datasheets.com EBN.com EDN.com EETimes.com Embedded.com PlanetAnalog.com TechOnline.com  
Events
UBM Tech
UBM Tech

News & Analysis

Comment


Bruce Rayner

3/7/2012 10:14 AM EST

George, it's all about the tipping point. And we can't forget that VC funding is ...

More...



Bruce Rayner

3/7/2012 10:09 AM EST

Agreed - keep your eyes on the smart grid and solid-state lighting. Then there ...

More...

Money, cleantech and what comes next

Bruce Rayner

3/5/2012 12:15 PM EST

2011 was a good year for cleantech startups. U.S. venture capital activity in the sector set a high-water mark, with $4.3 billion invested in a record 323 companies.

 

Today, the sector accounts for about 15 percent of all VC funding, double what it was in the mid-2000s, according to the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). By most accounts, and barring any calamitous economic shocks, the upward trend will likely continue in 2012.

 

But this strong showing comes after a challenging half-decade of gyrations in the market that saw rapid growth in VC investments through 2008, followed by a precipitous, 40 percent drop in 2009 as the Great Recession slammed the lid on investment activity.

 

The wild swings have given VCs pause, and many have recalibrated their investment strategies. This is particularly true of cleantech, a catchall category that includes CO2-saving technology in energy efficiency, energy storage, green buildings, green IT, electric vehicles, power electronics, renewable energy, solid-state lighting and the smart grid.

 

“The sector is morphing,” said John Taylor, head of research at NVCA. For the vast majority of startups, the endgame is one of lowered expectations; understanding that an initial public offering probably isn’t in the cards, they instead hope to be acquired.

 

The shifting landscape “forces VCs to ask: ‘How much money can I afford to invest in a company and still earn a good return?’ Today, it’s all about capital efficiency,” Taylor said.

 

This recalibration is responsible for three significant shifts in how venture capitalists decide what to invest in next.

 

The first is that VCs are less likely to throw money at large, early-stage investments in renewable-energy infrastructure. This comes after a spate of high-profile solar panel companies declared bankruptcy last year. The highest-profile case was the August bankruptcy filing of Solyndra, which had received more than $700 million in VC funding on top of more than $500 million in federal government loan guarantees.

 

Part of the challenge for the solar companies was the intense competition from their counterparts in China, which have invested heavily in wind and solar manufacturing capacity with active support from the government. The consensus across the industry is that the Chinese flooded the market, drove down prices and made it difficult for U.S. companies to compete.

 

With their investment strategies tempered by those experiences, many VCs now are focused on later-stage, lower-risk rounds of infrastructure investments. That is, they’re stepping in only after the technology has been proved and there’s less of a wait for the payout.

 

“It’s a natural consequence of how renewable-energy companies have matured, and it’s driven by the fact that capital has not been available from the public markets,” said Michael Holman, research director at Lux Research Inc. (New York, N.Y.).

 

The era of the solar mega-deal may be over, but there's no shortage of cash for green innovations.


In 2011, three of the top 10 VC deals of the year were in cleantech, including a $200 million expansion round for fourth-ranked Better Place Inc. The Palo Alto, Calif.-based company is developing the infrastructure for refueling electric vehicles modeled on the traditional gas station. EV drivers pull up to the Better Place “pump,” and a robot replaces the depleted battery with a fully charged one.

 

“The case for EVs is profound, but the limitation has always been range. I call it range anxiety,” said Alan Salzman, CEO and managing partner of VantagePoint Capital Partners, the largest shareholder in Better Place. “Once you’ve solved the range problem, there is no barrier to the adoption of EVs.”

 

Better Place is working with companies at every stage in the EV value chain to create a complete end-to-end refueling solution. The company is partnering with automakers to design EVs that have removable batteries, with corporate fleet owners that commit to converting a portion of their fleets to EVs, with fueling-station companies to install the EV refueling units, and with energy utilities to ensure battery recharging doesn’t require capacity additions.

 

The company’s first two implementations are in Israel and Denmark. It also has demonstration projects running in Australia, China and Japan.



Click on image to enlarge.



Click on image to enlarge.




hm

3/5/2012 8:33 PM EST

Next comes break through in some clean tech associated product. This will enhance image of this industry and may in turn product more products.

Sign in to Reply



Bruce Rayner

3/7/2012 10:09 AM EST

Agreed - keep your eyes on the smart grid and solid-state lighting. Then there are companies like Liquid Robotics, which I wrote about. It has the potential to open up a whole new market for deep-water sensing applications.

Sign in to Reply



Frank Eory

3/6/2012 1:24 PM EST

The description of the category "cleantech" reflects an inherent bias. This list -- "technology in energy efficiency, energy storage, green buildings, green IT, electric vehicles, power electronics, renewable energy, solid-state lighting and the smart grid" -- covers a large swath of products and technologies, not all of which are equally clean or green. It seems strange to lump them all together, even for purposes of comparing year-to-year VC funding.

Sign in to Reply



chanj

3/6/2012 2:50 PM EST

There are some "cleantechs" which requires high initial capital investment. For example, renewable energy; solar panel manufacturing facility requires a huge amount of initial cost. The industry would likely require both government, in form of academic research, and VC funding to start. The question comes to how VC evaluates the viable of the research and the possibility of turning the technology into a product.

Sign in to Reply



george.leopold

3/6/2012 4:47 PM EST

Agree, chanj, the government, most notably through the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, must continue funding risky cleantech research with the greatest potential to produce disruptive new technologies. ARPA-E is putting a lot of money into energy storage and other battery technologies. The focus is on new materials and manufacturing techniques that can be used to scale up U.S. battery production. This is badly needed since there are few viable Li-ion battery makers in the U.S. beyond A123 and smaller startups like Envia Systems. But ARPA-E is under siege by some in Congress who think the agency is funding research that could be or is being funded by industry. Maybe, but we didn't get the Internet without a lot of federal research dollars. My colleague Bruce Rayner is correct that more VC money is flowing into cleantech, but analysts think a growing number of startups are reaching a "tipping point" as they prepare to commercialize their technologies. We'll know soon whether these efforts will fly.

Meantime, here's another view of the current state of cleantech development:


http://confidential.eetimes.com/technology-review/4236774/Has-Cleantech-Peaked-

Sign in to Reply



Bruce Rayner

3/7/2012 10:14 AM EST

George, it's all about the tipping point. And we can't forget that VC funding is by definition risky. if 1 in 10 investments actually make it to market, let alone IPO or acquisition, then they are ahead of the game.

Sign in to Reply



Bruce Rayner

3/7/2012 10:06 AM EST

You're right - it's about how VCs evaluate the viability of investment in these big capital intensive projects. Some commentators suggest that during the few years leading up to the Great Recession, VCs were investing in projects they had no business investing in because they were too speculative, the technology was immature, and the time to market was too long. There's a consensus that there's a return to more rational behavior in the market. That means fewer VC investments in big-ticket solar panel plants.

Sign in to Reply



prabhakar_deosthali

3/7/2012 6:26 AM EST

In the advanced area like the Clean tech technology, US should take a global lead and should reach out to other developed and developing nations to pool the resources so that there is no duplication of R & D , there is a concerted effort to reduce global warming by using clean tech.

Sign in to Reply



Bruce Rayner

3/7/2012 10:00 AM EST

Prabhakar - I'd agree will you if there was a a 'level playing field' for cleantech investment and every country had the same rules for R&D investment. Unfortunately, that's not the case. China, for instance, has a state-supported industrial policy (with state-sponsored VC funding) for Cleantech. You can read all about it in the 12th 5-year plan. That's part of the reason companies like Solyndra went bancrupt - it couldn't compete. Same with wind power - check out American Superconductor's case against China's Sinovel.

Sign in to Reply



Please sign in to post comment

Navigate to related information

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)