4 ms·

Just adding my voice to "you're not alone!". I've been helping build a software solution to make the indeterminacy problem of solar a somewhat predicable one [0

Just adding my voice to "you're not alone!". I've been helping build a software solution to make the indeterminacy problem of solar a somewhat predicable one [0] by working to build an API that focuses on solar radiation and PV power production anywhere in the world updating every 10-15 minutes. Software will play a huge part in address these issues with the grid and clean electricity supply, and due to the recent economics of solar and wind, this is only going to accelerate. So I have also been surprised by the lack of competition in this space given the massive industry, real need of solutions, and the scale of money involved [1]. > Maybe it's the assumption that salaries aren't competitive? Maybe it's because most business models in energy tech aren't compatible with VC? Maybe it's because you have no idea what specific problems there are that need solving? Maybe the assumption is that energy is super slow and bureaucratic? I was convinced that this is where I wanted to take my career from reading Bret Victor's piece on a technologists role in address climate change [2], originally thinking that this will never be a huge industry but more and more after reading this piece, realizing how large the opportunity is for software and technologists. The domain is so large there are so many angles, however, I think why VCs might be largely passing on based on your last point "the assumption is that energy is super slow and bureaucratic" as it is somewhat true but there seems to be a growing appetite to 'get things done' but I think this is more recent(?). Something else that might be seen as a risk (certainly occurred to me) is that targeting an industry with so much money, one of them might just solve this problem themselves and they are already an insider to the industry. As much money as VCs have, it's pretty hard to outspend energy giants trying who really want problem X solved. > Because it really is too late. This scares me as well, from what looks like a start of a biodiversity crash [3], islands starting to disappear [4] and projecting out what all this means in over the next 50-100 years, it is "too late", however, I'm always reminded how things that look bad can always get worse so it's worth trying to do what we can now. It's funny (in a sick way) how the joke that VCs always use the tag line of "to change the world", yet these problems are staring us in the face and that same drive seems to be largely missing, maybe cause "playing a small part to make things less horrible in the future" doesn't have the same ring to it.. [0]: https://solcast.com.au/ https://solcast.com.au/ [1]: https://electrek.co/2018/01/23/tesla-giant-battery-australia-1-million/ https://electrek.co/2018/01/23/tesla-giant-battery-australia... [2]: http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ [3]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-... [4]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/09/09/new-study-finds-8-islands-swallowed-by-rising-sea-level/#26baff265283 https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/09/09/new-study...

mmt 8y ago
> the scale of money involved [1] And yet in that very example, that scale of money is involved for a battery solution. Notably lacking is how software, or computer technology of any kind, contributed to that dollar amount. I don't doubt that opportunities do exist, and some have been outlined elsewhere in the thread. I'm just unconvinced that the overall money involved has anythign to do with the money available to pure software solutions. Even in computing, not all problems can be solved with software.
- layoric 8y ago
  Right, maybe that is a reason it has been avoided by VCs? Not many 'purely' software options? Most of these problems probably do require a hardware component for the solution. Battery arbitrage (quite a bit of software involved here than you might think, forecasting generation, demand/supply etc) is probably on the extreme end of a software:hardware ratio (towards hardware investment). Software I'm helping to build is probably on the other extreme and we've still got some (very small) hardware components that we are directly involved with but also a very large one, latest generation geostationary weather satellites, however these are externalized (eg we didn't put them up there, maintain them etc). There is plenty of scope of problems in the energy world, but yes I'd agree that money for 'pure' software solutions is probably a very small part of the pie. I think this comes down to fact that the electricity grid or its components are at the center of all of it, so integration points have to exist. Maybe also seen as high risk, energy supply is ignored when working well but becomes very obvious when it's not. Glad to see in this thread there are more people on HN than I thought working in this area, a lot of effort is still needed.
  - mmt 8y ago
    > that is a reason it has been avoided by VCs? Not many 'purely' software options? This does strike me as reason enough, yes, not that it's necessarily rational. Although there are certainly VC dollars available for non-software startups, including consumer hardware (which strikes me as exceedingly risky) and biotech, when it comes to software, there seems to be a trend to keeping it pure, even avoiding buying computer hardware and staying on cloud, despite the tremendous cost premium (especially when scaling!). I suspect the overall instinct is from the enterprise (or even consumer) software days, where the engineering cost to produce the software is completely decoupled from the revenue it can generate. Add a significant hardware component and the VC imagines they'll be permanently coupled, with profit forever limited by that hardware cost. Of course, this is also true for SaaS, perhaps more so when the hardware is rented at a markup from someone else. I remain mystified, but it's mostly speculation, anyway.

mmt 8y ago

> the scale of money involved [1] And yet in that very example, that scale of money is involved for a battery solution. Notably lacking is how software, or computer technology of any kind, contributed to that dollar amount. I don't doubt that opportunities do exist, and some have been outlined elsewhere in the thread. I'm just unconvinced that the overall money involved has anythign to do with the money available to pure software solutions. Even in computing, not all problems can be solved with software.

layoric 8y ago
Right, maybe that is a reason it has been avoided by VCs? Not many 'purely' software options? Most of these problems probably do require a hardware component for the solution. Battery arbitrage (quite a bit of software involved here than you might think, forecasting generation, demand/supply etc) is probably on the extreme end of a software:hardware ratio (towards hardware investment). Software I'm helping to build is probably on the other extreme and we've still got some (very small) hardware components that we are directly involved with but also a very large one, latest generation geostationary weather satellites, however these are externalized (eg we didn't put them up there, maintain them etc). There is plenty of scope of problems in the energy world, but yes I'd agree that money for 'pure' software solutions is probably a very small part of the pie. I think this comes down to fact that the electricity grid or its components are at the center of all of it, so integration points have to exist. Maybe also seen as high risk, energy supply is ignored when working well but becomes very obvious when it's not. Glad to see in this thread there are more people on HN than I thought working in this area, a lot of effort is still needed.
- mmt 8y ago
  > that is a reason it has been avoided by VCs? Not many 'purely' software options? This does strike me as reason enough, yes, not that it's necessarily rational. Although there are certainly VC dollars available for non-software startups, including consumer hardware (which strikes me as exceedingly risky) and biotech, when it comes to software, there seems to be a trend to keeping it pure, even avoiding buying computer hardware and staying on cloud, despite the tremendous cost premium (especially when scaling!). I suspect the overall instinct is from the enterprise (or even consumer) software days, where the engineering cost to produce the software is completely decoupled from the revenue it can generate. Add a significant hardware component and the VC imagines they'll be permanently coupled, with profit forever limited by that hardware cost. Of course, this is also true for SaaS, perhaps more so when the hardware is rented at a markup from someone else. I remain mystified, but it's mostly speculation, anyway.