9 ms·

This is the type of investing one (at least me) dreams of doing if you're fortunate enough to get to $B+ in net worth. Sam knows enough people who knows how thi

This is the type of investing one (at least me) dreams of doing if you're fortunate enough to get to $B+ in net worth. Sam knows enough people who knows how this tech works to get a read on quality / achievability, and if he gets it right (however challenging/unlikely), it means incredible things. If it doesn't work, whatever -- at least he's shooting at something interesting. And talk about something intellectually interesting to be involved with -- it must be a collection of great minds at this company.

brightball 5y ago
Completely agree. More abundant clean power, combined with the eventual takeover of Graphene in the battery sector (dramatically increases power density, recharge time and reduces weight) and I believe we will have a path to significantly decrease global emissions. When we get to the point of putting Graphene batteries in planes than can fully recharge in the time it takes to unload and reload passengers/luggage it’s going to be pretty incredible.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Aircraft will probably adopt LH2, instead, carried in tanks slung under the wings, like the engines. Or maybe with very thick wings. The LH2 will be made on the spot at the airport from power drawn from high-tension power lines to wind & solar farms. Once the hydrogen-powered aircraft start flying, kerosene-powered craft will find it impossible to compete.
boringg 5y ago
Completely agree with this. This is throwing money at an interesting problem with an incredibly low outcome of success. Given the amount of public dollars already put into this without success and the amount of money they are going to have too continually pour into this to make it successful it seems like a serious hail mary. Even if they do have the brightest minds working on it. I wish them the greatest success - we need this. To your point it's an incredibly privileged investing position to be in and to be honest - he can take a lot of the gains he has already had in relatively uninteresting companies that have been successful and hope to something truly remarkable for humanity.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  s/outcome/probability/
- chadash 5y ago
  > This is throwing money at an interesting problem with an incredibly low outcome of success. But an incredibly high return if successful. Nuclear fission (edit... accidentally wrote fusion here), if we can figure it out, is potentially the golden ticket to reducing our carbon footprint. Unlike geothermal energy, it can be done anywhere. Unlike wind or solar, it can be done at any time. It doesn't have the safety issues associated with fusion, nor does it generate waste products nearly as hard to deal with. Right now, carbon emissions breakdown in the US are broken down by: Transportation - 29% Electricity production - 25% Industry - 23% Commercial and Residential - 13% Agriculture - 10% Land use and forestry - 12% By moving to fusion, you can all but eliminate fossil fuel usage in the first two (and largest) categories. You can knock a large chunk out of the next two categories, where much of the emissions is due to burning fossil fuels for energy (heating, etc.). You'll still have emissions from agriculture and land use, but you can clamp down on most emissions in a big way. If you can figure out fusion and get it working on an industrial scale level on par with other forms of electricity production (which is a big if), then you'll have achieved a monumental technological leap and you'll make a lot of money while at it.
  - boringg 5y ago
    Listen I'm all for these kinds of investments. Its very high risk and potentially a high reward. I think likely the reward will be some technology development in the process that helps something else but not in the direction they currently are going. Thats just the way things typically shake out. Especially grandiose plans like this. They need to prove that the research works to actually produce net electricity - which requires a scientific breakthrough. Next after a research breakthrough - they need to make this a product -- then a commercial product. During that process they need to make this a commercially viable economically viable product that can compete against other forms of energy in the marketplace. They will need to get through serious regulatory requirements. And remember that they need to make this commercially viable to produce electricity at a very low cost - its super competitive at baseload power cost range. By the time this comes to market the energy landscape will be completely different. It is already moving incredibly quickly. Like I've said on other post - we need these kinds of moonshots but let's not have them distract against the other important work of deploying already commercially ready technology into the market.
rotexo 5y ago
I have been thinking a lot about this. I wish I could invest my paltry funds into climate-focused ventures as part of a crowd of like-minded small-scale investors. So I am investing in things like renewable energy ETFs. But my impression (correct me if I’m wrong) is that I am investing in companies deploying proven technologies, rather than moonshots. I want to invest in moonshots, given the fact that I think we need moonshots in order for human civilization to survive. But a) I would need significant funds to do so, and b) realistically, I wouldn’t be able to evaluate those moonshots for technical and economic feasibility. It is a discouraging realization.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Consider creating a fund with this explicit goal.
  - rotexo 5y ago
    That would be the obvious move, but my background is so far from finance that I have no earthly idea how I would begin. Open to ideas though for sure!
    - jjk166 5y ago
      If you're more of a technical person, starting an analyst firm that provides insight for existing venture capital firms might be a solid play. Lots of people would like to save the planet and get rich doing it, they just need someone to tell them how.
- boringg 5y ago
  I spend a lot of time thinking about this as well as someone who has worked in climate tech for > decade and am currently looking to deploy capital. It's quite tough. 1. Impossible to get anywhere close to good investing rounds. And deal flow requires serious capital on any meaningful technology (sorry carbon accounting software doesn't move the needle, needed but it isn't a game changer). 2. Investing in companies in the market as an equity holder. It feels like it doens't actually help the company - there's an argument that it helps the industry as there is more money/attention/talent attraction. Seems like a poor investment for myself given the P/E ratios on most of the companies. 3. Investing in actual projects - small returns but meaningful results. You don't get the outsized returns on companies growing quickly. 4. I do believe the success of humanity in the climate tech space is actually not through moon shots but a constant deployment of ready tech (read solar, ESS, wind, etc) and getting our politicians to probably signal the value proposition that climate tech brings. I do think moon shots have a place and we should bet on them. I am open to ideas on how to help and new models if anyone has any! edit for formatting
mempko 5y ago
This! I'm not positive on nuclear fission reactors because I don't think they are robust against the climate challenges we face. Too much bad waste that requires functioning societies to maintain. However, fusion doesn't seem to have these problems. I'm hopeful something comes out of it and the world moves fast.
ramraj07 5y ago
No comment on this technology but only commenting on the thought process that Sam or any of these “intellectual billionaires” are right about complex scientific problems because they know enough people who know how this tech works is not valid. The people who circle billionaires have a huge conflict of interest to convince them to fork over billions, and they know people like Sam are smart enough that you can’t lie to them. So they do (subconsciously often) what George Costanza said which is believe in the lie themselves. So yeah don’t trust experts If they’re looking at you for a cheque (even if they themselves won’t directly get the check).
- frazbin 5y ago
  at the end of the day it's all "money... for people!"
- dash2 5y ago
  It seems like this would be a great place for a prediction market. Anonymously aggregate the information of people who know enough that they are prepared to lay money on the line. Replace the conflicts of interest with a direct interest in profiting from being right.
deltree7 5y ago
[flagged]

brightball 5y ago

Completely agree. More abundant clean power, combined with the eventual takeover of Graphene in the battery sector (dramatically increases power density, recharge time and reduces weight) and I believe we will have a path to significantly decrease global emissions. When we get to the point of putting Graphene batteries in planes than can fully recharge in the time it takes to unload and reload passengers/luggage it’s going to be pretty incredible.

ncmncm 5y ago
Aircraft will probably adopt LH2, instead, carried in tanks slung under the wings, like the engines. Or maybe with very thick wings. The LH2 will be made on the spot at the airport from power drawn from high-tension power lines to wind & solar farms. Once the hydrogen-powered aircraft start flying, kerosene-powered craft will find it impossible to compete.

boringg 5y ago

Completely agree with this. This is throwing money at an interesting problem with an incredibly low outcome of success. Given the amount of public dollars already put into this without success and the amount of money they are going to have too continually pour into this to make it successful it seems like a serious hail mary. Even if they do have the brightest minds working on it. I wish them the greatest success - we need this. To your point it's an incredibly privileged investing position to be in and to be honest - he can take a lot of the gains he has already had in relatively uninteresting companies that have been successful and hope to something truly remarkable for humanity.

jacquesm 5y ago
s/outcome/probability/
chadash 5y ago
> This is throwing money at an interesting problem with an incredibly low outcome of success. But an incredibly high return if successful. Nuclear fission (edit... accidentally wrote fusion here), if we can figure it out, is potentially the golden ticket to reducing our carbon footprint. Unlike geothermal energy, it can be done anywhere. Unlike wind or solar, it can be done at any time. It doesn't have the safety issues associated with fusion, nor does it generate waste products nearly as hard to deal with. Right now, carbon emissions breakdown in the US are broken down by: Transportation - 29% Electricity production - 25% Industry - 23% Commercial and Residential - 13% Agriculture - 10% Land use and forestry - 12% By moving to fusion, you can all but eliminate fossil fuel usage in the first two (and largest) categories. You can knock a large chunk out of the next two categories, where much of the emissions is due to burning fossil fuels for energy (heating, etc.). You'll still have emissions from agriculture and land use, but you can clamp down on most emissions in a big way. If you can figure out fusion and get it working on an industrial scale level on par with other forms of electricity production (which is a big if), then you'll have achieved a monumental technological leap and you'll make a lot of money while at it.
- boringg 5y ago
  Listen I'm all for these kinds of investments. Its very high risk and potentially a high reward. I think likely the reward will be some technology development in the process that helps something else but not in the direction they currently are going. Thats just the way things typically shake out. Especially grandiose plans like this. They need to prove that the research works to actually produce net electricity - which requires a scientific breakthrough. Next after a research breakthrough - they need to make this a product -- then a commercial product. During that process they need to make this a commercially viable economically viable product that can compete against other forms of energy in the marketplace. They will need to get through serious regulatory requirements. And remember that they need to make this commercially viable to produce electricity at a very low cost - its super competitive at baseload power cost range. By the time this comes to market the energy landscape will be completely different. It is already moving incredibly quickly. Like I've said on other post - we need these kinds of moonshots but let's not have them distract against the other important work of deploying already commercially ready technology into the market.

rotexo 5y ago

I have been thinking a lot about this. I wish I could invest my paltry funds into climate-focused ventures as part of a crowd of like-minded small-scale investors. So I am investing in things like renewable energy ETFs. But my impression (correct me if I’m wrong) is that I am investing in companies deploying proven technologies, rather than moonshots. I want to invest in moonshots, given the fact that I think we need moonshots in order for human civilization to survive. But a) I would need significant funds to do so, and b) realistically, I wouldn’t be able to evaluate those moonshots for technical and economic feasibility. It is a discouraging realization.

jacquesm 5y ago
Consider creating a fund with this explicit goal.
- rotexo 5y ago
  That would be the obvious move, but my background is so far from finance that I have no earthly idea how I would begin. Open to ideas though for sure!
  - jjk166 5y ago
    If you're more of a technical person, starting an analyst firm that provides insight for existing venture capital firms might be a solid play. Lots of people would like to save the planet and get rich doing it, they just need someone to tell them how.
boringg 5y ago
I spend a lot of time thinking about this as well as someone who has worked in climate tech for > decade and am currently looking to deploy capital. It's quite tough. 1. Impossible to get anywhere close to good investing rounds. And deal flow requires serious capital on any meaningful technology (sorry carbon accounting software doesn't move the needle, needed but it isn't a game changer). 2. Investing in companies in the market as an equity holder. It feels like it doens't actually help the company - there's an argument that it helps the industry as there is more money/attention/talent attraction. Seems like a poor investment for myself given the P/E ratios on most of the companies. 3. Investing in actual projects - small returns but meaningful results. You don't get the outsized returns on companies growing quickly. 4. I do believe the success of humanity in the climate tech space is actually not through moon shots but a constant deployment of ready tech (read solar, ESS, wind, etc) and getting our politicians to probably signal the value proposition that climate tech brings. I do think moon shots have a place and we should bet on them. I am open to ideas on how to help and new models if anyone has any! edit for formatting

mempko 5y ago

This! I'm not positive on nuclear fission reactors because I don't think they are robust against the climate challenges we face. Too much bad waste that requires functioning societies to maintain. However, fusion doesn't seem to have these problems. I'm hopeful something comes out of it and the world moves fast.

ramraj07 5y ago

No comment on this technology but only commenting on the thought process that Sam or any of these “intellectual billionaires” are right about complex scientific problems because they know enough people who know how this tech works is not valid. The people who circle billionaires have a huge conflict of interest to convince them to fork over billions, and they know people like Sam are smart enough that you can’t lie to them. So they do (subconsciously often) what George Costanza said which is believe in the lie themselves. So yeah don’t trust experts If they’re looking at you for a cheque (even if they themselves won’t directly get the check).

frazbin 5y ago
at the end of the day it's all "money... for people!"
dash2 5y ago
It seems like this would be a great place for a prediction market. Anonymously aggregate the information of people who know enough that they are prepared to lay money on the line. Replace the conflicts of interest with a direct interest in profiting from being right.

deltree7 5y ago

[flagged]