Solar startup Abound Solar will get a new CEO come January. The new guy is Thomas Tiller, who was CEO of Polaris Industries (NYSE: PII) for nine years.

Tiller is set to start his job on Jan. 18. Abound, based in Loveland, Colo., makes cadmium-telluride solar panels. The company began commercial production only earlier this year, and had expected to reach $1 per watt manufacturing cost quickly. It started with a 65-megawatt line in a factory in Longmont, Colo.

Tiller seems to bring a wealth of experiences growing a company and working large corporations. 

While at Polaris, a maker of snowmobiles, motorcycles and other recreational vehicles, Tiller managed the launch of more than 170 new products, Abound said. Those efforts caused the company to double its size and triple its stock price, Abound said.

Before Polaris, Tiller was with General Electric for 15 years. He was the general manager of GE Silicones, and before that, the vice president of manufacturing at GE Appliances.

The GE connection might work out well for Abound, given GE's big investments in renewable energy generation projects and equipment manufacturing. The company has invested in Arvada, Colo.-based PrimeStar Solar, also a cadmium-telluride solar panel maker, and plans to launch cadmium-telluride solar panels with GE brand.

Incidentally, PrimeStar just lost its CEO, Brian Murphy, who left last week. 

Pike Research sees 28.1 million users getting on board the home energy management system train by 2015 – not bad compared to the mere handful of people who have them today, but still a tiny sliver of the potential market, which is anybody who lives within four walls.

Pike's report released Thursday put a figure on a market many analysts have said is growing increasingly crowded. Dozens of startups are competing to provide devices and software to allow homeowners to manage their energy use.

More prominent ones include Tendril Networks, Control4, Onzo, OpenPeak and Energy Inc., maker of the Energy Detective. Two of them have been bought this year – Greenbox by smart grid networking company Silver Spring Networks and Lixar by smart grid software company GridPoint – and meter data management software maker eMeter has a home energy management platform of its own.

And then there are Google and Microsoft, each of which has laid plans to bring free web-based energy management to the masses. The entry of these giants into the field has led some industry watchers to wonder how much longer standalone startups can compete (see Green Light post and Google, British Gas Help AlertMe Launch Home Energy Control).

But Pike's report noted that while Google's PowerMeter and Microsoft's Hohm products are free to consumers, the same isn't the case for utilities partnering with them, which have to spend time and money to integrate the platforms into their existing customer energy data systems.

Another key point for utilities is that the home energy management space is a buyer's market. Given the crowded market, they should be able to pick and choose the products that fit their needs, the report stated (see Utilities Mull Price Points, Policies for Home Energy Management).

That's important for vendors to pick up on, as utilities will be the primary distribution channel of these systems for some time, according to the report – a potential shot of bad news for startups that plan instead to bring energy management to customers through retail channels (see iControl's Home Security to Home Energy Strategy and More WiFi For Home Energy Controls).

And while half of the customers who responded to Pike's survey showed strong interest in these systems, the report's executive summary didn't delve into just how much they're willing to pay for the privilege of measuring and managing their home energy use (see $48: A Threshold Price for In-Home Energy Management?).

“Nuclear is necessary, doable, and the markets are gargantuan.”  (Maurice Gunderson of CMEA Ventures)

While the U.S. nuclear industry has been in a holding pattern since the loss-of-cooling accident and partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, European and Asian countries have been growing their nuclear reactor fleet and their nuclear workforce. Recently, construction has begun on more than 40 nuclear plants worldwide, predominantly in Asia.

The Three Mile Island nuclear incident was more of a public relations disaster than a nuclear disaster. But the result was that the U.S. lost the global lead in nuclear power technology as well as a generation of nuclear engineers, which left electrical generation in this country a slave to dirty coal.

Fast-forward to 2009. Pressures to lower carbon dioxide emissions from coal and natural gas power plants have provided the opportunity to reboot the U.S. nuclear industry. Operating nuclear reactors have zero carbon emissions and the technology has grown more reliable and more efficient. In the U.S., reactors now run more than 91 percent of the hours in a year, the highest capacity factor of any energy source.

Can new technology, policy, and thinking usher in the much-heralded “Nuclear Renaissance” or will still-grim economics and difficult regulatory terrain keep the U.S. nuclear market mired in a post Three Mile Island hangover?

Small modular reactors and standardized designs are the potential disruptors and game-changers for the US nuclear power industry. Under the SMR concept, reactors can be built in factories and shipped to the site instead of being expensively and riskily built on-site. Rather than engineer and build reactors capable of producing over 1 GW of electric power, SMRs can produce 10 MW to 350 MW of electricity (or heat). 

The move towards modularity and standardization has reportedly already lowered the costs of large-scale LWRs such as GE’s Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) and Westinghouse’s AP-1000.  Individual SMRs can deliver power to isolated communities or off-grid industrial sites like mines now served by diesel power. Alternatively, they can be combined to scale to large-scale power production. It is anticipated that SMRs will cost about the same to construct per kW as large plants and will produce electricity at the same cost as a conventional nuclear plant (in the 6 to 8 cent/kWh range).

Most cleantech venture capital firms have taken a look at the nuclear space but have avoided investing for a variety of good reasons - enormous capital intensity and immense regualtory and technical risk.  But a few brave venture investors have taken the plunge.

“You have to dig into the details,” according to CMEA's Maurice Gunderson, one of the few brave VC investors to make the nuclear bet (He is a lead investor in NuScale).  He has said that NuScale's model of focusing on modular nuclear power would shift development away from the “cathedral model” of large-scale, over-budget, ten-year power projects.

He has claimed that the NuScale process, manufacturing modular reactors on a factory assembly line, can cut the time to develop a nuclear plant in half.  He argues that incremental modularity eliminates the “single shaft risk” of a conventional plant that must be shut down for maintenance and refueling.

He adds, “The NRC processes have become streamlined in the last few years  and can accommodate this model.”

Gunderson said that the reason that most VCs are scared of nuclear is “because they have no experience,” and “are listening to anecdotes in the popular press.”  Gunderson verified that NuScale was raising more money and added, “Nuclear is necessary, doable, and the markets are gargantuan.”  

Other VC-funded nuclear firms include Hyperion, TerraPower, and whatever Venrock is cooking up.

The December issue of Greentech Innovations offers an analysis of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors.

                                   NuScale SMR

I just finished moderating a panel at the Always On Venture Summit in Menlo Park, CA with some heavy-hitter investment pros in the world of Greentech Venture Capital.

• Ray Lane of Kleiner Perkins
• Marianne Wu of Mohr Davidow
• Jennifer Fonstad of Draper Fisher Jurvetson
• Michael Dannaher of WSGR
• Duncan Williams of Wedbush Morgan Securities

In looking for a theme in Greentech VC investing, Ray Lane of KP said the last few years was the "Age of Innocence," this year was the "Battle for Middle Earth" and from now on it's "Back to the Future."  All the panelists seemed hopeful about the future and glad to see 2009 in the rearview mirror.  We are going to see "more rational investment" from VCs going forward according to Lane.

Lane said that every year the partners at KP list areas they'd like to consider investing in and water and algae biofuels always make the list.  The problem is "You have to kiss a lot of frogs" to find the right investment in those sectors .  They continue to look.

Mr. Lane also alluded to their stealth vehicle firm V-Vehicle, covered by GTM here.  He stressed that cars need to be built for specific regions and Americans don't like tiny cars.  V-Vehicle will be building cars directly targeted at the American market.  Lane suggested we take a look at The Electrification Coalition, a not-for-profit group focused on bringing electric vehicles to mass scale in order to combat the economic, environmental, and national security risks caused by our dependence on petroleum.

On the subject of rational investments Lane spoke about how start-ups have begun moving from ambitions of being power suppliers to equipment suppliers.  Ausra might be a good example here, moving from solar thermal energy provider to solar thermal equipment provider.  Ausra actually has a few "strategics chasing them," and in Lane's words, "a lot of liquidity in greentech will happen this way as legacy players look for companies that have removed technical risk, but don't have the balance sheet to scale."

Google is one of the hippest, fastest-growing companies in the world, and it wants next to take on companies that sound like some of the most boring.

The search giant's push into things like its PowerMeter software for home energy management indicates that it wants to get into the market for energy management systems, according to Jeff Platon, senior managing director at Cisco. It was part of a conversation we had last night during a panel sponsored by The TiE Foundation. Potentially, Google can exploit its massive data centers, back-end tools, cozy customer relationships and new bits of software to improve energy efficiency in buildings as well as provide continuous commissioning, i.e. building automation and management. EnerNoc just bought Cogent Energy today to delve deeper into building management and commissioning.

Google will also soon invest in clean power plants.

Ed Lu, who runs advanced projects at Google, says PowerMeter and other similar projects are charitable efforts largely for the sake of we humans.

"We are not trying to build a business model around it," he said. Tiny Tim and I thank you for your generosity and hospitality, Guv'nor, but sometimes fun projects turn into big businesses so we will hold our breath. Maybe make it knuckle gloves instead.

In fact, energy services already is a big business. Siemens, Johnson Controls, Honeywell and others garner billions from acting as energy services companies, or ESCOs. Google could become a big threat in that market. Revenue in most contracts is a function of some sort of how much energy gets saved compared to a goal or past consumption.

Of course, it could also change Google's image. When was the last time you bragged about knowing someone that worked at Johnson Controls? Or read about employees scurrying around on Hoppity Hops at the headquarters of Bentley Systems? Will analysts pontificate about "Does Google have TOO much control over air conditioners?"

ESCOs do great work, but the pick-up potential is low.

It's a Great Time to be an Angel investor?

Julia Reigel of Wilson Sonsini claimed, "It's a great time to be an angel investor.  Angels have taken over the jobs of VC seed rounds and A Rounds." in a presentation at the CalCEF Angel Network on Monday.  She also spoke of VC "investor-on-investor violence" as the terms for follow-on rounds become challenging.

Contrast this with Bill Gurley of Benchmark Capital, quoted in Venture Beat from his speech at this week's Always On event.  He’s seeing “stranded angel deals” - companies that have raised two angel rounds plus a bridge and can’t get more money - because angels are becoming more conservative. It’s now possible for an entrepreneur to get a better deal from a VC than from an angel, Gurley claimed. “Angels want 30% of your company for $1 million, and VCs will give you to $3 to $5 million for the same 30%, so you might as well take the venture firm and get more money.”

The flaw in these claims is that looking at the VC and angel world as a monolithic whole distorts the story.  VCs invest in a variety of sectors and ganging the tone of VC and angel investment in social networks, enterprise software, drug discovery, and solar factories blurs the picture.

It's certainly more difficult to get venture capital in general. According to Dow Jones VentureSource only $14.6 billion in VC was invested in 2009 through Q3 versus $31.2 billion for all of 2008. 

But focusing on the greentech sector yields a different story.  Yes, the numbers are down from 2008.  Greentech VC investment in 2008 was about $8 billion versus the approximate $5 billion that will be invested in 2009.  Delve a little deeper and there's a positive spin to this story.  There will be more greentech VC and angel deals in 2009 than in 2008 according to Greentech Media Research.  It's actually been easier to get VC and angel money this year than last.  Terms might be a bit more onerous and round size size smaller but the deal can get done.

And entrepreneurs are going to start companies despite what VCs or law firms decree.  It's what they do - they can't help it.

Monday's CalCEF Angel Network hosted by Susan Preston of CalCEF and by WSGR showcased a few greentech firms looking for funding and I'll profile two of them.

 
Greenlite Motors

Tim Miller President and CEO of Greenlite pitched his cool commuter vehicle, specifically designed for commuters in an urban environment.  It can use the express lane because it qualifies as a motorcycle, fits two people, can cruise on the highway and gets 100 miles per gallon.

The tilting vehicle has a steel safety cell, four point harnesses and airbags and doesn't sacrifice comfort - it has heat, AC and a quiet environment.  And it leans like a motorcycle.

The start-up is in the prototype stage but if you're an investor you can get a test drive.  

Unlike the capital-intensive Tesla or Fisker, this start-up claims it can build a new vehicle in a capital efficient manner, using lots of off the shelf components - battery pack, hydraulic system, electric motor, etc.  We're "Different than a big metal- stamping car company." according to the CEO.

It's targeted at city-dwelling males, 28-48 years old who commute alone and drives to lots of meetings.  The CEO claims that this vehicle represents the dawn of the fabless car maker and that he can use the sales resources of a lot of hungry car dealers that have been fired by Detroit

The firm is looking for a $500K angel round in Q1 2010, a $4.5M round in Q2 and a $10M round from VCs or DOE loans to get to production after that.



Switching gears to a solar start-up...

PV Evolution Labs

Jenya Meydbray, a former PV quality engineer at SunPower, is the CEO of a solar start-up with a novel business plan.  They look to be the "First high-throughput PV module testing facility in North America" and provide "Independent risk assessment for the financial services sector."

Driven by growth in domestic manufacturing, this firm looks to help new and established PV manufacturers achieve the sought-after aura of "bankability."

According to Greentech Media Research, there are more PV technology developers in North America than in Europe and Asia combined.  And since performance and reliability claims based on in-house testing lack credibility in the marketplace, PV Evolution labs will provide that service.

They look to:

• Act as an outsource testing lab for certification houses like UL
• Act as a outsource test lab for solar manufacturers
• Provide bankability verdicts for the financial markets

Their competition is in-house test labs, NREL, university labs, and certfication labs like TUV or UL.  The start-up is looking to raise $1.5 million, about $800,000 of that for test equipment and claims it has term sheets in hand, ready to close by the end of the year. 

Despite pronouncements by pundits like Gurley of Benchmark or WSGR - entrepreneurs like PVEL and Greenlite are going to keep innovating and finding ways to get funded.

Ah, Bloom Energy. Is there another company that can get such glowing press without actually saying much?

The secretive company, which has raised $350 million, is creeping out of stealth mode selectively. Last year, it appeared in New York Times articles. A few weeks ago, something appeared in the Atlantic. This week, BusinessWeek gets its turn.

The company doesn't say much, but what it does say is interesting in that the performance it touts seems roughly in line with products already on the market. And these products likely didn't burn through hundreds of millions and eight years in development. From BusinessWeek:

"Stu Aaron, Bloom Energy's vice-president for marketing and product management, confirms press reports about a University of Tennessee trial in which a Bloom box capable of powering a 5,000-square-foot home proved twice as efficient as a traditional gas-burning system and produced 60% fewer emissions."

That matches, to some degree, descriptions Panasonic and ClearFuel Technologies give for their natural gas fuel cells. Their fuel cells are about 35 percent to 40 percent efficient if you just count the electricity they produce, but about 80 plus percent efficient when the electricity and heat can be harvested and exploited. Traditional combined cycle turbines are in the 50 percent range for efficiency.

There are differences. Bloom, allegedly, will sell 25-kilowatt fuel cells, according to sources, although the one Aaron speaks of seems to put out about 5 kilowatts. Panasonic's is a 1 kilowatt system and ClearFuel puts out 5 kilowatts, but wants to move up to 10 kilowatts. Close enough? You make the call.

The raw ingredients are similar too. Bloom takes in natural gas and oxygen and produces energy through a solid oxide process. Again, BusinessWeek:

"For starters, Bloom's system relies primarily on oxygen rather than hydrogen. And instead of requiring expensive precious metals, the fuel cell is built from a cheap ceramic material, sand. That should allow it to be more easily mass-produced, helping cut costs and widen its potential market.

"The ceramic core acts as an electrode. At high temperatures, a hydrocarbon fuel—ethanol, biodiesel, methane, or natural gas—on one side of the cell attracts oxygen ions from the other. As the ions are pulled through the solid core, the resulting electrochemical reaction creates electricity. Though the technology consumes hydrocarbons, Sridhar says, it doesn't involve carbon-releasing combustion, so it emits only about half the greenhouse gases of conventional energy sources."

Panasonic and ClearEdge take oxygen and natural gas and produce the same thing. The underlying technology may be different--it probably is to some degree, and that could affect how well the product develops over time – but the results look at this point to be somewhat similar.

When the company fully comes out of its hidey hole, it should be fun to compare.