Peter Thiel: "Something seems to have gone quite wrong with cleantech"

Cleantech companies just can’t seem to get it right.

At least, that’s the notion Peter Thiel — a cofounder of PayPal and president of Clarium Capital — subscribes to when he looks at cleantech companies as potential investing opportunities. He made the comments at a Commonwealth Club event in San Francisco Wednesday.

Thiel frequently expresses disappointment that Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurial community is all about making profits and not about changing the world, so you’d think he’d be bullish on anything green. But he’s actually been surprisingly bearish when it comes to cleantech companies — those that specialize in producing more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly energy, transportation methods and others. That’s not because he doesn’t believe in the technology, he just doesn’t like the way the companies are run, he said.

“Most of the people who run cleantech companies are sales people, not engineers,” Thiel said. “Something seems to have gone quite wrong with cleantech.”

As a result, most cleantech companies that try to develop alternative energy forms are building power sources that are more expensive. Solar panels, for example, are still not a cost-efficient way to generate power, Thiel said.

“We need something cheaper, not more expensive,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if the energy is cleaner, it doesn’t work if it’s more expensive.”

One potential route for cleantech energies is to work with something that’s slightly more environmentally friendly than current sources — natural gas. It’s a cheaper form of energy that’s much more ubiquitous and has less of an environmental impact than most energy sources today, but has not been harnessed, Thiel said. Entrepreneurs and governments should also explore nuclear power options because they are more energy-efficient, he said.

Outside of producing alternative energy forms, the biggest step has to come in the transportation industry, Thiel said. That amounts to building better and more efficient batteries for electric vehicles that are more environmentally friendly. Tesla Motors, he said, had as good a chance as any other electric car company to get it right.

But Thiel wouldn’t get any more specific about his expectations for the electric car company, despite the history Thiel has with Tesla founder Elon Musk. Musk was also a co-founder of PayPal. Thiel is also coincidentally an investor in SpaceX, another of Musk’s ventures that wants to bring space travel to the masses.

  • Patrick McKenna

    Someone in Washington needs to do the math and sell an energy plan, on the surface Peter i couldn't disagree with some of your statements more – natural gas aside. This is several large complex upfront capital investments (I’m guessing at least 1 trillion to really get going) but the fuel is renewable so the costs don't go up – you’re left with maintenance and replacement but by then solar and other efficiencies will have increased dramatically. Now study oil, look at oil costs historically, take a 50 year period – I’m willing to bet oil has gone up significantly and i'm willing to bet more in the last 10 years than ever – Washington should just graph it out and sell it. Peter there are so many positives to doing this, lower cost long term energy, environmental benefits. It’s just too bad we Americans spent a trillion on the war, we’d be well on our way by now.

  • http://twitter.com/logicalmoron Matt Lynley

    Some interesting points. But Peter Thiel does seem to be a pretty established venture capitalist (clarium capital woes aside) so his comments might indicate a more structural problem. It's certainly something worth looking into — and we plan to.

  • http://twitter.com/cthorm Casey Thormahlen

    Peter refreshingly cuts to the chase. Cleantech is not going to be successful in the longterm if the business model expects premium pricing for environmental cleanliness. More needs to be done to make solar truly cost effective, and that might take a little more vision than the current crop of companies have. Without some sort of carbon tax, they are reliant on subsidies and grants to be competitive with current technology. For terrestrial solar power, they need to either bring manufacturing costs way down or generation efficiency significantly up, and preferably both. Alternatively, they can bootstrap it and go for space based solar, though high launch costs remain a problem, but a problem Musk and Thiel seem to be solving.Even with all of that, a revival of nuclear power could wipe out any semblance of cost competitiveness for clean tech. But that has its hurdles too, particularly the glacial pace of the NRC.

  • http://twitter.com/blueandgold63 kent beuchert

    Thiel is one of the few who are firmly in touch with reality. Almost invariably, cleantech companies hawk their wares as “saving the planet” items, with no regards to either practicality, effectiveness, or cost.That ain't going to hack it, regardless of how many immature greenies they can convince. Tesla Motors has been effective because they have focused on building a good product – an electric car that people actually might want to own, rather than the designed-over-the-weekend bizarro concepts pushed by such companies as Aptera and others. Tesla's upcoming Model S is one work of art and the first electric car that actually is superior to the gas powered comeptitors in its price range. As opposed to the silly Chevy Volt, an ugly, slow, cramped, ridiculously complicated and proprietary vehicle that is worth $15K but sells for $42K. Greenies are the world's most gullible consumers. You can sell themanything, as long as they can claim to others that it shows them to be “responsible citizens.”

  • Patrick McKenna

    VC's have a tough time playing here the initial capital requirements (to build plants) have to have big help $$$ from our government. This is real long term payback stuff on big initial investments not at all like high-tech investing. Major hurdles like the grid, politics and enviros can be a huge roadblocks. But efficiency isn't near as big an issue over the long haul, the fuel is free. It's just a completely different finance structure. You don't get to market on an initial investment of 1M with follow on rounds of 5 to 20M. You start at 5 to 10M and move to 400M hoping for 15 to 20 year payback. The cram down on the following rounds makes first in tough to justify.

  • http://techmarketintel.com/ David Dines

    Clean tech has many obstacles including entire industries that do not want it succeed (oil, coal), inconsistent and contradictory government policies (subsidizing oil and coal industries while investing in alternatives), market readiness and the VCs . . . sorry Peter. My (admittedly unscientific) observation is that the majority of “clean tech” VCs are using the same mindset / business model they did with Internet/IT companies. Therefore, the VCs will invest in deals with investment profiles that look a lot like Internet/IT companies they did in the past. Given that clean tech is typically more capital intensive, has longer development cycles, and slower revenue ramps (since the major customers are often utilities), the VC’s will have to change their expectations and get used to funding companies that look more like semiconductor fabs than software companies (from a capital structure).

  • http://twitter.com/cthorm Casey Thormahlen

    The fuel is free, but the money and opportunity cost is not. Efficiency is not an issue if the PV cells can be made cheap enough, but ultimately what matters is cost per watt, and that can be improved in two ways. The financial scale is definitely an order of magnitude higher than in IT, but IT was the low hanging fruit. Cleantech can't be done with angel investors, but the VCs can play a role in convincing other funds to co-invest, but that comes right back to the hurdle of the business model. What makes this solar company different? Why should you succeed where others have failed? To get the kind of funding they really need, they need to be able to eliminate as much uncertainty as they can. Expecting subsidies to be sufficient and long-lasting isn't going to cut it, you need to aim higher, such that you can compete on a cost basis with other energy sources.

  • Patrick McKenna

    Again, this goes back to the math. Casey you wrote: “Expecting subsidies to be sufficient and long-lasting isn't going to cut it, you need to aim higher, such that you can compete on a cost basis with other energy sources.” Casey, what are the current subsidies for oil? I’m willing to bet you and most people don’t know. I’m willing to admit I don’t know. And you think subsidies aren’t long lasting? The US pays less for gas than most Nations and those subs will continue for another 20+ years – i know you know this. So, we as a nation have to compete against the real price per watt/gallon/barrel/clean-up/storage this should be compared to the historical prices per barrel/tonage. We are stuck in the mud looking for alternatives in renewables that compete with today's prices. i know it's hard to guess what prices will look like in the future but come on, once the plant is built fuel is relatively free – less maintenance and replacement. i don't get why people don't understand that. Frankly, i don't see the subsidies continuing after re-negotiation in 25 years –typical PPA. It would go something like this, we (the US Gov) would pay more per watt today (to build) and cut the prices in the future – remember you aren’t buying the sun/wind/water-otec. I totally disagree that VC’s can play here without massive government subs and other cooperation utilities, enviros, new grid. I would have to package with a nice bow on it. Let’s take a typical deal today, and say a VC comes in at 20M, make it 100M with “friends” it could take 3 years (if they’re lucky) to get approval, another 2 years to build, and require another 1.5B in funding with pay back in 30 years. Show me a VC with a payback timeline like that? Can you imagine the cram down on the original investors? You can argue this stuff 1000 ways but until someone in Washington does the math it's going to be real hard to get the nation behind it. My point is simple, we're doing comparables vs today and not future prices and i think it's completely short sighted and wrong. Last point, why would any high tech VC want to touch this stuff? i know many who won't, and i don't blame them, but let's not pretend that these are efficiency issues because they aren't.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_I4KRBELBLQX34ZQBYFZSSKLOHE Ron

    The bottom line is we are pricing fossil fuels on short-term supply and demand, not on medium-term shortages and related environmental costs. Cleantech makes sense now, remove the $500b a year in subsidies to fossil fuels (vs the $100b towards renewables). We can't be so short-sighted on this or the implications will be disastrous.

  • http://twitter.com/cthorm Casey Thormahlen

    Patrick, I don't really disagree with you. For one, the current policies that subsidize fossil fuels so heavily and consistently are a crippling issue that distorts prices and makes renewables less competitive than they really are. But those subsidies have existed for so long because of entrenched interests and the political capital they generate. Subsidy regimes for solar are much more rocky. I'm not saying that it should be that way, it just is that way, and making a decade+ investment that only pays off if policies are fixed is suicide. As far as VC's and the capital required go, its clearly out of their league, but they can play an important role in vetting early technology and raising fund from truly big players, including sovereign wealth funds and structured finance.

  • Patrick McKenna

    Totally agree Ron, someone in Washington needs to open the “subsidies” books because without the math, efficiencies for renewables will continue to look upside down to most people. If people realized the real costs of fossil fuels, i'll bet we'd have a million person march on Washington supporting clean tech. The good news is green and greater efficiency is happening in recycling, our products (less chemicals, manufacturing, lighting, construction, waste. The bad news is: we have to build power facilities, and building new plants to replace coal/gas/etc is super expensive with massive upfront cap investment but we're way better off long term on fuel costs and clean up. The comment that bothers me is the “efficiencies aren't there” that's just not true and short sighted. Great conversation guys!

blog comments powered by Disqus