NOAA Climate Change Report (and DocStoc)

NOAA, in conjunction with the National Science and Technology Council have recently released their report Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. This report is very detailed, with lots of useful up to date graphs and charts. It's extremely data-heavy, which I like. I've seen snippets of it floating around the blogosphere recently.

If you'd like to have a read, I've included the embedded link.


Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States -

The second half of this post talks about the link and the service I used, called DocStoc. There are several file sharing websites out there - most of them focus on Powerpoint hosting (I've used Slideshare in the past). However, what I discovered I like about Docstoc is that it's really built a fantastic library of documents, beyond just presentations. I've used it to find technical documents, marketing brochures, legal templates, etc. Google can be great for finding a link to a published work, but you won't necessarily be able to get at the actual document. Whereas DocStoc's inventory is far less - anything you do find you have full access to, which is sometimes all you need. Having full access to a smaller pool of material can usually be more helpful than having partial access to a larger pool, and what they've put together is really neat.

Secretary Chu Announces Nearly $50 Million to Accelerate Deployment of Geothermal Heat Pumps

CleanEdge reported today on the DOE's commitment of $50m to Geothermal Heat Pumps.

Geothermal heat pumps are nothing new. In fact, I recall hearing about them way back in my first thermodynamics class in engineering. The idea is that you pump heat from the outside when it is cold and pump heat to the outside when it is hot is simple. Given that, you want your outside temperature sink to be as hot as possible when it is cold out, and as cold as possible when it is hot out. The temperature of the ground, several feet below the surface makes this a far more attractive reservoir than just the ambient air.

So what's the problem? Well, a big issue is the fact that installing a geothermal heat pump is a custom job, involving digging up and installing an underground network of plumbing. For many homeowners, the cost of installing isn't worth the payback period. Well, what about the initial builder? Surely it is much cheaper to install when the house is first being built? Well, yes, but as everything in the green building space, if the developer can't charge more for the building because of an installation, then it's not worth putting in the installation, no matter how cheap it is. This is the classic developer/owner market failure that plagues any kind of efficient building (ie, the developer isn't the one paying the utility bill, and yet can't capture the long-term value of putting in efficient systems).

So, could this spur innovation to reduce up-front costs of these systems? Let's hope so!

CafePress - Sign of the Times

I've known about CafePress for years. I think it's a genius way of running a "user generated content" business. They handle all of the logistics, manufacturing, customer relations and finance. You provide the content. I think it's a model of how to leverage a core competency of manufacturing, and I'd love to see similar businesses in other areas.

To try it out, I took a quote from a great artist and photographer friend of mine, Rob Shaer, and turned it into a collection of stuff. The quote, which I thought was a brilliant summation of how much things have changed in the past three years is:

"Is it possible to have work-life balance without the work?"

Overall the process is pretty smooth, although it was several hours of work to come up with a design, do all the Photoshop fiddling, make two version (depending on landscape or portrait mode), and then create the right sizes for each of the scores of items offered.

I thought about taking silly things down (like the intimate underwear), but it was going to be more work to filter everything, and besides, maybe someone will want them.

Overall, I was impressed with the process and big thumbs up to the CafePress team for putting together a great site. I'll track the performance over the next few months, but if you are interested, or know of some soul run over by the train wreck of this economy who might be cheered up, be sure to purchase something and I'll let people know how it turned out.

WTF? The baddest green machine out there.

This weekend I came across the ultimate in mixed branding - the Hybrid Escalade. With a hybrid option to the standard Cadillac Escalade, it is now possible to eek out an astonishing 20 MPG out of this 8 passenger transport. With a base price of $74k (as opposed to the base of $63k for the regular Escalade) this might master from Detroit certainly targets the upper income range for car purchasers. From a fuel consumption point of view, the improvement, as I understand it, is somewhere from 14mpg to 20mpg - or about 6mpg. At 15,000 miles/year, this is 321 gallons/year savings. At $3/gallon, that's $963/year, which would probably not make this justify the price premium.

But the real question is: does the "Hybrid" badge do anything, from a marketing point of view? Most hybrids have a halo effect (and, if you can drive in the carpool lane, a time-saving benefit as well). With the MANY "Hybrid" badges plastered on this vehicle, clearly the hybridization matters, but reaction from many indicates that this vehicle is more one of amazement and scorn.

Too soon

Kyle Swanson, a co-worker of mine from AeroVironment, passed away recently. He was 43 years old.

Aside from the terrible shock of one so young being taken from us, Kyle in addition was one of the instrumental players in launching AeroVironment's unmanned aerial vehicle product line. I had the privilege of riding the tsunami that was the growth of this division when I first joined AV, and helped start up their production facility, their Logistics organization and their Training organization.

He was incredibly energetic and enthusiastic, and passionate about what he did. The greatest thing for a person to have done is to have done something that mattered, and to have made a difference in the world. Kyle has done this, and all those who remember him, and thousands who never met him have been, or will continue to be, affected by all that he has accomplished.

I was struck at how someone whose enthusiasm could even exceed my own, how someone so full of life could now no longer be with us. My thoughts are with those who remain, who struggle with their loss. May they find comfort in the knowledge that those of us fortunate enough to have known Kyle are all the better for it.

Fusion! Creeping back?

Watch CBS Videos Online
60 Minutes recently ran a very interesting story about Nuclear Fusion. While the science of the video is very thin (hey, they only had 12 minutes!) the clear story is that it is slowly becoming acceptable to work on nuclear fusion technologies.

Recently I spoke with the CEO of General Fusion, a Vancouver based company. The founders come from CREO, a company with impressive technical pedigree, and they are working on an interesting fusion concept, shown here.

Basically, as I understand it, they have a spherical container with many pneumatic rams. The rams all fire simultaneously, creating a spherical shockwave that implodes upon itself. At the center of the sphere, the wave collapses, creating astronomical pressures, and fusion.

Unlike many crackpot energy stories I hear involving perpetual motion machines, what intrigues me about nuclear fusion is that it actually works. It's just that the engineering is really, really hard. However, the difference between "really hard" and "impossible" is non-trivial.

So, I for one remain interested in this space. However, I don't know if it is going to be always decades away. I hope not, however, I'd welcome others' comments on viability and practicality.

X PRIZE Foundation

The X PRIZE Foundation is a fantastic organization. They launched the $10m Ansari X PRIZE, which was won in 2004. This prize rewarded the first private team to fly to 100km (twice in two weeks).

Now they are working on a prize for energy and the environment. I'm helping get this kicked off and it's a really interesting project. There are literally dozens of potential areas that might be appropriate for an X PRIZE. However, it has to be an area which $10m will move the needle, and so asking teams to compete for something there were going to do already is a waste of time.

If you have any thoughts as to what might be interesting for the X PRIZE Foundation to focus on for an energy prize, please drop me a line (at my aaronfyke email address at yahoo.com - my Turing test for spam bots). I'd love to get input! Also, providing input would not disqualify you from any future prize competition.

The momentum of a juggernaut

If you want to get an appreciation for just what a juggernaut the US driving public is, check out the following graph. I got it from Green Car Congress.

This graph goes back to 1983 and shows a steady, almost inexorable, rise from 1.6 trillion vehicle miles driven annually to peak at just over 3 trillion vehicle miles. There are slight periods where the graph goes horizontal for a few months (which seem to map to various recessions). However, the biggest actual drop EVER has happened at the start of 2008, when oil prices were pushing gasoline prices through the roof. This should allow economists to get some idea of the elasticity of gasoline. I'd assume it isn't much.

What I find striking is how much it is rising. I'd like to compare this to population. I'd also like to have a current version of this graph - one that includes the financial and job-market meltdown of late 2008. Gas prices have fallen, but when people aren't working, they aren't commuting. The reason I find this so arresting is that it took $4+/gallon prices to push drivership down to 2006 levels! I moved to Los Angeles in 2002 - what is the likelihood that this graph will drop to those levels?

Nifty New Site - Wordle

The above image was created with Wordle. You can give it any jumble, or text, or point it to a blog and let it mine its own words. It seems to have sampled heavily from my previous two posts, but I like the fact that it's so accessible.

I decided to try this out on the blog of Daniel Sieberg, CBS Science and Technology Correspondent, and good friend. He's currently covering TED, so there's no surprise that this was the result:

The readers respond!

Wow. One well placed post and my readership increases 6x. There has been a lot of interest in my Type I/Type II characterization, and some interesting comments.

Some of the things that I've seen from the discussions I've recently had relate to competition. Type II companies may have a lot more competition than a Type I company would, and this is seen in the case of scripped.com, and various social networking sites. However, the key to making a Type II company work is to find other means, other than technological, to lock in a barrier to entry. Since there is bound to be lots of competition, other means can still establish a single market leader.

For example, there was a time that Hotmail ruled the roost. While there was no barrier to switching, Hotmail's viral marketing established them as the dominant web-based email solution by far. Had Hotmail continued to provide good quality service (rather than getting suffocated by ads and spam, as what happened), they could have held that position for some time. Nevertheless, the position of a Type II company can be precarious. Hotmail lost to Yahoo and GMail, Friendster lost to Facebook, etc. It does appear, though, that a Type II company that has succeeded in being the market leader, only relinquishes the title when they stumble. Otherwise, the market is happy, and actually prefers, to reward a dominant leader. I can't say that eBay has yet to stumble, and barring Craigslist (which, I believe has some relation to eBay anyway), there isn't another trading/auction site that has similar reach.

At any rate, thank you all who contacted me. Interesting discussions.

Type I vs Type II companies

I've spent a reasonable amount of time thinking, over the Christmas break, of what types of startup companies succeed, what types raise funding, what types are capital intensive. It's also been interesting to compare cleantech companies to IT companies, because in some ways there are similarities, and in other ways, the two sectors fall in distinct camps.

So, without further ado, here are my two categores:

Type I Companies - Value based on a technological breakthrough (Technology Push)

ie: "cure for cancer" type companies.

Examples (based on my observations):
NanoH2O
Various Biofuels companies
Sunpower (and other solar companies)
Ballard Power Systems
Viagra
X1
Google

I call these companies "cure for cancer" companies, because the main importance is the technology, not the marketing. If someone shows up with a cure for cancer, investors aren't necessarily going to say, "wait a minute...what's your marketing strategy?". The market is huge and obvious and the marketing plan isn't as important. I have to put a small caveat here - because X1 struggled due to marketing reasons, and Google only became a money machine once they figured out how to monatize search. But the main point is that the technology drives the value and thus the company.


Type II Companies - Value based on a marketing breakthrough (Market Pull)

Examples (based on my observations):
Facebook
YouTube
Dell
Scripped.com
Most internet companies

Here, the value of the company is not based on discovering a technological breakthrough, but rather it is from developing a clever business plan. Dell didn't really do much more than assemble commodity computer parts, but it does so with very low supply chain costs. Facebook is "nothing more" than a large database with various pointers, but it's genius has been how it has executed brilliant viral growth and user lock-in. YouTube has some technology in its video compression through Flash, but mostly it succeeded through opening up its comments, allowing videos to be posted on blogs, and basically out-marketing, virally, any other video site.

These companies are started by looking at the market and saying "what is the market need here", and then building the software. I recently came across Scripped.com. It's a great idea - take Screenwriting software (which has existed for ages), put in on the web with a SAAS model (a la Google Docs), charge nothing for it, and try to monetize the community. This idea didn't come about because of a technological breakthrough - heck Google Docs and Desktop screenwriting software proved it could be done. This idea came out by seeing a need and building a business to meet it.

So, which is better? Well, back in my days in the auto industry at Visteon, they would have said Type II is better. Visteon was forever inventing technology looking for a home, and was wanting to assess the market need and create products to meet it. True enough...however, technology push companies tend to be easier to get funding for (walk into any VC with a technology proven to produced zero-carbon energy at a lower cost than coal and you will almost certainly get a check). A type II company can be harder to sell the vision for (can you imagine the initial pitches for eBay? - "So...people are going to be selling used Smurf dolls and old socks online and you think that's a business?") Type II companies can be easier, technologically, to start, but can have a harder time getting traction and funding.

In my opinion, neither is better. Facebook is on one list - Viagra is on the other. While Type II might be easier to start; if you are finishing your PhD with a killer area of research, Type I might be an obvious fit. I'm now putting serious effort into seeking out fantastic opportunities, and I noticed that this framework seemed to be an interesting way of categorizing where your business falls.

Stateside!

I'm going to have to rename this blog as I am no longer "Down Under". I've had a great two years supporting the entrepreneurial and venture communities in Australia, but now I'm back home in Pasadena, California. I'm going to continue to search for world-changing businesses in the Cleantech sphere, and I'll continue to provide updates here on useful tidbits that I come across. I'll probably take a break over the holidays, but I'll be back in January. Merry Christmas all!

Short segue

I thought this was a great quote from David Landers, of Allen & Buckeridge (Sydney-based VC):

There’s no shortage of quality management talent in Australia. The problem is that they are working for Australia’s best organisations and corporations. It’s very hard to lure them into the shaky, ‘maybe if’ world of early-stage venture.

It can be very hard to find good management depth in entrepreneurial teams, but I think the quote is spot-on. It's not that Australia has a shortage of talent (at least, on a per-capita basis). What is a problem (and this is similar to what I experienced when I was living in Canada) is that the large companies (particularly resources and finance) are where good, stable careers are forged. The allure of the start-up hasn't got the same cache as in the US. The good news is that this is a classic virtuous cycle, and the Australian tech community and startup successes of late is changing that mentality.

Solar - Part 1a, Ausra switches on new power plant

Ausra switches on new power plant

From the San Jose Business Journal:

[Ausra] switched on the first solar thermal power plant built in the country in nearly 20 years today at an event in Bakersfield.

This is the first plant Ausra has constructed in the U.S. and is crucial to Ausra’s ability to raise financing beyond the venture capital it already has, its executives said. The demonstration today was important for Ausra to showcase its technology, said CEO Bob Fishman.

“We do this to prove to PG&E and the rest of the world and to customers that we’re for real and that it works and that we’re not just talking about doing solar power, we’re doing it,” Fishman said. “And to get them to accept the technology and purchase it, I think requires a demonstration that can actually do what we say it will do.”

Ausra’s 5 megawatt system is a test facility and produces enough electricity to power about 3,500 average homes. It includes 720 mirrors that are 8 by 50 feet long that direct the sun’s rays to a solar thermal tower. The heat from the sun heats water inside the tower turning it to steam and that steam. The steam runs a turbine that produces electricity. And that electricity will be sold to Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Ausra’s investors include Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers and Khosla Ventures as well as KERN Partners, Generation Investment Management and Starfish Ventures.

Speaking for me personally, I'm really proud of the progress that Ausra has made in commercializing their technology. Many technology founders underestimate the difficulty of scaling up a technology, and when it comes to bending metal and pouring concrete, meeting budget and schedule can be pretty harrowing, and numerous companies have stumbled trying.

I'll return with a detailed discussion of solar next time, but I thought this announcement fit well right here.

Solar Energy - Part I

Let's start this discussion with Solar Energy. Solar is the 800lb gorilla in terms of investments right now. The last six years' of VC investments are shown on the chart below. Solar clearly dominates. I thought it would be worthwhile to use this chart as a means of prioritizing these posts - so solar clearly is first.

I actually took this from PBS here, which credits the Cleantech Group.

There are a few reasons that solar energy has attracted so much funding, but the main ones include the fact that solar is such a broad field, solar has already proven successes, and that solar has a pretty clear path to a pretty big market.

Solar Energy technology pretty much is any technology that extracts energy from the sun. This includes solar PV, concentrating solar PV, solar thermal, and concentrating solar thermal. Within each of these are multiple subsets. Solar PV consists of monocrystalline, polycrystalline, thin film, triple-junction, and dye-based cells. Concentrating solar PV can be low (3x concentration), medium (10~100x concentration) and high (~1000x concentration). Solar thermal for heating can be simple 1x roof-top water heaters. Solar thermal for utility scale power generation can be tower configurations, trough design, linear Fresnel, or dish designs.

And, it doesn't stop there. Companies which lower the amount of silicon used and companies which allow for cheaper silicon to be used have been funded. Companies which improve the production yield, or better improve manufacturing processes have been funded. Companies which lower the cost of installation, or improve the tracking of solar modules have been funded. In short, anything that can lower the cost of electricity, anywhere along the solar value chain is of interest.

Why is this? Well, basically energy is a commodity. Barring any kind of "feel good" attributes of green-energy, most people don't have any clue what energy turns their lights on. In a hyper-rational, non-subsidized world that has no clue about external factors like global warming, the day that solar is 1 cent/kWh more expensive than the cheapest form of power, nobody wants it. The day that it is 1 cent/kWh less expensive than the cheapest form of power, everyone wants it. And by "everyone", we mean all 6 billion people on the planet. This is the ultimate tipping point.

So, VCs understand that there is a big market, and this market will crack open if solar power can be made cheaply enough. A lot of the cost of solar PV modules has been their silicon content, which has driven investment into anything that will use less silicon. Concentrating solar PV assumes that by replacing the expensive silicon part within a module with cheaper lenses and mirrors, the overall cost of solar energy will drop. Thin-film solar modules attempt to drastically reduce the silicon content (or eliminate it entirely) by using different materials. Solar thermal, in whatever form, expects that, for utility-scale electricity generation, the best approach is to generate steam and spin a turbine - benefiting from a lot of the work done in the past on thermal power plants.

It's an interesting situation, and one that is encouraging. Back in my Ballard days, when fuel cells were going to change the world, Ballard's mantra was that "we'll make the fuel cells, other suppliers will solve all the other problems". Those "other problems" included hydrogen storage, hydrogen infrastructure, and vehicle manufacturing. There was a huge chicken-and-egg problem which Ballard struggled to overcome. Yet, in the solar industry, there seems to be room for many of these innovations and business models, and the single-mindedness of "decrease cost per watt" has focussed the entrepreneurial community in an extremely positive way.

Next time - more specifics on the technology and path to market.

Ocean Power and the Cleantech Universe

Well, there has been a lot of interest in the Ausra investment. Some samples of press releases are here, here, here, and here, plus others.

It's great to see the interest in solar thermal technology. However, recently I've started an exercise examining the entire spectrum of all that fits within the cleantech universe. Rob Day had an excellent article on ocean power and it got me thinking about posting my thoughts on the other technologies (wind, solar, fuel cells, biofuels, water recycling, demand management software, hybrid vehicles, batteries, large-scale energy storage, etc. etc. etc.)

So, I'll let Rob's post lead off for ocean power, and I'll be following up in subsequent posts on other technologies. Stay tuned!

Australian Solar Potential

As I mentioned on Rob Day's blog, Australia has fantastic solar resources, and the political climate has changed dramatically to be more embracing of renewable and low-carbon technology. Australia is racing towards an emission trading scheme by 2010. However, the preponderance of coal-fired power plants provides an additional opportunity for solar thermal technology. By augmenting the power production of coal-fired power plants (of which Australia has many), solar thermal technology can lower the carbon footprint of these plants in an extremely economical way.

One particular solar thermal company which found its origins in Australia has raised a $60m Series C round. It's worth checking out.

Fundraising Survival Guide

Paul Graham (of Y Combinator fame) has recently posted a great essay on how to survive the difficult task of fundraising.

I particularly like this because it talks about the pressures experienced by the entrepreneur and the behaviour witnessed by both parties - investor and entrepreneur. There are very rational reasons that lead VCs to act the way they do. One of my favourite quotes from him was the following:

Problem number 3: investors are very random. All investors, including us, are by ordinary standards incompetent. We constantly have to make decisions about things we don't understand, and more often than not we're wrong.

We don't like to call ourselves incompetent - but the truth is that being good at being a VC involves learning a lot about something new very quickly. Even with a certain degree of specialization, the entrepreneur will know more about the particular business than the VC. Of our areas of focus (life sciences, IT, and cleantech), I primarily focus on cleantech. However, within cleantech there are still a huge range of subsectors - solar, wind, fuel cells, batteries, smart meters, biofuels, grey water, black water, carbon storage, synfuels, etc. While I've had the privilege of being involved in startups in a number of these areas, if you come to me with a new material that dramatically improves the energy efficiency in some market somewhere, I'll need to understand how much value the market will place on your offering, the technical feasibility of what you've done, the difficulty it will be to ramp up manufacturing, the cost sensitivity of the inputs, the competitive landscape, etc. So, we get good at learning quickly.

However, all of this dance of information exchange can seem, to the entrepreneur, to be frustrating. The entrepreneur has been living this vision for the past "x" months/years and can't understand why everyone else doesn't see what they do. We try to recognize the situation from the entrepreneur's point of view. and this is why, if we aren't going to progress an investment, we strive to provide companies with a quick "no" rather than a slow "no", and this is why we try to give feedback where we can - although often it is difficult for us to provide feedback because the reasons for us progressing an investment can often be intertwined with other investments we are considering. Nevertheless, the road to funding can be a long one, and Paul's post I think helps chart the course.

VC Fund Economics

I wanted to link to this great post by Fred Wilson - Venture Fund Economics.

"When I write about venture fund returns, there are always comments and questions that lead me to believe that the economics of a venture fund are not well understood. And since most of the readers and commenters on this blog are people who work in the startup ecosystem, I think its important that the economics are better understood. So I am planning on some posts on this topic in the coming weeks."

I thought a number of my readers may be interested in the drivers of VC returns. Note that these returns are also the aggregate of the entire fund. Each individual company invested in needs to be able to return a much higher amount to get this overall performance. I delve into that a little bit here.

Historic Oil Prices - Peak Oil Phenomenon

I think this link from Forbes is really interesting. It shows that the oil industry had pretty spectacular prices at the beginning of the industry (1861) that were driven down by efficiency and productivity improvements. This happened remarkably quickly because by 1880, the real price of oil hit the low where it would remain for almost 100 years.

1978 was understandably a pretty shocking time - oil prices shot up to the levels only seen more than 100 years previously, near the start of the oil industry. Fortunately, prices plummeted, and we all convinced ourselves everything was going to be ok. It's clear that that was only a fifteen year reprieve. Oil prices now are once again at spectacular prices. However, this time they are higher than ever seen previously in the history of the industry.

Given the concept of peak oil, which I wholly believe - in part due to what I learned during my stint at Esso (Exxon) as a reservoir engineer, we're going to continue to see price increases until substitutes can be obtained. While oil prices are often discussed, I think this graph really puts an interesting historical perspective on things.

Rob Day, Seed Stage Capital, and Government Labs

Rob Day writes one of my favourite cleantech blogs. I think today's post is particularly compelling. In it he describes the harsh reality of why many early stage companies are too "early-stage" for an early-stage VC. This is very, very useful to understand if you are pitching to a VC, or if you are interested in government policy to support innovation. Are you listening Dr. Terry Cutler?

Chinese Soft Drink

Please do not use the Chinese soft drink argument:

"If I sell only ONE can of soft-drink to everyone in China, I'll have $1billion in revenue!"

or, its cousin:

If we get 0.05% of the marketplace, we'll make billions!

This sounds like you are being conservative, but it obscures the issue. If you are talking about home PCs and the market for operating systems, you could say, "I just need 0.05% of PCs to buy my operating system, and I'll be rich!" Ask Apple how that's working out for them competing with Microsoft. On the other hand, if you are in a field of gold bars and you've only got enough time to grab 0.05% of the field, you'll probably do great (or, at least have one shiny gold bar).

As always, the difference comes down to the actual competitive situation in the market - and THAT'S what matters. If you want to sell a compelling story, don't talk about getting miniscule slivers of the market. Instead, talk about HOW you will get the revenues you are projecting, who you will target, etc. It's much more compelling to say you'll get 80% of a certain addressable market (and list the reasons) than say you'll get .05% of a HUGE market, but not say how.

Allow time for funding - show how great you are

Back in 2005 Jeff Bussgang of Flybridge wrote a great post on why some companies get funded on his blog here.

I particularly liked item #2:

2. VCs invest in movies, not snapshots

When you see a deal as a VC, you see it at a point in time. If the entrepreneur tells you that you have only three weeks to make a decision, the decision is almost always an easy, "no". No VC nowadays likes to be rushed into a decision, and people prefer to see the company and team evolve over time (like a movie) as opposed to at a discrete point in time (like a photo snapshot). If a team walks into the first meeting and outlines what they plan on achieving in the next two months, and then walks in two months later having achieved each of the milestones plus two others, it's very impressive and gives the VC confidence that the milestones they've laid out for the next two years will be achieved as easily.

This is very relevant because some entrepreneurs don't understand the relationship-building aspect of raising capital. Raising funding is not an issue of showing up, applying for money, and getting a cheque 30 days later. We hate being rushed into a decision, because each deal is very different and we want to feel confident that we've truly seen all the issues and can feel comfortable that the company and team is one that we can place one of our very limited bets on.

Do not underestimate how long it can take to raise money. The answer is months. If you leave time to build a relationship with a VC, time to show your successes, time to let the VC fall in love with your business, then you are far more likely to raise money. If you rush the process, or make the investor feel rushed, then it is much less likely that he/she will get to that "happy comfort point" where they want to pursue a deal.

I would love it if someone came to me and said, "Here's where we are - here's what we are planning on accomplishing in the next two months. We don't need money now, but we will on this date. We'd like to introduce ourselves and start talking, and then we'll come back when we've made some more progress to show you we're serious. We can continue to talk at that time about our funding plans." Hands down, this would be more impressive than a lot of the "We need money in 3 weeks; why do you need to do due diligence? - Australian investors have no risk tolerance!" refrains that we can occasionally have the privilege to see.

A VC investment is a marriage - be sure to give time to let the relationship develop. The advantage to you (the entrepreneur) is strong as well. Over time, you get a much better look at the VC and will then be better able to decide whether you want them to be on your board for the next five years.

Happy Fourth of July

To all my readers - Happy Fourth of July!

While it is a bit weird to be celebrating a typically summer holiday in the dead of the Australian winter, it's a nice reminder of home all the same.

Happy Canada Day

To all my readers - Happy Canada Day!

While it is a bit weird to be celebrating a typically summer holiday in the dead of the Australian winter, it's a nice reminder of home all the same.

Australia's Per Capita Excellence - #2 on Internet Spend!

I don't know why, but Australia has an amazing amount of "per-capita" excellence. Now, part of scoring high on any "per-capita" ranking is to have very few people (the Vatican always seems to do well), but with 21m people Australia is big enough that some very real factors come into play. An example of both of this is the fact that, on a per-capita basis, Australia came in 3rd in the 2004 Olympics (with 49 medals - the US was 34th with 103 medals); however, it was behind the Bahamas (with 2 medals) and Norway (with 6).

However, in another very real way Australia has shown itself to dominate the world stage, and this is on internet spend per capita. A really interesting post on Techcrunch discusses potential valuations of social networking sites (the few comments on DCF are especially entertaining). But the part that I found particularly interesting was the following bit, showing the average internet spend per person for a given country:

The U.S. (at $132 per person), by the way, is only the 4th most valuable market per Internet user, trailing The UK ($213), Australia ($148) and Denmark ($144).

So, Australia has the second highest per-capita internet spend in the world. This is interesting. The time that I've spent here has given me some insights to why this may be. First off, the power of the internet is as the great market leveler. The more inefficient a market, the more likely the impact of the internet can be. Due to Australia's size and distance from major markets, it has been my experience that price competition in Australia between retailers is, shall we say, far from fierce (the car I purchased in Australia cost almost 2x what it would have in the US, for example). Being savvy people, this turns many Australians, where they can, to purchase products off the internet in larger numbers than would be the case when retailers would be more price competitive. That's at least my current theory. There may be other factors, but it's certainly interesting to discover that this country, which is a huge adopter of other types of technologies (internet penetration, mobile phone use, etc) is #2 on per-capita Internet spend.

Hatch That!

Hey! My friend Ross Hill's online entrepreneurship magazine, HatchThat, published a discussion with me recently. I'm impressed with the breadth of people that Ross has spoken with, especially in such a short period of time. Check it out!

Non-Disclosure Agreements

Bill Snow has a great summary of why venture capital firms do not sign NDAs (non-disclosure agreements).

Here's his introductory paragraph:
Let’s take a look at one of the most common miscalculations made by early stage entrepreneurs: Asking potential investors to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). In the pantheon of entrepreneurial mistakes, the NDA is right up there with the infamous line, “these projections are conservative.” Simply put, if you hope to raise money from VCs, you increase your chances of success by eschewing the NDA request. Most (if not all) VCs will not sign the darn things. There are bound to be some exceptions to this rule, but not many.

The rest of the article goes into why that is the case. However, the gist of the reasoning is that venture capitalists see a vast number of deals, and it is simply not feasible to enter into non-disclosure agreements with each of them. The liability and the potential conflicts are enormous.

It is the policy of most VCs not to sign NDAs for the business plans that they are sent. A simple poll of angel investors and VCs in Australia shows that many firms have similar policies. Yet, a large number of entrepreneurs approach me, and are adamant about having an NDA signed. Why is this?

I believe that this is due to cultural factors, bad advice, and ignorance of how the industry works. The cultural factors stem from, what I have perceived is an Australian bias that assumes that "people" (banks, investors, business partners, the government, etc.) have it in for the company. Rather than looking at what a business partner, such as a venture investor, can bring to a business (ie, maximizing the upside), an entrepreneur may be more likely to be suspicious on how the business partner can hurt the business (ie, minimizing the downside).

The second factor is bad advice. Entrepreneurs look to their advisors, such as their lawyers, or investment advisor (intermediaries) for guidance. I have been impressed by far too few of these professionals that I have seen. Most do not seem to understand the position that the venture/angel industry takes because they are ignorant to the industry's requirements. The entrepreneur then approaches the investor demanding an NDA, "because my lawyer said I needed one", and this can prevent things from moving forward.

The third factor is ignorance of the industry. This is, in part, what this blog hopes to correct. However, similar to point #2, there are few sources for Australian entrepreneurs to learn what the industry requirements are. When told that an investment firm will not sign an NDA, the entrepreneur does not have the background to understand why. However, I am optimistic that this is changing because a) entrepreneurs are becoming more sophisticated all of the time, and b) the number of sources of information for entrepreneurs is growing all of the time.

So, why the AVCAL NDA then? This comes from a difference between venture capital and later stage private equity. Although our friends in private equity have their own issues, discussed here and here.

So, to close I'd like to loop back to Bill Snow's article above. While asking for an NDA is not the kiss of death, starting an early stage raise with that discussion is not the way to lure in an investor. You control the information you release - keep the super proprietary details to yourself and only worry about disclosures once the deal has progressed sufficiently. I can pitch Google's value as an investment without disclosing their algorithm, and you should be able to do the same for you business as well.

The Hive networking event

Earlier this week I spoke at a networking event for entrepreneurs called The Hive . I was extremely impressed by the organization of the event, and I think it's a great opportunity for Melbourne based entreprenuers.

I have been looking for events like this to meet new entrepreneurs and to talk about my investment interests and there haven't been many well targeted events. There are various conferences about Cleantech and business financing, and there are various lunchtime seminars put on by government organizations (which can be quite good - especially Innovic's), however, my experiences at MIT have taught me that the most exciting startup activity happens when a bunch of really smart, really motivated people get together over a beer. This is what The Hive offers.

About 100 people were on hand to listen to me give some of my thoughts on the industry (I'll boil these down to a few blog posts in the future), but more importantly, I felt that this gave a really good cross section of those interested in starting their own companies. There was a lot of passion in the room, and that's something that I think fills me with the most optimism about the future of the Australian startup scene. If you are based in Melbourne be sure to check out future events!

I Cut The Wrong Deal With An Advisor - Ask the VC

This is a great post from Brad and Jason over at "Ask the VC" (one of the blogs I like). Advisors can be a useful member of the team if they can help you structure your business plan and help prepare your company to be attractive to investors. However, remember, we are investing in YOU, not your advisor. So, outsourcing your fund-raising to an advisor is a non-starter strategy. Advisors should be just that, your advisor, the person next to you willing to give you support.

Advisors do have a role - some companies would never have received funding without the advisor's help. However, an advisor can also poison a deal by demanding unattractive terms. They need to find the sweet spot in the middle to reach the most success.

Unfortunately, the advisor in the post below isn't in the sweet spot:

http://www.askthevc.com/blog/archives/2008/04/i-cut-the-wrong.php

How to make your company investor ready

Part of what I like to speak about are interesting technology trends - particularily Cleantech trends. However, other topics of interest for me include suggestions that I can make to potential entrepreneurs. This post is the latter.

We see a lot of variety in the deals we review here in Australia. There are the straightforward deals - smart founder, team of three or four, raised $200k of angel funding, prototype developed and some market traction with introductory customers. We put in money to unlock the full potential of the company and things can really take off. However, just as often we see the "non-straightforward" deals. These might be companies which have been operating on a shoe-string budget for ten years or more, often earning consulting revenue on the side while they try to develop their product. They may have fair amounts of debt, most of it from friends/family who didn't understand that VCs are much more comfortable with angels that hold an equity position, than debt. The company may have a smattering of different products that they have tried over the years, with varying degrees of success. There could be an attractive way forward with a new market opportunity that makes the company attractive for a VC, but given the company's history, there is a lot of baggage to get through.

So, here are my suggestions for making your company as clean as possible before approaching investors (or, at least, before entering final due diligence when the lawyer's bills are running!)

Convert Debt to Equity

One of the things investors have constantly worry about is fraud. Money that immediately leaves the company to repay debt (or to pay advisors, for that matter, if they have excessively high fees - which I would classify, in some cases, to be much more than 4~5%) makes investors very uncomfortable. The reason that the company is valued for what it is by investors is partly due to what the company has accomplished, and partly due to what the company is expected to accomplish. If the company is fully debt financed, especially by the founding members, it says that the founders don't have as strong a vested interest in the company as they would with equity, and are keen to get as much money back as soon as possible, and then participate in the gains of the company. Therefore, expect to have debts paid to founders convert to equity. Debts owed to related parties or third parties may be paid, but in this case, be sure to have clear documentation of the debts prepared to be able to justify these payments. However, if you want to make your company as attractive to investors as possible, raise equity funding from your early stage backers, not debt financing.

Have Accounting Records Clearly Prepared

If your company matches the "straightforward" description that I mentioned above there is likely to be little trading history for the company, and what is there should be simple and easy to understand. However, if you have a longer history of trading (which, arguably is a good thing), then be sure to be able to present clear accounting records documenting the company's history. If it is difficult to verify the company's trading history, if it is difficult to verify the inventory the company claims as an asset, if it is difficult to verify that the company revenues have been what is being claimed, or if it is difficult to understand the company's historic cost structure (and margins) then investors are going to be very uncomfortable. If you have an attractive story, but little documentation to back it up, investors may be interested in supporting your story, but uninterested in supporting a fantasy. Without clear records, some investors won't be interested in taking a risk, based solely on your say-so. Other investors may take the risk on your company, but they will simply discount away anything they are uncomfortable about in the valuation. To have the deal be as attractive as possible to both parties, be sure to keep good records.

Clean Up Complicated Contracts

Have a special agreement with your CTO where the company pays for her car payments? Have an contract with your suppliers where they provide better payment terms in exchange free use of your testing facility? Have you agreed with a distributer to an exclusive licence of your technology over a key geographic region? If you have bizarre agreements or contracts, either within the company, or with external parties, this just further compalicates the deal - either find ways to simplify these agreement, or, again, be able to clearly demonstrate the boundaries of the agreement to the investor - and justify why the agreement was initiated in the first place. This will help calm fears which might come when the investor reviews these agreements in the due diligence, and it will build trust that you are being upfront on the state the business and how it got there.

Remove Conflicts of Interest
Don't try to operate two businesses at once - a consulting business and a high-growth product development business, and argue that you can split your time between two businesses. When investors put their money in, they are backing the founders - and for this they want to be sure that the founders will be focussed on the success of the business. If the investors are worried about your other businesses/committments, they can be uncomfortable about proceeding. If you do have multiple businesses, or subsidaries that are unrelated to the investment that can be conflicted, or even merely distracting, then plan on disengaging yourself from these businesses before proceeding. Structure your responsibilities so that 100% of you commitment is on the new venture, and you will find investors much more interested in backing you.

A key message through all of these points is clarity, transparancy, and accountability. In all cases, show clear documentation, and be able to justify past decisions the company has made, so that the investor feels comfortable that they understand what company they are purchasing, and that they understand what the company needs to do going forward. Without this clarity you may find that the investor feels too concerned about the complicated nature of a deal, and the deal cannot proceed.

This is obviously something both parties want to avoid, so do what you can to make your company as attractive as possible, and you will be in a better position to attract investment!

4th AustralAsian Cleantech Forum

I just returned from the two day cleantech conference in Melbourne entitled the "4th AustralAsian Cleantech Forum" (http://www.cleantechforum.com/).

My co-worker Ivor and I had the opportunity to check in with a number of people we hadn't spoken with in a while. The conference is showing tremendous growth over last year, and last year's event was pretty decent. It was good to run into a number of familiar faces - this is giving me confidence that I'm seeing more and more of the players in Australia's cleantech community. As well, 14 companies pitched to the group - 7 either in Seed or Series A stage, and 7 in Series B stage (or later, as some of the companies had already gone public).

The companies showcased an interesting mix of technology. There were two ocean power companies, a high-performance diesel engine, biodegradable plastics, some water recycling companies, a couple of concentrating solar technologies, and some clean coal companies. All in all, a pretty diverse mix, and hopefully an impressive preview of the further improving dealflow happening in Australia.

In addition to the company showcase, there were several presentations and panel discussions. Premier John Brumby opened the conference. It was good to see him there as he is a big supporter of the cleantech opportunity and the benefits it can provide to the state of Victoria. Several US LPs were there, including representatives of CalPERS and Pacific Corporate Group Asset Management. There is growing interested by US investors in the Asian cleantech space, and I think many of them are realizing (as is our thesis) that Australia, as an English-speaking country with a British-based legal system is a great launching point to Asia.

Also of interest is the greater role that India is playing within this forum. Jeffrey and Peter Castellas, the founders of Cleantech AustralAsia have put together a good team to link opportunities, both for investment, and for companies entering the Indian market, between India and Australia. This is a great move. Every VC understands that tapping into the Indian and Chinese market is incredibly valuable for a growing company, and yet both markets can be very challenging. By leveraging the connections between Australia and India, this market entry can be made easier.

All in all it was a great event.

Rooftop Wind Gets Traction

Welcome back! It's been a wonderful Christmas break, but it's time to get back to work. The new year has started quickly at Starfish, with my time being split between tying up loose ends left from before Christmas, to getting a jump on a bunch of new opportunities.

However, there is a business concept I've seen a couple of times now that I think is interesting. It is a concept that I had the privilege to hear about when I was at AeroVironment (AV's Architectural Wind product is shown below, and another company, Marquiss Wind Power's product is shown to the right), and this is rooftop wind. Similar to rooftop solar, in that this allows the power generation to be close to the source (and therefore compete economically with the retail price of electricity, not the wholesale price). In addition the units, if designed well, allow the building to function as a wind funnel, channelling (and accelerating) the wind over the top of the building. The turbines can be located in a zone of far greater wind-speed than the typical mean windspeed at ground level. This gives the turbines decent performance.


The final benefit is that the turbines can improve the visual aesthetics of a building. This is something that AV has done in spades with the ravenclaw look to their product. What's brilliant about this is that the initial reaction to having a bunch of turbines on a roof of a building is concern about noise and the building visuals. With an attractive design, the concerns over aesthetics are addressed, and the turbines allow a building's "green cache" to be much more easily seen and promoted.

In the last year in Australia I have seen not one but two companies with a similar concept. Both had different product designs, one using a vertical axis. These products had some cost and reasonable payback difficulties. However, I thought, at the time, that it was interesting to see more work done on the concept.

Well today it was announced that Marquiss Wind Power raised $1.3m from Velocity Venture Capital and Strategis Early Ventures. They have a ducted fan design (shown above and to the right). They are in their early design phases and their product looks a lot like the earlier iterations of AVs product, but there is room for improvement. Like many other cleantech products widespread adoption will be determined by the economics, so lifetime reliability, and $/W will be key.


However, I'm interested that four different firms (at least) are pursuing this concept. I imagine that will actually be good news for these companies. When trying to prove a new concept to skeptical customers, a number of competitors in an early growing market can be a good thing as competitors are far more likely to validate the concept than compete for a specific sales dollar. So, it will be interesting to see if more companies jump in this space, and to see whether or not the economics can succeed.

New Startup

It's been a busy two months since I last posted. Australian businesses tend to take a fairly lengthy break (certainly by US standards) around Christmas time. The upside of this is that it's nice to have some time off; the downside is that everyone works furiously trying to complete projects before the Christmas shutdown. During this furious period, I've been progressing a couple of deals, which hopefully I can talk about in the upcoming months. This has prevented regular blogging, but like most errant bloggers, I'll optimistically declare that things will pick up again in the new year.

However, yesterday I confirmed progress on what might be my most exciting startup yet. A seed round was completed a couple of months ago and today we've confirmed that things are growing. What's most exciting, is that it looks like we can expect an exit as early as August! Amazingly, in terms of growth, I'm really confident that we'll see well over a 1000x increase by time of exit, and likely almost another 20x increase over the next 20 years! So, this is pretty amazing news, and I'll keep you all posted.

Merry Christmas!

CAFE - Automaker's best interests

ArlingtonBlue left a comment on my post about CAFE (not CAFÉ) the other day - thank you Arlington, I look at the stats and see I have many readers, but few posters; it's nice to have some dialog.

What was interesting about the comment was the suggestion that CAFE was not in the automaker's best interests. This is something I better need to understand. The typical line of reasoning over any regulation is that the regulation is bad for the auto companies. Catalytic converters, low emission vehicles, seatbelts/airbags, what have you - if it's regulated, it's bad news. However, I look at things differently, so would love to know where I'm wrong. Right now the car companies are in a very competitive industry, which little to differentiate vehicles, other than price (at least Ford, GM, and other such companies are often flogging "FACTORY INCENTIVES", whereas Honda, less so). Surely when a new regulation comes onboard that affects all car companies equally, this provides a new potential source of competitive advantage? If a new regulation came in that all cars had to have huge chrome fins, and Cadillac was the best car maker in the world at chrome fins, wouldn't they have a huge advantage over Hyundai?

So, for an automaker to argue against a regulation means that a) they don't think it is being applied uniformly, or b) they basically are admitting that they suck and don't have a chance in hell of competing under the new regulatory scheme. Regarding a), sometimes regulations only affect car makers who produce above a certain volume. So, GM would be unfairly biased a kit car manufacturer in keeping emissions down. Usually, this isn't any issue by the very nature of the fact that the kit car manufacturer isn't truly competing with GM. Regarding b) if a car maker is saying that they have no chance in competing under a new regulatory environment because they are not as innovative and skilled as their competitors, then I think Adam Smith (and myself) have opinions over what should be the long-term viability of that car company.

Anyone have theories over why economically rational automakers should oppose any regulations, and not see them as opportunities?

Turning Green into Gold

I write about cleantech deals a lot because that is the primary investment focus for me (I say primary because I get involved in IT, manufacturing, and other engineering deals that fit my expertise as well). However, our friends over at Cleantech Ventures, who exclusively look at cleantech deals have co-authored a white paper examining the cleantech venture industry in Australia. It was written by Anastasia O'Rourke (currently finishing a PhD at Yale) and co-authored by Hans de Zwart of Cleantech Ventures.

Given that it is talking about Australian Cleantech Venture, the title Turning Green to Gold could not have been more fitting, and was even obvious to me, a non-Australian (for those who don't know, Green and Gold are Australia's colours, so to speak).

From the blurb:

Cleantech Ventures and Cleantech Network LLC (USA) have co-authored a benchmark report representing the first-ever comprehensive analysis of cleantech venture capital, buyouts, merger and acquisition and IPO activity in Australia.

It's a pretty good review of the Australian context of this industry and the link for the report is here.

Seriously...it's just CAFE, not CAFÉ

This is an amusing case of Microsoft changing the world, for the worse. In the US auto industry, many of the incumbent automakers are up in arms about increases to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. CAFE is the acronym for the Corporate Average Fuel Economy. However, when you type CAFE into Microsoft Word (or other Office programs with Autocorrect) it will change the word to CAFÉ automatically. This has happened so much that I'm beginning to think that people feel that CAFE actually is spelled with an accent (I suppose it gives it more flair than a typical acronym). In all the articles in the media now about increases in CAFE standards, I'm seeing this happen more and more in real journalism. Gads!

Read Higher emissions standards to benefit U.S. automakers from CNet, and you'll see what I mean. Good article though, but it's just CAFE, not CAFÉ!

Success with Powerpoint

Ok, I think I've figured out how to post a powerpoint presentation. Here it is:


There is one minor bug - the animations don't work, so the first graph shows the stock prices of Ballard and Sunpower, but doesn't say which is which. Sunpower is the yellow one and Ballard is blue.

Otherwise, not a bad service.

Welcome to Alice Springs!

I'm here in sunny Alice Springs. I'm not kidding, the weather forecast varies from "sunny" to "mostly sunny". The high temperature is 37C, which is 98 to my US friends, and it looks like the perfect place to hold a solar conference. I'm speaking at the ANZSES conference this week. My keynote compares the fortunes of Ballard Power Systems and Sunpower and tries to compare and contrast the fortunes of the fuel cell industry ten years ago to the solar industry today.

If I can figure out how to post a powerpoint presentation, I'll put it up after I present (thanks for the tips, Shuman!). The basic gist is that the solar industry today is looking a lot like Ballard was in 1998. Both Ballard and Sunpower rose from $1b~$2b market caps to ~$6b market caps in roughly 18 months.



Both companies have had a long string of successes. Both companies are built on the premise that there is a huge market to be served (automotive for BPS and utility power for SPWR). Both companies have their hopes pinned on expected, but not yet achieved cost reductions.



So what happened? Well Ballard went from stratospheric to ex-orbital (is that a word?) between January and March 2000. The value of the company shot up to around a peak of a $15b market cap! At this time the markets had thought that Ballard's product (the Mark-900 automotive fuel cell) was ready for mass-production and the market. Over the next 2, 3, 4 years it became clear that, while the product was fantastic (full disclosure: I was a proud Ballard engineer during this time) there were just too many hurdles to getting to market. Ballard's value fell and it is now "only" a $500m company.

What's different with the solar industry and will it suffer the same fate? While it is true that the solar industry, globally, is heavily subsidized, and if those subsidies went away there would be a massive decrease in the new installations of solar, the solar industry does not face the difficult path that the fuel cell industry did. The fuel cell industry faced a huge "chicken and egg" problem - no one would buy a fuel cell vehicle without refuelling stations established - no one would establish fuelling stations without an installed fleet of vehicles. There were many other difficulties too, but let's stick with this one as it is the one which is not solvable with technical improvements. This "chicken and egg" problem prevented, not just mass-production, of fuel cells, but darn near any production of fuel cells. Fuel cell companies could not even begin to start riding the learning curve of production down to reduce costs.

Solar, on the other hand, doesn't face such a barrier. This is allowing solar energy (and here I'm just speaking of PV) to be produced in huge quantities. Each solar cell produced costs less than the cell before that. This is giving the solar energy the momentum it needs to continue to drive down costs, and then eventually compete without subsidy against other forms of electricity generation. This slow, but steady, improvement is an opportunity the poor fuel cell was never provided. Ballard's engineers built a killer product, but it was required to compete fairly with the automotive engine from day 1, and build out a supporting installed base at the same time.

So, are solar energy stocks overvalued? Perhaps, perhaps not. If I knew for sure I'd be calling my broker. However, we at Starfish feel that the opportunities in the solar industry are certainly real, and that, this time, there are real, long-term, sustainable, businesses to be built that have a decent path to market. I'm here in Alice to see if I can support any. Oh, and to soak up some sun!

More press coverage!

The Bendigo conference managed to generate a lot of press coverage. In the Sunday Age, a newspaper here in Australia, there was a feature story on the work we are doing here at Starfish. I am sometimes hesitant about the way that venture capital will be portrayed - either saviours of the economy and creators of jobs, or the financial barbarians at the gate, but I think this came off quite well.

Renewable Energy Conference

I just returned from Bendigo, Victoria. Bendigo is a regional city within Victoria, and one of the more successful regional centres. The conference showcased how regional Australia could benefit from a growing renewable energy industry. This reiterated how climate change should not be discussed in terms or "economy" vs "environment". Rather, addressing the full costs of carbon emissions will create tremendous opportunities for economic growth (especially in regional areas) addressing the problem.

I got to give an interesting presentation, and if I figure out how to host files off of Blogger, I'll try to post it here. A number of people seemed to really like it. I may have ruffled a few feathers in the fuel cell industry when I said that it was very difficult to make investments in the fuel cell space now after the tremendous exposure that fuel cell companies received in the last ten years. However, with my years at Ballard, and my exposure to Plug, UTC, GM and other fuel cell developers, I still am pretty confident I know what I'm talking about.

The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) interviewed me for their radio segment, which discusses portions of my talk. If you want to listen to it, it's listed here. It was great to see the enthusiasm at the conference, and it was good to meet up with some entrepreneurs. If anyone reading this blog has any questions about anything I mentioned, be sure to leave a comment and I'll try to respond.



Note: the picture and the interview (I imagine - although I suppose I provided most of the content) are copyright the ABC.

Hello to RMIT

I had an interesting discussion with business undergrads today at RMIT in Melbourne (apologies to Georgia Beattie, who I accidentally called Georgina...oops). As undergrads I was fairly encouraged that they were as interested as they were in venture capital, business strategy, and what makes a successful start-up. Very likely some of them are reading this blog, so if that's you, I hope you found it useful. I had fun talking with you.

Other VC Blogs

Since I've begun writing my blog I've been reading a number of other blogs by various other VCs. In fact, it was the fact that there are so many other VC blogs that got me thinking of starting this in the first place. I'm actually kind of dismayed at the low quality of most of the posts. It seems that a lot of bloggers just enter something - anything - so that they can update their RSS feed. Most of the time they will simply take a clip from another website and then add the comment - "This sounds great!".

However, I have found a few that I think are pretty good. I then came across Marc Andreessen's blog, which, hands down, has some of the best content I've seen on startups and VC funding. It's funny, because I know that I'm just doing what I described above as being bad (having a post about nothing other than other people's posts), but Marc's site is pretty special.

blog.pmarca.com

More on Climate Change

When I mentioned in my last post, that the IPCC is requiring that the per capita CO2 emissions on this planet peak and start to decline soon, I should mention that I don't actually know if the IPCC have specifically made those recommendations. However, I arrived at that conclusion after reviewing their data, so I thought I would share it with you.

This also relates to the discussion of a carbon tax vs. a trading system. In a carbon tax situation, the price of the carbon is fixed, and the amount of carbon is let to float. This is good when it is important to know the likely impact on the economy, but not so good if you want to know the effectiveness of the CO2 reduction. The other approach is to set a level of CO2 reduction required, and let the price float. This is good if you want to constrain CO2 production to known levels, but not so good if you want to know the effect on the economy. One thing discussed in Australia is the notion of a "safety valve" - ie, a cap on the price of carbon. The name "safety valve" clearly shows a bias to the economy and making sure it is "safe". If the price of CO2 is very high, it could be for a good reason - that the levels of CO2 emissions are still too high, and greater economic forces are needed to come down, but, as I said, the language of "safety valve" is biased towards economic performance, not emissions control.

Nevertheless, let's get back to the issue of determining when per capita CO2 emissions need to peak and fall. The book, "Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet" by Mark Lynas discusses various effects that each one degree increase in temperature for the planet can mean. The great concern isn't just the global warming, it is the risk that one, or more, positive feedback triggers can occur, which would greatly affect our planet and dramatically hinder our ability to do anything. These positive feedback events include the melting of the polar icecaps (reducing the reflectiveness of the Earth and causing the Earth to heat up more), the methane release of thawing permafrost, the burning of the Amazon, etc. The link I provided is actually a summary of the book from The Guardian, and is an interesting read.

The end result is that we don't really want to increase temperatures past two degrees increase, otherwise we end up triggering the "tipping point" events which lead to runaway destruction. So, now let's turn to the IPCC for some charts. This paper from Bert Metz shows the temperature rise from various emission scenarios. The two graphs of interest are below.




Now, looking at the second graph first, we see that pretty much anything past A1, A2, or B is certainly going to result in a long-term temperature rise of three degrees or more. If we want to avoid this, we need to follow emissions profiles for A1 or A2 (or, at the most reckless, B).

Now we turn our attention to the first graph. We see that for A1, A2 and B, the emissions all peak at similar times (around 2020). The only difference between the different scenarios is the rate of decline in CO2 emissions. So, 2020 - since it is now 2007, this means that we have to begin an actual decline in emissions in the next 13 years - yes?

However, this is where the ever growing population that I discussed a few months ago comes back into play. The population is ever increasing! So, for the population simply to continue with the same rate of CO2 emission, in an increasing population situation, means that the per capita CO2 emissions need to drop. Therefore, the per capita emissions need to begin to decline sooner than 13 years, maybe closer to 10.

Ten years. Ten years ago was 1997 and the handover of Hong Kong to China. Ten years ago was the death of Princess Diana. Ten years ago I joined an exciting fuel cell company, Ballard Power Systems, in hopes of helping its mission of having the "Power to Change the World". Ten years seems like a long time in some respects, but an absolutely terrifyingly short time in others. We don't need to slow down the growth rate of emissions, we need to slow down our actual rate of emissions, and continue to decrease our rate of emissions. We're driving towards a brick wall and discussing weather we should have a foot fully on the accelerator, or less fully on the accelerator...we've got only ten years to look for the brake. Unfortunately, we're not driving in an easily stopped sports car either, we're on the lumbering freight train called the global economic system. The demand for solutions cannot be greater.

Emissions trading in Australia and Climate Change and Business Conference

I am a huge supporter of a carbon trading system. Without capturing the external costs of carbon dioxide, the full value of cleantech products cannot be realized. I just returned from the Climate Change and Business conference, held in Brisbane this year, and it was very worrying and informational.

It was worrying because many people reported on data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which basically states that we need to make massive changes to peak our per capita emissions of CO2 within the next few years or we risk catastrophic changes to the Earth. I'll talk about this more in a later post.

However, it was informational because I learned a little more about the emissions trading scheme that Australia is considering. Both parties now claim to support such a scheme (with, of course, no real details available until after the election!) However, both parties plan for a roll-out in the next 5 years (2012 for Liberals, 2011 for Labour). I think this is great, because once capital markets can influence things, they can be a tremendous force for change. However, this highlights the slow pace of change - 5 years before an emissions trading scheme is active!? If we take decades to make changes, and we only have a little over a decade to start moving the needle, we need to get away from the "environment or the economy" discussion which many politicians use to frame the debate, and quickly recognize the Stern Report conclusion, which is that the "pro-economy" policies are ones which mitigate the damage of climate change. It is the policies which allow greater climate change damage to occur that will truly destroy the world's economy.

More to come...

The Power of Network Effects and Harry Potter

As part of my continuing series of posts on exciting business strategies, this time I would like to talk about the power of network effects. Network effects can have multiple fantastic properties, including simultaneously providing rapid adoption rates as well as erecting barriers to entry.

A network effect takes place when the value someone places on something increases with the number of people who use that thing. If I enjoy taking a taxi to work rather than walking in the rain, I don't value that taxi any more if other people also are taking taxis to work. However, if I use a certain operating system, I will get more value out of it if everyone else also uses that operating system - there will be more software, support will be more readily available, and costs will go down. This is how Microsoft has managed to maintain its lock with Windows, now that it is the dominant system. This is why VHS finally won out over Beta, DVDs over Div-X, and this explains the various successes and failures of the console gaming systems. Whichever system managed to establish a lead ended up dominating the market.

What does this have to do with Harry Potter? Well, after the release of the final book in the series I have been reading a flurry of posts on the book. However, one of the most interesting (I've looked for it, but I can't find the link) was a post describing one of the reasons for Harry Potter's success and this was due to the fact that the book had become popular enough to benefit from a network effect. Most books are enjoyed by the reader, independent of what other people are reading, yet because Harry Potter was so huge, the experience of reading could be shared with other Harry Potter readers. Harry Potter became more exciting because many other people were reading Harry Potter. Woe to the child who shows up in the schoolyard not knowing what happened in the latest Harry Potter installment!

So, if you are developing a business, if the business strategy can include a network effect, allowing for the value of your product/service to improve as the number of installed users increases, then you can be included in the same list as Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, and J.K. Rowling, which is a pretty good list indeed.