Perspectives on Clean Technology (Follow-on)

In 2009 I shared some thoughts here on clean technology development. After some positive feedback I thought it would be appropriate share additional perspectives to do a follow-on piece for 2012.

Clean technology is not a phenomenon that is going away, and that is becoming clearer with each passing year. A few pervasive fundamental drivers exist:

• The same motivating factors that were driving clean tech five years ago still exist, and some (emerging market demand and environmental stress) are even getting stronger
• Clean tech is an incredibly diverse industry and the term reaches into a broad array of business segments
• There is systemic inertia which continues to push toward greater efficiency and reduced environmental impact – not just in energy, but across the spectrum
• Need for sustained innovation and the effect of cost arbitrage
  

While folks are concerns about sovereign debt, regulatory changes, and increased competition, 2011 was a record year for clean technology deployments and I believe 2012 will be even a better year as capital flow increases and emerging dynamics continue to make the case for clean technology as a worthwhile industry. From energy, to materials, to natural resources, and even governmental and regulatory action, developing clean technology is a mindset that a host of players are caught up in. And one issue that is frequently misunderstood is the utter scale and pervasiveness of what this area encompasses. To put it simply, clean tech is in play virtually everywhere that matters (e.g. water, smart or renewable materials, clean transportation, electric vehicles, energy storage, etc.)

Energy issues do not seem to ever go away. Today, there is a lot of regulatory action which is setting out with the goal of correct arbitrage and imbalances between technological development and commodity pricing (think of the corn ethanol subsidy/drawdown). It serves as an impetus for new tech growth, and that is what is important here. Appropriate regulatory action is certainly not slowing down development, as clean tech is also a politically popular and viable economic movement.

As I have said before, this is a different animal that what we saw in the 90s with the dot-com era (high initial capital infusion followed by a network of low cost start-ups to develop value). Rather, the clean tech industry is one that driven by “tech innovation AND implementation.” That is to say – the dissemination of innovative technology on a broad scale and the ability to ramp up production and utilization sooner rather than later. It is important to balance that point by saying that technology is the driving concern here, and a capital-intensive asset-driven business is not. Technology developers should be implementing strategies which allow them to advance their developments with lighter asset burdens. Partnerships with manufacturers and high-infrastructure companies while focusing on research and development is a smart play – one which will see faster commercial realization. Once again, a savvy industry focused investor (e.g. specialty venture capital or private equity investment firms) should understand the difference of “asset plays vs. new technology play” and consider review both the immediate capital cost of deployment of a new technology as well as the long-term cash flows and liabilities that can be inherent in such investment consideration.

Nowhere is the implementation need more conspicuous than in sustainable and renewable energy. Traditional energy sources, especially fossil fuels, are creating incentives for their own replacement – both economic and environmental. To scale this sector to the point of wholly replacing traditional energy is far from a realistic proposition in the foreseeable future. What is important at the present moment is to scale deployment of new energy technology while reducing associated costs. The goal is to grow an important supplement to traditional energy, which will mitigate its costs. We are seeing this more every year (think of growth in wind and solar, as examples). Efficiency is another key theme in energy – one that can be addressed by clean tech advancement (but which necessitates the incentives to do so). Regulators can play an important role here.
Certainly one of the biggest areas for clean tech development moving forward is powered transportation. Here we see some of the greatest energy consumption (again, particularly fossil fuels) coupled with high environmental impact. This is particularly true for emerging markets, where we see exploding industrialization and associated demand. The impact of these areas cannot be ignored. Much can be done to improve the industry on a technological basis. Fuels, materials, drivetrains, and motors are all components that are ready for innovation. Again, incentives must be in place.

The central theme of my view on clean technology is that it’s an expansive industry, which will provide consistent economic development opportunities moving ahead and chemical and specialty materials industry players are at the forefront of this movement. An innovation in “business of chemistry” could translate into an innovation for “clean technology industry”, and vice versa. What are you views?

Synergistic acquisition to promote innovation

In January, BASF and LKCA (a subsidiary of Linde Group), announced that they would jointly market licenses and plants for the capture of CO2 from flue gases, and recently, with assistance from RWE Power, they have created (and successfully tested) a major breakthrough in carbon capture technology. The new innovative technology captures CO2 by means of utilizing new chemical solvents that can reduce energy input by about 20 percent. Furthermore, the new solvents feature superior oxygen stability, which reduces solvent consumption significantly, which consequently improves efficiency.

In the future, climate-capture technology will likely play a key role in generating climate-compatible power from coal, and this new technology process, once scaled up to large power plants, will reduce power plant waste gases and facilitate clean energy generation. In addition, as this technology should capture more than 90% of the CO2 contained in waste gases, a vast supply of recycled CO2 can be created and used for inputs in chemical transformations such as production of fertilizers. New plants demonstrating this technology are scheduled to be in operation by 2015, and the technology should be expected to be utilized commercially in coal-fired power stations by 2020. Ultimately, once this technology expands, there will be a significant reduction in the release of climate-damaging CO2 due to its successful capture and transport for recycling or sequestration.

So, why is this development relevant in the chemicals industry? And why is it relevant within the private equity industry? First, this development illustrates the strong motivations within the chemicals industry to become more environmentally sustainable while simultaneously reducing costs and improving efficiency. Furthermore, this new technology derived directly from the pooling of knowledge and resources from various firms with different areas of expertise; individually, the companies would likely have found development of this technology exceedingly difficult, however, when their resources were combined, breakthroughs were managed in rapid fashion. Similarly, in the private equity industry, companies are strategically acquired so as to enable such synergies to promote swift innovation and long-term value creation, and as this particularly example clearly illustrates, the broader chemicals industry provides a viable forum in which to initiate such developments.

Deadline for innovation or profit? An issue in venture capital world…

Ennovance Capital is NOT is VC firm (i.e. Ennovance is a PE investor). However, I could not resist the temptation to share my perspectives on the VC landscape. Currently, numerous venture capital (VC) firms are experiencing the problem of facing end-of-life fund deadlines in a market that has seen difficulties in recent years. Many of the funds facing this problem were created during the dot-com bubble; from 1999-2001, over 1200 venture funds closed on approximately $179 billion. Many of these funds facing end-of-life deadlines retain companies they believe hold much potential and seek extensions of their funds for a year or two; however, many investors in Wall Street would rather exit as quickly as possible and take their losses from venture bubble investments. Apart from loss of potential profits, what are the other possible effects of closing these funds without extensions?

One impact of decreased investment that many neglect to mention is the adverse affect on multifactor productivity (MFP). In economic terms, multifactor productivity is a concept that measures the changes in output per unit of input. In other words, MFP exists when the output is greater than the sum of its input. In real terms, MFP reflects factors such as managerial skill, technological developments, reorganization of production, etc; in essence, it is a measure of innovation. If this venture funds are required to close and let up on companies with significant potential, we would witness a noticeable decrease in MFP, for these funds would be unable to commercialize novel ideas and innovations, create synergy between existing companies, restructure and reorganize companies to operate more efficiently, etc. Many bright ideas and innovations that could potentially transform industries will never see the light of day, which will prove to be a dire consequence towards society as a whole.

Just as Rome wasn’t built in a day, companies cannot be transformed overnight. Although the market as of late, although improving in some regards, has been less than comfortable for investors, they should not give up on funds with potentially valuable assets too quickly. The key questions to ask are: Will novel ideas will remain novel ideas despite capital market conditions? Isn’t innovation made America great? If so, how big of a “real loss” would we see as innovation fades away due to general uneasiness within the market for VC?