As usual, rumors surrounding the event run the gamut from fairly far-fetched to the safe bet. That said, the whole fun of Apple’s press events is that you can never really count out the left-field possibilities, thanks to Steve’s now famous “one more thing” stunts. Here’s a look at what rumors are being tossed around, and which ones I’m putting my money on.

iTV

Apple TV has been little more than a hobby for Cupertino to date. It’s not a bad little device, but platforms like Boxee and Netflix, which can operate on all kinds of different hardware, or support a wide variety of file formats, are limiting its living room presence.

It makes sense that Apple would target the Apple TV for a major overhaul. According to a number of sources, that overhaul will see a name change (to iTV), a smaller storage capacity (4GB) with a focus on streaming, a switch to iOS as the software that powers it, and, accordingly, the arrival of apps.

While I don’t doubt that Apple has big plans in store for the iTV, I find it very unlikely that we’ll see its introduction tomorrow. Changes this big would merit their own press event, and I don’t think Jobs would want to bury such a major overhaul amid exciting new iPods and changes to iTunes’ services. Which brings me to my next point…

iTunes

Everyone’s favorite poorly-named media management and library software will almost certainly see an update tomorrow; that much is clear. What exactly that update will entail is much less so.

The big rumor regarding iTunes right now is that Apple will introduce 99 cent TV show rentals, available only 24 hours after their original air date, for a rental period of up to 48 hours. It’s a definite improvement over the current price tag for owning shows ($1.99 and $2.99 for SD and HD, respectively), but you also miss out on actually owning the programs, as there’s no re-watching later.

Another rumor puts iTunes in the cloud, including streaming music and video directly to users’ devices, possibly even on a subscription-based model. This is a general rumor that’s been around for a while, and isn’t necessarily tied to tomorrow’s event. I don’t think we’ll see it tomorrow, but it’s definitely something Apple is testing the viability of, you can be sure.

iTunes probably won’t go to the cloud, but it may go to the web. According to Peter Kafka of Media Memo, the next big update for iTunes could see it relocated to the web, where a lightweight, more easily accessible version would put the emphasis on music’s social aspects, allowing users to share their tastes with one another. This would actually be a natural extension of the recently introduced web-views for iTunes store content, and I think we could see it tomorrow, though I don’t think it’ll completely replace the iTunes desktop software.

Finally, CNET is reporting that Apple is going to double song preview length in iTunes. This rumor feels pretty sound, especially since it isn’t very exciting.

iPods

We will see new iPods tomorrow. Apple always updates its iPod line in September, and it isn’t about to change that now. Among those new devices will be an iPod touch with a camera. Whether it’ll have two cameras and FaceTime is still open to debate, but likely. Recent rumors that it’ll also sport a 3G antenna are also interesting, but I would say unlikely for this iteration.

The iPod nano and shuffle could both also see updates tomorrow in what appears to be an exciting new form-factor, possibly incorporating a 1.7-inch touchscreen. Personally, I think the nano will retain its video-friendly current form factor, and the shuffle will get the updated design, which will put an emphasis on control, the main area of complaint customers have regarding Apple’s most diminutive media player.

A third possibility is that the new form factor will be an entirely different class of iPod altogether. It could be to the iPod touch what the shuffle is to the nano, i.e. a barebones, limited storage device without app support and only a few utilities in addition to the iPod music player, like a clock and calendar. I think Apple is looking to streamline, not complicate its iPod lineup, though, so if there is a new device like the one I’ve described that doesn’t get the “shuffle” moniker, expect it to replace the shuffle altogether.

Last and least, we have the clickwheel iPod classic, the old Clydesdales of Apple’s lineup. I see at most maybe a capacity boost, if Apple’s determined to keep it around, but you can bet that with its focus on iOS and touch computing, the iPod classic isn’t long for this world. Who knows? It could be “out with the old,” as well as “in with the new” on the menu for tomorrow.

What do you think is in store for tomorrow’s event?

Related GigaOM Pro Research: As Always, Mobile Music Faces Uncertain Future

The Logic Behind Teamly

Scott Allison, the creator of Teamly, was scratching his own itch when he started creating the system: He’d gone from one employee to ten and was having trouble keeping track of the commitments each of those employees made. His organization was a little more loosely structured than other businesses might be, making most project management systems seem like overkill. All Allison needed was a clear picture of what his employees were doing and a way to comment on it. He wanted to make priorities a priority.

Teamly focuses on creating very short priority lists — just five things. The web application allows for setting daily, weekly and monthly priorities. It also allows managers and team members to review those priorities and provides real-time feedback for managers. The tool’s statistics make it easy to see how well an individual is doing at completing the priorities set on any given day.

Allison says, “Most to-do software suffers from the problem that they simply encourage very long and demotivating lists to be written, which you never get round to. By having a short list you think about what you are going to do, and what you are not going to do. Once you’ve achieved it you can be satisfied knowing you’ve done a good day’s work.”

The Right Place for Teamly

It’s unlikely that Teamly would be a good fit in a structured enterprise. Rather, its approach is better with loose systems because it allows for more self-direction for each team member. It can be a good fit for creatives or other professionals who have their own ways of doing things — Allison has gotten responses from GTD users saying it has been particularly useful for providing a high-level view for managers while allowing employees to work within the task management structures that work for them. The best indicator that Teamly would be a good fit for your team is if you’ve felt overwhelmed by the features built into more robust collaboration tools.

Allison notes that Teamly’s future growth will be constrained by the need to keep the tool simple: Additional privacy controls on individual team members’ priorities, a way to keep notes on tasks that aren’t priorities but shouldn’t be lost in the shuffle, and similar features are in the pipeline. Teamly’s creators are also looking at opportunities to integrate Teamly into other applications and create mobile versions.

Teamly is currently in beta and offers a free version for a single user.

Let us know what you think of Teamly in the comments.

Related GigaOM Pro content (sub. req.): Report: The Real-Time Enterprise

In true BarCamp style, the actual schedule will be determined by attendees on the day of the event, but if the list of suggested topics is any indication, FreelanceCamp PRO should be of interest to regular WWD readers. Suggested topics include:

• Transitioning from freelance to agency
• Balancing products with services
• Running 100 percent remotely
• Coworking
• The art of subcontracting
• Advanced toolkits: PM systems, finance and communication
• Beyond the basic services
• Long-term clients

FreelanceCamp PRO is aimed at experienced freelancers who have been in business for a year or more. Tickets to the day-long event cost $50 (plus a $2.24 fee). It’s suggested that attendees bring laptops (Wi-Fi will be provided), their own coffee mugs, lots of business cards and “a head full of ideas.”

Still not sure if BarCamp-style events are for you? To get an idea of why FreelanceCamp PRO might be useful (and fun!), check out this post from Pamela about her experiences of a similar event in Paris.

Running a similar event? Tell everyone about it in the comments.

Related GigaOM Pro content (sub. req.): Enabling the Web Work Revolution

Tello’s approach involves extrapolating Apple web order numbers. This time around, he worked with Victor Castroll, a Valcent Financial Group analyst. Together, they surveyed a sample group and found 120 orders for 137 iPads over 58 hours beginning at 8:30 A.M. Friday morning.

From there, Tello applied a formula that subtracts non-iPad orders on Apple’s site and multiplies the resulting number by an average of 1.125 iPads per order. Finally, he added in 2,000 units for late-night hours during which time they had no data. In the end, the total arrived at was 152,000 ending at midnight on Sunday. The number doesn’t factor in iPads reserved for in-store pickup.

Tello is quick to note that even though the number seems fairly impressive for a brand new product, there was actually a huge dip in pre-order numbers following the initial day. First day sales saw 120,000 pre-orders, at a rate of around 25,000 per hour. By Sunday, that hourly rate had slowed to about 1,000. The initial spike is explained by “overexcited fanboism” according to Tello.

Based on the current numbers, Tello estimates that pre-order numbers won’t exceed much more than half a million. He anticipates when the iPad will hit the magic million-unit mark in an interview with Fortune:

My best guess, although very tentative given the early stage and few data we have so far, would be that they hit the 1 million unit milestone by the second week after it ships. But this is a very speculative guesstimate based on just a weekend of pre-orders.

To hit 1 million two weeks after shipping would be a major milestone, not only for Apple itself, but for the entire tablet market. The iPhone took 74 days before it reached 1 millions sold, and the sales numbers for the entire tablet industry is only around 3 to 4 million a year according to Engadget. Apple would then be on pace to actually double or triple the sales numbers of its entire market segment on its own in the first year of sales, if the iPad sells roughly as many units as did the iPhone in its first year.

Tello’s numbers also provide a snapshot of what kind of iPads are being sold in what quantities. The Wi-Fi only model is strongly outselling the Wi-Fi + 3G version, by a margin of almost exactly two to one. It’s not surprising given the price difference between the two, and the growing prevalence of MiFi devices that convert users’ existing cellular data plans into usable Wi-Fi. Surprisingly, storage capacities are more evenly divided, with the 16GB, 32GB and 64GB models taking roughly a third of the pre-orders each.

Remember also that these sales figures are only for the U.S. so far. International versions of the device aren’t due to go on sale until sometime in late April at the earliest. The real challenge for Apple will be the first few weeks of in-store availability, which is when the general public will be making purchases, and not just the devoted Apple faithful willing to put down a pre-order. If both international customers and the general buyer reflect anywhere near the enthusiasm of the pre-order crowd, Apple will definitely have a hit on its hands, but I’d wait till the hype effect has passed before placing any real bets about the iPad’s future success.

Related Research from GigaOM Pro:

• Web Tablet Survey: Apple’s iPad Hits the Right Notes
• How AT&T Will Deal with iPad Data Traffic
• 5 Tips for Developers Targeting the iPad
• With the iPad, Apple Take Google to the Mat

Experts are anticipating a crop of cleantech IPOs this year, as well, while some, such as venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, are concerned that some greentech IPOs this year may disappoint investors and sour the market for other green IPOs. Stimulus programs, such as the new round of ARPA-E funding announced last week, also are shifting the financing landscape, leading to new tactics as companies try to leverage government funding to advance over competitors.

Shifting market conditions are reshuffling the deck for clean technology, strengthening some companies’ hands while weakening others’ – and spurring new thinking and innovation about how to make progress at a time when traditional financing is harder to come by, according to a new GigaOM Pro report called “Cleantech Financing Trends: 2010 and Beyond” (subscription required) released Tuesday. As a result, we’re seeing some changes, such as new financing models, including investments from strategic partners, community banks and utilities, and new types of partnerships with corporations and cleantech companies from other countries.

Meanwhile, the report predicts that valuations this year will remain lower than their peak in 2008, although they will likely grow from the lows of 2009. That means the funding being raised is more expensive and is also harder to come by. Investors at all stages are requiring startups to meet more milestones, such as offering more demonstrations proving that the technology works or agreements with customers, before doling out cash, according to the report.

Companies are conserving cash, precariously balancing the need to make progress — in order to get to the next funding round — with the need to make the money last as long as possible. Venture capitalists such as CMEA Capital’s Maurice Gunderson say they are seeing less aggressive plans than they did in 2008. As he put it, “You don’t get to have a long run if there’s no short run.”

Project financing also remains more expensive than in 2008, although it is far more available now than last year. Companies having the hardest time are those that have proven their technology in demonstration projects and are ready to commercialize with large, expensive factories. Unless companies can get government loan guarantees – which have accelerated, but are still trickling out slowly –- risk-averse debt financiers are reluctant to finance first commercial projects with less-established technologies.

Some projects have taken on more expensive private equity to fill the debt-financing gap, but that may also be getting more difficult. The Cleantech Group reported earlier this year that venture capitalists are moving away from energy generation and toward energy efficiency plays, which are expected to be less capital-intensive.

Image courtesy of aresauburn’s photostream Flickr Creative Commons.

We recently sat down with Maurice Gunderson, senior partner at CMEA, who previously co-founded venture-capital firm Nth Power, to discuss his thoughts on the future of the greentech industry, and the how CMEA – and its portfolio companies – are prepared to thrive in the new economy. Here are some excerpts from our conversation:

Q: How have your tactics changed in the recession?

A: The question is how do you keep small companies covered and lay out a financing plan from beginning to exit? Certainly we’ve had to be creative and make lots of adjustments to our operating plans. In general, people are looking for more capital efficient investment opportunities and are figuring out ways to scale back or be smarter about how to grow the size of the business. You don’t get to have a long run if there’s no short run. We’re generally looking at plans that require less cash than if we were looking in 2008. And we’re a lot more flexible about where to look for capital.

Q: What do you see as some of the long-term impacts of the industry focus on Washington?

A: Wall Street has not moved to Washington. It’s moved to the emergency room, which happens to be in Washington. But it will move back to Wall Street in a more rational way. The thing about government is it’s very helpful, but it doesn’t require the same kind of returns that we do. With the feed-in tariff in Germany, if you were a solar producer when it started, you could sell all you could make, and it didn’t matter if you were a low- or high-cost producer. That was a good thing.

But [as the tariffs decline] and the market goes back to normalcy, high-cost products go away and low-cost products thrive. It’s the same thing here. If you invest in a company that doesn’t have a path to grid parity, the only way it can survive is through subsidies. But if it has a path to grid parity and subsidies help it grow, cool.

Q: One difference is that the feed-in tariffs in Germany declined steadily to help make renewable electricity competitive, while the stimulus programs are short-term. How will that impact the industry?

A: Feed-in tariffs in Germany were designed to stimulate the market over a preset period, while the government subsidies we’re seeing now were designed to avoid the second Great Depression. We certainly wouldn’t want to slow it down. Everybody’s got to realize this is explicitly a short-term thing. You’ve got to design your strategy accordingly.

Q: If companies are changing their business plans to take advantage of government programs, could that backfire once the programs disappear?

A: Yes, this distorts people’s business plans. It’s an extraordinary situation. To take advantage of this, companies had to change their business plans and maybe distort them. If the stimulus and the reaction to it has the effect of hatching a lot of clean-energy companies that wouldn’t be there anyway, it’s not a bad thing if there’s a little distortion. If you’re going to take advantage of a short-term thing that was not [available] before, yes, you’ve got to change tactics.

Q: Does this mean we’ll see a dip once the stimulus funding ends?

A: You bet. Entities that were propped up by it will go away and those that were incubated by it will survive.

Q: What are some of the biggest potential future opportunities?

A: I see three big breakthroughs in the future that will change everything about the energy landscape. No. 1 is fusion, which is the farthest out there. If we get fusion to work, we don’t need solar or other renewable generation. But it requires fundamental breakthroughs and it’s a harder challenge than humankind has ever taken on – it makes Apollo look like a weekend project. Say it’s 100 years off.

No. 2: grid scale storage. New chemistries that enable bulk storage on the same economic footing as power generation would turn renewables into dispatchables, which triples the value of the power. It also says we can build all we want because we don’t have to worry about grid balancing problems. That would probably make a 10-to-1 difference in the amount of wind we could develop and use. It’s huge, and it’s 10 – 15 years away.

No. 3, the nearest term, is cheap nuclear that lets us get off coal — and that’s now.

Q: Many companies are developing energy storage for the grid today. Why do you believe it’s still 10 – 15 years away?

A: People are trying warmed-over chemistries and are making a lot of incremental advances, but the technologies don’t have the economics and don’t have the life [needed for bulk storage]. I haven’t seen one yet that really could solve this problem, but I know of several breakthroughs coming in the 10-15 year time frame.

The idea behind the technology, developed by Dan Nocera at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is to use an intermittent source of energy, such as solar power, to split water into hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis. When the energy is needed, the hydrogen and oxygen can either be recombined to produce electricity, such as with a fuel cell, or the hydrogen can potentially be converted into a liquid fuel, like ammonia, and used to power vehicles.

If Sun Catalytix’s energy storage technology is successful, it could help spur the deployment of renewable energy. Solar and wind power are intermittent, meaning that the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, and these events can’t be controlled according to electricity demand. Energy storage has long been considered a Holy Grail for enabling large amounts of distributed renewable-power projects.

But so far, energy storage for these applications has been too expensive. Sun Catalytix hopes to change that and is working with cobalt-phosphate catalysts consisting of compounds in solution, instead of the usual metal surfaces. “The real benefit is that the materials are dirt cheap,” said Metcalfe, who is also a general partner at Sun Catalytix investor Polaris Ventures and the former CEO of defunct biofuel startup GreenFuel Technologies.

Aside from the catalysts, the rest of the device also is made of cheap materials, such as plastic, he added. “All the materials we have [on the device] running in our office now come from Home Depot – we’re talking PVC, not stainless steel.”

Because the compounds deposit themselves on the electrodes, constantly repairing themselves as the device splits water, this technology can also use salty or dirty water, he added, a big advantage where clean water is in short supply. While normal electrolyzers shut down in minutes if they’re run on dirty water, Sun Catalytix’ electrolyzer has already run for days at a time with no degradation, Metcalfe said. In addition, if the hydrogen is converted back into electricity, the reaction produces clean water as a byproduct, a potential plus, say, off the grid in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Sun Catalytix hasn’t yet decided whether its ultimate product will be electricity or fuel, Metcalfe said, adding that the technology could potentially address any application that currently relies on a big diesel generator. For example, the technology could be used to provide backup power for telecommunications towers or mobile land bases for the military – and the hope is the technology could eventually target residential and commercial markets, as well, he said.

Make no mistake, the startup is still years away from commercialization and doesn’t yet have a market plan in place. It’s currently working to meet technology milestones under the two-year ARPA-E contract, Metcalfe said, adding that Polaris generally aims to invest for five to seven years. Sun Catalytix will have plenty to prove, including its efficiency, stability and reliability, as well as its ability to manufacture its devices cheaply and at scale and volume, before it can meet its potential.

The Evora hybrid is expected to look like this regular Evora sports car, which came out in September.

The Evora 414E Hybrid concept car is a plug-in hybrid version of Lotus’ currently available Evora (pictured above), which represented Lotus’ first new vehicle since 1995 when itstarted rolling out in Europe in September. The hybrid concept includes two EVOdrive motors, each providing 204 horsepower and 295 pounds of torque per foot, as well as EVO’s electric generator technology to help run a 35kW range extender system.

Jeremy Walker, a cleantech startup strategist and an advisor to EVO, called the deal “exceptionally important” for the startup. The deal could potentially lead to a commercial partnership if Lotus decides to commercialize a range-extended electric vehicle like the Evora hybrid, he said. “More importantly, it will make the rest of the hybrid powertrain engineering world sit up and take notice. Lotus has a global reputation for being some of the finest automotive engineers on the planet, so their decisions on what technologies they include are watched closely. Other people follow where Lotus leads.”

EVO is a spinoff from Imperial College London, where Chief Technology Officer Michael Lamperth works as a lecturer in mechanical engineering. The startup is developing what’s called an axial flux motor, or a disc-based motor. Instead of the usual cylinder rotating in another cylinder, these motors consist of a disc rotating facing another disc. “It’s the best usage of space,” Lamperth said.

While the concept of an axial flux motor isn’t new, the technology previously hasn’t succeeded because it’s so powerful that past iterations have fallen apart, Walker said. New materials, a new design and different manufacturing processes fix that problem, Lamperth added. The result is a motor that EVO claims is smaller, lighter, more powerful and more cost-efficient than current electric motors.

The motor can essentially get more performance out of the batteries, a major advantage as batteries – including the limited electric range they enable and their high price – have been a major sticking point for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. “There has been a lot of focus on batteries, but drive systems are almost as big a market” and haven’t been getting the same attention, Walker said.

A vehicle that can travel 80 miles on a single charge today would be able to drive 100 miles with EVO motors, Lamperth claims. And that’s for a cost expected to be at least 40 percent lower than current motors, in mass production, because the motors use at least 40 percent less material, he added. Price has been a critical challenge for plug-in hybrid and electric cars, which is why the first such vehicles have been high-end sports cars, such as the Tesla Roadster.

Aside from plug-in hybrids, EVO plans to target electric vehicles and regular hybrids. But the company expects to start with plug-in hybrids, which it expects will hit the market in about two years, because – considering the long development cycle for vehicles – manufacturers are evaluating motor providers for those vehicles now, Lamperth said.

EVO is in small-volume manufacturing now, making motors on its own in “fives and tens,” and already is seeing revenues from demonstration and beta vehicles and from the retrofit market, Lamperth said. It plans to partner with automotive suppliers for mass production and already is in talks with other potential partners, he added.

The company, which already has raised $5 million from Imperial Innovations, the venture arm of Imperial College, and angel investors, is now seeking a second round of about $10 million. While it has commitments from existing investors, it really hopes to attract a U.S. venture capitalist to help it target the U.S. market as well, Lamperth said, adding EVO plans to close its funding by summer.

Related GigaOM Pro Research (sub required):

• Hot Topic: Opportunities in the Electric Vehicle Market
• Report: IT and Networking Issues for the Electric Vehicle MarketRead more: http://pro.gigaom.com/archives/green-it/briefings/#ixzz0h2c79WVL

At the Cleantech Forum in San Francisco last week, Conley claimed b2u’s technology can deliver the equivalent of 40 to 60 cents per watt – and 2.5 to 4.5 cents per kilowatt-hour – by generating heat directly, instead of producing energy that is then used to make heat. That makes it potentially competitive with natural gas today, and the economics look even better if the heat is also used for air conditioning, as well as heating, Conley said. (It may sound counterintuitive, but heat can be paired with a chiller to generate cool air).

Other solar companies that are developing ways to utilize the sun’s heat include Sopogy, which installed its first commercial project in Hawaii last year, Focal Point Energy, which is developing systems that produce hot water and steam for industrial applications, HelioDynamics, Chromasun, and the Center for Architecture Science and Ecology.

These solar heat systems are generally based on the same type of technology as the big projects that BrightSource Energy, Abengoa Solar and others are installing in the desert. A reflector directs the sun’s heat to a tube in which fluid circulates, and the hot fluid then provides heat for other applications.

But companies like b2u Solar are working to make the systems viable for applications that can use the heat directly — and at smaller sizes so the systems can be installed where the heat is used, avoiding transmission losses. In b2u’s case, the design utilizes an evacuated tube collector, normally used for hot water heating, and Conley claims the system can capture and convert diffuse light, not just direct light like most concentrators.

B2u’s technology generates heat of between 135 and 200 degrees Celsius. But one issue with these types of technologies has been the difficulty of using all of the heat. Even though making heat is cheaper than producing electricity, “if a system generates more heat than [a customer] can use, that’s not a payback,” said Jenny Chase, lead solar analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Solar-thermal cooling has proven more difficult than expected, with Chase saying she has yet to see a company make it work on a commercial scale and volume.

B2u believes its ability to use diffuse light will allow it to tap into the elusive cooling market. A case study comparing production on a cloudy day with a sunny day found only 16 percent lower production on the cloudy day, Conley said. And a demonstration project has been cooling successfully since Dec. 1 at a third of the current electricity cost for air conditioning during the day, he added.

With that ability, along with its temperature range, b2u believes its technology has plenty of industrial applications, including concrete curing, paper finishing, wastewater treatment and commercial cooking. “ConAgra drying onions and garlic for McDonald’s – that’s the temperature range you need,” Conley said. The company also hopes to replace some of the natural gas used to inject water for oil production, he said, and has just bid on one such project in the Middle East. All together, b2u estimates its technology could potentially address 30 percent, or $90 billion, of the market for industrial process heat and commercial heat.

B2u, which is seeking $6 million to $8 million in its first round of funding, is in final negotiations with contract manufacturing partners and plans to begin shipping commercial collectors in the second quarter of this year, said Conley. The company already has several demonstration projects installed in China and the United States, including one at the NASA Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, Calif. that has been running for nearly two years. B2u also has formed a partnership with the Gas Technology Institute, a nonprofit to develop new energy technologies, and, together with its partner, won a $400,000 grant from the California Energy Commission for a demonstration project in Southern California.

Image courtesy of Sopogy.

A chart that Sheeraz Haji, president of the Cleantech Group, presented Thursday shows that while worldwide private investment in cleantech fell below $150 billion in 2009, from just above $150 billion the previous year, global stimulus spending added an estimated $76 billion to the total pool of cleantech funding in 2009 and is expected to reach $182 billion this year (see chart, above). The chart is based on analysis from the Cleantech Group, as well as numbers from the World Economic Forum, the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook, Bloomberg’s New Energy Finance and HSBC.

These numbers mean that governments, in essence, have become the biggest cleantech venture capitalists – with China as the largest player, by far. And just as the U.S. stimulus has changed the game for cleantech entrepreneurs and investors in the U.S., with both entrepreneurs and investors paying far more attention to Washington as private capital follows the public capital in a challenging economy, the new money from China is bound to bring plenty of changes to the industry as well, Haji said. As Maurice Gunderson, a senior partner at CMEA Capital, put it:

“It’s an opportunity, a threat and a wake-up call.”

For one thing, getting government funding makes a company more attractive to investors because it’s free (i.e. nondilutive) financing that essentially multiplies the effect of their dollar, so investors have to put in less cash. The down side is that Beijing, as with Washington, can only pick so many companies, and companies that don’t get government funding will have a harder time raising more private funding, Haji said.

Also, Beijing is likely to favor domestic companies in picking its winners. This doesn’t only happen in China, and is simply an effect of making funding a political process, Haji said. “Politicians are going to care if they’re giving their money to a domestic company.” For U.S. companies, the deeper pockets of Beijing’s stimulus program – as well as other government support for cleantech – may give Chinese competitors an advantage, especially in the potentially enormous Chinese market, he added.

Take Denmark, which largely grew the wind industry with government support. “Wind companies in the U.S. are disadvantaged because of that,” Gunderson said. (The world’s largest wind-turbine manufacturer, Vestas, is Danish.) China can bring orders of magnitude more resources to bear on cleantech than Denmark, he added. “Whatever they decide to do is going to be big.”

In addition to the greater government funding, the Chinese economy has been booming as of late and 69 percent of the total cleantech IPOs last year came from China. “Capital flows more freely in China,” Haji said, adding that debt markets also are doing better as loans are cheaper. The availability of provincial loans, for example, for its contract manufacturing partners helped lower SolFocus’ capital expenditure in the country. “Our capex was zero,” said Gary Conley, chairman of the concentrating photovoltaic company. “China makes it real simple for us.”

Companies aiming to target the Chinese market are aware that the government has a big influence on the business decisions and are making more trips across the Pacific, Haji said. And some U.S. companies also are considering manufacturing in China because of the lower costs, although the decision is balanced out by issues such as lower intellectual property protection, he added.

Silicon Valley investors also are taking more trips to China. “There’s pretty good awareness that if you want to be a credible cleantech VC, you have to go to China,” Haji said. Many big venture-capital companies have opened offices there. CMEA doesn’t have an office there, but does have one investment in China and has funds with which it can cooperate in the country, Gunderson said.

Still, Conley said that early-stage funding remains a Silicon Valley specialty, as Chinese stimulus money is more similar to later-stage funding – and he expects that market will slowly swing back in about two years after the stimulus program ends.

But even though the worldwide stimulus programs only are meant to last a few years to help counteract a global economic downturn, they way the money is spent now will influence the course of the energy and cleantech markets over the next 100 years, Haji said. “If we’re not careful, the U.S. will cede global competitiveness to China,” he said.

Finally, all the stimulus programs will likely cause a dip when they end, and it’s unclear how quickly the industry will be able to bounce back afterward, Haji said. “It might hurt.” Companies propped up by the funding will go away, while those that have been incubated by it – and are able to compete on their own once the government spending ends – will survive, Gunderson said.