What’s the equivalent of the chicken-and-egg problem in industrial digitalization? You need data to optimize production, but production has to be running to generate that data. This classic loop is hitting hard in high-growth industries like battery manufacturing. When launching a gigafactory, high-speed production lines need data-driven optimization to cut down on waste. But here’s the bind—until that factory is up and running at scale, you simply don’t have the data you need. It’s costly, too: according to Fraunhofer’s Mastering the Ramp Up of Battery Production report, initial gigafactories see scrap rates of 15-30%, and every 1% of scrap can bleed about €10M per year. The same problem holds back digital and AI startups focused on industrial optimization. They need high-volume production to gather data, train algorithms, and prove their value, but their clients aren’t producing enough data yet to make it worthwhile. The Solution? The Foundry Model. A new breed of battery companies is emerging to bridge this gap—dedicated cell and electrode foundries offering manufacturing-as-a-service. These foundries, operating with smaller capacities (a few hundred to several thousand MWh), work for multiple clients and specialize in providing the data-rich environment digital startups need to fine-tune optimization solutions. By partnering with these foundries, both gigafactory operators and digitalization startups can gather the critical production data needed to minimize scrap rates before full-scale production begins. Fraunhofer is currently expanding its 200 MWh facility to 7GWh with exactly this idea in mind. The result? Lower scrap, faster scaling, and positive cash flow sooner—shaving years off the ramp-up curve and setting up gigafactories for success. 💬 Want to dive deeper into the foundry model or connect with an active electrode foundry? Drop me a message to learn more. #BatteryProduction #Digitalization #FoundryModel #IndustrialOptimization #Manufacturing

While extending the life of existing reactors (LTO) is a powerful strategy, decommissioning (DECOM) is emerging as an equally significant market for nuclear innovation and investment. By the 2050s, over 300 reactors worldwide are projected to be retired. Europe alone has a backlog, with 60% of shuttered reactors awaiting decommissioning. This scenario presents a growing, $6–10 billion annual market for specialized companies that can tackle the complexities of dismantling and waste management. Investment Hotspots in Decommissioning: - Project Management and Digital Tools – Advanced solutions like PLM and AI-driven planning tools to streamline timelines and reduce DECOM project costs. - Safety and Waste Handling – Innovative safety technology and transport solutions for radioactive waste, ensuring safe handling at every stage. - Precision Dismantling Equipment – From cutting-edge drones and robotics to non-destructive testing, these tools can enhance safety, optimize costs, and reduce operational risks. With a steady increase in reactors reaching retirement age, the DECOM market is set to be a mainstay in the nuclear sector. For those with a focus on tech-driven solutions, now is the time to capitalize on the world’s pressing need for safe, efficient, and cost-effective nuclear decommissioning. 🌍💡 #Decommissioning #NuclearEnergy #Cleantech #EnergyTransition #SustainableEnergy #InvestmentOpportunities #DigitalTransformation

In a story fit for Halloween, Redflow — a name that sounds like it was born for a ghost story — met its untimely end. As with any horror tale, the question lingers: what went wrong, and could it have been saved?  Redflow had everything to make it a cleantech success: a unique zinc-bromide flow battery IP, promising less reliance on scarce materials compared to its lithium-ion competitors. It had a record of sales to residential customers and was on the verge of scaling to grid-scale with a 20MWh contract. It even had the government ready to pledge as much investment as private backers. But the private funds never came, and that nailed shut Redflow’s coffin. ⚰️ Was it just a case of “tight capital markets”? That’s the claim, but in Australia — where energy storage is booming — it’s hard not to wonder. Perhaps flow battery technology itself faces challenges that investors see all too clearly. Redflow is another entry in the “flow battery graveyard,” showing that even with tech advantages, a sales track record, and market readiness, there’s no guarantee that the capital will flow. Halloween, with all its ghastly tales, reminds us of our (often irrational) fears. But as founders and investors, it’s the real-world failures, not just the celebrated successes, that teach us what to watch out for. Redflow’s collapse is a sobering reminder that checking all the boxes of a scale-up won’t always win investor buy-in.  Happy Halloween, and memento mori ! 🎃👻 You can read the original news article here . #Cleantech #EnergyStorage #FlowBatteries #BatteryTechnology #Investing #StartupLife #ScaleUp

It takes 140 steps to make a battery cell. That excludes logistics and testing. The recent Fraunhofer report on ramping-up battery production sheds light on the complex reality of scaling up hardware production, with lessons that apply far beyond the battery industry. From handling high-risk processes to managing workforce challenges and organizational dynamics, it’s a detailed blueprint that could serve any hardware scaleup. Here are the key insights that resonated most with me. Key Insight #1: Electrode Coating — The Quality Bottleneck Battery cell quality begins with electrode coating, an intricate process that even slight variances can lead to significant quality issues. Tiny shifts in slurry viscosity, coating speed, or application pressure can produce defects that undermine cell reliability and performance. Fraunhofer zeroes in on this coating phase as the highest-risk point in cell production, where consistent precision is non-negotiable.  Why? Because it’s not only the most capital-intensive phase but also where errors compound quickly, leading to entire batches being scrapped. This isn’t just a technical challenge; it’s an organizational one, especially when scaling up. For battery production — or any precision-dependent manufacturing process — finding a way to keep tight quality control over high-risk steps like coating is crucial. This is consistent with my insights, shared here . Source: Fraunhofer Key Insight #2: Skills Matter More Than Just Tech Fraunhofer’s research highlights that simply buying top-tier equipment isn’t enough. Skilled operators are the real linchpin, especially in quality-critical processes like electrode coating. Trained technicians who understand the intricate dynamics of the production line can adjust, troubleshoot, and optimize the process in real-time — something machines or untrained operators struggle with. Recognizing this, Fraunhofer is scaling up its existing 200MWh facility and developing a new 7GWh factory, both designed as training hubs. Here, workers gain hands-on experience before stepping into larger-scale production environments. This approach means that when it’s time to launch full-scale gigafactories, the workforce isn’t learning on the job; they’re already well-prepared to hit quality targets.  Key Insight #3: Organizational & Cultural Challenges The challenge of scaling up hardware production goes beyond technical and skill-based hurdles. Large-scale battery projects, involving collaborations between European workers and investors and Asian equipment and material suppliers must navigate organizational issues, including cultural differences and language barriers. Whether collaborating with suppliers from different countries or managing teams across multiple sites, communication and cohesion are critical. Cultural divides can impact everything from project timelines to day-to-day operations.  It’s a reminder that scaling hardware is a people-intensive business — technology alone doesn’t solve everything. The Potential of a Foundry-Style Model The Fraunhofer report hints at another opportunity: a centralized “foundry” model that could serve multiple cell manufacturers with high-quality electrodes. I explored this approach with the hub-and-spoke model in my article on alternative battery value chains . In this setup, specialized foundries would handle electrode production, enabling cell manufacturers to remain flexible and avoid the high CAPEX and OPEX of building in-house electrode facilities.  The benefits? Consistent quality across the board and simplified scaling, especially for smaller manufacturers who can’t match the resources of a vertically integrated gigafactory.   Why This Matters Beyond Batteries? Fraunhofer’s insights aren’t just for battery manufacturing; it’s a universal guide for scaling hardware production. Precision processes, a skilled workforce, and a collaborative, culture-conscious organization are key pillars in any high-stakes manufacturing operation. The report underscores a powerful lesson for hardware scaleups: quality starts long before you reach full-scale production. Fraunhofer’s investment in a training-centered factory is a strategy worth noting — one that any hardware scaleup should consider. And if the EU battery industry is to keep pace with Asia’s giants, this approach of shared resources and centralized expertise could be a game-changer for the European market. For anyone scaling hardware, these insights are a reminder that even the best tech needs the right talent and an agile, well-integrated team to make it work.    💬 Thoughts on the “foundry” model or workforce training for high-stakes manufacturing? Share in the comments, or reach out for more insights on mastering ramp-up challenges!  I encourage you to download and read the full report here . #HardwareScaleUp #BatteryProduction #ElectrodeCoating #Fraunhofer #Manufacturing #EnergyTransition #SupplyChain #TalentDevelopment

What’s the most cost-effective way to decarbonize the grid? Surprisingly, it’s long-term operation (LTO) of existing nuclear power plants. With a levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of around $30/MWh and capital expenses between $500 and $1,100/kW, extending the life of existing reactors is a top-tier solution for clean, reliable power. 🚀 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗟𝗧𝗢 Aging reactors, some over 40 years old, face growing regulatory and maintenance demands, particularly post-Fukushima. But with 140 reactors worldwide eligible for LTO by 2040, the potential market for equipment, materials, and services is estimated at $3–4 billion per year. In total, these LTO projects could require around $50–100 billion, opening the door for suppliers and service providers to secure a slice of the market. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗢𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀? With this surge in demand, established suppliers may struggle to keep up, creating a significant gap for new entrants who can: - 🛠️ Develop replaceable components, particularly those out of production, potentially through additive manufacturing. - 🤖 Deploy cost-saving automation and digitalization in inspections, from robotics and drones to VR, AR, and AI-based solutions. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗺 𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗲: 𝗦𝗲𝗶𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗧𝗢 𝗢𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 🌍 As the global demand for clean energy accelerates, the long-term operation of existing nuclear plants offers a timely and under-the-radar investment opportunity. For suppliers, innovators, and service providers, LTO is more than an extension—it’s a pathway to growth in the nuclear sector, leveraging automation, digital transformation, and advanced manufacturing. For those ready to tackle this niche, the market is ripe with potential, and early movers stand to benefit immensely. 🌱 👉Follow me for more insights into cleantech scaleup! #EnergyTransition #NuclearEnergy #Cleantech #LongTermOperation #Decommissioning #InvestmentOpportunities #SustainableEnergy #Innovation #DigitalTransformation

Every waste management project hinges on a single, often-overlooked factor that can make or break it: the supply of waste. Circular economists love to talk about the mountains of waste piling up around us, but try building a recycling facility, and you’ll quickly discover that all that “waste” is either elusive, diverted elsewhere, or just not there yet. And in the case of battery recycling, the waste is barely even on the map.  Last week, Eramet announced a pause on its plans to build two battery recycling plants in northern France, citing insufficient raw materials. These plants were counting on a steady stream of production waste from gigafactories, most of which are still on the drawing board. Stellantis has similarly pulled out of its battery recycling venture with Orano, and ACC has put its German and Italian gigafactory projects on hold, slowing down the pipeline of waste that these recycling projects need to stay viable. 𝗜𝘀 𝗕𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗚𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝘁𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳? For recycling facilities to function, they need end-of-life batteries or production waste. But Europe's battery production ramp-up has been sluggish, and the flow of discarded EV batteries remains a trickle. As Eramet’s CEO Christel Bories noted, building recycling plants without a consistent waste supply simply doesn’t add up—especially if it means importing batteries or waste from Asia to meet demand.  𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 Europe’s recycling sector may have jumped the gun, advancing ambitious plans before securing a stable supply chain. With gigafactories facing delays, the dream of a closed-loop battery ecosystem is facing a reality check. Battery recycling may be vital for the energy transition, but without raw materials on hand, Europe’s recycling plants are looking at empty feeds. Will Europe recalibrate or double down? Follow me for more insights on the evolving cleantech landscape! Thanks to Jean Gravellier for pointing me to the original article ! #BatteryRecycling #WasteSupply #CircularEconomy #Sustainability #Cleantech #energytransition

Last month, IRENA quietly dropped a report on critical materials in the battery supply chain—yet I saw barely a blip about it on LinkedIn. Let’s give it the spotlight it deserves, with a few key takeaways from the report.  But first, a little context: IRENA’s calculations are based on their own 1.5°C scenario, which means that by 2030, they predict the global EV fleet will jump from 44 million vehicles today to 359 million, requiring a 5x increase in EV battery production.  Here’s what you need to know: 1️⃣ Long-Term Material Supply Looks Stable    There are enough known deposits to meet future demand. Yes, we’ll be racing to keep up with production, but shortages? Not in the long run. 2️⃣ LFP to the Rescue      The rise of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) chemistries is set to take some pressure off demand for high-cost materials like nickel and cobalt. A win for both cost and sustainability. 3️⃣ Lithium Demand Holds Steady     LFP may reduce nickel and cobalt demand, but lithium demand stays strong. Sodium-ion may start impacting lithium later, but not until the next decade. 4️⃣ Short-Term Risk: Lithium Supply      For now, lithium remains the trickiest bottleneck. Production must keep pace to avoid delays or cost hikes in the supply chain. So, here’s to correcting the record—this IRENA report is a must-read for anyone eyeing the battery landscape.  👉Follow me for more updates on cleantech supply chains and battery innovations!  #BatteryTech #SupplyChain #CriticalMaterials #CleanEnergy #EV

With the second season of 𝘍𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘵 on the way, Silicon Valley seems to be taking its fresh interest in nuclear energy to the real world. Tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft have all announced new nuclear projects aimed at powering their data centers. And what’s their go-to choice? Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). The first commercial SMRs are (optimistically) scheduled for 2030, true to the Valley’s enthusiasm for disruption. So, let’s take a look at what’s 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 happening with SMRs right now. Today, we have over 𝟭𝟮𝟬 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝗠𝗥 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 globally, with 5 under construction and around 50 in various stages of development, according to the latest data from the World Nuclear Association. Three years ago, there were barely 70 projects; back in 2018, there were only 40. This growth shows the pace of interest, but not necessarily progress. Most SMRs remain in the design phase or are stuck in licensing with no operational reference plant or contractual commitment to build.   The Russian SMR RITM-200 and China’s ACP100 are among the first to break ground for commercial use. Meanwhile, U.S.-based NuScale, once seen as a front-runner in light-water SMR tech, had to delay its project after failing to hit commercial targets for its site. Initial estimates for NuScale’s CAPEX were pegged at $𝟭,𝟮𝟬𝟬/𝗸𝗪 but are now closer to $𝟱,𝟭𝟬𝟬/𝗸𝗪. These budget jumps highlight the common challenge of nuclear projects: overruns in both time and cost. Will these new SMR projects avoid the all-too-familiar nuclear project hurdles? So far, no evidence suggests they will. But, Silicon Valley’s deep pockets may be willing to tolerate a doubled (or even tripled) budget and a few “additional” years. On the upside, this interest might finally mean a cash flow boost for nuclear startups.  Is the SMR hype here to stay? I hope it stays long enough for SMR startups to get their much-needed funding. But there are better and quicker ways to make money in the nuclear industry.  👉Follow me for more insights into all things Cleantech!  #SMR #NuclearEnergy #CleanTech #Innovation #EnergyTransition #SiliconValley #DataCenters #nuclear

The EU has made bold commitments to vehicle electrification, aiming for 100% electric vehicle (EV) sales by 2035. Central to this vision is establishing a robust, competitive battery manufacturing industry. But here’s the problem: many European gigafactories have stumbled, struggling to meet quality standards or collapsing entirely (remember Italvolt and Britishvolt?). Northvolt, once a beacon of hope, is facing challenges, while industry-wide delays and cost overruns put the whole EU progress at risk. So, what’s wrong?  The Missing Ingredient: Manufacturing Expertise 🛠️ The EU’s battery value chain isn’t failing due to a lack of chemistry breakthroughs or innovation in the lab. It’s manufacturing expertise—particularly in scaling production—that’s the issue. China, with over 20 years of experience in building and operating gigafactories, has a massive lead. While Europe’s innovators are busy inventing new battery chemistries, they lack the critical know-how to transition from lab-scale innovation to gigawatt-hour-scale production.  This gap is what’s putting the EU’s electrification goals at risk. The Real Breakdown: Electrode Production vs. Cell Assembly ⚙️ Let’s break it down. Battery cell manufacturing involves two main processes: electrode production and cell assembly. Here’s the kicker: 70-80% of gigafactory capital expenditure (CAPEX) goes into electrode production, which is an electrochemical process requiring advanced machinery and experienced engineers. In contrast, cell assembly is more mechanical, highly automated, and requires less investment.  In the traditional gigafactory model, both processes are co-located. But is this really the most efficient or sustainable approach for Europe? An Alternative Way: The Hub-and-Spoke Model 🏭 Here’s where things get interesting. Instead of replicating the massive, co-located gigafactory model used by Asian manufacturers, the EU could adopt a hub-and-spoke approach. What does that mean?  Picture a few specialized electrode foundries spread across Europe, serving multiple, smaller cell manufacturers. These foundries would handle the highly technical, CAPEX-intensive process of electrode production, while cell assembly would be decentralized. The result? More flexibility, lower costs, and a faster path to scaling up production.  The Foundry Model: Lessons from Semiconductors 💡 We’ve seen this approach work in other industries. In semiconductors, foundries focus on production, while design and innovation come from startups and research institutions. This model allows for faster innovation cycles and more specialization. By applying this approach to battery manufacturing, the EU could become a global leader in electrode production, with startups and research labs driving the design process. A Proposal: Start Small, Think Big 🚀 The proposal? Start by establishing a dedicated electrode foundry somewhere in France, the Netherlands, or another EU battery cluster. This foundry would have a capacity of 1-2 GWh to minimize initial capital outlay while providing a crucial training ground for EU manufacturers. Partnering with experienced players from Asia willing to share their know-how (if you don’t believe that such an animal exists in the wild - drop me a note) could accelerate the learning curve, helping Europe develop the manufacturing skills it so desperately needs. Why This Matters 🔧 By centralizing electrode production, the EU could leapfrog its current challenges, reduce dependency on Asian suppliers, and build a sustainable, competitive battery value chain. This model not only accelerates innovation but also fosters collaboration between startups, gigafactories, and research institutes. It’s a win-win scenario that could secure Europe’s leadership in battery technology. The EU’s journey to full electrification may be rocky, but with strategic investments like these, it could chart a new course toward a cleaner, more sustainable future. Follow me for more insights into cleantech scale-ups and innovative manufacturing models! 💡 #Cleantech #BatteryManufacturing #Electrification #EVs #Sustainability #Innovation #ScaleUp #Europe

EVBox, a major EV charging equipment manufacturer, is calling it quits. This is just the latest in a string of shutdowns in the EV charging space, with Tesla's Supercharger divestiture leading the pack. Now, EVBox's main investor, Engie, is looking to sell off the company in pieces. After the Supercharger exit, I wrote an article diving into viable business models for EV charging. My take? The utility model is the only one that stands a chance. Grid operators should own the chargers and profit from the extra kWh transmitted, not from direct sales. Engie doesn’t operate grids, and this is exactly why their investment didn't pay off. We’ll see more of these closures until grid operators and regulators recognize that EV charging should be treated as part of grid services, not a standalone business. Here is my original article and here is the source article about EVBox. 💡 Follow me for more insights on the EV market and the future of cleantech. #EVCharging #Cleantech #Utilities #ElectricVehicles #Grid

McKinsey’s New Report Says It’ll Cost a Pretty Penny. 💶🚗  Last week, McKinsey dropped a new report on Europe’s economic path to vehicle electrification. I’ll spare you reading the typical McKinsey bland and boring report and get you the good stuff in this post (and some bad too).   The report outlines just how costly the EV transition will be for EU automakers and offers a mix of insights and recommendations. Some points I found on target; others feel a bit more like McKinsey sales tactics for consultancy gigs. Let’s break it down. Here’s What Stood Out: - 💸 €400B – That’s what the EU could lose by 2035 if automakers botch the EV transition, mostly impacting tier-one suppliers. Do it right? Still an additional €300B. - 🚗 8% of EU GDP – That’s how much automakers contribute, employing around 5.5 million people and putting up €64B in R&D yearly (30% of the EU’s total). - 🔋 40-50% of EV components are non-traditional (think batteries and semiconductors). The question is whether EU automakers can master BEV technology as they did with ICE. - ⚡ Some Chinese EV players are developing cars twice as fast as their EU counterparts—and at 20-30% lower cost. Ouch.  What Needs to Happen?  I’m with McKinsey on a few points here: 1. Expand Domestic Battery Manufacturing – EU automakers must prioritize localizing cell production and scaling up in electrochemistry and materials. 2. Build Partnerships – Teaming up with US and Asian partners could accelerate manufacturing scale-up. 3. Streamline Regulation – EU automakers will need industry collaboration, localization, and regulatory clarity to stay competitive.  But beware: they face hurdles like talent shortages and high energy costs. What Feels Off? 1. Company-Wide Initiatives To Transition To EVs – McKinsey suggests OEMs should launch massive internal transformations. Not gonna work. These legacy giants are entrenched in their ways; it’ll take decades to pivot, and by then, they’ll be lagging even further behind. 2. PHEVs and Hybrids? – They suggest hybrids will help the transition to full BEVs. Really? This will just drag out the agony. Propping up ICE assets with PHEVs will divert investment and delay the inevitable EV shift, losing precious time and resources.   So, there you have it. The EU’s EV transition is a race against the clock. Europe needs to think less about keeping everyone happy and more about committing fully to the EV future.  Here is the link to the McKinsey report: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/europes-economic-potential-in-the-shift-to-electric-vehicles?stcr=82164B8E9BCB4C36930067C9603877C5&cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck&hlkid=7aceaae8920a4053b18aec311018c1a3&hctky=15046272&hdpid=5e8b74c7-b166-4dbe-8ff2-10c97b4d8546#/ #EV #Automotive #Cleantech #BatteryIndustry #Europe #Innovation #Sustainability #ElectricVehicles #scaleup #McKinsey

Let’s Talk About the Cost of Success and the Strength Behind Failure 🌍💔 Being a founder of a cleantech startup is hard. Plans fall apart, obstacles appear out of nowhere, and some days it feels like the whole world is ignoring you—at best—or out to undermine you at worst. On social media, our feeds are filled with startup success stories. But let’s be honest: each success comes with hidden costs that are rarely talked about. And what about the failures? Any investor will tell you that 90% of startups won’t make it. But what happens to those founders? How do they pick themselves up and find the strength to try again? The founder's journey is lonely, challenging, and sometimes downright heartbreaking. You’ll question your goals, feel disillusioned by your dreams, and wonder if you have the strength to keep going. And yet, somehow, you find it within you to press on.  We need more of these stories—the ones that reveal what it really takes to chase a vision. I shared one of mine recently, and now I’m inviting you to share yours. If you have a story to tell, drop me message from the Contact section of this website. If you’d prefer it stays private, just let me know. Sometimes, just writing it down helps. And hey, if anyone’s up for sharing their story publicly, I’d love to make it a podcast episode! 🎙️ #Cleantech #Startups #FounderJourney #Innovation #Entrepreneurship #Resilience