Just Give creates an interface for users to find and donate to charities. Lovely idea, but hasn't it been done before? Yes. Many times. I started to do a bit of digging to try and figure out what the formula for success might be for this kind of company. <br /> <br /> It is important to recognize the... More >>

Just Give creates an interface for users to find and donate to charities. Lovely idea, but hasn't it been done before? Yes. Many times. I started to do a bit of digging to try and figure out what the formula for success might be for this kind of company. <br /> <br /> It is important to recognize the market limitations for such an organization. The vast majority of donations are given because people are directly asked. So the real business is in providing on-line transaction service to non-profits. Network for Good is the oldest such provider and seems to take over or push out others who try to compete. Maybe that's what happened to Six Degrees (another company I recently reviewed). There really are not that many players in this niche industry.<br /> <br /> Just Give is trying to be a contender. Their website is more user-friendly than that of Network for Good, but I think the only real differentiator is that they are providing slightly unique services. Everyone has gift cards these days, but not many have a charity registry. The Wedding Channel allows you do to do a charity wedding registry, but Just Give allows for a more general occasion-of-your-choice registry as well. Other than that – not many differences.<br /> <br /> I imagine what will enable Just Give to survive will be management's partnership building capacity. This market is small, so there will be some fierce competition with Network for Good for publicity and market share. I am not sure Just Give is different enough to create a real competitive advantage. <br /> << Less

After only two years, Coskata is bull-dozing ahead toward its goal of producing cellulosic ethanol for less than $1 a gallon, holding the attention of not only a wide range of investors but the media as well.<br /> <br /> Gasification systems to turn waste into energy are gaining ground and Coskata uses j... More >>

After only two years, Coskata is bull-dozing ahead toward its goal of producing cellulosic ethanol for less than $1 a gallon, holding the attention of not only a wide range of investors but the media as well.<br /> <br /> Gasification systems to turn waste into energy are gaining ground and Coskata uses just such a process coupled with anaerobic organism digestion to transform agricultural waste and other carbon containing cellulosic material such as switchgrass and wood chips into ethanol. It can also take in other inputs such as old tires and municipal solid waste. <br /> So how does Coskata differ from other gasificiation or ethanol producing companies? Well, its final output is pure ethanol, as opposed to a mix that has to be separated. Their process produces over 100 gallons of ethanol per dry ton of feedstock (which is a lot for a cellulosic ethanol plant) - this not only reduces feedstock cost, but also reduces nearly all other costs on a per gallon basis. Coskata\\\'s process is also significantly less taxing on water resources. While other current methods of ethanol production take 3 to 4 gallons of water for each gallon of fuel produced, the Coskata process needs less than a gallon of water per gallon of fuel. Finally, there is little pre-treatment required for inputs. Though $1 a gallon may be a bit of a stretch as an estimate, it is certainly a worthy goal. Even if these technology differentiators can bring down production costs to $2 a gallon, Coskata would still be pretty well placed.<br /> <br /> But what really differentiates Coskata are its connections and business plan. It recently announced a partnership with the state of Florida and US Sugar to build a 100 million gallon per year plant to process sugarcane remnants in the middle of the everglades as part of Florida's effort to expand conservation and received funding from GM in January 2008 for its continued research. It further is preparing for a business model that includes licensing of technology, rather than building more and more power plants itself. This will further reduce the capital intensity while providing a road to growing revenues if the pilot plants go well.<br /> <br /> Of course, the GM money might not be renewed next year, but there are plenty of other investors in line. The company pulled in $40 million in December 2008 despite the recession. The Series C round was led by the Blackstone Group, through a venture funding arm and included support from prior investors such as Advanced Technology Ventures, Great Point Ventures and Khosla Ventures.<br /> <br /> I am a strong supporter of companies turning waste into energy, especially if the energy can be produced in a place that doesn't require much transportation. Coskata is on the right track.<br /> <br><span class=\"add_review\">On 12/31/2008, Ghazal added:</span><br> I would like to thank Daniel and Jake for starting quite a debate! <br /> <br /> I am the first to agree that ethanol is not the future. Ethanol based on corn is totally crazy and has only been supported domestically because of the fabulously powerful agricultural lobby. <br /> <br /> But as I said in my original review, I like the idea of transforming waste to energy and I have a special fascination with gasifiers: put agricultural waste / household trash / tires in one end and get fuel out the other? amazing. I think this type of waste to energy does have a place in the future energy mix.<br /> <br /> Thanks to Jake for unearthing some of the financial estimates for Coskata - I had not seen these before. I agree that the cost efficiencies are not there now. I am optimistic about cost coming down with further technological refinement, but would drop a star based on these numbers. << Less

While Modest Needs, a foundation I recently reviewed, starts with the premise that people are fundamentally good, Give Well starts out thinking that charities are fundamentally flawed. They believe that majority of charities don't deserve your donations and are out to help you figure out which provide the best bang fo... More >>

While Modest Needs, a foundation I recently reviewed, starts with the premise that people are fundamentally good, Give Well starts out thinking that charities are fundamentally flawed. They believe that majority of charities don't deserve your donations and are out to help you figure out which provide the best bang for your buck. You can sign up on their website, and they will provide free, in-person advisory services to help you figure out how best to donate your money.<br /> <br /> In general, I believe that being informed about where you are putting your money, whether as an investment or a donation, is crucial and anything to help people become better informed is great.<br /> <br /> I think the founders of Give Well, Holden and Elie (former hedge fund guys) have good intentions, but it will take some time for them to gain the experience to develop a full-fledged organization. I would venture to argue that assessing social work done by non-government organizations is very different than assessing NPVs. There are a number of organizations that have tried to develop methodologies to measure return on every dollar of donation. The Robin Hood Foundation is a pioneer in this field, focusing on organizations that work to reduce poverty in New York City. It takes time.<br /> <br /> It also takes a bit of humility. I have to admit, I was a bit turned off by the founders' initial cavalier attitude. Social work is difficult. Quantifying success is even harder. It is easy to give high marks to organizations that teach x number of children to read, but how do you measure the success of advocacy organizations? Or organizations that work with clients with multiple, competing problems? These are questions that even the organizations themselves struggle with daily.<br /> <br /> But it seems that Give Well is committed to learning. I particularly appreciated their website's very prominent "Our Shortcomings" page, which details all of the mistakes they have made to date. It is actually a pretty interesting list of common start-up mis-steps.<br /> <br /> I wish Give Well all the best as they continue to struggle with how best to make their mark.<br /> << Less

I started out skeptical. Is there merit in creating a bulletin board for help-mes? Isn't this just asking for fraud? But then I looked closer and found that Dr. Keith Taylor has thought this through pretty well and is providing a way for matching people who need a bit of help with people who want to give. The story ... More >>

I started out skeptical. Is there merit in creating a bulletin board for help-mes? Isn't this just asking for fraud? But then I looked closer and found that Dr. Keith Taylor has thought this through pretty well and is providing a way for matching people who need a bit of help with people who want to give. The story is simple and compelling. <br /> <br /> It all started out very small. Dr. Taylor, an English Professor in Tennessee had always wanted to be a philanthropist and was waiting to "hit it big". But then one day he decided to just put aside 10% of his salary ($300) to give away to people who need just a bit of help. These are people who are not poor but not rich; living from paycheck to paycheck and once in a while getting into a bind. Maybe they have an unexpected car repair or somehow have fallen behind on an electricity bill and just need $50 to get to the next paycheck. Dr. Taylor had experienced such moments of need during his graduate school days, and remembered how much a kind offer of help from his employer had made such a huge difference in his life. He wanted to do the same for someone else.<br /> <br /> He set up the website thinking it would just be a way for him to gather requests. Little did he know that it would grow so fast. The whole organization started out with volunteers: an attorney volunteered to set up the foundation as a non-profit organization and applied for tax-exempt status; an accountant volunteered to keep the books; a web site developer in Canada helped him redesign the site so it works more efficiently; and two women who live nearby started writing thank-you notes to donors. Dr. Taylor originally thought he would be the only donor, but now the site generates more donors than requestors. <br /> <br /> The organization now has a staff of readers to process and assess requests. They try to ensure that only those with valid needs are given money, and, as much as possible, that bills are paid directly. Any one household cannot make more than two requests in their lifetime. Requests for things like money to buy a van or pay off credit card bills are not accepted.<br /> The requests are simple. The thank-you notes from requestors are touching. The organization now adds 25% to each request when posting for donors and uses this money to pay for overhead, so the system is self-sustaining. To add to the sustainability, 65% of grant recipients become donors later. Anyone can decide to lend a helping hand, and each donor can choose to whom to give and how much. Requests are generally small, so, thanks to Dr. Taylor, now everyone can be a philanthropist.<br /> << Less

It is amazing how such a seemingly simple thing as counting trees can stop global negotiations in their tracks. Deforestation accounts for 20% of global anthropogenic carbon emissions and for the last year and a half, countries have been discussing a way to provide financial incentives for reducing carbon emissions as... More >>

It is amazing how such a seemingly simple thing as counting trees can stop global negotiations in their tracks. Deforestation accounts for 20% of global anthropogenic carbon emissions and for the last year and a half, countries have been discussing a way to provide financial incentives for reducing carbon emissions as part of the successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. The problem is, how do you measure deforestation and forest degradation in remote areas? Counting trees is all well and good in developed countries with relatively small forests (compared to, say, the Amazon or the Congo Basin) and lots of money. But most developing countries have a hard time mustering the resources to do a forest inventory once every ten years, and even then they are notoriously incomplete. <br /> <br /> Many countries, such as Brazil, currently used extremely advanced satellite imagery to augment their on-the-ground forest inventory efforts. The increasing availability and accuracy of GPS and satellite based imaging brings many to believe that full inventories can be done from the air while others argue that, as detailed as they may be, satellite imagery cannot detect degradation under the canopy and are thus not a good way to measure forest health or density. The international debate continues. <br /> <br /> There are also a number of other difficulties with forest based carbon credits. When you put a filter on a smoke stack, you can pretty much guarantee that the carbon emissions you have prevented won't ever be released. But if you buy a carbon offset from a forest, how do you guarantee that this emission reduction is permanent? Who is to say that the trees won't be cut down later? How do you price a carbon credit that is not permanent? Who would want to buy it?<br /> <br /> Image Tree is betting that all of these issues will be worked out. <br /> <br /> Their satellite based forest inventory service is a useful tool for forest managers. But I imagine it is expensive and only really worthwhile if it can be used to apply for carbon credits. Domestic carbon credits are not a sure thing, but could become a reality over the next few years. If countries can come to an agreement on a financial mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation then the services provided by Image Tree would be of use for forest managers seeking to obtain credits to participate in the scheme in developing countries. It is a risk. But if policy works in their favor, Image Tree will be well-placed as a front-runner.<br /> << Less

I have to admit, Kevin Bacon peaked my curiosity. I read donations and social networking and thought: genius – charitable giving with a dash of snark.<br /> <br /> I read the Wall Street Journal article about the vision – a social networking site where you can check out your friends' favorite causes and ... More >>

I have to admit, Kevin Bacon peaked my curiosity. I read donations and social networking and thought: genius – charitable giving with a dash of snark.<br /> <br /> I read the Wall Street Journal article about the vision – a social networking site where you can check out your friends' favorite causes and that of celebrities connected to Kevin Bacon - and I started to imagine GoodReads for charities. I wondered how many degrees my favorite charity was from Kevin Bacon. I was so excited.<br /> <br /> And then I visited the site. <br /> <br /> I mean, page. I guess putting up and maintaining a social networking site was more work than Mr. Bacon imagined while eating that infamous salad (he apparently was inspired to do good when he started to think about how much Newman's Own had accomplished). What started out as a great idea for a company has turned into another fundraising tool for Network for Good. <br /> <br /> For those that aren't familiar, Network for Good is a website that basically provides the infrastructure for non-profits to take on-line donations. It's a great service for non-profits that aren't big enough to handle their own on-line transactions – it allows you to just place a 'Donate Here' button on your page and Network for Good will take care of all the details.<br /> <br /> Instead of providing a social networking site, Six Degrees provides users with the ability to make a "Badge" – basically a little website extra that has a picture of you, a blurb about your favorite charity, and a 'Donate Here' button. You as a user can then put this graphic onto your website or blog or myspace page and your friends can donate directly to the charity you are promoting. <br /> <br /> Unfortunately, the networking aspect stops here. I was expecting profiles and connections and search engines and all I got was a web application. The web application is a great tool for Network for Good, but an organization it does not make. <br /> << Less

It's hard to be a solar start-up. How do you differentiate yourself in this highly competitive environment? Do you focus on technology, cost or marketing? Is the market big enough for everyone?<br /> <br /> Good questions. So far I have been pretty generous in my reviews of solar companies – giving bro... More >>

It's hard to be a solar start-up. How do you differentiate yourself in this highly competitive environment? Do you focus on technology, cost or marketing? Is the market big enough for everyone?<br /> <br /> Good questions. So far I have been pretty generous in my reviews of solar companies – giving brownie points to companies that were pushing on efficiency or cost (like Suniva) or finding ways to be slightly innovative (Calisolar). But these companies are just focusing on one part of the solar cell supply chain: they are just making cells, leaving the work of selling the cells and building the solar power plants / residential installations to someone else. They see their strength in technology development, leaving the work of marketing the product to the consumer for a third party to figure out. Being far from commercial scale has its pros and cons – true, you aren't selling much but you also are not trying to compete in this tough and volatile market. They've carved a little niche and see strength in staying limited.<br /> <br /> And then there is SunPower. SunPower is a one stop shop. It makes its own solar cells and then goes out and installs them as well. It is way ahead of companies like Suniva because it has already created a system for fabricating a highly efficient cell at commercial scale. It has already gone public, and it is profitable. It is the second largest US solar cell maker by market value (behind First Solar), is doing business on three continents, and is about to build a new fabrication plant in Malaysia. But it is also open to the whims of the stock market. So how should we judge its potential for success?<br /> Let's look at three aspects: technology, business model, and market / marketing potential.<br /> <br /> Technology: <br /> <br /> SunPower has managed to create cells with 23% conversion rates, far ahead of the average conversion rates of other manufacturers which are still at around 15% and even farther ahead of the efficiency rates of thin-film solar manufacturers like First Solar which have about 10-12% conversion rates (more on thin-film in another review). Taking a cue from Suniva, it is also working on reducing wafer size, thus reducing the amount of silicon required for each cell. As far as technology goes, thumbs up.<br /> <br /> Business Model:<br /> <br /> I wonder a bit about the wisdom of vertical integration – making cells and selling them too. Having a dedicated set of sales people out there convincing the end user to install your cells is great for the manufacturer. It allows for consumer education and, if your marketing people are good, it means you don't have to compete with other solar cell manufacturers who are just selling to installers. But is it good for the installing part of your business? In other words, would consumers prefer to go with installers that could provide a wider range of products and options? So far, SunPower is doing a pretty good job of selling its products – it has built solar power plants in Spain and Germany and is doing small scale installations on commercial and residential buildings in Australia and California. But it is not relying on its marketing department to reach the end user. It is also selling cells to installers. So far the business model works and benefits the manufacturer. If the installation business becomes more competitive and demanding, management might have to consider separating the two in order to focus on the core competency: technology.<br /> <br /> Market / Marketing Potential:<br /> <br /> I talk a lot about the importance of partnerships in some of my other reviews. What I am really saying is that in order to be successful, a start-up has to find a way of getting its product out to lots of people fast. Partnering with companies with established and large distribution networks is a great way of doing this. Partnerships work well for start-ups making component parts (like Luminus making lights for projectors). But they also are an indicator for the potential of management to garner business; for a small start-up, partnerships can be seen as a litmus test for selling capability. <br /> <br /> But what about SunPower? They are selling lots and have lots of contracts in the works. They have passed the first big sell test. Now they need to keep expanding their sales in order to maintain growth. Although the solar market grew by 40% in 2008, it is unclear if this trend will continue through the financial crisis. If it does, they should be fine. <br /> But will they be great? <br /> <br /> That depends on whether they can keep their technological edge and lower cost while continuing to increase sales. They have had some management turnover this year and their stock is way down since the summer (just like everyone else). If they can weather this storm, they will be great.<br /> << Less

If you think it's hard to differentiate yourself as a solar producer, try making algae. Investors love algae because it is so low in capital intensity and, really, it's not that hard to make. Technology is important, as is the type of algae you choose to cultivate - but I figure with some trial and error, algae produ... More >>

If you think it's hard to differentiate yourself as a solar producer, try making algae. Investors love algae because it is so low in capital intensity and, really, it's not that hard to make. Technology is important, as is the type of algae you choose to cultivate - but I figure with some trial and error, algae production will soon become pretty homogenous.<br /> <br /> How do we choose the stars? Well, I think it will all come down to which management team can scale the fastest, capture investor support and raise enough money to buy the competition, and then market, market, market.<br /> <br /> In his review, Joe claimed that Sapphire is getting a lot of hype because Bill Gates has chosen to invest. I would argue that it is the quality of the management team that attracts such big name investors and that, in turn, it is the quality of investors in terms of prestige and connections that will allow algae companies to attract even better managers and capture market share; a virtuous cycle which Sapphire seems to have mastered.<br /> <br /> Sapphire's management team started out as fantastic, with a number of highly accomplished and extremely passionate scientists with a vision and a cause. Add to that some venerable investors, including VenRock, and suddenly you are attracting people like Cynthia J. (C.J.) Warner, a top British Petroleum (BP) executive and an expert in refining, transportation and operations with over 27 years of experience, to take up the role of President (starting in Feb 2009). Seriously, what more could you ask for?<br /> <br /> The company unveiled a 91 octane gasoline in May 2008, an indication that it has some good technology and a good product. It hopes to reach commercialization scale in the next two years. <br /> <br /> My money is on Sapphire.<br /> << Less

Another algae producer. But the funny thing about this one is that it is already public. In my post about Sapphire I wrote that investors are important for attracting strong managers, so what can be inferred about the management team of an algae producer that is far from commercialization going public? Frankly, I am ... More >>

Another algae producer. But the funny thing about this one is that it is already public. In my post about Sapphire I wrote that investors are important for attracting strong managers, so what can be inferred about the management team of an algae producer that is far from commercialization going public? Frankly, I am not sure. <br /> <br /> They seem to have some good scientists on their team, have filed for all sorts of promising patents, and seem to be on the road to developing some good algae. Their stock is surprisingly stable – maintaining a price around $0.35 since September, indicating that it has not been much affected by the financial crisis.<br /> <br /> I guess I am just not sure how to judge this company since it has not yet released a product and doesn't have any public sale contracts or partnerships to assess. If nothing else, algae is a good market to be in, so there is nothing to do but wait and see on this one.<br /> << Less

Solazyme has all the trappings of a good algae company. <br /> <br /> Getting the perfect amount of light is a major challenge for most algae producers, but Solazyme has managed to just take light out of the picture – increasing productivity 1000 fold by not worrying about light at all. Technology sound... More >>

Solazyme has all the trappings of a good algae company. <br /> <br /> Getting the perfect amount of light is a major challenge for most algae producers, but Solazyme has managed to just take light out of the picture – increasing productivity 1000 fold by not worrying about light at all. Technology sounds promising.<br /> <br /> In June 2008 Solazyme released the first algal-based diesel to pass American Society for Testing and Materials D-975 Specifications and subsequently raised $45 million to scale its productions and reach commercialization capacity. Product is good.<br /> <br /> Perhaps as a testament to the influence of Jurgen Dominik, the firm's senior VP of Process Development and Manufacturing, who has over 30 years of experience in creating bio-chemicals for consumer products, Salozyme is seeking to introduce algae oil as substitutes for cooking oils or skincare products before commercializing its diesel production. Diversifying the product portfolio in a way that makes sense: sounds good, but who are they working with? The rest of the management team also seems pretty good.<br /> <br /> Finally, sales capability: Solazyme is working with Chevron to produce algae based fuels. This partnership will hopefully guarantee a distributor for its products or maybe even a potential buyer of the company. <br /> <br /> All in all, solid.<br /> << Less