How Moore’s Law Has Spoiled Us for The Energy Revolution


Moore’s Law and the fast pace of innovation in computing and the Internet have deeply spoiled and confused us in terms of how fast the pace of innovation should be for other sectors like energy. That was the basic sentiment from Microsoft (s MSFT) Chairman and former CEO Bill Gates at the Techonomy event last week (video here), and the idea explains a lot in terms of energy entrepreneurs’ and investors’ missteps and motivations.

In 1965, Gordon Moore famously predicted that the number of transistors on a chip would double roughly every two years. The result is that over 40 years later semiconductors are cheap and powerful enough to be embedded into everything from our bus passes to our library books, and the platform of personal computing has delivered our current always-on Internet-based society. Without chip innovation and Moore’s Law, there’d be no Facebook, Google (s GOOG), or the iPhone (s aapl).

But, as Gates put it last week, we’ve been fooled by the rapid success of IT, and “there are things that just don’t move forward.” The pace of chips and IT innovation “is rare,” said Gates.

Unfortunately, some of those “things that don’t move forward” are fundamental platforms for the energy industry. For example, as Gates pointed out: batteries. “Batteries have not improved hardly at all. There are deep physical limits,” to this technology, he said.

The standard lead acid and lithium ion batteries, which power our gadgets and laptops, have undergone only very minor improvements, despite the fact that in the past couple of years entrepreneurs and investors have tried to inject innovation into the space. Gates himself said that he is investing in five battery startups, while he’s looked at another 50 battery startups in the market place.

Another energy technology that has completely stalled is nuclear power. That stopped moving in the 1970s, Gates noted, and a major barrier for innovation has been the length of time that it takes to get a nuclear project approved and built in the U.S. “Most of us would like to work on things that happen during our lifetime. The lack of investment in this space is very understandable,” said Gates.

Gates is also trying to use his resources to inject innovation into nuclear power. He’s backed (and is “deeply involved with” he said at Techonomy) nuclear startup TerraPower, which is a spinoff project from Intellectual Ventures, an incubator founded by former Microsoft chief technology officer Nathan Myhrvold. TerraPower uses a “traveling wave reactor design,” that uses waste uranium to power it and can provide energy for hundreds of years without having to be refueled.

The Moore Effect on Greentech VCs

I think the slow pace of innovation in the energy industry has been fundamentally miscalculated by some of the first wave of venture capitalists that have backed energy companies. Just look at some of the leading next-gen biofuel firms, the solar thermal plant builders, and the thin film solar developers, and you’ll see that it’s not uncommon for these firms to have taken hundreds of millions of dollars of venture investment betting on the idea that an extra bit of innovation would lead to reduced costs. But most of the companies in these sectors have not yet reached commercial scale because of cost barriers, and many are approaching a decade old.

The classic model of venture success in the dotcom and IT eras – some three to five years to a 10x return exit — doesn’t commonly ring true for energy startups. They’re requiring heaps more investment and many more years to get to market (if they make it). The returns – even for successful IPOs like A123Systems (s AONE) and Tesla (s TSLA) – are generally on a smaller scale for most of the investors because the companies have needed to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in equity. At the end of the day it takes a lot more money to manufacture cars and batteries than, say, build Twitter.

Attempting to mimic the timelines and returns of the IT venture model, is one reason why greentech VCs have been eager to invest in the intersection of green and IT. Investing in technologies like the smart grid, which uses wireless networks and software to add communication intelligence to the power grid, has been a way that investors have been able to cross the gap between the the IT and energy worlds. The smart grid sector has the most M&A I’ve seen out of all of the greentech businesses.

How Can We Kick Start Energy Innovation?

It’s no surprise to anyone that Moore’s law doesn’t govern the pace of all innovation like gravity rules the physical world. As Nathan Myrhvold said back in a Wired Magazine article in 1995: “If the Boeing 747 obeyed Moore’s Law, it would travel a million miles an hour, it would be shrunken down in size, and a trip to New York would cost about five dollars.”

But the problem is that energy needs a solid kick if the world is going to tackle the pressing issue of climate change. To hit anything close to the carbon emission reduction goals that scientists generally agree will be safe for the planet, “the world needs energy miracles,” as Gates put it in his original TED energy-coming-out party earlier this year.

One way to kick start energy innovation is — and there’s no way around it — money. I asked Gates last week what he thought was a good investing strategy for the energy ecosystem, given VCs haven’t seemed to have gotten the routine down too well, and he said the government needs to step in and fund basic research and also help with pilot plant scaling, while VCs are good at early stage investments.

At the end of the day, Gates thinks the U.S. government hasn’t done a very effective job of encouraging energy innovation, and called the current system of various subsidies, tax credits and state-by-state mandates “insane.” He’s also a member of the American Energy Innovation Council, which is calling for a boost of $16 billion per year invested into basic energy research, up from an average (non stimulus year) of an annual $5 billion or so.

While that boost in federal energy research might not lead to a Moore’s Law for energy, it’s undoubtedly got to lead to an increased pace of innovation in energy. The fact is that when it comes to innovation in areas like batteries or nuclear power, it couldn’t move much more slowly than it has been.

(Note to the creators of Techonomy, your conference rocked! And I fully support new media ventures from journalist entrepreneurs).

Image courtesy of Jurvetson’s flickr stream.

For more research on cleantech financing check out GigaOM Pro (subscription required):

Cleantech Financing Trends 2010 & Beyond



More wisdom from the self-styled visionary who predicted, “No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer.”

Just because someone CAN be quoted, doesn’t mean they should be. Mr. Gates’ comments lack any deep incorporation of global context, market drivers and the state of current, real-world R&D.

Energy Engineer

Folks, you aren’t getting the point. Energy innovation doesn’t move quickly because energy is is a real physical effect.

IT moves quickly because information “has no dimension”. It’s not real and not governed by real physical laws. In IT you can pretty much do any damn thing you want, because it’s just bits and bytes. There Moore’s law can govern. But in energy physics the 3 laws of thermodymanics govern and they are impossible to circumvent. To get an efficiency gain of 1/10th of 1 percent takes YEARS.

It has nothing to do with the amount of government money being pumped in. It has to do with physics.

If more people in the IT industry would actually, gosh, take a few university courses in thermodymanics, then they would better understand all this.

Or better yet, go back to your unreal software world and leave the energy to us engineers who actually know something.

Maggie McIntire

I agree with Bill Gates, but the energy industry has something to contend with that the IT industry does not: an entrenched, very rich and well-capitalized existing (fossil fuels and all of the related fossil fuel-based sectors) industry that does not want change and uses their immense lobbying power to prevent it.

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.


That is part of what I wrote last night, but it seems to have gone to the filter. Part of it said:

Hi Katie,

Please tell Mr. Gates that the reason that “there are things that just don’t move forward” in the power industry is because of the huge regulatory barriers that are already showing up in Maryland, Hawaii and Boulder. For example, take a look under Jesse Berst article SmartGridCity Meltdown: How Bad Is It?, which has 29 comments at the moment, four of which are mine that show that there is an industry wide leadership issue, instead of just the Xcel Energy Boulders’s one.

Best regards,

José Antonio


I’d have to disagree with Bill Gates about “Batteries have not improved hardly at all”.

The mobile phone industry has driven battery development over a relatively short time frame. Two decades ago handsets used Nickel Cadmium batteries that had memory which reduced usable capacity and resulted in phones that barely lasted 4 hours on stand-by. Todays most phone will last up to 350 hours on stand-by. That’s almost a 100x improvement!

Sure, some of the gains have been in lower voltage ICs and smarted power management within the phones, but Li-Ion battery development has been a major contributor

The story mentions A123 but not the enormous leap in power density they have achieved. A123 M1 cells are like nothing ever seen before in a battery by a significant margin.

As the demands of mobile phone operators (who wanted phones to stay on longer so they could increase revenues) drove small form factor Li-ion battery development, so the demand of auto makers will now drive development of large form factor battery technology…. and as always, no-one can see into the future, not even Bill Gates.


Bill Gates is thinking more about batteries for vehicles rather than batteries for phones. Regardless, the energy density is the major problem not the power density. A123 has improved energy density, but the fact is that the pace of growth in energy density is VERY SLOW. It has taken more than 10 years just to double the energy density of lithium ion batteries! We need 10X improvement in energy density and manufacturing cost efficiencies that would make it practical to deploy on a massive scale.

Lennox Tech

We’ve seen great improvements in the HVAC industry – higher efficiencies, solar powered heat pumps, etc.

In some industries the technology is already here for the energy revolution – we just need to use it on a large scale.


Katie wrote: can provide energy for hundreds of years with having to be refueled.

I believe you meant to write “WITHOUT having to be refueled”.


LAW? An hypothesis is a guess. Then, with sufficient testing and validation, it may become a theory. But to call it a LAW is not acceptable and it is not realistic. That would require a vertical ‘curve’ that is improbable. And Moore could just as easily have predicted that doubling would occur every six years, except for what was occurring in 1965 in the creation of transistors that led to LSI / VLSI / microchips.

Comments are closed.