Blast furnace slag is used to replace part of the cement. In this case, no special cement is needed with blast furnace slag already mixed in. Cement is simply taken from one silo and blast furnace slag from another. Concrete suppliers themselves can effortlessly conjure up a recipe for this mix, and this has been done for a very long time.
The slowing down of hardening is not such a simple matter. If the setting slows down, the pouring pressure on columns and walls increases significantly. In this case, the requirements for the molds also change significantly. The time it takes to achieve stripping strength also has a significant impact on mold rotation.
Carbon dioxide emissions from construction could probably be most easily reduced by design. Lowering the strength class of concrete can reduce the amount of cement in a concrete cube by 100 kg, which already has a significant environmental impact. Another design-related issue is designing structures in such a way that as little concrete as possible is used. These would not be complicated methods at all, but solutions to climate-related issues are usually not considered from this angle. It somehow feels like solutions are preferably sought through new materials and methods without considering actual consumption.
edit
A truly significant portion of constructionâs carbon dioxide emissions could easily be cut. However, there is no willingness to make such cuts. The issue is preferably solved with new products, rather than with the common sense of a competent site manager. If the share of materials in the final productâs price over the entire productâs lifecycle were to increase relative to the cost of labor, and the share of labor costs could be reduced, the attractiveness of material savings would increase.
As a simple example, the amount of concrete and rebar could easily be reduced, but this would increase the share of labor. If the costs of using materials were artificially increased and the costs of labor were reduced, significant emission reductions would thus be achieved.
What do you think the developers of these greener concretes would say about such a use of common sense?
As a tech person, I find these companies developing new things quite endearing. In the same breath, I must say that this does not meet my criteria, so I will not be investing in it.
The company is very small and lacks production. This can be a major hindrance to development work; in industrial processes, itâs always beneficial to be able to test things with oneâs own resources in oneâs own âbackyard,â freely integrated into oneâs own processes. Here, product development happens, so to speak, at the âmercyâ of others.
An extremely risky investment target. First, a) the development work must succeed so that the product is clearly better than those of competitors with larger muscles, and b) the product must then be commercialized. The goal itself is noble, and thus the company has a great âstoryâ behind it. I just fear that competitors will overtake them with their resources.
The plus side here, of course, is that one can try startup investing through the stock exchange.
Betolarâs press release got me thinking. A huge number of buzzwords and a bold revenue and profitability forecast thrown 10 years into the future. At the same time, itâs difficult to grasp the true nature of the companyâs business. They talk about license fees and platform economy, but on the other hand, they donât have a single commercial customer yet.
I donât know - do we really want companies to enter the stock market with revenue and profitability targets pulled out of a hat?
I agree with previous writers that I hope Betolar succeeds in its breakthrough. They seem to be on a good cause.
The Helsingin Sanomat (Hesari) article summarized this well: âThe problem is that now these loose talks from startups have come to the stock market, and in the stock market, the audience is much wider.â
It would be a lottery win if Kannonkoskiâs small laboratory has been able to develop something that multinational companies operating in Finland have not found. The overall combination of recipes, alloying agents, and additives is so vast that I fear creating strong patents will be very challenging. Especially since the largest alloying materials, like slag, are already a familiar old possibility. However, buying a lottery ticket is under consideration.
I agree with Alex. Itâs also worth considering the reasons why funding is sought from the stock exchange at such an early stage. These so-called pre-revenue companies are primarily the domain of venture capitalists. Why donât they want to fund this company? Betolarâs Chairman of the Board certainly has access to any venture capitalist. It would be much easier to advance the company with the help of venture capitalists than through the stock market, but they donât seem interested, which is always a sign of somethingâŠ
Itâs also worth remembering that venture capitalists diversify heavily, with dozens of targets in their portfolio, assuming that a few will break through.
The market is crazy globally, but itâs starting to be here too, even if it feels like we donât quite want to admit that fact.
Looking at Betolarâs website, there are several private equity investors involved:
Voima Ventures, Taaleri, Valve Ventures, Nidico, Kiilto Ventures, Kilo Invest, and Ahti Invest.
An article in the YmpÀristö Yritys TÀnÀÀn (Environment Business Today) magazine stated that Ajanta Oy has been the first financier since 2017.
It makes me wonder why they would let retail investors in on the action if they saw a diamond and a unicorn in this. Every VC wants to be involved in subsequent rounds if they believe in the company, especially at such an early stage.
EDIT: And the biggest problem for private equity investors in Finland is finding good investment targets. Lots of money, few good targets. One can only imagine that if that group really saw the potential that is being painted, they certainly wouldnât bring it to the stock market this early, but would put in what is needed themselves.
This is more of a lottery ticket than a considered investment. The companyâs idea is excellent, but there is almost no evidence of its functionality. If it succeeds, it will be a real money-spinner, but the possibility of failure is significantly high. Reality is so strange that even a well-functioning concept may not actually generate profits.
Even if it succeeds, commercialization in this business-to-business venture can be genuinely difficult. The industry has alternatives, and companies generally know how to calculate options, including opportunity costs. Competition might be much fiercer than the company currently (wants to) perceive; on the technical side, alternatives will emerge and easily erode price levels.
For a company at such an early stage (pre-revenue), VCs generally look for at least a 10x growth potential. One out of ten succeed, which covers the losses from the nine out of ten failures.
So, to accompany Betolar in the portfolio, one would need to find nine other potential ten-baggers to have some probability of breaking even on the whole thing.
This kind of investing seems more suitable for those who have accumulated too much money and can try to save the world with a fairly large risk. So this investment case does not apply to me. However, I wish them good luck with the listing and future business.
You can find 10-baggers among companies that are already profitable and distribute dividends throughout the investment period, so why settle for a 10-bagger with a company that doesnât even have revenue yet?
I just finished reading Bill Gatesâs latest book, âHow to Avoid a Climate Disaster.â One idea that stuck with me from the book is that while significant efforts are being made by hundreds or thousands of companies to reduce emissions from transportation, in concrete manufacturing, which is also a major source of CO2 emissions, regulation and technology for reducing emissions are still in their infancy. I believe this will inevitably change in the future, and more environmentally friendly alternatives must be found for high-emission cement. Big money simply finds reducing CO2 emissions from transportation much more appealing at the moment than in the concrete industry.
Of course, Betolar is an early-stage company and a high-risk investment, and they have a lot of work ahead to make their operations profitable, but I decided to take a small position.
In a way, itâs frustrating to follow the discussion about CO2 emissions from concrete production. It simply doesnât seem to make any sense. If there was a genuine desire to reduce CO2 emissions from concrete, it would be very easy. The desire seems to be more about tinkering and developing new green concretes that reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, and then being satisfied.
Instead of these green concretes, the strength classes of the concretes used should be chosen more precisely than they are now. The strength class of concrete (cement content) can easily affect CO2 emissions per cubic meter of concrete by about 30%. Design, in turn, could easily reduce emissions by another 30% by designing structures in such a way that the amount of concrete and reinforcement decreases. Well, the amount of work would then increase, and thus the costs.
The risk also lies in the fact that a recipe must be created for each side stream and changes in R&A (presumably, raw material or product composition) must be managed. A mistake in properties once is a big deal, especially if the strength of a large structure is compromised somewhere. Is this suitable for demanding structures, like bridges? The stress and service life are completely different from, say, single-family house foundations. Or a grill. The CEO should know what theyâre selling. Or is the attitude just, âIâm just selling as long as it goes into the package and money comes inâ? Thereâs no in-house manufacturing, just talk. Whatâs the patent situation, now and in the future? Somehow it makes me think, if something sounds too good to be trueâŠ
Iâm probably too cautious an investor and thatâs why Iâll stay poorâŠ
Betolarâs (currently) zero-revenue business seems to be backed by a rather impressive group of so-called anchor investors. I wouldnât think that, for example, Pension Insurance Company Ilmarinen or Ahlström Invest would fund the offering with a quick profit in mind. Iâm not familiar with the background of Nidoco Ab, and MerimieselĂ€kekassa (Seamenâs Pension Fund) and S-Pankki Fenno equity fund are also involved. To me, it smells like investors who might be in it to see if it reaches a billion in sales in ten years or not.
DISCLAIMER: I am considering a small, meaning probably only a minimum participation in the IPO. And with the idea, just in case. And I have no doubt that competing products will be rushed to completion by large competitors.
Edit: DISCLAIMER 2: I just placed an order for Digital Workforce, with the main idea of predicted market growth. Itâs fun to speculate with small stakes in the portfolio.
