The three S approach to uncertainty

Ian Marchant FEI, Immediate Past President

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.

Small is beautiful

Ian Marchant FEI Immediate Past President

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 offshore platforms and bigger companies. I think this is, however, yesterday’s trend. The future is smaller, more distributed and local. Here are four illustrations.

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 which means that all of your solar produced power can be consumed on-site. These are small, personal decisions which are democratising and disrupting the big centralised electricity system.
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.
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’.
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.

We need a new energy trilemma

Ian Marchant FEI Immediate Past President

The biggest energy policy issue facing us is not the so called energy trilemma but the various perspectives and drivers of the demand and supply of energy. The demand side 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, ranging from hundreds of pounds to hundreds of millions. Just consider your personal decision about whether to replace your gas boiler and your corporate decision 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. In conjunction with the Centre for Energy Policy at Strathclyde University, here are some suggestions. I ask you to weigh them up and think what yours would be.

1. Flexibility
2. Meetings of needs
3. Affordability

I think that policy on energy demand needs to balance these three forces and policymakers 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 we get in the car it starts, usually. 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 variable cost of producing electricity can range 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. The network operators want to use flexibility and control to manage their networks more efficiently and to avoid expensive, asset-heavy 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 all 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 to create flexibility in demand. But their needs might be different from those of the other part of the electricity industry: the supply side.

In both its generation and retail forms, the supply side 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 met. 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 just consumption.

Affordability
The third leg of the demand side trilemma is the same as 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, then 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 alongside 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. Policymakers, 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, policymakers and indeed engineers often like big “binary solutions” like nuclear/carbon capture etc and this “centralised supply side thinking” needs to change. We have seen the democratisation of intelligence in the computer industry from large mainframes through to PCs and smartphones. 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

Ian Marchant FEI, Immediate Past President

I have been looking 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 in January) 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 terms 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 UK 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 27. Outside of Europe we are behind most other countries including Canada, Mexico, Switzerland 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 the current rate of progress, even if it is maintained for another 34 years, that suggests we will only get to around a quarter. So the long term doesn’t provide much comfort either.

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 electricity demand is usually just over 300TWh ). There are obviously choices as to how 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 UK’s 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, it 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

Ian Marchant FEI, Immediate Past President

Claiming that we don’t want energy storage seems like a provocative thing to say. For example, the Energy Institute (EI)’s 2015 Energy Barometer report, 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 are 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, 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 needs, 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 then the flexibility needs of the system will be less than the sum of all the individual 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 and 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 met and only then determine the choice of technology. We have to put needs before technology.

Restless disposition in energy policy

Ian Marchant FEI Immediate Past President

In preparing for a conference on energy policy, I came across this quote from Walter Bagehot – ‘If you keep altering your house, it is a 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 21st century politics. All new ministers 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 nine ministers with cabinet responsibility for energy (counting both DECC and the various forerunners to the Department for Business). It’s even worse at Minister 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.

And EI members agree with me. The EI’s inaugural Energy Barometer survey reports that EI members see policy continuity as an essential component to reduce investment risk and encourage a longer-term view. In fact, EI members deem it to be one of the biggest challenges facing the energy industry in 2015. The complexities of the energy system require clearly communicated policies that are consistent over time and with each other.

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!

Why can’t we get engaged?

Ian Marchant FEI

I have spent over 25 years in the energy industry and the attitude of society to that industry has changed over this time. In my early days in the sector, 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?

Hitting the ground running…

Professor Jim Skea CBE
EI President

It’s great for a new President to have two big hits in a single day. We launched the Energy Barometer in Parliament on 23 June at an event hosted by Neil Parish MP, recently installed as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee. A large audience filled the splendid committee rooms in the Palace of Westminster. Joan McNaughton CB HonFEI, Dr Joanne Wade FEI and myself, ably chaired by Ian Marchant FEI, summarised the findings and responded to a challenging set of questions from participants. If you have yet to take a look, the findings – www.energyinst.org/energy-barometer-2015-report – are well worth a read. It shows that the professionals who make up the Energy Institute (EI) have firm ideas about what the industry needs to do in terms of engaging with the public and passing on the torch to the next generation. But also very firm ideas about government’s role. The need for policy continuity was one of the strongest messages. When we go back to the EI College for their views next year, members will be able to express their feedback on how the new Government has performed in its first nine months – which promises to make for interesting reading!

From Parliament on to the Royal Academy of Engineering where Ian Marchant FEI chaired his final Council meeting, followed by the EI’s AGM. I was pleased to be elected President at this point – following the full and vigorous democratic processes characteristic of all professional bodies.

Then on to the second hit of my first day, the Cadman Lecture delivered by Malcolm Brinded CBE FEI, Chairman, Shell Foundation. Building on his long experience in the oil and gas sector, Malcolm distilled the energy challenge into five big “asks”: tackling the needs of the five billion people using less than a third of the world’s energy; establishing a global carbon market; accelerating energy access based on proven solutions; upping global collaboration and investment in the context of rapid urbanisation; and focusing on enterprise-based solutions, with more resources for early stage innovation. Plenty of food for thought and an engaged Q&A session that could have gone for ages. The Energy Institute at its best.

Malcolm’s lecture touched on a theme that I would like to return to during my Presidency – the need for a more holistic, systems-based approach to the energy sector. The EI took a big step forward back in 2003 with the merger of two preceding institutions. We obviously need to nurture the distinctive contributions that each part makes. But the need to reconcile energy access, security, affordability and climate compatibility poses new challenges that demand new thinking. I hope I can work closely with members and staff to take that agenda forwards.

Finally, this morning, my first meeting with Louise for the regular catch-up between the Chief Executive and the President gave me the opportunity to experience the refurbishment of the New Cavendish Street offices first-hand. It was remarkably quiet from the street, but as soon as you are through the front door the familiar scent of “builders in the house” is apparent. It’s all on track, with work forging on and staff taking it all in their stride.

Past, present and future

Ian Marchant FEI, President

All good things must come to an end and I am now handing over the Presidency of the Energy Institute (EI) having served two years. It has been a joy and a privilege to have the role and I hope I have been a good steward of our organisation. In reflecting on the two years, my thoughts are about the past, present and future.

We have just finished celebrating our one hundredth anniversary and that included a cake in the Palace of Westminster, a video from the Prince of Wales and numerous dinners and events up and down the country. It is good occasionally to look back and celebrate the achievements of the past, however that phase of EI’s life is over, probably for another 25 years. We have also launched the Energy Matrix, which makes available the accumulated knowledge of over 90,000 records and wisdom of our industry, in a modern digital form.

But enough of the past. We are all members of today’s energy industry and the EI continues to address today’s issues. During the last twelve months or so we have hosted the inaugural Energy Systems conference and our annual IP Week conference, which this year generated a lot of media interest, as well as another 90 events. A new addition to the EI calendar has been the autumn President’s event. In 2013, I hosted a debate and then in 2014 I gave a lecture which, as it was held in a function room at the Hard Rock Cafe, was full of song title puns. We have got involved in new initiatives such as POWERful Women and ESOS, and the first publication under the Energy Essentials banner has been issued. Our technical programme continues to go from strength to strength with the issue of 41 technical guidance documents, the publication of the first G9 offshore wind annual incident data report and further growth in the content of and access to The Journal of the Energy Institute. We have continued to drive up standards and build competencies for the future with the accreditation of 68 energy-related courses in 21 institutions throughout the world.

And talking of the future, as I hand over the reins to the very capable hands of Professor Jim Skea CBE FRSA FEI, I would highlight three foundation stones that have been laid recently. Firstly, we have started the refurbishment of our building to make it fit for the 21st century and to provide better member services. Secondly we have undertaken and launched our first Energy Barometer, which uses the knowledge and experience of our membership to gauge the state of the energy world and to inform policymakers and commentators. Thirdly, we introduced a new EI award category, the Young Energy Professional of the Year, to complement the work of our growing Young Professional Networks.

I believe that the group who met under the leadership of Sir Boverton Redwood a hundred years ago would be proud of what their creation continues to do and in its plans for the future.

A nice problem to have with awards

Ian Marchant FEI, President

I have never been a big fan of awards, probably because I never win any! However, last year I was one of the judges for the Energy Institute’s annual awards and this sort of changed my view. I had two, apparently conflicting, emotions. Firstly, I was really impressed with the calibre of many of the nominees and was struck by the obvious evidence of professionalism and achievement. However, the second emotion was that in a few of the categories I was disappointed with the depth of the field as I know from the various roles I have around the energy industry that there is a lot of really great stuff happening and lots of really talented and committed people.

I would single out two particular awards where I would have liked to see a lot more nominees. Firstly there is what is now called the ‘Energy Champion‘ award which is for an individual who has made a significant contribution to our industry. I suspect that one reason for a small field is that people don’t feel they should nominate themselves. I totally agree with this so why not nominate a colleague or contact who has gone above and beyond the call of duty. They could be your energy hero or they could be a rising star, it doesn’t matter; what matters is the impact they have had.

The second award where I would like to see a deluge of nominees is for safety. This is a topic close to my heart and I know that, for most companies in our sector, it is the number one priority or core value. Lots of good stuff is happening, every day, to improve processes, change behaviour and reduce risks. Let’s celebrate this and use the awards to showcase what can be done to inspire others to raise their game too.

So my plea is that we make the job of this year’s judging panel much more difficult by swamping them with loads of examples of the good things that are happening in our industry. This would be a nice problem to have.

The EI Awards are free to enter and the deadline for submissions is 29 June 2015.
For more information, please visit www.energyinst.org/ei-awards

Energy Institute blog

Creating a better energy future

ian marchant

The three S approach to uncertainty

Small is beautiful

We need a new energy trilemma

Renewable energy: an uncomfortable position

We don’t want energy storage

Restless disposition in energy policy

Why can’t we get engaged?

Hitting the ground running…

Past, present and future

A nice problem to have with awards

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: