valuing first-of-a-kind cleantech

process engineering, techno-economics, and live valuation models for technologies with no comparables

A first-of-a-kind cleantech lives or dies on numbers nobody can look up. No comparables, no reference plants, no benchmark a lender or grant reviewer can lean on. Every number has to be built from first principles and defended.

This is the engine that does that, built for two first-of-a-kind technologies with nothing in common but the absence of comparables: one that destroys methane too weak to burn, one that takes the carbon out of cement.

the engineering model

Before any economics, the process gets modeled to a chemical engineer’s standard, the kind you would defend in Aspen HYSYS. Mass, energy, and emissions balances close on the first law to within one percent. Every stream composition declares its basis, wet or dry, ppmv or mole fraction, or gets rejected at load. The process model carries provenance from input to output, and “truth contracts” block any export that claims a result the physics has not earned.

the techno-economic platform

On that engineering basis sits an interactive techno-economic model: market sizing, deployment pathways, unit economics, company financing, and industry impact, all recomputing live as the assumptions move. Every assumption traces to a sourced evidence library, so a reviewer can follow any figure back to where it came from and see how firm it is. The whole thing exports as a standalone investor- and grant-grade review package, a working model the recipient can drive.

built to be examined

It runs as a reactive notebook on a single data spine: change one governed input and the executive summary, the market, the economics, and the financing all update together, with no spreadsheet to email around. The engineering discipline runs underneath, one source of truth for every constant, regression snapshots, and stale-input detection that fires the moment a number goes out of date. The figures hold up because the system makes it hard for them not to.

one engine, different chemistries

Methane destruction and cement decarbonization share no physics. The first is lean combustion; the second is process emissions baked into the chemistry of clinker. The same platform handled both, because the discipline is domain-agnostic: declare the basis, close the balance, source the assumption, gate the export. Point it at the next first-of-a-kind and the engine holds.