- Services
- Solutions
- Cleantech Forum events
- Jobs
- About us
It’s that time of the year again. And this year is even better than before.
The Cleantech Group has been making predictions each year since 2007 about what to watch for in the clean technology sector, and this year we’re excited about the even wider perspective we offer in our trends to watch for in the coming year.
2008 was a year for collecting more clean technology intelligence than ever worldwide. In recognition that clean technology is a global phenomenon with global opportunities, this year the Cleantech Group:
Worldwide conversations
I’ve had the good fortune to speak with and discuss trends with important clean technology industry and government figures in the last 10 weeks in places like Singapore, Mumbai, Tel Aviv, Dubai, London, Barcelona, San Francisco, Washington D.C. and Johannesburg. I’ve recently participated in SuperReturn, NAVCS, the China Global Leaders Forum and Green Economy Israel. And I’ve been influenced by members of our very own Cleantech Network, the world’s leading investors, service providers, entrepreneurs, economic development agencies and large corporations in clean technology.
Here’s what we’re hearing and seeing first hand and from industry insiders around the globe.
The following list, culled from a set of 26 we debated internally, first debuted exclusively to members of the Cleantech Network in a webinar on November 25th, and then onstage and at a press conference at the Cleantech Group’s Cleantech Forum in Shanghai December 4th. What do you think of these predictions? Add your comments at the end.
1. Energy efficiency infrastructure boom initiated
There will be important opportunities in 2009 in energy efficiency worldwide.
We see a quadruple bottom-line benefit to focusing on energy efficiency. Whether it’s modernizing the grid, or insulating our homes, energy efficiency achieves job creation, greater than any other area related to energy or cleantech—far more so than, for example, building a nuclear power plant, or a wind farm. From a job creation standpoint, organized labor in the form of the Apollo Alliance in the U.S. is now advocating it as a way to create high quality jobs for its members.
Also, being more efficient boost competitiveness, so this plays to secular trends in the economy. More efficient infrastructure and equipment is a good thing, particularly as we get capital stock turn over. Energy efficiency also addresses the need for carbon reduction, and being more energy efficient reduces the demand for imported energy in the form of oil and other commodities.
An added benefit is that we can get going on this relatively quickly. The lead time to get involved in energy efficiency markets is, relatively speaking, short. We think this is going to be a common denominator around investments in generating green jobs and renewed clean infrastructure in 2009 and moving forward.
2. Global climate talks bog down—no serious deal until 2011/12
Serious attention is being paid to global climate talks, and governments have reiterated their commitments to moving the climate change agenda forward. However, reality is soon about to set in.
Governments are going to be distracted, and conversations are going to become more complex than realized. Technology transfer to India and China, for instance, is going to be a major sticking point. As an organization, the Cleantech Group is trying to be of help here, infusing into these discussions an awareness of clean technology ecosystem we serve, but the fact of the matter is that negotiators are becoming hamstrung with a whole range of issues that are going to take longer to unfold if we are going to have a meaningful Kyoto II or an agreement beyond Kyoto II.
A deal will get done, but it will take longer, especially as the new U.S. administration comes up to speed. Unfortunately, we do not see a global deal in 2009, maybe not even in 2010, but are optimistic that a meaningful agreement will be reached in about 3 years.
3. U.S. passes national RPS, but cap & trade bill only in 2010
Late last month, U.S. president-elect Barack Obama reiterated at California Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger’s Climate Summit in Los Angeles via video link that a carbon cap and trade bill is on the drawing board, however we think it’s going to take the U.S. Congress a little longer to get this done.
2009 appears to be a stretch for a range of reasons. This is very complex stuff, and there will be lots of pushing and shoving. We expect a cap and trade bill deal in early 2010, but the good news is that we think a U.S. national RPS (renewable portfolio standard) will be passed beforehand in 2009. There is very strong business encouragement for the incoming administration to get this done. This is about predictability, job creation and about creating a national standard that will enable people to make investment decisions in clean technology.
4. Wind stocks come back; thin film PV shakeout
In the public markets, many clean technology stocks, particularly those in alternative energy, were under siege in late 2008 as this was written. However, we expect wind stocks in particular to come back in 2009, partly driven by a new national RPS in the U.S., and growing awareness of wind as one of the most cost competitive alternative energy assets.
Unfortunately, we can’t predict the same for thin film photovoltaics. We think there has been over-investment in thin film PV in the private capital markets, and inflated valuations in the public capital market. There will be a need for a shake-out, even though we believe in the long term future for thin film as part of the PV mix.
5. Clean technology VC stabilizes at $7B globally; PE more active
We’ve seen a very robust amount of capital enter the clean technology space over the last 6-8 weeks, if you track and read what we publish at the Cleantech Group (for example, see $4.8B flows in cleantech sector this week, Ag tech, fuel cells thrive in busy week for deals and Cleantech funds worth $1.9B lead the week). There have been a number of $500 million-plus funds closing, and we’ve tracked a total of about $6 billion in new funds, M&A, investments and other deals in just in recent weeks.
In 2009, however, we see a slight decline globally in venture investment in the cleantech space, down from the 8 billion or so we project for 2008, to 7 billion in 2009. We also see more private equity players entering venture capital, yet perhaps a bit of a retreat for the hedge funds, which were starting to dabble in cleantech quite actively. A number of the private equity players are going to be attracted by the valuations they are going to find in cleantech a little further upstream, as well as the linkage between innovation capital and infrastructure financing. In other words, they will take the best of current emerging cleantech companies and help scale them into infrastructure markets.
6. Failure rate of cleantech startups doubles
We believe that in clean technology, as in other sectors, investors will be focusing on the most promising companies in their portfolios, and allow the weaker or cash-constrained ones to merge, be acquired or fail. We expect the failure rate of early stage cleantech companies to potentially double this year, up from the typical 20 percent, to about 40 percent.
While this may be bad news on one level, it does present the opportunity to pick up assets, roll assets into new entities to create complete solutions, hone customer propositions and drive more efficiency in the markets. Failures are present in the maturation of any market, not just cleantech, and we expect the next 18 months to be particularly harsh in that respect.
7. IT turns to the energy opportunity
The IT and telecom industries over the last few years have started to get increasingly engaged in clean technology. Companies like IBM, Autodesk, Cisco and Intel are becoming ever more important.
What we’re seeing now, and this was particularly clear in India this year, is that the IT industry is seizing the energy opportunity as a chance to make money in this area. Whether it’s moving towards more integrated energy management systems or platforms, or smartening up the grids, or lowering carbon content in the supply chain, we see the IT industry turning on the taps this year and really rolling out new a range of products and offerings and driving a great deal of innovation in the cleantech space.
2009 will be the year IT turns its eyes to energy opportunities, not just in algorithms and software. For example, Intel is turning its quantum dot people, who’ve been working on next generation processors, to the solar challenge and opportunity, looking to develop new nano-based solar cells. We could well be in 10 years time calling Intel an energy company, in much the same way Applied Materials is becoming better known as a solar company.
8. R&D stagnates; corporates acquire green growth assets
Everyone is calling for increased clean technology research & development (R&D), particularly around energy. Some major corporations like GE have achieved the energy R&D rates they said they would be at several years ago, but on the whole we are not seeing a wholesale increase in R&D spending, and it’s unlikely given the constraints on corporate and public sector balance sheets that this will happen this year.
We are seeing, and expect to see more of in 2009, continued significant acquisitions of green growth assets. For example, a notable deal in late November was Panasonic’s acquisition of Sanyo in Japan, primarily because of its solar and battery divisions. We think there will be more of this, because either the asset prices will make it attractive, or corporations will see that this is now the time to move forward with new business models in new growth market opportunities.
9. Energy-water-food nexus emerges
There are 3 fundamentals associated with sustaining life on this planet: energy, water, and food. Many people learned this past year from investments in, and concerns around, corn based ethanol that there is a relationship between energy and food. We also know there is a relationship between energy and water. Thirty percent of all energy in California is used move water around, and most of that water is moved for agricultural purposes.
What we’re seeing at Cleantech Group is not just a converge of these three basic fundamental needs, but an increasing awareness of the trade-offs and challenges around them as we move into increasing use of hybrids or electric cars, for instance. Evidence suggests that it takes a lot more water to move a more fuel efficient car or a more electric based car than to move an internal combustion engine car. That’s not to say we don’t believe in the future of hybrids, but what we’re starting to see out there in the research community and amongst policy makers is an increasing recognition of the relationship between these three variables.
For entrepreneurs, investors or service providers bringing solutions to the table that address all three of these issues, there’s the potential for “triple whammy” returns if helping to address all three of these problems at once. So we think that this year they’ll be a much greater attention to these three areas and opportunities for solutions that don’t just solve one problem while creating stresses elsewhere, but that address the challenges of all axes simultaneously.
Thoughts? Feedback? Agree or disagree? Leave your comments below.
Nicholas Parker is co-founder and executive chairman of the Cleantech Group, which introduced the cleantech concept to the investment and business community in 2002.
Want to author a guest column yourself for the Cleantech Group? We welcome contributions, and would like to hear from you. Guidance and directions here.
Services
Solutions
Cleantech Forum events
Jobs
Comments
Water and Energy
Submitted on December 11th, 2008 by Disappointed unregistered user (not verified)To say that "it takes a lot more water to move a more fuel efficient car or a more electric based car than to move an internal combustion engine car" is pure nonsense; even if based on the assumption that "Thirty percent of all energy in California is used move water around." What's the connection? How can you even make such a comment without providing any information to support it with?
lack of technology expertise at CTG
Submitted on December 12th, 2008 by Unregistered user (not verified)Yes, some of these statements have absolutely no scientific merit. I dont think that it helps the development of the feild to make strong statements, especially about the efficacy of different technologies, unless you actually understand them. This could have a very seriously detrimental effect on particular companies and it is irresponsible. I think that your area of expertise is in marketing and conferences, which has been a great addition to the field, but to make pronouncements on technologies that you dont understand is inappropriate.
Water & energy citation: Scientific American
Submitted on December 14th, 2008 by Dallas KachanIf the assertion that it takes more water to move alternative vehicles vs. ICE-based vehicles strikes you as provocative and non-intuitive, it should.
But don't shoot the messenger. Researchers around the world are now measuring this. It's on the minds of leaders in the industry we talk with. And it's worrisome if you're concerned about fresh water supplies.
For some specifics, Scientific American's special issue “Earth 3.0,” which came out only a few weeks ago., features an article by Michael E. Webber titled “Catch-22: Water vs Energy.” From a chart on p 24: Gallons of water depleted to travel 100 miles:
Ethanol = 130
Fuel Cell = 42
Plug in = 24
Gasoline = 7-14
The author makes the case that vastly more water is used in the production of fuel for these vehicles, above, than in the manufacture of gasoline. You can understand the larger water use of many biofuels, but even plug-in hybrids are water hogs, comparatively, researchers say:
"...the power sector swallows water. Compared with producing gasoline for a car, generating electricity for a plug-in hybrid-electric or all-electric vehicle withdraws 10 times as much water and consumes up to three times as much water per mile, according to studies done at the University of Texas at Austin."
The issue is not available electronically. Order it here. However you can reference much of the same article, minus the table and other data, for free here.
Do researchers claim there's a net environmental benefit to ICE-based vehicles? Of course not. The detrimental emissions and resource scarcity issues we're all familiar with re: gasoline-based vehicles still apply. But on the single axis of water consumption, it's increasingly clear that many so-called alternative fuel approaches are putting a load on fresh water supplies. And that's being noticed by those making big bets in clean technology.
Dallas Kachan
Managing Director
Cleantech Group
Water and energy use
Submitted on December 15th, 2008 by Mark Mansley (not verified)I can't help but be a litte suspicious about the figures - yes the power sector "uses" an awful lot of water, but most of it is returned to the system once used rather than being removed permanently. And obviously water use in the power sector various as much as carbon impact (with wind again doing well). We know agriculture is very greedy user of water, and is a further reason to be cautious of current generation biofuels but the future for biofuels will be based on next generation biofuels, with low water use (inter alia) a prerequisite for acceptability.
The significant of water use is also of course very geographically dependent meaning we should be very cautious about drawing conclusions about the impact of water use from generic figures.
It is an interesting debate, and one worth further investigation, but not one to jump to conclusions just yet. And given the track record of the fossil fuel industries in scientific debate, the need for caution is doubly great - having lost the climate debate is water the next argument to used for inaction and unsustainability?
Follow up on Water & energy citation: Scientific American
Submitted on January 11th, 2009 by John Corcoran (not verified)This is a very interesting point. I'm glad you followed up and gave us the citation to Scientific American because as I was reading the Top 9 list of predictions, the comment about non-ICE vehicles using more water jumped out at me.
I agree with the other person's comments that much of the water "used" by the electrical industry is in fact let back into the system. We know that utilities use large hydro plants to generate water but as the plants spill out the water, often it ends up back in the rivers and streams, albeit disrupting the ecosystem.
However, this is a good point: large hydro dams are NOT "renewable" for the purposes of satisfying the renewable portfolio standard requirements, and we do need to continue transitioning our power grids off of these non-renewable sources of power.
John Corcoran
Attorney, Renewable Energy and Clean Tech Consultant
Omni Law Group, LLP
Campbell, CA
http://www.omnillp.com
09 Predictions
Submitted on January 28th, 2009 by Unregistered user (not verified)1, Energy efficiency programs will take into account the riddle of Jorvan's Paradox which states that increasing the efficiency of consumption simply attracts more consumers, thereby accelerating consumption of a resource, with the added realization that the only solution to the riddle is to realize the much greater potential for affecting efficiency gains on the supply side of the energy equation.
2.Climate change negotiators will reach an agreement that is based not on reducing greenhouse gases, but on controlling all uncontrolled emissions, whereby the definition of clean technology is expanded to include any technology which does not result in uncontrolled emissions of ghg's.
3.Renewable portfolios and renewable energy credits will lose value due to competition from a ghg control technology that can be cost-effectively applied to all fuels. By any measure, it is a false proposition to purue cap and trade without the availabilty of such control technolgy.
4.Energy storage, not renewable energy, is where the money is going to go and wind energy stocks will only come back when these are tied into storage plant operations.
5. VC will migrate to financinging development of merchant pumped storage hydro plants that also function as municipal waste disposal facilities and which are further equipped with carbon capture and storage technology, as well as to electrolytically produce liquid hydrogen a portion of recycled wastewater for subsequent use in hydrogen-internal combustion engine vehicles (HICE).
6.The success rate of cleantech startups will double due to implementing cluster development around pumped storage hydro facilities.
7.IT opportunity in the energy industries will greatly increase due to increased use of carbon-rich fuels in the supply chain from central power plants equipped to control ghg's.
8 Seawater will be employed to compress ghg's for capture, recycle and/or storage in pumped hydro plants that are base loaded with renewables and with carbon-controlled fossil fuels
09 Predictions
Submitted on February 4th, 2009 by Philip Gregory (not verified)With respect to your No.1 prediction, please note that it is the "Jevons Paradox" not "Jorvan's Paradox" as you have incorrectly stated - after William Jevons.
Source of information
Submitted on December 11th, 2008 by Emma RitchThis article offers some explanation about research showing that many biofuels, as well as electric vehicles, use more water than petroleum-powered vehicles: see Ethanol gets hosed.
who pays for these water cost "facts"
Submitted on December 12th, 2008 by Unregistered user (not verified)The first line from the article mentioned got me wondering about who funds the research on which these claims are based....
"Texas researchers say biofuels from irrigated corn and soybean fields consume up to 443 times the water of petroleum-based gasoline.
Researchers from the University of Texas at Austin say not enough people are considering...."
The Permanent University Fund (the endowment body for Texas universities) became massive with the discovery of oil in that state. Not conclusion, just wondering.
Energy, water, food
Submitted on December 12th, 2008 by Robert Schafer (not verified)I build zero energy houses that have incredibly high R-values and K-values(thermal mass). These homes use no grid power and use four to six solar panels for everything. They could fuel electric cars. The roofs capture drinking water. Greywater inside the structure grows full size trees and food for a large percentage of food needs. Few are interested in investing in these because there are no widgets that can be mass produced and distributed.
water usage for energy
Submitted on December 15th, 2008 by Unregistered user (not verified)Once again we hear about another negative aspect of making and using bio fuels. First we read about how much of our valuable food resources are going to be needed to sustain bio fuels as an alternative fuel source. Now we are hearing about how much fresh water usage it takes to manufacture these bio fuels. Does anyone get by now that this is a bad avenue to travel and that by now we should stop the madness known as bio fuels and concentrate more time, money and energy on the things that will work without sacrificing our basic food and water needs. Electric cars are the answer if only people researching this alternative would start looking at it in all the wrong ways. To be successful with electric cars we need to make better electric engines and generators and stop so much of the focus on batteries.
Energy, Water and Innovations
Submitted on December 16th, 2008 by Zvi LahatProposing an innovation, first comments are always No's. Sometimes from competing technologies fighting for the same budget pool, but most No's come from un-opened static people or organizations. However, inspite of the No's, magically, Universe progresses in giant steps. Innovators, do not stop, present your cases logically against any obstacle, but on the other hand, with your openness be prepared to adjust or step down, if appropriate, for our mutual benefits.
Food and Energy
Submitted on December 18th, 2008 by Jmaximus (not verified)It is about time we stop calling grapes flown 12,000 miles from southern Chile, "Organic" or "Healthy". The amount of energy this wastes is enormous and must stop. Food should and or must be grown locally, regionally at worst. One might imagine replacing the local Walmart with an indoor high intensity urban farm. Heat adsorbing water pipes could snake underneath blacktop parking lots and connect to a geothermal heat pump system to provide year round heat. Hydroponics and aquaculture could be utilized to increase efficiency and output. This would provide thousands of green collar jobs while saving energy at the same time.
Food and Energy
Submitted on January 13th, 2009 by Unregistered user (not verified)Food miles is not based on scientific evidence - it is a myth, used as a protectionist/anti-trade measure. By all means, purchase locally if you wish to support local farmers but, in many cases, the TOTAL energy used (and CO2 production) to produce and ship food products from Southern Hemisphere countries to Northern Hemisphere countries is greatly lower than that of food produced locally.
The reason is that food products that are transported by ship use significantly less energy than any other form of transportation (note this doesn't apply to product flown in, which is actually very uncommon, due to the high cost and the ability to have produce ripen while in transit on a ship). You will use a lot more energy driving to your local supermarket to buy the product.
If you were to have fruits and vegetables produced year round locally, significant amounts of energy would be required to heat green houses or other structures for these products to grow in winter (or vice versa in southern U.S. States in summer). Despite the options you have proposed for this, the cost and energy used to build and run such structures is significantly higher than shipping fresh product around the world.
The other costs to consider are inputs. Generally, those products from Southern Hemisphere countries require less inputs for production, as their environments are more naturally suited to producing that product. In other words, less water, fertilisers, and pesticides are used, and free range pasture grazing (no barns) is used in the case of dairy and meat production (effectively eliminating the need for antibiotics, etc).
Food and Energy
Submitted on January 20th, 2009 by Unregistered user (not verified)"If you were to have fruits and vegetables produced year round locally, significant amounts of energy would be required to heat green houses or other structures for these products to grow in winter (or vice versa in southern U.S. States in summer). Despite the options you have proposed for this, the cost and energy used to build and run such structures is significantly higher than shipping fresh product around the world. "
Good point, and this is why the push for eating locally also needs to start focusing on eating SEASONALLY. There is no reason to expect summer crops in the winter, other than because we have grown so accustomed in America to wanting what we want when we want it, and getting it.
It's the small steps that will get us to where we are going. If people insist on out of season or out of climate food, perhaps there could be a market for developing an energy efficient greenhouse or something to make that happen on a small scale.
Post new comment