Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at
Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments

SUBJECT: Climate CoLab Judging Results

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.

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 into a future contest. You can do so by logging into your account, opening your proposal, selecting the Admin tab, and clicking “Move proposal”. Final judging comments are attached below.

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 be nominated as the contest’s Popular Choice Winner.

If you have questions, please contact the Climate CoLab staff at

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

There are compelling aspects to this proposal. The proposal presents an elegant solution of using sea depth to pressurize H2. If the listed LCOE is indeed achievable, this could be a game changer.

More focus and clear route to take is needed.This proposal is still somewhat confusing at first, but even when it begins to discuss the heat pipe it goes off on a tangent, leading to more confusion. this proposal would benefit from being restructured and by the elimination of portions that dont really add to the actual proposal. Too much of the proposal is spent discussing issues and problems that dont put the focus on the project proposed. Furthermore, a more focused and clear discussion on actual locations for the heat pipe and a discussion on the environmental impact (the negative along with the positive) should be presented. A clear and focused discussion on federal or state government/agency assistance needs to be presented.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Judges'' comments

SUBJECT:  Your proposal has been selected as a Climate CoLab Semi-Finalist!

Proposal: The Diverse Energy Potential of the Water Carrier Hydrogen
Contest: Energy-Water Nexus

Congratulations!  Your proposal submitted to the Energy-Water Nexus contest has been selected to advance to the Semi-Finalists round.
You will be able to revise your proposal and add new collaborators if you wish, from July 1st until July 14, 2015 at 23:59pm Eastern Time. 
Judges' feedback are posted under the "Evaluation" tab of your proposal and below.  Please incorporate this feedback in your revisions, or your proposal may not be advanced to the Finalists round.  We ask you to also summarize the changes that you made in the comment section of the Evaluation tab.
At the revision deadline listed below, your proposal will be locked and considered in final form.  The Judges will undergo another round of evaluation to ensure that Semi-Finalist proposals have addressed the feedback given, and select which proposals will continue to the Finalists round.  Finalists are eligible for the contest’s Judges Choice award, as well as for public voting to select the contest’s Popular Choice award.
Thank you for your great work and again, congratulations!

2015 Climate CoLab Judges

Using sea depth to pressurize H2 - elegant! If the listed LCOE is indeed achievable, this could be a game changer. There are several compelling aspects to the proposal.

This proposal lacks clarity and a focus that makes it actionable. In particular, the question of “What do you propose?” needs to be answered in more direct and clear language, especially highlighting what the first steps may be and the resources (cost estimate) required to make this happen. The proposal had a lot less extraneous material and focused more on the pitch theme instead of the proposed idea. It is an interesting idea but much more work is required to structure the proposal such that it makes sense. The proposal does not clearly answer who will take these actions (e.g. national governments, coastal governments, energy agencies, private sector).

Share conversation: Share via:

Jim Baird

Jul 2, 2015


1 |
Share via:
The, What actions do you propose?, Who will take these actions? and Where will these actions be taken? sections of the initial proposal have all be revamped in response to the the judges assessment that these were not clear and focused and accordingly the proposal was not actionable. Although no spelled out in the who section, I trust the proposal makes clear that the proponent considers federal and state governments and the private sector, he included, all need to take action.

Jim Baird

Jul 13, 2015


2 |
Share via:
The first step is a lab scale demonstration of the concept at a projected cost of $1 million over a two year time period as outlined in the revised what actions section.