Green Energy Republic

In The Sunlight: Chris Welby, Commercial Director

Green Energy Republic's series, 'In The Sunlight', interviews members of the Good Energy team about their role in the company, why they support the Good Energy vision and how they personally contribute to achieving a greener environment. This week we spoke to Commercial Director Chris Welby. 

Can you explain a little bit about your role at Good Energy?

My role within Good Energy is pretty wide-ranging. I am responsible for both regulatory compliance and policy.  On the regulation side I make sure we act in accordance with all the rules and regulations of being an energy supplier as well as the usual stuff that goes with being in business. This is quite a broad brief, especially in an ethically minded organisation – things can be within the rules whilst being unethical. Crucially, my role is about finding solutions to situations that we face rather than just vetoing things. This often requires going back to the core of the issue and helping other team members use their imagination to find solutions they haven’t considered. They are an amazing bunch once their imaginations let rip.

On the policy side I spend a lot of time in London driving forward our mission. I have spent my life in the energy industry, as did my father before me. My first visit to a power station (yes, coal) was at the age of five. These days health and safety would never allow a five year old into a turbine hall, but hey, it was the 70s! As a result I know the energy industry inside out and spend my time trying to facilitate change to drive forward our vision of a 100% renewable energy society. Not so much the grand ideas, but getting into the detail of proposals and ensuring they work. I have been working with the Government on Feed in Tariffs, Smart Metering and many of the other proposals. I am particularly proud of the Green Tariff Certification Scheme where I was chair of the working group that developed it.

Why do you support Good Energy’s vision?

Principally because I care. I care about the planet, I care about the people on it, and I care about the future generations. Previous generations can claim ignorance of the damage they did to the environment. We, however, cannot. Working at Good Energy allows me to make a difference in the area I know best – energy. I truly believe we can have a 100% renewable future, and I think many in our industry aspire to it, but dogma, inertia and plain vested-interest makes them believe it cannot be done. I spend a lot of time in meeting rooms thrashing out petty details and can get frustrated with the lack of progress, but sometimes I get the joy of seeing the light go on in the head of the industry old guards. Watching an adversary become a supporter is so inspiring and reminds me why I do this.

How do you personally contribute to achieving a greener environment?

I believe that making many small changes is greater than grand gestures. My wife and I consciously think about where things we buy come from, we try and minimise waste (composting is great fun, although finding snakes resting in the bin can be off putting) and grow some of our own food. Our house is cooler than most – although we crank it up a bit when guests come round. And of course our electricity is from Good Energy. We live in a village off the gas grid so we are forced to use oil for heating. This bugs me and I will find a practical solution. I am not of the “hair-shirt” brigade of environmentalism; I believe we can live in harmony with our environment and have a great standard of living too.

Why the FiT & RHI must go on.

By Chris Welby, Good Energy’s Commercial Director.

Recent speculation in the press about the future of both the Feed in Tariff (FiT) and the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) is deeply concerning.  Both are being considered in the government’s spending review and this uncertainty is damaging confidence and deterring people from investing in new renewable technologies.  So let us get a few facts straight.

1.    There is no government money in the FiT and there does not need to be any government money in the RHI.

The Feed in Tariff costs are paid for by electricity suppliers, and ultimately by electricity consumers.  Scrapping the scheme or reducing the payout will not decrease the public deficit.  Rather, the decision by the Government to allow Local Authorities to sell electricity to the grid and claim the FiT could provide Local Authorities with an income stream to supplement any cuts in government funding.

The RHI could be built on similar lines, but paid for by gas suppliers.  The gas industry has had a lot of support over the years from the state, something that customers off the gas network have been denied.  Arguments about needing to include Oil & LPG providers are a sideshow.  Gas suppliers, like electricity ones, are licensed and we have a template in the FiT, so there is no reason to delay further.

2.     The Schemes do not reward the rich at the expense of the poor.

One of the biggest growth areas in FiT is social landlords.  Landlords can invest in the generation equipment and earn a sufficient return through the FiT to cover that investment.  Tenants will benefit from free electricity and thus lower bills.  It’s a win-win situation.  Private landlords are also getting in on the act (see previous blog).  After all, renewable energy is probably a safer investment at the moment than buying more properties.  Local Authorities will also be getting involved pretty soon. 

The other big growth area is from entrepreneurial businesses (including some big household names) offering to install solar panels for free in return for the FiT payment, the occupier gaining the free electricity in return.  There are schemes for all levels of society so it cannot be said to be the preserve of the rich.

With the RHI there is the added incentive of helping those off the gas grid who pay significantly more for their heating fuel.  Rural poverty is a big issue and helping to address this will also meet social objectives, especially when combined with energy efficiency.

It is difficult to address fuel poverty through social tariffs and special fuel allowances - creating social housing which needs to import very little energy from the grid is far more effective.

3.    Decentralised energy is key to energy security.

Generating your own renewable energy is the ultimate in energy security.  There’s no reliance on third parties/government for your fuel – whether you are an individual or a country importing energy in the form of gas, oil, coal or uranium.  The UK has been lucky in the past to have fossil fuel resources from coal and more recently North Sea gas.  But these are on the decline and as a nation we are no longer self-sufficient in energy.  But we could be once again – the UK is the windiest country in Europe.  We believe that if people generate their own energy they will value it more and use it less – and we can turn the UK 100% renewable by 2050.

At heart, FiT & RHI are not just government schemes to influence consumer behaviour.  They are energy industry schemes which can deliver on our desire to revolutionise and decarbonise the way we use and produce energy.  So please, just let us get on with it.

 

Time to stop the oil fix

By Chris Welby, Good Energy’s Commercial Director

Peak oil used to be about when the oil runs out, and as new reserves are discovered, it was a problem for the future.  However, today’s argument is not about the oil running out, but where the inflexible demand for oil exceeds supply, and that, some experts predict, could be very, very soon.

There is, we are told plenty of oil to extract, there is no shortage of oil.  However, as the situation in the Gulf of Mexico shows, getting it out, is getting more and more difficult and risky.  Nimbys  may rally against the visual intrusion of wind turbines, but I am sure the good people along the coast of Louisiana and Florida would happily swap their problem for a few visually intrusive wind turbines. Incidentally, the cost of offshore wind and tidal energy is negligible compared to the cost of oil extraction, both financially and environmentally.

The main problem with oil lies in the demand for it, and its inflexibility.  To understand it, look at it at a micro level.  Could any of us remove oil from our lives, without significant investment?  I for example, need a car to get to work (there’s no reliable public transport where I live) and this car uses oil.  To reduce my oil usage, I could invest several thousand pounds on a more efficient car.  (although my car is fairly efficient already), or move closer to work, which would be even more expensive.  The same applies to many of us.  We may not like it, but if the cost of fuel doubled tomorrow, we would moan like crazy, but few of us would have any option but to stump up the extra cost, and cut some other area of spending.  We are hooked on oil, with no real alternative.  Now add in the millions of people in India and China who are becoming car owners, it will not be long before demand outstrips supply.  Sure, the price of oil will rise, but it will not reduce demand significantly unless an alternative is available.

For our own sanity, we must move to alternatives, and soon.  The world of transportation is oil dependant.  It’s ironic that the nation most addicted to oil, the US, cannot see how its own demand for oil is partly to blame for the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. BPis merely seeking to provide what the citizens of main street USA desire, to drive gas guzzling vehicles. Our friends in the States must share the blame for the fact that BP has to drill in deep water in the first place.  If they didn’t need as much oil, this disaster may never have occurred. President Obama mentioned it in his Oval Office address this week, but it was hardly a call to arms.

BP has been asked to put aside $20bn (£18bn).  Of course the true cost to the environment is incalculable, but if that money, and the money spent searching for more oil in ever riskier environments was spent on developing alternatives to oil, then would that not be money much better spent?  For example, the UK Government has announced it is spending just £11M (less than 1% of the BP clean up fund) on creating 50,000 electric car charging points, and offering Nissan just £20M to help develop the Nissan Leaf.  Imagine what £18bn could do in moving the UK away from fossil fuel transport if this British company was investing it here rather than paying the Americans to clean up the a mess caused  in part by their thirst for Oil

It is also in our economic interest.  As peak oil hits, then the money we pay will go into the coffers of those countries with oil.  That will affect our balance of trade, our ability to compete and to remain topical, our ability to pay off the huge national debt we incurred bailing out the banks.

Peak oil, will hurt us sooner or later if we ignore it.  We need to use the Deepwater Horizon as a trumpet call and spend what money we have not on searching for more oil, but finding alternatives….and fast.

Washing with the wind

By Chris Welby, Good Energy’s Commercial Director

 

As we move the UK to a low carbon economy, one of the things  we are going to have to address is the variable nature of wind.  Currently, energy forecasting is a one-way street.  The guys who manage the network work out what we expect the electricity demand to be and then call on stream the appropriate amount of generation, primarily from gas or coal-fired power stations.   So, we control the generation side, but what about the demand side – the amount of energy consumers like you and me are using? The fact is that, currently, we do very little to control this.  We actually see controlling demand as a last resort, shutting off heavy industry in times of system stress, and suffering hysteria in the press about how close we came to blackouts.

In our low carbon future, we cannot do this. Wind generation is reliable with turbines in the right place achieving high load factors, and their output is perfectly forecastable.  Also, we will never be dependent on other countries for our wind power, like we are for gas, coal, oil or uranium.  This is a big plus for our long term energy security.  However, the option to switch on another wind turbine to deal with the evening peak or prolonged period of cold weather is not always there and, besides, we want to be maximising the use of turbines, not building them and turning them off to be used only if there is high demand. 

To do this, we need to look at demand management.  We’ve become used to the idea that when we want to use energy, we flick a switch and there it is.  A lot of the time our decisions on when we need that energy are random.  Do we care when our hot water is heated, as long as we have a full tank for when we get up in the morning?  Do we care when our fridges and freezer click in and out as long as they remain cold?  And in the future, do we care when our electric car charges, as long as it is available by the time we need it?

The answer is no.  Therefore, why not pass control of such things to someone else, who then maximises the use of wind energy for us? Would this sort of management be feasible?

We looked into this a while ago and set up a project with Durham University and a renewable technology company called Senergy Econnect.  The project was called “Demand for Wind” (www.demandforwind.co.uk), and looked at developing a process where domestic devices could be controlled remotely based on the availability of wind power on the network.

Devices in the trial included dishwashers fitted with a special plug, so that they could be activated remotely.  Customers could set the time by which they required it to have commenced running via an internet interface.  The system would then turn it on at a time of excess wind.  If such an occasion did not occur, then the dishwasher would kick in at a time to ensure clean dishes were available.  The principle was also trialled for washing machines and water heating, and in theory could work for any device the customer chose to set up.

The system was also tested against customers’ microgeneration.  The theory was that devices would kick in when micro wind turbines were turning, maximising the use of onsite generation.  A complication with this is that wind can be gusty, and once a device like a dishwasher is started there is no stopping it until the run is complete, but in essence it allowed microgenerators to maximise the use of their homegrown energy rather than exporting it to the network. 

The project proved that the concept is feasible, and the consumers in the trials were generally positive.  People liked the fact that decisions were automated, but only taken when permission was granted by the householder, and their ability to override the system seems to be key.

With work now commencing on smart meters and smart grids, the potential to use this technology to shift energy usage to times when renewables are at their peak are vast.  This means that very soon we could all be doing our washing with the wind without even thinking about it.

Will retailers cool the planet?

By Chris Welby, Good Energy’s Commercial Director

Summer, they tell us, is just round the corner, and whilst the Met Office may be keeping quiet after last year’s badly worded long-term forecast, the folklore predictions are for a really hot one.  This means one of my grumpy attacks will re-occur.

I am not the world’s best shopper, but over the years my wife has trained me in the art of browsing round the shops. Or rather, my wife browses and I chase after our 2 year old. 

Still, you can picture the scene.  It is hot, I am run ragged by the small one, and my wife isn’t speaking to me for suggesting she had enough handbags (apparently, it is impossible for a woman to have too many bags, or shoes I am told).

Then, my bugbear attacks.  A shop with ice cold air conditioning.  I am not against air conditioning, I think sometimes shops are excessive in its use, but what really gets my goat is having it turned up to arctic levels, and then leaving the door wide open on a one shop mission to cool the planet down.

Personally, I think there should be a law against having air-conditioning (or heating) on in retail premises if you have the doors propped open.  You know the ones I mean.  Usually the big chains, who make a big fuss in their CSR reporting about how staff at HQ recycle the plastic cups from the coffee machine. (What is wrong with a china mug?!)

It annoys me, but to date I’ve not done anything about it, other than mutter under my breath.  I did think of boycotting those stores, but would they notice?  So instead, I will continue to shop as normal, but take the opportunity to ask them what is the point of air conditioning if they leave the door open, and what damage are they doing to the planet.  If others do the same, maybe we can embarrass them into closing their doors on this bad practice.

Should we get time on our side?

By Chris Welby, Good Energy’s Commercial Director

The clocks go forward, and we have that traditional debate about whether we should go the double British Summer time.  This year the debate has been given a climate change twist as someone has calculated that there would be an energy/carbon saving in doing so.  Our friends at 10:10 think it’s a good idea.  As does Tim Yeo, a Conservative MP and a bit of an influential guy behind the scenes.

So should we do it?  From a personal perspective, as someone who leaves home in the morning before 7:00, I spend a lot of the winter coming to work in the dark and look forward to lighter mornings.  If it is light when I get to work I do not tend to put the lights on, but if I do then once they’re on, apathy (even in the Good Energy office) means they stay on.  So we may use more energy.

I am not that keen on lighter evenings.

There is something unnatural about going to bed in the light.  My two year old son certainly thinks so at the moment and gives me a strange look when I say “bed time!” and the sun is still shining.  I was in Iceland a few years ago, and found 24 hour daylight very unnerving – although the geothermal power stations looked great and I am dying to go back and investigate further.  (Maybe in 24 hour darkness!)

That said, if the sums add up on the carbon saving then it will not be a significant intrusion on life.  After all, in this day and age of a 24 hour society, does light and dark matter?  We would get the same amount of daylight; it’s just that “early to bedders” like me will sleep through some of it!

If you want to support the 10:10 campaign, then go to http://www.1010uk.org/.

Lights to go out says energy regulator – Well whose fault is that then?!!

By Chris Welby – Good Energy’s Commercial Director

In a report this week the energy regulator, Ofgem, predicted that in the 2nd half of this decade there is a reasonable possibility we may be have insufficient energy to meet peak demands.  Whilst it is nice to see the penny dropping amongst the lavish corridors of Ofgem, (where I spend far too much of my life trying to break the cosy world between regulator and the major suppliers), you have to ask, “Why”?

For all the huff & puff in the document, my view is pretty straight forward;  Ofgem and Government have allowed the ‘Big 6’ energy suppliers to live in a cosy, light touch, regulation world where price was the only consideration.  Now we need to make big changes both to protect our fuel security and decarbonise the energy market, and frankly the old Dinosaurs which dominate the market are unable to adapt (although from their press releases, and greenwash, you might be convinced otherwise).

In any other market, they would wither and die and new companies come to the fore (as happened with the airline industry or the growth in online retailers). However, such is the stranglehold of the Big 6 on the market, aided and abetted by our now holier-than-thou regulator, that new and innovative companies like Good Energy struggle to gain ground.  In times of change, ‘Big’ is not beautiful.

Therefore Ofgem’s suggestion of semi-nationalisation into one great imperious beast beggars belief.  We need to change not just how we supply energy, but change the mindset of how we as consumers use it.  The only way to do that is to make way for the new, environmental savvy entrepreneurs; not squeeze them out in order to give more power to the dusty old men in suits. 

 

What's HOT and what's not...

By Chris Welby, Good Energy's Commercial Director

Last week E.ON's Chief Executive Paul Golby was featured in the Guardian, proclaiming the need to keep coal power stations burning. You can read the article here.

As you may have guessed, I have a slightly different opinion…

Paul Golby is right in saying that the UK faces a squeeze on generation capacity as we move towards de-carbonising the UK energy market. However, his solution of keeping old coal-fired power stations trundling along is not the answer.

This country is a victim of its own success in terms of fuel security.  The recent cold weather did not lead to cuts in electricity supplies to anyone (except where heavy snow brought down power lines); gas was cut to some industrial customers (who are financially compensated for their willingness to be cut off), not because of a gas shortage, but to relieve pressure on the pipelines moving gas round the country.  Our fuel security was not at risk.  The reduction in power from E-ON’s wind farms had no effect on supplies.

Why did we need so much gas?  Because as a nation we live and work in poorly insulated homes and offices and rely on fossil fuels for most of our heat requirements.  While much has been done to reduce the carbon from our power, our failure to tackle how we heat our homes and offices is the elephant in the room of renewable energy policy.

Paul Golby’s old, creaking coal power stations produce a lot of heat, and it goes straight up their cooling towers and into the atmosphere along with the carbon.  The sooner these inefficient icons of energy waste are closed the better, and if that means we have to be smarter and more frugal in our energy use, then so be it.

#COP 15: A story for Xmas

 

By Chris Welby, Good Energy’s Commercial Director

All over the world, turkeys have begun to understand that Christmas is not good for them.  Of course a few still believe in Father Christmas and insist that Christmas is a natural phenomenon that cannot be prevented, but the general view is that Christmas should be abolished.

To solve the problem, the worldwide federation of turkeys met up in “Gobblehagen” to agree to abolish Christmas.  This two-week meeting spent the first week decided on which Christmas should be prevented first, with a majority arguing for the traditional western Christmas of 25th December being the highest priority, although turkeys from other countries felt that their Christmas should be tackled first.  The turkey from the US, however, refused to budge on any Christmas until Thanksgiving was deemed a pseudo Christmas.

The second week recognised that an abolished Christmas would result in fewer turkeys and, as such, everybody felt the US should surrender most of its turkey rights, although the US thought China, as an up-and-coming turkey nation, should prevent turkey growth first.
After two weeks of arguing and gobbling, the world turkey leaders arrived to agree that they were still committed to abolishing Christmas and would continue to work on a plan…starting December the 26th.

Let the Vatican run Copenhagen

by Chris Welby, Good Energy’s commercial director

That may sound a strange request.  After all, the Vatican is not known for being with it when it comes to the modern world.  However it does have one masterful skill: how to get leaders to meet and agree a solution.

They do this periodically, when they elect a new Pope.  They gather the Cardinals in a conclave and lock them in until they agree on the new Pope.  Given the seriousness of climate change, locking world leaders in a room and not letting them out until an agreement is signed would be the most effective way forward.

World leaders would hand over day-to-day running of their respective countries to their deputies, and enter the Copenhagen conclave.  In the papal conclaves of olden days cardinals were denied food and sanitary arrangements – and in one, several cardinals died, but the bodies were left in to focus minds. I’m not suggesting we need to go quite that far -- but for many leaders, the fear of what their deputies are up to should be incentive enough to reach a hasty solution.

There’ve been several campaigns targeting Copenhagen: the Wave, 100 months etc.  However, as politicians are now setting expectations that they won’t reach an agreement I’d like to start a new campaign.  It is called the great climate change lock-in.

All those in favour of locking the world’s leading politicians in a room until they agree to take strong action on climate change, say so now.