The global shipping industry is responsible for about 3% of global GHG emissions and is considered a “hard-to-abate” sector. This means that electrification won’t work, and alternative solutions, such as biofuels or hydrogen are needed to achieve the emissions reduction targets of 40% by 2030 (with a baseline of 2008) and net zero by 2050. The problem with these solutions is that they are too expensive at present. I didn’t think much about maritime emissions until I stumbled upon an article in the Economist magazine “A new age of sail begins”. The article argued that old and new wind-assisted propulsion systems (WASP) could substantially cut shipping emissions. The technology was first demonstrated in 1926, but was quickly made redundant by falling oil prices. Today, the technology is experiencing a revival, as ship owners look for ways to cut emissions without breaking the bank. My search in Pitchbook INC came up with a spike in investment deals last year, reaching $57 mln - a clear sign of emerging interest from investors. There are six main WASP technologies: rotors, kites, rigid sails, soft wing sails, turbines, and suction wings. Most require some free deck space for installation, and all can be retrofitted on existing vessels. Container ships are the most difficult retrofit, as they require space for cranes to work on loading and unloading. Sails cannot fully replace engines but may cut fuel costs by around 20%. You still need to run your engines. Possibly, these could be made electric, with batteries for limited range and high-efficiency solar modules (like HJT modules) to top them up. It is still too early to tell whether a new age of sail is upon us. Kites and all sorts of rotating turbines have been around in the wind energy industry for a long time, without delivering any value. But I would definitely recommend watching startups in WASP space closely. A simpler solution is always better than a complicated one (like hydrogen). #wind #shipping #hydrogen #biofuels #innovation #startups #investing #windenergy #pv For a more technical introduction, check out this blog: https://blog.3ds.com/industries/marine-offshore/the-return-of-wind-assisted-propulsion-at-sea/ The Economist article is here (paywalled):   https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2024/05/21/a-new-age-of-sail-begins

A strategic investor can kill a greentech startup. Here is why and how. We all love big, strategic investors as they can bring not only capital needed to scale. More importantly, they can bring off-takes and market expertise, which will give a solid signal to other investors. What is less well known, is that a strategic investor can kill your startup faster, than it can scale it. A couple of times I was on a strategic investor’s end of negotiations with startups, and a few of those times I told startups that they could get our support, but they would be better off without it. Why? Primarily, because when strategic investors invest, they tend to view your startup as their property. So they feel entitled to do whatever they please. In their thinking, they are your chance of a lifetime, so you should be happy as it is. This will be sugar-coated, but bitter. The first thing they’ll try to do is to slot their director into your board. It doesn’t really matter who that will be, as this unfortunate fellow will have to: a) relay all of his interactions with you to the higher-ups; b) get approval from 5-12 corporate executives for EVERY decision he or she makes as a board member. This will hugely complicate and delay your decision-making. Second, they’ll try to make sure that competitors cannot get you, your product, or your startup. The avenues of attack will be numerous. A simple proposal to give your strategic partner the right of first refusal in any M&A deal will make your startup less attractive to any other investor. A more elaborate approach would be to get permission from the strategy investor for any new significant investor. This will block you from getting their competitors as investors. Non-compete clauses in various forms will be pushed upon your startup. In many cases when I was on the startup side, I had to fight off expanding my supplier’s list to include my strategic investor-related businesses. The strategic corporate’s subsidiaries will be on your phone and in your office in a blink of an eye, making offers “you can’t refuse”. When you actually do - they will make sure that you have a lot to talk about with your corporate representative. And I am not mentioning the amount of additional reporting you’ll have to do. You’ll quickly understand that you’ll need a separate department to handle of the extra paperwork. It is possible to protect your startup from most or all of these interferences. I had it done to me when I was on the buy side, and I had it done to my strategic investor when I was on the sell side.  If you are planning to take on a strategic investor, or are in negotiations with one, reach out to me and I will help you to prepare your position, lead you through negotiations, and protect your interests. #startups #investors #investing #negotiations #greentech #scalingup P.S. For a deep-dive into whether you should adopt a strategic investor, check out Yair Reem’s article here: https://medium.com/extantia-capital/the-essential-dos-and-don-ts-of-adding-strategic-investors-to-your-cap-table-66f4511b0246 For some practical reflections on working with investors, check my podcast with Duke Oh, CEO and Founder of JR Energy Solutions. Toward the end of our talk, Duke shares his experience of having strategic investors in his startup. https://www.askerov.pro/video#

Is Carbon Capture the superhero the planet ordered, or just another high-cost sidekick in the Greentech saga? With the potential to slash 1 billion tons of CO2 annually by 2030 and 6 billion by 2050, Carbon Capture could significantly cut down our greenhouse guffaws. Bill Gates would give it a thumbs up for surpassing his personal relevance hurdle of eliminating over 1% of global GHG emissions. However, selling this concept is tougher than peddling solar panels on a rainy day in London. The current market demand for captured CO2—mainly from the fertilizer sector and oil recovery—is a mere drop in the ocean, totaling only 230 Mt, while we need to siphon off at least 500 Mt annually to make a dent.   Carbon capture utilization and storage chain, IEA     Investor’s Corner Let’s peek into what the moneybags are doing. Over the past eight years, PitchBook Inc tells us that a modest crowd of 92 carbon capture ventures scooped up nearly $8 billion. Last year, big fish like CarbonEngineering and LanzaTech alone gulped down $3.2 billion of that pie. Meanwhile, the electric vehicle sector was partying with nearly $70 billion across 900 deals in just one year. Clearly, carbon capture is more of an acquired taste in the investor's menu, not quite the main course yet.     Direct Air Capture (DAC) Drama Direct Air Capture is like that expensive gym membership you buy at New Year’s—it promises a lot but depends on your commitment. Leading the charge are LanzaTech, Carbon Engineering, and Climeworks, sucking CO2 straight from the sky. But here’s the rub: making money off DAC is like squeezing water from a stone, with carbon prices needing to breach the $400 per ton mark. And energy? DAC could hog up to 4% of global energy just to hit its targets by 2030. The International Energy Agency fantasizes that by 2035, we’ll need over 40% of our clean energy dedicated to DAC—talk about an energy guzzler.     CCUS: The Grown-Up in the Room Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) is like the sensible sibling, catching emissions red-handed at the source. With 45 projects up and running and double that number in the pipeline, the IEA hopes for 1000 operational projects by 2030. Key players in this arena include waste management and "blue" hydrogen—though neither is cheap. Tacking CCUS onto a waste plant inflates costs by about 35%, and blue hydrogen costs twice as much as its grey counterpart. Only a hefty carbon price tag ($80 to $120 per ton of CO2, depending on whom you ask) could justify these expenses, making it a high-stakes game of policy poker.   Creative Carbon Uses On a lighter note, who knew carbon could be so chic? Startups like LanzaTech are turning this black sheep into synthetic fuels, chic fabrics, and even building blocks for carbonated concrete, giving traditional cement a run for its money. At prices, competitive with regular cement, carbonated concrete could cement itself in the market as early as 2027.   Conclusion So, is CCUS ready for the big leagues? It’s a mixed bag. Its cross-industry appeal spreads the bets and lowers the risks, but everything hangs by the thread of carbon pricing. The EU seems to be putting its money where its mouth is with the CBAM, while the US dangles carrots like the IRA. Yet, as any seasoned investor knows, betting solely on government consistency is riskier than investing in tech startups. My money’s on EU-centric projects or any venture aiming at European shores. The old continent might just be where carbon capture finds its footing—or at least, where the incentives align.

Every morning, I find comfort in the ritual of making coffee with a simple drip machine. As the hot water percolated through the coffee grounds, I was reading an article in The Economist about the bumpy road EV startups face in disrupting the established carmaking industry. It was hard not to draw parallels. Just like the coffee grounds are filtered to brew the perfect cup, EV startups must seep through the tough layers of investor scrutiny to emerge as a robust business. This morning's brew got me thinking about a graph used in a recent report to my customer on VC investments in the EV space.   Source: https://tracxn.com The Charge Begins   Sparking an Idea to Securing the Investment   Our funnel starts full of energy, with 10,638 startups ignited by the prospect of revolutionizing transportation. Yet, the road to securing initial funding proves to be the first big roadblock. Only a fifth – 21% manage to power through. That's 2,236 companies convincing the world that their vision is worth the investment, despite recent reports of falling valuations and the tough truth that building cars isn't as easy as it might seem.   Accelerating to Series A+   At the Series A+ stage, we see a significant drop-off. Only 30% of funded companies reach this checkpoint after about 2.3 years on average. This phase is crucial—it's where startups begin to prove they're not just another prototype, but a viable player in the challenging EV market.   Turning onto the Investment Highway   Series A+ to B+ - Gaining Momentum   Advancing to Series B+ is where dreams either pick up speed or come to a halt. With a 52% transition rate, the 357 companies reaching this stage are those who've managed to sustain their drive in an increasingly competitive space, one where the playing field is becoming tougher than expected.   Series B+ to C+ - The Valley of Death   The pass from Series B+ to C+ is no less demanding, with only half of the companies enduring the journey. These 187 companies have navigated around 3.9 years of development, showing not only resilience but also defiance against the odds, especially as valuations dip and the industry's giants fight back.   Series C+ to D+ - The Final Stretch   By Series D+, we're looking at the trailblazers of the EV world. A mere 98 companies have reached this summit after an average of 4.5 years since their initial funding. These are the frontrunners, pushing forward despite a market that's starting to question the stability and future of EV startups.   Looking in the rear-view mirror   The EV startup funnel paints a picture that's both inspiring and cautionary. The journey from an idea to a tangible, profitable product is fraught with more potholes than many anticipate. Reaching the D+ stage does not mean reaching the finishing line. The industry is realizing that to compete with the heavyweight carmakers, startups need more than just innovative technology—they need strategic prowess and staying power.   While valuations may be cooling, the resolve of these startups should not. They are the pioneers in a sector that has all the potential to redefine mobility and sustainability. Looking at the funnel is just scratching the surface. Below it lies a web of technologies, that have much potential, but also carry high risks. If you are interested in EV startups, or you are yourself behind the driving wheel of such a company, reach out, and together we will ensure that the brightest ideas don't just simmer away but come to a boil, ready to serve the world's needs just like a good cup of coffee in the morning.

How do you identify the next promising technology? One way to do it is to throw a lot of money (preferably other peoples’ money) at all the fancy tech that you can find and see which one grows. This is called venture capital. The other is to throw even more of other people’s money at a technology, recommended by the highest-paid consultant-de-jure , and then tough it out until you run out of (other’s) money. This is called strategic investment.   In the last couple of years, both ways have been tried in hydrogen technology with truly spectacular results. There are many technologies involved in hydrogen, but most new hydrogen projects are banking on water electrolysis – the technique of getting hydrogen by splitting hydrogen from water, using electricity. This is the way to make “green” hydrogen, by using electricity generated from wind and solar power plants and water. Now all this water stirring is causing a tsunami to rise.   The technology behind water electrolysis is, predictably, an electrolyzer. In 2024 the total capacity of electrolyzer manufacturing worldwide has reached 35GW, according to Bloomberg. In a race to meet the hallucinatory demand of 175 to 420 GW by 2030, investors have been throwing money at building capacity to match it. Now, the total installed capacity of electrolyzers in 2023 was just 2 GW.     With nothing to support this 35 GW of overhanging capacity, it is a matter of (short) time before this electrolyzer tsunami comes crashing down, washing away the hopes and money of investors. Will there be anything left of hydrogen technology after it passes?   The alternative approach to identifying a potentially disruptive technology was described at the end of last century by Clayton Christensen, in his book “The Innovator’s Dilemma”. Rather than throwing huge amounts of someone’s else money at technology, this approach advocates looking for specific traits of the emerging technology. For one, it should appeal to a niche, currently unserved market. It could be very expensive, relative to the existing solution, but it should solve the specific problem, faced by the niche in a way, that makes it worth paying the premium. Finally, the technology should be able to quickly evolve to deliver benefits outside the initial niche. For example, hydraulic excavators were initially used only for digging small trenches by farmers, and inkjet printers, with their high cost per printed page, first found their application among private specialists.   Recently I was analyzing the hydrogen technology scene and startups for a client, and the PEM (Proton Exchange Membrane) electrolyzer stood out, as it seems to have some of the properties, described by Mr. Christensen. PEM technology is expensive, about five or seven times that of a more widespread alkaline electrolyzer. Still, PEM is compact and has lower weight, making it convenient for a wide range of applications. The high electric current density allows for using less energy to produce hydrogen, and the hydrogen produced is of high purity. They are also good at handling intermittent energy from wind and solar, making them a good choice for “green” hydrogen applications. Finally, the PEM unit capacity is small, Most electrolyzers today are in the 0,5 to 10 MW capacity, which is the perfect range for the PEM electrolyzer. The recent tendency to go over 10 MW I attribute to the abundance of cheap other peoples’ money in the hydrogen sector, not to real demand.   Currently, the cost of "green" hydrogen produced using renewable energy is 2-3 times higher than the cost of "gray" hydrogen. I expect “green” hydrogen to replace existing “grey” hydrogen uses. There are very few new use cases for green hydrogen, but the existing industrial use is coming under pressure from governments around the world, for example in the form of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism in the EU.     With its maneuverability, modularity, and robustness, PEM electrolyzers may fill this opening niche. As PEM technology evolves, the price will gradually decrease in price and make green hydrogen more accessible. So after the electrolyzer overcapacity tsunami passes, PEM technology might emerge as a survivor. However, I do not think this will happen in the next decade. Few investors plan for such a long term.

Bill Gates wrote a book, and guess what? It's not about Windows or how to reboot your PC. It's about something slightly more pressing: avoiding a climate catastrophe. I dove into "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster" not expecting to find the secret cheat codes to save the planet, but I was pleasantly surprised. This isn't your typical doom-and-gloom climate change manifesto; it's more like a pragmatic guide to not wrecking the planet, with a side of optimism. So, let's skip the table of contents and jump straight to the juicy bits that Greentech startups and their investors might actually find useful.   The Central Thesis, Courtesy of Mr. Gates   Mr. Gates's book revolves around a fun fact: that the world pumps out over 50 billion tons of CO2 equivalent each year. The mission, should we choose to accept it, is to slash that number to zero. He points out that while we've got the tech (hello, renewables!), the uptake is slower than a dial-up connection in the '90s. Natural gas and nuclear took seventy and twenty-five years respectively to get their moments in the sun, but renewables need to become the no-brainer choice over fossil fuels, and much faster.   Takeaway One: The 1% Rule   Here's the deal: if your startup's tech can't knock out at least 1% of those annual emissions (we're talking a cool 500 million tons), Mr. Gates suggests it might be time to go back to the drawing board. It's a bit harsh, maybe, but in a world where resources are tighter than the security on an iPhone, we can't afford to bet on the small fries, like hydrogen cars.   Takeaway Two: The Green Premium Enigma   Next up, is the green premium. It's not the latest shade of Tesla, but the extra cash you fork over for choosing green over grimy. Once upon a time, opting for solar or wind energy meant paying more than if you stuck with good ol' coal. The goal? Make that premium as appealing as a free upgrade to first class. If your product's green premium isn't on a downward trend, and fast, it might be time for a strategy pow-wow.   Takeaway Three: The Dreaded Valley of Death   Lastly, Mr. Gates acknowledges the infamous "valley of death" for Greentech startups. It's not featuring in a new season of "Game of Thrones"; it's the grim reality where promising technologies go to die because they can't get from cool concepts to market success. Gates looks to governments and mega-corporations to throw down a lifeline, but let's be real: finding those willing to play hero is tougher than convincing a cat to take a bath.   The Irony of It All   Looking up from the pages of Mr. Gates’s book into the real world, I see the EU and the US as the knights in shining armor for Greentech startups, while the rest of the world seems to be scrolling past the distress signals. It feels a bit like being picked last for dodgeball – unless you're in the cool kids' club, you're on your own. The message here is clear – get in the cool kids’ clubs.   In Conclusion: A Wink and a Nod to Greentech Startups   For those of us in the trenches of Greentech innovation, Mr. Gates' book is a reminder that while the path is littered with challenges, the quest is noble, and potentially highly profitable. So, to all the startups and investors out there: keep hustling, keep innovating, and maybe, just maybe, we'll find a way to save the planet without having to live on Mars.   Stay tuned for more tales of triumph and tribulation as we navigate the Greentech landscape. Because if there's one thing more exciting than reading about climate solutions, it's creating them.

“Until the climate was actually killing them, people had a tendency to deny it could happen.” Absolutely adore science fiction! New and unusual worlds and classical plots, viewed through the prism of new technologies. But also science fiction often demonstrates the dangers of technological development and shows how a man could change the world around him. The world of “The Ministry for the Future” by Kim Stanley Robinson, is a world in which we might have to live soon. It is a world of extreme heat, droughts, torrential, city-sinking rains, and huge masses of climate refugees.  “The Ministry” is an eco-political thriller, showing what a fight against climate change might look like. When humanity decides to deal with something, it first creates a bureaucracy - in the book, it is the Ministry for the Future. As the story goes, the Ministry was created as part of the UN, with an aim to represent the interests of future generations today. This is how the Ministry’s staff finds itself almost the sole organization, ready to fight climate change for the whole world.  The Ministry develops, supports, and publicizes a lot of different initiatives. Carbon-negative agriculture, natural habitat corridors, geo-engineering, basic income, world-citizen passports for climate refugees, the “2000 Watt society”, air travel by airships, etc.  The main plot of the book revolves around two main measures of combating climate change. The first one is economic. If you want someone to do something for you - pay them. If you want people and companies to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases - pay them.  In the Ministry initiative, a cryptocurrency called “carboni”, is introduced, backed by all major central banks, and it is used to pay corporations and individuals to stop burning fossil fuels and for carbon sequestration projects. This so-called “quantitative carbon easing” attacks the principal problem of climate change - that it is profitable to burn fossil fuels. By changing the game, making it profitable NOT to burn fossil fuels, it turns capitalism onto itself, creating a system, that leads to a healthier climate in all respects.  The second measure is much more sinister. It said that you can get much more with a gun and a kind word, rather than with just a kind word. In the story, a terrorist group by the name “Children of Kali” starts a worldwide war of terror against corporations, burning fossil fuels and politicians, supporting them. The actions of the eco-terrorists provoke a backlash, hitting the Ministry for the Future, which is suspected of sponsoring the “Children of Kali” and making their job as dangerous as that of any oil executive. “The Ministry” is an insightful and thrilling account of the complexity of bringing people together to tackle planet-wide problems.  It is thought-provoking as well as entertaining book, that is a must-read for anyone, looking to learn about climate change and what can be done to reverse it. So pick it up for your hot summer read, you won’t regret it.

Honestly, I have not expected much from this book. Biodiversity or ocean acidification are not really my cup of tea. At least, they weren’t until now. The book is a real page-turner. It reads like an eco-thriller. I’ve read it faster than the science-fiction “The Ministry For The Future” by Kim Stanley Robinson.  “The Sixth Extinction”  is a compelling and sobering exploration of the current state of our planet's biodiversity. Kolbert takes readers on a journey through time, science, and history to shed light on the ongoing mass extinction event, laying bare the undeniable fact that we are the primary culprits behind this catastrophe. I am writing a review of this book for two reasons. First, I outline the main takeaways for me and keep them handy for my work. Second, I want to show, why it is an essential read for anyone concerned about the future of our planet. What are mass extinctions? Before we delve into the book's core arguments, it's crucial to understand what mass extinction is. Curiously enough, Ms. Kolbert points out that “ Extinction may be the first scientific idea that kids today have to grapple with ”. When playing with plastic dinosaurs, our kids soon understand and can explain to us that these are very big creatures, that lived long ago and have all died. The concept of mass extinctions first emerged in France in the 18th century and the idea that a catastrophe might have caused it was floated in the 19th century - “ The word “catastrophist” was coined in 1832 by William Whewell, one of the first presidents of the Geological Society of London, who also bequeathed to English “anode,” “cathode,” “ion,” and “scientist.”   In the 20th century, the term “mass extinction” was finally articulated by the American paleontologist David M. Raup only in the 1960s.  Mass extinction is defined as an event in which a significant portion of Earth's species is wiped out in a geologically short period of time, leading to a profound shift in the planet's biodiversity. The five previous mass extinctions in Earth's history have left a lasting mark on the planet's biodiversity and habitat. Let's briefly examine them.  The first mass extinction, known as the Ordovician-Silurian extinction, occurred around 440 million years ago and was driven by glaciation and cooling temperatures, leading to the loss of many marine species and their habitats. The second major event, the Late Devonian extinction roughly 360 million years ago, was attributed to a combination of factors, including sea-level changes and the spread of anoxic conditions in oceans, which severely affected marine life and their habitats. The third mass extinction, the Permian-Triassic extinction, often referred to as the "Great Dying," took place around 250 million years ago. It was the most catastrophic, resulting in the loss of over 95% of marine species and nearly 70% of terrestrial species. This event was primarily driven by volcanic activity, which led to extreme climate changes and habitat destruction. Ocean acidification also played a major role in this catastrophic event.  The fourth mass extinction, the Triassic-Jurassic extinction, approximately 200 million years ago, saw the loss of many marine and terrestrial species. It was linked to volcanic activity and changes in sea levels, disrupting habitats on a global scale. The fifth mass extinction, the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction, took place around 66 million years ago and is perhaps the most famous due to the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs. This event was triggered by the impact of a massive asteroid, which caused catastrophic fires and a "nuclear winter" effect, drastically altering habitats worldwide. The story of the scientific discovery of this event reads like a techno-thriller.  In each of these mass extinctions, the loss of habitat played a pivotal role. Environmental changes, driven by natural phenomena, drastically altered ecosystems. The speed of the change denied the organisms any chance to evolve to match new habitats. The speed I am talking about is measured in hundreds of thousands of years. This was not enough time for the organisms to evolve and adapt to new conditions, so they just, well, went extinct. The Earth's habitats were transformed, and it took millions of years for new ones to emerge.  Why We Are in the Middle of a Mass Extinction Event? Ms. Kolbert presents a compelling case for the ongoing mass extinction event by diving deep into several cases of animal and insect extinctions. She discusses the dramatic decline in populations of various species, ranging from frogs to bats, and cites research that indicates we are in the midst of a major biodiversity crisis: “ It is estimated that one-third of all reef-building corals, a third of all freshwater mollusks, a third of sharks and rays, a quarter of all mammals, a fifth of all reptiles, and a sixth of all birds are headed toward oblivion. ” Plants are not immune to this crisis either. Kolbert's book shows how we are losing plant species at an unprecedented rate, and this often goes unnoticed. These extinctions can disrupt ecosystems and have cascading effects on other species, including humans. Why This Extinction is Anthropogenic? Kolbert's central argument is that the 6th extinction is primarily anthropogenic, meaning it is caused by human activities. She presents a compelling case by examining how we have altered the planet's ecosystems through deforestation, pollution, overfishing, and greenhouse gas emissions. Her position is clear: we are the driving force behind this crisis. The ways in which humans drive other species extinct are numerous. Starting with the straightforward mass killing of great auks, to a less proven disappearance of the American mastodon, which was strangely coincidental with the spread of modern humans, to less well-known cases like deforestation of Easter Island, which was not caused by humans, but by rats, that humans brought with them.  Ever more subtle are the effects of pumping CO2 and other GHG gases into the atmosphere. About a third of all emissions are absorbed by the oceans, but gases dissolved in the oceans are then again released into the atmosphere. When the two are in balance, everything is fine, but as more and more GHG gases are pumped into the atmosphere, more get into the oceans and they start to change.    “Ocean acidification is sometimes referred to as global warming’s “equally evil twin”. There is a mind-blowing chapter in the book, that describes in vivid detail how a more acidic ocean makes it difficult for creatures with shells or exoskeletons to build them. Acidification also leads to changes in the amount of light, that passes through water, and this in turn may lead growth of toxic algae.  In "The 6th Extinction," Elizabeth Kolbert provides a meticulously researched and thought-provoking account of the mass extinction event unfolding before our eyes. Her narrative skillfully weaves together science, history, and storytelling to make a compelling case that we are the architects of this crisis. This book serves as a crucial wake-up call, urging us to recognize our role in the ongoing extinction event and take immediate action to safeguard the future of our planet and all the species that call it home. It's a must-read for anyone concerned about the environment and the fate of life on Earth.

“Most people would never ignore the advice of 97 doctors in favor of three.” A friend of mine landed in Istanbul last week, escaping +50C in Dubai. There wasn’t much relief here for him, as temperatures hit an all-time high of 49,5 degrees. Despite weather irregularities becoming more frequent, I still have to prove time and time again that a) climate change is real and b) it is man-made. Now I think that I’ll just give people one book, that takes about an hour to read, and that clearly explains “What we know about climate change”, as its title goes. Or in case someone can’t be bothered - just give them the link to this article, where I’ll sum up the keynotes from it. Mr. Emanuel first lays down the basics of climate change physics. The key to climate change is in the air. Literally. Pure air, that is a molecule of atoms of oxygen and nitrogen, barely interacts with solar radiation beaming down on Earth and with Earth’s radiation, beaming to outer space. If we had just pure air, the average surface temperature of Earth would be about -18C (0F), but in fact, it is about 15,5C (60F). What heats Earth up, are the molecules of water, carbon dioxide, and methane (there are of course others, but these three are responsible for the bulk of the heating). All of them absorb and emit radiation (i.e. heat) much better than pure air. These gases in the air create what is known as the greenhouse effect - they absorb heat and radiate it back down to Earth as well as to outer space. It wouldn’t matter much if CO2 and methane would disappear from the air as fast as water (which only stays for about 2 weeks). Now a molecule of CO2 can stay in the air for over 100 years, and after that, 20% of CO2 may remain in the air for up to 1000 years. Methane stays up a bit less,  but it catches heat 80 times better than CO2 in the first 20 years and 40 times better in the next 100 years. What’s important, is that it doesn’t take many GHGs (greenhouse gases) in the air to cause the planet's surface to warm up. Water vapors never make up more than 3% of air. CO2 is currently at 421 molecules per 1 million molecules of air (called parts per million - ppm). At the time of writing the book, it was 395 ppm. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution - 280 ppm. A 6% increase in a few years, and a 50% increase in the last three hundred years. So, the GHGs get into the air, stay there, and heat up the planet. That sorts out the physics of it. Now, this growth, which was especially rapid in the last 30 years, cannot be explained by any natural phenomena. No volcanic eruptions, no shiftings of the Earth's axis, nothing can explain this growth. That leaves human action as the only plausible cause of global warming. And this is the consensus of 97% of all climate scientists on the planet. Would you follow the advice of 97 doctors for your health, or just the 3 who happen to have a different opinion? Well, that was exactly what a lot of people have been doing for the last 50 years. We’ve seen that before. Public campaigns supporting cigarette smoking have delayed public response for 30 years, despite the existence of clear scientific evidence linking smoking to cancer. Global health costs of coal mining are estimated the range from $65 to $185 billion, bringing it close to global health costs of fighting lung cancer just in the US ($190Bn in 2015). Health costs alone should have been enough to make people and policymakers wonder. However, the risks of climate change are much greater. Despite all that we know about climate change, it is hard to predict its exact consequences. The system for absorbing and releasing heat in the air is chaotic. Mr. Emanuel points out that the problem of climate change is a problem of global risk management. He singles out four risks. The first is floods. Three feet (91cm) rise in sea level will displace 100 million people and affect 11 out of 15 largest cities on earth. If you think that will not happen fast, then rest in comfort knowing that sea levels have already risen by four inches (10 cm) in the last 60 years. Hurricanes are second. In the North Atlantic, their power output doubled since the 1970s. The authors’ own research shows that hurricanes respond to warming earth faster than originally expected. The third is drought. Droughts could become more frequent and hit fertile areas, resulting in failed harvests and food shortages. As these are likely to happen in the Middle East, it could lead to political unrest and another refugee crisis. The fourth and final risk is ocean acidification. While it doesn’t sound as apocalyptic as the previous three, it is a serious matter for two reasons. First, higher levels of acidification make it difficult for a wide variety of marine organisms to form calcium carbonate shells (more on that in another book that I’ve recently read, with a slightly spirited title “The 6th Extinction”). Many of these creatures form a base in the food chain, and we run risks of additional extinctions and troubles with food from the sea. Second, higher acidity means that the ocean is less capable of absorbing CO2, meaning that more of it stays in the atmosphere and causes further warming. If I would be asked, what books could I recommend on the subject of climate change, Kerry Emanuel’s “What we know about climate change” would top the list. You can read it in under an hour, but it will set you up with all the necessary knowledge about climate change science, evidence of human-caused warming, and highlights of key risks.   While the book is thin on what should be done, I hope that the next book that I am about to read - “How to avoid the climate disaster” by Bill Gates, will shed some light on it.

Marv from Sin City movie famously quipped “all modern cars are like electric shavers - they lack soul”. I’d say the same for the most modern electric cars. They are just booooring 🥱 But rise of the electric cars makes it easier for small startups to retrofit classic cars to electric, build a classic car from scratch, or even come up with their own design of a car.  Sadly this is unlikely to become mainstream. First, it is expensive. Currently, the cheapest conversion will cost you around $20000, on top of the cost of your classic vehicle. Built-up from scratch one will cost anywhere from $150000 to $500000. Second, car corporations are just dull. They won’t make anything that won’t please a largest possible audience.  Cheaper batteries will help to spread  such customization. Alternatively, a built-to-order business model could do that. Make a universal platform and snap any car body you like on top. Do you think this is scaleable?

In my journey of working with startups and advising investors, I've developed a keen eye for technologies poised to make a significant impact in the near future, especially within the next 5-10 years. Currently, I'm delving into research on electric vehicle (EV) innovations for a client, and it's clear that the conversation around EVs predominantly centers on batteries. However, my exploration has led me to question: are there other technologies within the EV sector with high-scaling potential? Autonomous Vehicles: Beyond the Hype One of the most talked-about areas in EV innovation is autonomous vehicles. Despite the considerable hype, the journey towards widespread adoption of fully autonomous vehicles has been slow, with tangible results still on the horizon. The challenges are multifaceted, encompassing technological hurdles and regulatory constraints. The likelihood of seeing autonomous vehicles dominate our roads by the end of this decade remains slim, barring any extraordinary breakthroughs or sudden shifts in regulatory landscapes. A Strategic Pivot: Niche Applications with High Scaling Potential However, there's a strategic opportunity to leverage this technology in environments with controlled variables and fewer edge cases than the unpredictable nature of busy roads. Consider the potential within factories and warehouses: these settings, characterized by predetermined routes and a controlled environment, present an ideal scenario for the deployment of AI-driven vehicles. Whether these vehicles are purchased as electric or retrofitted, the isolated nature of such applications and the relentless drive to reduce costs in competitive markets could catalyze early adoption. The B2B Sector: A Hotbed for Autonomous EV Scaling The B2B sector, already familiar with the use of autonomous robots, stands as a fertile ground for massive scaling of autonomous EV technologies. The push for efficiency and cost reduction in these controlled environments could lead to significant advancements and adoption rates, setting the stage for broader applications in the future. As we navigate the evolving landscape of EV innovations, it's crucial to look beyond the immediate and obvious solutions. By focusing on niche applications with fewer complexities, we can ride the wave of autonomous vehicle technology, unlocking new possibilities and driving early adoption in sectors ripe for innovation. I'm eager to hear your thoughts on the potential of autonomous vehicles in controlled environments and other underexplored areas within the EV sector. Let's discuss how these innovations could shape the future of transportation and logistics. #EVInnovations #AutonomousVehicles #TechTrends #StartupAdvising #InvestmentOpportunities

Tonight I tuned into a fascinating BNEF webinar titled "Energy Transition Investment Trends in 2024," which offered a sneak peek into the key findings of an upcoming report. Interestingly, the discussion largely revolved around the energy transition achievements of 2023, and several points particularly resonated with me. 1. Global Investments on the Rise It's encouraging to see global investments in the energy transition surge by 17% to $1.8 trillion. While we're still trailing the investment levels required to meet the Net-Zero Scenario goals, the momentum is undeniable. It's heartening to note that we now possess the capacity to significantly produce batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines, to hope for a sustainable future. 2. Batteries Investment Soars The investment in batteries has impressively jumped by 76%. This leap is attributed to decreasing costs, the growing trend of co-locating with solar projects, and rising residential demand. However, there's an anticipation of battery manufacturing overcapacity by 2030. Re-shoring manufacturing will create interesting market dynamics. 3. CCS Investments Double The third point that caught my attention was the doubling of investments in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to $11 billion. Despite my skepticism about CCS's scalability in the short term, but optimism in the long term, this significant investment indicates a stronger commitment to this technology than I had anticipated. It's a development worth watching closely. 4. Hydrogen Investments Triple Lastly, investments in hydrogen have tripled, matching the total for CCS. Most of these investments have been channeled towards electrolyzers. Given the rapid pace of investment, and my recent work on hydrogen market, I anticipate a market correction in the near future.  The webinar underscored the dynamic nature of the energy transition sector and the varying pace of development across different technologies. As we look forward to the detailed report, it's clear that the journey towards a sustainable energy future is both complex and exhilarating. I'm keen to hear your thoughts on these developments. Do you think these investment trends will sustain in the long run? How do you see the role of technologies like CCS and hydrogen evolving? Let's discuss the future of our energy landscape. #EnergyTransition #InvestmentTrends #BNEF #SustainableEnergy #CCS #HydrogenEnergy