Connect with us


7 founders explain what fusion power needs to go mainstream



If the 2020s are going to be the decade of AI, then the 2030s could be the decade of fusion power — that is, if the sector’s startups are able to deliver.

Fusion power has never had a more solid foundation. Advances in semiconductors, magnets and, yes, artificial intelligence have driven fusion power forward faster than at any time in the last few decades. And over the last few years, startups in the sector have raised over $6 billion, according to the Fusion Industry Association.

That investment wouldn’t be possible if there weren’t startups to fund, and founders have been eager to meet the challenge. There are now dozens of fusion power startups probing a range of different approaches to reactor design. Which one will succeed? The race is wide open at this point.

We’re widening our lens, looking for more investors to participate in TechCrunch+ surveys, where we poll top professionals about challenges in their industry.

If you’re an investor and would like to participate in future surveys, fill out this form.

“There are a number of credible ‘shots on goal’ to deploy the first fusion energy pilot plant in the early 2030s,” said Christofer Mowry, CEO of Type One Energy.

The challenges in the fusion industry are great, but the potential of the technology is even greater. TechCrunch+ recently spoke with seven founders and CEOs of fusion power startups to understand the state of the industry today and where it is headed in the coming years. (Read the first half of our survey here.)

“Our understanding of how fusion works is accelerating,” said Thomas Forner, co-founder and CEO of Focused Energy. That acceleration has allowed fusion startups to grow more confident in their timelines, something that has defied the industry in the past.

With the finish line just over the horizon, the fusion power sector is likely to undergo some significant changes. The current crop of startups still have significant ties to academic researchers, and many are collaborating to solve some technical challenges they all face.

“There’s been a fair amount of collaboration on the technical side,” Mowry said. “However, I would expect that, as companies get closer to commercialization, technical collaboration will start to fade away or become more exclusively bilateral as supply chains are developed.”

Still, it appears academia will remain heavily involved, teasing out solutions to problems and training the next generation of fusion scientists and engineers these growing companies will require.

The pressure to deliver is real, said Kieran Furlong, co-founder and CEO of Realta Fusion. “Fusion needs to be commercially viable by the mid-2030s if we are to have an impact on climate change and the energy needs of 10 billion people.”

We spoke with:

  • Kieran Furlong, co-founder and CEO, Realta Fusion
  • Robin Langtry, co-founder and CEO, Avalanche Energy
  • Christofer Mowry, CEO, Type One Energy
  • Benj Conway, co-founder and president, Zap Energy
  • Taka Nagao, co-founder and CEO, Kyoto Fusioneering
  • Greg Twinney, CEO, General Fusion
  • Thomas Forner, co-founder and CEO, Focused Energy

(Note: The following interviews have been edited for length and clarity.)

Kieran Furlong, co-founder and CEO, Realta Fusion

When do you think the first fusion power plant will become commercially viable? What makes you confident in that date?

Middle 2030s. To be confident in that date would be to ignore history, as we humans have proven to be terrible at predicting the future. The New York Times famously declared that a flying machine was at least 1 million years away . . . two months before the Wright Flyer took off in Kitty Hawk, [North Carolina].

What I am confident of is that fusion needs to be commercially viable by the middle 2030s if we are to have an impact on climate change and the energy needs of 10 billion people. So, we — and other fusion companies — set a target and throw in its direction as much effort, ingenuity and capital as we can muster. There is an awful lot at stake for all of us.

Given the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decision to give fusion a different pathway than fission, will improvements to the fusion regulatory landscape potentially unlock more investment?

It definitely helps, and I applaud the NRC for recognizing the inherent differences between fusion and nuclear fission. However, (over)regulation will always be a risk for a novel technology like fusion.

It is up to us, the people in the industry, to earn our social license and bring the public along with us by educating them about fusion and being transparent about not just the benefits of commercial fusion, but also the risks or costs associated with it. We need to engage in a dialogue with regulators, communities and political leaders to ensure that fusion is something people want as well as need (my opinion).

Mistakes have been made in the past with the introduction of new technologies, which the public (in some parts of the world) have shunned out of fear or because they did not see the benefits outweighing perceived risks. Genetically modified crops and nuclear fission are good examples of this.

Personally, I view acceptance by society as a bigger risk than the technical challenges that need to be solved. We have to work just as hard to ensure we have the public on board as on developing the technology. Regulators play a critical role in this and will also greatly influence the financial viability of fusion.

How collaborative are fusion founders, and do you find the sector to be more or less open to sharing than you expected?

Very collaborative and more open than I had expected. The sector is made up of “believers” who really see fusion as absolutely necessary for the future of humanity and are doing their part to make it a reality. We all recognize that if any of us can crack this, it will be huge. And we all know that the global energy market is sufficiently large for numerous solutions.

Different technologies may find different niches. For example, we are looking at industrial heat and power as our initial target market, as we think our technology has attributes that match those needs. Also, we see the potential for more aggressive early adopters in the industry (as opposed to grid-scale electricity generation, which may take longer).

Startups in the sector recognize that we have many common problems to solve (e.g., tritium handling for those of us pursuing deuterium-tritium fusion) and that we may end up collaborating to solve those, or buying a solution from a peer company.

This is quite different from what I observed in the biofuel industry during the clean tech boom around 15 years ago, where companies were very focused on peer startups as competitors.

What is the balance between academia and industry when it comes to pushing the envelope on fusion power?

Both are important. As I mentioned earlier, one of the retarding factors in fusion development is the availability of skilled talent. Academia plays a huge role in training the fusioneers the private sector needs. Research institutions (whether universities or national labs) are huge repositories of the expertise needed for fusion to succeed.

Identifying low-friction ways for the private sector to tap into that expertise will be critical to the rapid advancement of fusion technology. There is an important role for funding agencies to play in facilitating public-private partnerships that enable industry and academia to work together.

Disclaimer – This is just shared content from above mentioned source for knowledge sharing.


Procurement is painful, so Pivot wants to simplify it



Earlier this year, a big French tech company started requiring an email to the CEO for every purchase above €1,000. That’s because they didn’t have the right tool to manage procurement.

Meet Pivot, a new French startup that wants to overhaul spend management solutions. Pivot wants to work with young companies that are growing fast and feel like they need a procurement solution. Instead of picking a legacy business spend management system from an ERP vendor, Pivot wants to be the first (and last) procurement system for these companies.

At the helm of the startup, you will find three experienced co-founders. Romain Libeau was one of the first employees at Swile and more recently acted as the Chief Product Officer for the French unicorn. Marc-Antoine Lacroix has spent several years working for Qonto as the Chief Technology Officer and then Chief Product Officer. Estelle Giuly has been a workflow engineers for several enterprise companies and for

“I worked a lot on operations at Swile, and especially on all the internal tools. I actually saw a sequencing where first we tried to get as many customers as possible, so first we focused on all the tools for our go-to-market strategy and sales — basically Salesforce. Then, you have a lot of customers, and you want to keep them happy. So we structured our customer service, our customer success team,” Romain Libeau told me.

“And then you get to the last brick, which is how well you manage all your financial flows,” he added. And that’s where Pivot comes in.

When companies hire a head of procurement, that person usually starts by listing all the requirements and issues a call for tenders. Usually, they get to choose between Oracle NetSuite’s procurement component or maybe Coupa. It then takes several months to integrate the product in the company and procurement teams feel like they are only using 10% of the feature set.

Pivot isn’t the only startup trying to improve procurement. In the U.S., Zip and Levelpath have both raised tens of millions of dollars. “There are some regional features, European features when it comes to compliance and the payment ecosystem,” Libeau said.

But the fact that some American startups are thriving also proves that there is a real market opportunity. That’s why Pivot has already raised a $5.3 million pre-seed round (€5 million) from several VC firms (Visionaries, Emblem, Cocoa, Anamcara and Financière Saint James) as well as entrepreneurs and investors such as Loïc Soubeyrand (founder of Swile), Steve Anavi (co-founder of Qonto), Hanno Renner (co-founder of Personio), Oliver Samwer (co-founder of Rocket Internet), Pierre Laprée, Alexis Hartmann and Alexandre Berriche.

And things have been advancing at a very rapid pace. After this funding round in April, the company started developing the product over the summer and launched it in September with a first client — Voodoo.

“We’re rolling out gradually, because, as I always tell our team, more haste, less speed. But we’re going to end the year with around ten customers. So we’ve got the deals, but we don’t want to rush into anything,” Libeau said.

A PO workflow for humans

If you work for a big company and you often fill out purchase orders, you know that it’s a painful process. There are too many fields, you’re not sure what you’re supposed to write in each field and you would rather find a workaround to avoid purchase orders.

Pivot is well aware of that and has designed a tool that makes the PO workflow less painful. Admins can set up workflows from Pivot’s interface directly — no coding skills required. For instance, a very large purchase with a software vendor might trigger a security review, an IT review, a legal review, etc. That’s why Pivot is betting on third-party integrations and an interface that works for everyone.

Pivot integrates directly with your existing tech stack. It fetches the company’s org chart for the approval workflow from the HR system, it retrieves budgets from Pigment, Anaplan, etc. It then communicates with your communication tools, such as Slack, Microsoft Teams and Jira.

And, of course, Pivot integrates with ERP software (NetSuite, SAP…) so that vendors, cost centers, compliance rules and more are instantly propagated once a purchase order is validated.

Too many companies waste time in approvals and endless workflows. Pivot wants to add a layer of spend management without slowing down business teams. And the timing seems right as many companies are reviewing how they spend money.

Image Credits: Pivot

Disclaimer – This is just shared content from above mentioned source for knowledge sharing.

Continue Reading


Why we’re seeing so many seed-stage deals in fintech



Welcome back to The Interchange, where we take a look at the hottest fintech news of the previous week. If you want to receive The Interchange directly in your inbox every Sunday, head here to sign up! It was a relatively quiet week in fintech startup land, so we took the time to scrutinize where we’re seeing the most funding deals.

Seed deals everywhere

Across the board in all industries, except perhaps AI, we’ve seen a big drop in later-stage funding deals and no shortage of seed-stage rounds.

When it comes to fintech, I can tell you at least anecdotally that the vast majority of pitches that hit my inbox are for seed rounds. It is very rare these days to get pitched for Series B or later, or even for Series A rounds.

Venture banker Samir Kaji, co-founder and CEO of Allocate, points out that the private markets often take their cues from the public markets and as such, it’s no surprise that we’re seeing far fewer later-stage deals and a plethora of seed rounds. The Fintech Index — which tracks the performance of emerging, publicly traded financial technology companies — was down a staggering 72% in 2022, according to F-Prime Capital’s State of Fintech 2022 report.

“Seed is typically the least affected because those companies are just too early to really feel like you have to worry about where the public markets are,” he told me in a phone interview last week. “We’re so far divorced from the time period where these companies are going to be large enough where the public market sentiment is going to really matter.”

Allocate, which recently just closed on $10 million in capital, is currently an investor in about 60 funds. But Kaji is seeing the tide beginning to turn.

“The investment pace in 2022 was just so slow, and the beginning of 2023 was incredibly slow as well, but we’re starting to see things pick up as people are now starting to see that the bid ask on deals at the Series A and later are starting to narrow,” Kaji added. “And I think entrepreneurs have started to capitulate to this new environment. This always is the case — it’s like an 18- to 24-month lag in the public markets. So I would expect much more later-stage activity again in the next 18 to 24 months.”

I asked our friends at PitchBook what they’re seeing, and unsurprisingly, in the second quarter, there were more seed deals forged in the retail fintech space (135) compared to any other stage. When it came to the enterprise fintech space, early-stage deals accounted for most of the deal activity (239) with seed-stage coming in a close second (221), according to PitchBook.

Will we start seeing more later-stage deals in 2024? I sure hope so. Will we see any fintechs actually go public? That’s probably less likely. But you can be sure we’ll be on the lookout.

Slope continues its climb

It’s always great to see startups rise through the ranks, especially at a time when fintech hasn’t been doing so well. One of the companies I have had the pleasure of following is Slope. The company, founded by Lawrence Murata and Alice Deng, developed a business-to-business payments platform for enterprise companies.

When covering the company’s initial $8 million seed round in 2021, I learned that Slope’s origins came from Murata watching his wholesaler family struggle with an easier way to manage payments. He and Deng built the company so that moving to a digital order-to-cash workflow was seamless.

Last year, Slope raised another $24 million in Series A funding, and this week banked $30 million in a venture round led by Union Square Ventures, which co-led the Series A. It also included participation from OpenAI’s Sam Altman and a list of other heavy VC hitters. Read more. — Christine

co-founders Lawrence Lin Murata and Alice Deng, B2B payments

Slope co-founders Lawrence Lin Murata and Alice Deng. Image Credits: Slope

Weekly News

TechCrunch Opinion: Fintech actually has a value system: Here’s how we can reclaim it

Introducing the a16z Global Payments Hub

Other items we are reading:

Apple is ordered to face Apple Pay antitrust lawsuit

Greenlight celebrates launch of web-based financial literacy library

Funding and M&A

As seen on TechCrunch

Pan-African contrarian investor P1 Ventures reaches $25M first close for its second fund

QED and Partech back South African payment orchestration platform Revio in $5.2M seed

Crediverso takes on legal after $3.5M capital infusion

Series, which aims to replace ERP systems, lands $25M

Seen elsewhere

Luge Capital: $71M first close of second fund completed

Colektia completes purchase of non-performing loans for $72M

Mexico’s albo receives $40m in Series C funds, striving for neobank profitability

Grow Credit Inc., a top 30 fintech app, secures $10m funding with USAA as lead investor in Series A round

StretchDollar raises $1.6M in pre-seed funding

WealthTech Vega exits stealth with over $8M funding

Farther closes Series B funding round to gain $131M valuation — This new round comes a little over a year after the wealth tech firm raised a Series A on a $50 million valuation. Check out TechCrunch’s earlier coverage of Farther.

Image Credits: Bryce Durbin

Disclaimer – This is just shared content from above mentioned source for knowledge sharing.

Continue Reading


How to raise a Series A in today’s market



If you’re an early-stage founder, the crazy days of 2021 are a distant memory. Money is tight, and the process of getting more is as unsettled as ever.

The past few tumultuous years have tossed out the milestones that defined previous Series A benchmarks. But that doesn’t mean the game is lost. At this year’s TechCrunch Disrupt, three investors shared their perspectives on what’s changed, what’s working today, and what advice they’re giving founders who are looking to raise a Series A.

“As companies mature to seed and Series A, a year and a half ago, if you were at a million or even approaching a million in revenue, a Series A would come together in a snap. That has changed really quickly,” Maren Bannon, co-founder and managing partner at January Ventures, told the audience. “Now it’s probably more like 2 [million] to 3 million in revenue where those rounds come together in a snap.”

For founders, the moving goalposts can be incredibly frustrating — especially since the reasons for it are beyond their control. After a remarkable 13-year bull run, uncertainty crept into the market last year, dampening investor appetite for risk. Rising interest rates compounded the problem.

As a result, Series A investors have pulled back dramatically. “What we’ve noticed in the statistics is that the Series A deployment is down 60% over the last year and a half. The amount deployed per Series A is down 25% from $10 million to $7.5 million. And the number of deals getting done is much fewer,” said James Currier, general partner at NFX.

“The bulk of seed stage companies were [successfully] raising off of story, not traction,” Loren Straub, general partner at Bowery Capital, said of market conditions two years ago. “I think there’s been a real shift in focus towards traction, momentum, legitimate product-market fit.”

“A lot of the Series A investors are understandably looking for a higher bar,” she added.

A market crowded with venture capitalists hasn’t helped, either, Currier said. Back in the ’90s, there were about 150 general partners in the U.S., he said. Today, there are more than 31,000 listed on Signal, a network of investors his firm runs.

Disclaimer – This is just shared content from above mentioned source for knowledge sharing.

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2023 All Rights Reserved, Noor Marketing