22 minutes on YouTube could have saved investors $100M. That’s the harsh lesson from the rise and fall of Universal Hydrogen. Every hardware startup failure is a lesson too valuable to ignore. So, what can we learn from Universal Hydrogen’s downfall? Let’s break it down. What Was Universal Hydrogen? Universal Hydrogen (UH) set out to revolutionize aviation with capsule modules designed to safely store liquid hydrogen and act as modular fuel tanks for aircraft. The vision was bold: retrofit propeller aircraft with these hydrogen tanks and fuel cells. The startup had a stellar founder—Paul Eremenko, a former CTO of Airbus—and managed to raise around $90-100M. It had its first test flight, and then, last month, UH went bankrupt. I don’t know the inside story of UH, but from where I’m sitting, the reasons for their failure are clear from. Here’s where the red flags were, using my system for evaluating startup scalability. 🚩 Red Flags All Over 1. The Climate Relevance Test Yes, aviation is responsible for almost 2% of global emissions, so it passes the Bill Gates test - removing 1% of CO2 by 2050. UH however seemed to be targeting only propeller aircraft. These are responsible for 10-15% of all commercial air traffic. So even if UH succeeded, it would have mitigated an irrelevant amount of CO2. Should’ve been a non-starter immediately. 2. Does It Work? Universal Hydrogen promised a quick scale-up, but several critical product and technology issues should have raised eyebrows:    - Volumetric Density: Liquid hydrogen’s volumetric density is four times smaller than jet fuel. This means you need four times as much hydrogen to cover the same distance, resulting in 15-40% less space on the plane for passengers or cargo.    - Energy Efficiency: Hydrogen’s energy efficiency is abysmal—about 22-23% from production to engine for a propeller aircraft, compared to 56% for batteries.    - Infrastructure Readiness: Green hydrogen production is virtually non-existent today. Almost all of the 100 million tons of hydrogen produced annually is gray. Building the necessary infrastructure—from wind turbines to electrolyzer and liquefaction plants—would be a massive and costly undertaking. 3. The Business Case Here’s where it really gets interesting. If the previous points didn’t scare off investors, this one should have:    - Retrofit Costs vs. Benefits: Retrofitting propeller planes with hydrogen tanks and fuel cells means airlines would have to pay for the retrofit, lose 15-40% of passenger capacity, and somehow be happy about it? With airlines operating on thin EBITDA margins of 10-15%, this is a hard sell. Low-cost carriers, who might have slightly higher margins, are unlikely to be interested in retrofits.    - Market Potential: When was the last time you flew on a propeller plane? These account for only 10-15% of all commercial flights, making for a very small Total Addressable Market (TAM). Lessons Learned So, what can we learn from Universal Hydrogen’s failure? 1. Technical Characteristics Matter: Always do a thorough energy efficiency and size/weight calculation. Compare your product to existing solutions. If it’s bigger, heavier, or less efficient, you need a compelling reason why customers would choose it—and the fact that your product is “sustainable” isn’t enough.    2. Check Infrastructure Availability: Is the necessary infrastructure already in place? If not, when will it realistically be built? If someone is already pouring concrete, risks are lower. If not, think twice. 3. Understand the Customer’s Perspective: Why will they buy your product? Don’t rely on “green” or “sustainability” as your main selling points. Check if your customers have the cash, or if there are laws and regulations forcing their hand. If penalties for non-compliance aren’t severe, they won’t care. 4. Watch YouTube: Sometimes, the simplest answer is just a Google search away. Someone out there might have already posted a video or article explaining why your idea is flawed. Like this video posted around the time UH was launched—it could have saved investors $100M if they’d watched it. Here is this video, which I’ve used for most of the above figures. It was published in 2022 and takes just 22 min to watch on 1.25x speed: https://h2sciencecoalition.com/blog/hydrogen-in-aviation-explainer-video/ #Startups #Failure #Innovation #Hydrogen #Investment #LessonsLearned #sustainability

Investors think that hard tech climate scaleups lack generalist and financial expertise. While Founders agree only with the latter. Why? Source: https://planet-a.notion.site/BUILDING-AND-SCALING-CLIMATE-HARDWARE-A-PLAYBOOK-71e1b097041c49f69e31d4f3cb2de155 📖I’m reading the Building and Scaling Climate Hardware Playbook, and this picture struck me for two reasons. First, are the polarizing views of founders and investors. The gap is simply astonishing. Second, is the confidence of founders, that they have all the generalist skills needed.  ❓What is a generalist anyway? I’d say he is a consigliere  in Mafia terms. What the hell does a consigliere do in a hard tech startup? Here is my take (in no particular order): 👥Team organization. Who’s doing what and what protocols the team follows in different circumstances.  💰Investor relations. A generalist can answer the main question of the business - where is the money? He keeps relationships with current and future investors smooth, being their one-stop shop for any questions they might have. Note that pure finance guy/gal are not the best for it, as they often need more business acumen.  🎙️Public Face. Being a generalist helps when speaking to the public, journalists, regulators, etc.  🧭Strategy. For the generalist, it is easy to keep track if the company is on the right track. He can be an early warning system of the need to pivot or to get back to doing the right thing.  🧞‍♂️Filling in roles. A startup is by definition understaffed. A generalist often has enough experience or training to temporarily fill the roles of CFO, CCO, or industry expert. Given that investors see more than one startup in their lifetimes, and given my experience as a generalist, I side with investors. What’s your take? #staff #startups #scaleup #recruitment #management #greentech #VC #investment #learning #strategy #experience #cleantech

Strategic investors can be a double-edged sword for greentech scaleups. Here’s what to look out for. ⌛️Never before there was such a meaningless waste of time. I’ve spent three days in a small Siberian town, having endless meetings with a factory, belonging to my host corporation. The purpose - integrate it in the supply chain of my in-house battery startup. Easier to force a square peg into a round hole.  🏭Strategic investors prioritize squeezing every bit out of their current operations, so they often look for technologies that align with their current products. They aim to enhance or protect their existing margins using your innovation. And, above all, to find new markets for their existing products. You got it right - you are the new, high-margin market!   🌍 Capturing New Markets Sometimes, strategic investors are on the hunt for completely new markets. This is a more favorable scenario for founders. In these cases, they are more likely to value your insights and offer substantial support. They can connect you with their extensive network of clients and suppliers, which can be immensely beneficial.  ⚠ Potential Challenges Navigating Corporate Ecosystem: You might need to work with their preferred suppliers, which could divert focus from your optimal path 2. Sidelining Innovation: There’s always a risk that strategic investors might stifle your innovation to protect their existing products. Sometimes its the sole reason for investing in your company.  ✅ Key Takeaways for Founders 1. Highlight Strategic Fit: Emphasize how your technology aligns with their existing portfolio and can enhance their margins. 2. Show Market Potential: Demonstrate how your product can help them capture new markets, without endangering their existing products, ensuring they see the value in supporting your growth. 3. Be Prepared for Integration: Understand that you may need to engage with their ecosystem, so be ready to adapt. Strategic investors can be powerful allies if you navigate their complexities wisely. Ensure your pitch aligns with their goals and be prepared to spend a lot of time with their fauna 🦑. #Greentech #Scaleups #StrategicInvestors #Innovation #BusinessGrowth #Startups

How much time do you need to rest? Two weeks? A day? A blink of an eye? As founders, we often find ourselves caught in the relentless grind of building our startups. But it’s crucial to remember that quality downtime is not just a luxury—it’s a necessity. In Josh Waitzkin's book, “The Art of Learning,” he shares a fascinating story from his experience in winning international tai chi push-hands competitions. Waitzkin trained himself to relax and recuperate during short breaks between rounds, and even during the moments his opponent blinked. While startup founders may not need to master the art of resting in the blink of an eye, this example underscores the importance of controlling your rest. For founders, the ability to switch off and rejuvenate can be a game-changer. It’s about finding those pockets of downtime and making the most of them. Whether it’s a quick power nap, a brief walk, or a few minutes of deep breathing, these moments of rest can help reset your mind and boost your productivity. As holidays season hits full swing, I wish everyone a rejuvenating holiday! Take the time to relax, recharge, and come back stronger. Master the art of downtime! #Startups #Downtime #Rest #Productivity #MentalHealth #FounderLife #Sunday

Yesterday’s post sparked a comment about the immense difficulty of building a new EV manufacturer. I couldn’t agree more. Many new EV manufacturers have already failed, and many more will follow. Let's dig into this a bit more. I stumbled upon a short video by Paul Kirby , where he walks through an abandoned Arrival factory. Just a couple of years ago, Arrival was touted as the next big thing in EV truck and bus manufacturing. They envisioned revolutionizing the industry with streamlined manufacturing and innovative design. Their strategy? Ditch the massive factories in favor of numerous micro-factories, built close to where the demand was. This approach aimed to bring production closer to customers, promising efficiency and flexibility. But now, Arrival is a cautionary tale. I’m curious about what led to their downfall. If you know the inside story, I’d love to hear it. Your insights would be invaluable. Moreover, I’m keen to create a podcast episode about Arrival, featuring someone from their founding or management team. I believe their story holds crucial lessons for all hard tech startups. Picture credits: Paul Kirby Watch the video here #startups #failure #businesscase #learning #EV #manufacturing #innovation #scaleup #howto

I saw this table today from ICCSINO . There is a discussion below the original post, including some clarifications and corrections to the table. But no amount of polishing can hide the fact, that more than 2/3 of EU planned battery capacity is at risk. Despite being a leader in EV adoption, the EU is failing to join the EV revolution. Here is why. EU car makers can’t switch to EV’s. And they won’t be able to.   EU carmakers are trapped in the classic Innovator's Dilemma. Their existing product (ICE) sells well and pays high premiums. The new product (EV) is niche, requires reorganizing 80% of the supply chain, and its margins are lower. How on earth do you convince any investment committee to go with EV? You don’t. Cheaper to lobby lifting ban on ICE sales.  The EU battery industry is short on manufacturing skills While the EU has excellent R&D capabilities, it lacks high-volume manufacturing skills in batteries. Where would they get them, if all the manufacturing is done in China and Korea? But without big factories in the EU now, there will be nowhere to train your staff. When I was leading the acquisition of EnerTech Inc. by Rosatom, my main goal was getting access to 20+ years of experience in Korean manufacturing. Environmental regulations delay building factories While I’m generally ok with environmental regulations, one major concern I hear from the EU battery startups and producers are the long time it takes to get all of your approvals in order. To give you an example, a 500 MWh electrode-only plant was planned, approved, and executed in just over a year in Korea. The same plant in the EU would take at least 2 years just to get all necessary approvals.  Whining about the EU bureaucracy and automotive OEM’s idiocy aside, what startups and businesses could do?  Forget about established car makers. Build your own, new EV brand. Build it from scratch, and source batteries for now from China. There is no shortage of automotive design and manufacturing skills in the EU. This will take at least 5 years from concept to homologated and ready-to-roll vehicle. A smart OEM will set up a new, independent Stick with cell assembly for now. Outsource electrode manufacturing to Asia. Electrode production is the most polluting and energy-consuming part of the cell manufacturing process. You’ll get your gigafactories up and running faster and will have more time to get experience in cell manufacturing during the next four to five years. After that, you can add electrode manufacturing. To learn more about the Innovator’s Dilemma, check out my review of Clayton Christensen seminal book “The Innovator’s Dilemma” in my blog https://www.askerov.pro/post/facing-the-innovator-s-dilemma

I’ve signed the term sheet for 4 GWh of lithium-ion cell offtake and sighed. I fired my CCO about half a year earlier and didn’t yet get a replacement. So I had to do all the work of negotiating and securing my biggest sales deal. I now had some time to sort out the long conflict between my engineering and financial planning teams and fly to those important negotiations with a regional governor about the perspective site for our factory. I needed support from my team, but I was only getting a trickle. There was no one else to blame but myself.  Succeeding in $1B+ business can only be done with a solid team. As a founder/CEO, I was ultimately responsible for picking the right people and making sure they worked as a team. In a couple of other projects, where I had success in hiring, my time was divided between three things. First, developing, monitoring, and adjusting strategy. Second, keeping my superiors informed and happy. Third, managing the team, so that they all get the resources and information they need, they are motivated and focused.  The were only two cases when I needed to delve into details. First, at one-on-one meetings, where we would go over specific projects, contracts, or situations. Second, preparing for board meetings or some specific committee meetings. Other times the team worked like a clock, dealing with anything thrown in their way. But this time it was different, and here is why.  Industry and work type mismatch I was hiring people to build the first Russian lithium-ion cell gigafactory. Anything that has been done for the first time, automatically implies that no one has done it before. Well, at least in Russia there were no people who built a gigafactory before or had secured any major lithium-ion cell deal. So I had to choose people from other industries. For my CCO I was looking into electrical equipment business development and sales. Naturally, I started talking with people whose backgrounds were in GE, Siemens, Schneider Electric, etc. I’ve ended up hiring a guy from GE, with a solid track of electrical equipment sales. That was a mistake.  Sales of big electrical equipment, like gas-fired turbines, or 500 KW transformers look good on the CV and are probably good if you are hiring a new sales manager from GE for your Siemens office. What I did not consider at that moment, was that most of my clients are most likely to come from the automotive business, and only a few would be from the energy business.  I got a CCO capable of selling big and expensive pieces of equipment to big energy companies, while I needed someone who knew all the automotive procurement officers and design engineers, capable of selling thousands of the same units. This was an industry/work type/product mismatch, that ultimately failed me.  Not following through with references The last part of my hiring process was to call 5 people, who previously worked with the candidate and ask them for references. This was the most tedious part for me, and I was usually satisfied with two to three calls. That proved insufficient. For both of my key hires - my CCO and CE (Chief Engineer), getting at least five references would have made a huge difference. Here is why. The reason why I hired that particular CE, was that he built three electrical assembly factories in his career. What I didn’t realize then, is that building a huge electro-chemical manufacturing plant is different, and the responsibility of the CE is much higher, so he has to be good at taking ownership of the project and handling responsibility.   I could’ve found out the true relation to responsibility by the candidate if I had interviewed several people who worked with him. I skipped that part and hired the guy. But when things got tough, he started shifting responsibility to other team members, blaming anyone but himself for any real or imaginary problems. The tougher it got, the fiercer became the resistance to take any responsibility.  When deciding to hire a CCO I called three people who worked with him before. Speaking to one of them, I asked what was it like to work with this person, and got a cryptic reply that I should try myself and see. This should’ve been a red flag for me, but two other references came up positive, so I’ve ignored it. To my peril, as it turned out.  Rushing it I was in a hurry. I had tons of reports to make and do some real work alongside, while I had zero employees. I wanted to get people hired ASAP. I knew that they would need at least 2-3 months of learning about the business, understanding the company’s culture, and getting to know their colleagues. It would be six months from now, that I would have a semblance of a working team.  When I looked at my CE list of candidates, I realized that at that moment only one was available. For the CCO there were three available candidates, but only one was scoring on the most criteria. I had doubts. There was a nagging thought in my head that I needed to start again, find more candidates, and make sure that I had a choice of at least three top candidates. But I rushed and made an offer to the ones available.  Have I taken two to three additional months to search and interview candidates, I would have likely found at least one or two more for each position. This would allow me to compare the candidates who are closely matched and would allow me to evaluate all candidates deeper. A side bonus from taking more time to search and interview would be having a list of top-notch candidates, that I could pull in quickly, should my first pick be the wrong one.  Working on the mistakes I didn’t get a chance for another hiring round. I’ve quit the project and moved out of the country. But I kept coming back to this episode and thinking what could be done differently. In the meantime, I’ve also interviewed several startups and scaleups on their practices of hiring key people. Here is what I’ve synthesized: Take time to think about the type of product and the type of customer you are going to serve. Then find a person, who sold similar products to the customers you are going to approach.  Take time to call at least five people who worked with your candidate before. Ask them hard questions about the candidate, like how he works with subordinates, how he handles responsibility, does he takes ownership of failures, does he gossips about other colleagues, and so on.  Take time to find more candidates.  Don’t rush. If you rush your hiring process you are 99% likely to repeat it later, and that will be the time when your project is in full swing, when changing the team is a very tough option.  I’ve found this out the hard way. It pays to invest time and effort in finding and interviewing candidates, sorting and ranking them, and getting references from their former bosses, co-workers, and subordinates. So take your time hiring your team. They’ll make or break your project. Share your experience of hiring people in the comments, I’d love to know!

Last week, I tuned into an insightful interview with Yair Reems, Partner at Extantia Capital, conducted by Yoann Berno of Climate Insiders. Yair and his team focus on funding climate tech scale-ups, and their perspective is invaluable for founders seeking investment. Here are my three main takeaways from the podcast that you should consider while preparing your pitch: 1. Know Your Competition and Differentiate: When investors like Extantia receive your pitch deck, the first thing they do, is dive deep into researching the current state of technology and your competitors. It’s crucial to provide a clear justification for why your product is superior and do it from the start. 2. Is Your Product a “Drop-In” Solution?: Investors want to know if your product can be seamlessly integrated into existing manufacturing processes and supply chains, or if it requires a complete redesign. A drop-in solution is far more attractive because it means less disruption and faster adoption. 3. Do You Have an Off-Take Agreement?: Most greentech/cleantech products target B2B markets, meaning your clients are likely large corporations that could become regular buyers. An off-take agreement shows customer trust and makes your financial projections more predictable. Often, the existence of an off-take is a deal-breaker. No off-take, no money. Listen to the full episode for more insights: https://youtu.be/R-hk5qFrRXI?si=4jO3Zlbd6fjDO1y2

Securing that first sale can be a daunting challenge, especially if your customer isn’t also your investor, and you lack a government contract or a lucrative offtake agreement. So, how do you get your foot in the door? Here’s a strategy that’s worked for me: hire a national from a country that’s at the forefront of your technology field. In batteries, that’s China or Korea. In wind energy, it used to be Germany, Denmark, or the Netherlands, but now it’s China. Why does this work? Key Advantages 1. Existing Network: These professionals come with a built-in network of contacts that can open doors and facilitate introductions. 2. Trust of Compatriots: There’s an inherent trust factor when dealing with someone from the same country. This trust can significantly accelerate your sales process. 3. Industry Knowledge: Nationals from leading countries in your field bring deep industry insights and understanding, which can be invaluable for positioning and selling your product. While this strategy may not guarantee long-term sales growth, it can help you secure those critical first sales quickly. By leveraging existing networks, trust, and industry knowledge, you can jumpstart your sales process and set your scale-up on the path to success. Keep pushing forward and exploring new strategies to drive your startup’s growth!

One rainy Amsterdam morning This was not going to be good. I was quietly contemplating how much money we could lose on this deal. I took a sip of strong coffee, to shake off my jet lag, looked at the CEO of LM, the number 1 manufacturer of wind turbine blades in the world, and got back to negotiating my first cross-border multimillion-dollar deal. It is hard to get suppliers to work with your startup. You can’t give them a guarantee that you will eventually pay because you don’t really know if your product is going to work as advertised and you don’t know exactly how and when your customer will pay you. Those who agree to supply you will demand 100% upfront payment. And then, you will not be their number 1 priority customer. Meanwhile in Moscow How to make sure, that suppliers support your scaleup? Everything seems to be going against you. Well, as in all cases when it is you against the world, you first prioritize, then execute. The work of getting your suppliers starts with finding not the right supplier, but with finding the right customer. When you can show your suppliers that you have a customer, who is ready to buy from you in the long term, wonderful things start to happen. We were building the wind industry in Russia from scratch at the time. There was no supplier base. But we had secured 660 MW of capacity in wind auctions. In effect, we were the customer. This made searching for suppliers relatively easy. We could offer each supplier a 5 years perspective. As a result, a lot of them invested money in buying very sophisticated machinery, like a 15-meter long and 8-meter high metal press, to make very specific tower sections for our wind turbines. Back to Amsterdam… One example was absolutely off the charts. The design of our wind turbine assumed only one specific type of blade, produced exclusively by the Dutch company LM, which was at that time still independent from GE (it was bought right as we were negotiating a deal). We couldn’t change the supplier. Doing so would mean another 1,5 years of design and testing. We didn’t have that time. It is hard to think of a worse negotiating position. So we were sitting at the Schipol business district of Amsterdam, in the LM office, and negotiating 400-something 50m blades. LM had only one factory open, where they were making them, and they were thinking of closing it. We got a deal, that the blades will be delivered, with a progressive discount. The first blade would have a small discount, but with each successive batch the discount will grow, and the last blade will come in at a double-digit discount, lowering our blade costs several times. LM too had an interest in keeping their factory going for a few more years. Their capital costs have been paid off long ago, so all they had to do was cover the operational costs and earn some profit. This allowed us to negotiate such a nice progressive discount. And off to Korea But what if you don’t have a nice, long, juicy offtake? Well, don’t despair just yet. A friend of mine, Duke Oh from Korea, recently launched a startup in manufacturing lithium-ion electrodes. He had zero offtakes, and his team is working hard on getting sales (full disclosure - I’m helping Duke on an agency basis with sales). Electrode manufacturing is highly complex and knowledge-intensive. You need excellent machinery and highly-trained personnel. What Duke did, was that he got the main equipment supplier as an investor. This created confidence along the whole supply chain. In turn, this enabled Duke and his team to focus on perfecting the manufacturing process and on business development. How to build trust You can say that your business is as good as your supply chain. As a pre-seed or A-series startup, you don’t need to worry much about it. As you start to scale, the supply chain can make or break your business. As I hope I’ve shown in this article, building a supply chain is not about procurement, or getting the lowest bidder. It is first and foremost about building trust with your suppliers. It is all nice and coachy to say “build trust”, but how exactly? Let me summarize the takeaways from my own experience and from those I trust. First, get a solid sales pipeline, ideally an offtake. This will show suppliers that customers trust you and that now they have a chance to help you execute this sale. This is what we’ve done in our wind business in Russia. We started by going to the auction and securing the 660 MW pipeline. Second, get investors on your side. Having just received a check from investors works wonders. But don’t get too excited, as if this is your only trump, then the supplier will still push for a 100% prepayment. And discounts will be rarely seen. When I was launching the wind business, after securing the pipeline we got all the necessary funding from the banks. Third, get a supplier to be your investor. Make them have skin in the game. This is what Duke has done, without having any significant sales contracts signed. Now, you’ll have to tread carefully here, as later you might want to switch suppliers. Building a supply chain is more than just a series of transactions. It’s about forging relationships and building trust. From my globe-trotting examples, the lesson is clear: your suppliers are your partners. You need to show them that you have solid customers and secured investment, and, when necessary, get them invested in your success. This isn’t about getting the lowest bid; it’s about creating a network of trust and reliability that can withstand the pressures of scaling up. So, whether you’re a startup or a scaleup, remember that your supply chain can make or break you. Build it wisely, and it will be your greatest asset.

Yesterday, I heard a fascinating story about the state of the heat pump market from a developer in Germany. They installed a heat pump in a multi-flat building, only to hand over ownership and operations to the housing management company. The management company received a subsidy from the state for installing the heat pump. But when the heat pump broke down, instead of calling for repairs, they simply switched on the old gas boiler. In another instance, a management company turned off the heat pump and reverted to using gas because the heat pump was "noisy." What Does This Tell a Startup Founder? For me, as an economist, this is a textbook illustration of the principal-agent problem. But here, I’m not writing about economics; I’m writing about growing startups. As a founder, I love these stories. They highlight problems, and solving problems is what startups are all about. Key Problems 1. Quality and Reliability: Heat pumps are expensive pieces of equipment. A 10 kWh heat pump, capable of heating and cooling a 250m² home, can cost anywhere from €4000 to €7000. When you spend this kind of money, you expect a product that won’t break down. Ensuring high quality and reliability is crucial. 2. Noise Levels: This equipment should operate as smoothly and quietly as a top-notch Mercedes Benz, allowing even a newborn baby to sleep nearby. Addressing noise issues is essential for customer satisfaction. 3. Economic Viability: The fact that heat pumps require subsidies to gain acceptance indicates a need for cost reduction or financial innovation. Finding ways to make heat pumps more economically viable without subsidies is a significant opportunity. Keep Looking These stories from the heat pump market underscore the importance of tackling real-world problems. As a startup founder, always look for these pain points and turn them into opportunities for innovation and improvement. Embrace the challenges, and keep solving problems to drive your startup’s growth and success. Keep looking for problems to solve! #energytransition #manufacturing #heatpumps #heating #subsidies #startups #scaleups #greentech #climatetech #cleantech

In 2016 I convinced Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation, to invest $1B in wind energy and wind turbine manufacturing. Why did they agree? Let's break it down: 1. Significant Margins from Energy Generation:  The margins were substantial enough to cover all possible losses and penalties, even in a worst-case scenario. 2. Existing Industrial Base in Rosatom:  The company had some confidence in its ability to handle wind turbine manufacturing, as it was currently manufacturing nuclear reactor cores. While we didn’t end up relying on this expertise at all, it provided a necessary connection to utilizing existing assets. 3. Corporate Target for Diversifying Income:  Rosatom had a strategic goal to increase revenue from non-nuclear businesses. Wind energy fit this objective perfectly. Key Takeaways Avoiding Risks:  Corporations want to invest in ventures that are highly profitable, matching or exceeding the profit margins of their current products. Leveraging Existing Assets:  It's all about how to squeeze extra dollars from existing assets. Demonstrating how the project ties into the corporation’s operations is crucial, but be cautious. This connection can hinder or kill the project if followed too rigidly. Show the connection, but leave yourself a way out. Hitting Where It Hurts:  The project goals must align with the corporation’s overarching strategic aims. This alignment increases the likelihood of approval from top executives, whether it’s the CEO or the chairman of the board. Conclusion Proving a business case to a huge corporation like Rosatom isn’t just about numbers or technology. It’s about strategy, risk management, and aligning with broader corporate goals. When pitching your project, make sure to highlight significant margins, leverage existing assets, and align with the company’s strategic objectives. This approach is key to securing corporate investment. #climatetech #cleantech #scaleups #startups #corporation #investment #investors #manufacturing #energytransition