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

In the world of cleantech startups, landing an offtake agreement is like finding the Holy Grail. Secure one, and you’re on your way to attracting essential investments, locking down suppliers, and scaling up your operations. Miss it, and you could find yourself stranded in the “valley of death.”  Once you’ve done the introductions and signed that first NDA, it’s time to aim for the prize. But here’s the thing: don’t just leap straight into negotiating a legally binding offtake agreement. Rushing in is like trying to start a car in fifth gear—you’ll stall before you even get going. Why is that? Your offtake will be with a big corporation. That is a given, as only corporations will have the buying and staying power necessary for long-term contracts. To get the best terms for your small startup, you need to understand that beast well.   Start with a person you will be negotiating with. It is almost certain that this person has no decision power. To have a fully-fledged and legally binding offtake, this person will have to involve various departments of their corporation in negotiations, like legal, finance, operations, procurement, etc. What is certain is that none of those will work on your contract willingly - they are mostly busy minimizing their workload for a given annual pay.  So you have to give your counterpart some way to bring all those necessary corporate resources to work for you. And what works best inside a big, bureaucratic machine? You guessed right - a piece of paper with a signature from the boss. Now, a corporate boss will not just sign any paper laid on his table. So you need a certain paper that he will be okay to sign, which gives him plenty of room to maneuver and even back off while still giving your peer negotiator an effective enough instrument to pull in necessary resources. Enter the MOU.  What Is An MOU, And Why Is It Important? The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a simple yet crucial step toward securing your offtake. Here’s why the MOU matters: - Formalizes Intent to Collaborate: An MOU signals to your corporate partner’s organization that this is worth exploring. It helps justify involving various departments in the vetting process, preparing everyone for what comes next. - PR Opportunity: MOUs are often public announcements. This means you get a headline moment—a chance to boost your credibility with current investors, future investors, and suppliers. They are sometimes even signed at big events or conferences, which brings your partnership into the limelight.  What Goes into an MOU? So, what exactly should you include? Here’s a quick breakdown: 1. Background: Outline who the parties are, why they’re here, and what they’re hoping to achieve. This is a simple overview that adds context to the agreement.     2. Aim of the MOU: State the purpose. Typically, it’s something like “agreeing to explore potential future cooperation” around your product or service. Broad, but to the point. 3. Scope of Collaboration: This is your to-do list for what you aim to explore together. The clearer you can be, the better—it helps your corporate partner navigate their internal processes. You can even include “drafting a Letter of Intent (LOI)” as part of the scope. 4. Responsibilities: Even though it’s non-binding, start as you mean to go on. Lay out who’s doing what, and make it clear who’s providing which information.  5. Term and Termination: Set a deadline to keep things moving. Three to five months for an LOI is typical—this way, they can’t drag it out forever. 6. General Provisions: Here’s where you specify that the MOU isn’t legally binding. It’s your handshake agreement before the big deal. Why the MOU Works for You An MOU is low-cost, quick, and doesn’t require a legal army to draft. You can use it to lock down your corporate partner in a preliminary commitment, giving you some negotiating leverage. The trick now is to keep the pressure on—steady communication ensures that you’re progressing toward that LOI, and eventually, the offtake agreement itself. The MOU is just the start. But it’s a solid start. And if you navigate it right, it’ll set the stage for a smoother, faster route to the holy grail of offtakes. Keep your eyes on the prize! 🏆 Want more tips on navigating the cleantech journey? Subscribe to my mailing list for more insights! #mou #offtake #scaleup #cleantech #greentech #negotiations

The IEA Renewable Energy Report 2024 is out today, and here is the core message: the Fourth Energy Transition looks certain to be accomplished by the end of the decade. This means that wind and solar combined will generate 30% of electrical energy worldwide by 2030.  If you throw in hydropower and other renewables, the energy transition already happened, and by 2030, renewables in total will generate over 45% of all energy. The bulk of heavy lifting will be done by China, with a little help from Europe, the US, and India. In any case, this will set a new time record for energy transitions - two decades instead of three.   What does all this mean for batteries? That the demand for stationary energy storage will pick up. Most research and practice have shown that after 30% renewable energy grid penetration, storing excess energy starts to become an issue. So watch out for those battery deployments in the next five years! And what does green hydrogen have to do with it? Nothing, really. IEA sees it growing to 7% of today’s demand to about 0,8 EJ by 2030. In my view, even this is hugely optimistic.  Stay tuned for regular insights about scaling up clean technologies!  #scaleup #renewableenergy #windenergy #solar #hydrogen #energytransition #batteries

Today’s global shipping industry moves over 80% of the world’s goods and contributes to more than 3% of global CO2 emissions. Decarbonizing this sector is essential, but what’s the best route forward? Ammonia and synthetic fuels are often cited, but there’s a compelling case for nuclear-powered vessels. While nuclear reactors have reliably powered submarines and icebreakers for decades, some startups, like Core Power, a UK-based company, are now exploring nuclear for commercial shipping. Core Power raised over $100 million in private funding to develop molten salt reactors (MSRs). These reactors could power a vessel for its entire 30-year lifespan without refueling, cutting reactor costs by up to 80% and increasing cargo space and speeds beyond 30 knots.  Cost-wise, nuclear makes sense for large fleets rather than one-off ships. A single container ship runs about $200 million, with a viable nuclear reactor needing to cost no more than 20-25% of the total. According to TU Delft, nuclear propulsion can break even within 5-15 years, depending on fuel prices and operating profiles. And unlike ammonia or synthetic fuels, nuclear is a proven technology for maritime propulsion.  But bringing nuclear to commercial shipping isn't just a matter of engineering; it’s about regulation. To make nuclear-powered commercial shipping a reality, international frameworks need to be updated. The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) safety chapter on nuclear propulsion has remained unchanged since 1974, meaning Core Power and partners like Lloyd’s Register are working to establish the necessary safety, classification, and insurance frameworks. Nuclear is the tried and tested path to decarbonizing shipping, as opposed to hydrogen and synth fuels. The only thing standing before nuclear-powered fleets is, frankly, paperwork. A lot of it, for sure, but still, paperwork. Not so for any other clean fuels.    This week, though, I’m heading offshore the old-fashioned way—powered by the wind and some trusty sails. 🌬️⛵ #NuclearEnergy #Shipping #Decarbonization #Maritime #ClimateAction #CleanTech

It’s a time of rebellion in the EU. To defeat the evil empire of carbon emissions and hit net zero by 2050, the EU battery industry is gearing up for an epic adventure. But this time, the Dark Side isn't the issue—it’s those Asian battery giants! Let’s face it, Europe’s battery dream feels a bit like young Luke Skywalker staring down the Death Star with nothing but a dusty old lightsaber and some hope. Is there a chance the EU could become the hero of this electric revolution? Cue the Star Wars theme—let's dive in. The Call of the Force The mission? Decarbonize transport across the EU galaxy, and do it with a homegrown battery industry. Sounds like a piece of cake, right? Well, not so fast. While Europe’s fighting the good fight, it’s up against Asia’s fleets—CATL, BYD, LG—with factories the size of Death Star and with experience to match. The clock’s ticking, and the EU needs to figure out how to build its own fleet of gigafactories, stat. Or maybe it should change the game? For all Europe’s high hopes, some local battery rebels like Northvolt are facing tough odds. First, they were on fire—gunning to take on the world. Now? Well, let’s just say they’ve had to shed some excess cargo and retreat to their core mission to stay afloat. Asia’s had decades to build up their Death Stars, and Europe’s trying to do it all in lightspeed. The pressure is real, and the challenges are daunting.  Try not. Do or do not. There is no try.  No Jedi Knight has ever succeeded without a mentor, right? Europe could do worse than to take a page from Asia’s playbook. By drawing on Asia’s skilled workforce and battle-tested production techniques, the EU can leapfrog some of the growing pains. And hey, a few Yodas in the workforce could help guide the next gen of EU battery heroes. The Rebel Alliance’s Secret Weapon Let’s be real: the EU can’t just throw its weight around like a galactic superpower. That time is long gone. Its power is in agility, not sheer size. So here’s the play: instead of building mega-gigafactories, Europe should go for a fleet of smaller, nimble craft. Picture this: a dozen electrode manufacturing centers scattered across Europe, supporting many small, quick-to-assemble cell manufacturers. It’s not quite the Rebel Alliance, but it’s close. Electrodes are the building blocks of batteries, and they’re 60-80% of the CAPEX. By decentralizing electrode production, Europe could focus on developing raw materials and recycling operations. These nimble cell factories could then be located closer to customers, reducing transport times and staying on top of demand with the speed of light.  The Millenium Falcon’s Crew  The EU has a ragtag group of characters who can band together for the cause. From heavy industry to small bus and car manufacturers, they’re ready to rally for the electrification of transport. The big automakers? Maybe they’re not quite the heroes we’re looking for. They’re scaling back EV plans and aren’t ready to tolerate the initial costs of a flexible manufacturing system. But the EU’s small manufacturers might just prove themselves a scrappy, resourceful force in this battle. To make this mission a success, the EU needs a little help from the higher-ups. A regulatory boost here, a stimulus package there—these could give Europe’s battery rebels the support they need to take on the giants. Local equipment manufacturing could get a jumpstart with a little extra funding. Or, if all else fails, borrow some of Asia’s gear for the first few years.  Startups in alternative battery materials could also benefit from a distributed setup, getting new cathodes, anodes, and electrolytes to market faster. With the help of AI and digital twins, even a scrappy cell factory could cut down the time needed to identify and fix production errors. And with enough support, the EU could become a galaxy-wide leader in battery innovation.  The New Beginning: An Agile Force Awakens Is this the end of the story? Hardly. Europe might not have the raw power of Asia’s battery empire, but with a distributed, flexible approach, it could pull off a win that would make even Yoda proud. The EU could become a leader in battery applications, bolstered by the same agility and innovation that fueled the Rebel Alliance.  No guarantees, of course. But if Europe plays its cards right, it could find its place in the battery universe. What would Yoda say? Probably something like this: "Raw power, not enough it is. Agile, you must be. Strong the giants may be, but swift and nimble wins the day." May the Force be with you!

What makes batteries so tough to crack? Northvolt’s recent struggles have been blamed on everything from mismanagement to chemistry issues. But the reality is, you won’t find the people who actually know—those running the manufacturing lines—posting on LinkedIn. They’re too busy, you know, actually trying to get some shit done. So, instead, we get second-hand commentary from those who’ve never set foot inside a battery plant. I can’t say exactly what went sideways at Northvolt, and I won’t speculate. But I do know what happened to Liotech, the first Russian gigafactory—and it’s a lesson worth revisiting. Back in 2010, Liotech set up a 1 GWh factory in Novosibirsk. They got their equipment and tech from a Chinese supplier, which sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it? But here’s where it unraveled: every single cell produced had a mind of its own. The culprit? They couldn’t make a proper electrode. And their Chinese supplier couldn’t help, they were just there to provide the equipment, after all. The electrode process is incredibly complex. It’s foil made of aluminum (for the cathode) or copper (for the anode), coated with a slurry mix of your choice - lithium, manganese, cobalt, phosphate, or a bunch of other materials. The slurry gets rolled, pressed, and dried, and the quality of this process is what makes or breaks your electrode—and ultimately, your entire battery. It’s incredibly easy to get this wrong. And just as hard to get it right. It requires skills honed over years of experience, and when Liotech opened, they simply didn’t have the know-how. Now only Chinese, Korean, and Japanese manufacturers have the years of experience needed. Today EU and US battery makers are on the same path. If they don’t quickly develop these skills, they might find themselves heading down the same road as Liotech. How do you think they can avoid it? Drop your thoughts in the comments. Let’s talk batteries! 🔋👇 Photo credits: JR Energy Solution ( www.jrenergysolution.com ). #BatteryManufacturing #Cleantech #Innovation #ScaleUp #LiIon #Northvolt

Some VC investments are head-scratchers, right? I thought so too. So, I took a deep dive into the world of climate VC investing to understand their decision-making process. And guess what? It’s wildly different from the PE and infrastructure world I know. Here’s what I learned: 1️⃣ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗟𝗮𝘄 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀: VCs know that less than 5% of their investments will bring in most of their returns. And they’re talking outsized returns—10x as mediocre, 100x as the holy grail. They’re fine with most bets flopping because the whole game is about one or two big wins. In this world, they spread bets equally across many startups. Startups can fail for any number of reasons, so they cast a wide net. 2️⃣ 𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘀: If the tech is already in the headlines, then VCs have probably moved on. They’re hunting for the not-yet-obvious, those niche technologies that have potential but are still under the radar with low valuations. They want to get in early, before everyone else even notices. 3️⃣ 𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗚𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆: For Angels, the team accounts for 80% of their decision, and even VCs weigh it heavily at around 40-50%. In the early days, there’s not much data to go on, so they lean on the team’s track record and drive. Tech DD plays second fiddle here because it’s still too early to know if the tech can scale. 4️⃣ 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲-𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸𝘀: True climate investors have some extra criteria. They’re looking for tech with huge CO2 mitigation potential—think the Bill Gates rule of at least 1% emissions reduction, or one billion tons of CO2. Plus, they want startups with a Tech Readiness Level (TRL) between 5 and 7. If your TRL is lower, it’s angel territory; higher, and it’s for the strategics and infrastructure funds. When I ran my own heat pump startup through this lens, I found we only matched 2 out of the 4 criteria. Residential heat pumps aren’t exactly new, and they won’t deliver 100x returns. Plus, with a TRL of 9, we’re outside the VC’s preferred range. 𝗦𝗼, 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗮 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗽 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀, 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀. If you’re already past it, drop me a note, and we’ll find a way to get you into the big leagues. Follow me for more cleantech insights, and let’s navigate this landscape together! 💼🌍 Big thanks to Yoann Berno for clearing my head about Angel/VC investing in his super-intensive and fun course on Climate Tech investments! #Cleantech #ClimateTech #VentureCapital #StartupLife #Innovation #AngelInvestors #Fundraising #ScaleUp