6 ms·

Bill Gates-led $1B energy fund expands startup portfolio fighting climate change

137 points by edwinksl 8y ago

stcredzero 8y ago
Zero Mass Water: A startup selling specialized panels that use solar power and batteries to pull water from the air. The goal is to reduce the amount of energy needed to access clean drinking water without geographical limitations. There is a lot of energy involved in the phase change of water. We've also had dehumidifiers for over 100 years. The takeaway from that is, dehumidifiers produce don't produce water well in arid environments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg This makes me wonder if the Gates Foundation is properly utilizing scientific expertise.
- akshatrathi 8y ago
  So the tech inside Zero Mass Water is not the same as dehumidifier. Instead, they use a sophisticated absorbent to selectively capture water, heat it to release the water, then sterilize and add minerals. But you're right. It's the company that I was most surprised to see in the list. The economics don't yet make sense to me. I pushed Carmichael Roberts (BEV's head of investing) to explain. He said he has studied water startups for years, and he really likes the tech. But more importantly, he is very impressed by Cody's skill to sell this unit and far wide. It's already in 16 countries.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Instead, they use a sophisticated absorbent to selectively capture water, heat it to release the water, then sterilize and add minerals. So it's using a dessicant? Heating a saturated dessicant in an enclosed environment can produce a hot, high humidity environment where dehumidification is easy. That said, it will still produce the most water someplace like San Francisco, where the humidity is high. There are places where humidity is high and the rainfall is very low. Apparently, Zero Mass Water is using some good engineering to get something like a 4X efficiency increase for water extraction over existing commercial dessicant dehumidifiers. It's possible that removing the requirement to process large volumes of air could produce such an efficiency increase.
    - debatem1 8y ago
      Stupid question, is this targeted at producing water or is it targeted at producing clean water where contaminated water is available?
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        It's targeted at producing water by extracting it from the air.
  - D_Alex 8y ago
    >more importantly, he is very impressed by Cody's skill to sell this unit and far wide That is a really bad reason to invest, given the stated aims of the fund.
- cheeko1234 8y ago
  Yes it is energy intensive but it's for a niche application: Allowing access for clean water in areas where it is prohibitively more expensive (monetarily and energy wise) to get clean water. Think remote or disaster stricken areas (with appropriate conditions to use the device).
- D_Alex 8y ago
  I absolutely agree with you - this is bad allocation of money and effort. I just cannot think of a niche where these units would actually make sense. It is a terrible idea to use these for disaster relief - never mind the cost, it would be better to ship in an equal weight of water. It is wrong to use these wherever there is salt water, or polluted water - it would be far cheaper to purify whatever water there is. And it is a bad idea to use them at remote locations, as emergency supplies or wherever reliability is important. Again, equal weight of bottled water would be much cheaper, and safer - bottled water will not break down. I invite anybody (Mr Carmichael Roberts or company itself) to outline a scenario where this technology is preferred over reverse osmosis, or bottled water. The "Applications" page on the company web site demonstrates IMO 100% wastefully inappropriate applications. Happy to comment on any specific one of those.
akshatrathi 8y ago
I wrote this article, and I'm happy to field any questions
- drited 8y ago
  I'm curious about why you included this sentence: 'The startups announced by BEV so far are all North American, and most of their leadership is also largely white and male' I mean, isn't it enough for BEV to help fund a small sample of companies tackling some of the most challenging problems on earth? Probability of success in such an endeavour is already vanishingly small without adding further constraints. Aren't investments like these best directed at the companies with most promise, with the investors blind as to gender and race, with equality problems tackled elsewhere (e.g. in employment regulation etc.)?
  - akshatrathi 8y ago
    It's ludicrous to think good ideas only come from North America and white males. Carmichael Roberts agreed with me. His words were that my question felt "piercing" because he was not at liberty to tell me about some of the companies outside the US with diverse leadership, but he said he will soon say more. Rodi Guidero agreed and said to look at the BEV team. It's very diverse: http://www.b-t.energy/ventures/team/ http://www.b-t.energy/ventures/team/ We've tried being gender and race blind. But it's not helped us much, because systemic biases can't simply be overcome that way. There are good ideas in all corners, but if you want to elevate those that don't come from privileged backgrounds you have to work harder.
    - blindman100 8y ago
      Since when have we tried to be gender or race blind? Martin Luther King preached that, but policy has never been toward gender and race blindness. Gender and race blindness is an untried concept. It would be nice to try.
      - akshatrathi 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
throwaway5752 8y ago
Start familiarizing yourself with the term "deep adaptation".
perfunctory 8y ago
> These startups progress slowly and at great expense, earning them the moniker “tough tech” because they work on difficult problems that require fundamental breakthroughs. I am genuinely curious if for-profit startups is the right setting for "fundamental breakthroughs". Could the current nuclear power technology have been invented by a startup for example?
- philipkglass 8y ago
  If a self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction had not been previously demonstrated, could you build a proof-of-concept in 2018 on a startup budget? I would say yes. It is conceivable that you could build a modern equivalent of Chicago Pile-1 on a startup budget, assuming that you didn't implement any more safety features than the original CP-1. And if nuclear fission had never been demonstrated before this hypothetical startup probably wouldn't have much in the way of safety regulations to consider. The more difficult question: how would a startup come to experiment with ways to build a self-sustaining fission reaction if the basic concept hadn't been demonstrated before? Something would have to be very different about history. As an improbable hand-wave, let's say that academic scientists had only ever experimented with fast-neutron fission, and didn't realize that natural uranium could sustain a chain reaction if the neutrons were moderated. We're probably deep into alt-history "World War II never happened, also the world has been surprisingly peaceful" fiction with that hand-wave. Finally, if you really mean current nuclear power technology, e.g. one of the actual Generation III reactor designs currently operating, plus supporting infrastructure -- no, a startup could not invent all of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Generation_III_reactors_currently_operational_or_under_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Generat... You could easily blow through 100 million dollars just trying to prototype the enrichment process for the uranium that your reactor needs as fuel. Never mind actually sourcing enough natural uranium in a world where uranium has previously been a niche material like rubidium, building a uranium enrichment plant, fabricating fuel elements, forging a huge pressure vessel, developing the whole field of nuclear engineering...
  - dantheman 8y ago
    Actually uranium at various enrichments is cheaper than ever. SWU cost last year was $125.43/SWU https://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/ https://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/
golemiprague 8y ago
Gates has an history of funding solutions to problems that don't need solutions and being pretty bad about predicting the future. He invested a lot in "solving" malaria, a problem which is already solved by the virtue of building normal modern infrastructure. Same goes for "climate change", another non problem that doesn't require any solution. But maybe some of those companies will solve other problems of making certain things cost effective with no relation to climate change.
Jedd 8y ago
> ... 500 million metric tons. Or more simply, 500 million tonnes.
- chottocharaii 8y ago
  A metric ton is substantially different to a ton in the old English
  - Jedd 8y ago
    Hence the nice people behind metric came up with the tonne. It avoids any ambiguity -- the 5% of the planet still struggling with imperial measurements can continue to confound each other with ton, while the rest of us can confidently talk amongst ourselves about thousand-kg units (tonnes).
    - aplummer 8y ago
      Look I love the metric system as much as anyone, but it’s an American website and a lot more than 5% of the readers are likely American...
      - akshatrathi 8y ago
        That's the reason. Thanks for helping me out here.
      - Jedd 8y ago
        > ... but it’s an American website ... I'm really never quite sure what that kind of claim actually means -- it's hosted in the US (it isn't - most of the assets come from proximal CDN for me), it's written exclusively by Americans (it isn't - they are proud of the fact their team covers 115 countries and they have 19 languages between them), it's targeted exclusively to Americans (it isn't - they've launched Quartz India and Quartz Africa), or it's read mostly by Americans (it isn't - I believe their US audience is something less than 50%), or it's owned by Americans (it isn't - Quartz is owned by a Japanese based company), or the person reading it is in North America and wants to believe that most other people are too(I can't really comment on that one). Perhaps it's just the TLD -- but even that's a pretty flimsy claim. I've got my own .org, and I'm very much not in/owned/near/have/were American. Anyway, there's this word tonne (which means 1000kg) and it's entirely not at odds with ton (which doesn't). Unlike gallon, gill, mile, nautical mile, survey foot, quart, pint, fluid ounce, bushel -- which all vary depending which side of the pond you call home -- the tonne is delightfully agnostic of all that madness, and should be embraced and encouraged by sensible journals (for example Quartz) even if it means some North Americans get a bit sensitive about their archaic measurement systems.

137 points by edwinksl 8y ago

Zero Mass Water: A startup selling specialized panels that use solar power and batteries to pull water from the air. The goal is to reduce the amount of energy needed to access clean drinking water without geographical limitations. There is a lot of energy involved in the phase change of water. We've also had dehumidifiers for over 100 years. The takeaway from that is, dehumidifiers produce don't produce water well in arid environments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg This makes me wonder if the Gates Foundation is properly utilizing scientific expertise.

akshatrathi 8y ago
So the tech inside Zero Mass Water is not the same as dehumidifier. Instead, they use a sophisticated absorbent to selectively capture water, heat it to release the water, then sterilize and add minerals. But you're right. It's the company that I was most surprised to see in the list. The economics don't yet make sense to me. I pushed Carmichael Roberts (BEV's head of investing) to explain. He said he has studied water startups for years, and he really likes the tech. But more importantly, he is very impressed by Cody's skill to sell this unit and far wide. It's already in 16 countries.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Instead, they use a sophisticated absorbent to selectively capture water, heat it to release the water, then sterilize and add minerals. So it's using a dessicant? Heating a saturated dessicant in an enclosed environment can produce a hot, high humidity environment where dehumidification is easy. That said, it will still produce the most water someplace like San Francisco, where the humidity is high. There are places where humidity is high and the rainfall is very low. Apparently, Zero Mass Water is using some good engineering to get something like a 4X efficiency increase for water extraction over existing commercial dessicant dehumidifiers. It's possible that removing the requirement to process large volumes of air could produce such an efficiency increase.
  - debatem1 8y ago
    Stupid question, is this targeted at producing water or is it targeted at producing clean water where contaminated water is available?
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      It's targeted at producing water by extracting it from the air.
- D_Alex 8y ago
  >more importantly, he is very impressed by Cody's skill to sell this unit and far wide That is a really bad reason to invest, given the stated aims of the fund.
cheeko1234 8y ago
Yes it is energy intensive but it's for a niche application: Allowing access for clean water in areas where it is prohibitively more expensive (monetarily and energy wise) to get clean water. Think remote or disaster stricken areas (with appropriate conditions to use the device).
D_Alex 8y ago
I absolutely agree with you - this is bad allocation of money and effort. I just cannot think of a niche where these units would actually make sense. It is a terrible idea to use these for disaster relief - never mind the cost, it would be better to ship in an equal weight of water. It is wrong to use these wherever there is salt water, or polluted water - it would be far cheaper to purify whatever water there is. And it is a bad idea to use them at remote locations, as emergency supplies or wherever reliability is important. Again, equal weight of bottled water would be much cheaper, and safer - bottled water will not break down. I invite anybody (Mr Carmichael Roberts or company itself) to outline a scenario where this technology is preferred over reverse osmosis, or bottled water. The "Applications" page on the company web site demonstrates IMO 100% wastefully inappropriate applications. Happy to comment on any specific one of those.

akshatrathi 8y ago

I wrote this article, and I'm happy to field any questions

drited 8y ago
I'm curious about why you included this sentence: 'The startups announced by BEV so far are all North American, and most of their leadership is also largely white and male' I mean, isn't it enough for BEV to help fund a small sample of companies tackling some of the most challenging problems on earth? Probability of success in such an endeavour is already vanishingly small without adding further constraints. Aren't investments like these best directed at the companies with most promise, with the investors blind as to gender and race, with equality problems tackled elsewhere (e.g. in employment regulation etc.)?
- akshatrathi 8y ago
  It's ludicrous to think good ideas only come from North America and white males. Carmichael Roberts agreed with me. His words were that my question felt "piercing" because he was not at liberty to tell me about some of the companies outside the US with diverse leadership, but he said he will soon say more. Rodi Guidero agreed and said to look at the BEV team. It's very diverse: http://www.b-t.energy/ventures/team/ http://www.b-t.energy/ventures/team/ We've tried being gender and race blind. But it's not helped us much, because systemic biases can't simply be overcome that way. There are good ideas in all corners, but if you want to elevate those that don't come from privileged backgrounds you have to work harder.
  - blindman100 8y ago
    Since when have we tried to be gender or race blind? Martin Luther King preached that, but policy has never been toward gender and race blindness. Gender and race blindness is an untried concept. It would be nice to try.
    - akshatrathi 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

throwaway5752 8y ago

Start familiarizing yourself with the term "deep adaptation".

perfunctory 8y ago

> These startups progress slowly and at great expense, earning them the moniker “tough tech” because they work on difficult problems that require fundamental breakthroughs. I am genuinely curious if for-profit startups is the right setting for "fundamental breakthroughs". Could the current nuclear power technology have been invented by a startup for example?

philipkglass 8y ago
If a self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction had not been previously demonstrated, could you build a proof-of-concept in 2018 on a startup budget? I would say yes. It is conceivable that you could build a modern equivalent of Chicago Pile-1 on a startup budget, assuming that you didn't implement any more safety features than the original CP-1. And if nuclear fission had never been demonstrated before this hypothetical startup probably wouldn't have much in the way of safety regulations to consider. The more difficult question: how would a startup come to experiment with ways to build a self-sustaining fission reaction if the basic concept hadn't been demonstrated before? Something would have to be very different about history. As an improbable hand-wave, let's say that academic scientists had only ever experimented with fast-neutron fission, and didn't realize that natural uranium could sustain a chain reaction if the neutrons were moderated. We're probably deep into alt-history "World War II never happened, also the world has been surprisingly peaceful" fiction with that hand-wave. Finally, if you really mean current nuclear power technology, e.g. one of the actual Generation III reactor designs currently operating, plus supporting infrastructure -- no, a startup could not invent all of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Generation_III_reactors_currently_operational_or_under_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Generat... You could easily blow through 100 million dollars just trying to prototype the enrichment process for the uranium that your reactor needs as fuel. Never mind actually sourcing enough natural uranium in a world where uranium has previously been a niche material like rubidium, building a uranium enrichment plant, fabricating fuel elements, forging a huge pressure vessel, developing the whole field of nuclear engineering...
- dantheman 8y ago
  Actually uranium at various enrichments is cheaper than ever. SWU cost last year was $125.43/SWU https://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/ https://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/

golemiprague 8y ago

Gates has an history of funding solutions to problems that don't need solutions and being pretty bad about predicting the future. He invested a lot in "solving" malaria, a problem which is already solved by the virtue of building normal modern infrastructure. Same goes for "climate change", another non problem that doesn't require any solution. But maybe some of those companies will solve other problems of making certain things cost effective with no relation to climate change.

Jedd 8y ago

> ... 500 million metric tons. Or more simply, 500 million tonnes.

chottocharaii 8y ago
A metric ton is substantially different to a ton in the old English
- Jedd 8y ago
  Hence the nice people behind metric came up with the tonne. It avoids any ambiguity -- the 5% of the planet still struggling with imperial measurements can continue to confound each other with ton, while the rest of us can confidently talk amongst ourselves about thousand-kg units (tonnes).
  - aplummer 8y ago
    Look I love the metric system as much as anyone, but it’s an American website and a lot more than 5% of the readers are likely American...
    - akshatrathi 8y ago
      That's the reason. Thanks for helping me out here.
    - Jedd 8y ago
      > ... but it’s an American website ... I'm really never quite sure what that kind of claim actually means -- it's hosted in the US (it isn't - most of the assets come from proximal CDN for me), it's written exclusively by Americans (it isn't - they are proud of the fact their team covers 115 countries and they have 19 languages between them), it's targeted exclusively to Americans (it isn't - they've launched Quartz India and Quartz Africa), or it's read mostly by Americans (it isn't - I believe their US audience is something less than 50%), or it's owned by Americans (it isn't - Quartz is owned by a Japanese based company), or the person reading it is in North America and wants to believe that most other people are too(I can't really comment on that one). Perhaps it's just the TLD -- but even that's a pretty flimsy claim. I've got my own .org, and I'm very much not in/owned/near/have/were American. Anyway, there's this word tonne (which means 1000kg) and it's entirely not at odds with ton (which doesn't). Unlike gallon, gill, mile, nautical mile, survey foot, quart, pint, fluid ounce, bushel -- which all vary depending which side of the pond you call home -- the tonne is delightfully agnostic of all that madness, and should be embraced and encouraged by sensible journals (for example Quartz) even if it means some North Americans get a bit sensitive about their archaic measurement systems.