Vinod Khosla is a man on a mission. And this time, it's more than just making lots of money.
The venture capitalist, who helped to co-found Sun and who also became a partner at investment heavyweight Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, went out on his own in 2004 with Khosla Ventures.
Rather than stick to his comfort zone in Internet computing, Khosla has turned his eye to clean technology, investing in start-ups involved in solar electric technology, batteries, ethanol and coal gasification.
In addition to making his money work for him, Khosla is trying to shape the dialogue and direction of energy policy in California and at the federal level.
He has become a vocal advocate of ethanol over other transportation fuels, attracting criticism along the way. His view is that ethanol is the most realistic replacement for gasoline in the US, if manufacturers build new "flex-fuel" cars that can run gasoline or ethanol. That's something already happening on a large scale in Brazil, for instance.
Khosla argues that ethanol also gives the country more independence from foreign fuel providers, since it can be produced in the US. Naturally, that's attracted the attention of politicians.
Khosla spoke to ZDNet UK's sister site, CNET News.com, about the buzz around clean technology at the Cleantech Venture Forum in New York City.
Q: When I heard in 2004 that you were interested in clean technology, I tried to interview you, but you weren't ready to talk. What drew you to the area, and why are talking now?
A: First, I do care about the environment, but I was also looking at how you get large payback. Essentially, all the environment stuff in the past was based on the idea that you should get a subsidy, or you should do it because it's good to do. It's great to do good stuff — it feels great. But you can't do anything at scale until it meets a "return on investment" objective for Wall Street.
So part of my public speaking is this whole notion that we have to get Wall Street interested, because the investment opportunities exist. Many of these [companies] stand side by side with any Silicon Valley venture, and they have a matching rate of return. You can make as much money here. In fact, I would say you could probably make a little bit more here [in clean tech] because there's not as much competition.
I'm encouraging competition because I think there should be more experiments tried. Just like Internet start-ups, there are so many experiments. With chip start-ups, there are so many experiments. We should do that in clean tech, too. And the big ones will be really big, too. These are huge markets, generally, on an economic basis. I'm not a big believer in subsidies and these types of things. Sometimes, to get started, [subsidies are OK]. My view is that everything should be market-competitive in five years or less and not be subsidised.
Looking at clean tech, do you think we'll have the same explosion in technology development and adoption that we've had in the computer industry over the past 20 years?
Absolutely. I was at the Clinton Global Initiative and Richard Branson announced that 100 percent of all the profits from all their airlines and all their train operations over the next 10 years, which is expected to be about $3bn, will go into clean tech. That's an amazing, amazing story.
Is there interest? Yes. Are these economically viable? Yes. Will people lose money? Absolutely. It happens in Silicon Valley every day. I do believe the profile will look as good as or better than the traditional Silicon Valley semiconductor or Internet start-up. If you do a sector-by-sector analysis, I'm saying this sector should stack up on rates of return.
Is it stacking up yet or it should in coming years?
"Yet" is a hard thing, because it's just starting. The typical maturation of a Silicon Valley start-up is four or five years, so we'll know by 2010.
You're obviously interested in economic return, and you say you care about the environment. Getting to this Oil Drum discussion [where Khosla responded to critics of his ethanol advocacy], in your response you put a lot of value on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental effects. Are people ready to put a value on that, even before there's a carbon tax?
What I'm saying is — first, there is a carbon tax in California now. It is the law [a mandate to cut greenhouse gas emissions, equal to 25 percent by 2020]. People don't know it is a carbon tax, but it is a carbon tax, and that is a great thing. I'm a big fan of that.
But the fact is, with or without carbon taxes, this has a great rate of return. All I'm saying is with a carbon tax, more projects will qualify.
Similarly, what if oil prices go down? Doesn't that trash a lot of business plans out there?
That's a big risk for the oil-based start-ups. That's not a risk, for example, for solar, because solar competes with coal and electricity. So for transportation fuels, that is a risk. Now, there is also an upside: if there is a national carbon tax, those things go through the roof. So there is a risk and reward…
