Key questions for climate technology evaluation

In 2024, 40% of the tonnage of new shipbuilding orders consisted of vessels capable of using low-carbon fuels. However, many of these ships will likely run on fossil fuels, as many alternative fuels are either not yet available at scale or remain very expensive when they are. Shipowners are under pressure from regulations and clients to green their fleets, but investment decisions are complex and risky. To address this challenge, the EU is developing a Sustainable Transport Investment Plan, which aims to "prioritise support to specific renewable and low-carbon fuels" for waterborne transport and to "accelerate the rollout of recharging infrastructure". There are many options—such as liquefied natural gas, methanol, hydrogen, ammonia, biofuels, batteries, wind, and nuclear—but also many practical challenges. What are the key factors to consider? 1️⃣ AVAILABILITY: Can the fuel or technology be sourced at scale? Is the necessary infrastructure (bunkering, charging) in place at ports? 2️⃣ COST: Are capital and operational expenses feasible? What is the return on investment? Is retrofitting existing vessels more cost-effective than building new ones? 3️⃣ ADAPTABILITY: Is the propulsion system compatible with the ship's type, size, and operational profile? Does it balance energy density with storage needs? 4️⃣ SAFETY: Is the propulsion system safe to operate onboard and at port? Does it introduce new risks for the crew? 5️⃣ CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS: Does the propulsion system significantly reduce CO₂ emissions and other pollutants compared to conventional fossil fuels? It is also crucial to assess the full lifecycle impact of the fuels, covering their production, transportation, storage, and use. For example, the production of clean fuels from renewable sources, such as green hydrogen and e-methanol, often demands significant amounts of energy, which must be accounted for. There is often a chicken-and-egg dilemma: shipowners will not invest in a fuel without knowing it will be available in major ports, and fuel suppliers will not scale the fuel supply chain without knowing shipowners will use it. A significant amount of money will likely be spent (or wasted?) during the transition, with potential distortions due to policy interference in technology choices. Who will ultimately pay the bill? #MaritimeIndustry #Sustainability #Energy #CleanEnergy

Surface reflectivity changes from carbon removal projects could rival their climate benefits. An important preprint asks questions in carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies: changes in Earth's surface reflectivity (albedo) from large-scale CDR implementations could significantly impact climate, potentially overwhelming the intended cooling effects. This finding has major implications for climate intervention strategies currently being developed globally. The research demonstrates that when enhanced rock weathering (ERW) or marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) is deployed at the scale needed to affect climate change, the alteration of surface reflectivity can produce radiative effects that greatly exceed those from CO2 removal over decades. Their calculations show that even a small change in albedo of parts per thousand has a radiative impact comparable to removing 10 tons of carbon per hectare. Most critically, the authors identify that these surface albedo modifications (SAM) can work for or against climate cooling goals, depending on the materials used. Dark mafic rocks could increase warming, while whitish minerals like wollastonite could enhance cooling. This work establishes the urgent need for careful consideration of albedo effects in CDR planning and highlights key research questions that must be addressed before large-scale deployment. Kudos to Brad Marston and Daniel Enrique Ibarra from Brown University.

Understand that the techno-economic assessment of net zero projects isn't: ❌ Just a simple cost calculation ❌ A one-size-fits-all approach ❌ A theoretical exercise with no real-world application ❌ A quick decision-making tool ❌ An isolated technical evaluation But, it is: ✅ A comprehensive strategic framework ✅ A critical roadmap for sustainable investments ✅ A multi-dimensional analysis of technological and economic viability ✅ A key driver for decarbonisation strategies ✅ A systematic approach to climate-aligned project development Your TEA helps to answer these questions: 1. Can this net zero project deliver sustainable economic returns? 2. What are the technological risks and potential mitigation strategies? 3. How does the project align with long-term climate and business goals? Pro tip: Always integrate comprehensive lifecycle cost analysis with robust technological performance metrics. In my years of consulting and research, I've seen how a rigorous techno-economic assessment can transform seemingly impossible net zero projects into groundbreaking sustainable investments. The magic lies in understanding the numbers and the holistic potential of innovative green technologies. Have you ever transformed a challenging sustainability concept into a viable project? What was your most significant learning? #NetZero #Research #ChemicalEngineering #Science #Scientist #Professor #PhD

I receive hundreds of proposals every month—projects across climate tech, AI, impact investing, and beyond. Everyone has a project. Everyone has a deck. Everyone has a vision. But very few have a clear pathway to profitability—or even a plan to break even. Even catalytic funding is meant to be the spark, not the entire fire. If there’s no strategy to sustain the flame, it’s just smoke. When I review proposals, here are the top questions I ask—because they matter: Who is this for, and do they actually want it? Too many solutions are built in echo chambers. What is your business model—and when do you break even? Vision without financial viability isn't sustainable How does this serve the most marginalized? Equity must be embedded, not added on. If the catalytic capital disappears tomorrow, what happens? Resilience is the real measure of readiness. We don’t need more pitches. We need more builders with both purpose and a plan. #ImpactInvesting #ClimateTech #StartupReality #SustainableBusiness #BelovedCommunity #Leadership #CatalyticCapital

Just had the privilege to visit Deep Sky Alpha with my partners at BMO. A glimpse into the future. The dawn of an essential industry. The rise of a differentiated market leader. Long post, but read on… In Innisfail, Alberta, Deep Sky has started operating different Direct Air Capture (DAC) technologies side-by-side in an exercise to accelerate findings on energy efficiency and CO2 extraction optimization. Imagine how fast you can learn when sector players collaborate to benchmark their results...all in one place. In my view, Deep Sky is world-leading because of this unique model. Being technology agnostic changes the risk profile. For credit buyers. For investors. This is world leading, from Canada. Of course, DAC has its critics. So let me offer perspectives on some key questions: 1) Isn’t DAC too expensive and inefficient? DAC is in its infancy. This industry needs to experiment, improve, and optimize. It needs to scale and bring costs down. It needs to stumble and get up again. FAST. Such is the journey of discovery and innovation. Deep Sky is the accelerator. A unique collaborative model that will shave years in R&D. And as it matures and grows, so will our renewable energy systems required to power it. 2) Is DAC the silver bullet for climate? Of course not. Emissions reduction need to be priority 1, 2, and 3. The first rule to get out of a hole is to stop digging, but you also need to develop tools to climb out of the hole. That is where Carbon Removal (CDR) comes in. While efforts to decarbonize accelerate, we need some leaders to focus on CDR. 3) Can we just focus on decarbonization? No. Carbon Removal is going to be essential to compensate for the residual emissions from hard-to-abate sectors and, more importantly, to reduce CO2 concentration from historical emissions. Every bit we ever emitted is still up there. Carbon removal is essential, even the IPCC says so. The path to a scaled CDR sector needs focus, capital and time. We are late. 4) Should we focus on natural solutions to remove carbon? Yes. And we need to do as much reforestation as we can. However, the calculations on this are clear: trees alone won't suffice. We need an arsenal of additional scalable solutions. DAC is part of that arsenal. DAC has a special role in the carbon removal arsenal. Scalable. Permanent if well executed and perfectly measurable. The eventual platinum credit. The type of carbon credit that could unlock the vast potential of actually pricing carbon into our economic systems. Catalytic! Congratulations to Deep Sky on reaching this operational milestone. Thank you for your industry leadership and your resilience despite many critics and skeptics. Keep it up! As my favourite bumper sticker says: “Those who think it cannot be done should not get in the way of those doing it”! Alex Petre Frederic Lalonde Joost Ouwerkerk Mathieu Bouchard Guillaume Devaux Quentin Servais Laval Carbon Removal Canada Na'im Merchant Sophie Forest Laurence A. Tosi