• Friday, November 20, 2009 Latest Update: 4:41PM
Michael Kanellos | December 12, 2008 at 11:51 AM 4 Comments

VC Investing in Green Will Plunge 40%, Estimates One VC

Venture capitalists will put a lot less money into greentech startups next year, predicts Rob Day, but that could be a good thing.

Day, a partner at @Ventures (and a blogger for Greentech Media) believes there’s a readjustment in financing coming in 2009. Until now, too many VCs have been putting large amounts of money into companies trying to horn into already crowded markets like solar. And, as the dollars have climbed, VCs have assured themselves that it would work because: 1.) the world needs lots of energy; 2.) the established energy companies seemed resistant to adapt to the new opportunities; and 3.) we’re from Silicon Valley and know better.

The result is going to be a haircut in funding that could go as deep as 40 percent or more in the first half of 2009, he said.

But, again, that could be good because of where and how that money’s been invested. Roughly 40 percent of the funds now are getting sucked up into massive rounds for individual companies. Over $1 billion has been invested in a few CIGS startups while cadmium telluride solar startup AVA Solar nabbed $104 million in a single round earlier this year. The big money is not just confined to solar. Luminus Devices, which has a high-efficiency LED, raised $72 million in the first quarter.

That has lead to a lopsided market which has created unrealistic expectations for well-funded and underfunded companies. (Of course, for those companies that need $100 million for a new factory, this sort of stinks.)

The credit market has effectively terminated these kinds of deals for the moment. Remove those and you’re already down 40 percent. Add some general queasiness about the market overall and VC funding can easily drop by 50 percent next year.

The real problem, however, could occur if a malaise sets in as a result in the drop in funding. The decline in funding could be seen as a lack of confidence in greentech. If that occurs and the sector gets branded as another Internet-like bust, it could cause a lot of promising companies to wither away. (He put together a slide show on his thoughts here. It’s pretty entertaining.)

He brings up a lot of good points. Funding no doubt will drop. On the other hand, you can already see the re-education of many investors taking place. Many have begun to pay more attention to green software companies and smart-grid companies that hope to port classic IT technologies to the grid. Can smart grid become a bubble too? Sure, but at least it’s familiar territory to many, and these kind of companies don’t need big factories. Thus, the dangers of over-funding are reduced.

Plus, these companies tend to have self-regulating mechanisms. Solar and biofuel companies (and their investors) sometimes start to believe they really have the power to change the world. It’s tough to get grandiose thoughts about a fuel intake regulator for scooters.

And there’s the issue of consumers. Consumers are clamoring for solar panels and alternative energy. Over-investment and excess supply will be bad for producers but it will also spur sales. The PC market went through chronic cycles of over-investment and excess supplies in the 1980s and ‘90s, but a lot of people still managed to make money.

It’s going to be an interesting year.

Comments [4]

  • Merrill Goozner 12/13/08 2:29 AM

    How will policy changes in an Obama administration change the equation? Has increased demand via new incentives been factored into the equation? What new incentives will it create? Won’t the home remodeling industry sans mortgage refinancesd spending be desperate for opportunities and can’t energy retrofits—including distributed alt. energy—be their next big thing with a spur form government financing?

    Reply
  • Paul Taylor 12/15/08 5:04 AM

    Green Realities: Econ Beats Eco
    By Paul Taylor

    The global economic downturn will sideline the recent years of obsessive environmental politicking. The environmental movement has been called the most densely organized political movement in human history; with environmental groups growing from two thousand to over four thousand during the 1990s. Green groups have leveraged their roughly $1.5 billion in annual nonprofit assets to drown us in a tsunami of eco-propaganda and green marketeering. Critically missing from this eco-emersion in fanciful ideas for green living has been disclosure and discussion of the actual capital and maintenance costs involved.  Environmental protections in developed democratic-capitalist countries are a luxury that developing countries cannot afford even in prosperous times, and environmentalism will become a lower priority for all as the global economic decline deepens. The fortunes made by eco-nonprofits—many of whose idle assets sat in what were extravagant hedge funds and private equity accounts— will dry up as donors tighten their belts.
    Government-regulated environmental controls in the US cost about 5% of US gross domestic product (GDP) – about the same as US expenditures for national security and homeland security combined, or what the US spends on foreign oil annually, or the size of the recent US Treasury “banking bailout,” or the assets of all US nonprofits which number over one million. United Nations (UN) estimates for Kyoto-like global warming controls during this century would cost another 2% in GDP. European Union (EU) carbon emission controls have failed both environmental and market goals. The EU countries are now falling faster than US markets into the global credit market freeze – partially due to the burdens of their hasty climate control regulations.
    The new green realities are that global economics conditions will, and must, bring rational science and economics back into environmental issues after decades of irrational and duplicitous eco-politics.

    Reply
  • Rob Day 12/12/08 1:29 PM

    Thanks, Michael.  Interesting year indeed.  Keep on analyzing!

    Reply
  • sherry 12/15/08 4:22 AM

    Not to worry, as we do the “happy dance” around the pumps OPEC is planning production output cuts to raise prices of oil back up to between 75.-100. per barrel again. This past year the historically high cost of gas seriously damaged our economy and society. We must be moving away from our mistakes of the past. Many European count ires have suffered higher fuel costs than we have, therefore they realized the importance of producing more energy efficient cars. We need to take some of these billions in bailout/stimulus dollars and invest in energy Independence. I just read Jeff Wilson’s new book The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW. This should be a required read before anymore bailout meetings. It would cost the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to charge and drive an electric car. The electricity to charge the car could be partially or in most cases totally generated by wind or solar power. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and suv’s instead had plug-in electric drivetrains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. I encourage all to read this book. I also encourage all to visit the Better Place web site. They are the company that is setting up infrastructures in 3 maj CA cities as well as Hawaii to accommodate charging electric vehicles. If you click on the get involved button you can sign an online petition to bring such projects to your area. Jeff Wilson has a fascinating article on his blog called “How Much Electricity Does It Take To Replace Gasoline.” Fascinating. http://planet.betterplace.com/profiles/blogs/how-much-electricity-does-it

    Reply

Green Light

Greentech Media's Green Light blog covers the full-scope of the greentech world, while expanding the range of our daily news reporting with brief and insightful blog posts from our Greentech Media editors, GTM Research analysts and numerous guest bloggers.

.