Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I think the question was,
it seems like and I think if this is your assertion this is correct,
that our technology isn't as capital-intensive to
test in terms of development of the technology.
It actually has a lot of rigorous testing though
in the sense probably more than is apparent,
because it goes into EPA drinking water standards.
And so the military tested this extensively for us to have
public drinking water system usage here in the US,
there's a tremendous amount of regulatory oversight
and hurdles that you have to go through.
So it is a very rigorously tested device probably much more
than solar and hydro and other energy-related clean tech devices
that I can think of in terms of is it certified,
if you will, by the relative agencies.
The other part of your question I think is spot on,
which is to develop the technology
wasn't as capital intensive as say,
developing a new solar fab where you not only
have the technology issues to deal with,
you also have the capital-intensity associated
with ramping up production.
And I think that's one of the things that the investment community
is coming face-to-face with in clean tech very quickly is if you look
at the way venture capital community is set up - for the most part,
and there are few exemptions - it's really set up to
take smaller bites at the apple, five million.
Let's see this with a couple of hundred thousand or a million,
get to proof-of-concept, and put a couple million in,
they we'll get the revenue, then we'll put a couple more million in.
You have ten million in for the company that,
if you're Facebook is worth billions,
but if you're kind of a normal trajectory,
maybe you're worth two or three or four or five times that.
Good outcome.
And you look at a solar company,
which might take 200 million at an extreme case to get ramped up,
and then only to find out you're not cost competitive, et cetera.
That's a really big investment chunk.
And I think that is already played itself out to some degree.
And the investment community is getting more thoughtful
about how to either share that cost with either
large companies or governments or others.
Or how to figure out novel ways to get the proof
points quicker and more inexpensively.
But that is one of the big hurdles in clean tech is,
you just got to look at the money in versus the money out.
If the bet is a billion dollar bet,
it better be a $10 billion potential return,
because it doesn't make sense otherwise.
But it's a great question, a great observation about clean tech.