First Impact Partners Visit Website →
Free Tool

Where to play in climate tech

Interactive companion to "Rethinking the Climate Tech Landscape".

How to read this dashboard

13 technologies across 5 strategic pillars, assessed on 3 quantitative + 3 qualitative criteria. Our investment potential verdict for near-term (<5yr) and long-term (>5yr), rated ⬆ High · ⬌ Average · ⬇ Low, sits in the bottom two rows. External anchors (Lazard, IEA, BloombergNEF, McKinsey) corroborate or update each reading. Click any technology header or cell to see the underlying source. Selected methodology, including the TRL scale and the IEA NZE chart that derives our environmental impact ratings, in the appendix at the bottom of the page.

Let us know your thoughts. Get in touch at info@1stimpactpartners.com
Criteria definitions & source anchors
Main application
Primary end-use sector(s) where the technology delivers abatement.
Source: FIP analysis.
TRL — Technology Readiness Level
Low (1–6: Concept, Prototype) · Medium (7–8: Pre-commercial, FOAK) · High (9–11: Commercial, stable).
Anchor: IEA ETP Clean Energy Technology Guide.
Environmental impact
Cumulative CO₂ reduction 2020–2050 per technology. Low <5% · Medium 5–15% · High >15%.
Anchor: IEA / McKinsey climate-tech abatement.
Economics
LCOE 2030 (Clean Electrons), $/tonne 2024 (Clean Molecules), LCOC 2035 (Carbon Mgmt). Low cost = good.
Anchor: Lazard LCOE+ v18.0; IEA Hydrogen Review 2024.
Market demand
⬆ Increasing · ⬌ Stagnant · ⬇ Decreasing.
Anchor: BloombergNEF transition investment data.
Policy
Sufficient · Some exist · More required.
Anchor: EU / US / China policy frameworks.
Drivers / barriers
Specific catalysts or blockers shaping deployment trajectory.
Source: FIP qualitative analysis.
VERDICT — Near term (<5yr)
FIP's own forecast of investment potential in the next 5 years. ⬆ High · ⬌ Average · ⬇ Low. Reasoning given in detail panel.
Source: FIP analysis.
VERDICT — Long term (>5yr)
FIP's own forecast of investment potential beyond 5 years (policy + tech evolution dependent). ⬆ High · ⬌ Average · ⬇ Low.
Source: FIP analysis.
Filters — narrow the landscape
TRL
High (9–11)
Medium (7–8)
Low (1–6)
Environmental impact
>15% CO₂ reduction
5–15%
<5%
Economics
Low cost (good)
Medium
High cost
Market demand (direction)
⬆Increasing
⬌Stagnant
⬇Decreasing
Investment potential (level)
⬆High
⬌Average
⬇Low
FIP landscape — click any column header or cell to see the source
Primary sources
First Impact Partners — Original article
"Rethinking the Climate Tech Landscape: Where to Play?" S. Yin, 10 May 2025. The categorization and verdicts originate here.
IEA ETP Clean Energy Technology Guide
TRL 1–11 scale. TRL 10 = scale integration; TRL 11 = stability proof. Anchors all maturity assessments.
Lazard LCOE+ v18.0
16 Jun 2025. Solar $38–78/MWh, wind $37–86/MWh, gas $48–251/MWh, nuclear $142–222/MWh. Anchors Economics row.
BloombergNEF
Battery Price Survey Dec 2024: $115/kWh (–20% YoY). Transition Investment Trends Jan 2026: $2.3T (+8%); mature tech +6%, emerging –23%.
IEA Global Hydrogen Review 2024
Green H₂ $5–11/kg today vs grey $1–2/kg. Only Chinese projects expected <$2/kg by 2030.
McKinsey — Scaling climate tech
1 Dec 2023. 12 climate-tech categories = ~90% of needed GHG abatement; ~10% from currently mature tech.
EU policy framework
RED III, Fit-for-55, ReFuelEU, EU Hydrogen Bank, ETS prices, CEAP. Anchors policy column.
Our World in Data / Climate Watch
Sector emissions: energy ≈73–76%, agriculture ≈12%. Anchors environmental impact %.
Methodology appendix
Methodology — TRL scale (FIP analysis)

TRL ratings in the matrix follow FIP's adaptation of the IEA 1–11 scale, grouping technologies into five maturity stages. Stages 7–11 represent the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS); stages 1–6 sit beyond it.

CONCEPT
1. Initial idea (basic principles defined) · 2. Application formulated · 3. Concept needs validation
Beyond SDS
SMALL PROTOTYPE
4. Early prototype proven in test conditions
Beyond SDS
LARGE PROTOTYPE
5. Components proven in deployment conditions · 6. Full prototype at scale
Beyond SDS
DEMONSTRATION
7. Pre-commercial demonstration · 8. First-of-a-kind commercial (full-scale deployment in final form)
Scope of SDS
EARLY ADOPTION
9. Commercial operation in relevant environment · 10. Integration needed at scale
Scope of SDS
MATURE
11. Proof of stability reached — predictable growth
Scope of SDS

Headline TRL in the matrix uses Low (1–6) / Medium (7–8) / High (9–11) bands. Tech-specific TRL detail (e.g. Hydrogen Blue 8–9 vs Green 7–9 vs methane pyrolysis 3–7) is captured in the source citation when a technology is clicked.

Methodology — Environmental impact (FIP analysis)

Environmental impact is measured as cumulative CO₂ reduction 2020–2050 per technology vs. the total cumulative CO₂ reduction required under the IEA Net Zero to 2050 scenario. The chart below (FIP appendix) maps each FIP technology bucket to its IEA NZE reduction levers via the brackets on the right side.

IEA NZE scenario: Global Net CO2 emission + Average annual CO2 reductions by lever, 2021-2050. Brackets show mapping from IEA reduction levers to FIP technology buckets.

How to read the chart: the left panel shows global net CO₂ emissions by sector under NZE; the right panel decomposes the average annual reductions by lever in 5-year steps. The brackets on the far right of the bar chart, and the two boxes below it, define which IEA levers each FIP technology corresponds to (e.g., "Renewable" → "Wind and solar"; "Batteries / Electrification" → "Electric vehicles + Other electrification + Behaviour"; "Carbon Removals, Nature Climate Solutions, Alternative Proteins & Agriculture" → "Behaviour and avoided demand").

Source: IEA Net Zero to 2050 (NZE) scenario; FIP analysis. Chart reproduced from FIP analysis.

Disclaimer. This dashboard is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice, an offer, or a solicitation to invest. Technology readiness, economics, policy, and market dynamics vary significantly by country and region, and many factors not captured here, including team execution, capital efficiency, macroeconomic conditions, and firm-specific risks, materially affect investability. We do not take responsibility for any decisions or outcomes resulting from how you choose to use or interpret this information.