An article in today's Grauniad reports that in a 3 month trial O2 found that 82% of customers purchasing a HTC One X+ were willing to do so without a charger. I have to say well done O2 for setting up the trial. I have long been irked that one can pack one's old mobile up and send it away to be stripped down and parts recycled but not the charger (not that I very often change my 'phone - ludditism rules!). There must be recharger mountains all over the place.
So this is one small victory for resource efficiency. 'Tis far better not to keep upgrading you 'phone in the first place, of course, but one has to start somewhere.
Thursday, 17 January 2013
Leaner and Wiser?
I see that Greg Barker claims that the solar industry has become leaner and wiser as it navigated its course through the last couple of turbulent years. I wonder whether that's true of the Government and DECC who oversaw the recent changes?
Putting my snide comments aside, however, I do think that there is now a relatively stable platform upon which solar may be developed. Now we need a good large-scale electricity storage system.
Putting my snide comments aside, however, I do think that there is now a relatively stable platform upon which solar may be developed. Now we need a good large-scale electricity storage system.
M&A - Good or Bad?
It's interesting how one is sensitised to certain stories. Just the other day I was reading a discussion from Bain and Co which suggested that, on average, M&A activity is value-additive. Today comes the news of Tom Albanese's departure from Rio Tinto because of two disasterous acquisitions.
Of course, we all know that hard cases don't make for good laws - it was simply the juxtaposition that struck me.
The Bain study contains a lot of sense - as one would hope. It suggest that there are a few important facets that characterise successful M&A approaches:
1) Frequency. The more experienced a company is in doing M&A deals the more likely it is that the deals will be successful. You might argue that this is self evident. Practice makes perfect. Failure will tend to dissuade companies from repeating their M&A ventures.
2) Materiality. The more the market capitalisation of a company comes from acquisition the better it performs. This is less self evident but maybe it's a success breeds success issue. If a company is known for good deal-making then the deals and funds will come its way.
3) Developing a Repeatable Model. I guess this is why the above two points are pertinent. If a company has a good strategy and ensures that it's M&A activity is informed by that strategy then the model is a long way to being repeatable. Bain also note that thorough data-based due diligence, careful integration planning and detailed planning and execution of value-capture are attributes of successful M&A led organisations.
It's a good read.
And what of Rio Tinto? Well, in looking at the Alcan acquisition one of the comments I've read simply says "Rio didn't do its homework". What was that about thorough data-based due diligence? I have seen, first hand, how "getting the deal done" can take over from a cool rational look at value. The numbers can become scary and the logic gets bent just to "win" the prize (a bit like "winning" WWI). From what I understand of the Mozabique coal assets deal, again it looks as though Rio did not understand what they were getting themselves into. This suggests that Albanese and those around him were not asking the right questions.
It's a salutory lesson to anyone reliant on stock values - which includes anyone with a pension plan.
Of course, we all know that hard cases don't make for good laws - it was simply the juxtaposition that struck me.
The Bain study contains a lot of sense - as one would hope. It suggest that there are a few important facets that characterise successful M&A approaches:
1) Frequency. The more experienced a company is in doing M&A deals the more likely it is that the deals will be successful. You might argue that this is self evident. Practice makes perfect. Failure will tend to dissuade companies from repeating their M&A ventures.
2) Materiality. The more the market capitalisation of a company comes from acquisition the better it performs. This is less self evident but maybe it's a success breeds success issue. If a company is known for good deal-making then the deals and funds will come its way.
3) Developing a Repeatable Model. I guess this is why the above two points are pertinent. If a company has a good strategy and ensures that it's M&A activity is informed by that strategy then the model is a long way to being repeatable. Bain also note that thorough data-based due diligence, careful integration planning and detailed planning and execution of value-capture are attributes of successful M&A led organisations.
It's a good read.
And what of Rio Tinto? Well, in looking at the Alcan acquisition one of the comments I've read simply says "Rio didn't do its homework". What was that about thorough data-based due diligence? I have seen, first hand, how "getting the deal done" can take over from a cool rational look at value. The numbers can become scary and the logic gets bent just to "win" the prize (a bit like "winning" WWI). From what I understand of the Mozabique coal assets deal, again it looks as though Rio did not understand what they were getting themselves into. This suggests that Albanese and those around him were not asking the right questions.
It's a salutory lesson to anyone reliant on stock values - which includes anyone with a pension plan.
Tuesday, 15 January 2013
The Devil's Punchbowl
I thought I'd step out from my usual subject area for once. We had a cracking walk around the Devil's Punchbowl on Sunday so, for anyone wishing to grab some fresh air in SW Surrey here's where we went:
We parked up (eventually - it was busy - great to see so many people taking the air) in the National Trust car park and headed across the grass towards the nearby viewpoint but cut off right when we reached a wide path going in that direction.
As we came to the trees we forked left through a kissing gate then almost immediately took a path to the left going downhill. We kept to this path through woods for about 3/4 mile as it descended into Highcomb Bottom.
At the base of the valley we passed through another kissing gate and after a couple of wiggles on the path turned right through yet another kissing gate onto a narrower path which drops down to a stream. After crossing over the stream we climbed up out of the dell, passing a youth hostel on our right and took the next left turn down a wide track past Gnome Cottage.
Just after the cottage we crossed a cattle grid and reached a stretch of more open countryside. We followed the track for about 1/2 mile until after a right then left bend we reached a fork. Here we bore left and ignoring the track that joins on the right a bit further on carried straight along a tree-lined track over another cattle grid.
Finally we reached a tarmac lane where we turned left and then right downhill beside a long cottage with PV panels on the roof. At the bottom of the valley we crossed the stream again and up a steep track to Ridgeway Farm. We carried on along Hyde Lane ignoring the track to the right, eventually passing Upper Ridgeway Farm.
The road then dipped down and at the bottom we took a bridleway to the left which gradually rises up between banks to another gate. Through this we pressed on upwards for quite a way (perhaps 1 3/4 miles) much of it following a line of power cables. At the top we came out on the edge of the escarpment with a splendid view across the bowl.
Continuing along the rim of the bowl we eventually reached another gate and barrier by a small parking area. Here we took a left fork, continuing around the edge of the bowl soon arriving back at the viewpoint near the car park. Great - all finished off with a scrummy slice of lemon cake in the NT cafe.
Try it!
We parked up (eventually - it was busy - great to see so many people taking the air) in the National Trust car park and headed across the grass towards the nearby viewpoint but cut off right when we reached a wide path going in that direction.
As we came to the trees we forked left through a kissing gate then almost immediately took a path to the left going downhill. We kept to this path through woods for about 3/4 mile as it descended into Highcomb Bottom.
At the base of the valley we passed through another kissing gate and after a couple of wiggles on the path turned right through yet another kissing gate onto a narrower path which drops down to a stream. After crossing over the stream we climbed up out of the dell, passing a youth hostel on our right and took the next left turn down a wide track past Gnome Cottage.
Just after the cottage we crossed a cattle grid and reached a stretch of more open countryside. We followed the track for about 1/2 mile until after a right then left bend we reached a fork. Here we bore left and ignoring the track that joins on the right a bit further on carried straight along a tree-lined track over another cattle grid.
Finally we reached a tarmac lane where we turned left and then right downhill beside a long cottage with PV panels on the roof. At the bottom of the valley we crossed the stream again and up a steep track to Ridgeway Farm. We carried on along Hyde Lane ignoring the track to the right, eventually passing Upper Ridgeway Farm.
The road then dipped down and at the bottom we took a bridleway to the left which gradually rises up between banks to another gate. Through this we pressed on upwards for quite a way (perhaps 1 3/4 miles) much of it following a line of power cables. At the top we came out on the edge of the escarpment with a splendid view across the bowl.
Continuing along the rim of the bowl we eventually reached another gate and barrier by a small parking area. Here we took a left fork, continuing around the edge of the bowl soon arriving back at the viewpoint near the car park. Great - all finished off with a scrummy slice of lemon cake in the NT cafe.
Try it!
Saturday, 12 January 2013
Passivhaus Struggles in UK
A recent report from the NHBC Foundation has highlighted the fact that in the UK there are just 165 Passivhaus buildings whereas in Germany the number stands at over 20000. With the heating load in a Passivhaus generally coming out at about half that required to meet minimum Building Regulations standards there is a huge CO2 emissions gain to be made here. So what's the problem?
The report highlights three key areas:
1) Social. The report argues that most UK building is speculative whereas there is much more self-build in Germany, utilising prefabricated kits. Also it suggests that Germans have a much greater propensity to concentrate on high product specification and attention to detail.
2) Political. Germans are more environmentally aware and active. Local governments (e.g. cities) often promote, or even mandate, Passivhaus standards.
3) Economic. The premium over building to minimum standards in Germany is not that great (3 to 8%). Although few data are available for the UK the perception is that the differential here is greater. Financial assistance is also much easier to obtain in Germany.
There are some important messages for DECC and DCLG (who seem to spend their time making their web presence harder to negotiate) in here. There need to be greater inducements to individuals to go for high specification homes, there need to be stronger pressures on the building inductry to offer such homes and Part L of the Building Regulations needs ratcheting up even further.
The report highlights three key areas:
1) Social. The report argues that most UK building is speculative whereas there is much more self-build in Germany, utilising prefabricated kits. Also it suggests that Germans have a much greater propensity to concentrate on high product specification and attention to detail.
2) Political. Germans are more environmentally aware and active. Local governments (e.g. cities) often promote, or even mandate, Passivhaus standards.
3) Economic. The premium over building to minimum standards in Germany is not that great (3 to 8%). Although few data are available for the UK the perception is that the differential here is greater. Financial assistance is also much easier to obtain in Germany.
There are some important messages for DECC and DCLG (who seem to spend their time making their web presence harder to negotiate) in here. There need to be greater inducements to individuals to go for high specification homes, there need to be stronger pressures on the building inductry to offer such homes and Part L of the Building Regulations needs ratcheting up even further.
Monday, 7 January 2013
A Fracking Good Time Will Be Had By All?
DECC's announcement on December 13 that the moratorium on hydraulic fracturing was to be lifted has spawned a flurry of comments - so I thought I'd join in.
This announcement follows the earlier publication of DECC's "Gas Generation Strategy" which purports to address the importance of gas as a feedstock for a low carbon economy (meaning lower than a coal-fuelled one, I guess). Among other things, the strategy proposes
(i) encouraging the construction of up to 26GW of new gas-fired power plant by 2030;
(ii) subsidising R&D into CCS;
(iii) focusing on the development of shale gas reserves in the UK.
On the latter, the strategy lists a number of steps to be taken by DECC, including
(i) setting up an Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil aimed at providing a one-stop-shop for an efficient regulatory process;
(ii) improvement in DECC's development policy and guidance to ensure that onshore licensing arrangements complement long-term shale gas production;
(iii) opening up a dialogue with interested license holders to explore what changes to the licensing regime are necessary;
(iv) further consultation rounds on the environmental implications.
This all seems a bit like DECC bending over backwards to aid the fracking industry - coupled with the likely bringng forward of a special tax regime to incentivise and stimulate shale gas production.
At the macro level, shale gas or no shale gas, up to 26GW of new gas-fired power generation looks set to bust the UK's target for a largely decarbonised grid by 2030 - unless they are all fitted with efficient and reliable CCS and I have my doubts that this will happen. How much of the required gas could be from indigenous shale sources is open to considerable doubt. The British Geological Survey has been commissioned by DECC to estimate how much might be available. Initial reports suggest that it will conclude that the Bowland basin has reserves roughly 17 times the known remaining North Sea reserves. How much will be economically recoverable is another matter.
There's also been a fair old push back on the risks of seismic activity being triggered and of water contamination. For sure these have been massively overstated by some pressure groups and good technology should be capable of dealing with the latter. However, one could argue that one leaking well is one too many.
I guess what I'm trying to say is - no matter how much hot air is generated by the fracking debate, the big issue is the continuing reliance on gas-fired power generation. I think we're sleep-walking to a +4C world and whatever that entails.
This announcement follows the earlier publication of DECC's "Gas Generation Strategy" which purports to address the importance of gas as a feedstock for a low carbon economy (meaning lower than a coal-fuelled one, I guess). Among other things, the strategy proposes
(i) encouraging the construction of up to 26GW of new gas-fired power plant by 2030;
(ii) subsidising R&D into CCS;
(iii) focusing on the development of shale gas reserves in the UK.
On the latter, the strategy lists a number of steps to be taken by DECC, including
(i) setting up an Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil aimed at providing a one-stop-shop for an efficient regulatory process;
(ii) improvement in DECC's development policy and guidance to ensure that onshore licensing arrangements complement long-term shale gas production;
(iii) opening up a dialogue with interested license holders to explore what changes to the licensing regime are necessary;
(iv) further consultation rounds on the environmental implications.
This all seems a bit like DECC bending over backwards to aid the fracking industry - coupled with the likely bringng forward of a special tax regime to incentivise and stimulate shale gas production.
At the macro level, shale gas or no shale gas, up to 26GW of new gas-fired power generation looks set to bust the UK's target for a largely decarbonised grid by 2030 - unless they are all fitted with efficient and reliable CCS and I have my doubts that this will happen. How much of the required gas could be from indigenous shale sources is open to considerable doubt. The British Geological Survey has been commissioned by DECC to estimate how much might be available. Initial reports suggest that it will conclude that the Bowland basin has reserves roughly 17 times the known remaining North Sea reserves. How much will be economically recoverable is another matter.
There's also been a fair old push back on the risks of seismic activity being triggered and of water contamination. For sure these have been massively overstated by some pressure groups and good technology should be capable of dealing with the latter. However, one could argue that one leaking well is one too many.
I guess what I'm trying to say is - no matter how much hot air is generated by the fracking debate, the big issue is the continuing reliance on gas-fired power generation. I think we're sleep-walking to a +4C world and whatever that entails.
Friday, 4 January 2013
End of CERT and CESP
Last week saw the end of the CERT and CESP programmes - now it's over to the Green Deal and the Energy Companies Obligation.
So was it all worth it?
Well, on one level a certain amount of energy efficiency implementation took place which might not otherwise have happened. And in the case of the priority group, and latterly the super priority group, those measures almost certainly would not have appeared. So the programmes get a tick on that count.
One wonders, though, just how much the energy companies spent in finding their targets and in managing the whole process. Certainly, I've heard tell of horror stories of mismanagement and bungling. And the feast and famine scenarios experienced by some trade groups - the insulation industry in particular - must have added inefficiency (as in transaction) costs to the whole affair.
What still amazes me is the level of unawareness of the way the schemes were funded. When I told friends and acquaintances that the money came from their fuel bills and that the only way to recoup it was by taking up various offers then there was action. Prior to that knowledge there seemed to be almost universal indifference. Did somebody in "Marketing" miss a trick?
I fear that the same problem is facing the Green Deal - probably in spades. It just doesn't seem to be gaining any traction.
So was it all worth it?
Well, on one level a certain amount of energy efficiency implementation took place which might not otherwise have happened. And in the case of the priority group, and latterly the super priority group, those measures almost certainly would not have appeared. So the programmes get a tick on that count.
One wonders, though, just how much the energy companies spent in finding their targets and in managing the whole process. Certainly, I've heard tell of horror stories of mismanagement and bungling. And the feast and famine scenarios experienced by some trade groups - the insulation industry in particular - must have added inefficiency (as in transaction) costs to the whole affair.
What still amazes me is the level of unawareness of the way the schemes were funded. When I told friends and acquaintances that the money came from their fuel bills and that the only way to recoup it was by taking up various offers then there was action. Prior to that knowledge there seemed to be almost universal indifference. Did somebody in "Marketing" miss a trick?
I fear that the same problem is facing the Green Deal - probably in spades. It just doesn't seem to be gaining any traction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)