THE SIX NATIONS OF EFFICIENCY

To survive in the hostile business environment one key issue that many ignore is the need to be efficient. I have come up with my 6 ATIONS process (yes a shameful rip off of the 6 nations but never mind).

1. ELIMINATION. Businesses need to stop doing stuff that adds no value or is little more than a pet project.

2. PRIORITISATION. We often try to do too much and are not as clear as we should be on what really matters.

3. RATIONALISATION. Businesses should only be doing things once but it's amazing how often that isn't the case. 

4. CO-ORDINATION. If you have to do things in more than one place or business area then you  have to better at working together.

5. SIMPLIFICATION. We shouldn't over complicate things or slow them down with unnecessary bureaucracy. The larger the business, the more there is a risk of over-complication. 

6. AUTOMATION. Businesses shouldn't be frightened of technology solutions but only after they've been through the first 5 steps. 

The most important thing is to take these steps in order and not rush to automation.  

ALL I NEED IS THE AIR THAT I BREATHE

These days all we hear about is post truth, alternative facts and fake news. These are all symptoms of a breakdown in trust throughout society. We don't actually realise how important trust is to our modern way of life. Whenever we buy or use something we are placing a high level of implicit trust in the whole supply chain that led to the product in our hand. Even when we sit down we are trusting that an unknown furniture maker did a good job on our chair. As Warren Buffet said “trust is like the air we breathe, nobody really notices, but when it's absent, everybody notices”. 

Businesses obviously need to earn the trust of their customers and we see lots of examples where that trust is forfeited. However, what interests me is that within organisations there also needs to be a high levels of trust. I was reminded of this by an article in the latest edition of the Harvard Business Review by Paul Zak.  In it he says “that building a culture of trust is what makes a meaningful difference. Employees in high trust organisations are more productive, have more energy at work, collaborate better with their colleagues, and stay longer with their employers longer than people working at low trust companies"

I am particularly interested in what organisations can do to increase internal levels of trust. The article I just mentioned lists eight things including recognise excellence, give people discretion in how they do their work and induce challenge stress. This got me thinking about my version of the eight things that organisations and their leaders can do to build internal trust. Some are similar to those in the article and some are quite different but they are all based on my experience, both good and bad. Here they are.

1. Understand each other. All to often we dive into tasks and projects without really understanding the motivation and character of our colleagues. This doesn’t need to be a lengthy process but time spent early on in building confidence in each other is rarely wasted. One simple question I've used with a new team is to ask everyone to say if they had the chance, what Olympic sport they would represent their country at. 

2. Build on shared values and purpose. I believe all organisations should be clear about why they exist and what values they aspire to. If these key foundation stones are in place then it is easier to build trust. 

3. If in doubt, communicate. All too often trust is undermined by rumours or leadership trying to ignore difficult issues. Frequent communication that is both transparent and authentic and that tackles the good and the bad is a key component of a high trust organisation.

4. Working on shared challenges. If you look back I think you will find that you trust those people who you have worked with on challenging projects and tasks. That embedded trust lasts for years and years even if you don't see the team very often. If you want to build trust going forward then give people challenging but achievable tasks they can work on together. 

5. Build a shared history and stories. When we are with old friends we often remind each other of stories in our shared past. Organisations are no different. I remember when over 400 colleagues from all over the country  took part in the Maggies Bike and hike in the Highlands.  The many stories from that single event were told for years after.

6. Deliver on commitments.  Management and leaders have to do what they say they will and delivery needs to be real not cosmetic. As commitments are made and delivered on then trust builds. This may seem obvious but still needs saying. 

7. Celebrate and share success. Good news does tend to get well publicised in organisations but don't forget the small and hidden successes and make sure that credit is liberally shared around. As one of my favourite quotes from Lyndon B Johnson goes “you can achieve whatever you want as long as you don't mind who gets the credit” 

8. The tone at the top matters. If the board and senior leadership of an organisation don't trust each other and don't demonstrate that in their dealings with the whole organisation that message soon spreads. 

So those are my eight tips for building trust within an organisation. They aren't rocket science and in many respects are obvious but I believe that building trust in our complex organisations requires conscious effort and common sense otherwise we will find our selves short of breathe to use Warren Buffet’s analogy. 

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!

We don't want energy storage

Claiming that we don't want energy storage seems like a provocative thing to say. For example the Energy Institute's 2015 barometer, a survey of professionals in the energy industry, rated storage as the area most in need of innovation. My point isn't that energy storage isn't important; it is. My point is that, of itself, it's not something we actually want. You don't hear people say that what they want for Christmas is just some simple energy storage along with some socks and a chocolate orange!! In thinking about the technicalities of energy storage we should first think about what we actually want and I believe we want two things; RESILIENCE and FLEXIBILITY.

Let me illustrate with the energy storage that most of us are familiar with, even if we don't recognise it as such; the fuel in the tank of our car! The typical fuel tank holds 50 to 60 litres of fuel that gives us both instant flexibility even on a cold morning (modern cars start so good at starting nowadays!) and a couple of weeks worth of resilience assuming average mileage. Indeed, if we knew there was a supply crunch most of us could probably stretch that full tank for a month or so by car sharing, using public transport and the like.

So that unseen energy storage which comes free when you buy a car and only ties up £50 to £60 in fuel gives us a lot of resilience and flexibility in our mobility. The energy system that has evolved over the last hundred years or so has embedded within it quite a lot of hidden resilience and flexibility. As well as our car fuel tanks we have petrol and diesel at filling stations and tank farms, we have piles of coal at our diminishing number of coal fired powers stations and we have natural gas in the network of pipes (the jargon for this is linepack), in dedicated storage facilities like Rough and Hornsea and offshore where at some fields production can be ramped up quite quickly. 

However, the energy world is changing. We need to decarbonise our electricity system and then the rest of our energy system. This second stage is likely to increase the role of electricity in meeting our heating and transport needs. The problems are that firstly our current electricity system only has embedded in it the resilience and flexibility that the current uses of electricity need and secondly what little already exists is in decline principally as old coal stations shut.  This is exacerbated by the fact that  low carbon forms of energy, be they renewables, nuclear or clean fossil fuels, are not currently known for their inherent flexibility or resilience. So we will be faced with less of what we need just when we start needing more. What will happen when our electric car battery needs to be recharged at the same time as our heat pump needs to work and we want all our lights and gadgets to function but it's a still calm night?

This is the reason why so many energy professionals put energy storage at the top of their innovation agenda. In deciding on where that innovation should be targeted we need to think about what level in the electricity system we can best provide resilience and flexibility. There are four possible levels, the source of demand (our home for example), the local area (think of the transformer at the end of your street), the generator itself or the grid as a whole. The answer may be a combination of all four levels and, importantly, may be different for resilience than it is for flexibility. It will be determined by things like economies of scale, the efficiency of sharing the capabilities with others (we don't all need to meet our own maximum flexibility, if we can pool with others the flexibility needs of the system will be less than the sum of all the indivdual needs) and the value of providing security close to demand. I have a hunch that the answer may involve local or even domestic level resilience but generator or grid level flexibility but time will tell.

Debate about energy storage tends to get dominated, right from the start, about technology be it batteries, phase change material or pumped storage hydro. However, we need to separately assess our current and future needs for resilience and flexibility, then decide at what level in the system that need can be most efficiently meet and only then determine the choice of technology. We have to put needs before technology. 

The Marchant 3i theory of Innovation

As we face the seismic shifts arising from climate change, demographic forces and the digital revolution the key to future well being will be innovation. This is true for individuals, organisations, businesses and indeed whole countries. There are lots of theories about innovation and what is needed to create an innovative environment but I thought I would add my own fairly simple theory which I have and continue to use to guide my approach to new ideas. 

I believe that any new idea or innovation has to go through 3i stages.

STAGE 1. INVENTION

Everything that is new starts with a spark that comes from a moment of inspiration or as a result of years of hard work. I call this the invention stage and it can occur as part of a plan, such as in a university or a man in a shed,  or it can be the result of serendipity or pure chance. However, some people are naturally good at coming up with new ideas. For example, in the case of one colleague I had to restrict them to 'an idea of the week' as they seemed to have a new idea every time I saw them. Inventors need to be nurtured and encouraged but this spark is not enough for true innovation.

STAGE 2. IMPROVEMENT 

Most inventions do not emerge fully formed but need to be worked on, tweaked and improved. I fall into this category. I can't help but take an idea and try and connect it with other ideas, look for other applications where it could be used or add features or functions to improve its value. I suspect that many leaders and managers fit this mould and indeed someone senior to the inventor may see connections, applications and features that the original inventor isn't aware of. But an improved invention is still just an idea.

STAGE 3 IMPLEMENTATION

It is obvious but surprisingly often overlooked that a good idea actually needs to deployed and rolled out and that requires implementation skills. Tablet computers would have been a concept in science fiction if Apple and the like hadn't manufactured, distributed and sold actual products. Implementation requires more tenacity and endurance than the first two steps and is all too often forgotten.

So three simple steps which I can remember because they all begin with the same letter. My experience is that most people are naturally stronger in one of the three area,  as I said I'm an improver, and the key to creating an innovative environment is to connect different people with the three strengths. This can apply in all walks of life not just business; there can be innovative schools, churches and the like but I believe that they all need these three stages to actual ally lead to an implemented, improved invention. 

Hinkley Point. 10 things I hate about you

The potential new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point seems to be edging closer to starting construction. I feel that I should record my views now so they can be examined by historians when the plant starts producing electricity. I have been inspired by a film title from 1999.

So what are my ten things.

1. PRICE

The headlines keep saying that will be paying £92.50 per MWh for the power from Hinkley but that is in 2012 prices and shows the PR skills of the nuclear industry. It was out of date when it was published and now after nearly four years it must be around £100MWh. That's more than double the current wholesale power price, nearly a third above the cost onshore wind (which the government hates) and is more than any other country seems to be paying for nuclear power. What's not to hate about this.

2. DELIVERY DATE

I remember being told by the CEO of EDF in the UK that I would be able to cook my Christmas dinner in 2017 with power from a new nuclear station. I'm not that keen on Brussels sprouts but certainly not ones that have been waiting to be cooked for many many years. The latest date I've heard is 2025 for first power but I suspect this is just a guess. Put it another way. It's not going to make a difference to the UKs current security of supply crunch.

3. DURATION

When the plant does eventually come on line we will then be forced to pay the inflated price for a total of 35 years which by my reckoning could be over £120Mwh at the start and by 2060 it will be about £200Mwh. We are being forced to take a 45 year bet on energy prices 

4. TECHNOLOGY 

My issue isn't with nuclear power itself, it is that we have chosen to build a technology that is based on 20th century ideas and which isn't exactly problem free. The first two stations of this variety being built in Finland and France are so late and over budget they make public sector projects look well run!

5. SIZE

The new units at Hinkley Point will be 1600MW each which to put into context is four times the size of one of the large coal units or a modern single Gas fired plant. It's 33% bigger than anything else on our electricity system which will cause the network operator some issues and therefore cost in making available sufficient back up reserve. It is interesting to note that the only real time that the transmission network struggled to maintain supply was when the current biggest power station failed.

6. OWNERSHIP

It is a point of note that after leading the world in electricity privatisation we are dependent on the largely state owned EDF and a wholly state owned Chinese company to build this station.

7. WASTE

When I challenged the Government's pursuit of new nuclear build 7 or 8 years ago, in response to one of my questions, I was assured that before we decided on any new plant we would have made the key decisions on handling our existing stockpile of radioactive material. I know proponents say that new nuclear doesn't generate that much waste but surely we shouldn't dig the hole a little deeper before we know what we are doing with the hole. And that metaphor illustrates the problem. We don't know where the hole is going to be and show no signs of making that decision.

8. TRANSPARENCY 

The deals being done to get this plant built will be extremely complex and impenetrable to all but the most expert of energy anoraks. For example, I understand that the contract to deal with the power price and output ( a so called CFD) is over 400 pages long and has never been subject to independent scrutiny and who knows what the terms of the 'sweetheart' financing deal that was done to get the Chinese on board. I do wonder what devil lies in the detail.

9. DECOMMISSIONING 

Whilst it is many years in the future and therefore conveniently ignored currently, at some point the mass of irradiated steel and concrete will need to be made safe. Unlike most other energy production facilities this is not a quick or low risk process and I am concerned that we aren't adequately pricing this future risk (or indeed the risk of an incident during the stations life).

10.  NEED

And finally, do we actually need it? In one sense you can argue that we do to reduce our carbon emissions but there is another perspective. The relentless drive for a new nuclear power station started back in 2006 when experts felt that peak electricity demand in 2015 would be around 65GW (that's a total of 40 Hinkley units for example). A combination of energy efficiency and economic drivers means that actual peak demand this year will only be 55GW (about six Hinkleys less) so even if we needed it then do we need it now?

I may not have convinced you on all ten points but the charge sheet is long and surely a guilty verdict on a few should be enough to make us think again. 

I firmly believe that we should not be building this enormous, expensive piece of old but curiously unproven technology but should pursue the emerging new generation of modular nuclear power stations that will, I believe be deployable in the new few years or so and will be quicker and cheaper to build at a scale that is appropriate to our electricity system. So it's not nuclear power that I hate; its this nuclear power. 

The Marchant theory of investing

Some of us, especially those in the 'second curve' of their careers, are fortunate to have two things they can invest: time and money. I have included both as they are both scarce resources and need to be thought about carefully. I have developed my own theory about investment which applies to both time and money. It draws on the triple bottom line theory which is usual applied to companies and governments but can, I believe, be adapted for personal use too. So what are my three criteria?

1. ECONOMIC 

This is the obvious one but it still worth thinking about. In deciding on the required rate of return on an investment, or indeed on the level of remuneration for a job it is important to think about the real risk attached to the income both in terms of fluctuations in levels, it's durability and any reputational risk that could come from being associated with an organisation. These factors generally explain why people look at investments from a portfolio point of view. So far, all predictable. The interesting part comes from looking at the trade off between an economic return and my next two criteria.

2. IMPACT

We all want to feel that what we do makes a difference and this applies to our use of time and how we invest and spend our money. This impact could be at the organisational level or societal. Let me explain. If you invest in small start up companies, as I have done, you can see clear direct impact through increased employment, product development and positive change in markets. If you give to a charity then you can see societal impacts such as the roll out of solar lights in Africa or increased activity at cancer centres. In many cases you can see both organisational and societal impact and of course there are potential negative impacts which gives rise to things like ethical investment funds or disinvestment movements. I find it helpful to be clear what impacts I would like to help develop and increase and those which I would want avoid and use this as a screen for my use of time and money.

3. INTEREST

I have come to realise the importance of being clear what activities you enjoy and therefore look forward to and those which you don't. I realise this is a luxury and am incredible lucky to be able to pick and choose what I do but I do think that many people in the latter stages of their careers can actively take this into account. It does involve being clear about what interests you and two tests I apply are; do I look forward to doing it and secondly, am I learning from the experience. This second point is really important. I am a big fan of the importance of continuing to learn and stretching yourself. I even came across a psychological term for this used by Carol Dweck, apparently it's called a 'growth mindset'. Education doesn't stop at leaving school or university and experience doesn't stop on leaving an executive career.

If I take these three criteria they can be applied to different types of 'investment'. I will explain three classic ones and then look at new one to me that hits all three criteria. Firstly, investing in quoted shares is primarily an economic decision although I believe that having a societal impact screen is also important, even if it's only a decision on what not to invest in. Secondly, support of charities obviously scores highly on the impact scale but I also think that it is important that you support charities that interest you and where your time or money can make a real impact on the cause. Thirdly, investing in start up companies (so called Angel investing) whilst primarily driven by a hope of an economic return is usually guided by the level of interest in the business area and technology of the new company and an assessment of the impact your investment and mentoring can have. This explains why over three quarters of the investments I have made are in the energy related space.

And so to the new 'investment' opportunity I have recently come across: support of social enterprises. These are organisations that are using business principles to maximise social impact rather than maximise profit. They are often called not for profit but an alternative way to look at it not for loss too.

Under a new government scheme there is tax relief for loans to some of these organisations which means that all three of my criteria can be met; a modest economic return for an impact on an organisation and an issue facing society in an market or place that interests you. What's not to like. I have just closed my first such 'investment' in a community bakery and hope to do more.

The real trick is to look across the portfolio of your investment in time and money and make sure there is a balance between all three criteria; economic, impact and interest so that personally your are achieving a good triple bottom line. 

An Energy Tipping Point

I have been thinking about the long term themes that are driving the UK electricity industry and started by looking back over the last thirty years and then considering what things might look like in thirty years time. I have identified six themes.

1. BIG TO SMALL.

Thirty years ago and indeed until a few years ago our electricity was produced by around 100 large plants, each one of which consisted of a few units of 400MW+. Now there are over half a million small electricity producers ranging from community wind turbines to roof top wind turbines along side a decreasing number of older, large ones. This trend will, I believe, inevitably continue as the developer of any new house, office or factory will be looking to include on site generation. In 30 years time we will have millions of mini power stations.

2. CENTRALLISED TO DISTRIBUTED.

One consequence of the industrial scale of our power plants is that the electricity system became incredibly centralised. A classic example was the concentration of power stations along the so called megawatt valley in Yorkshire. As a result control of scheduling and dispatch was concentrated in initial three, and now one, control room full of smart engineers. This will change as the whole electricity network shifts from an analogue mode to a digital one. The network of 30 years time will be multidirectional, self healing and fully distributed. The smart engineers will be replaced by a smart network. 

3. CARBON TO SILICON.

The industrial era electricity was successfully built on carbon, initially coal and latterly gas. This was largely completed before we realised the long term consequences of CO2 emissions and the link to climate change. The energy industry has been one of the major beneficiaries of the lack of a price of carbon. But this is changing. In the UK we are very very unlikely to see any new coal fired power stations built unless they have carbon capture technology fitted and the pace of new gas stations has slowed to a trickle. Renewables have filled the gap supplying 25.3% of our electricity in the second quarter of this year. The biggest shift in the very recent last has been the rise in solar where capicity is already over 8GW (that's twice the capacity of our largest coal station, Drax). The trend in solar panel prices and advances in technologies like this film solar suggest we are heading into the silicon age. 

4. SUPPLY TO DEMAND 

Energy policy, investment and technology has been focussed on the supply side of the industry. What shall we build, how and where? However, all the disruptive change is now happening on the demand side with home automation, energy management systems and active demand all figuring highly in the new business start up arena. More and more customers, be they large property owning landlords or owner occupiers, are now getting engaged with their energy demands. The new questions will be what  energy do I need, how will I manage it and where should I get it from. When customers take charge of an industry, Revolution happens. 

5. PRODUCTION TO STORAGE

The twentieth century electricity system used flexible production to manage the peaks and troughs of demand. This has lead to demand for services like spinning reserve and stand by generation. These use energy to be ready to supply energy which has always seem a bit odd. This production centric view also leads to the bizarre situation of effectively free marginal cost energy being wasted (wind farms and solar panels being left idle when demand is low). Now one of the biggest areas of energy research is in storage including batteries, phase change materials and physical storage systems. Storage can be at the home level, at the neighbourhood level or connected to the grid. 

6. PETROL TO ELECTRIC 

The internal combustion engine has revolutionised personal transport and petrol and diesel have dominated vehicle fuel. However, we are seeing more and more car manufacturers are releasing all electric and hybrid cars. They are clean, quiet and fast and the range is steadily increasing, especially in the hybrid mode. I now drive a BMW i3 around town and suspect that more and more city cars will be electric.

I believe that, right now, we are at the tipping point in all these themes and realised that a picture could paint a thousand words.

Why do I think it's a tipping point. Mainly because all of theses themes have becoming increasingly clear over the last few years and the changes in digital technology and  awareness of climate change are respectively an enabler and a driver of change. After ten years or so of fits and starts all these themes seem to be gathering pace and are chipping away at the forces of inertia that the old forces have built up. Exact tipping points can only been seen clearly in the rear view mirror but it does feel that, taking the long term view, the future will be a lot different than the past. 

The Future and how to survive it

As part of my monthly reading I catch up with the Harvard Business review and this month I found an article 'The Future and how to Survive it, by Richard Dobbs, Tim Koller and Sree Ramaswamy really interesting. Whilst is it focussed on big macro themes and the long term prospects of large multinational companies I think the responses they outline are equally valid for companies of all sizes so I thought I would set them out. 

1. BE PARANOID. Companies of all sizes tend to focussed internally or on their home market. However, current and future competitors frequently play by different rules. A lesson I have learned is never underestimate your competitor. Assume they are behaving rationally and know what they are doing. Assume they will get their act together quickly and will exploit your weaknesses like you try and exploit theirs.

2. SEEK OUT PATIENT CAPITAL.  My version of this is to make sure you focus on what sort of investor you want as not all money is equal. If your vision is to build a great company over ten years or so then don't get investment from a fund with a three to five year exit horizon. If you want to target capital growth then don't promise a running yield. If you want expertise as well as money seek out the people and funds that can give you the advice you need.

3. RADICALLY SELF-DISRUPT.  To quote "in this era of technology disruption, companies need to be willing to disrupt themselves before others do it to them". Large companies with legacy assets and vested interests find this difficult but small companies can be too wedded to their first idea or product when the market is saying it wants something different. 

4. BUILD NEW INTELLECTUAL ASSETS. Again a quote from the article to illustrate. "Half the world's most valuable brands are in idea intensive sectors......assets such as data, alogorithims and software are also becoming more valuable" I would add assets such as business model innovation, insight on customer behaviour and contact networks.

5. GO TO WAR FOR TALENT. This is true for businesses of all sizes and will lead to radical changes in organisational structures and patterns of working. Two specifics spring to mind. Firstly many small businesses suffer from a shortage of hard sales skills and should prioritise sorting this quickly. Secondly, as a society we need to get better at using the knowledge and experience of people engaged on their 'second career'. We will want or need to stay economically active for longer but business needs to think about how it uses people as they wind down their careers. We have graduate programmes and mentorships for the 20+ year olds. What do we need for the 60+ and 70+ people?

As the article concludes 'vigilance, agility and optimism have always been prized assets of successful companies' to which I would add innovation and forward planning. The future may be challenging but challenging is what brings out the best in the best businesses. 

Restless disposition in energy policy

In preparing for a conference on energy policy I came across this quote from Walter Bagehot. "If you keep altering your house, it is sign either that you have a bad house, or that you have an excessively restless disposition- there is something wrong somewhere" As a constitutional expert he was talking about the problems of Government in the 1800s but his comment is so true today. It was the phrase 'restless disposition' that caught my eye, as it is theme that Professor Anthony King uses in his book 'Who governs Britain' to describe one of the problems with 21sr century politics. All new minsters want to make an impact; want to be seen to be doing things; want to make announcements that attract headlines. They are always in a hurry. 

Energy policy has been a notable victim of this syndrome. This century we have already had 9 Ministers with cabinet responsibility for energy (counting both DECC and the various forerunners to The Department for Business). It's even worse at Minster of State level where we are on number 14. All this change means that the new minister who arrives with a restless disposition is also in a tearing hurry as they only have one to two years to make their impact; less time than it takes to build any assets in the energy industry. This timescale precludes thoughtful consideration, proper consultation and assessment of the impact of any change on the whole energy system before action and completely rules out any learning from the results of previous activity. The civil service used to act as the brakeman to the ministerial Bobsleigh but senior officials change almost as often as Ministers and rarely build up expertise in one policy area seeming to need to switch departments to get promotion. It is no wonder that we have such a patchwork of interventions and plethora of changes and amendments and no wonder that we do not have a joined up, robust energy policy. We are getting what the politicos system is designed to produce- 'something wrong' to quote Bagehot. 

If we are to have a thought through, robust and enduring energy policy we need a fundamental change to the governance and political arrangements that determine this policy. The stability, longevity and independence of the Governor of the Bank of England is the sort of role we need.  And no; I am definitely not interested in doing that job!

The importance of good design

I've been on the Board of the Maggies Centres cancer charity for quite a time now and over the years have come to appreciate that good design can make a real difference. For someone whose idea as a child of a Lego building was one of lots of straight lines using bricks of the same colour, this is a real progress. 

 Maggies uses well known architects such as Richard Rogers and Frank Gehry to design purpose built drop in centres based at cancer centres throughout the UK. These buildings are all deliberately created as a contrast to the medical institution they sit next too. They are all different and demonstrate creativity that is beyond an accountant like me. However, they all share some common characteristics; they are all set around the kitchen table, they are all loved by their local communities and they all facilitate the social, emotional and practical help that Maggies offers. It was well summed up when I visited the centre in Oxford. A group of ladies who had meet during their treatment for Breast cancer said that the new Maggies Centre 'made them feel well'.

The importance of design and architecture was brought home to me when I read about the history of the UK Houses of Parliament. Apparently, it's architecture and design is a matter of history as in 1547 King Edward VI gave parliament a disused chapel for use as their debating chamber. Although it has been rebuilt since then, the original design features were maintained. It means that we now have a chamber that is far too small for the number of MPs and one that deliberately encourages confrontation by sitting MPs from different parties directly facing each other across the aisle. It does not faciliate dialogue and debate but encourages aggression and confrontation. No wonder it is likened to a bear pit at times.  It also looks and feels old fashioned with the Speaker propped up on a platform that looks suspiciously likes an altar and where voting involves walking through a series of doors to reach the right room. No wonder people feel that politicans are out of touch. 

Maggies was founded by Charles Jencks and in his book Architecture of Hope he says "Architects have designed us good buildings that last, which sustain our staff and ethos. They have raised the fighting spirit of many patients, lifting their hearts at a time of desperation." In our efforts to bring a Maggies centre to other parts of the U.K we are continuing in this spirit with Norman Foster designing the centre in Manchester and Thomas Heatherwick working on the one in Leeds. As the UK parliament faces the challenge of repairing and refurbishing the Palace of Westminster I hope they take the opportunity of using great design and great architecture to produce a building fit for a 21st democracy. I am not hopeful. 

Why can't we get engaged?

I have spent over 25 years in the energy industry and the attitude of society to that industry has change over this time. Over the first period the industry was largely taken for granted. In fact, when I told friends I was joining the energy industry the general response was bewilderment because they thought it was boring. However, my experience has been the exact opposite. I have had a fulfilling and interesting career but that isn't my point. It's about how attitudes have changed.

Over the last ten years or so, I have found that people are generally much more interested in energy. They want to know about what is happening to prices, who owns the industry and what choices the industry is facing. There is a lot of debate nowadays. It could be whether we should build a new nuclear power station. It could be whether the UK should start fracking. Or it could be whether wind farms are a blot on the landscape or a modern and clean form of electricity production. 

However, there is a problem. The industry has struggled to engage in these debates in a meaningful and positive way and I have been wondering why that should be. I have not got a clear answer just a few theories. Is it because our industry is an essential commodity so we haven't had to really invest in branding and sales like the makers of shampoo, baked beans or summer holidays? Maybe it's because our industry is generally populated by engineers and accountants (guilty as charged)? Or maybe it's because we all have different views ourselves on what we think the right answers are to the choices we face, so society hears a cacophony of voices coming from our industry. Finally, I wonder whether the complicated and long term nature of many of our decisions don't play well in our 24 hour instant media world. What do you think?