival of oild corps, or crash of LENR companies, or explosion of unrelarted business (haircutting, cooking,…)
    – play with irrational bubble like nickel, if you wan’t to take risk… because investing in volatility (long gamma) is not risky.

  • Fortyniner

    A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing – at least as far as wallets are concerned. Perhaps Licata should spend some time reading posts and comments here over the last year or so to get the complete story. It’s interesting that Rossi gets a mention, though.

  • Sanjeev

    Link, if you want to comment:

    I wonder who is there in the top stock of 2014.

  • kevmo

    What about shorting Oil Companies?

    When Cold Fusion hits, the Oil Companies will lose maybe 80% of their value if they aren’t properly positioned. I don’t know how to short Oil.

    • Sanjeev

      I don’t think so. It may take 20-30 years to phase out the oil (from energy sector).
      200 years if cold fusion fails and hot fusion is a success….

    • Fortyniner

      It’s likely that big oil will be (perhaps already is) a major investor in CF, both as an alternative they can move to, and as a cheap and portable power source for extraction and processing of remaining deposits.

    • not only they will be and they are investor and researchers, but they won’t be the first to suffer. after all they just sell the pits, and the one who will suffer are the producing countries.
      The oil will still be used for long, just less prospected, and maybe prospected locally (shales).

      the big losers will firs be expesive renewables depending on subisidies and on predicted bright futures, gone dark.
      The second who will suffer, or not, will be the nuke companies like Areva. they will have to move to nuclear waste cleaning, and why not to some radioactive LENR (the branch that produce neutrons, tritium… but not heat)… hard to predict but high volatility and probably some antibubble, like on oil.

      First of all, oil will suffer from negative anticipation, not from facts.
      Coal may suffer more than oil on the long term, because it is too much polluting and not useful for transportation and chemicals/polymers.

      what will also suffer more is companies linked to climate change industry, CO2 quota, CO2 advices, CO2 estimations, and matching political and lobbying industry…

      as I say, be careful about any directional position… howver sure volatility will grow for the companies you cite…

      for example geothermal industry should die, but why not getting recycled into LENR power-plant providers…

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Natural Gas will be hurt the worst.

      • Omega Z


        The Big 3(Coal,Oil,N-Gas) are all Vital in producing the materials essential to produce E-cats.
        Natural Gas is a major component to produce anhydrous fertilizer.
        10% of Coal Plants in the U.S. have Zero to do with Electric power production.
        Only 50% of a barrel of oil can be used for Gasoline. Most of the rest is by products. Including Propane, Butane, Pavement materials Etc…

        30 years from now, The Big 3 will still be in use probably at about 50% of today’s use. Due to high costs, many products are now made from other ingredients, but with less demand & lower prices, it is highly likely these 3 will be re-purposed back again.

        There’s still an upside. They will be used in things that are much less environmentally detrimental then today & cheaper.