DOCSLIB.ORG

Energy, Poverty and Carbon: Seeking the Radical Middle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Energy, Poverty and Carbon: Seeking the Radical Middle Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 PESA April, 2018 Energy, Poverty and Carbon Seeking the Radical Middle Scott W. Tinker Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 Population Clean Water Education Healthcare Housing Hunger Climate Impacts Immigration Status of Women Unemployment Crime Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 Energy has had a transformational impact on human life. But not all human lives… Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 The Public Dialog There is “good” energy and “bad” energy… Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 The Energy Narrative Renewable energy is good. Fossil and nuclear energy are bad. Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 The Reality Most people do not know how electricity is made or where gasoline comes from. But they think they do! Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 Outline Energy Carbon Poverty Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 Climate Change is Carbon the major issue of our time, and fossil fuels are the problem Interactive Systems Poverty is the Poverty major issue of EEnergynergy our time, and fossil fuels are the solution Political Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 Environment Radical Middle Economy EnergyEnergy Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 Environment Politics, economics, and passion run deep on all sides of the climate change and poverty debate. Economy EnergyEnergy Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 Environment Is civil energy discourse possible? Economy EnergyEnergy Can we find compromise and move forward? The Global Energy Mix Tinker,Tinker 2015 20172018 Million Tonnes Oil Equivalent 365 583 893 4331 Hydro Renew Nuclear 3840 Petroleum 86% Coal Nat Gas 3135 Global Population Each color on the map represents ~ 1 billion people Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) The Global Energy Mix Tinker,Tinker 2015 20172018 143 Million Tonnes Oil Equivalent 194 264 862 151 83 216 468 1036 903 429 11 1 6 0 881 362 111 426 95 2 27 4 441 1501 24 97 631 Hydro Renew 183 2798 Nuclear 153 Petroleum 323 122 5 86% 37 Coal 157 Nat Gas Global Population Each color on the map represents ~ 1 billion people Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) Global Energy Demand Tinker,Tinker 2015 20172018 143 Million Tonnes Oil Equivalent 194 264 862 151 83 216 468 1036 903 429 11 1 6 0 362 111 881 95 426 27 441 1501 2 4 18 97 Hydro Renew 3 631 24 2798 153 Nuclear 122 Petroleum 5 323 37 Coal 157 Nat Gas Global Population Each color on the map represents ~ 1 billion people Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) Tinker 2018 Global Energy Mix Tinker, 2015 Global Energy Consumption (MTOE) 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Oil Natural Gas Coal Nuclear Hydro SolarData: BP StatisticalWind View ofBiomass World Energy (2016) Tinker 2018 Global Energy Mix Tinker, 2015 Global Energy Consumption (MTOE) 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Oil Natural Gas Coal Nuclear Hydro SolarData: BP StatisticalWind View ofBiomass World Energy (2016) Tinker 2018 Global Energy Mix Tinker, 2015 Renewable Consumption (MTOE) 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Hydro Solar Wind Biomass Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) Tinker 2018 Global Energy Mix Tinker, 2015 Renewable Consumption (MTOE) 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Hydro Solar Wind Biomass Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) Tinker 2018 Global Energy Mix Tinker, 2015 Renewable Consumption (MTOE) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Solar Wind Biomass Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) Tinker 2018 Global Energy Mix Tinker, 2015 Renewable Consumption (MTOE) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Solar Wind Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) Tinker 2018 Global Energy Mix Tinker, 2015 Installed Wind Capacity (MW) 500000 Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Total Asia Pacific Total Africa Total Middle East Total S. & Cent. America Total North America Total Europe & Eurasia Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 Global Energy Mix Million KwhGrowth in U.S. Wind Generation 2000–2014 45,000 40,000 Texas 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 Iowa 15,000 California Oklahoma 10,000 Kansas 5,000 Illinois 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 QAe5771 Tinker 2018 Global Energy Mix Tinker, 2015 Installed Photovoltaic Capacity (MW) 250,000 Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1996 2001 2006 2011 China Japan Total North America Total Europe Total Others Tinker 2018 Global Energy Mix Tinker, 2015 United States Solar photovoltaics 15 Source: Economist, Solar Energy Industries Association 12 9 6 3 Average Module Price $ / watt Price$ / Module Average 0 2010 11 12 13 14 15 16 QAe5833 Tinker 2018 Global Energy Mix Tinker, 2015 Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) InstalledInstalled Photovoltaic WindGlobalRenewableRenewable GlobalCapacity Capacity Energy Energy (MW) ConsumptionConsumption Consumption (MW) Consumption (MTOE)(MTOE) (MTOE) Mix 100%500000 14,000250,0003004001,400 90%400000 350 200,0001,200 12,00080%300000250 Nuclear 300 38% 70%2000001,000 33% 10,000150,000200 250 60%100000800 100,0008,000 50%1502000 16% 6,0006001995 95%2000 2005 2010 2015 86% 24% 40%10050,000150 30% 400 Total Asia Pacific Total Africa 4,000100 50 0 Total Middle East Total S. & Cent. America 20% 2001996 2001 2006 2011 2,00050 41%Total North America Total Europe & Eurasia 10% 29% 0 China0 Japan Total North America Total Europe Total Others 00 0%196519651970197019751975 19801980 19851985 19901990 19951995 2000 20052005 20102010 20152015 196519651965 19701970 197519751975 198019801980 19851985 199019901990 199519951995 200020002000 20052005 201020102010 201520152015 Hydro SolarSolar WindWind Biomass OilOil NaturalNatural GasGas CoalCoalSolarNuclearNuclearWind HydroHydroBiomass SolarSolarData: BP StatisticalWindWind View ofBiomassBiomass World Energy (2016) Population and Energy Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 12 10 Global (B) Global Population 8 6 4 Asia 2 0 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2100 Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) Source: From the UN, as appeared in The Economist, August 23, 2014 Population and Energy Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 12 10 Global (B) Global Population 8 6 4 Asia 2 Asia 0 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2100 Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) Source: From the UN, as appeared in The Economist, August 23, 2014 Population and Energy Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 12 10 Global (B) Global Population 8 6 4 Asia 2 Asia ~45% 0 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2100 Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) Source: From the UN, as appeared in The Economist, August 23, 2014 Population and Energy Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 12 “The world10 Global (B) Global Population could be 100%8 wind, wave and6 solar by 2030,4 Asia if just for2 ~45% political will…”0 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2100 Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) Source: From the UN, as appeared in The Economist, August 23, 2014 Population and Energy Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 12 10 Global (B) Global Population 8 6 4 Asia 2 ~45% 0 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2100 Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) Source: From the UN, as appeared in The Economist, August 23, 2014 Population and Energy Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 12 10 Global (B) Global Population 8 6 4 Asia 2 ~45% 0 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2100 Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) Source: From the UN, as appeared in The Economist, August 23, 2014 Population and Energy Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 12 10 Global (B) Global Population 8 6 4 Asia 2 ~45% 0 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2100 Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) Source: From the UN, as appeared in The Economist, August 23, 2014 Population and Energy Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 Are there affordable, available, reliable and sustainable: 12 • fossil energy and nuclear resources to meet this demand? • renewable energy resources to meet this demand? 10 Global (B) Global Population 8 ~15,000 TcF 6 (5X to date) ~2,600 BBO 4 (2X to date) Asia 2 ~45% 0 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2100 Data: BP Statistical View of World Energy (2016) Source: From the UN, as appeared in The Economist, August 23, 2014 Natural Gas Cost of Supply Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 Resources v. Cost 15 Global Consumption 2015 123 Tcfy 10 (2008 $/Mbtu) (2008 Hydrates Sour cost Arctic Tight Shale Deep Water 5 Methane Coal Bed Conventional Produced Production Production 0 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 18,000 21,000 24,000 27,000 30,000 Resources (Tcf) Modified from: IEA World Energy Outlook (2009) QAe980 Oil Cost of Supply Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 Resources and Cost 140 Arctic 120 EOR Deepwater and 100 ultra-deepwater Coal 80 Oil shales to CO2 EOR Shale oil liquids Gas 60 Heavy Other oil to conventional & liquids 40 oil bitumen Production cost (2008 $) (2008 cost Production 20 Produced MENA 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 Resources (billion barrels) Modified from: IEA World Energy Outlook (2009) Tinker,Tinker 2015 2018 U.S. Crude Oil Production 10 Rest of U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Management at Nuclear Power Plants
    Cov-ISOE 2004 6069 5/10/05 15:53 Page 1 Radiation Protection AIEA IAEA Occupational Exposure Management at Nuclear Power Plants OECD Nuclear Energy Agency International Atomic Energy Agency Fourth ISOE ISOE European Symposium Lyon, France INFORMATION SYSTEM ON OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE 24-26 March 2004 NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY Radioactive Waste Management Occupational Exposure Management at Nuclear Power Plants Fourth ISOE European Workshop Lyon, France 24-26 March 2004 Organised by the European Commission and the European Technical Centre (CEPN) © OECD 2005 NEA No. 6069 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of the Green Investment Bank: Costs and Benefits, Rationale and Value for Money
    The economics of the Green Investment Bank: costs and benefits, rationale and value for money Report prepared for The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills Final report October 2011 The economics of the Green Investment Bank: cost and benefits, rationale and value for money 2 Acknowledgements This report was commissioned by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). Vivid Economics would like to thank BIS staff for their practical support in the review of outputs throughout this project. We would like to thank McKinsey and Deloitte for their valuable assistance in delivering this project from start to finish. In addition, we would like to thank the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), the Carbon Trust and Sustainable Development Capital LLP (SDCL), for their valuable support and advice at various stages of the research. We are grateful to the many individuals in the financial sector and the energy, waste, water, transport and environmental industries for sharing their insights with us. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors and not those of BIS or any other party, and the authors take responsibility for any errors or omissions. An appropriate citation for this report is: Vivid Economics in association with McKinsey & Co, The economics of the Green Investment Bank: costs and benefits, rationale and value for money, report prepared for The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, October 2011 The economics of the Green Investment Bank: cost and benefits, rationale and value for money 3 Executive Summary The UK Government is committed to achieving the transition to a green economy and delivering long-term sustainable growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Adrian Wilson Electrical Technology Specialist Narec Limited Eddie Ferguson House Ridley Street Blyth Northumberland NE24 3AG
    Eddie Ferguson House Ridley Street, Blyth, Northumberland, NE24 3AG Tel: 01670 359 555 Fax: 01670 359 666 www.narec.co.uk ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Adrian Wilson Electrical Technology Specialist NaREC Limited Eddie Ferguson House Ridley Street Blyth Northumberland NE24 3AG 15th July 2005 Arthur Cooke, Ofgem, 9 Millbank, London SW1P 3GE Your Ref 123/05 Dear Mr Cooke, This is the New and Renewable Energy Centre’s response to your consultation “The regulatory implications of domestic scale microgeneration” dated April 2005. NaREC will also be responding to the Microgeneration Strategy Consultation that the Government is undertaking presently and may make some of the same points. Ofgem may ignore the confidentiality automatically attached to the covering email and can feel free to publish, act upon or use as seen fit this document in response this consultation or for other purposes. Our Background The New and Renewable Energy Centre Ltd (NaREC) was established in 2002 as a Centre of Excellence for the new and renewable energy technologies under the auspices of the DTI and One North East, the Regional Development Agency. NaREC’s mission is to foster the growth, development and commercialisation of new and emerging renewable energy technologies. NaREC’s UK-wide objective is to provide tangible leadership and practical technical assistance that will enable emerging technologies to be harnessed commercially to solve the UK’s future energy requirements. Our government is keen to encourage long term investment in new and renewable energy sources, since they see this as part of a balanced approach to meeting the country’s future energy needs. NaREC shares the key aspirations contained in the government’s White Paper published in February 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • The Energy River: Realising Energy Potential from the River Mersey
    The Energy River: Realising Energy Potential from the River Mersey June 2017 Amani Becker, Andy Plater Department of Geography and Planning, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZT Judith Wolf National Oceanography Centre, Liverpool L3 5DA This page has been intentionally left blank ii Acknowledgements The work herein has been funded jointly by the University of Liverpool’s Knowledge Exchange and Impact Voucher Scheme and Liverpool City Council. The contribution of those involved in the project through Liverpool City Council, Christine Darbyshire, and Liverpool City Region LEP, James Johnson and Mark Knowles, is gratefully acknowledged. The contribution of Michela de Dominicis of the National Oceanography Centre, Liverpool, for her work producing a tidal array scenario for the Mersey Estuary is also acknowledged. Thanks also to the following individuals approached during the timeframe of the project: John Eldridge (Cammell Laird), Jack Hardisty (University of Hull), Neil Johnson (Liverpool City Council) and Sue Kidd (University of Liverpool). iii This page has been intentionally left blank iv Executive summary This report has been commissioned by Liverpool City Council (LCC) and joint-funded through the University of Liverpool’s Knowledge Exchange and Impact Voucher Scheme to explore the potential to obtain renewable energy from the River Mersey using established and emerging technologies. The report presents an assessment of current academic literature and the latest industry reports to identify suitable technologies for generation of renewable energy from the Mersey Estuary, its surrounding docks and Liverpool Bay. It also contains a review of energy storage technologies that enable cost-effective use of renewable energy. The review is supplemented with case studies where technologies have been implemented elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenwashing Vs. Renewable Energy Generation
    Greenwashing Vs. Renewable energy generation: which energy companies are making a real difference? Tackling the climate crisis requires that we reduce the UK’s carbon footprint. As individuals an important way we can do this is to reduce our energy use. This reduces our carbon footprints. We can also make sure: • All the electricity we use is generated renewably in the UK. • The energy company we give our money to only deals in renewable electricity. • That the company we are with actively supports the development of new additional renewable generation in the UK. 37% of UK electricity now comes from renewable energy, with onshore and offshore wind generation rising by 7% and 20% respectively since 2018. However, we don’t just need to decarbonise 100% of our electricity. If we use electricity for heating and transport, we will need to generate much more electricity – and the less we use, the less we will need to generate. REGOs/GoOs – used to greenwash. This is how it works: • If an energy generator (say a wind or solar farm) generates one megawatt hour of electricity they get a REGO (Renewable Energy Guarantee of Origin). • REGOs are mostly sold separately to the actual energy generated and are extremely cheap – about £1.50 for a typical household’s annual energy use. • This means an energy company can buy a megawatt of non-renewable energy, buy a REGO for one megawatt of renewable energy (which was actually bought by some other company), and then claim their supply is renewable even though they have not supported renewable generation in any way.
    [Show full text]
  • The Energy Tariff Greenwash They're Growing in Popularity
    THE ENERGY TARIFF GREENWASH They’re growing in popularity, but are renewable electricity tariffs offering what customers expect? Sarah Ingrams exposes unclear claims and busts myths to help you choose a supplier with green credentials you’re happy with 20 WHICH? MAGAZINE OCTOBER 2019 GREEN ENERGY f you’re attracted to it through the lines to your the idea of a renewable property’ – at best an example THE ELECTRICITY I energy tariff to do your of staff ignorance. bit for the environment, YOU USE TO POWER a quick comparison suggests Unclear claims YOUR APPLIANCES you’ve got plenty of choice. When Myths aside, there are big we analysed the 355 tariffs on the differences in what companies do IS THE SAME AS market, more than half claimed to support renewable generation renewable electricity credentials. but it’s not always clear from their YOUR NEIGHBOUR’S, Three years ago it was just 9%. The websites. When Good Energy cheapest will cost you around £500 states ‘we match the power you use REGARDLESS OF THE less than the priciest, per year. But in a year with electricity generated you may be shocked to find out the from sun, wind and water’, it TARIFF YOU’RE ON differences between them. means it buys electricity directly In a survey of almost 4,000 from renewable generators to people in late 2018, a third told match customer use for 90% of us that if an energy tariff is marked half-hour units throughout the year. ‘green’ or ‘renewable’, they expect But similar-sounding claims from that 100% renewable electricity is others don’t mean the same thing.
    [Show full text]
  • New Nuclear? Examining the Issues
    House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee New nuclear? Examining the issues Fourth Report of Session 2005–06 Report, together with formal minutes and oral evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 4 July 2006 HC 1122 Published on 6 September 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £20.00 The Trade and Industry Committee The Trade and Industry Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department of Trade and Industry. Current membership Peter Luff MP (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire) (Chairman) Roger Berry MP (Labour, Kingswood) Mr Brian Binley MP (Conservative, Northampton South) Mr Peter Bone MP (Conservative, Wellingborough) Mr Michael Clapham MP (Labour, Barnsley West and Penistone) Mrs Claire Curtis-Thomas MP (Labour, Crosby) Mr Lindsay Hoyle MP (Labour, Chorley) Mr Mark Hunter MP (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle) Miss Julie Kirkbride MP (Conservative, Bromsgrove) Judy Mallaber MP (Labour, Amber Valley) Rob Marris MP (Labour, Wolverhampton South West) Anne Moffat MP (Labour, East Lothian) Mr Mike Weir MP (Scottish National Party, Angus) Mr Anthony Wright MP (Labour, Great Yarmouth) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmstords.htm Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/trade_and_industry.cfm.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Oil Goes to College an Analysis of 10 Research Collaboration Contracts Between Leading Energy Companies and Major U.S
    ISTOCKPHOTO/SSHEPHARD Big Oil Goes to College An Analysis of 10 Research Collaboration Contracts between Leading Energy Companies and Major U.S. Universities Jennifer Washburn October 2010 (updated) WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG ii Center for American Progress | Big Oil Goes Back to College Big Oil Goes to College An Analysis of 10 Research Collaboration Contracts between Leading Energy Companies and Major U.S. Universities Jennifer Washburn With research assistance from Derrin Culp, and legal analysis and interpretation of university-industry research agreements by Jeremiah Miller October 2010 Contents 1 Preface 5 Introduction and summary 29 Energy research at U.S. universities 32 The university perspective 38 The energy industry perspective 45 The U.S. government perspective 49 A detailed analysis of 10 university-industry agreements to finance energy research 52 Table: Summary of main contract analysis findings 60 Overview of the 10 agreements: Major findings 69 Recommendations 74 Conclusion 75 Appendix one—Detailed contract review Arizona State University & BP Technology Ventures, Inc., a unit of BP PLC 85 Appendix two—Detailed contract review Energy Biosciences Institute University of California at Berkeley; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign & BP Technology Ventures, Inc., a unit of BP PLC 106 Appendix three —Detailed contract review University of California at Davis & Chevron Technology Ventures, LLC, a unit of Chevron Corp. 114 Appendix four—Detailed contract review Chevron Center of Research Excellence Colorado School of Mines & ChevronTexaco Energy Technology Co., a unit of Chevron Corp. 122 Appendix five—Detailed contract review Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels University of Colorado, Boulder; Colorado State University; Colorado School of Mines; National Renewable Energy Laboratory & Numerous industrial partners 135 Appendix six—Detailed contract review Georgia Institute of Technology & Chevron Technology Ventures LLC, a unit of Chevron Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • For the Appointment of Chief Executive Officer Contents
    For the Appointment of Chief Executive Officer Contents 1.0 Foreword from Will Whitehorn, Chair ........................ 1 2.0 Introduction to the Company ........................................ 2 3.0 The Board ......................................................................... 9 4.0 The Role of CEO .............................................................12 5.0 Application Process ........................................................15 For the Appointment of Chief Executive Officer 1.0 Foreword from Will Whitehorn, Chair Good Energy PLC is a ground-breaking company. In the late 1990s a young fledgling entrepreneur called Juliet Davenport had a vision of creating a consumer focussed renewable energy business and by 2003 the company had been born as one of the first ever crowd funded businesses in the U.K. After almost 20 years as CEO Juliet has decided to move to a non- executive role with Good Energy, which is now a quoted company, and she will also chair the rapidly growing subsidiary Zap-Map, which is carving an important independent niche as the go to app for owners of electric vehicles. As the energy sector rapidly moves from being about Megawatts to Megabytes the company is looking for a dynamic individual to take Good Energy to the next stage and beyond in its exciting growth story. As the World moves away from carbon you will understand that it is consumers who will be responsible for over 60% of the activities that will drive this future but you will also be acutely aware that many of them are confused by “green washing”. As a result you will know how to attract them to our trusted brands profitably. The time has come to reset the dial on the energy market as we strive to Net Zero and if you want to help shape the story of Good Energy PLC we would love to hear from you.
    [Show full text]
  • Demand-Side Management Guidebook: Renewable and Distributed Energy Technologies
    enewable & Distributed Energy Tech no R lo g ie s R e n e w a b l e & D i s t r i b u t e d E n e r g y T e c h n o l o g i e s R e n e w a - b l e w & e D n i e s R t r s i b e i u g t e o l d o E n n h e c r e g T y Renewable and Distributed Energy Technologies Energy Distributed and Renewable Demand-Side Management Guidebook: Management Demand-Side enewable & Distributed Energy Tech no R lo g ie s R e n e w sarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. agency any or government States United the of those reflect or state sarily a b - government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not neces not do herein expressed authors of opinions and views The thereof. agency any or government l e not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States States United the by favoring or recommendation, endorsement, its imply or constitute necessarily not & commercial product, process, or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does does otherwise or manufacturer, trademark, name, trade by services or process, product, commercial or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific specific any to herein Reference rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Transmission Access – Cusc Amendment Proposals
    TRANSMISSION ACCESS – CUSC AMENDMENT PROPOSALS Nominees for Working Group Membership CAP161-164 Working Group 1. James Anderson Scottish Power 2. Bob Brown Good Energy 3. Graeme Cooper Fred Olsen 4. Tony Dicicco RWE npower 5. Richard Ford RES 6. Garth Graham SSE 7. Paul Jones E.ON UK 8. Simon Lord First Hydro 9. Paul Mott EDF Energy 10. Rekha Patel Welsh Power 11. Rob Rome British Energy 12. Tim Russell Sembcorp 13. Helen Snodin SSE (SRF) 14. Merel van der Neut Kolfschoten Centrica 15. Barbara Vest Gaz de France CAP165-166 Working Group 1. James Anderson Scottish Power 2. Graeme Cooper Fred Olsen 3. Stuart Cotten Drax Power 4. Sebastian Eyre EDF Energy 5. Nick Frydas Merrill Lynch 6. Garth Graham SSE 7. Paul Jones E.ON UK 8. Simon Lord First Hydro 9. Cathy McClay British Energy 10. Fiona Navesey Centrica 11. Bill Reed RWE npower 12. Ed Reed Smartest Energy 13. Helen Snodin SSE (SRF) 14. Lisa Waters Welsh Power 15. Barbara Vest Gaz de France CAP161-166 Enabling Sub-group 1. Graeme Cooper Fred Olsen 2. Paul Jones E.ON UK 3. Alan Kelly Scottish Power 4. David Lewis EDF Energy 5. Robert Longden Airtricity 6. Simon Lord First Hydro 7. Frank Prashad RWE npower 8. Louise Schmitz British Energy 9. Nigel Scott SSE (SRF) 10. Dennis Timmins RWE npower 11. Dave Wilkerson Centrica 12. Barbara Vest Gaz de France Page 1 of 12 Summaries of relevant experience and expertise James Anderson Commercial and Regulation Manager (Electricity) for ScottishPower Energy Wholesale. 15 years with ScottishPower within the generation and wholesale businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Young and Carbon Free
    YOUNG AND CARBON FREE What people think, feel and do YOUNG AND CARBON FREE Opinium Research INTRODUCTION Wellies and waterproofs were decidedly in season over the 2019/20 winter period. Britain saw the wettest February since 1862. It was less Beast from the East and more Wet, Wet, Wet. On the other side of the world we watched Australian bush fires burn. As extreme weather becomes more common, people are linking them more to climate change and looking for solutions. Our latest instalment of our annual look at the consumer energy market delves into how these themes are working themselves out in the minds of UK consumers as we heat our homes and power our lives. Traditional energy providers including the Big Six continue to be top of mind amongst consumers. But their success is threatened by the changing landscape of consumerism. Brand culture, values and beliefs are now considered to be more important to consumers than brand familiarity and so being big no longer means being the best especially for young consumers. Entering the market at a time when support for greener policies and practices is on the rise, challenger brands have capitalised on their greener brand values using these to connect with consumers on a much deeper level than the Big Six are able to. This has resonated the most with younger generations, whose concern for the environment has exploded since Greta Thunberg’s ‘School strike for the climate’ and since climate emergency activist groups have caught the attention of the mainstream media. This year’s report focusses on the attitudes of Millennials and Generation Z – those aged 18-34.
    [Show full text]