Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Wall Street Journal has written a fascinating explanation for why venture capitalists have given up on renewables.
Why Venture Capitalists Abandoned Clean Energy
Two experts say high costs and low returns sent venture capitalists fleeing. A new funding model, they say, is crucial.
A decade ago, clean-energy companies were the hot trend that venture capitalists were chasing. Oil and natural-gas prices were on the rise and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” had just made its premiere.
But high hopes that the clean-energy sector would replicate the big returns of biomedical and software startups quickly faded. Instead, monumental losses piled up: Venture-capital investors lost more than half of the $25 billion they pumped into clean-energy technology startups from 2006 to 2011.
A study of why venture capital and clean energy haven’t been a good match was launched by Benjamin Gaddy, director of technology development at Clean Energy Trust, a startup accelerator in Chicago, and Varun Sivaram, the Douglas Dillon fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. In a paper recently published through the MIT Energy Initiative and written with Francis O’Sullivan, the Energy Initiative’s director of research, they predict future funding for energy startups increasingly will come from more-patient providers than venture capitalists—including groups like the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, formed by Bill Gates and more than two dozen wealthy investors last year. And they argue that established energy companies and governments need to play a bigger role in nurturing clean-energy startups.
…
DR. GADDY: Ultimately, when we looked at the data, when we looked at companies that got venture-capital investment, [clean-tech firms] were slightly more risky [than software or biomedical], but the real difference was the returns. Those outsize multiples simply weren’t there.
This home-run return requirement—that the 1-out-of-10 successes need to pay back the entire fund—we found that that simply was not true for clean-tech companies. When clean-tech companies exited they didn’t return sufficient capital to investors.
…
Third, energy companies or clean-tech companies were going into markets that are legacy industries, for which a product already exists that does a pretty good job. So when you’re a solar-panel company competing with cheap electricity from natural gas, you don’t have the benefits of high margins. You instead have to compete at the razor-thin margins of the commodity markets.
…
Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-venture-capitalists-abandoned-clean-energy-1473818402
I believe the article skirts around the real reason renewables are a dead end. Even if breakthroughs occurred, and someone discovered a way to say produce 100% efficient solar cells, the improvement in the viability of renewable energy would not be game changing.
Once venture capitalists realised this fundamental showstopper, there really was no valid financial reason to continue. Of course, the renewable VCs could still get lucky – even worthless assets can generate a return, if you can find a financially illiterate politician who is stupid enough to pour taxpayer’s money into schemes which have already failed.

Someone may have noted this above, but VCs are forward-looking. They’re put off investing in new “renewables” schemes by the possibility of a Trump presidency.
If he’s elected, no more tax subsidies for uneconomical energy. The tax trough is empty, and there’s no return on investment by way of enforced tax-payer money-transfers. VCs know that.
If Hillary Clinton gets elected, the money returns, big-time. Expect a VC stampede to get in on the ground floor of the new vein of tax-gold.
When has government mandate been required to compel customers to buy their IPhones, tablets, laptops, flat screen TV’s and the like? Erm, never. And for ‘renewables’? Every single time. Without legislation and subsidy ‘renewables’ are dead in the water. Lousy, contrived and flawed business plan and model, because it’s a lousy and flawed product. The end.
As Hayek emphasizes , State Force destroys market information .
As long a the State subsidizes , mandates , or otherwise distorts the computations of the market , we cannot clearly determine the viable niches for various sources of energy .
But Bob
Experience tells us that the intervention by the state is a dead giveaway for the underlying lack of viability.
A note to mikewaite and mikerestin…
Neither Cameron nor Obama can be Secretary General of the United Nations because the UN Charter forbids the appointment of any citizen from one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to that position.
Laws are for the little people
Cameron is an EU citizen (and a subject of HM Queen Elizabeth II) so he might be eligible. Obama might be eligible for Kenyan nationality on a transfer like athletes and sports people.
A shabby comment…
Jeeze Grif,
If he can switch it around for college applications and aid why can’t he switch it around for a UN job?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/15/global-investment-in-energy-falls-but-renewables-remain-strong
Investment in energy falls – but investment in renewables holds up…
Only in Grauniad-world
Eric Worrall is right about renewable energy using things like solar and wind but is dead wrong about the possibility of a profitable breakthrough.
Several companies are working on LENR (low energy nuclear reactions) and I expect to see a commercial unit in 6 – 12 months.
The US Defense Threat Reduction Agency released a report a few days ago that confirms Pons & Fleischmann’s original cold fusion study. Why now and why wait so long is not known.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf
Mr. Worrall suffers from a religious belief that LENR is pseudo science that reminds me of the mind set of global warmists, refusing to look at the data.
I won’t repeat what I have already written on the subject unless someone requests it.
LOL.
Educating politicians is expensive. They pay up front using our money and they learn slowly. By the time they understand the problem they are voted out of office and a new bunch of idiots take over.
Meanwhile, Tesla won a bid to provide 20 MW/80 MWh of grid-scale battery power to Los Angeles. Tesla is a venture-capital funded renewables success.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/addressing-peak-energy-demand-tesla-powerpack/
These tax payer funded games mean nothing.
Uber rich liberofascist states like California and Germany ruled by eco-luvvies who can afford paying 10 times more than everyone else for electricity are not the real world.
History repeating itself. The early bird (like Al Gore) gets the worm and the ‘johny-come-latelies’ do their dough.
I don’t care how much renewable electricity gets built between now and 2200….the bottom line is that without a MASSIVE investment in Nuclear…we will all still be driving fossil fuel powered vehicles, airplanes and ocean liners.
Period. No amount of solar or additional bird choppers will ever come even close to providing enough power for 350 million EV’s….not even in your great great great great grandchildren’s time….
Nuclear and Only Nuclear has the ability to do that…got a cabin..great buy 3000 Watts of Solar and 12 Starrett Batts….good to go. But industrial scale? …nope – ain’t happening