Houston agriculture robotics co. raises $21.5M series A to grow climatetech solution

freshly funded

The series A funding will support the deployment of its biochar machines across Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Photo courtesy of Applied Carbon

A Houston energy tech startup has raised a $21.5 million series a round of funding to support the advancement of its automated technology that converts field wastes into stable carbon.

Applied Carbon, previously known as Climate Robotics, announced that its fresh round of funding was led by TO VC, with participation from Congruent Ventures, Grantham Foundation, Microsoft Climate Innovation Fund, S2G Ventures, Overture.vc, Wireframe Ventures, Autodesk Foundation, Anglo American, Susquehanna Foundation, US Endowment for Forestry and Communities, TELUS Pollinator Fund for Good, and Elemental Excelerator.

The series A funding will support the deployment of its biochar machines across Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

"Multiple independent studies indicate that converting crop waste into biochar has the potential to remove gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year, while creating trillions of dollars in value for the world's farmers," Jason Aramburu, co-founder and CEO of Applied Carbon, says in a news release. "However, there is no commercially available technology to convert these wastes at low cost.

"Applied Carbon's patented in-field biochar production system is the first solution that can convert crop waste into biochar at a scale and a cost that makes sense for broad acre farming," he continues.

Applied Carbon rebranded in June shortly after being named a top 20 finalist in XPRIZE's four-year, $100 million global Carbon Removal Competition. The company also was named a semi-finalist and awarded $50,000 from the Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Removal Purchase Pilot Prize program in May.

"Up to one-third of excess CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the start of human civilization has come from humans disturbing soil through agriculture," Joshua Phitoussi, co-founder and managing partner at TO VC, adds. "To reach our net-zero objectives, we need to put that carbon back where it belongs.

"Biochar is unique in its potential to do so at a permanence and price point that are conducive to mass-scale adoption of carbon dioxide removal solutions, while also leaving farmers and consumers better off thanks to better soil health and nutrition," he continues. "Thanks to its technology and business model, Applied Carbon is the only company that turns that potential into reality."

The company's robotic technology works in field, picking up agricultural crop residue following harvesting and converts it into biochar in a single pass. The benefits included increasing soil health, improving agronomic productivity, and reducing lime and fertilizer requirements, while also providing a carbon removal and storage solution.

"We've been looking at the biochar sector for over a decade and Applied Carbon's in-field proposition is incredibly compelling," adds Joshua Posamentier, co-founder and managing partner of Congruent Ventures. "The two most exciting things about this approach are that it profitably swings the agricultural sector from carbon positive to carbon negative and that it can get to world-scale impact, on a meaningful timeline, while saving farmers money."

From Your Site Articles

What is it going to take to make Houston a leader in the energy transition? Access to capital, according to a panel from Venture Houston. Photo by Natalie Harms/EnergyCapital

Experts: Houston needs to unlock early-stage capital to lead the energy transition

show me the money

Last week, Tim Latimer sat on a panel that consisted mostly of his company's investors and discussed what he felt the missing piece still was for Houston's energy transition and innovation community.

“There’s no better place in the world than Houston to build and scale a climate tech startup," he says on a Venture Houston panel titled Seeding Sustainability: Unlocking the Power of Early Stage Investments.

“But I don’t know if I’m ready to make the claim that we’re the best place to start a business,” he adds.

Latimer, who co-founded Fervo Energy in the Bay Area in 2017 before relocating the company to Houston, explains that his company raised capital on the West Coast ahead of moving to Texas to grow and scale. This allowed the company, which recently announced the success of a major pilot, to tap into early stage funding and then make the most of every dollar raised by moving to a region where the money would last longer — and where there's talent, customers, and more.

“The dream for us to have a truly unlocked ecosystem is that the whole pattern can happen here in Houston, and the gap I see is that capital formation side,” he says.

Latimer was joined on the panel by some of Fervo's investors: Mark Cupta, managing partner of Prelude Ventures; Andrea Course, venture principal of Shell Ventures; and Joshua Posamentier, co-founder and managing partner of Congruent Ventures.

Each of the panelists weighed in on what it would take for Houston to emerge as a leader within the global energy transition. Cupta says that it's going to take the city time to build out activity, successful outcomes, talent, money, and more.

“The venture capital community is an ecosystem, and that ecosystem consists of multiple stakeholders that all have to work in concert with each other," he says. "It has to be a flywheel that spins up over time.”

Course, the only Houston-based investor on the panel, says that Houston has potential because it's got talent, industry, and money, or TIM, as she describes.

“I think Houston is actually the perfect place for becoming the energy transition capital. If you ask me, I think we already are.” Course explains. “It really just takes people doing what we’re doing now to make it even greater."

Posamentier, who previously shared his outlook on Houston in a Q&A with EnergyCapital, explains that access to funding isn't the only issue. “There’s a lot more money than there are investable opportunities at the moment,” he says.

The panel also weighed in on the difference between venture capital and funding coming out of corporations.

“VCs and CVCs have different timelines,” Course explains, saying VC firms have 5- to 7-year life cycles. After that, they need to see an exit to be able to provide that return. “With a CVC, we don’t really have that. Of course we want to show financial returns, but we are long-duration capital.

CVC is patient capital with value-add investors, but Course admits there's a longer due diligence because she wants to find a strategic stakeholder before an investment is made.

“The worst thing that could happen is that Shell gives you money, but they don’t give you business. We don’t want that,” she says.

Waiting for that right investor can be extremely important to company success, Latimer says from the founder perspective.

“It’s hard to put a hard dollar value on help, but our ability to have advisers and introductions from different types of investors … makes all the difference in the world,” he says on the panel. “A lot of startup founders think about their org design very critically and who they want to bring onto the team, and you should be deliberate on your cap table.”

Josh Posamentier, co-founder and managing partner at Congruent Ventures, will join Venture Houston as a speaker this year. Photo via congruentvc.com

Sustainability investor addresses startup challenges, Houston's capital shortages, and more

Q&A

It's been a challenging year for venture capital, but how are climatetech startups doing specifically? One Bay Area investor shares his point of view on this this topic ahead of Venture Houston next week.

Joshua Posamentier, co-founder and managing partner of Congruent Ventures, a San Francisco-based firm that invests in early-stage sustainable companies, is taking the stage at Venture Houston on September 7. Among others, Posamentier will be in conversation with the founder of one of his firm's portfolio companies, Fervo Energy, discussing seed and early-stage funding for sustainability-focused startups.

Venture Houston is presented by HX Venture Fund, a fund of funds that deploys capital into non-Houston firms to encourage investment in local startups. This year's theme is "Spotlighting the path for decarbonization in a digital world."

Posamentier, who has worked over a decade in this space, shares some of his thoughts on Houston as an energy transition leader, the challenges climate-tech startups face, and more in an interview with EnergyCapital.

EnergyCapital: How do you see Houston and its role in this energy transition, its challenges, its opportunities, etc.?

Josh Posamentier: I actually tend to disagree with the people that say Houston is too far down the oil and gas path. I mean, it's it's capitalism at the end of the day. There's money to be made in in climate mitigation technologies. People are going to go chase it, and I think Houston, of all places, is a pretty capitalistic city. And people are definitely not shy about chasing the next big opportunity. I mean, it was oil and natural gas before, and now it's now it's alternative energy. And so I think from that perspective, it's fine. There's a lot of money.

I think the biggest challenge is honestly, especially on a perception basis, a lot of the policy and social stuff that's endemic to Texas, which is a bummer. I mean, especially for younger talent. Austin had a shine, but I think that's largely gone and Houston never had it. So, I think it's something that needs to be overcome and needs to be thought about at a state level basis, especially if you're going to want to attract young entrepreneurial talent.

EC: What are some of the challenges energy transition startups are facing these days? How is your fund kind of supporting your portfolio companies through these challenges?

JP: There's some normalization that's had to happen over the last 9 to 12 months. As you know, corrections have come down the pipe in the venture ecosystem. By all accounts, it has been really frothy for the last few years, especially so in parts of climate. Some of that's due to the the proliferation of investment from non climate-specific firms. And it's, in many ways, decoupled from the ups and downs of different parts of the venture ecosystem, but it also has different timelines. I think not everyone always appreciates what that means and what that implies for for startups. So there's a lot of frustration and a lot of missed expectations in the early stage part of the ecosystem that are slowly getting fixed. I think getting expectations more in line with reality is going to help immensely.

The other thing is just figuring out how to talk more in a language that venture investors understand. I think that's a little bit of a challenge. There's there's actually a pretty big gap between if you're an oil and gas developer and thinking about how you fund that kind of a business versus how you fund a technology-enabling business. Fervo Energy is an interesting example. It's a tech company, but now it's really a tech enabled developer because they have no choice but to do that full stack. They went to school out here. They understand the ecosystem. They've really taken the effort to really understand all the capital players. And so we're waiting to see how that ultimately plays out.

But there's just different capital. I think it is a little challenging. And this is a good thing. There does need to be a way, I think, to just get people more exposure to to the market there — in the Houston market specifically. If you're spinning at Stanford, there are hundreds of VCs within walking distance. In Houston, the ones I know I can count on one hand.

EC: Has that pace of commercialization changed over the years or have founders found ways to survive that valley of death?

JP: I don't think anything's really changed fundamentally. I think people have gotten a little more clever about understanding how the adoption occurs, and figuring out how to phase into those processes that that comes with experience. But there's only so much acceleration you can do when you're dealing with critical infrastructure. You know, people are not going to want to just jump right in, rip out, and replace things that keep the lights on. And so you just have to figure out how to how to capitalize a business in such a way that you can you can live with those kinds of timelines. Venture capital is a fantastic tool, and it is far from the right tool for every problem. And so there are plenty of opportunities to deploy other tools that are more appropriate to different kinds of different kinds of challenges.

EC: What attracted you to investing in Fervo Energy?

JP: So, it's how we think about portfolio construction. Fervo has an amazing team, which we will bend a lot of rules for, and we saw this opportunity as something they could build a ton of value by validating the tech, establishing a huge land position, and then raising different kinds of capital for the out years and for the project development. A bunch of our companies took venture capital to develop a technology, and then they know that venture is not the right class of capital to then scale that throughout the world and whatever. So they would basically raise other forms of capital in the out years to deploy the technologies.

EC: And one of those options is government funding. How do your portfolio companies utilize that?

JP: A big chunk of our portfolio has some government money, even if it's very early stage research grants or something like that. I see government money being the most effective in a couple of ways. One way obviously is to get the core research out of it versus just spin it into something more commercial that we can all then look at.

The other place that is really exciting is in is getting technologies to scale where they're then cost effective without further subsidies. When we underwrite companies, we are very explicitly underwriting them in the absence of subsidies at scale. The assumption is those are just there to basically bridge the gap between "this is totally uneconomic because it's a tiny, tiny little factory or something" versus "it would be plenty economic if it were a big factory." So, if they can just bridge that gap with a little bit of government money.

We've been through this this cycle a couple of times, and we can't in good faith underwrite anything assuming that government subsidies are going to continue. We very much believe it's a bridge — it's got to be a bridge to something. It can't be a bridge to nowhere. And I think there are a lot of companies out there today that are almost designed to just pump the government incentives, and that's not a recipe for a business that can grow on its own over time.

------

This conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Chevron eyes $7B Texas power plant for Microsoft data center campus

power deal

Software giant Microsoft is negotiating exclusively with Houston-based oil and gas titan Chevron and investment firm Engine No. 1 about the development of a $7 billion power plant in West Texas that would supply electricity for a Microsoft data center campus.

The proposed natural-gas-fired plant initially would generate 2,500 megawatts of electricity, Bloomberg reports. The plant would be built near Pecos, a Permian Basin city, in an area where Microsoft plans to build a 2,500-megawatt data center campus on a 7,000-acre site.

A deal with Microsoft would secure a long-term customer for the plant’s output and help finance its construction, Bloomberg says. The project, expected to be producing power by 2030, still requires tax and environmental approvals as well an agreement to terms among Chevron, Engine No. 1, and Microsoft.

In a statement issued after Bloomberg reported the news, Chevron acknowledged it was in exclusive talks with Engine No. 1 and Microsoft, but the oil and gas company offered no details.

Chevron says the proposed plant “reflects an emerging shift in how power for AI is being developed, bringing energy supply closer to demand through co-located, behind-the-meter generation to deliver reliability while helping avoid added strain on regional electricity systems. It pairs sustained, always-on demand from advanced computing with proven capability to design, build, and operate large-scale energy infrastructure.”

Development of gas-powered electrical plants for AI data centers represents a new—and potentially lucrative— business line for Chevron. In 2025, Chevron, Engine No. 1 and GE Vernova announced a partnership to produce natural gas for AI data centers in the U.S.

Chevron’s collaboration with Engine No. 1 has already secured an order for seven large natural gas turbines from GE Vernova, according to Bloomberg.

“Energy is the key to America’s AI dominance,” Chris James, founder and chief investment officer of Engine No. 1, said last year. “By using abundant domestic natural gas to generate electricity directly connected to data centers, we can secure AI leadership, drive productivity gains across our economy, and restore America’s standing as an industrial superpower.”

8 CERAWeek 2026 takeaways from a new Houston energy leader

guest column

My first CERAWeek was a blur.

Having top energy executives, policymakers, and technologists all gathered in Houston—over 11,000 of them this year—was both overwhelming and energizing. The theme was “Convergence and Competition: Energy, Technology, and Geopolitics,” and walking through the George R. Brown Convention Center, it was immediately clear that this was no ordinary industry conference.

As a first-timer with a Greentown Labs lens, here’s what really stuck with me.

Disruption is the new normal

CERAWeek 2026 was set against the backdrop of conflict in the Middle East, the continued race to power AI, and a clear throughline: disruption is increasingly the new normal. You could feel it in every hallway conversation. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East, specifically Iran’s attacks on Qatar’s Ras Laffan facility and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, affected roughly 20% of the world’s liquified natural gas supply, and that was woven into nearly every conversation throughout the week.

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright opened the conference with “Energy is life,” then quickly turned to natural gas. “America’s superpower is natural gas,” he said, pointing to its role in industry, heat, electricity, fertilizer, exports, and leading AI and manufacturing. That set the tone early and it never really shifted.

AI is still everywhere, but the conversation has shifted

No surprise that AI dominated the agenda. But what struck me as a first-timer was how much the conversation had matured. The AI discussion has moved from general enthusiasm to a much more practical focus on real use cases and measurable outcomes.

NVIDIA, Anthropic, and CyrusOne joined the established tech presences of Microsoft, Google, and AWS, occupying the Innovation Agora’s new AI Hub, which displaced the hydrogen hub from prior years. That detail alone tells you something about where the energy conversation has shifted. Annual global investment in data centers reached $771 billion in 2025, nearly on par with oil and gas ($835 billion) and renewable energy ($798 billion). We are not talking about a niche technology story anymore. This is a capital story, an infrastructure story, and an energy story all at once.

The prevailing tone was uncertain; the gap between what is being announced and what can actually be delivered was the subtext of almost every conversation. Transmission takes over a decade to build. The new generation takes five to nine years. AI infrastructure moves on three-to-five-year timelines. The math doesn’t work yet, and everyone is aware.

Pitch competitions still draw crowds

The Energy Venture Day and Pitch Competition at the McKinney Balcony was one of my favorite events of the week. Seeing Greentown members on that stage never gets old, but what really energized me was the broader mix: students, new founders, and veteran entrepreneurs in one space, all talking about how what they’re building is going to impact the world. S&P Global launched the NextGen cohort with 100+ graduate students from around the country getting a front-row seat to the energy sector.

Geothermal may have stolen the show

If I had to pick the most surprising theme of my first CERAWeek, it was geothermal. It drew the most consistent endorsement of the week, with Department of Energy representatives, oil and gas majors, and operators broadly aligned on its potential. Project InnerSpace hosted a dedicated Geothermal House for the first time, launching a standardized resource classification framework with the Society of Petroleum Engineers and an XPRIZE collaboration targeting surface-plant supply chain breakthroughs. For a sector that has lived in the shadows of wind and solar for years, CERAWeek 2026 was geothermal’s time to shine.

Wow, was I impressed with Melanie Nakagawa

Melanie Nakagawa, chief sustainability officer at Microsoft, delivered an impressive keynote during her fireside chat with Brad Burke. Her depth of experience, from the U.S. Department of State and venture capital to her current role at Microsoft, was matched only by her calm, hopeful demeanor. Leaders like her at the helm of climate action inspire genuine confidence in the future.

What about hydrogen?

Hydrogen was notably absent from the main stage. The AI Hub in the Innovation Agora displaced the hydrogen hub that had been a fixture in prior years. Seems like hydrogen still plays a role, but not as quickly or broadly as hoped. Blue hydrogen is moving forward cautiously. It wasn’t gone from the conversation entirely, but it no longer commands the room.

The label problem isn’t going away

Politics continues to polarize the industry. Climatetech, sustainability, cleantech — some labels carry broad objectives, others have become tribal signals. “Energy transition” for some means a replacement of fossil fuels; for others, it means an evolution across multiple dimensions simultaneously. CERAWeek 2026 showed an industry increasingly focused not on feel-good narratives about the future of energy, but on the harder questions of security, buildout, reliability, affordability, and competitiveness. A pragmatic shift may be the best answer to the label problem.

Collaboration isn’t optional—it’s strategic

The energy transition is no longer primarily an environmental story. It has become a technology and national competitiveness story. The problems are too big for any one company, sector, or country to solve alone. From incubators and investors to utilities and hyperscalers, the message was consistent all week: move together or we don’t move. S&P Global introduced “The Bridge,” a new venue specifically for energy-tech crossover conversations: a small but meaningful signal that even the conference organizers recognize that collaboration will get us further.

The scale and the energy in the room (pun intended) are what stood out most from my first CERAWeek. The industry knows what needs to get built. The question now is whether we can work together to build it fast enough.

See you next year, CERAWeek.

---
Kelsey Kearns is director of Greentown Houston with more than a decade of experience in the technology sector. She served as director of community strategy for Greentown Houston from September 2025 to February 2026. Before that, she was director of business development for Howdy.com.

Houston nuclear startup launches at CERAWeek, plans Texas facility

going nuclear

A new nuclear energy startup launched last month during CERAWeek in the Bayou City.

FluxPoint Energy, the new Houston- and McLean, Virginia-based company, plans to develop the nation’s first new uranium conversion facility in more than 70 years, an effort CEO and founder Mike Chilton says is critical to unlocking the next phase of nuclear energy growth.

"Policymakers, utilities, and developers increasingly point to fuel availability as a limiting factor for America's nuclear reactors—both present and future," Chilton said in a news release. "Uranium conversion has become an unacceptable chokepoint in a global supply chain still dominated by foreign providers."

Chilton has held leadership roles at Pegasus-Global Holdings and GE Verona Hitachi Global Nuclear Fuels. Rodrigo Gonzalez Arbizu serves as COO and Christopher J. Rimel as chief of staff. The Board of Advisors includes energy leaders, including Jeff Lyash, John Sharp, Jane Stricker, Jennifer Skylakos, Leo Weitzenhoff and Jay Wileman.

FluxPoint’s planned facility will convert uranium oxide into uranium hexafluoride (UF6). Although FluxPoit’s new facility is still far off, the company announced it had secured a site and completed both market and feasibility studies. The specific area has not been revealed, only that it will be in Texas.

Discussions at CERAWeek revolved around securing reliable sources of uranium.

Nuclear energy production has been stagnant or even in slight decline since the 1990s. Concerns about nuclear waste and safety, as well as prohibitive costs, have kept new plants from being built, while the widespread availability of cheap natural gas has made investing in nuclear power less profitable. Many see the technology as dangerous and outdated.

However, as energy crises become more common, companies like FluxPoint are looking to restart the nuclear energy sector. The industry got a boost under the Biden Administration thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, which set goals of adding 35 gigawatts of new capacity by 2035.

Chilton participated in a panel on the best ways to ensure American nuclear plants have access to uranium, most of which is not mined in the United States.

"America cannot lead in nuclear energy while relying on foreign-controlled fuel processing," Chilton added. "FluxPoint was created to restore a critical piece of our nation's energy infrastructure—ensuring that U.S. reactors have access to a secure, domestic fuel supply. This is about energy security, economic strength, and global leadership."

View All Listings

ENERGYCAPITALHTX EMAILS ARE AWESOME