Please find below the
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' comments
SUBJECT: Climate CoLab Judging Results
Proposal: A self-sustaining structure to address energy-water nexus for urban communities
Contest: Energy-Water Nexus
Thank you for participating in the 2015 Climate CoLab Energy-Water Nexus contest, and for the time you spent in creating and revising your entry.
The Judges have strongly considered your proposal in this second round of evaluation, and have chosen to not advance it as a Finalist for this contest.
We, the Judges and contest Fellows, are truly grateful for your contribution to the Climate CoLab and for your commitment to address climate change. Specific comments can be found below.
We encourage you to keep developing your work. Transfer it to the Proposal Workspace to re-open it, make edits, add collaborators, and even submit it to a future contest. You can do so by logging into your account, opening your proposal, selecting the Admin tab, and clicking “Move proposal”.
We hope you will stay involved in the Climate CoLab community. Please support and comment on proposals that have been named Finalists and vote for which proposal you would like to see nominated as the contest’s Popular Choice Winner.
If you have questions, please contact the Climate CoLab staff at admin@climatecolab.org
Keep up the great work. And thank you again for being a part of this mission to harness the world’s collective efforts to develop and share innovative climate change solutions.
2015 Climate CoLab Judges
The idea of setting up innovation labs is an intriguing one. In particular, we liked the idea of developing an innovation ecosystem in this space and locating it within the community. The topic is interesting and the proposed mechanism is an appealing approach to promote actions in the water and energy nexus at the city level.
A case example would benefit this proposal greatly. There seems to be a lot of deferred responsibility in this proposal. There is little to no discussion about political or policy challenges. This proposal is too broad and is somewhat assuming. There are no proposal costs. The challenges that need to be faced are not described. In particular, more detail is needed to address the practical realities of raising venture funding, its governance, and the quantification of benefits. It should be noted that BMGF is interested in Sanitation, not water. Also, the foundation angle of MRI and PRI is a good thing, but the real issue is getting market acceptance of the technologies.
Private money is available, but the market willingness to buy new tech is the problem, especially considering regulatory issues. There is a big push towards Public Private Partnerships (P3) for funding things like green infrastructure and other innovative technologies in the water space.
0comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
No comments have been posted.
