I second @Dagon’s advice. I’ve done a lot of landscaping and tech due diligence consulting projects for investors, corporates,and governments interested in various types of cleantech. It’s true that there’s a lot of undifferentiated companies that probably shouldn’t have been founded. They may attract some money, maybe make some progress, maybe even attract a lot of money, then fail, with nothing to show for it. There’s also some that, in principle, should be able to have amazing impact, but for some reason just can’t. Often those inspire a 2nd generation a decade later that does better. And there’s a few that seem ridiculous but nevertheless go on to actually do well.
I’d add that the field has a lot more people interested in funding the cheap early stages than the expensive late stages. The valley of death is a hard filter. If you think your plan eventually needs a $200M FOAK plant to make money, that’s very different than if you expect you’ll be able to start generating commercial revenue or have a positive acquisition after a $20M series B. This is especially true if you’re looking for funding from non-US sources.
I would suggest that, compared to the average startup, you should spend more time on the econ part of technoeconomic analysis than you think, at the very beginning before you can possibly know the details of what you’re going to build and how you’re going to sell it. Otherwise you’re likely to spend years optimizing the wrong thing. Try to talk to actual experts with high level industry experience, if you can, to find out what the real KPIs and bottlenecks and hard steps are going to be.
Can’t really say much more without some info on what you’re thinking of doing. Happy to talk more if you want to PM me.
I second @Dagon’s advice. I’ve done a lot of landscaping and tech due diligence consulting projects for investors, corporates,and governments interested in various types of cleantech. It’s true that there’s a lot of undifferentiated companies that probably shouldn’t have been founded. They may attract some money, maybe make some progress, maybe even attract a lot of money, then fail, with nothing to show for it. There’s also some that, in principle, should be able to have amazing impact, but for some reason just can’t. Often those inspire a 2nd generation a decade later that does better. And there’s a few that seem ridiculous but nevertheless go on to actually do well.
I’d add that the field has a lot more people interested in funding the cheap early stages than the expensive late stages. The valley of death is a hard filter. If you think your plan eventually needs a $200M FOAK plant to make money, that’s very different than if you expect you’ll be able to start generating commercial revenue or have a positive acquisition after a $20M series B. This is especially true if you’re looking for funding from non-US sources.
I would suggest that, compared to the average startup, you should spend more time on the econ part of technoeconomic analysis than you think, at the very beginning before you can possibly know the details of what you’re going to build and how you’re going to sell it. Otherwise you’re likely to spend years optimizing the wrong thing. Try to talk to actual experts with high level industry experience, if you can, to find out what the real KPIs and bottlenecks and hard steps are going to be.
Can’t really say much more without some info on what you’re thinking of doing. Happy to talk more if you want to PM me.