Green Tech

California regional finalists for the Cleantech Open were announced Wednesday.

Think of the Cleantech Open, which started in 2006, as a Western divisions-only March Madness for environmental techies looking for funding. Contestants initially compete against each other in three Western U.S. regions: California, Rocky Mountain, and Pacific Northwest. Since its inception, the contest has garnered more than $125 million in funding for its contestants, according to Cleantech. It's also helped companies like Cool Earth Solar, and GreenVolts get noticed.

This year the California region judges had an initial pool of 278 teams, which it narrowed down to 49 semifinalists who then presented their projects in person. From those semifinalists, six regional finalists were chosen, one for each category of environmental technology that the Cleantech Open focuses on. Those final six, which received $100,000 worth in prizes for their regional win, will now go on to compete against finalists from other regions for the national award in their category.

This year's air, water, and waste category in California was won by Micromidas, a company trying to perfect a process to turn raw sewage into biodegradable plastic products.

Alphabet Energy, a team from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, won the energy efficiency category for a system that produces electricity from waste heat. The group, which twittered a thank you to "the academy" for its win, says its inexpensive method has the potential to offset up to 500 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

Tru2earth won the green building category for its Life Cycle Roof Tile made from recycled water and soda bottle plastic that can double as siphons for capturing gray water.

A DIY-installation solar roof panel system from Armageddon Energy, called the SolarClover, won the renewable energy category, while the smart power category was claimed by EcoFactor. The company developed an SaaS platform that "collects, analyzes and acts upon thousands of data points relating to a home's HVAC needs and preferences to help utilities improve demand management and enable consumers to lower energy costs and save money on utility bills without sacrificing comfort or giving up control."

"The Cleantech Open helped Armageddon Energy get off the ground. It brought the founding team together, helped us build our business plan and make crucial business connections. And, by winning the Renewable Energy category, it will undoubtedly help us as a small company gain credibility with crucial customers, supply chain partners, and investors," Armageddon Energy CEO Mark Goldman, said in a statement.

The transportation category was handed to FuelSaver Technologies. The team proposed a modified design for tractor-trailer trucks to minimize drag. The group claims the invention could reduce fuel consumption of a truck by as much as 25 percent depending on certain conditions, and could pay for itself in fuel savings within a year of long-haul driving.

"Our solution is a full body streamlining of the vehicle's aerodynamic profile, minimizing drag at the back of the trailer, underbelly of the trailer, and the gap between the tractor and trailer," the group said in a statement.

Finalists from each region will attend an awards ceremony and gala in San Francisco on November 17.

Two companies said Wednesday that they have developed a method for turning sewage sludge into ethanol.

Israel-based Applied CleanTech and Marlborough, Mass.-based Qteros created a joint development project that combines sewage treatment technology and a microbial process for converting biomass into ethanol.

The method can turn municipal solid waste into a fuel and reduce the amount of sludge processed by traditional treatment facilities, the companies said. Many researchers have been studying ways to extract usable energy from sewage sludge but there are not any commercial operations that make liquid fuel.

Applied CleanTech's core technology, which is already used in treatment plants, extracts the biosolids from raw sewage, which is a way to reduce the overall amount of wastewater that needs to be treated.

In its partnership with Qteros, the biosolids are used as a feedstock to produce ethanol. Qteros, founded two years ago, is developing an ethanol-making process in which a naturally occurring microorganism digests the cellulose in biomass and turns it into ethanol. It's an alternative to the traditional multistep, enzyme-based method.

"Our customer is every municipality that has a waste water treatment plant," said Jeff Hausthor, Qteros co-founder and senior project manager, said in a statement, adding that the process reduces the expense of operating waste water plants.

Paving the way for the so-called Hydrogen Super Highway, California Fuel Cell Partnership released a roadmap that details plans for 46 retail hydrogen fueling stations in six targeted California communities by 2014. Hydrogen is considered to be the holy grail of clean transportation because Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCV) emit only water when driven, but a lack of infrastructure is one of the major roadblocks to this advancement.

"By 2017, automotive manufacturers plan to place 50,000 zero-emission fuel cell vehicles in customer hands. FCVs will provide the performance, durability, driving range, and comfort that customers want, and meet the nation's need for a domestic fuel that is better for the environment," said Catherine Dunwoody, CaFCP's executive director in a press release.

For the moment, only six of the state's 26 hydrogen refueling stations are open to the public. Most are privately owned and operated for corporate fleet or testing vehicles. The CaFCP gave details for the cost of building 40 stations by 2012, which is projected to be $181.5 million and is expected to be funded largely by the government to incentivize the industry to begin the transition to hydrogen.

... Read more

INDIAN WELLS, Calif.--There's a new cliche in the clean-tech investment community, and we can thank Charles Dickens for it.

As Dickens put it at the start of A Tale of Two Cities: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Who knew pulp fiction about pre-revolutionary France had lessons for 21st-century clean-tech investment?

Here at the Clean-Tech Investor Summit, investors say that signs indicating the energy business is poised for dramatic change have never been stronger, with an Obama administration making energy central to a massive stimulus package.

To understand the "worst of times" part, however, investors are looking at several challenges, starting with the obvious: the slumping stock market.

The credit crisis and recession also have combined to make the current tax-based renewable energy subsidies ineffective in serving their purpose, investors said. Current renewable energy subsidies rely on a tax credit, but with fewer corporations expecting a big tax bill, that means less money is available for clean energy.

As a result, projects in an otherwise fast-growing wind and solar power business are being slowed or scrapped.

"It's a very, very difficult market to get things built," said Scott Brown, the CEO of New Energy Capital, which finances renewable energy projects mainly in wind and biomass these days. "We're only looking at a very, very conservative class of projects."

And because banks are reluctant to loan money, any project with technology risk is a tougher sell. That means it's unlikely that many new technologies from the throngs of clean-tech start-ups will make it out of the labs and into the ground in the upcoming months.

Tax equity and debt double whammy
The funding challenges apply primarily to companies that want to build a large project, such as a wind farm or solar installation, or that need project financing to build a pilot facility to test a new technology like a cellulosic ethanol plant for making biofuel from non-food sources.

These sorts of projects, which can be hundreds of millions of dollars, are typically financed through a combination of debt and equity. But because lenders have become so tight-fisted, there's an absence of debt to finance deals, a situation that isn't expect to change overnight, investors said.

"Ultimately, banks and financial institutions need to lend money. That's how they make money," said Kevin Walsh, managing director of renewable energy at GE Energy Financial Services. "But '09 is going to be tough."

Raising money through an initial public offering (IPO) on the stock market is possible, but likely for only the most promising firms with a combination of healthy revenue and compelling product. "Even during a downturn, IPOs do get done but initially the bar will be higher," said Jeffrey Lipton, managing director at Jefferies & Company.

The overall slumping economy is taking its toll on clean-energy projects in a perhaps unforeseen way.

Right now, investors in renewable energy receive a 30 percent federal tax credit. But because so many more corporations don't foresee having a hefty tax bill in the coming years, sources of "tax equity" have all but dried up, said investors.

GE's Walsh and others are lobbying to have the renewable energy subsidy altered to fit the current economic environment. One idea is "renewable tax credit" that would go directly to a clean-energy company, like a project developer, and to other co-owners of a project.

New Energy Capital's Brown said a simpler and more flexible model than tax-based incentives is to a feed-in tariff, now used in Europe, where utilities need to purchase electricity generated from renewable energy sources at above-market rates.

"It's a much more transparent, much more efficient type of program," Brown said. "In the long run, it can be structured in a way that can be much more effective in bringing these benefits to different parts of the country that rely on different natural resources."

Waiting for policy clarity
The financial doldrums are likely to lead to a wave of mergers and acquisitions, panelists said.

In some cases, that could actually depress the market further. Brown said that ethanol company VeraSun, which declared bankruptcy last year, is trying to sell a number of its biorefineries at what could be firesale prices.

What about that "best of times" part?

• In other clean-tech product areas, consolidation could make sense. A smart grid company that planned to go public, for example, could instead merge with another firm to create a more full-featured product line, said Jefferies' Lipton.

Investors expect smart-grid technologies, energy-efficiency companies, and firms that provide weatherization services will benefit the most from the stimulus plan. Another positive note, said GE's Walsh, is that the U.S. has world-class resources for solar, wind, and biomass energy.

• The same trends that drove the investment boom in clean tech over the past four years, including steady concerns over national security and climate change, remain despite the financial meltdown. Also, there is a growing number of corporations looking into green-tech products, such as Wal-Mart and General Electric.

• Government loans are emerging as a critical piece of the financing puzzle, said investors. A number of companies have applied for existing Department of Energy loan guarantees and the stimulus plan calls for billions more. This is particularly crucial for companies seeking to cross the so-called Valley of Death, where they try to test their products at commercial scale for the first time to prove their viability.

"The projects least likely to get done are the ones with technology risk. This is where a government-supported loan guarantee program has to come in," said Brown.

• Investors are also waiting for the stimulus plan to be passed, which could happen as early as next month. They're also watching changes in state energy policies and how the next installment from the financial industry bailout plan, called Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), will be allocated.

"Institutional investors hate uncertainty--it's seen as volatility," said Lipton. "Until a lot of this settles down--and it will probably a quarter or two--we'll have more clarity and that's the key."

Updated on January 26 12:45 p.m. Pacific to clarify the meaning of a refundable tax credit."

Green-tech venture capital funding soared last year, aided by megadeals in thin-film solar companies, according to preliminary figures released Tuesday by the Cleantech Group.

During 2008, green-tech venture investments jumped to $8.4 billion, a 38 percent increase, according to the report.

Solar investments helped drive the growth, capturing 40 percent of green-tech investments. Thin-film solar deals did particularly well, capturing the three largest investments in green technology last year.

NanoSolar raised $300 million last year, followed by Solyndra with venture investments of $219 million and SoloPower with $200 million.

Cleantech Group's senior research director, Brian Fan, said in a statement:

2008 saw solar take a 40 percent share of clean-technology venture investment dollars, led by mega investment rounds in thin-film solar, concentrated solar thermal, and solar-service provider companies.

Investors also continued to migrate from first-generation ethanol and biodiesel technologies to next-generation biofuels technologies, led by algae and synthetic biology companies. Other sectors with healthy investor interest included smart-grid companies, small-scale wind turbines, plastics recycling, green buildings, and agriculture technologies.

Following solar-energy firms in attracting VC dollars were companies specializing in biofuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, synthetic biology, and algae. The sector captured 11 percent of green-tech venture investments last year, while transportation companies, such as makers of electric vehicles, advanced batteries, and fuel cells, accounted for 9.5 percent.

United States-based companies raised the most green-tech venture funding, landing $5.8 billion among 241 disclosed investments. This group also posted the largest gain last year, marking a 58 percent funding increase over the previous period.

European and Israeli companies followed, raising $1.8 billion amid 146 disclosed rounds, marking a 47 percent increase.

Chinese companies raised a total of $430 million in green-tech investments in 18 rounds, marking a 22 percent increase over the previous year. And Indian companies landed $277 million in 14 disclosed deals, a 20 percent increase.

And while green-tech venture investments were up for the year, preliminary fourth-quarter results marked a downturn from last year and the previous quarter, according to the report.

The fourth quarter accounted for $1.7 billion worldwide, down 4 percent from last year during the same period and a 35 percent decline sequentially.

Google recently opened its Wikipedia competitor, styled "Knol" for unit of knowledge. I wrote a definition of cleantech to put up on Knol, and upon reflection, it's probably an overview worth passing around. Especially given that at my own sites - CleantechBlog.com and Cleantech.org - and at CNET's Green Tech Blog, we have been significant contributors to defining the sector. Without further ado, here is the definition:

Cleantech, also referred to as clean technology, and often used interchangeably with the term greentech, has emerged as an umbrella term encompassing the investment asset class, technology, and business sectors which include clean energy, environmental, and sustainable or green, products and services. (See various definitions below.)

The term has historically been differentiated from various definitions of green business, sustainability, or triple bottom line industries by its origins in the venture capital investment community, and has grown to define a business sector that includes significant and high growth industries such as solar, wind, water purification, and biofuels.

... Read more

In his speech in Constitution Hall this week, former Vice President and renewable energy investor Al Gore extolled a stretch goal challenging America to achieve 100% renewable power within 10 years.

The quote: "Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years." And my favorite part: "When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon."

That statement is about like challenging your 2 year old to finish college by the time she is 12. Not exactly practical, more than a little crazy, and likely to be either ignored, or if you push it, to cause lots of therapy sessions by the time she is 8. I will, however, credit him with getting almost every renewable energy platitude I've ever heard into one succinct speech.

He does raise lots of good points about the need for a new energy policy not built around shipping dollars to the MidEast for oil (a definite must), for long term support for renewables (it is critical for us to get off our fits and starts mish mash idea of renewable energy policy), and for moving faster and larger to fight climate change (a topic near and dear to my heart, and one that is only partially helped by making broad statements about how fast the sky is falling, I mean, the glaciers are melting). In fact, there is no better way to give anti renewable energy and climate change naysayers fuel and ammunition than to make statements like these. Any path we go down, I'd still rather challenge that two year old to do something they can achieve, not try and make it through college by age 12 - especially if I'm asking her to pay for it. Slow and steady wins the race.

The core of Al Gore's argument in his speech on the practicality of a 10 year all renewable energy goal boils down to this quote from his speech on fuels:

"What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?

We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses.

And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America."

And this one on costs and technology:

"To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.

To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down."

These quotations, while partially true and very seductive, are highly misleading in this context. The effective conversion rates of that energy to usable electric power or liquid fuel is still horrendously low, and requires lots and lots of capital expenditures, and thousands of miles of new transmission lines to implement. And that's not taking into account the state of technology - as an industry we really are the two year old in my analogy.

So given those conversion rates and the current high capital expenditures per unit of energy, the cost is still 5-20x (depending on what you count) the cost of conventional electric power generation (yes I know, unless you add in the carbon price and environmental externalities, but that's still extra cost any way you slice it . . . unless you'd like to subsidize mine). Frankly no serious analyst is suggesting that within 10 years, given the state of technology and the best case forecast capacity, that solar can make up more than a small single digit fraction of even electricity needs or that wind can make up more than a meaningful minority share (let alone after doubling the global power demand by replacing liquid fuels in cars with electricity, which Al Gore also suggests), especially given lead times on power plants and transmission lines.

Most likely even if the technologies were already cost comparative, which they are not - if you need evidence, just look at our wind and solar industries in their current tizzy because their biggest subsidy programs are up for renewal this year - most analysts wouldn't project a fabled grid parity on cost for renewables for at least the next decade, and certainly not at scale. So Mr. Gore's statements on cost and technology are in part true, but imply a maturity level in these industries that just doesn't exist yet. Given manufacturing scale up issues on the technology, transmission infrastructure requirements at least as large as the new generation requirements, and long lead times on building projects of this size (industry executives point to seven year time frames just to build a single transmission line), probably reaching even significant low double digit percentages of carbon free power within ten years is a stretch (excluding large hydro and nuclear which we already have but are hesitating to expand) across the whole nation. Notwithstanding that California has managed to come close to its target 20% number over the last decade, that's one state leaning on the resources of many states, using the best available sites, federal subsidies paid for from all of our pockets, and that took a decade. When it comes to carbon capture and storage for coal fired generation, a concept with lots of legs - if it works - 10 years just isn't enough time to achieve scale. The first big pilots are scheduled over the next several years, and there are too many unknowns to bet the farm on, without the lead time and capital cost issue. Though still definitely worth trying.

And as far as paying for it, there was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle today calculating our Federal government long term liabilities at $450,000 per American already mainly for Medicare and Social Security. Actually trying to replace our entire fossil fuel infrastructure within 10 years would push that to how much? Somebody please do the math before we launch a government funded mission to the moon, or legislate that our citizens pay for it instead. On costs, Mr. Gore made the statement in his speech "Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases." I agree, but Mr. Gore, your 10 year, hell for leather, man to moon race for 100% renewable energy would guarantee just that.

So while extolling stretch goals for a two year old is probably a good idea, let's keep it within the realm of possibility, and not just make grandiose statements for media effect. Now if Al Gore's silly challenge on renewable energy was simply a trojan horse to get people talking about how to move forward on fighting climate change and addressing our long standing energy policy issues, I'm all for that and am happy to help. After all, the words Al Gore and climate change make for very searchble blog articles! But personally when I make outlandish statements, I do like to bring an modicum of practicality to the discussion.

I will leave you with one final note, and please remember, I am actually a proponent of the ideals in Al Gore's speech, I just prefer to get there in one piece. One theory on the effect of the history of the man on the moon driven space race that Mr. Gore challenges us to copy basically says that we pushed for a single high profile goal so fast and furious that we effectively skipped ahead and outran our infrastructure and capabilities to get a nonscalable shot at the moon in the target time frame. The theory goes on to suggest that's why after reaching the moon so fast we haven't progressed at the same rate in space since, and had we taken it slower, we would have gotten there a few years behind, but might be on Mars by know. Akin in a military campaign to outrunning your supply chain, and then getting your army surrounded and destroyed - or perhaps invading a country half way around the world, winning the war in weeks and forgetting to prepare for the peace. And just to show that I can deliver as many platitudes in one article as Mr. Gore, that's why you never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Energy and environment are the two pillars of everything in our lives. Mr. Gore and I want the same thing, but he thinks we can't afford not to swing for the fences - I think we can't afford to mess it up.

Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, a boutique merchant bank advising strategic investors and startups in cleantech. He is the founding CEO of Carbonflow, founding contributor of Cleantech Blog, Chairman of Cleantech.org, and a blogger for CNET's Green Tech blog.

I've been saying for a while, that with enough money, someone is bound to crack the CIGS nut in thin film, and deliver the cleantech sector another First Solar (NASDAQ:FSLR) like renaissance for the always around the corner technology.

That's not because it's easy, or even because it's a good idea to try, but when well over a billion dollars in investment pours into a given technology, something is bound to come out the other side - eventually. A seductively high efficiency potential technology with very low potential materials costs, CIGS has been just over the horizon for a decade or more, but has enjoyed a huge influx of capital and increase in the number of programs chasing in over the last 5 years. Similar to other solar thin film technologies, device complexity, effective yield, throughput, and process control issues are always the bugaboo.

Given its seductivenes, its somewhat capricious nature, and the siren filled history of the technology, perhaps we should think of CIGS like a woman, and all men need a few rules of thumb to keep in mind before we jump in. Here are mine (for CIGS, not women):

Number one, like most thin film technologies, $100 mm in investment is the ante up to play the game. Just because you spend it doesn't mean you get real product out, and with CIGS, you tend not to know whether anything is workable until oh, say $50 to $100 mm is already spent.

Number two, what you think you know, you don't. Until the pilot plant has been operating for a few years, companies generally really underestimate what they don't know.

Number three, remember those experiments and great idea you sold your investors on, the hard part is not there, the hard (read risky) part is ALL in the "it's just engineering" end of the scale up process you told the investors was "fairly straightforward". This isn't IT, it's deposition with a very commoditized end product.

Number four, whatever the projection as far as timing, add 3 years, maybe 5. I'm not kidding here, I said years.

Number five, when the words "fast", "roll to roll", "reel to reel" or anything else equating to speed in the process are in the pitch deck, translate that to read excruciatingly slow in the development timeline, and lots of "issues" popping up in those nasty yield and process control areas.

Number six, when investing, be very careful about that "yield" number and the "capacity" numbers they made up based on it. All thin film development companies keep "little black books" with the data and charts on every process run they've ever made. Read every single one of those charts, and ask lots of stupid questions about why only 4% of the total square footage produced is above 6% efficiency in run XYZ. Think in terms of "effective total average yield". That's where the problems are hiding.

CIGS watchers have a number of darlings to follow. There's Miasole, which now under new management is rumored to have substantially tightened down its development discipline to take it's shot, Nanosolar, another Silicon Valley venture darling that has been described by many observers along the lines of, "never met hype they didn't like", but with a seductively low cost printable process if they can get it to work, Solyndra, the "stealth" company with the big sign on I-880, Heliovolt, the Texas-based hot CIGS deal of last year, which burst on to the fundraising scene on the back of it's still extremely early stage "FASST" technology. And those are just the largest of the US based venture backed deals, without including Honda, IBM, DayStar, Ascent Solar, Solopower, and literally dozens upon dozens of others around the world with significant backing (though all at a very, very early stage). Wikipedia has a decent cut at a list, though by no stretch of the imagination comprehensive.

My best estimate is that most of the venture investors in each of those deals personally looked in depth at the manufacturing process of single digit numbers of competing approaches before investing. And only read the little black book on two of them. That strategy was tried, with ahem, "mixed" results, in fuel cells a few years back. We'll see how well it works in thin film solar.

And of course, as with most things in solar, the major players should probably be watched more carefully than the startups. I've always liked larger companies to crack thin film issues, in no small part because the term "stage gate" tends to mean something to them.

But my personal favorite for front runner currently is Arizona based Global Solar, a solar company I have been following for years. Their announcement a few months ago of 10% efficiency in production runs, was pretty much lost in the crush of press around solar, for reasons unfathomable to me.

While admittedly not yet proven in a full production environment (they are working on the scale up to 30 MW plants) they do have the massive advantage of having run virtually the only operating CIGS pilot plant in the world - and I believe have shipped more volume of CIGS product than anyone if not everyone else. True to form, that technology, which originally came out of the Tuscon Electric backed ITN Energy Systems labs in Colorado which later did Ascent Solar, has had an estimated $150-$200 mm plus invested in it over the last decade, before Solon AG bought the company for a reported $16 mm. Though to be fair, current management under CEO Mike Gering was brought on well into that process. So while I'll keep my fingers crossed that some one will crack the CIGS nut, and continue to be flabbergasted at the $1 Bil plus valuations estimated to have been achieved by some of the startups named here for very large science projects, when it comes to the one to watch, Global Solar is my personal pick.

Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, a boutique merchant bank advising strategic investors and startups in cleantech. He is the founding CEO of Carbonflow, founding contributor of Cleantech Blog, a Contributing Editor to Alt Energy Stocks, Chairman of Cleantech.org, and a blogger for CNET's Greentech blog.

As always, the venture community is looking for its next big thing. The cleantech world is no exception. Despite the dearth of exits, so much capital has flowed into the cleantech sector that investors need new places to put it. So despite my promise to certain friends not to blog certain funding rumors in each category, the top 4 contenders are:

Green building materials - I'm not sure it would be my thing, but investors across the board seem to think this area is ripe for a hit.

Carbon IT - With some sort of cap and trade a near certainty, the interest is picking up in one of the few areas in carbon that looks like a "venture bet". I should know, I have one of these companies myself.

Food related technologies - High food prices and rising fertilizer costs, what can I say?

N-generation solar technologies - Everyone not in the first wave is looking to get in to the 4th wave. Not sure venture investors will fare better in the 3rd or 4th wave than they did in the second, but they are going to try.

I had a chance to visit one of the Gaia Hotels, which bills itself as a new eco-hotel chain, this weekend. The experience put those four contending areas in a bit of a new light, as the creator of the Gaia ecotel concept toured me around and shed some light on the decisions that went into them from the demand side. (Note: "ecotel", "bit of a new light", "shed some light", "demand side", all good cleantechisms).

After launching a LEED Gold Certified facility in Napa Valley a little under two years ago, Gaia opened a new one in Northern California, focused on outdoor recreational travelers, which they expect to achieve at least LEED Silver. I had lunch with Wen Chang, the creator behind Gaia, this Saturday. When it came to green building materials, I was frankly amazed how much impact the LEED program had on the design and materials selection, and how big a selling point LEED was to this concept. Everything from using photovoltaic panels and Solatube daylighting, to low flow shower heads, low water usage and local landscape selection, and chemical free gardening and stormwater management, all the way to the carpet made from recycled materials, CFLs in the night stand, and sustainable forest products. Talk about demand stimulus, after an extensive tour, I was ready to buy a green building materials company myself. Especially since the ecotel was booked solid!

And of course front and center in the lobby, there were Renewable Energy Credits (though not carbon credits) purchased from our friends at Renewable Choice Energy, to offset the power usage, and a monitoring system to show power and water usage, and solar production.

Moving on to the food technology, the Gaia Anderson restaurant is not yet open, but is intended to be an organic and locally grown food (I assume that Napa will count as "local" for the wine, but I did not ask!).

No eco friendly building in this day and age would be complete without a solar panel on the roof. Gaia Napa's solar system is apparently providing 10% of the electricity needs on site, while at the Gaia Anderson, the panels have not yet arrived. But perhaps the most telling for would-be solar barons, Wen Chang did not know or care whose technology powered the solar panels. Only that they arrived and worked.

All in all, quite an eye opening one day "deep dive" into the demand side of the four top contenders for cleantech's next big thing. (Pardon the expression deep dive, I've always found that term amusing, especially since cleantech VCs use it all the time now to describe the 6 conferences they went to and 12 business plans they read to become an expert in, say, solar, so I couldn't resist.)

Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, a boutique merchant bank advising strategic investors and startups in cleantech. He is the founding CEO of Carbonflow, founding contributor of Cleantech Blog, a Contributing Editor to Alt Energy Stocks, Chairman of Cleantech.org, and a blogger for CNET's Greentech blog.