30 September 2025
Iliana Portugues
The pattern is painfully consistent: most innovations don’t fail on tech, they fail on how they do research. They lose to market research. Indeed, most of the “cold-calls” I get through LinkedIn, with an average of 5 daily, are on Market Research. This is not surprising. By far, the area in the innovator cycle where I have spent most of my time discussing and coaching has to be this one. Both in startups pitch decks and corporate business cases, this tends to be the weakest section and further customer interviews, competitive grids or market sizing will not solve the underlying issue.
I have several hypotheses about this which I believe are worthwhile exploring. In this article, I am going to talk about one which was a roadblock for me in my first startup back in 2007, and that is the “Energy Research Triad”.
The €2 billion graveyard lesson
Better Place, founded in October 2007, raised $850 million to revolutionise electric vehicle infrastructure and was valued at $2.25 billion. They had partnerships with Renault, governments backing them, and technology that worked. By October 2013, they were bankrupt.[1],[2]
Their mistake wasn't just building before validating demand. They failed to map the competitive landscape beyond direct technology comparisons. While they perfected battery swapping, Tesla was solving the same range anxiety problem with Superchargers, cities were deploying regular charging infrastructure, and battery technology itself was improving range. Better Place compared their swapping technology to other swapping solutions. They never mapped all the ways customers could solve range anxiety [1],[3].
In my analysis, this pattern of brilliant technology, narrow competitive vision, overwhelming data paralysis, kills 73% of energy tech startups before they reach Series A [4]. The moral of the story, if you benchmark too narrowly, you win the wrong race.
Energy's Unique Market Research Nightmare
After analysing over 300 failed energy tech startups across Europe (2021-2024), it's not just about customer complexity or long sales cycles. It's about three interlocking challenges that create what I call the "Energy Research Triad."
Challenge 1: The Technology Roadmap Imperative
Unlike SaaS where you can pivot features weekly, energy tech requires a multi-year cost reduction roadmap from day one. You're not just validating today's technology—you're betting on a cost curve.
Early stage Energy Tech buyers don't buy your prototype, they buy the cost/quality trajectory with believable milestones
Aquion Energy had revolutionary saltwater batteries. Safe, sustainable, perfect for stationary storage. But they never articulated a credible path to $100/kWh—the magic number for grid storage competitiveness. Their technology worked at $500/kWh. Their roadmap promised $300/kWh "at scale." Meanwhile, lithium-ion was already hitting $200/kWh with a clear path to $100.[5]
The lesson? In energy, you need three validations:
Current technology performance
credible cost reduction roadmap (with specific milestones)
Speed of improvement versus competing solutions
Challenge 2: The Solution Ecosystem Complexity
Here's what kills most energy startups: for any given problem, there are 10-15 different technology pathways, each with multiple players, creating 100+ competitive permutations. Take grid flexibility. Your competition isn't just other battery companies. It's potentially:
Lithium-ion batteries (20+ manufacturers)
Flow batteries (5+ types)
Compressed air storage
Pumped hydro
Demand response software
Grid connections
Natural gas peakers
Virtual power plants
Time-of-use-tariffs
...
LightSail Energy built brilliant compressed air storage with 90% efficiency. They mapped their competition as "other compressed air solutions." They died. The market chose lithium-ion batteries (70% efficiency but proven), demand response (no hardware), and keeping old gas plants running (cheapest option) [6].
This isn't unique to storage. Every energy problem has this many-to-many complexity, which requires deep thinking about the job-to-be-done:
Heating: heat pumps vs. hydrogen boilers vs. district heating vs. improved insulation vs. behavioural change.
Transport: EVs vs. hydrogen vs. synthetic fuels vs. modal shift vs. reduced travel.
Industrial heat: electrification vs. hydrogen vs. CCS vs. biomass vs. process optimisation.
Challenge 3: The Data Contradiction Crisis
Energy market research faces a unique problem, authoritative sources fundamentally disagree. These are some examples from recent hydrogen market analysis:
IEA: 180 Mt hydrogen demand by 2030[7]
Bloomberg NEF: 90 Mt by 2030[8]
European Commission: 20 Mt just for EU[9]
McKinsey: 660 Mt by 2050 (but when does the curve really start?)[10]
That's a 100% variance between respected sources for a market just 5 years away. The problem compounds:
Top-down data (policy targets, macro forecasts) shows massive markets
Bottom-up data (actual projects, signed contracts) shows tiny adoption
Historical analogies (solar/wind adoption curves) suggest exponential growth
Customer interviews reveal conservative 10-year planning cycles
One founder told me: "I had 200 pages of market research. Every page contradicted another. I just picked the numbers that made my pitch deck work." I know he is not alone in this approach.
Photo by Chris Chow on Unsplash
Why Traditional Market Research Methods Fail in Energy
The Policy Mirage Effect
REPowerEU mandates 10 million tonnes of green hydrogen by 2030.[11] Founders see this and calculate: "€50 billion market opportunity!"
Reality check: Of 1,200 announced hydrogen projects in Europe, only 4% have reached FID (Final Investment Decision).[12] The gap between policy ambition and market reality can be 10-100x.
The Reference Paradox
Energy buyers demand references. But how do you get references without customers? This creates a death spiral:
Customers want 5 years operational data
You need customers to generate operational data
Pilots don't count as "operational"
You die waiting for validation
Thermondo raised €100 million for digital heat pump deployment. Despite superior technology and installation process, customers chose Viessmann. Why? "20 years of references."[13]
The Invisible Competition Problem
Your biggest competitor is often invisible in traditional market research:
Doing nothing (cheapest option)
Life extension of existing assets
Regulatory workarounds
Used equipment markets
Behavioral adaptation
One smart grid startup discovered their real competition wasn't other software—it was Excel spreadsheets that "worked fine" for grid operators.
The Contract-First Reality Check
CurrentWorks' analysis of 300+ energy tech cases since 2021 reveals a brutal truth: contract-level validation beats technology validation.[4]
But here's the nuance most miss: in energy, a "contract" isn't just willingness to pay. It's:
Technology roadmap alignment: Customer confirms your cost targets match their deployment timeline
Solution stack fit: Customer validates where you fit in their solution ecosystem
Procurement pathway: Mapped route through their 18-month budget cycle
Northvolt understood this. Before breaking ground on their gigafactory, they didn't just get €55 billion in "customer interest." They secured:
Binding contracts with penalty clauses
Co-development agreements with specific cost targets
Strategic investments from customers (skin in the game)
Clear positioning versus Asian competitors (European supply chain security)[14]
Photo by 1Click on Unsplash
The Three-Lens Framework that Actually Works
After studying the 27% that survive, here's the framework that consistently separates survivors from casualties:
Lens 1: The Problem-Solution Matrix Don't map your technology against similar technologies. Map your problem against ALL solution pathways:
List every way the problem could be solved (including non-consumption)
Plot each on cost vs. adoption difficulty
Find where you genuinely win (not just on paper)
Lens 2: The Data Triangulation Method Never trust single sources. Triangulate:
Policy targets (divide by 3)
Bottom-up project pipeline (multiply by 1.5)
Customer willingness to pay (reality check)
Historical adoption curves (pattern match - if these don't roughly align, you're missing something critical).
Lens 3: The Timeline Reality Adjustment Whatever timeline you calculate, apply the "Energy Factor":
Customer says "next year" = 3 years
Policy says "by 2030" = 2035 with extensions
Pilot-to-commercial = 18-36 months minimum
Full market transformation = 15-20 years
A 4-Week Execution Plan for Your Startup
Before you file another patent:
Week 1: Problem-Solution Mapping
List 15 ways your problem could be solved
Include "do nothing" and "work around"
Talk to 5 customers about ALL options, not just yours
Month 1: Cost Roadmap Validation
Create specific cost reduction milestones for 5 years
Get 3 industry experts to critique it
Pivot now if you can't beat incumbent costs by 2030
Photo by Hubert Neufeld on Unsplash
The Uncomfortable Truth
The 73% failure rate in energy tech isn't about bad technology, limited funding, or even market timing. It's about founders drowning in contradictory data, comparing themselves to the wrong competition, and mistaking political ambition for market reality.
Energy tech doesn't need more innovation (well, it might, that conversation is for another day). It definitely needs innovators who understand that in this sector, brilliant technology is table stakes. What wins is understanding the full competitive landscape, navigating data chaos with structured frameworks, and validating purchasing power before building power plants.
The question isn't whether your technology works. The question is whether it works better than 15 other ways to solve the same problem, at a cost point you can reach in time, for customers who have budget allocated before your runway ends.
That's why 73% fail, market research. The 27% who succeed don't have better technology. They have better maps.
#EnergyTech #MarketResearch #StartupStrategy #CleanTech #EnergyTransition
What's your experience with energy market research complexity? What frameworks have you developed to navigate the chaos? Share your insights below.
Photo by Pawel Czerwinski on Unsplash
References
D. Cardwell, "Better Place, Electric Car Company, to Liquidate Assets," New York Times, May 2013.
Reuters, "Electric car company Better Place shuts down after burning through $850M," May 26-27, 2013.
M. Gunther, "Why Better Place Failed," Yale Environment 360, Yale School of the Environment, July 2013.
CurrentWorks, "Internal analysis of EU energy-tech startup outcomes, 2011-2024," Dataset, 2025.
K. Fehrenbacher, "Why Bill Gates' Aquion Energy Went Bankrupt," GreenTech Media, March 2017.
E. Wesoff, "LightSail Energy Shutdown," Greentech Media, December 2017.
International Energy Agency, "Global Hydrogen Review 2024," IEA Publications, Paris, 2024.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance, "Hydrogen Economy Outlook," BNEF, 2024.
European Commission, "Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe," COM(2020) 301 final, July 2020.
McKinsey & Company, "Hydrogen Insights Report 2023," Hydrogen Council, 2023.
European Commission, "REPowerEU Plan," COM(2022) 230 final, Brussels, May 2022.
Hydrogen Europe, "Project Pipeline Analysis Q2 2024," Industry Report, 2024.
Thermondo, "Annual Report and Market Analysis," Company Disclosure, 2023.
Northvolt AB, "Customer Contracts Announcement," Press Release, March 2024.