A Life in the Day of Maggies

I have been a Nonexec director of the Maggies cancer centre charity for about ten years now and I finally got around to visiting our centre in Swansea. We have about 20 centres around the UK and they are all different and yet all the same. They have all been designed by different architects and therefore look and feel quite different but they all have two things at their heart. Helping people affected by cancer either directly or indirectly and the cup of tea at the kitchen table. They provide an oasis of tranquility offering a range of practical, social and psychological support  and act as a contrast to the hospital institution which is usually right next door.

I was reminded forcefully of the variety of things that happen in any Maggies centre on any given day. When I walked in the place was full as the drop in Tai Chi session had just finished. Conversations were going on around the kitchen table but someone still found the time to welcome me and make me a cup of tea. It then got even busier as the another group finished. I wangled a seat at the kitchen table and chatted to some volunteers and centre users to hear about their stories and the value they get from Maggies.  The best way I can summarise what I heard was that Maggies allows people to get control back of their life and some even  say that the combined experience of cancer followed by  Maggies leaves them in a better place than before they started on a very bumpy journey. 

The centre then quietened down as another session on coping with bereavement started. That allowed some of the staff to engage in more causal conversations. The one that really struck me was the sort of conversation that shouldn't really happen but does at Maggies. It was time for the annual fire inspection;  extinguishers that sort of thing. The obligatory cup of tea was made for the guy and then he opened up. He had lost a lot of family members to cancer and a close relative was currently going through a challenging diagnosis. It was so easy and natural for him to share that and for one of our team to explain more about Maggies and how it could help him and his family. We got our certificate but he got more than he bargained for.

The next conversation involved an emergency dash for tissues so I made my excuses and chatted instead to the benefits adviser who helps people work through the financial implications of their cancer diagnosis but that was then interrupted by someone walking in looking for help and I could see the sag in the shoulders disappearing as questions were answered and pointers given. All this time one of our volunteers was greeting everyone who came in and in a very welcoming and non institutional way found out what they needed. There are no names and no numbers at Maggies, it's all about the individual. When I looked up at this point  I saw three individual conversations going on, one group session was on, as was the kettle. Just another moment in the life of a Maggies centre. 

The three S approach to uncertainty

Life seems to be getting more and more uncertain. We are being warned about a Brexit rollercoaster and the oil price, at least in percentage terms, seems to be doing a good impersonation of an elevator; up one minute, down the next. All this uncertainty makes decision-making complex , especially when they concern long-life assets.

Against this background I have been thinking about the question of energy independence. Whilst, in my opinion, this isn’t necessarily a good goal at the national or even local level in its own right, I do believe that investing to reduce one’s dependence on and exposure to both the volatility of the global energy markets and the resilience of local energy distribution systems is something to be considered.

This is where, I believe, a combination of three Ss comes in: solar, storage and software. The cost of solar panels has come down enormously over the last ten years or so but the economics still depend upon support mechanisms, partly because of the profile of solar production. That problem will always be with us and that is where storage comes in.  Installing a suitably-sized lithium ion battery in the home or office allows much more of the solar power to be used on-site and this significantly improves the economics of the whole installation. The third leg is energy management software that can optimise on-site demand (which could include decisions on when to recharge a plug in an electric vehicle), to match the availability of locally produced or stored electricity. The same software can also be used to decide when electricity should be exported and when imported from the grid, an increasing source of value as we move to time of day pricing. Finally, the same software can work out when the stored energy can be used to provide support services such as frequency response to the local grid or through aggregation to the national grid. It really is the combination of the three that makes all this work.

Investing in solar, storage and software may not mean complete energy independence but it will certainly reduce exposure to energy uncertainty and will be an increasingly good investment in its own right. We are seeing commercial offerings starting to emerge in this space and I’m sure there will be more to come.

ELEPHANTS IN ENERGY

The 'big five' describes the animals you should see on safari.  The easiest of these to spot is the elephant but for two hundred years we have used the expression 'the elephant in the room' to describe things that should be tackled but are ignored and that is what lies behind my title of ‘elephants in energy’. My big five elephants in the Scottish energy policy environment are:

 1. An integrated energy policy that combines power, heat and transport

We need an integrated energy policy that combines power, heat and transport and which applies the full force of technology and policy to all three areas with the right emphasis.  Energy efficiency should be a national infrastructure project, managed on an area by area basis, and focussed on heat. We need to look at the energy storage and network implications of increased electrification. In assessing affordability we should look at the impact on all three bills in aggregate.  I think we should make Scotland the best place in Europe to invest in and deploy home automation, energy storage and electric vehicles.

2. Put the demand side on the same footing as the supply side

We need to put the demand side on the same footing as the supply side. The existing energy trilemma of sustainability, security of supply and affordability has been hi-jacked by the supply side.  I believe we need a new energy demand trilemma which should include flexibility, meeting of needs and affordability. Flexibility needs to encompass convenience and control and reconcile whether it should be customer or industry led. Meeting of needs has to focus on actual needs without just using more energy and affordability, on the demand side, is about managing unit consumption and not unit price. I long for the day when as much time is spent demand side policy as is spent on the supply side.

3. Scotland’s renewable energy industry needs to adopt new technologies to maximise output 

The renewable energy industry in Scotland has done a great job over the past 15 years but has to accept that its golden era is over. However, it can have a successful future if it adapts quickly to new challenges. It needs to adopt new technologies to maximise output from existing assets. It has to reduce the cost of future projects in the approval, construction and operational phases. It has to think about more than just wind with tidal power and renewable heat being two promising areas.  It has to address the growing challenge of network congestion and renewable curtailment through smart network investment, embedded storage and demand side management.

4. Scotland needs an evidence-based look at smaller ‘new (modular) nuclear’ power stations

I am strongly against the Hinkley Point nuclear power station on cost, timing, size, technology, waste, ownership and need grounds.  I believe that we should not be building this enormous, expensive piece of old but curiously unproven technology. However, we should not ignore the fact that nuclear produces base load zero carbon electricity. I have recently looked at small modular nuclear reactors. They are much smaller, should be cheaper and quicker to build, are safer by design, produce less waste and decommissioning risk and represent true new nuclear. From my research I was convinced that this sort of nuclear power was worth considering and I think that, here in Scotland, we should take a fresh, independent and evidence-based look at this emerging new generation of modular nuclear power stations. The Scottish Government should set up an expert review group to look at truly new nuclear to determine if it has a place in our energy future.

5. We need to address policy inconsistency between our low carbon ambition and maximising North Sea oil and gas recovery

We have to address the inconsistency between our low carbon ambitions and maximising economic recovery of North Sea reserves. If we are to keep the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees as advocated by the scientists we can only use about one fifth of the world's known fossil fuel reserves by 2050. Squaring the circle between the fossil fuels abundance and climate change is the defining energy challenge of this century and in Scotland we cannot hide from that by simultaneously aiming for maximum economic recovery of North Sea reserves whilst taking a world leading position on reducing carbon emissions. It is not defensible to say that we can burn our reserves whilst other countries should keep theirs in the ground when we have enjoyed the fruits of carbon emissions for the last two hundred years. The North Sea challenge is really about undertaking an efficient decommissioning programme whilst managing the decline in production. If we get a successful decommissioning programme going then we will have the expertise to build an export industry which can create jobs that will survive long after North Sea production has ended.

... so, let’s have an honest and informed debate on Scottish energy policy 

I'm sure you will have your own list and I encourage you to make sure that your big energy issues are aired and addressed. Silence is not an acceptable response to the 21st energy and carbon challenges we face. My biggest single plea is that we have an honest and informed debate on Scottish energy policy. It's too important not to.

It is Better to Give than to Receive

I've read an interesting article in the Harvard Business Review by Roger Martin called M & A: The One Thing You Need to Get Right. He points out that all studies suggest that 70-90% of acquisitions end up destroying value and although the title oversells his idea, my experience does suggest there is a critical success factor that is often overlooked in our relentless focus on synergies and EDITDA multiples. In a nutshell he summarises his point as follows: "Companies that focus on what they are going to get from an acquisition are less likely to succeed than those that focus on what they have to give it".  

The article lists four areas where the acquiror can give something to its target. 

1. Be a smarter provider of capital. As an example lots of start up companies I see these days struggle to raise the finance to move their idea or project from development to deployment and their management can spend many months simply trying to raise funds whereas a larger company can generally fund these incremental projects from internal resources. 

2. Provide better managerial oversight.  I would express this as maybe wider or more experienced management rather than just better but I take the point that in some situations businesses have struggled under poor management and can be freed from that constraint.

3. Transfer valuable skills. As the article says "the skill should be critical to competitive advantage and more highly developed in the acquiror than in the acquisition". It reality this means a degree of honesty rarely found in the corporate world as you have to be completely objective on what skills you actually have and whether they are truly better than in the target. If these hurdles are meet then sensitivity is needed in handling the transfer and sensitivity is another attribute is short supply. When there is an honest assessment and a sensitive transfer then this can really create a lot of value.

4. Share valuable capabilities. In this case the sharing will probably happen in both directions with both give and take. It is certainly the case that larger companies can have capabilities, systems and assets  that smaller companies can utilise with no real increase in cost to the parent company. I also find that there is value creation in sharing networks of connections between businesses. 

I can think of examples from my corporate experience which illustrate some of these features such as the acquisition of Airtricty by SSE where the fledgling Irish energy supply business gained a lot by what SSE could bring and as a result grew tenfold in a few years. However, it also applies in the start up investment phase I now find myself involved with. Before investing I always ask myself; what can we add to this company by way of experience, connections and advice and in some cases even office space!

I guess that as in life so it is in M & A; it is better to give rather than to receive. 

Small is Beautiful

The book 'Small is Beautiful' by economist E F Schumacher was originally published at the time of the 1973 oil crisis. To quote Wikipedia "It is often used to champion small, appropriate technologies that are believed to empower people more, in contrast with phrases such as "bigger is better". I think these words could usefully be applied to the challenges facing the energy industry today when we are facing different challenges that may, with the benefit of hindsight, look like an energy crisis.

The last hundred and fifty or so years have seen the energy industry fixated with bigger is better. It has been about the larger power stations, heavier and deeper off shore platforms and bigger companies. I think this is, however, yesterday's trend. The future is smaller, more distributed and local. Here are four illustrations. 

1. More and more homes, schools and offices are fitting small solar systems and now this is frequently being combined with local storage. You can now install lithium ion batteries that are smaller than conventional gas boilers and mean that all you solar produced power can be consumed on site. These are small, personal decisions which are democratising and disrupting the big centralised electricity system.

2. The rise of unconventional oil and gas has transformed the economics of the fossil fuel industry. Regardless of the controversy around fracking one thing is clear. These wells are quicker and faster to develop than the pieces of giant industrial architecture that dominated the industry until recently and this is changing the nature of the commodity cycle and the politics of the energy industry.

3. Even the nuclear industry is being affected. If the 1600MW Hinkley Point C ever gets built I suspect it will mark the final death throes of the bigger is better mentality. The focus is now on so called small modular nuclear reactors which may be a fifth to a quarter of the size of Hinkley and stand a sporting chance of being connected with words not normally associated with nuclear power; 'on time and on budget'. 

4. The market share of the big energy suppliers has been in steep decline recently and we have seen the emergence of a range of smaller competitors with different business models as well as the growth of collective and mutual owned energy suppliers. I suspect that this trend is going to be a consistent feature of the market.

The challenge for the energy industry will be how it copes with the disruption that is bound to occur as we move from a bigger is better world to one where small is beautiful and diversity of scale is a strength. 

A Day in the Life....of Etosha National Park

Within a few minutes of entering the Etosha National Park in Namibia at sunrise we came across one of the most endangered animals in the world; the black rhino. It was a young male having his breakfast and we were close enough to hear what a noisy eater he was. We must have spent over half an hour watching him eat his way through several bushes.

When he had finished breakfast he decided it was time to cross the road and walked right in front of our vehicle, he was so close I could almost touch him. It was such a joy and a privilege to see such a majestic and rare creature.

After recovering our equilibrium we set off on the morning game drive through a landscape of every imaginable shade of brown and green with wildlife and bird life around every corner. We stopped for breakfast by a waterhole further into the park and at one point counted seven different species of animal. Gradually they started to edge towards the water and finally Impala, kudu, eland and zebra were all drinking at the same time.

And all this despite the fact that a group of male lions were sleeping under a tree only 50 or so metres away.

When we returned to the park in the afternoon we were naturally looking our for our breakfast buddy but instead of the young rhino there was an old bull elephant around the same spot. He was clearly in a grumpy mood and decided to take out his anger on a tree and as we watched he proceed to knock it over in three pushes.

We then headed to a different area where our guide thought there might be a leopard and we were in luck yet again as it was lying right by the road and waited patiently for us to take some photos before heading back into the bush. Within about five or six paces it was invisible.

After all this excitement we headed back to the waterhole where things were quieter although a giraffe was clearly in need of a good long drink.

Our guide felt this was a good time for a sundowner so out came an ice cold Windhoek lager and a gin and tonic and we were relaxing at the end of a great day when from our left what should appear but another young rhino.

He too was in need of a sundowner and was heading straight for the waterhole in front of us.  As our day had started, we had the honour of watching a rhino in its natural habit.

Our guide, Imelda, said that we had been truly blessed all day. How right she was. 

A Day in the Life....of Etosha National Park

Within a few minutes of entering the Etosha National Park in Namibia at sunrise we came across one of the most endangered animals in the world; the black rhino. It was a young male having his breakfast and we were close enough to hear what a noisy eater he was. We must have spent over half an hour watching him eat his way through several bushes.

When he had finished breakfast he decided it was time to cross the road and walked right in front of our vehicle, he was so close I could almost touch him. It was such a joy and a privilege to see such a majestic and rare creature.

After recovering our equilibrium we set off on the morning game drive through a landscape of every imaginable shade of brown and green with wildlife and bird life around every corner. We stopped for breakfast by a waterhole further into the park and at one point counted seven different species of animal. Gradually they started to edge towards the water and finally Impala, kudu, eland and zebra were all drinking at the same time.

And all this despite the fact that a group of male lions were sleeping under a tree only 50 or so metres away.

When we returned to the park in the afternoon we were naturally looking our for our breakfast buddy but instead of the young rhino there was an old bull elephant around the same spot. He was clearly in a grumpy mood and decided to take out his anger on a tree and as we watched he proceed to knock it over in three pushes.

We then headed to a different area where our guide thought there might be a leopard and we were in luck yet again as it was lying right by the road and waited patiently for us to take some photos before heading back into the bush. Within about five or six paces it was invisible.

After all this excitement we headed back to the waterhole where things were quieter although a giraffe was clearly in need of a good long drink.

Our guide felt this was a good time for a sundowner so out came an ice cold Windhoek lager and a gin and tonic and we were relaxing at the end of a great day when from our left what should appear but another young rhino.

He too was in need of a sundowner and was heading straight for the waterhole in front of us.  As our day had started, we had the honour of watching a rhino in its natural habit.

Our guide, Imelda, said that we had been truly blessed all day. How right she was. 

We need a new energy trilemma

The biggest energy policy issue facing us is not the so called energy trilemma but the different perspectives and drivers of the supply side and the demand side of energy. The demand side of energy involves decisions by millions of different people and businesses all over the country whereas there are probably only a hundred or so companies involved in the supply side. The scale of decision is also different from hundreds of pounds to hundreds of millions. Just consider your personal decision about whether to replace your gas boiler and your corporate decision about whether to replace your gas fired power station.

 

 For all these reasons and because supply side energy assets are interesting and give good photo opportunities, it dominates the policy agenda. The supply side is like a black hole which sucks all the life from the energy policy debate into it. The three issues of affordability, security of supply and sustainability are a useful framework for a policy discussion but it's invariably a supply side discussion with occasional lip service to the demand side. Electricity policy debates quickly descend into who should build what power station, using what technology, where and when.

The supply side trilemma is important. But it is only half the story. We need a demand side trilemma. I have worked with the Centre for Energy Policy at Strathclyde University and come up with some suggestions. I ask you to weigh them up and think what yours would be. Mine are:

 

1. FLEXIBILITY.

2. MEETING OF NEEDS.

3.  AFFORDABILITY.

 

I think that policy on energy demand needs to balance these three forces and policy makers have to give equal emphasis to the two trilemmas. Let me explain a bit more what I mean about each force.

FLEXIBILITY 

 

 

Firstly, flexibility. Our current energy system is actually remarkably flexible but in an oddly constrained way. When we flick the switch, the light comes on; when we turn up the thermostat, the boiler fires up; and when when we get in the car it starts. But the constraint is economic in that the cost of providing that flexibility varies enormously over the day and the year but we are completely unaware of that variable cost. For example, the cost of producing electricity can vary from effectively zero to hundreds of pounds per MWh but our tariff is fixed regardless. However, as users we still want flexibility and, in fact, we want more. We want to be able to control our central heating and lights from wherever we are. As businesses and consumers we increasingly want to be able to match our own generation with our own demand. So as a consumer I want more flexibility and more control.

 

However, it isn't that simple. The electricity industry also wants to increase flexibility and control but for its own purposes. There are two. Network operators want to use flexibility and control to manage their assets more efficiently and to avoid expensive reinforcement. Imagine if every car on the street was a plug in hybrid and they all plugged in at the same time. The local substation fuses would blow and the street would be plunged into darkness until an engineer arrived to fix the fuses and switch the circuits back on, when they would all blow again. This is why network operators are exploring what they call smart grids. They want to know what's happening on a real time basis and try and create flexibility in demand. But their needs may be different than the other bit of the electricty industry; the supply side.

 

The supply side, in both its generation and retail forms, wants to make sure that demand knows the economic cost of the choices it makes, which means much more flexible pricing than we are used to. The industry jargon is time of day pricing but what that really means is that you will pay a variable amount for your energy depending on its cost of production. This bit of the industry wants you to run your dishwasher when it's windy, charge your car when it's sunny and sit in the dark when it's a still, clear night!!  The better the price signals, the more efficient the despatch of generation and the lower the overall cost. 

 

From this brief description you can see how these three demands for flexibility and control can pull in different directions. The network wants you to delay charging your electric car, the generator wants you to charge it now and you want to know how much the different choices will cost and then make your own decision. Demand side policy has to address this flexibility trilemma but there are two other factors. 

 

 

MEETING OF NEEDS.

 

 

I don't know about you but I don't actually want a kWh of electricity or a therm of gas and can't actually visualise what they are. What I want is my phone charged, my lights on, my house warm and my shower hot. The trouble is that I don't directly pay for these things or know how much they cost, I just get an estimated bill covering a few months. Smart metering will clearly help but I still won't know what I'm spending money on, just when I'm spending it. Because we don't know what is happening we overcompensate by using more energy that we need to make 100% sure that our needs are meet. The setting of central heating time clocks is the best example here. I wonder what percentage of time your heating will be on this month when no one is at home? Demand side policy needs to put actual needs in the foreground, not consumption. 

 

 

 

AFFORDABILITY 

 

 

The third leg of the demand side trilemma is the same is for supply; AFFORDABILITY; but this time with a difference. The supply side addresses the unit cost of energy but the demand side looks at unit consumption. One times the other gives you your bill!! This is often referred to as energy efficiency and that is a key part of making energy affordable but we mustn't simply be wasting energy more efficiently. It's no good if my car has a good fuel efficiency if I drive it when I should be using video conferencing.

 

In looking at the affordability of energy it will be increasingly important to look at the three bills; power, heat and fuel in aggregate. If I switch to an electric car my power bill goes up but that doesn't mean I'm more likely to be in fuel poverty as I'm saving even more at the petrol pump. For most people the cost of filling their car each year is about the same as their annual power and gas bill combined, so let's start looking at all three together.

CONCLUSION

The two energy trilemmas need to sit along side each other in the policy debate and be given equal weight. We also need to recognise that the two sides of the energy industry are fully interconnected and when a lever is pulled on one side it has consequences on the other. Policy makers, and those who seek to influence them, need to be aware of this full picture as an over aggressive focus on one trilemma or a point on a trilemma will only be counterproductive and potentially damaging. The biggest shift we need is to remember the demand side.  On the supply side policy makers and indeed engineers often like big “binary solutions” like nuclear/carbon capture etc and this centrallised supply side thinking needs to change. We have seen the democratisation of intelligence in the computer industry from large mainframes through PCs to smart phones. The same needs to happen in energy and I believe that a new demand trilemma of flexibility, meeting of needs and affordability should help to achieve that refocus. 

 

Renewable energy: an uncomfortable position

I have been having a look at how the UK is doing against its EU renewable energy targets. These set us a target of having 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020. The Government would have us believe that all is well. It's most recent report (published last month) took great delight in saying that we comfortably met the interim target up to 2013/14. But is that really the right measure?. Interim targets are just that; interim, and it's always tempting for them to be made easy to push trouble down the road to someone else's term of office. So let's look at where we actually are in term of our final target, against the rest of Europe and against long term requirements.  As you might expect, this gives a far from rosy picture.

Firstly, let's look at how we have done. The baseline for the new targets was 2004 and in that year we achieved a pathetic 1.2% of energy from renewables. After ten years and by 2014 it was 7%. Some simple maths puts this into context. We needed an increase of 13.8% in 16 years and we have managed 5.8% in ten years. In over 60% of the time we have managed 42% of the target. If we carry on at the same rate we will only hit 10.5% from renewables. In fact according to leaked internal government correspondence they privately think we may only get to 11.5%. I have seen some analysis looking sector by sector and technology by technology which gives a range of 10% to 11.5%. That doesn't look at all comfortable.

Secondly, let's see if the international picture gives any comfort. The EU actually has an overall renewable energy target of 20% and has agreed country by country targets within this, with the U.K having a lower than average figure of 15%. The EU have recently published a progress report and nine countries have already achieved their final target (no interim target nonsense for them) and we are third furthest away from the end goal (only France and the Netherlands are further away). Despite the government's trumpeting, our 7% only ranks us 24th out of 27th. Outside of Europe we are behind most other countries including Canada, Mexico, Switerland and even the US. We are level with Australia and ahead of Japan and Russia. Being near the bottom of international league tables doesn't feel comfortable.

Thirdly let's think about where we are against the long term.  I hear DECC ministers talking gleefully about the deal they secured in Paris. Leaving aside the UK's role in securing anything, by 2020 we will be one third of the way from 2004 to the 2050 deadline by which time the global leaders expect the energy industry to be largely carbon free. I can't see how that can be achieved without renewables contributing over 50% to the energy mix and at current rate of progress, even if its maintained for another 34 years, suggests we will only get to around a quarter. So the long term doesn't provide much comfort either.

So all three perspectives feel uncomfortable and whilst progress in 2015 may be quite good this was  before the current Government's attacks on onshore wind and solar. 

One final bit of analysis. It is possible to turn the UK's likely shortfall into the electricity output measures of TWhours. On this basis the shortfall will be between 50 and 70Twh. (To provide context, the UK annual electricty demand is usually just over 300Twh ). There are obviously choices as to how they the gap could be filled but the UK government has ruled out using more onshore wind and solar and expects to boost heat and offshore wind. Given the UKs track record on heat (in 2014 we were bottom of the heat pile in Europe) I'm not optimistic and offshore wind, although it's getting cheaper, will always be more expensive than onshore. I've calculated that for every 1GW of onshore wind that isn't built but is replaced by offshore wind will cost the UK £100m every year ( that's 2.5Twh of output at a £40 per MWh cost differential). There's probably another 6 to 10GW that could be built so the total cost could get to as high as a billion a year. 

So we aren't in a comfortable position at all, however, you look at it and we seem to be making things more expensive and difficult than they need to be. A classic case of not accepting the short term headlines!