When VCs Run Out of Energy: The New Era of Cleantech Investing


The hasty promotion of cleantech to the high expectations of high-tech and biotech led to well-documented investment disasters. Capital intensity, time to exit—as we all know by now, energy simply isn’t IT (with all due respect to the plucky, if likely short-lived, promotion of “clean Web”).

The apparent decline of the word cleantech may be a good thing. In fact, its composition from “clean” and “tech” suggest the cause of its demise. The moral inflection of “clean” in cleantech suggests a subtle flaw in its origin. For many, cleantech was (and is) a cause. A non-financial motivation like environmentalism is admirable and even necessary, but it can muddle investor judgment. One frequently hears indignation in response to political opposition to comprehensive energy and environmental legislation and sanctimony in the wake of prominent investment failures. Neither has proven to be effective in overcoming the current malaise. We need some big wins, but how do we get there?

First, we should recognize that the fundamental macro trends that favor cleantech remain in place: GDP per capita in emerging economies continues to grow, with unsustainable middle-class material aspirations; energy security and energy independence continues to be a key driver of geopolitics; our electricity grid is aging, inefficient, and susceptible to cyberattack; and the effects of climate change, vividly demonstrated by Hurricane Sandy, already have the attention of our national security establishment and may yet overwhelm anti-scientific political intransigence.

Taking an Efficient Investment Approach

In response to these challenges, multi-trillion dollar global energy markets are undergoing a technology-driven transformation. Innovation and entrepreneurship related to energy and resource efficiency is producing a wide range of emerging companies seeking to address these markets. The contraction of the venture capital industry in general, and the retrenchment from cleantech in particular, should yield better returns for those investors who stay with it, assuming they can find a way forward that doesn’t repeat the mistakes of the past.

But the big change, of course, is cheap, abundant, domestic natural gas. The merits of natural gas compared to its fossil fuel siblings as a way to mitigate climate change are debatable—as are the environmental effects of fracking. But until there is a price on carbon, natural gas will loom over renewable energy like clouds over a solar farm or the desultory calm of a windless day.

So is it time to give up cleantech and energy investments and join the digital media party? It’s tempting, but I believe that resource efficiency and energy innovation are the wealth creation opportunity of this generation. Here are three ways to think about exploiting this opportunity:

1. Disentangle environmental considerations from your investment analysis. Many of us in cleantech are motivated by environmental concerns, but factors that enhance personal satisfaction may cloud professional judgment. Cleantech investment opportunities should be able to stand on their own business merits. Vinod Khosla recently declared that Khosla Ventures would not invest in any green tech startup that could not achieve cost competitiveness in an unsubsidized marketplace within five years of it launching. Good idea.

2. A dominant energy infrastructure, unforgiving commodity markets, and a natural gas supply spike enabled by fracking won’t be overthrown by a cleantech revolution. In fact, these factors … Next Page »

Single PageCurrently on Page: 1 2

Mark Goodman is the Founder and General Partner of Terawatt Ventures. Follow @TerawattVC

Trending on Xconomy

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

  • Bill Toddman

    No better example of anti-scientific political intransigence than, “…the effects of climate change, vividly demonstrated by Hurricane Sandy”.

  • To say that environmental considerations should be disentangled from your investment analysis makes no sense to me- if anyone is interested in their return on investment, they will have to take into account environmental considerations (among other things). The earth only has a finite amount of resources that we are polluting and depleting at an alarming rate, and hopefully policy will catch up with that reality. Anyone investing in technologies that aren’t truly reducing impacts on the environment is taking an unnecessary risk.

    • The economic problem you are highlighting is called “Tragedy of the Commons” – ie, that which is the responsibility of everyone becomes the responsibility of no one. The difficulty with environmental costs is that they are spread evenly across everyone (actually, its worse than that, they are disproportionately spread towards those who can least adapt – ie, the poor). Therefore, a fund manager, while they may or may not be concerned about dwindling resources, doesn’t have the authority to invest their clients’ money to solve the problem, *unless they see that they can earn a fantastic return*.

      Now, if they have wealthy clients who want their money allocated to solving global problems without concern for a personal return, then in that case they are running a philanthropy foundation. Billions of dollars are managed through these vehicles, so they are no slouch at moving the needle, but the moment you take other people’s money, you need to know what the rules are for what you do with it.

      That’s why *investors* have to disentangle environmental considerations, unless those considerations open up, say, a fantastic investment opportunity. Large scale policy changes that move the will of the entire populous? That’s the realm of government, and they need to pick up the ball.

  • RichardASunCFA

    I agree. My recent start-ups and investments have all met a three part test: better, greener cheaper. As an individual, I can be aggressively selective in my investments and projects and stay plenty active. My current company–best Tech Brands markets fuel and engine additives that reduce fuel consumption and emissions, save the consumer money and reduce emissions all without government subsidies or upfront capex costs.