01
02
03
04Sections
The first commercial project must create a better reference class for the projects that follow. Moving from first-of-a-kind (FOAK) to nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) means turning one deployment into repeatable evidence on performance, cost, schedule, integration, demand, risk and capital structure. That work starts before project one breaks ground, with a decision about which questions project two will need answered.
If you are still placing your project on the stage ladder, start with our explainer on what FOAK means in climate tech.
A first plant is an evidence engine
A FOAK plant makes product. It also generates the only real data anyone will have on the technology at commercial scale. What the project actually cost, how long construction took, which interfaces failed, how often the system ran at design conditions and how customers behaved once deliveries began all become evidence for the next decision.
Lenders price first projects expensively because they lack a reference class, a problem we describe in why FOAK projects are hard to finance. Project one is the chance to build that reference class. If nobody defines the questions in advance, the learning scatters across contractors, operators and inboxes. The next investor receives anecdotes, project two is priced as another first-of-a-kind, and the company pays the FOAK premium twice.
What project one must record
Technical performance
Project two needs evidence that the technology performs at commercial scale. Track the variables future technical reviewers will ask about, such as throughput, yield, uptime, efficiency, reliability, degradation, product quality and energy use across the full range of operating conditions. The metrics differ by technology. The principle holds everywhere, which is that commercial performance should become inspectable.
Delivered cost and schedule
The pre-construction model and the realised cost belong to different evidence classes. Record where cost moved, whether in equipment, civil works, installation, integration, contingency, labour, permitting, financing or commissioning. Do the same for schedule. Note which tasks overran, which long-lead items controlled the timeline and where permitting or integration caused delay. A credible project-two schedule comes from project one's record. Shortening every line by optimism produces a schedule no lender will trust.
Customer acceptance and demand
The output must meet the specification customers agreed to buy, consistently. Record how often product falls off-spec, what qualification remains and what the customer had to change downstream. Customer acceptance turns technical output into commercial proof.
Record too whether buyers took their contracted volumes, where qualification slowed deliveries, which price assumptions held and what objections appeared once real product arrived. A use case that outperforms the others in practice can become the lead story for project two. The FOAK stakeholder map shows which parties will want to see that evidence and in what form.
Operations and risk events
FOAK reveals what it takes to run the system. Record how many people it needed, which skills and training, what maintenance and which parts failed. Note which tasks still depend on founder knowledge that nobody has written down. Document near misses, supplier problems and commissioning friction as well as serious incidents. Most of this stays internal, and all of it improves the risk map for the next build. NOAK becomes plausible when operation moves from heroics to process.
Separate one-off costs from repeat costs
The most useful output of a first project is a clean split between costs that belonged to being first and costs that will recur. First-time engineering, redesign during construction and the time a team spends learning a new build all belong in the first column. Equipment that must be bought for every plant, standard civil works and routine operating labour belong in the second.
That split is what lets an investor believe a cost curve. It also tells the company which parts of the design can become modules or standards and which stay site-specific. A repeatable plant need not be identical at every site. The company should know exactly where the boundary sits, because it drives engineering cost, procurement, schedule and financing terms.
What nuclear shows about the path to NOAK
Large nuclear offers a public view of how much the second build depends on the first. Georgia Power announced that Vogtle Unit 4 entered commercial operation, using Westinghouse's AP1000 design. Idaho National Laboratory then published an analysis of potential cost reduction in new nuclear deployments based on recent AP1000 experience. That report treats recent AP1000 builds as the basis for estimating the cost of future ones. The builds that have happened become the reference class for pricing the builds that follow.
The Department of Energy's Pathways to Commercial Liftoff report on advanced nuclear frames the sector's challenge in the same terms, as a push from first units towards nth-of-a-kind cost and risk. The technology is very different from a fermentation plant or a carbon removal site. The discipline transfers. Each first project either creates evidence that shortens the path to repeatable economics, or leaves the next team to relearn the same lessons at full price.
Capital structure is evidence too
Record how the first project was actually financed. Note which capital providers took which risks, which conditions were hardest to satisfy, which public or catalytic instruments made the difference and what should not need repeating. Project two may reach different forms of capital because project one now exists, and the terms it can win depend on how clearly the first financing is documented. Our piece on fundable versus financeable explains why lenders read this record so closely.
Build a FOAK evidence log
The Story System, Brighter Future's six-story framework, uses an Impact Log to keep claims tied to evidence. The same discipline works for a first plant, and it stops operational learning from turning into marketing folklore. For each important claim about project one, record these fields.
- The baseline or expectation before construction.
- The observed result.
- The source and date.
- The quality of the evidence and its limitations.
- Why it matters to project two.
- The approved external wording.
Kept from the first day of construction, the log becomes the backbone of the project-two data room and of every investor conversation that follows.
Pitch project two as a new proposition
NOAK is a direction of travel. Some technologies standardise after a handful of deployments. Site-dependent infrastructure may carry local variation for much longer. Write down the repeatability you are trying to reach, whether that is a modular unit, a standard process block or a repeatable development playbook.
If project two goes out with the same claims and the same uncertainties as project one, the first asset created too little transferable evidence. The project-two pitch should be able to say four things. Here is what was uncertain before FOAK. Here is what we now know. Here is what changed in cost, schedule, performance and demand. Here is what remains site-specific. If your current reporting cannot fill those four lines, set up the evidence log before construction starts.
For help building that evidence into an investor story, see our pitch work.
Sources and further reading
Tell us what needs to move.
Bring the brief if it is clear. If it is unclear, tell us where the work is stuck.
Bring us the problem