Silicon Valley’s Kevin Suracehas just achieved Rock Star status – of the Green Biz variety. The CEO of Serious Materials was picked as Entrepreneur of the Year by Inc. Magazineand joined Time Magazine‘s list of Tech Pioneers Who Will Change Your Life, along with another Silicon Valley Green Rock Star: Bloom Energy’sKR Sridhar. It’s an incongruous status for someone from the mundane world of building products, but Kevin is being described as ‘savior of the world’, ‘the Larry Ellison of green’ and has even turned down an invitation to the White House. He knows he’ll be invited back.
In an exclusive Fresh Dialogues interview recordedbefore the accolades descended, Kevin revealed his motivations for waging war on climate change and the lessons learned in building a green company. He discussed the influence of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truthin helping create a market for green products; how Serious Materials changed its focus; and whether consumers are willing to pay a premium for green. Kevin outlined how his company uses new media to get its message out and what the future holds for this rapidly expanding company.
On Kevin’s motivations for wanting to help save the planet
“When you have children, you start to think what world are you leaving them? I think that affects everybody.”
When did he focus on energy saving products at Serious Materials?
“If I sat here and said in 2002 I had the great vision to design energy saving building materials – there was no market in 2002 – people would think I was nuts. By 2005, the climate issue had come to the front of minds: on scientists’ minds, at the United Nations, in the world. By ’06, we began coming out with energy efficient windows… ”
The catchy title “Cows to Kilowatts” certainly won the attention of the crowds at the 2009 Tech Awards Galain Silicon Valley, but the project won accolades for more than mere words. Dr. Joseph Adelegan, an Ashoka Fellowis a charismatic engineer who has found an effective way to harness the energy from slaughterhouse waste and won the $50,000 Intel Environment Award . He and his team at the Nigeria based Global Network for Environment and Economic Development Research, are creating cooking gas and electricity from effluent that might otherwise lead to harmful pollution.
What does the Tech Award mean to Dr. Adelegan?
“We’ve received several awards… so it’s not really receiving the award… but the opportunity to network, to meet great minds in Silicon Valley… see people who’ve gone through the same as you’ve gone through…We’ve seen scientists and inventors, visited Microsoft and Intel..we’ve seen people doing some encouraging things…Sometimes you think you are crazy doing this type of stuff, but you see that people are as crazy as you. You have to be crazy to be creative….” (We agreed there were LOTS of crazy creative people in Silicon Valley)
On November 17, I attended the CleanTech OpenAwards Gala at the Masonic Center in San Francisco and enjoyed keynotes from Lesa Mitchellfrom the Kaufman Foundation, Bill Weihl, Google’s Energy Czar and Nancy Pfund, of DBL Investors.
Minutes after his company was picked as the National Award Winner. I sat down with Scott Hublou, co-founder of EcoFactor. His three-year-old start-up has created an energy management systemfor the home that uses weather data to optimize heating and cooling. Scott claims savings of between 20 to 30% are achievable. Sounds pretty attractive in this tough economy, and the judges thought so too.
How did the CleanTech Open and its mentoring help you?
“It forces deep thinking around various different business models. Because there are actual deadlines, it’s kinda like being back in school again where you have to have deliverables… You’re presenting to your peers and potential investors, so you always want to make a good impression… think about sustainability, and good market strategies.”
This exclusive interview with Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman was recorded on November 12, 2009 in Silicon Valley. Dr. Krugman was in town to deliver a lecture as part of the Foothill College Celebrity Forum Series. Here is the transcript of Part Two: On China and Climate Change. To listen to this interview click hereand or watchvideo (coming soon)
Alison van Diggelen: Paul thank you very much for joining me today on Fresh Dialogues.
Paul Krugman: OK. Good to be doing this.
Alison: Talking about other countries, Spain took the lead… Denmark is taking the lead… China is now way ahead of us in certain clean energy technologies. Do you feel that we’ve lost eight years and we have at least eight years to catch up? Is it feasible we can catch up?
Paul: It’s always feasible. You don’t want to get too hung up on the specific sexy technologies. I guess the Danes are ahead of us in building wind turbines. But a lot of what we’re going to be doing on the environment is going to be… insulation, clever urban design to minimize energy loss. That’s all stuff that’s coming along and look – the history of information technology has said very clearly that nobody gets a monopoly for very long… I don’t get anxiety about it. I’m just more concerned that we won’t do what we need to do to protect the environment.
Alison: How big is the role of government? Ultimately it’s the private sector investment that’s going to make the substantial investment…
Paul: But the government has to provide the incentives…what we have now is the economic concept of an externality…if you have something where you impose costs on other people but you don’t have any incentive to reduce those costs, bad stuff happens. And climate change is the mother of all externalities. It’s a gigantic thing and the private sector by itself is not going to deal with it. Left without any government intervention, we’re just going to basically par-boil the planet, right?
So what you have to do is have a set of rules in place. Now the idea is for it to be market oriented. Yes, there can be some public research, some public investment, some things will have to be done directly by government… but mainly put in a cap and trade system – put a price on greenhouse gas emissions and then let the private sector do its stuff.
Alison: Right. Why is it you favor a cap and trade system over a straight carbon tax?
Paul: Oh, there are a couple of reasons. One is, right now, cap and trade looks like it might pass Congress and a direct tax will not. Partly that’s because cap and trade is relatively well suited to paying off the industry groups, right? We live in the real world. By handing out some of the licenses, at least in the first decade or so, you make it easier to swallow.
International coordination is easier with cap and trade. If we say to the Chinese – well we want you to have a carbon tax – how can we really tell it’s enforced? But if we negotiate with the Chinese that they will have total CO2 emissions of so much, we can monitor pretty well whether that’s actually happening. So that’s a lot easier to envision an international agreement with cap and trade.
So, I would take a carbon tax if…
Alison: If it were politically feasible?
Paul: It’s not clear to me that it’s even superior. But it would be OK, certainly. The fact is, cap and trade could be a bill by this time next year. A carbon tax is like single payer health care. It’s not going to happen this decade and I want something to actually happen now.
Alison: Paul Krugman, thank you very much I really appreciate your taking the time.
Paul: Thank you so much.
Check back soon for more interview segments on the stimulus package, what gave him that “missionary zeal” to write such fervent columns in the New York Times, and whether the green economy can be our salvation.
To check out more exclusive Fresh Dialogues interviews, click here
I sat down with Pulitzer prize winning Tom Friedmanto discuss his book and the upcoming Climate Summitin Copenhagen. In this part of the interview, we discuss what we can learn from Denmark – dubbed the greenest country in the world; the role of Silicon Valley in energy technology innovation; and where he thinks the next Green Google will grow. Tom says emulation is more effective than compulsion in solving the climate crisis, so I asked him:
Do you think the Copenhagen Summit is a waste of time? (more…)
This is a transcript of Part Two of my interview with Bloom Energy CEO, KR Sridhar. The interview was recorded on September 30, 2009 at the Bloom Energy headquarters in Silicon Valley, California. To listen to the interview and read the original post, click here.
We join the conversation as we are discussing the pricing of the Bloom Box.
Alison van Diggelen: KR, thank you for joining me today on Fresh Dialogues.
KR Sridhar: You’re welcome.
Alison: I appreciate your taking the time. So let’s talk about how affordable it (the Bloom Box) might be…I’ve read that $10,000 is a target…
KR: Don’t use any numbers.
Alison: Is this all speculation?
KR: That’s all speculation. So all that I can simply tell you is: if it needs mass market adoption, it needs to be affordable. And affordability is already set in the marketplace because today you buy electrons and you pay a certain price. If I offer you all the advantages of the kind of device I’m talking about, and you have to pay the same price you’re paying your local utility, then it’s affordable to you. So that goal is there. Our goal is clearly to make it affordable; if it’s not affordable, it’ll be the niche market, it’ll be a Tesla…
Alison: Right. And your goal is to make it absolutely affordable?
Alison: A Honda Civic? I like that analogy. That’s great. Let’s talk about barriers to entry. You’re notoriously in stealth mode. Are there high barriers to entry to this? How many Ph.D.s do you have working on it?
KR: Absolutely – very high barriers to entry. The high barriers to entry come (from) – it’s a very complex interdisciplinary field; it requires knowledge not just in one area, in a significant number of engineering, science, material science disciplines…and the development of all the technology, the process know-how is fairly complex…and a significant amount of capital – and I can’t give you the number – that needs to be invested over a long period of time, to get it to where it needs to be. Those become the barriers to entry. But clearly, it’s a huge enough market that other people will try.
Alison: And how many Ph.D.s do you have on your team, working on this problem?
KR: Let’s say it’s in the hundred range.
Alison: It’s in the hundred? And I assume, this being Silicon Valley, people from around the world.
KR: Around the world.
Alison: You’re getting the best talent on this problem and they’re presumably all sworn to secrecy…
KR: They’re the best in what they do and that’s why they’re here.
Alison: You filed your first patent in 2003 and I understand there was one filed last year?
KR: Mmm-hmm.
Alison: Can you describe the trends from 2003 to now? You’re obviously a very patient man and you’ve talked about your motivations, but can you talk about the whole trajectory? In 2003, when you filed that patent, did you think that by September 2009, you’d be in production?
KR: We’d roughly laid out this timeline in our very first series of fundraising from our investors. For a project of this timescale, we’re probably within two, three quarters of the original projection…and again you need to understand that this is the kind of product that nobody has built before and an industry to support it doesn’t exist…So we’re not just building a company, we’re building all the support infrastructure that needs to be around us. So, given that caveat, if you accept that as the give-or-take, we’re on plan.
Alison: So there must be growing enthusiasm and excitement in this building?
KR: Absolutely. The big thing is the entire Bloom Team, from employees, to investors to board members to everybody else, are real believers in what we do and real believers in the mission of the company. So that alone creates the enthusiasm.
Alison: I bet. You’ve said ‘we want our products to speak before we speak.’ What do you mean by that?
KR: There’s been enough hype of people coming and saying ‘this is what we will do’ …a lot of them have not come to fruition…That doesn’t mean that they did something wrong. It’s just a very difficult problem to solve or somebody would have solved this a long time ago. And for us, we just didn’t want to add to that hype of coming and saying, ‘this is what it’ll do.’
We first wanted to be sure it works…It’s not just that it works, it can be made affordable. It can make a difference. You’re creating a business, you’re creating an industry, so it needs to work, it needs to be a quality product that has reliability, that people will buy. It needs to be the kind of product that makes a difference in somebody’s life to want to buy it. It can be…affordable – there’s a value proposition to it – and at that affordability rate, the business can be successful because it’s making a profit.
Alison: Well KR Sridhar, it’s been a pleasure. Thank you for joining me today on Fresh Dialogues.
KR: Thank you.
For more Fresh Dialogues with KR Sridhar, click here
For more Fresh Dialogues with Venture Capitalist, Vinod Khosla, click here
