Comments on: Why the Government Should Not Be A Green VC

By: Former VC to Lead DOE Loan Guarantee & Green Car Loan Programs

Former VC to Lead DOE Loan Guarantee & Green Car Loan Programs — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:40:25 +0000

[...] idea of modeling government funds after venture capital has swirled, in various forms, around the Obama administration since back in the campaign days. Now [...]

By: Google, Kleiner Perkins Get Behind Feds’ Latest Energy Gambit

Google, Kleiner Perkins Get Behind Feds’ Latest Energy Gambit — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:35:53 +0000

[...] green VC — probably not the smartest use of government funds, as we’ve explained before. Not surprisingly, Denniston would rather see incentives put in place to encourage the private [...]

By: Cleantech VC Investing Takes a Nose Dive Q1 ‘09

Cleantech VC Investing Takes a Nose Dive Q1 ‘09 — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:55:29 +0000

[...] sprinkling loans and grants to eager firms. The federal government shouldn’t necessarily act as a green VC, but cleantech firms certainly need a helping hand in this environment. [...]

By: Robb Henshaw

Robb Henshaw — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:20:11 +0000

Hi Katie. I completely agree -- the gov't green VC idea is not well thought out. Keeping the funding to traditional forms -- like grants -- is definitely the way to go. As you know, clean tech led in investments last year, but many of these companies and projects have stalled and need the stimulus to kick them into full speed again.

One thing worth taking a look at is the technologies that are enabling these clean tech startups (as well as the big utilities) to ensure that their renewable energy systems, smart grids, etc. are operating most effectively and efficiently. One issue with both renewable energy systems and the smart grid is that they are usually made up of many components -- each created to optimize a particular function, but not necessarily created to communicate to the other components or the system as a whole. As a result, these systems are often difficult to manage, and often times if one component is not performing optimally, it can affect the performance of the rest of the system. Over here at Fat Spaniel Technologies (www.fatspaniel.com) we provide an open platform that can monitor and manage all components of a renewable energy system, giving a single view of the entire system and showing renewable energy companies, utilities and more how the system is performing and what could be performing better.

The reason why an open energy monitoring platform is needed is because it reins in the complexity of these systems, makes them more efficient, and reduces the cost of managing them. This is very important in the case of trying to receive government grants, because in order to do so these companies all need to show that they have the systems in place to ensure they are operating as cost-effectively and efficiently as possible.

By: NickDG

NickDG — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:27:56 +0000

It’s naturally American to appeal to revolutionary innovation – it’s worked well in many situations in our history. But there are some situations where evolutionary re-invention is more appropriate. The VC model – fund startups/entrepreneurs and wait for the disruptive technologies – worked for the Internet/Web. But this is because another robust communications infrastructure (the public switched telephone network) existed that could support the population and serve as a base for the Internet.

But our present energy and transportation challenges are fundamentally different. They require more evolutionary systems thinking than revolutionary innovation. It’s naive (and dangerous) to think we can just throw out systems that serve 300M people – no matter how inefficient and creaky they are – and hope that brilliant entrepreneurs develop magical new energy sources and means of transportation that a) work and b) immediately scale. Otherwise said, do we plan our energy future around biofuels that don’t yet exist, or get down to the dirty work of making each piece of the system we have as efficient as it can be?

The John Doerrs of the world – no matter how attractive their stealth battery startups might sound – are the wrong people to dig us out of this mess. We need the Norm Augustines and Fred Smiths for this one.

http://blog.vanno.com/index.php/2008/11/23/tesla-gm-and-a-national-cto/

By: Just Say No to a VC Bailout - Part 2 « abovethecrowd.com

Just Say No to a VC Bailout - Part 2 « abovethecrowd.com — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 06:50:54 +0000

[...] 2) Earth2Tech: Why the Government Should Not Be a Green VC [...]

By: Let the Magnitude of the Clean Power Funds in the Stimulus Sink In « Earth2Tech

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:13:14 +0000

[...] the federal government might not be cut out to be a green VC, its grants, tax credits and overall subsidies will prove invaluable to the industry. And the [...]

By: Darryl Siry

Darryl Siry — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:47:58 +0000

To a certain extent the government is already engaged in VC, as some part of the DOE loans under section 136 and the larger stimulus bill are likely to go to startups. The only difference is they are not necessarily requiring equity stakes as a condition of the loan, which just means they aren't good at negotiating terms.

By: Alexander Haislip

Alexander Haislip — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:24:56 +0000

I think we're falling on terms here. Venture capital clearly means something different to Friedman than it does to people in Silicon Valley. I've heard from many late stage cleantech investors and project financiers that a secured lending vehicle that could backstop cleantech-related loans would go a long way to free up credit for companies looking to build a big factory or install a solar array. That might be a viable stimulus that wouldn't necessarily be expensive over a short-time horizon of a year or two.

By: Jay Parkhill

Jay Parkhill — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:24:36 +0000

$50B is a lot of money to start something with. OTOH, In-Q-Tel has done some smart things as a government-sponsored VC fund. Maybe the feds should just need to start small and ramp up over time.