3 ms·

> 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 com

by 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.

by mmt 8y ago

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.