Hydrolyca
active deal
Hydrolyca - Deal Memo
Date Reviewed: January 8, 2026 Stage: Pre-Seed / Seed (Series A in 2026) Deck: See deck-extract.md
Summary
Deep tech green hydrogen via thermochemical water splitting (not electrolysis). 3x more efficient, targeting <€1/kg H₂. UPM spin-off with strong academic team.
Raising: €3M Series A (2026)
Investment Thesis
1000x Opportunity?
Potentially YES.
- Green hydrogen is a massive market ($78B by 2030, 65% CAGR)
- If they hit <$1/kg, it's a paradigm shift (like $1/W for solar)
- Deep tech moat with 3 patents
- Could be infrastructure for entire hydrogen economy
Kingmaker Fit?
Weak.
| My Value Add | Relevance |
|---|---|
| 800+ CTO intros | Low — customers are energy/industrial companies |
| Technical scaling | Low — hardware/manufacturing, not software |
| GTM expertise | Low — B2B enterprise energy sales |
| DeepMind network | Low — not directly applicable |
Green Flags
- Technical team is exceptional (190+ publications, 5300+ citations)
3x efficiency advantage over electrolysis(Unverified — see Technical Diligence below)- Multiple heat source flexibility
- Patent protection (3 filed)
- Contrarian approach (everyone else doing electrolysis)
- Operating temperature (1600-1700°C) aligns with literature requirements
Red Flags
- Deep tech = long timeline (commercial 2028-2029)
- Currently at 2W, need to scale to MW (500,000x scale-up)
- Capital intensive to scale manufacturing
- No kingmaker fit
- Spain-based, far from my network
- 🚩 Founders have ZERO publications on thermochemical hydrogen production (see Technical Diligence)
- 🚩 36% efficiency claim is 10x better than any demonstrated system
- 🚩 "No-publication" strategy prevents independent validation
- 🚩 <€1/kg cost claim is 4x better than current best ($3.92/kg)
Key Questions
Independent validation of efficiency claims?Blocked by no-publication strategy- Patent landscape and freedom to operate?
- Manufacturing partnership strategy?
- Customer LOI commitment levels?
- Why won't incumbents catch up?
- NEW: Who on the team has actual thermochemical research experience?
- NEW: Can we witness a live test with measured inputs/outputs?
Decision
PASS — Technical credibility concerns outweigh market opportunity
- Market could be 1000x if thesis plays out
- But: Founders have no domain expertise, claims exceed state-of-the-art by 10x, no verification path
- Technical diligence reveals significant red flags that weren't apparent from deck review
Technical Diligence — January 8, 2026
Founders' Publication Analysis
Critical Finding: None of the three founders have published research on thermochemical hydrogen production.
| Founder | h-index | Citations | Actual Expertise | Thermochem Papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antonio Rivera | 25 | 2,300+ | Ion irradiation, radiation damage, nanophotonics | 0 |
| Ovidio Peña | 26 | 2,400+ | Plasmonics, ion implantation, materials science | 0 |
| David Garoz | 14 | 600+ | Composite materials, FEA, nuclear fusion materials | 0 |
Key publications reviewed:
- Rivera: Gold nanorod synthesis, ion irradiation effects on tungsten, Monte Carlo defect simulations
- Peña: Multilayered metallic nanoshells, copper nanoparticles, electromagnetic scattering
- Garoz: Composite damage modeling, tungsten first walls for HiPER laser fusion
Disconnect: Team claims breakthrough in cerium oxide thermochemical water splitting with zero publication history in thermochemical cycles, ceria chemistry, water splitting, solar fuels, or high-temperature catalysis.
Hydrolyca Claims vs. State of the Art
| Metric | State of the Art | Hydrolyca Claim | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lab efficiency | 0.7-0.8% solar-to-fuel (Chueh 2010) | 36% system efficiency | 45x better |
| Best reactor | 4.1% (50 kW system) | 36% (2W system) | 9x better |
| Theoretical max | 30-35% (with heat recovery) | 80% target | Exceeds theory |
| H₂ cost | $3.92-$4.55/kg | <€1/kg | 4x cheaper |
| Operating temp | 1500-2000°C | 1600-1700°C | ✓ Plausible |
Literature Context
- Chueh et al. (2010, Science): Landmark demonstration of ceria thermochemical water splitting — achieved 0.7-0.8% efficiency over 500 cycles
- 50 kW reactor studies (2022): Best medium-scale demonstration achieved 4.1% solar-to-syngas efficiency
- Theoretical modeling: Maximum water splitting efficiency of 30-35% requires near-perfect heat recuperation
- Economic studies: Best demonstrated cost is $3.92/kg H₂ at scale
Plausibility Assessment
What's credible:
- ✓ 1600-1700°C operating temperature matches literature requirements
- ✓ Quasi-isothermal approach has theoretical advantages
- ✓ Nuclear fusion materials background could help with reactor components
- ✓ CeO₂ redox chemistry is well-established
What's extraordinary/unlikely:
- ❌ 36% efficiency at 2W scale (literature shows <1% at lab scale)
- ❌ 3x better than electrolysis (would need >20% system efficiency)
- ❌ <€1/kg H₂ (no system has demonstrated below $3.92/kg)
- ❌ No domain publications from any founder
Verdict
| Category | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Technical Credibility | LOW — No domain expertise, extraordinary claims |
| Verification Path | BLOCKED — Deliberate no-publication strategy |
| Team-Domain Fit | POOR — Radiation physics ≠ thermochemistry |
| Investment Risk | HIGH — Claims vs. evidence gap is extreme |
Conclusion: Team has impressive credentials in wrong domain. Either (a) genuine breakthrough by outsiders requiring extraordinary evidence, or (b) overconfident pivot where expertise doesn't transfer as expected. Without independent validation, this is a high-risk trust-based bet.
Appendix
- deck-extract.md — Full deck content
- notes.md — Communications log
- Google Scholar: Antonio Rivera, Ovidio Peña, David Garoz
Research Update — January 15, 2026
Web Research Findings
No specific results found for Hydrolyca or founders.
Web search for "Hydrolyca green hydrogen thermochemical Spain Antonio Rivera" returned only general Spain green hydrogen news:
- bp and Iberdrola joint venture in Castellón (25 MW, operational 2026)
- Moeve's Andalusian Green Hydrogen Valley (€3B, 300K tonnes/year)
- Spain targeting 12 GW electrolyzer capacity by 2030
General hydrogen market context:
- Green hydrogen can be produced via electrolysis (dominant) or thermochemical methods
- Thermochemical methods remain limited by cost and scale
- No press coverage found for Hydrolyca specifically
Assessment:
- Company appears to be very early stage / stealth
- UPM spin-off academic team may not have public presence yet
- Decision remains PASS based on technical credibility concerns documented above
Contact Info Still Missing
Per contacts.md, founder contact information has not been captured. Given PASS decision, this is not a priority.
Next Action
- None planned — decision is PASS based on technical diligence findings
Hydrolyca - Contacts
Founders
| Name | Role | Phone | Calendar | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
UPM spin-off, Spain-based academic team. Contact info not yet captured.
Related Contacts
| Name | Role | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| — | — | — |
Relationship Timeline
| Date | Type | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 2026 | Deck review | Initial review — interesting deep tech but weak kingmaker fit |
Last Touchpoint
Date: January 2026 Status: Likely pass — weak kingmaker fit, outside domain Next Action: None planned unless thesis changes
Notes - Hydrolyca
January 8, 2026
Type: Deep Technical Diligence Summary: Reviewed founders' publication records and compared Hydrolyca claims against scientific literature
Key Findings
-
Founders have no thermochemical publications — All three (Rivera, Peña, Garoz) are experts in radiation physics, plasmonics, and composite materials. None have published on thermochemical cycles, ceria chemistry, or solar fuels.
-
Efficiency claims are extraordinary — Hydrolyca claims 36% system efficiency at 2W scale. Best demonstrated in literature is 0.7-0.8% (Chueh 2010, Science) at lab scale and 4.1% at 50 kW scale.
-
Cost claims unsubstantiated — <€1/kg target vs. $3.92/kg best demonstrated in economic studies.
-
Operating temperature is plausible — 1600-1700°C aligns with literature requirements for ceria reduction.
Sources Reviewed
- Google Scholar profiles for all three founders
- Chueh et al. (2010) Science paper on ceria thermochemical cycles
- Multiple 2024-2025 reviews on CeO₂ thermochemical water splitting
- Techno-economic studies on solar-driven ceria systems
Decision Impact
Changed recommendation from TBD to PASS based on:
- Domain expertise mismatch (radiation physics ≠ thermochemistry)
- 10x gap between claims and demonstrated state-of-the-art
- No verification path due to no-publication strategy
Follow-up If Reconsidering
- Request live demonstration with measured inputs/outputs
- Ask who on team has actual thermochemical experience
- Request third-party efficiency validation
December 29, 2025 - January 8, 2026
Type: Email Thread (Due Diligence Q&A) Summary: Gmail conversation with Javier Guardo from Kembol Ventures (deal source)
Steven's Due Diligence Questions (Dec 29, 2025)
Question 1 - Operating Temperature:
"The operating temperature of 750°C is relatively high compared to conventional SOEC systems (which typically operate at 600-850°C). What specific advantages does Hydrolyca's higher operating temperature offer, and how does it compare with lower-temperature systems in terms of efficiency, durability, and material costs?"
Question 2 - System Efficiency:
"The pitch highlights 'best-in-class efficiency' but doesn't give specific numbers. What is Hydrolyca's actual system-level efficiency (hydrogen output per kWh input), and how does this compare quantitatively to competing technologies?"
Question 3 - Academic Validation:
"The technology appears to lack peer-reviewed publications or third-party validation. Given the scientific claims being made, what evidence exists beyond internal testing? Are there plans for independent verification?"
Javier's Responses (Jan 8, 2026)
On Operating Temperature:
- Hydrolyca actually operates at 1600-1700°C, not 750°C
- Team background is from nuclear fusion research
- Higher temperature enables superior thermodynamics
- Different material science approach than conventional SOEC
On System Efficiency:
- Current system efficiency: 36%
- Industry standard comparison: ~12%
- 3x improvement over conventional systems
On Academic Validation:
- Deliberate strategy to NOT publish research papers
- Goal is to maintain competitive moat through trade secrets
- Have internal testing data but protecting IP
- Academic validation would reveal proprietary methods
Key Takeaways
- Technology is more novel than initially understood — Nuclear fusion background, not conventional SOEC
- Efficiency claims are strong if verifiable — 36% vs 12% is significant
- No-publication strategy is deliberate — IP protection, not lack of validation
- Higher risk, higher reward profile — Harder to verify, but if real, could be category-defining
Deal Source
- Javier Guardo, Kembol Ventures
- javier@kembol.vc