Element 16 Technologies has been working on the same problem for nearly a decade: how to bottle industrial heat. The answer, according to the California startup, is sulfur. Not the stuff of matches and volcanoes, but molten sulfur, flowing through tanks, quietly holding onto the sun’s energy until a factory needs steam.
It is a patient, capital-intensive bet on a niche that most energy storage companies fly right past. While lithium-ion batteries chase electrons, Element 16 is after therms. Its target is the industrial boiler, a piece of equipment that burns natural gas around the clock to produce the process heat and steam that makes everything from chemicals to canned soup. The company’s pitch is simple. Use cheap, midday solar power to heat up liquid sulfur. Then, when the sun sets and electricity prices spike, tap that stored heat to make steam, displacing expensive, carbon-intensive gas. The unit economics, they argue, write themselves.
A wedge of molten sulfur
The technology is a direct academic descendant. The core research came out of UCLA’s Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering department, where co-founder and scientific adviser Richard Wirz is a professor [UCLA Samueli School of Engineering, August 2017]. The system is designed as a drop-in replacement for conventional molten-salt or thermal-oil storage, but using sulfur for its high energy density and, critically, its low cost [Element 16].
Element 16’s commercial wedge is intentionally narrow. It is not trying to store electricity for the grid. Instead, it is selling thermal batteries to industrial facilities and flexible power plants that need dispatchable heat or steam [Start Up Energy Transition]. This focus on process heat, a sector responsible for roughly half of all industrial energy use, lets the company sidestep the brutal cost-per-kilowatt-hour wars of the grid battery market. Their competition is not Tesla; it is the natural gas meter.
Funding through grants, not venture rounds
Element 16’s financial history reads more like a research lab’s grant ledger than a typical venture-backed startup’s cap table. Public records show a consistent thread of non-dilutive funding, primarily from state and federal energy bodies.
The company’s trajectory has been supported by a series of grants, with the most recent comprehensive report indicating secured funding of over $6 million for research, development, and commercialization [California Energy Commission, 2025].
2017 CEC Grant | 1.5 | M USD
2022 Grant | 1 | M USD
2025 Total Funding | 6 | M USD
This grant-heavy path is a double-edged sword. It has allowed the team, led by CEO Parker Wells and CTO Hamarz Aryafar, to develop the technology without significant equity dilution. Aryafar himself led a separate, successful demonstration of a thermochemical hydrogen storage technology backed by a $1.6 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy’s ARPA-E program [The Org]. But it also means the company’s progression toward commercial scale has been measured in years, not the frantic quarters of a software startup. Public databases have struggled to pin down a single, clean narrative, with total capital figures varying widely [PitchBook].
The first commercial signal
The most promising signal for Element 16’s commercial future is not a grant, but a customer contract. According to a 2025 California Energy Commission report, the company was paid approximately $500,000 by a large, unnamed industrial chemical processor to design a sulfur thermal-energy-storage system [California Energy Commission, 2025].
This is the crucial pivot from lab demonstration to engineered solution. A design contract implies a specific site, with real flow rates, temperature requirements, and integration challenges. It is the first step toward a paid pilot, and eventually, a recurring revenue stream from equipment sales and long-term service. For a hardware climate tech company, this is the traction that matters more than any social media follower count.
Where the temperature could drop
The path from a design contract to a fleet of operating systems is long, expensive, and littered with technical and commercial risks. Element 16’s bet rests on several assumptions holding true.
- The durability question. Sulfur is corrosive. The system’s tanks, pumps, and heat exchangers must withstand years of cycling with a molten, aggressive medium at high temperatures. Laboratory success must translate into a 20-year field lifespan with minimal maintenance to hit the promised levelized cost of heat.
- The scaling math. Grant funding can prove a technology, but building and installing multi-megawatt thermal storage systems requires project finance. The company will need to convince not just plant engineers, but CFOs and banks, that its performance guarantees are bankable. The jump from a $500k design fee to a $50 million project is a chasm.
- The incumbent’s inertia. A natural gas boiler is a known, reliable entity. For a plant manager whose bonus depends on uptime, swapping it for a novel thermal battery is a career-risk calculation. Element 16 must become not just cheaper, but boringly reliable.
The company’s answer to these risks is its academic rigor and phased approach. The technology has been under development since 2016, and the team’s deep roots in UCLA’s engineering school provide a foundation of technical credibility. The design contract is the first proof that an industrial buyer sees potential value beyond the lab.
The next twelve months
For Element 16, the immediate future is about converting that first design into a physical installation. The next milestone to watch for is an announcement of a pilot system at a commercial site, likely the chemical processor already engaged. Success there would trigger the need for a significant institutional round,Series A or project finance,to fund manufacturing capacity and a sales pipeline.
On the back of an envelope, the potential is stark. A single mid-sized industrial boiler might consume 10,000 MMBtu of natural gas per month. At a conservative $8 per MMBtu, that’s $80,000 monthly, or nearly a million dollars a year, going up in smoke and CO2. If a sulfur battery can displace even 70% of that, the payback period for the capital equipment starts to look compelling to any operations director staring down a carbon tax or corporate sustainability target.
Element 16 is not trying to beat the flashy grid-scale battery companies on their own turf. It is aiming at a quieter, dirtier, and more stubborn incumbent: the industrial gas boiler. If their tanks of molten sulfur can hold the line, they won’t just be storing heat. They’ll be storing value.
Sources
- [Element 16] About Us | https://element16.com/about-us
- [UCLA Samueli School of Engineering, August 2017] MAE-spinoff cleantech startup, Element 16, wins $1.5M grant to demonstrate a new approach to heat energy storage | https://www.mae.ucla.edu/mae-spinoff-cleantech-startup-element-16-wins-1-5m-grant-to-demonstrate-a-new-approach-to-heat-energy-storage/
- [Start Up Energy Transition] Element 16 Technologies, Inc. - Start Up Energy Transition | https://www.startup-energy-transition.com/set100-database/element-16-technologies/
- [California Energy Commission, 2025] California Energy Commission report | https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/CEC-500-2025-006.pdf
- [The Org] Hamarz Aryafar profile | https://www.theorg.com/people/hamarz-aryafar
- [PitchBook] Element 16 Technologies 2026 Company Profile: Valuation, Funding & Investors | https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/185055-58