VentureBeat

A123 Systems files proposal for IPO — Lithium-ion battery maker A123 Systems, which aims to sell into the electric vehicle market, has filed the initial registration statement required for an initial public offering. The number of shares to be sold or price has not yet been determined.

Nokia opens research unit in Africa — Aiming to keep ahead in Africa’s growing telecommunications market, handset maker Nokia has opened a unit to study which services will work best on the continent.

Calera succeeds in binding CO2 into cement — An initial pilot project by stealth-mode cement maker Calera, which was funded last year by Khosla Ventures, has successfully run a pilot in which it bound about half a ton of CO2 for every ton of cement it made. Usually, cement manufacturing is a huge emitter of CO2. The Scientific American has a profile, with more details. However, the biggest question — whether Calera can make cement cost-effectively — has yet to be answered.

Stealthy cloud security firm Confidela funded — An Israeli firm developing a “new security model in cloud computing, for use in tasks like online document collaboration, has raised a second round of $5 million, according to Globes.

Matrix Partners scores former PayPal exec — Dana Stalder, a senior vice president of marketing at PayPal, has defected to become a general partner at Matrix Partners.

Stealth material makers not in stealth at all — A pair of science teams have divulged the results of experiments in which they tested out so-called “cloaking” materials, which can bend and re-direct light. As usual for such experiments, the advances are being reported as a first step toward an invisibility cloak, but right now the materials are likely more useful for optical applications like magnification or refraction.

Legg Mason loses Massachusetts pension fund — Legendary manager Bill Miller, who runs the Legg Mason Value Trust, has been fired by Massachusetts’ state pension fund, which had $1.4 billion in the trust. Miller’s fortunes have sunk somewhat over the past couple years, as once-outstanding investments like Yahoo have fallen.

The one that got away — Riffing off Bessemer Ventures’ well known “anti-portfolio” of successful companies the firm declined to invest in, the Merc has a few more anecdotes of VC missteps.

Did Intel and Microsoft try to kill One Laptop Per Child? — A lengthy flashback to the rise and fall of Nicholas Negroponte’s OLPC project, intended to put a cheap laptop in the hands of children in developing countries worldwide, is in the Times Online. Despite various setbacks, the Times notes that the OLPC has still sold over a million units to date.

While most of us have come to think of CO2 as a problem, some see it as a potentially lucrative market opportunity. Santa Barbara, Calif.-based Carbon Sciences is one company asking the question: Why try to bury the ubiquitous greenhouse gas when you can just as easily convert it into a commercially valuable product?

The company has designed a low-cost technology, dubbed GreenCarbon, that combines captured CO2 with water and tailings, the waste mineral products from mining operations, to produce precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) — a useful intermediary with a wide range of applications in the consumer goods, construction and agricultural sectors. Because it uses cheap raw materials, GreenCarbon is an attractive alternative to conventional PCC technologies, which use expensive materials like limestone and are often much more energy-intensive.

According to CEO Derek McLeish, products using PCC, which include everything from toothpaste and paper to building materials, make up a $12 billion market in the U.S. — which offers plenty of room for growth. Most of that growth will be due to increased worldwide demand for paper, he says, a resource-intensive industry that could consume up to 70 percent of all PCC produced. Different grades of PCC are also priced differently; the cost can vary from $5 a ton to $1,000 a ton.

Carbon Sciences has a mobile prototype of GreenCarbon up and running in a solar-panel equipped lab truck to show off the technology, and it plans on building a mini-pilot system within the next 2 to 3 years to begin scaling up. A commercial-scale demonstration will then follow. Though he didn’t reveal any names, McLeish told me his company had already formed strategic partnerships with several major U.S.-based firms in the paper and pharmaceuticals industries.

The company shuns geologic and ocean storage, arguing, as have many others, that sequestration remains a costly, untested emission-reducing technology that has yet to prove its commercial value over the long term.

Carbon Sciences’ GreenCarbon, on the other hand, is relatively cost-effective, has a low energy requirement and produces an inert, environmentally benign material that can be incorporated into higher value products — though it may not capture CO2 in quite the volume CCS-equipped power plants would in the short term.

Most large-scale CCS projects are currently being funded by government agencies like the DOE, which just committed $1.3 billion to supporting more R&D, and large corporations, like Exxon Mobil, which are more willing to expend some of their considerable resources on such a risky bet. The more alluring business model presented by Carbon Sciences and like-minded competitors, such as Skyonic and Calera, could turn the tide away from geological sequestration.

The company secured a first round of funding from private investors last year and plans to raise a second round in the near future. McLeish was mum on the details but, given his firm’s manufacturing angle, we can assume the funding ranged in the millions of dollars.

updated: Dan Whaley, CEO of Climos, asked me to clarify that ocean iron fertilization (OIF) is very different from CCS since it doesn’t involve actually capturing carbon dioxide. It is therefore much cheaper: Whaley conservatively estimates OIF’s price around $5 a ton, versus $40 - 80 a ton for CCS. My apologies for the error. Also, Russ George, CEO of the once defunct Planktos, has told me his company is back online.

Emissions will jump 130 percent and oil demand 70 percent by 2050 unless governments take immediate action to start a new $45 trillion “energy technology revolution,” according to a new International Energy Agency (IEA) report.

Halving emissions by mid-century will require governments to rapidly drive up the cost of producing carbon to $200 per ton — or as high as $500 in the worst-case scenario — by instituting a cap-and-trade or carbon tax system. Either policy would increase the price of carbon by forcing businesses to pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide.

To do so, the report suggests that the world will need to ramp up its construction of nuclear power plants, capture and store the carbon (CCS) emitted by coal and gas plants and slash the emissions produced by vehicles eight-fold.

Specifically, the report said CCS technology would need to be installed at 35 coal- and 20 gas-fired plants every year from 2010 to 2050 at a cost of roughly $1.5 billion each. In addition, 32 new nuclear plants and 17,500 wind turbines will need to be built each year. These investments and other emission-reducing projects will require a massive $10 - 100 billion a year R&D push over the next 15 years.

The report’s focus on CCS and nuclear technologies is likely to raise hackles, especially in the U.S. where the former is considered prohibitively expensive and untested while the latter is viewed with suspicion by many politicians and environmentalists. Nuclear energy may not prove as problematic in Europe, where several countries, particularly France, have made nuclear a central component of their energy industry.

On the other hand, nuclear energy could receive a boost under a McCain administration; the senator from Arizona has often expressed his strong support for the industry, most recently in his climate address. The 2008 Climate Security Act, which died in the Senate today, would have allocated a portion of permit proceeds to fund public-private CCS partnerships and low-carbon (i.e. nuclear and renewable energy) projects. The $45 trillion figure implicitly recognizes that both technologies would be very costly to implement on such a large scale.

Such a large sum, were it to be allocated, could entice much more investment in the CCS sector, which has seen little interest from most companies and private investors. Most large-scale projects are taking place in other countries, such as Norway and Sweden. GreenGen, a Chinese state-supported company, has said it is will begin construction of a 400 megawatt generation plant with CCS technologies in 2013.

In the U.S., the DOE recently committed $126.6 million to two sequestration projects in California and Ohio. It is now funding a total of six projects. Exxon Mobil is one of the few American firms to have used CCS technologies in one capacity or another over the last 25 years. More investments will likely need to wait until at least 2009, when the next president, be it John McCain or Barack Obama, unveils his climate agenda. Both have called for a cap-and-trade system.

Neither technology is likely to live up to the IEA report’s claims, however. CCS remains as expensive and risky as ever and, at best, would only account for a relatively small reduction in emissions. The costs of building new nuclear plants — already high — could increase further as rising oil prices push global demand for uranium and other nuclear components ever higher. Then, of course, there is the problem of how to dispose of all that waste.

If the money does eventually start to flow, startups like Calera, a company that uses captured CO2 to make cement, and Hyperion Power Generation, which makes portable nuclear reactors, could reap substantial rewards. In the end, opposition to both technologies could help make safer, reliable renewable energies like solar, wind and biofuels the big winners. A significant R&D boost, alongside the continued support for renewable tax breaks, would also go a long way toward ensuring a long, sustained period of growth in the renewable sector.

In the cleantech world, carbon sequestration, or the practice of capturing CO2 emissions and trapping them underground or inside materials, is something of a black sheep. Environmentalists call it a “boondoggle”, some engineers think it’s “absolutely crazy”, and even some politicians have called it a risky bet. Yet a string of recent announcements show that the technique has enough support to compete with other green technologies for attention, and money.

The most recent is a United States Department of Energy funding, which will put $126.6 million toward two separate sequestration projects, one in California and one in Ohio. The DoE now funds six projects in total. However, a much larger chunk of money, up to $1.3 billion, may go toward a partial revival of the canceled FutureGen project, according to an almost simultaneous announcement by the DoE.

Also unveiled yesterday were Exxon Mobil’s plans for a new plant in LaBarge, Wyoming, which will aim to freeze CO2 and other gases out of the methane that the company is mining for in the state, turning them into a liquid that it can then sell.

The surge of interest in carbon capture, which also includes studies in Washington and the much older Weyburn Project, is inspired in large part by the growing worry, held by utilities, mining companies and oil firms like Exxon alike, that a cap-and-trade or carbon tax system might soon be enacted in the United States. The DoE, with its responsibility for energy supplies in the States, has a natural interest in seeing fossil fuel plants continue to operate, and so will continue putting money toward carbon sequestration.

What’s more surprising is seeing that China, which has heedlessly poured money into coal, the cheapest and dirtiest energy source, is also getting into the potentially expensive sequestration game. A state-sponsored company called GreenGen is working toward a 400 megawatt generation plant with carbon capture technologies, with construction planned to start in 2013.

That’s significantly more ambitious than most other projects, both those in the United States and international efforts like Statoil’s Sliepner in Norway, which captures about 2,800 tons of CO2 each day. However, another Norwegian company called Sargas is claiming 95 gas capture at $20 per ton, and looking for funding for its own 400MW plant, to be built even sooner than GreenGen’s.

While most of the efforts involve large companies working with somewhat older technology that’s known to be expensive — Exxon has been using various form of carbon sequestration for 25 years — there is still some capacity for startups to take part. Researchers in France, for example, just announced the development of a nanomaterial capable of holding CO2, which will allow companies to skip the step of pumping it underground. And of course, there’s Calera, a Khosla Ventures funded company that claims it can use captured CO2 to make cement.

But ultimately, for most known methods, the projected costs for carbon sequestration rapidly become unsustainable. The reason isn’t just a dollars-and-cents issue, it’s also an energy investment issue. Compressing and containing CO2 requires large amounts of energy. That means that if you’re sequestering CO2 emissions from coal, you may need to burn an additional 25 percent just to provide energy for the sequestration process — which in turn creates more CO2. Among many other potential problems, possible leakage of CO2 is sequestered underground also hasn’t yet been ruled out.

Most corporations are well aware of these problems. In a just-released PricewaterHouse Cooper report, in fact, utility executives quizzed about which technologies they think will limit emissions the most ranked carbon capture much lower than nuclear, renewables, and energy efficiency, with carbon capture from gas-fired plants coming in dead last. (More on this report here.)

So what if all of these attempts at carbon sequestration fail? Well, providing the existence of a cap-and-trade system for emissions, carbon credits for environmental processes that capture CO2 may suddenly become all the rage.

For a sense of how much CO2 natural systems can capture, consider that North America alone draws in about 505 million tons each year. The world’s oceans take in a great deal more, which is the motivation for startups like Climos, which want to stimulate plankton growth. The methods that achieve widespread recognition and approval may well make a mint for their originators.

The green building sector has been awash with VC cash in recent months: Despite there only being a few dozen startups in the nascent field, investors have started paying close attention — helping several raise new rounds of funding.

Newark, California-based CalStar Cement has received $3.4 million from several investors, including Foundation Capital, while Serious Materials landed a hefty $50 million second funding round, led by New Enterprise Associates, Rustic Canyon Partners and Foundation Capital. The Sunnyvale-based startup had earlier capped a $5 million first round. Los Gatos-based Calera, which is developing a cement capable of sequestering carbon dioxide, is backed by Khosla Ventures.

New Jersey-based Hycrete, which produces an admixture (or liquid solution) that is used to waterproof concrete, completed its second round in 2006. Just one more, CEO David Rosenberg says, could take it to profitability; in late February, he said he was seeking $10 - 20 million. Its investors include RockPort Capital Partners and NGEN Partners. Hycrete’s admixture was one of the first to receive a cradle-to-cradle certification through McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry, a green product and design firm. The designation “cradle-to-cradle,” coined by architect William McDonough and Michael Braungart, refers to a product that can be completely recycled or re-used. It was also selected as a Technology Pioneer at this year’s World Economic Forum.

A mixture of sand, aggregate, cement and water, the admixture acts as a replacement for the external membranes that are typically used to keep water from seeping into concrete. When it is mixed into concrete, it links up to metallic ions and behaves like a hydrophobic solution (like oil) — repelling water. Because it doesn’t require volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or other harmful chemicals, the corrosion-resistant concrete can safely be recycled and reused in other projects. Conventional forms of concrete, which use permanently bonded waterproofing membranes, are sent to landfills.

Hycrete’s technology has already been used in more than 75 projects worldwide — including several Marriott and Hilton hotels and condos and apartments in Seattle. Other applications include mixing it into roofing material to make green roofs — roofs covered by lawns — or into drywall to stop moisture seepage.

The admixture reduces energy waste, cuts costs and lets builders receive Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) points. Developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, the LEED accreditation indicates a building has successfully adopted a suite of rigorous green building standards. The rating is seen as a boon by companies seeking to bolster their environmental credentials and is increasingly being implemented in new construction projects. Hycrete’s product helps builders reach that goal faster.

upated
A secretive Silicon Valley company called Calera says it can stop global warming and ocean acidification by pulling greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere.

It is building a way to grab carbon dioxide from its surroundings during the manufacturing of cement. Cement is a huge culprit of greenhouse gas emissions: It uses about 2.5 billion tons of cement a year, and produces that many tons in carbon dioxide.

Calera, based in Los Gatos, Calif., has raised a round of venture capital to pursue tests of its technology.

Its claims may sound outlandish, but it has credible backers. Khosla Ventures, run by Vinod Khosla, one of the most successful venture capitalists during the first Internet boom, made the investment. The firm has sprayed money into all kinds of clean-technology companies, but most of them have solid credentials.

Calera is active in the area of carbon “sequestering.” Not only are gases not released into the atmosphere, but they are actually pulled out of the atmosphere for the process, according to its founder.

Calera was founded a few months ago by Stanford University professor Brent Constantz (pictured above), a specialist in earth sciences. Constantz has previous started three medical companies involving synthetic materials and medical devices (see his bio here), including cements that helped repair bones. That’s when he learned that a ton of carbon dioxide is created for every ton of cement produced –one of the reasons he says he started Calera. The company is building a test manufacturing facility.

Vinod Khosla tells VentureBeat the company staying quiet on further details. Of the 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide cement creates each year, he said: “If this carbon was eliminated, we would be one third of the way to the target of 7 billion tons per year,” citing the target that some climate experts have defined as necessary.

News of the funding was first reported by VentureWire (subscription required).