I'm Sorry! (I'm not Sorry)

So last week, I published an:

... abject and unmitigated puerile nonsense that can be safely disregarded as anti-scientific poop!

Indeed, you can take my content as abject, unmitigated, nonsensical, anti-scientific, and disregard it as poop as much as you want...

BUT:

It is puerile by design. 😄

I use emojis, memes, and bad jokes as part of my tone. Because that's me! And because I believe it serves the message.

(trust me, I try to make good jokes - but I have to deal with the half-brain I own...)

Why the Hate?

Well, I committed the ultimate sin: I used the term "Forever Chemicals"

And technically, the critic is 100% right: they're not forever. Let's just say... they're very resistant?

I should have known that:

Hence, from now on:

• I'll say I love my wife and my kids for the next twenty minutes or so (and even that, who knows? I might be rolled over by a bus anytime)
• I'll sue Alphaville on the spot, 'cause come on, who stays forever young?
• And don't even get me started on that one:

Jokes aside, you've read the title: sorry, but I'm not sorry.

And thank you for all the very, very kind messages I (also) received following last week's video 🙂

... Now that we have that out of the way ...

Nearly four years ago, I interviewed Nicola Lei Ravello on the podcast for the first time - and we discussed the pyramid of Water Investment that's in this week's cover:

He explained how you'll have to balance out your water investment approach based on the level of risk you're willing to take and on what you exactly want to achieve.

Investment in "Water" is still tiny

Remember what we discussed two weeks ago? Water tech is only 0.2% of overall "climate tech" investing.

But that's for the two top layers of the pyramid. If we zoom out and (try to) look at the big picture:

• The annual economic value of water and freshwater is estimated at $58 trillion (60% of global GDP)
• Direct economic benefits from water consumption amount to $7.5 trillion annually, the other $50 trillion being indirect benefits (water purification, soil health, carbon storage, flood protection...)
• By 2050, around 46% of global GDP could come from areas facing high water risk (up from 10% today)

Meanwhile, investment in "water" is somewhere between $1 and 2 trillion (depending on if you integrate nature-based solutions in the balance or not)

Even if we're optimistic and pick the $2 trillion figure, that's a 29 to 1 ratio between value and investment

So if we try to bring this at scale, the figure should rather look like this:

Now, I'm just an engineer, so I don't know much about finance, investment, and markets. But my understanding is that, when there's a mismatch (especially one this size), there's an opportunity... because the return rates will simply become irresistible, right?

So the question should no longer be "will it grow?" but:

What will the shape of the S-Curve be?

Under "Option 1" investment will gradually increase, and there's no need to hurry. But under "Option 2" can one still afford to sit on the sidelines?

Now I hear you; the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But who would I be to tell?

Someone churning anti-scientific nonsensical poo...

So, to avoid this, I grabbed some better brains:

🎧 This week on the podcast: 7 Investors

In this week's episode, we'll get insights from:

• Alexander Loucopoulos ( Sciens Water )
• C. Robin Castelli MSc ( Orange Ridge Capital )
• Brian V. Iversen ( Cimbria Capital )
• Maria Gotsch (Partnership Fund for New York City)
• Guillaume Clairet ( H2O Innovation )

Plus we'll get some additional bits from:

• Tom Ferguson ( Burnt Island Ventures )
• Clayton MacDougald ( Emerald Technology Ventures )

The clarity I wanted to get from all of these brilliant speakers revolves around a simple problem:

The Chicken & The Egg

A typical Catch-22, right?

• VCs need clear exit paths to justify dedicated water funds
• PE firms want to see more mature water tech companies before jumping in
• But those companies need VC funding to reach maturity in the first place

Now, as we discuss, several things are starting to crack this loop:

1. Track Records Emerging: First-generation specialist water investors are starting to show compelling returns
2. Consolidation Accelerating: Strategic buyers are actively shopping with a growing appetite from PE-backed platforms
3. The Ecosystem Maturing: One year after the birth of the first water tech unicorn, we see more specialized water funds emerging & even infrastructure funds testing the waters

Listening/watching this, you'll learn:

💰 How the emerging investment landscape in water tech is finally getting attention

🌊 How PE strategically stepping in signals a new era of targetted water tech acquisitions (and consolidation)

🔍 Why specialized water investors are achieving 40% IRR... but mainstream PE firms still hesitate to dive in

🎯 How impact investors deploy innovative approach to connecting water startups with utility customers

🚀 How water tech is at the beginning of its S-curve, and how it mirrors the renewable energy investment boom we saw two decades ago

Check it on your favorite podcatcher or on YouTube!

🍿 Snacking Content

🍏 My podcast alumni have been busy this week!

• Standard Lithium signed a joint venture with Equinor for the further development of their (other) Arkansas project (check out Andy Robinson 's post)
• Still in Lithium waters, Mangrove Lithium just closed a $35 Million round with a mix of existing and new investors (check Saad Dara 's post). On an anecdotal note: that's the largest fundraiser in 2025 so far, and already the third "notable" one after Eletralith and Electramet earlier this January!
• I already mentioned Clayton MacDougald and Emerald in this release, but here he is again, joining the board of StormHarvester as part of Brian Moloney 's $10.2 million raise!

🍏 Dupont Water is no longer for sale! That one goes against the trend of conglomerates to re-specialize, but apparently, the spin-off is off the table (and hence the divestment with it).

To me, this could mean that they did not get the price they wanted out of it (think: a Xylem-style multiple) or that they realized that with PFAS Removal on the rise, it wasn't so timely to sell an IX/RO workhorse.

Probably a bit of the two, if you ask me 😉

🍎 Did I already address non-sensical poop today? Oh I did? Sorry to repeat myself, then. But the recent coverage of Donald Trump's withdrawal of the proposed EPA rule on PFAS discharges in industrial wastewater is confusing at best.

What this is: a regulatory freeze on a discussed policy

What this is not: a cancellation of the Drinking Water rules we discussed last week

Now, beyond the confusion, it may ultimately have consequences for the water utility rates. To be continued!

🍏 Theoretically, there should be 0.2 water companies in Cleantech Group 's Global 100 right? (I mean, if it were in line with the 0.2% of cleantech money going to water tech)

Well, in this year's release, though, there are 7 ( Summit Nanotech , ZwitterCo , Aclarity , Aqua Membranes, Inc. , Indra, Moleaer Inc. , & Pani)!

That's 35 times the expected value. Well done, team water!

That's it for this week, I fear - if any of this is of interest to you, make sure to subscribe, and I'll be back next week to give you the scientifically proven glimpse into the (water) future I keep teasing you (I have the data, I just need... time!)