Cereplast

Strategy: To replace oil based plastics with bio-degradable replacements for global packaging needs by development and licensing of innovative products for packaging companies. Lessening dependence upon oil and capitalizing on consumer and government preferences for clean, organic packaging.

Product: At pricing that is 20-25% higher than comparable oil based products; Cereplast designs and manufactures proprietary bio-based, sustainable plastics used in all major converting processes – such as injection molding, thermoforming, blow molding and extrusions.

Market- On November 11, the company said it expects the U.S. bio-plastics market to reach $10 billion in sales by 2020.  The U.S. market accounted for approximately $1 billion in sales in 2007, with some estimates pointing to bio-plastics capturing 30% of the total plastics market by 2019. Cereplast has some products that are food based, with a focus on algae based products as well. Cereplast is an investment in their technology and the market.

Competition: Metabolix, Archer Daniels Midland, Alcoa, Synthetic Genomics, Martek

Funding: A private investor group led by a Swedish Bank has contributed funding in 2009, Cereplast has the right to sell $20MM of common stock to Cumorah Capital, and most significantly in 2007 the company announced it received $14.5 million in new capital through a private placement of common stock from a group of leading “green” institutional funds, including UBS Global Innovator Fund, Swisscanto Green Invest Fund, Fortis L Fund Equity Environmental Sustainability World, and Credit Suisse Future Energy Fund.

Stock Symbol (OTCBB:CERP)

In a related note, Exxon has invested $600 million in Synthetic Genomics and BP has a $10 million investment in Martek Biosciences that compete with Cereplast.

Management: Frederic Scheer, Founder, Chairman and CEO of Cereplast

Comment: This company is an investment in a growing sector, but is their technology superior to larger and better funded competitors? Will their food based products overcome the hurdles that corn based ethanol faced?

Sources:

http://www.cereplast.com/pressrealeasedetail_ir.php?newsid=118
http://cleantech.com/news/4597/cereplast-unveils-bio-based-compost

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20091111005157&newsLang=en

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2592242/
http://www.europeanplasticsnews.com/subscriber/headlines2.html?cat=1&id=1256200526

Another replacement for oil

Think we need oil to make everything that is plastic? Nope. According to researchers at Utrecht University in The Netherlands, up to 90% of the total plastic demand in 2007 (270 Mt) can be replaced with bio-based plastics. What is possible and what will actually happen of course are two very different things- however technical feasibility is of course the first major step. Annual growth rates of bio-based plastics are forecasted at approximately 37% thru 2013. Learn more about the study at the following link: http://www.european-bioplastics.org/media/files/docs/en-pr/PR_ProBip09_091106.pdf

B Plastics

Growth rate of Bio-Plastics

Desertec moving closer to Europe

For many years the Middle East has shipped carbon based fuels to Europe- now a plan to ship clean electrons on this same route has just moved one step forward. A group of 12 European companies is moving forward with the signing of contracts last week to form an LLC called Desertec Industrial Initiative (DII.)  This project is likely the most ambitious power project ever created and aims to power up to 15% of Europe’s electricity needs (100 GW) using massive solar thermal farms in the sunny, desolate Middle Eastern/North African deserts and transmitting these electrons North to Europe.

This Munich based consortium hopes to begin transmission by 2015, finish by 2050 and cost around $400 billion. The project, if successful, will help alleviate dependence on Russian gas as well as power some North African communities. Newly designed transmission technologies aim to reduce transmission load loss typically observed over high distance transmission. Some of the many risks the project will need to overcome are: geopolitical issues, international cooperation amongst many non-neighboring countries, transmission challenges, solar thermal technology risk, capital constraints, and project/transmission location needs. Desertec certainly could prove to be a profitable and high profile success story however if these challenges are all managed well.

The list of companies penned to benefit from this massive deal is: ABB, Abengoa Solar, Cevital, Deutsche Bank, E.ON, HSH Nordbank, MAN Solar Milenium, Munich Re, M+W Zander, RWE, Schott Solar and Siemens.

Desertec

Map of DII

Sources:  1)  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8337735.stm

2) http://www.environmental-expert.com/resultEachPressRelease.aspx?cid=32611&codi=74160&lr=1

3) http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/10/30/business-mobile-telecommunications-eu-germany-desertec_7067779.html

Abengoa Solar signs large PPA with PG&E

In another monumental deal for the solar industry, one of the larger Power Purchase Agreements (”PPAs”) was signed between Spanish based Abengoa Solar and California Utility PG&E for a 250MW concentrated solar power plant 100 miles NorthEast of Los Angeles in the Mojave desert.

 

Previous deals in a nearby area of California have failed due to resistance from locals as well as state politicians. This new location will be on previously disturbed farming land and will use significantly less water than competing land use agriculture activities. The project will provide enough energy to power 90,000 homes, and more importantly further establish concentrated solar as an economic solution for larger scale utility needs. Assuming all permitting is approved, the project will begin operations in 2013.

Concentrated Solar

Concentrated Solar

Sources:

1) http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS185482+26-Oct-2009+BW20091026

2) http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/water-use-by-solar-projects-intensifies/

Sharper PV cells hit 35.8% Conversion Rate

Sharp Corporation just announced a confirmed conversion rate of 35.8% for solar rays into electricity for their compound solar cell. Unlike silicon based PV, compound solar cells use photo-absorption layers made from compounds such as gallium and indium. No word was given in the release regarding the price or date to obtain the higher efficiency cells.

Sharp Image

Achieved with Triple-Junction Compound Solar Cell

The solar industry has several competing technologies that produce electricity- however these technologies seem to fall into two categories. There are producers who can produce a high percentage of their solar rays into electricity (concentrated, compound) and there are those who can produce a PV cell at a low cost (thin film.) Thin film cells can have conversion rates of approximately 10-15% but can cost less than half of competing technologies. Currently there is an inverse relationship between cost to manufacture and ability to convert electricity, both issues of course affecting the economics of solar significantly.

 

Source:  http://www.sharp-world.com/corporate/news/091022.html

What does $1.5 billion buy?

How much would you value a developing technology company with a product you have never seen nor ever tested? $1.5 billion dollars??

That’s what an implied valuation of the company EEStor equates to using their minority shareholder Zenn Motors for the valuation.  Zenn Motors, a Toronto based EV firm, owns 10.7% of EEStor and after recently ceasing operations to produce an electric vehicle seems to be focusing their efforts now solely on supplying EV drive-trains based on EEStor ultra-capacitor batteries. Using the market cap of Zenn at about $169 million, this implies a $1.579 billion valuation of EEStor while giving little value to the other components of Zenn Motors. Zenn is the only publicly available equity for EEStor while Kleiner Perkins and other, unnamed private parties played a key role in the firm’s early development.

Zenn Motor Vehicle

Zenn Motor Vehicle

EEStor is an upstart firm in Austin, USA developing an ultra-capacitor for transportation, military and grid storage applications. “Their (EEStor) unique technology capacitor-based battery, in theory, is far more energy dense and low weight than lithium ion, is cheap to produce out of unlimited natural resources, suffers no degradation, and can be recharged in minutes.” “EEStor says its energy storage technology for vehicles can provide 10 times the energy of lead-acid batteries at one-tenth the weight and half the price, and move a car 400 kilometers after a five-minute charge.”  The company is a legend of sorts with two entire websites dedicated by fans of the company to speculate about company developments(http://theeestory.com/, http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com/).

Reducing the cost of energy storage, reducing charge times and switching to domestic materials would have a significant effect on the economics of hybrids, electric vehicles, and grid based energy storage used in cooperation with wind energy. It is not often products are enticing firms to more than double their performance and halve their costs. As much as these claims would revolutionize an entire industry or two, they have never been proven nor demonstrated to the public.

Similarly to EEStor, IBM, is currently working on a project called “Battery 500” using lithium air technology. This is not an ultra-capacitor but an advanced variation of lithium batteries with cathodes that use oxygen from the atmosphere (instead of phosphate or manganese) which enable these batteries to have a charge density ten times as dense as the best current standard Lithium Ion technology. Electric vehicles would be able to travel 500 miles on a single charge with a battery that was not dependent on rare Earth metals. However, like EEStor, this project is under works, and may or may not be an eventual success. “IBM estimates that it will take two years to determine if the goals of The Battery 500 Project can be met with lithium-air battery technology.”

The “what if” technologies of EEStor and IBM are vastly superior in performance and cost to the current Lithium Ion technologies being offered by Valence Technologies, LG Chem, A123 Systems and Ener1. However, what these lithium ion producers have that the two emerging technologies don’t are supply agreements, manufacturing and supply infrastructure and a history to prove the technology actually works. Oh, and revenues. (Yes, IBM sells a few other products.)

So, why is EEStor valued at $1.5 billion? Is it a validation of the importance of the energy storage sector? Do some people know that the ultra capacitors actually work? Or is this the result of hype built upon by a community of investors anxious for a technological breakthrough? While few people will doubt the importance and the expected growth of the energy storage sector, watching which particular firms emerge as the winners or losers will certainly be exciting.

1) http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1035989_did-eestor-certify-its-eesu-in-september

2) http://earth2tech.com/2009/01/08/john-doerr-mentions-kleiners-stealthy-lithium-ion-battery-startup/

3) http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/10/eestor/

4) http://taintedgreen.com/batteries/eestor-watch-out-ibm-is-building-a-next-gen-battery-too/000351

5) http://www.smartertechnology.com/c/a/Technology-For-Change/Battery-500-Project-Charged-Up-over-AllElectric-Cars/

Darryl Siry, former Chief Marketing Officer for electric car maker Tesla originally implied this EEStor valuation, shown on source #3, implying that Zenn is worth nothing if EEStor is unsuccessful. Author owns shares of Ener1.

Clean Energy Patent filings expanding despite capital markets

With less capital flowing from investors to inventors, clean energy patents are still flourishing. According to a recent report from Heslin Rothenberg Farley and Mesiti, the index of Clean Energy Patent Growth (CEPGI) had its best quarter since its inception in Q2 2009 with 274 patents granted, up from 217 year over year. Fuel cells, solar and hybrid/electric were the most active categories of patents filed. Company wise, Honda led with 14 fuel cell patents and 3 hybrid/electric patents. GM was second place with a total of 15 patents granted. Geographically, Japan led with 75 patents, and California was second with 29. This CEPGI is a good indicator of innovation and development providing future opportunities for investors and funds.

patents

Source: http://cepgi.typepad.com/heslin_rothenberg_farley_/

Khosla Ventures announces $1.1 billion cleantech funds

Finally, on 1 Sep 2009, Khosla Ventures has announced that it had raised more than $1 billion for 2 new funds focused on cleantech and renewable energy. Khosla Ventures III and Khosla Ventures Seed raised more than their targets of $750 million and $250 million respectively. The investors include the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Michigan’s State Employees’ Retirement System and the Regents of the University of California, Vinod Khosla said in an interview.

The $800 million KVIII fund will make initial investments of $5 million to $15 million in early and mid-stage clean energy and information technology companies. The $275 million KV Seed fund will finance what Khosla called high-risk “science experiments” that may exist only in a university laboratory with investments of about $2 million. About two-thirds of the investments will be devoted to green tech, with the remainder invested in more traditional technology firms.

The new funds fly in the face of two of the prevailing investment philosophies in Silicon Valley. In response to diminishing venture capital returns, investors have been advocating small funds of only a few hundred million dollars and staying away from high-cost, high-risk alternative energy companies. Khosla advocates precisely the opposite. Harnessing technology to address climate change will require the big risks that venture capitalists were once known for, he said. “We’re really about reinventing the infrastructure of society, which is the only way we’ll get the carbon footprint down, and we’re not afraid to fail.”

This is the largest amount raised by a VC firm since 2007 and the largest first-time fund raised since 1999, according to the National Venture Capital Association. This was also the first time Khosla Ventures has raised funds from outside investors. Previously the VC firm had invested hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of its partners, including Khosla himself (which is quite unusual for a VC firm).

But Khosla is more interested in uncovering technology breakthroughs than in latching onto the latest green trend. “Things that are too much in fashion are things that I would shy away from,” he said in an interview. “Whatever the press calls hot are areas that I’m less interested in.” “I like to call it ‘main tech,’ not clean tech,” Khosla said. “We’re doing bioplastics, lighting, engines, water and air conditioning — almost anything that can be made renewable, sustainable, more efficient and cheaper.” “There’s an opportunity basically where technology innovation changes economics. In our business you can’t get in and out when the markets are bad. In some sense, when most people aren’t investing, it’s a good time to invest.”

The chance to invest in a broad-based portfolio was attractive to CalPERS. “Vinod Khosla’s opportunity set is larger than anyone else in the business because it goes beyond alternative energy to materials, water and other areas,” said CalPERS spokesman Clark McKinley. “There’s high risk, but high return. Some companies won’t pan out, but there could be great returns if he’s able to create the next Exxon of the alternative energy field or the next great concrete company.”

“The terms I used to describe our seed fund were, ‘We don’t expect to be fiduciary all the time. We will often invest in things that have a high probability of failure,’ ” Khosla said. Yet to his surprise, there was more interest in that fund than the other. “We insisted on being in a fund like that,” said Joncarlo Mark, head of private equity investing for CalPERS which invested $60 million in Khosla’s riskier small fund and $200 million in the big fund. “The opportunity to partner with Vinod in his science experiments to us is as attractive as having a later-stage fund investing in more established businesses.” One reason Khosla’s investors are comfortable with the firm’s high-risk bets is that the partners have invested at least $100 million of their own money in the fund, Mr. Mark said.

In addition, Khosla Ventures is bringing on 2 new partners to help manage investments: former Facebook CFO Gideon Yu, and former senior partner with CMEA Capital, Jim Kim. Kim has a cleantech background, having worked with A123 Systems, Danotek and Solyndra at CMEA and before that GE Capital. Yu will probably look closely at IT startups, which will get part of the new Khosla funds.

See my previous blogs:
CalPERS invests $60m in Khosla’s closed $250m seed-stage fund
Khosla Ventures

Sources:
Khosla Announces $1B in Funds, Partner From Facebook
Khosla raises $1 billion for renewables, cleantech
Khosla Raises More Than $1 Billion for Energy Funds
Khosla Ventures raises $1.1 billion to invest in green technology
Venture Firm’s ‘Green’ Funds Top $1 Billion

Why Invest in Water?

When the well’s dry, we know the worth of water.” – Benjamin Franklin

If you read “The State of the Water Industry” and the “Introduction to Water Investing 2008” reports on the Summit Global Management’s website, you might go away feeling depressed about the current or future state of our water.

If you think the report is quite doomsday in its predictions, the guys from the UN issued similar warnings about the state of water. You can check out “The 3rd United Nations World Water Development Report: Water in a Changing World (WWDR-3)” just released by the UN in Mar 2009.

I’ll briefly highlight “recent trends and highlights” from the report:
1. Water investments gain attention as economy falters
2. Renewed focus on the environment
3. The intertwining aspects of water and global food production
4. Water to make oil, oil to make water
5. Growing concerns about global climate change
6. The bottled water craze cools off
7. New policies and new ways of thinking about water
8. Public versus private ownership

The key drivers behind the water business:
1. Water quality and scarcity problems are reaching crisis proportions
2. Public awareness and understanding of water problems is increasing
3. Regulation and enforcement will continue to intensify
4. Huge economic and human capital investments are required in the water industry

Industry trends and key issues:
1. Increasing regulation and government oversight
2. Our dilapidated infrastructure
3. Conservation and efficiency
4. Focus on recycling and re-use
5. Better measurement and monitoring
6. Technological solutions
7. Residential water consumption
8. A surge of investment in the industry

One of the amazing item on the report is that it shows the high returns of US water utilities compared to major indices like DJIA, S&P500 and Nasdaq, achieving 104.4% returns over 5 year period and 383.06% returns over 10 year period. See the picture below.
US Water Utilities Outperform
In the report, it claims “a striking and very illustrative fact is that in any randomly examined 5-year period in the last 25 years (1982-87, 1993-98, 1979-84, etc), water utilities topped the list of the best performing industry groups in the US stock market on a total return basis. Why? The simple answer again is that water utilities have always done very well in good times and bad.” Now, if only I could get the latest data to 2009 (since the data above was until 2006 at near the height of the bubble)…

I’m trying to reconcile two facts here: on one hand, these utilities are cash-rich and gives out dividends regularly, and on the other hand, water is underpriced and underinvested as well as it costs a lot to maintain and upgrade the dilapidating infrastructure. So where’s the money coming from and why the extremely high returns?

Nevertheless, with the water crisis looming, there are unique attributes specific to water investing, as described in the report:
1. There is no substitute for water and users cannot postpone purchases; price-inelastic demand
2. Conveyance and resource assets create a natural monopoly with huge barriers to entry
3. Demand is unaffected by inflation, recession, interest rates, changing preferences, or inventory loss
4. A history of strong and consistent growth under all market or economic conditions
5. Price of water does not yet reflect real economic value: huge room/need exists for asset price expansion

India to launch green tech venture fund

Just last week I wrote that the Indian Prime Minister’s Council approved in principle a 1 trillion rupees ($21 billion) Solar Mission over a 5-year period ending March 2012 to make India a global leader in solar power.

Now, according to EETimes report on 14 Aug 2009, the Indian government plans to launch a venture fund to promote green technology research. This fund is separate from the government’s 2007 plan to subsidize new companies to manufacture solar cells and panels.

The size of the fund and other specifics will be determined by the National Mission on Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change (NMSKCC). NMSKCC, which is currently preparing a mission document with milestones for promoting green technologies, will identify and designate key institutes to be centers of excellence in climate research.

The India Semiconductor Association (ISA) praised the government’s green technology plan. “The clean tech sector has seen huge interest from venture funds and private equity investors globally. This is the right time that this is happening in India.” said ISA President Poornima Shenoy. Earlier in the week, NXP Semiconductors agreed to provide electronics components for the manufacturing operations at Tata BP Solar.

Comment: To add on to the earlier blog, there is currently no funding for the $21 billion Solar Mission and India expects the West to fund its solar energy plan. Guardian argues that India should not rely on the West for funding if India is genuinely wants to meet the challenge of climate change. To me, it’s mind boggling that one should announce a $21 billion plan without any confirmed funding (or is there?). In this new green tech venture fund, its source and size of funding is not known yet. We’ll just have to wait for the details.

Sources:
India to launch green tech venture fund (EETimes)
India to go toe-to-toe with cleantech VCs (Cleantech Group)
India shouldn’t rely on the west to fund its solar energy plan (Guardian)