Everyone loves a clean energy success story. But when you look at the actual investment returns from 30 years of wind and solar startups in manufacturing and generation, it’s… not what the hype suggests. So I dug into the data. 📉 Turns out: The majority of VC-backed companies in this space failed to return even the original investment, let alone 10x. Why? Because building turbines and solar panels is capital-intensive, commoditized, and policy-dependent. Margins are thin. Market timing is everything. And if you're not First Solar or Goldwind, odds are you're toast. ⚡ Yes, there were big wins: - First Solar: 10x+ for early backers - Suntech: massive early IPO gains (before collapsing) - Airtricity: a wind IPP sold for over €1B - Enphase: 100x public market rise — but it took 15 years But for every one of those, there are 10+ stories like: - Solyndra (lost $1B) - MiaSolé (sold for 30M after raising 500M) - Q-Cells (bankrupt) - Clipper Windpower (fizzled out) 💡 Lesson: If you're investing in climate tech manufacturing, you’re not in software-land. You’re in infrastructure — long cycles, deep capital, geopolitical risk. 🧠 The 10x mindset can still work — but only if you adapt it to the reality of hardware and electrons. Or look adjacent: inverters, control systems, embedded software… those have quietly created some of the biggest returns in the sector. If you’re a founder or investor scaling up climate technology and want a second set of eyes on your strategy or pitch, drop me a message. I’ve been there, and I know what’s under the hood. #climatetech #startups #vc #solar #wind #energytransition #hardwarestartups #greentech #cleantech #investing

Taking your cleantech startup from the lab to your first-of-a-kind (FOAK) facility is a huge leap. But before you start thinking about scaling, you need to answer one crucial question: Does your technology have a viable business case? Green hydrogen scaling up is a perfect example of what happens when the business case doesn’t exist. Despite billions in investment and massive political backing, it still struggles to make economic sense. If you’re building a FOAK, you need to avoid the same traps. Why Green Hydrogen Scaling up is Struggling The numbers don’t lie: 🔌 Electricity costs dominate.  Nearly 80% of green hydrogen’s operational costs come from electricity. Unless you have ultra-cheap, round-the-clock renewables, your margins disappear. 🏗️ Capital costs are massive. Almost 50% of CAPEX goes into power infrastructure. Even with declining electrolyzer costs, the investment burden remains high. 🤑 It can’t compete on price.  Fossil fuel hydrogen costs $1.50-$2 per kg, while green hydrogen struggles to get below $5 per kg. The economics just don’t work—yet. Take a look at the infographics of the green hydrogen OPEX structure from Clean Hydrogen Observatory: Source: https://observatory.clean-hydrogen.europa.eu/hydrogen-landscape/production-trade-and-cost/cost-hydrogen-production The Lesson for Cleantech Startups If you’re scaling a cleantech business, you must ask: Will my business case work in the next 5-10 years? If not, then maybe it’s time to pivot. The world is running out of time. We don’t need tech that might be viable in 2040. We need scalable solutions now. If your startup relies on a cost breakthrough or market shift that won’t happen for another decade, consider launching something that can scale up today. Green hydrogen might become competitive one day—but we don’t have time to wait. The climate clock is ticking. Are you building something that can scale in time?

This year will be one of the hardest for the Cleantech industry. Here is why. Shift of global priorities 💥 With wars raging on and old alliances crumbling, countries scramble to spend more on defense. Climate spending by governments risks being pushed back or scaled down. 🤖AI is in the spotlight. Investors are mesmerized by AI and its promises of making a quick buck. Coupled with the defense startups growing popularity, climate tech startups' financing is getting harder. Cleantech ain’t delivering on promises 💸 Despite the growing share of renewable energy in Europe, and the US, energy prices for consumers are not going down as promised. 🚘 Western EV makers cannot make an affordable EV 🪦 A wave of bankruptcies of high-profile cleantech startups, like Northvolt, Arrival, Universal Hydrogen, Fisker, etc., damaged the credibility of climate startups. Coupled with the fact that in 2024 the planet breached the 1.5C warming threshold, these developments combine to create a “perfect storm” - while the climate visibly deteriorates, government and investors seem to be looking the other way. What are your thoughts? Will Net-Zero policies be shelved in 2025? Or will Cleantech in 2025 achieve “escape velocity” and develop on its own, without government support? Post your thoughts in the comments below!

In any large-scale construction project, your EPC (Engineering, Procurement, and Construction) contractor  will either be your greatest asset or your biggest liability. When you're scaling from a Demo  to a First-of-a-Kind (FOAK)  facility - often a 10x jump - it is hard to expect your internal team to handle everything. This is where an experienced EPC partner comes in. Exceptions can be made, and I wrote about them last week. A good EPC can make your project fly , while the wrong choice can sink it before it starts. Just look at ATOME , the UK-based green ammonia startup. They locked in Casale S.A. , a century-old ammonia tech leader, as their EPC partner—ensuring expertise, credibility, and smooth execution. Why the Cheapest EPC is Usually the Most Expensive It's tempting to go for a contractor that offers the lowest bid. Don't.  Instead, aim for a best-in-class EPC.  A reputable contractor reassures investors and increases your chances of success. Here’s why: The EPC business is cutthroat.  Pipelines rarely extend beyond two years , cashflows are tight, and most firms survive on reputation. For an EPC, your FOAK isn’t just a project - it’s a portfolio opportunity.  The right contractor might hesitate at first, but if they see the long-term value of adding a cutting-edge project like yours to their resume, they might be willing to work with you. The contrast between two lithium-ion gigafactories in Russia is a case in point: In Kaliningrad , an unknown, low-cost EPC  from Novosibirsk won the contract. Construction stalled for years. Near Moscow , a top-tier local EPC  took charge, and the project is nearing completion ahead of schedule. Due Diligence: More Than Just a Price Tag Hiring an EPC is like hiring an artist — visit their previous projects, talk to their past clients, and assess their financial health.  An EPC shutting down mid-project due to cash problems can be catastrophic. When negotiating, aim for a fixed-price, full-wrap contract.  Your EPC will push back—FOAK projects are full of unknowns—but stand firm. If you’re doing procurement yourself, negotiate pass-through pricing  for key materials. Otherwise, anything under EPC's control should be their full responsibility.  Exceptions? Only if there’s no alternative—and even then, with extreme caution. Final Thought: EPC Selection for your FOAK is a strategic decision Your FOAK project  is already a massive challenge. Don’t gamble on your EPC.  Choose wisely, negotiate hard, and set yourself up for success.

We have all the tech we need to tackle climate change. What we don’t have? Enough First-of-a-Kind (#FOAK) projects actually getting built. #VCs have been making noise about FOAK lately - but let’s be real: VCs don’t finance FOAKs.  They fund the early stages. Now that their startups are stuck at the FOAK wall, struggling to raise the next round, VCs have suddenly started talking about the problem. 💰  Funding FOAKs is one thing. Building them is another. #Northvolt proved that even with all the money in the world, you can still spectacularly blow a FOAK  if you don’t execute right. That’s why a new branch of the #climatetech ecosystem is emerging: FOAK assistants. These are not consultants. They don’t just give advice—they train, coach, and bring in missing skills and resources. They’ve done it before, often multiple times. And they have skin in the game. CTVC recently interviewed David Yeh and Julian Ryba-White, diving deep into how their companies help startups become scale-ups and successfully build FOAKs. It’s a must-read. Source: CTVC The only problem? Mr. Yeh and Mr. Ryba-White are based in the US. If you’re scaling up or FOAKing in Europe or the Middle East, let’s talk—I’ll help set you up for success. Because FOAKs don’t just need funding. They need FOAK expertise and #execution.

When scaling from Demo to FOAK, one of the biggest decisions is whether to hire an EPC (Engineering, Procurement, and Construction) company or manage the build yourself. A great EPC can bring industry expertise, supplier relationships, and project management skills—all crucial for execution. ATOME’s green ammonia project partnered with Casale S.A., boosting investor confidence.  On the flip side, Rosatom’s first planned gigafactory stalled due to a poor EPC choice, while another factory with a better EPC is already nearing completion. The wrong EPC can set your project back years. But skipping an EPC is possible—if you know what you’re doing. JR Energy Solution built a 500 MWh electrode factory in just 8 months without an EPC, thanks to founder Duke Oh’s deep industry knowledge. How to decide? If your Demo project built strong industry relationships and you have an experienced team, you might  be able to go without an EPC. If your technology is highly novel and you lack execution expertise, an EPC may be necessary—but you need to negotiate terms carefully to avoid delays and cost overruns. Either way, treating your Demo as a “mini-EPC” exercise prepares you for both paths. Would you trust an EPC for your FOAK, or would you rather go it alone?

It’s not as simple as it sounds. Nuclear FOAKs are great examples of everything that could go wrong with a FOAK. One glaring issue in nuclear FOAKs was the complexity of project management. In many cases, contracts with equipment suppliers were overly complex, and decision-making was fragmented across multiple bodies. In any project, FOAKs included, the decision-making process is the Achilles heel. So, how do you simplify it? Set your FOAK goals There are a few things to consider. First and foremost, write out the goals that you want to achieve with your FOAK. These should be very specific, like a particular date of the launch, zero accidents during construction, etc. Don’t limit yourself only to the construction part of the project. You are not in the real estate business, so encompass the end goals like less than 5% scrap rate or specific productivity in the first year. These goals will set a framework for your team's cooperation and will enable them to track their progress. Map your FOAK Second, sit down with your team and a piece of paper, write “FOAK” in the middle, and then write every concept that you can think of that a FOAK is comprised of. For example, a lithium-ion battery FOAK would consist, among others, of factory building, foundation, equipment, safety procedures, safety equipment, workers, training for workers, overseas instructors, visas for overseas instructors, translation for equipment manuals, cash in sufficient amounts, permits, etc. This brainstorm will give you a cloud of concepts, that constitute a FOAK. This is an important exercise to do, as it lets you form a checklist of critical obstacles on your FOAK path. Northvolt for example, simply forgot about the need for visas for Chinese workers and about the need for proper translation of equipment manuals to English. FOAK management structure Third, after forming this checklist, draw up a FOAK project management structure, that can take care of all of the items on the checklist. Each FOAK project management structure will be different, so I won’t give any specific recommendations here. However, there are a few principles you need to follow. If you have completed your demo project,  then your team knows a lot of details about what would it take to build 10x. Ask it to step back, and look at the project from a troubleshooting point of view. When something went wrong during the demo project, who spotted it? What did you do to quickly solve the issue? How many people did you need to consult? Who made the final decision? Use your own experience, analyze it, and codify it. Formulate it in a project management structure. Try to avoid functional silos. These have a nasty tendency of becoming trenches, from which one part of your team throws shit at another. Instead, organize cross-functional teams focused on achieving specific goals. Make sure that the team has all the necessary skills. Oftentimes, one person would work across several teams, like an IT specialist or a lawyer. That’s ok, as long as you monitor their workload, so it doesn’t become excessive and one of your team's efforts would suffer. The team lead should have all the authority he or she needs to execute and achieve the team’s goals. They should not be coming to your door to ask for permission. They should not be organizing a meeting to get something done. They should be able to do it straight away.  Now, you will design your own reporting, communication, and conflict resolution systems. Eliminate gatekeepers The biggest mistake a founder can make at this point is to become a gatekeeper and a go-to problem solver. This will result in you becoming the sole decision maker, with a line of visitors outside of your office, eager to hear your judgment. In the end, the project will stall, as your decision-making ability will be the chokepoint. Avoiding this trap is hard, after all, you are the top authority and decision-maker. To avoid this,  whenever someone came to me and tried to make me solve a problem, I’ve always referred my teammates to the goals of the project and then asked them, in return, how would they solve this particular problem and achieve the goals? In 90% of the cases, people came up with a good enough answer and went back to working on the project. Streamline reporting Fourth, establish clear and regular reporting mechanisms and a conflict resolution system. In our wind turbine project, we had over twelve teams, working on everything from construction, to procurement, to staff training to cybersecurity. Each team had a standardized reporting template, consisting of three PowerPoint slides. The first one would list tasks, set to the team two weeks ago, and would display its progress in their achievement. It would also show how the team fares against the plan. The second would suggest the tasks for the next two-week interval. The third slide would flag important issues where the team needed help. This slide’s purpose was to keep teams from hushing up problems. It was made clear that there would be no punishment for bringing up issues on the third slide. Oftentimes, this leads to several teams coming together to hash out a solution. We kept a special project management task force of four people, whose job was to complete these slides for each team, thus on one hand taking off the burden of reporting from them, and on the other hand, making sure that reporting was on time. This team also moderated all of the conflict resolution meetings and formulated the final decisions. It did not have authority apart from information collection and reporting but was instrumental in getting everyone on the same page. Finally, remember that as a founder, your main function during the FOAK will be… reporting to your investors. You will be spending an enormous amount of time preparing reports, delivering them in the board rooms, and negotiating with investors one-on-one. Investors have a nasty habit of dropping on you with a report request right when you are in the middle of putting out a fire. So you’ll need to have that presentation deck at the ready, with all the latest figures and progress reports. To do that, you will need rock-solid data and a firm grasp of what is going on in your project at the moment. This is where your reporting system will come to your rescue.

Overheating is a major issue in batteries. The global battery market is evolving fast, and looks to be overheating too: 🔹  Demand is surging , with EV sales up 25% in 2024, pushing battery demand past 1 TWh . 🔹  Prices are dropping , with lithium-ion battery pack costs falling below $100/kWh, a key milestone for EV affordability. 🔹  Manufacturing capacity is exploding , hitting 3 TWh globally - but here’s the catch: only one-third of that capacity is actually being used . Most of this excess capacity is in China , which dominates battery production. Meanwhile, the US and EU are scrambling to build their own factories , despite shaky demand. And IEA predicts that production capacity could triple in the next five years . 📉 Even if demand also triples , that will just triple the amount of idle capacity . So what happens next? 🚨  Prediction: A Chinese battery bloodbath . Overcapacity in the industry will force bankruptcies and trigger industry consolidation  over the next five years. If the US and EU erect more trade barriers , or if China itself restricts technology exports —both of which are already happening—things could get even more brutal. China might still have the tech and scale advantage , but a lot of companies won’t survive this wave. The real question: Can the US and EU take advantage of the coming shake up in the battery industry?  What do you think? Will China flood the world with cheap batteries, or will geopolitics reshape the industry? Share of manufacturing capacity by battery producer's domicile, 2024-2030. Source: IEA #battery #lithiumion #iea #energytransition #ev #forecast

After solar and wind , the next big climate technology to scale is heat pumps . They’re already gaining traction, but unlike solar panels , it looks like their cost won’t drop dramatically with manufacturing scale. Instead, their adoption will be driven by the spark spread —the difference between electricity and gas prices . Research by Rob Wilkinson  highlights this dynamic across Europe: In the Netherlands , where the spark spread is low, payback times for heat pumps are under 3 years —making them an easy sell. In the UK , with higher spark spreads, the payback period stretches to 7.5+ years —a hard sell for most households. In Hungary , where gas prices are extremely low, payback hits 47 years —effectively killing adoption. Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/estimation-costs-payback-retrofitting-heat-pump-uk-rob-wilkinson-9fb6e From my experience, anything over a 3-year payback struggles to gain traction  in residential markets. That means if we want heat pumps to scale as fast as solar, governments and utilities will need to narrow the spark spread. The question is how?   Lowering electricity prices is out of question for the moment, heat pumps already enjoy significant subsidies. Should there be higher gas taxes? Could be, to stimulate customers to move away from gas, as Europe depends on it either from Russia (which has fallen dramatically in recent years), or from LNG imports.  So, how do we bring down payback times and make heat pumps the next big climate success story? Thoughts? 🔥💡

In 2020, I was scrambling to get chips for our battery modules . Lead times had jumped from 2-3 months to over 9 months . Chipmakers prioritized gaming consoles and automotive giants, leaving cleantech startups like ours at the back of the line. That experience taught me just how fragile and unpredictable supply chains can be —and how they can make or break a scale-up. I was reminded of this while listening to The Green Blueprint  podcast episode, How Supply Chain Chaos Sank SunFolding . SunFolding, a solar tracker startup founded in 2012, shut down in 2023 —not because of tech failure, but because supply chain disruptions proved too much to handle. Three Hard Lessons from SunFolding’s Collapse: 1️⃣  When key inputs surge in price, your business model may not survive. SunFolding used U.S. steel  for its trackers to save on logistics costs. But as Chinese steel stayed cheap, U.S. steel prices tripled . That forced them to rebuild their supply chain—too little, too late. 2️⃣  A supply chain built for one scale might not work for the next. SunFolding hired a COO  when it landed its first utility-scale solar project. But the supply chain was already locked in, and not up to the task . Scaling up requires designing for supply chain resilience from day one . 3️⃣  You are not your supplier’s priority. In 2023, an earthquake in Turkey  disrupted a key material supplier to DuPont , which made SunFolding’s specialized polymer. DuPont refocused on serving its largest customers (automotive) , leaving SunFolding without a critical component. The Big Takeaway: Your supply chain is as critical as your technology . It needs to be flexible, scalable, and protected against shocks . If you’re building a cleantech scale-up, don’t just ask, Can we manufacture this at scale?  Ask, Can we still manufacture this if the supply chain shifts under us? If you’ve had to navigate supply chain chaos while scaling up, I’d love to hear your experiences. What lessons have you learned? #scaleup #cleantech #lessonslearned #supplychain #supplychaindisruption

If you want to understand the global battery industry, you had to be in Seoul this week. Here is why: 🔋 Five halls packed with everything you need to make a battery—from raw materials to cutting-edge equipment, automation, quality control systems, and even recycling solutions. The entire battery value chain is here, under one roof. 🏭 Who’s here? Every major Korean battery player—cell manufacturers, electrode makers, material suppliers, and equipment producers. Who’s missing? Most European and US companies. A handful of Western firms made the trip, but if the West truly wants to build a competitive battery industry, it needs to be here in greater numbers. 📉 The reality is that Asia dominates battery manufacturing, and that’s not changing anytime soon. The most successful scale-ups in the battery space—whether in Israel, USA or Europe —are the ones actively partnering with Korean, Chinese and Japanese suppliers to accelerate their scale-up. For those serious about batteries, InterBattery Korea is a must. Now, if you missed it this time, I’ll be happy to catch up in Munich in May, or Stuttgart in June. And of course, see you next year in Seoul! 🇰🇷🔋

Cyberpunk has always been my favorite sci-fi genre. Dystopian worlds ruled by transnational corporations, extreme inequality, corrupt governments, ecological collapse, biased media, constant surveillance, and omnipresent AI. Sound familiar? I used to think cyberpunk was fiction. Now, I’m not so sure. But the most cyberpunk  thing I’ve read this year wasn’t a Cyberpunk 2077 fan-fiction—it was a non-fiction book by Nobel Prize winning MIT economists Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, “Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity.” Technology Doesn’t Automatically Mean Progress We like to believe that technological innovation means growth in prosperity. The book argues otherwise. The authors provide compelling evidence across over a thousand years of human history that the so-called “productivity bandwagon”, meaning that technological progress always improves everyone’s prosperity, is not always the case. Unless actively directed towards augmenting the skills of workers  or creating new tasks , technology tends to increase inequality, worsen labor conditions, and eliminate jobs. The scary part is that this is not an accident—it’s a choice. And history shows that unless workers, consumers, and governments push back , innovation naturally benefits those who control it, not society as a whole. The book lists many examples, but I’ve singled out two that hit me particularly.  1️⃣  Automation is not always good.  We’ve seen this before - machines displacing low-skilled workers without creating meaningful alternatives. But what’s worse is “so-so automation” —technology that replaces workers but doesn’t improve products, efficiency, or customer experience. Think: AI chatbots, self-checkout kiosks, or automated call centers displace workers without offering any alternative for them. These “so-so automations” also do not bring any measurable improvements for customers. Just think of the last time you’ve tried to solve your issues via a chatbot! 2️⃣  Worker surveillance and control.  From Amazon warehouses tracking every movement of their staff to AI-driven productivity scoring, we are seeing technology used not to enhance productivity, but to squeeze every last drop of effort from workers. It’s not progress—it’s coercion.   I don’t see how this helps to bring prosperity for the society and economy as a whole.  Tech Tycoons and the Monopoly on Progress The key argument of the book is that tech billionaires don’t just build companies - they shape narratives. The most powerful one? All technology is good and inevitable, and they alone know what’s best for society.  It’s the ultimate power move: convince the world that questioning their monopoly over innovation is anti-progress. And the result? Skyrocketing inequality in the West, monopolies locking out competitors, and the erosion of workers’ rights - all under the banner of “progress.” We are living in Cyberpunk dystopia The book got me reflecting on the political and technological narratives, pursued by different countries.    The U.S. under its new leadership, with tech-bros in charge, and inequality at all-time highs, seems determined to run straight into a dystopian future. China, with its social credit system, Great Firewall, and AI-powered authoritarianism, is already there. These two different ways of adapting the same technology - social media and AI, demonstrate quite clearly that there is nothing inevitable in the technological progress.  Meanwhile, Europe is often criticized for over-regulation, carbon taxes, and trying to break up Big Tech monopolies. But after reading this book, you might start seeing Europe differently. It seems to be   the only major power actually paying attention to inequality, freedom, and the human cost of innovation. An unexpected ray of hope Towards the end of the book, the authors make a surprising example of how pushback by society and governments can alter the path of technological development - climate change. There was nothing inevitable about the development of climate technologies like solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles. Instead, it was scientific research, grassroots climate activists and politicians, that formed the awareness of the problem, convinced the society that the threat is real, and then pushed for developing climate technologies.  There was and still is widespread opposition to the climate change narrative, but it won enough support to develop new technologies at scale. These technologies created whole new industries and benefited workers across all income and education levels. At the same time, they delivering the lowest cost energy at zero health risk.  But the climate change problem has an advantage over automation and AI. It is easy to measure its scope - the amount of CO2 equivalent emitted or reduced, the healthcare spending on treating climate and pollution-related health problems, and the insurance costs of increased  The choice we make The timing could not have been better. At least for me. Reading the book just right after Trump became the US president and Musk leveraging X to spread his vision of what is right, gave it a feel not of a social science book, but rather a chronicle. It is a “must-read“ for everyone, even if you are not an economist or consider yourself outside of politics. Because “Power and Progress” poses one of the most critical questions of our time: Will we shape technology, or will the few tech-titans of technology shape us? We can make a choice, or the choice will be made for us.