All posts by admin

HVM Graphene Conference Cambridge 2013 Programme Lineup!

HVMG13 Information | Bookings

Programme for 5 November 2013 HVMG Conference


Opening Session – Introduction & Graphene Basics: Functional Materials
10:00 Mike McCreary, Director, CIR Strategy
- Conference introduction
10:05 Professor Peter Dobson, Oxford University Nanomaterials – Chairman’s Introduction
10:20 Prof Andrea Ferrari, Cambridge University 
& Head, Cambridge Graphene Centre
Overview of the Applications of Graphene
10:35 Dr Patrick Frantz, CEO, Cambridge Graphene Platform
Low Cost Graphene & 2D Layered Material Inks for Printed Electronics
10:50 Dr Steve Thomas, CIT Ltd
Conductive materials – market uses & experiences
11:05 Panel with speakers & moderator & Prof Johnny Coleman Trinity College Dublin
11:30 Coffee break
Session 2 – Additive manufacturing, electronics, photonics
11:50 Dr Mike Banach, VP, Plastic Logic
Shaping the next industrial revolution
12:05 Dr David Brown, CTO, Canatu
Scaling of Carbon NanoBud film production for commercial apps in touch and display devices
12:20 Dr Richard van Rijn, CTO, Applied Nanolayers
High volume quality manufacture of graphene
12:30 Dr Kate Stone, Novalia
Creative printed electronics
12:35 Peter Towler, Director, BritonEMS part of OSI Electronics – What to expect from an EMS Supplier

12:40 Panel with Moderator Professor Ferrari & Dr Rob Harvey, AtomJet

13:05 Lunch and Exhibitions
Session 3 – Commercialisation Cases & other materials & applications
14:05 Dr Krzysztof Koziol, Chief Scientist, Cambridge Nanosystems Ltd
14:15 Professor Jonathan Coleman,
Layered materials: from tiny things to advanced applications
14:30 Professor Richard Palmer, Founder, Nanoscale Labs, Birmingham University
Prospects for massive scale-up from nano research in biochips & catalysis
14:50 Dr Nathan Hill, Strategy Director, National Graphene Institute – Commercialisation strategies

15:10 Panel with Moderator Del Stark CEO, Nanopro

15:30 Tea break
Final Session – Strategy for UK HVM & Graphene
16:00 Dr Jani Kivioja, Head, Nokia Research Center
Graphene – What is the commercial viability of short term applications?
16:30 Nick Coutts MA; Former IBM VP, CIR Strategy
Routes to Value for Graphene
16:40 Dr Martin Kemp, NanoKTN
Graphene commercialisation – Summary of industry consultation workshops
16:55 Professor Sir Michael Gregory CBE, Head, IfM
High Value Manufacturing Roadmaps
17:05 Panel with Professor Sir Mike Gregory CBE; Chairman’s Summary
17:30 Networking & Drinks Reception

Please contact 01223 303500 to speak to the organiser of HVMG13 directly.


Smart Homes: a hotbed for IoT?

SHCP13 | Bookings

Theme: Connected intelligence in 4 sizzlng sessions

1. Presence & the connected building; Services to the smart home; The comfortable, convenient home; Smart cities – smart citizens; Entrepreneur programmes; Access to innovation funds for SMEs;

2. Intelligent Water: monitoring, meters; sensors; controls; displays; integration.

3. Intelligent Heat & Energy; Heating smart communities; Storage & controls; Energy efficiency; Automation via devices;

4. IoT entrepreneurship;

Imagine you could be “present” in your home without having to be there, by influencing the many settings, appliances, deliveries, security remotely, and all with a minimum of fuss. It could be a matter of switching heating systems on and off from the airport. It might be changing the setting on a security system. The supply of your favourite food might not need to be updated because you are away for a week.

When you are there, the temperature in rooms will automatically adjust to the circumstances – without your intervention, unless you wish to make a change, for example, for visitors you believe may have different comfort zones. Your smart home automates intelligently for you.

A key aspect of this is service design: if, as the number of connected devices in the home increases, the complexity of managing the home goes up, then it won’t work for the householders. With the technology and automation needs to come simplicity in the service model.

So how can the internet of things be used to get our house to tell us (and our neighbours and the police) when we are being burgled, and switch on alarms and camera recordings that are sent to our smartphones via the web in real time?

How can our home automation systems minimise our bills as energy prices rise? Our energy use? Our footprint?

As regards heat and water technologies – how can new offerings help integrate into the smart home, smart community and smart city? And in the wider context, how can technology enable the “smart citizen” interacting at all the levels there?

And what programmes are out there for entrepreneurs to gain access to government matched funding for research or marketing of products and services in these sectors?

What can be done to reduce the allocation of funds to large utility players to the apparent exclusion of smaller companies who innovate strongly?

The 8th Smart Homes & Cleanpower Conference 2013 Expo (SHCP13 | Bookings) will take place at Buckingham House Conference Centre, Murray Edwards College, Cambridge University CB3 0DF on 5 November 2013, and the forum will discuss the above questions in pleasant and relaxed modern conference surrounds, just half a mile from the beautiful mediaeval centre of the town.

The pricing is very modest at £100 for independent full-time entrepreneurs seeking investment & students; £195 for investors, government and academics (a £130 reduction) & £325 for full- and part-time executives.

Fast-track bookings can be made by calling 01223 303500 or hitting this mailto link and sending an email with name, affiliation, and telephone and the CIR SHCP13 Team will do the rest!






High Value Manufacturing Conference 10th Anniversary: Highlights of a memorable day

Conference homepage | Organiser Homepage | HVM10th Speaker Biographies | HVM10th legacy page

The feedback from senior delegates at the HVM Conference on 14 November was very positive, praising the quality of speakers, networking, business development value, and briefing content.

Summary of HVM 10th Anniversary Conference

The day began with a short talk from HVM strategy consultant and organiser Dr Justin Hayward in which he noted that Britain was on top of the world when it came to countries with over 10 Olympic Gold-medal per million inhabitants scores. This has been effected through lottery-funding, a form of funding that is effective and voluntary.

Justin also argued the points that government spending in the UK has been rising since World War II to a level well over 40% of GDP, and that this may be resulting in difficulties with releasing the potential of HVM from the UK.

Justin went on to note that the private sector has been becoming more confident in difficult times as it struggles to enable earlier-stage HVMs to find funding and grow without government intervention or bank or financial VC finance, instead working with angels, angel groups, superangels, corporate investors, large channel customers and crowdfunding while adapting business models so as to reduce the level of funding needed before testing the market.

Professor Sir Mike Gregory CBE, Head, IfM opened the conference as chairman that “manufacturing was back in fashion”. Sir Mike was upbeat in his appraisal of developments around HVM by the private sector in partnership with the government through the seven centres of the HVM catapult, which cover half of the 22 British competences listed in Sir Mike’s IfM report for the TSB in 2012.

After Sir Mike the audience enjoyed hearing from Will Barton, TSB Head of Manufacturing, details of the success story of Oxford Catalysts, going from an idea around Fischer Tropfe processes for production of clean energy and difficulties to a globally operating company in eight years.

Following this, Phil O’Donovan, a well-known entrepreneur and co-founder of CSR plc, discussed the fabless manufacturing business model and how this enables companies to scale yet keep on top of design and required in-house expertise as returns were to be dealt with by CSR rather than the manufacturer. Phil also said that tax for SMEs should be simple, founder-friendly, staff-friendly and stable, a comment which received nods of approval from many. He noted that the high growth “CSR ignored government and eventually they ignored CSR plc too”. CSR plc quickly went to over 1000 staff and became the market leader in bluetooth with a USD1 billion plus market valuation.

Sir Robin Saxby was next up, in a fantastic opening session. Sir Robin showed the now-famous “SWOT” analysis slide of the ARM business in 1990, at which point it consisted just of the 11 engineer founders and Sir Robin. Given ARM’s dominance now, the SWOT’s contents are an obvious source of great humour! But the point was made strongly that startups should take such analyses seriously. He discussed how SMEs can learn from larger customers’ needs. Startups, he asserted, should try to hire the best team and advisors as soon as possible and motivate themselves through share options in the company. Sir Robin finished by talking briefly about some of the technology startups he has invested in.

Plastic Logic, one of the headline sponsors of the 10th Anniversary HVM Conference, were represented by their new CEO Indro Mukerjee. Indro talked about the industrial revolution that is 3D printing, and noted that Plastic Logic was moving out of stealth mode.

Tonejet, another headline sponsor, spoke through CEO Ray Southam of their successes in bringing from invention to market the world’s first full colour photographic-quality digital can printer, with all the implications this has for the market for promotional cans.

Later in the day there were further keynote talks from an array of speakers, including 2012 Medicine Nobel Prize winner, Sir John Gurdon, who spoke of his “blue sky research” leading to reversible cells and of his educational experiences which to his teacher seemed unpromising to say the least! The audience was spellbound by this talk.

Nick Coutts of CIR Strategy, organiser and sponsor, gave a world-class discussion of Routes to Value, as applied to HVM, which he has pioneered.

Dick Elsy, the new CEO of the HVM Catapult talked about the seven centres across the UK and of government and private sector funding, and how these centres are enhancing advanced manufacturing through engagement with SMEs.

Sir Michael Marshall returned to the HVM conference with an interesting talk covering HVM Successes in Cambridge, and of how his family’s business has grown from a humble chaffeur startup in 1909 to a billion pound plus company in aerospace, automotive, specialist vehicles and owning the airport.

A very strong final panel consisted of Lord Sainsbury of Turville, Sir Michael Marshall, Dick Elsy, Nick Coutts and Professor Sir Mike Gregory CBE. Quite a group! The discussion will be summarised by CIR Strategy at the legacy website and announced first to delegates attending.

The upshot of the panel was a general positivity about what High Value Manufacturing is achieving in Britain and what the future holds for an efficient, well-supported competitive economy with mutilple key advantages in manufacturing.

Please keep an eye on for further news, reports and conferences on HVM.

Conference homepage | Organiser Homepage | HVM10th Speaker Biographies | HVM10th legacy page

iWATER Conference Summary: water innovations & EfW

The iWATER 2012 conference objectives of looking at the trends in water innovation needs, how to achieve energy from waste, the technology direction for water and waste technologies and to look at the potential cross-over strategies between the water, waste and energy sectors.

These topics were introduced by Mike McCreary of CIR Strategy. Mike spoke of the looming energy crisis and the recent water issues and suggested that as with most things environmental, there is an inter-linkage and inter-dependency that must be addressed to avoid the solution of one issue precipitating a crisis in another. With a water demand curve in some areas of England already significantly exceeding supply and an increasing population density meaning that available water resources per person per year are on average less than that of some Mediterranean countries, solutions for a UK water industry that already uses nearly 3% of the national electricity generating capacity have to mindful of other utility requirements.
The proceedings opened with the Conference Chair, Dr Hans Jensen, CEO of UK Water Industry, outlining what he saw to be the direction for the industry, namely innovation leading to affordable least cost, sustainable solutions that would allow for environmental extremities due to climate change giving good catchment management and the delivery of clean potable water.
The opening address was given by the Right Honorable Lord Smith of Finsbury, the Chairman of the Environment Agency. Lord Smith outlined the current pressures on the industry brought about by the last 16 months being the driest for 150 years leading to temporary ‘use bans’ as a result of ground water levels becoming perilously low, immediately followed by the wettest 3 months for 100 years leading to major flooding, sometimes in the same place!

His view was that we had to have an industry capable of responding to rapid change and that we had to educate the public/society that water was not an infinitely available resource. Innovation in products and processes had to develop draught resistant crops and better methods of irrigation and water use. Indeed, during the draught, several major corporations had reduced their consumption by, for instance, introducing low water methods of washing crops that had lead to an 85% reduction in consumption, and rainwater harvesting.
Building design had to be relooked at; current techniques wasted water by, for instance, requiring pure water to be used for sanitation purposes rather than grey water. This had to be a priority for new build and he cited his own agency as a leader in new thinking with the new Environment Agency HQ reducing consumption by 85% when viewed on a like for like basis with their previous HQ.
He then turned to one of the major industry issues, leakage. A staggering 25% of purified water does not reach the end user. He saw this as an absolute priority for the industry; the leaks have to be fixed. Both Business and Domestic consumers had to be educated in better and wiser ways of using water with innovation being the only way for growth. Demand and use management would be only way to cater for the new housing stock in the South East and prevent further water stress. Water efficiency is key for the future.
Lord Smith closed by summarising the challenges:

• Pressure for innovation

• Disseminate of good practice

• Make it easy for the customers to do the right thing; the green deal must include water.

• Incentivise the water companies to sell less water with OFWAT pricing allowing for the companies to innovate more whilst delivering less.
The mechanisms of change were Regulatory, Government and Pricing.
This excellent opening address led to a lively question and answer session with questions and statements including:

• What is the impact of the lack of genuine competition?

• The need for alternative methods for abstraction.

• The need for alternative storage, catch it when it rains!

• Interconnection between water companies in adjoining regions leading to a Water National Grid whilst being mindful of the energy demands if this entails a pumped system.

• Desalination is seen as a position of last resort.

• Catchment management, we used to lead the world, the new Public Water Resource Framework is driving the need for catchment management.

• The Government do not give enough incentives for innovation unlike, for instance Singapore.

• Market incentives/regulatory frameworks and incentives are all very well but political volatility is a problem for long term water infrastructure project commitment.
Steve Kaye, Head of Innovation at Anglia Water followed Lord Smith by presenting an industry view of the issues and challenges saying that the water industry works in isolation and that there is a need to look at other industries for solution ideas. Whilst feeling that extreme weather does drive innovation there is a requirement for supplier engagement to drive forward the business process leading to a cultural change in the industry and its’ supply chain. Anglia have adopted a suppliers ‘dragons den’ to speed the innovation process with a view to improving current plant and not necessarily just building new assets, e.g. the use of elliptical pipes to reduce the depth of trenches. He felt that there is a resistance to the use of smart meters due to a lack of a clear business case understandable by the consumers. There has been a slow take up of waste combustion from by product bio gas due to legislative issues. Looking further at the inflow and out flow aspects there is a need for ‘Intelligent Sewers’ and ’Intelligent management’ of pipes in terms of both pressure and flow management.

There is a growing problem in the industry from the use of farm insecticides that are now finding their way into the reservoir system. He closed by agreeing with the final floor comment after Lord Smiths’ introduction that the 5 year regulatory window restricts long term growth.
The issues of waste water treatment was then picked up by Kieran Healey, the Synergies and Integration Manager for Veolia Water Solutions and Technologies stating that Waste Water Treatment plants waste energy and generate waste. The plants need to use the bio gas generated within the process to drive generators and improve electricity consumption. With 62% of energy being used in biological management, innovation is required in the field of bio refineries producing bio gas for energy and usable by-production of plastic materials. Veolia are looking to establish themselves as the benchmark for sustainable growth.
After another Q&A session and networking break, Professor Annie Brooking , CEO of Bactest demonstrated their latest portable contamination tester, ‘Speedy Breedy’. This is a field deployable fast test capability that can be used for all new and repair pipe-work projects that require a fast Yes/No answer as to whether contamination is present or not. If a ‘No’ answer, then supplies can be connected but if a ‘Yes’ answer the results of test samples sent off to laboratories for parallel examination can be used to determine what is present and what remedial action is required.
Ian Bernard, Technical Manager of British Water then spoke of the work done within his trade association and of the roller coaster demand cycle due to the 5 year plan changing. With the UK spending £10 billion a year on capes and the world wide industry around £500 billion, there is a large market that requires focus and direction. Ian outlined the use of the BWISE data base of emerging technologies to assist investment decisions.
Picking up the theme of investment decisions, Andy Slater Director of Sensus concentrated on the need for all stakeholders to act in tandem to fulfil a smart water vision. He introduced conference to the need to make smart actually be intelligent and utilise the data available from an independent survey that looked at the issues within the industry. With 20% of water lost through leakage and leakage being linked to pressure management we have to move to intelligent water networks. The research also highlighted the need for media management to assist in cultural and behavioural change of consumers and publicise the wastage caused by both the industry and the consumer. The morning Q&A session was moderated by Fiona Griffith of Isle Utilities. Immediately prior to the lunch break there were ‘rapid pitches’ from Fiona regarding her Technology Approval Group (TAG), a global innovation forum for water utilities and operators and Laurie Reynolds CEO of Aquamatix who develop and apply web services and standards to connect sensors, actuators and people by working with water and wastewater organisation to enable the realisation of Smart Water networks and related applications.

Charles Lee of Futureneering opened the afternoon session on Energy from Waste with a discussion on the need for a closed loop approach to land fill avoidance and the use of local by-products to generate energy. Clearly, mass burn incineration is an alternative to land fill but would breach emission limits giving an impetus to localised sources. He also highlighting that ‘free in the field’ was not necessarily ‘free in the generating plant’ if it were to be transported for any distance. He then summarised the various energy recovery from waste techniques currently available but issued the cautionary note that Waste materials become valuable commodities as soon as a use is found for them.

Doug Stewart CEO of Green Energy UK followed Charles. He ran through the rationale behind the establishment of Green Energy UK. The company sources power from green suppliers and seeks to engage with ethical consumers who are willing to adopt a specific tariff structure. Interestingly, many of his suppliers were not in business at the start of Green Energy but have commenced as the market for sustainably produced electricity has grown. Part of the company rationale is to offer shares to all customers to ensure their continuing commitment to innovation in the green energy field. Doug showcased a number of his suppliers and customers and closed with an overview of the regulatory incentives and closed with his view that we have to:
• Use less electricity, not more!

• Capture waste as a resource

• Liberate the energy

• Increase public awareness

• Make something useful out of what we throw away

Philip Gaffney CEO of L2S2 picked up on these themes as he put the case for data clarity and availability in making the investment decisions necessary for measurable and sustainable change in the energy/water/waste industries. L2S2 has developed a framework for data collection, management, reporting and device control that can operate over real world networks. The Metabase system has been developed recognising that:
• Change is a constant

• Sustainability demands high efficiency

• Rapidly adapted, accurate, current information needed to respond and plan

• Highly detailed, immediate data from and feedback to operations is essential for efficiency
He overviewed some interesting applications of the data base including an Anglian Water Wet Well photography system whereby data from cameras inserted into sewers and pipes can be analysed in real time in the central control room enabling timely corrective actions to be made. Data generated in a variety of applications can be displayed in customised KPI dashboard form to allow informed executive decision making.
Nick Boyle CEO of Lightsource Renewable Energy followed with a presentation on how a solar installation or Power Purchase Agreement with Lightsource can benefit heavy industry users and property owners by cutting electricity costs and providing better control on budget forecasting. He started with a cost curve showing how Solar energy costs of generation has fallen from a price 10 years ago of €3.8M per MW to a current price of €0.5M per MW as the cost of solar panels has been driven down. Lightsource look for unused land/reservoir/roof space and via their financing collaborators Octupus Investments, they pay for the installation and maintenance of the solar plant and can return to the land owner a 20% reduction in energy costs. He ran over a number of options including a floating solar system for use on reservoirs and other systems linked to waste recycling centres. Lightsource believe their approach can generate 10MW per 50/60 acres of land giving a discounted saving of £14.7M over 25 years.


The final session of the day was introduced and moderated by Rupert Kruger, Head of Innovation at Thames Water. In his opening remarks Rupert reminded the conference that water supply was the ultimate closed loop supply and demand system with, for instance, Thames Water delivering 2M tons of clean water to customers daily and collecting nearly the same amount as waste in the sewers.

An overview of investment trends in the VC market and what investors look for in investee companies was then given by Francis Wright of Turquoise (Low Carbon Investment Fund). He started from the point that there are fewer independent VC’s and an increasing number of Corporate VC’s leading to a change in the dynamics of the market. Francis gave an overview of what investors are now looking for and indicated that the market is now demanding the shortening of investment horizons from 5 – 7 years down to 3 – 5 years.

Generally investors are looking for:

• Experienced Management Team

• Scalable business model

• Low capital intensity

• Market leading product

• Fast route to market

• IP protection or other barriers to entry

• For projects:

• No technology risk

• Long term price and volume certainty on feedstock

• Creditworthy counterparties for feedstock and offtake
Moving on from supply and investment, Dr James O Jenkins from the University of Hertfordshire gave a presentation entitled ‘Water efficiency by stealth: time for a rethink on how we use water meters’. The basic premise of the talk was that there is a very low level of consumer understanding regarding water usage and the need for meters. Water meters are normally inaccessible, normally 0.5m underground and therefore not checked by the consumer. Add this to a commodity consumers do not consider price sensitive, means that a 10% price increase results in a 1% drop in consumption, i.e. price would have to double to achieve a modest 10% consumption reduction. There is a public perception that all price increases go to ‘fat cat’ companies aiming to get rich from what is seen as a basic need. In plain words, there is institutional distrust of the water companies. The reality is that we need smart water meters that are visible and easy to use aimed at enabling consumer control over the amount of water they use. Consumers do not purchase washing machines and dish washers based on water consumption, more on energy consumption. Other countries, e.g. Australia where there is already a high awareness of the need for water conservation, have subsidised the purchase of water efficient machines to aid the consumers.

He closed with the following based on survey results:

• Consumers need to be targeted with a diverse range of policies:

• consumers were very positive towards the fitting of free water saving devices (70%)

• the subsidisation of more water efficient household appliances (75%)

• the offering of a rebate on their water bill, if they were to reduce their water usage (70%)

• Make all water meters accessible

• Use water meters to educate

• Cost-neutral regulatory framework is not effective

• Bolder and stronger regulation needed

• Effective and engaging resource management approaches are going to cost more – ‘nudge’ your customers!

⇒ Change by stealth!

Following the theme of water efficiency, Sam Bose, CEO of AquaMW illustrated how Energy and Water sectors are interconnected since copious amount of energy is required to treat, move and distribute water while significant amount of water is required in the energy generation process and for cooling the steam generated. This is more pronounced in the industrial sector with industrial processes generating heat and requiring enormous energy, water to run them optimally.

The session discussed the energy – water nexus in industrial processes and highlighted possible solutions to improve efficiency. The AquaMW products ‘Smart Water’ and Smart Energy’ are retro-fittable wireless network systems using cloud computing techniques for delivering actionable intelligence.

He closed with the conclusions that to gain Industrial Resource Efficiency there are ‘3 takeaways’:

• Reducing resource (Energy, Water) demand through conservation programs

• Data Analytics to unlock insight for process efficiency and improve plant performance

• Resource, System and Process efficiency are all connected which can be delivered through Conservations Programs

Following a Q&A session moderated by Rupert Kruger, the conference chair, Dr Hans Jensen, summarised the day’s proceedings:

• The industry had to learn to live with a volatile weather pattern

• The industry needs to ‘fix the leaks’

• Intelligent data and resource collation systems need to be adopted

• Innovative ways of directing scarce resources need to be adopted

• New product innovations need to be adopted

• That the energy and water industry need to share best practice regarding the re-use of waste and metering techniques

• There needs to be a concerted effort to promote public understanding of the issues and to gain public trust

Summary by Mike McCreary, CIR Strategy & iWATER Conference Moderator

Please contact CIR on 01223 303500 for more information on our strategic consultancy in routes to market, segmentation & focus strategy, market research and commercial diligence.


SGCP 2012 Summary Slides – iHEAT/HVM on Horizon!

The above conference took place on 14 June 2012 at Cambridge University’s Murray Edwards College, there were over 100 delegates including many innovating SME energy efficiency grids and power companies. The day was a great success, with over 25 talks across two streams, and there was an intriguing final plenary panel led by Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent, of the Guardian Newspaper, with Keynote: Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool speaking on the “boon or curse” of shale gas. The answer was that it was more of a boon than a curse.

The summary slides were delivered to delegates a few weeks ago, and are now available here.

Please do call +441223303500 if you wish to discuss the conference or its followups.

The next conferences are:

iHEAT 2012 – intelligent heating systems, covering accumulator tanks, energy accumulation for thermal stores, heat metering, measurement & controls, and intelligent automation for optimised low carbon buildings. A great set of business growth sectors.
This is the 6th in the HEAT Cleantech Series since 2007.
There will also be a Conference in parallel at the venue on intelligent water systems and on waste as resource, which will build on the HVM 2008 Conference on Resource Efficiency.

This conference is sponsored entirely from the private sector through ARM, the global chip design company, Schneider Electric, and Galu, an SME manufacturer.

See for more information and to register.

HVM 2012 – 10th Anniversary Conference – this exciting anniversary conference will be led by Professor Sir Mike Gregory CBE from the IfM, which has recently published a report on high value manufacturing, and will feature Lord Sainsbury of Turville, Chancellor Elect of Cambridge University and former Science and Innovation Minister and 3-time speaker in the HVM Conference Series since 2002.
Plastic Logic, TAP Biosystems, Owlstone and many other private sector entrepreneurs will keynote through the day. This private sector led, pro-innovation-business conference takes place on 14 November at Cambridge University. There are no government funds used to put on the conference. CIR and Plastic Logic are supporting the conference inter alia to be announced.

Please call +441223303500 for more information or for marketing your brand, product or service at the event (places limited). The website will be at from mid September.

Lord Oxburgh keynotes on ‘Shale Gas – Curse or Boon?’ at Cleanpower Conference 14 June


(Lord) Ron Oxburgh

Shale gas is natural gas that, unlike conventional gas, never escaped from the source rock within which it was formed because the source was too impermeable. Modern technology has allowed this gas to be exploited by a combination of detailed sub-surface imaging, precisely controlled directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing. The application of these technologies is still in its infancy and some unfortunate and weakly regulated attempts to exploit shale gas have been made without making proper use of them resulting in some highly undesirable environmental consequences that include unintended gas seepages and pollution of ground water.  This has led to some strong local resistance to new shale gas exploration.

The world’s shale gas resources are probably very large but detailed exploration has yet to be done in many places. However, shale gas has more than doubled US gas reserves. China appears to have even larger reserves. In countries where it occurs, however, shale gas is likely to displace coal as the preferred fuel for power generation and to that extent will reduce the carbon footprint of electricity. However the continued availability of gas may weaken efforts to find sustainable alternatives.

End of Talk Summary for Lord Oxburgh Keynote on 14 June at New Hall Cambridge University CB3 0GT.


Biography for Ron Oxburgh

Ron Oxburgh is an independent member of the House of Lords and is currently chairman of 2OC, Green Energy Options and the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. He was formerly President of Queens’ College Cambridge, Chief Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Rector of Imperial College and Chairman of Shell.

Conference in Cambridge sponsored by ARM offers unique look at the gamut of grids, metering and power innovations

Smart Grids & Cleanpower 2012

Conference Cambridge sponsored by ARM offers unique look at the gamut of grids, metering and power innovations 

Moving to smart infrastructure requires modernization. There is pressure. This calls for innovation. As renewable input increases, so variability increases. Will embedded, incumbent technologies remain in place through subsidies and regulatory lock-ins? Will interventions result in more lobbying and less market-based-learning about private sector customers? As we remove the need for intrusion into millions of houses to read meters, and deliver more services, so we should meet difficulties around security of data and system. Therein lie many opportunities for entrepreneurs. VCs seeking risk will be assessing these opportunities in clean technology carefully, looking keenly at how policy-making evolves around grants for innovation and R&D, market reform and (de)-regulation, standards, and targets. New products, processes, markets and ancillary services are likely to be created.


Future trends and opportunities often emerge unpredictably from the wider range of technologies being developed. This conference (#SGCP) will stage an innovation pitching competition from sector startups/SMEs, not restricted to the core “metering rollout” in which prizes are offered by sponsors.


Lord Oxburgh will talk in the Cleanpower stream about large, often controversial lower carbon opportunities in the context of an unreliable new-nuclear sector in the UK and implications. Dr Bernie Bulkin, Chair, ORED, DECC will talk about technologies to meet targets, what this means for government strategy.

Professor Ross Anderson of the famed Computer Lab at Cambridge will challenge the smart-meter-rollout plan alongside leading technology providers for rollout and government, in what promises to be an exciting opening session, in the smart grids stream. EON will talk about the growing need for non-energy-generating services of power plants, a source of opportunity for many entrepreneurs. UK Power Networks discuss projects around connecting wind energy to the grid and about network integration in a session focusing on regulation and distribution policy with Ofgem.

Among applications of investible power and grid technology being showcased, the CEO of Eight19, the award-winning offgrid solar company operating in Africa and soon in India, will talk about “powering the unGrid”.

Example Confirmed Speakers/Panellists

  • Lord Oxburgh, Ron Oxburgh, eminent expert on energy
  • Dr Bernie Bulkin DECC – Chair, Office Renewable Energy Deployment
  • Robert Hull, Director, OfGem – E-Serve, Co-ordinating Offshore Wind Rollout
  • Dora Guzeleva, Head of Networks Policy, OfGem, Smarter Grids: Distribution
  • Richard Smith, National Grid, Future development of the UK’s energy networks
  • Cristiano Marantes, UK Power Networks, Projects connecting wind to grid
  • EON New Build and Technology, Greg Payne, Additional Services Opportunities in Power
  • ARM Holdings plc, the Global Chip Design Leader
  • Siemens – Infrastructure & Cities
  • Schneider Electric – Metering & Grid Products
  • Jeremy Nicholson, Senior Advisor, Energy Intensive Users Group, EEF, Chairman of Cleanpower
  • Christine McGourty, Director, Energy UK, Moderator
  • Dr Sarah Darby, Lecturer, Oxford University – Smart Meters & Consumers
  • Prof Ross Anderson, Cambridge University, Computer Lab, Smart Meters: Challenges of System Security
  • Prof John Miles, Cambridge University, Engineering Dept, Clean Energy: At What Price?
  • Keith Dickerson, Committee Member, International Telecoms Union, Standards: Where are we headed?
  • Simon Bransfield-Garth, CEO, Eight19, Powering the unGrid!
  • Peter Sharratt, Head of Sustainability Services, Deloitte
  • Alan South, Commercial Director, Solar Century, Solar sector trends, FiTs, RHI et al
  • Laing O’Rourke, Lessons Learned for Grids from Aerospace & Defence Technology Deployment


6 USPs of the Smart Grids & Cleanpower Conference

1) The only one-day, two stream conference in Europe to cover wider aspects of grid, power, metering technology strategy for emergent future trends (looking at the 80-tail not just the 20-core!)

2) 4 years of assembling the thought leaders, strategists, academics and innovators in the business

3) Refresh and build all your relationships and learning in a single day out of the office

4) Dedicated innovation pitching competition

5) High proportion of delegates are at director level

6) Pricing to suit all key categories of valued delegate for excellent networking

You can attend this year’s 4th Smart Grids & Cleanpower 2012 Conference on 14 June 10am-530pm at Murray Edwards College, CB3 ODR


Tel 01223 303500


Text: Just send “SGCP N delegates” to 07720047402 and we’ll follow up the booking for you.

Online Booking:

Cambridge’s Most Influential People: Review a decade on

The Judge MBA dissertation of Justin Hayward, written in 2001, sponsored by CIR, the local strategy consultancy and technology conferences company, tackled the question of who were the most influential people of the “Cambridge Phenomenon” and how did they interact. This document was placed in the library of the Judge Business School, and labelled as confidential, except after consultation with the author. The author felt that this was right, since the information in the document was in part commercially valuable, and also sensitive to those in the lists and those that might have been on its peripheries. As Hermann Hauser has said at the Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) fantastic Cambridge Network talk on 8 September 2011, the new list is also a matter of profile, sine qua non, as well as merit.

The Cambridge Business Magazine, with the support of three large companies, has released an update to part of this, the actual list of Top 25 most influential people for Cambridge Business.  This piece considers how many of the new list in 2011 were in the old list of 2001 and to draw any acceptable inferences from this small study.

It is worth bearing in mind, here, that the list obtained in 2001 by CIR was different from the 2011 list obtained by the Cambridge Business Magazine (CBM) in the following ways:

(1) CBM used a panel of 3 people heading up large companies to decide the list, whereas CIR interviewed an initial group of 25 people of prominence in the cluster (by its own reckoning), but then asked each of them (and others that they had named as influential) to list the people that they thought were most influential, so that hundreds of votes were ‘cast’. This process is a little more democratic, and certainly less “oligarchical” and susceptible to bias, yet not “perfectly democratic”.

(2) The CIR list was an “all-time” list, rather than a “now” list. It also potentially included people who were full-time academic leaders for example. This means that there were already names on the list that were inactive in 2001, and clearly some have fallen inactive between 2001 and 2011. The CBM list appears to be those who are still active (for the most part). This point needs clarification.

In numbers, the CIR 2001 generated a list of 117 unique names, from 237 names listed across 25 interviews in answer to the question: “Please give me your list of the most influential individuals for the Cambridge high tech business ecosystem”.

9 people (36%) were on both lists (CIR, 2001 & CBM 2011):

Alan Barrell, Nigel Brown, David Cleevely, Peter Dawe, Hermann Hauser, Walter Herriot, Andy Hopper, Mike Lynch, Michael Marshall.

The 2011 list can be analysed as follows:

16 are entrepreneurs,  8 in ICT, 4 on the biotech side, 2 in industrial areas, and 2 are entrepreneurs (one ICT one on financial services) who’ve moved long since into formal venture capital areas. There were 15 entrepreneurs in the 2001 list. A further 7 in the new list run key business networks. Finally, 2 are consultants, albeit very successful ones, one of whom I’m aware is an active business angel, who has invested in at least one of the other influential entrepreneurs on the list.

There are a few straight swaps: Warren East taking over from Sir Robin Saxby, present and past CEOs of the quintessentially Cambridge success story, ARM,  a story that is yet to unfold and whose importance in the world cannot be overstated. Another straight swap was Billy Boyle, of Owlstone, for Adam Twiss, whose Zeus was at the time soaring. Without checking, Billy is probably the youngest person in the list of entrepreneurs. Brian Moon replaces Paul Auton on the CCL side. The “new entry” of Redgate and Neil Davidson, is welcome, as it shows an element of marketing skill which many (including one other person in the list) have suggested are lacking in the cluster as a whole.

If there is a concern, it would be that there is a dearth of first-time entrepreneurs on the list. On the other hand, the “infrastructure” for helping them must be stronger than ever. It is at least quite clear from the profile of these lists, who one might go and talk to for angel and VC money and mentorship.

If there are silver linings, they are the “game, set and match” success of ARM, and the recent success of Mike Lynch with Autonomy. Some will use this as an example of another “British sell-out”. But Mike Lynch has broken into the “billionaire order of magnitude”, which I don’t think we’ve seen in Cambridge before.

Thank you to CBM for this interesting 2011 update.

CIR hosts a marker map of all high tech companies in the Cambridge cluster at If you are a new company with IPR or working on innovations in product or service, and not yet listed, please contact CIR via










Future of High Value Manufacturing

High Value Manufacturing (HVM) is a concept that is widely used and accepted now. The concept was beneficial to manufacturing businesses in that it encouraged the sector to think about whole businesses and to consider a wider range of aspects of business such as time-to-market, societal and environmental issues, marketing and global strategy at a new level of focus.

In previous common usage was the term “high value-added manufacturing”. This term was limited to meaning that the finished product is worth much more than the input materials. This is crucial to but only part of what is meant by the newer term ‘HVM’. “High Value” here refers also to the benefits to society of the presence of a business that requires above average at-hand expertise, which tends to provide more high quality, well paid, interesting work, locally, than would a pure licensing technology business (See J Hayward presentation at “HVM East Conference 2003”, for evidence of this, and “Defining HVM”, IfM Cambridge U (2006), where Dr F Livesey mentions the ‘social value’ of HVM). “High Value” also refers to the environmental benefits of this kind of manufacturing, which takes us away from ‘smokestack’ industrial businesses. (CIR ran an HVM conference on this aspect in April 2008 – environmental sustainability through closed loops and sale of service business models, see also “Towards a Sustainable Industrial System”, Professor Evans (Cranfield) et al, 2009). HVM could go some way to finding more modern means to stimulate innovation and growth, compatible with a more connected and advancing world.

This more holistic view of the manufacturing business concept, which has obviously been developed over a long period of time, but with focus by academics and others under the phrase HVM, has been more marketable, and has arguably improved the image of the sector or the relevant parts of it.

A search for the phrase on Google now yields many hits and there are institutions in academia, government and industry, with the “HVM” in the name, which did not exist when the phrase was coined in 2002 by CIR as it began writing a report on and defining it.

This HVM as we understand it today in 2011 after these iterations and developments is just the start of something, that when properly and fully embraced, can go much further. Not all manufacturing companies have taken the HVM idea on board and are therefore not maximising value. And as the world globalises, and markets become freer and fairer, the areas where HVM can thrive and work will expand. Some contend that this is a risk, others say it is an opportunity (see Kaletsky in FT January 2011).

When we first wrote down a definition of HVM, which emerged from an analysis of what regional technology manufacturers told CIR in the market research (“High Value Manufacturing in the East of England”, J D Hayward, CIR 2002) we noticed how much more there was to it than linear “high value-added manufacturing”. This latter meant simply that the product assembly would be of much greater value than the previous stage of input or inputs, and was common usage. With the phrase “HVM”, used repeatedly in Cambridge and elsewhere from 2002 onwards at the conferences and in reference to the reports written, it became clear that it was nonlinear and multifaceted. The nonlinearity comes from the interdependence of innovation, marketing and operational choices made by the HVM business.

And this leads to a change of mindset, reflected in, for example, academic institutions responsible for teaching and research into manufacturing formerly focussed on the act of manufacturing and all things to with ‘lean’, now covering everything from manufacturing to distribution to management to marketing to strategy and location selection to finance to energy efficiency and so on. Those institutions were perhaps doing all these things decades ago, but there is a renewed consciousness of it, as they themselves position themselves to be, in part, commercial per se.

What HVM was and is still about was a range of inputs and ultimately, more than one type of positive output or benefit. And these in turn, were, of course, found to interrelate in various ways or be relatively independent. There is surely more, interesting academic work to be done in this area.

Some of the inputs were R&D and reinvestment in it, IPR strategy, time-to-market, novelty or difficulty of process or manufacture, novelty of market. And outputs now included not just product price for sale compared to price of materials, but also social and community benefits and getting towards sustainability environmentally. Ultimately, ‘sustainability’, with all its current confusion as a term, will necessarily mean both viability and environmentally; a nice dialectic synthesis!

It is satisfying to be able to tell the story of 20 conferences and events stemming from the HVM definition of 2002, the report about the East of England scene for HVM in 2002, and then the similar report in 2005 for the South East and the academic reports that then appeared from then on, refining and taking ownership of the concept. I would like to thank James Gray, the then Chief Executive of Invest East, a sister organisation of the RDA EEDA, for accepting an unsollicited proposal for a small amount of funding for the HVM Report of 2002 and the first conference of 15 November that year. I would also like to thank Professor Sir Mike Gregory CBE for being sympathetic towards the idea and conference, and for going on not only to Chair the first conference, but to chair a handful of conferences that CIR organised under the HVM banner in Cambridge and elsewhere. This has led not least to a wealth of case studies that could be used for teaching and development purposes.

And this is just the beginning. HVM businesses are a candidate DNA entity for the industrial system of the future: they will not damage the environment or people in society, while remaining viable and thriving. There is a 2x2x2 matrix with seven undesirable possibilities and only one desirable!

When we quite naturally have such a system, that is when we can prosper in the original sense of the word.

The 10th Anniversary of the HVM Series, where we will bring together old friends, and many new ones, young and wizened to discuss just this appealing future, takes place in Q4 2012: do contact us if you wish to know more.









Summary HEAT10 Conference Expo 2 December

We asked:
What segments within energy saving for the built environment result in big reductions in energy use? How big are these priority opportunities? What do the markets look like structurally and who are the players in the supply chain? What is the role of ICT?

How will electric vehicles be integrated into smart cities and how quickly and deeply? How big are these opportunities? How will the energy companies of the future work with customers industrial, commercial, residential? How is the government planning to revolutionise the delivery of energy efficiency? And if we understand these areas, what are the market barriers to them? What should we do: act as role models? Lobby for logical sets of actions by others? Do nothing or wait-and-see?

Delivering heat is the top use of energy in the UK. Of this, in terms of carbon emitted per person per year, space heating is the largest single contributor, making up half the total. That total is slightly more than the total carbon emitted from passenger-km.

How do we achieve 80% reduction? Plenty of examples of role models are there, and known. People have put on lots of jumpers and built passive house. But these are relatively few and far between still. The question is how how do we get the whole country to change? Some barriers are: resource constraints (money, materials, tradesmen, etc), achieving what was planned or promised and delivering value. On this last, the speaker did not see moving backwards, i.e. constraining peoples’ lives as a way ahead. We must deliver comfort and freedom as people wish, but at the same time do it at much lower carbon.

The heat database was shown as a distribution: 8m households in the UK giving data on energy use. It was absent obvious, strong correlations between energy use and the physical attributes of the household or the social status of the occupants. This meant a tough task to move the mean, median and mode of the distribution to lower levels. The speaker showed how an optimal balance of demand and supply technologies deployed to achieve the 80% reduction in CO2 from 1990 levels was a sweetspot that could save the UK tens of billions of pounds. While people now spend £1200 on energy on average a year, one needs to spend between £20,000 and, say £70,000 on energy saving technologies to achieve these reductions on average. Spread over 40 years even (if such were possible) this would still represent a proportion of the energy bill itself corresponding to between 42% and 146% both of which are probably unpalatable to the vast majority of householders. But on a more optimistic note, this represents a huge opportunity for suppliers in more upbeat and urgent conditions.

Looking at the turnover rates of various markets, the appliances area, like smart phones and gadgetry is extemely fast, whereas that of network-facing billing and metering, the energy and utilities, companies is very slow. The worst outcome for everyone is that the fastmoving ICT companies and consumers end up shunning this market because the energy companies seem to conservative, risk-averse and slow-moving.

Even something that delivers real value to houses, like central heating, has taken 50 years to get it into most houses. Having said that, an optmistic note on infrastructure: when we have made a decision to make a switch, e.g. to natural gas, it has happened very quickly. You can mobilise and change infrastructure quickly and then you live with it for a long time.

We need to look at the whole supply chain: find opportunities, have customer contact, analyse and plan, IS, inventory, off-site, distribution, on-site, QA, monitoring and control. But the rate limiting factor is probably the awareness, and agreement of householder to do what is needed to the house.

Remaining opportunities for efficiency improvements in houses were limited. The undone work on windows, insulating lofts and walls ranged from 12-22% of them – the majority have been completed.

The question of scale is interesting for the CIR Conferences series, particularly HEAT and Smart Grids & Cleanpower which cover the two ends of the scale from building up to national infrastructure. Factors such as operating effectiveness through capital efficiency through finance availability vary with scale. This is another thicket of complexity for us to work through for the optimal approaches.

So in the long run, what do we do as a nation to implement the large energy efficiencies now made law out to 2050? There are an infinite number of combinations of things we could do. We know we can achieve the 80% reduction targets to that year. The sustained value is critical and the affordability. And who are actual making these choices? At the householder level, car companies know a lot about who in the house makes the choices on cars and why. This is not so regarding the investments needed in energy systems for households and buildings generally. We need also to understand the supply chain and limiting factors around delivery rates of solutions, and indeed quality or reality of those ‘solutions’. On scale, many small improvements doesnt always add up to a few big things.

Public sector having trouble raising finance – how will we see cashflow to renovate buildings. 80% of buildings we will occupy in 2050 are standing now. So retrofit is going to be important. What is an energy performance contract? This is a contract that acts for a set of buildings, whose energy usage rate is guaranteed by the ESCO. In public sector language, it is a spend-to-save scheme, you are buying future energy performance. Practically, the EPC is a 4 stage process. Stage 1 is a desktop audit, checking which buildings can be retrofitted and estimating savings. Stage 2 qualifies this and the qualification must be close to the audit claims. A 30% saving cannot reduce to 3% at stage 2. Stage 3 is the implementation and stage 4, the guarantee. The energy saving can be converted to a monetary amount saved and this in turn can be used to pay the staff of the ESCO, forming a real partnership. LDA has set up a framework called REFIT to do large public sector energy saving contracts. Anyone in the public sector can use this framework. There are 12 ESCOs available to choose from to carry out projects. EPC should be off-balance sheet, funded by service not assets. They can be funded in 3 ways: write a cheque for cash; go to public works loan board; use a bank loan or asset finance. None is ideal. The EPC should find out the savings during and after the EPC programme, cost of kit and service. This ratio gives breakeven and ROIs and other financial measures. But these are difficult to prove upfront. But if the ESCO will guarantee the EPC then banks and lenders generally may be happy to lend against the projects. Sophisticated lenders may be able to hedge both energy costs and carbon emissions.

A number of pilot projects are being run around the UK.

In summary, the objective is normally to finance on the P and L or revenue account (public sector).

Electronics can also be part of the energy efficiency solution. Electronics are moving into a wide range of new areas: sensors and monitoring, and others. There is a broad move towards the internet of things, where objects are connected to the internet and each other. This move seems inexorable. This means more energy use in buildings coming from more gadgetry. But this can be mitigated in a few ways at chip design level. It can be mitigated by efficiency improvements to motors. It can be improved by devices running or standing by at much lower or zero power. And as things take on shared use, the hardware has more chip commonality and can be reused.

Electricity is very inefficient, it was claimed. 12.4% of fuel use is in its delivery. 28.7% of fuel is wasted in electricity losses. And more than 50% of electricity is used in motors.

Moving to smaller, more efficient computers, i.e. from desktop to laptop to netbook, will improve energy efficiency considerably.

Data centres could be improved to obtain an 87% reduction in emissions through virtualisation, smart cooling, storage and CPU.

Poor design exists especially around TVs, game stations. There is also scope for saving around how these are used.

All in all, it will be a tough battle to reduce energy usage absolutely as demand increases for devices and connectivity. Those increases can be reduced through energy efficiency. Companies in the field of electronics design will surely thrive as they introduce more efficient technology. Culture change will not be their priority, even with a squeaky clean CSR policy. Leaders at the conference in this area certainly appeared to be taking seriously the problem of mitigating the energy demand increases at the small scale level.

1.5 billion meters in the world now. No single company can build the smart grid. It is an effort by a partnership of companies. Interoperability will be very important: we must make sure it not a silo; it should have more than one use.

We are to build in many wind farms to the grid. What happens when there is no wind? We need to build the new grid for intelligence, avoiding needing to build so many new power stations. Intelligence also in energy management, and within the generators. So we need to be able to look at the whole system.

The whole system needs to be smart, not just smart in silos.

Changing demand patterns is really important, but there is no agreement on how to do that. It is a political question as much as a logical one where costs vary to manage demand and supply.

The stick of tougher regulation and compliance is the practical result of political will. But how is this fairly set?

Microgeneration in houses and districts and peer to peer trading of loss-free electricity obviously mean consumer participation in the delivery chain.

The CIR Conferences will continue to focus on new service and business model opportunities.

The Smart Grid will also be an innovation platform for a world of companies kept out of the undynamic grid of today.

The new business models have been talked about above around EPCs. This will lead to more monitoring and control of consumption and cost of energy in an atmosphere of heightened corporate sustainability and responsibility policy.

In the new ecosystem of energy management, you have regulators defining prioritisation; you have renewable generators, who want to produce power when it is windy (or sunny), power that we must maximise; you have the DNO who want to make sure their network is robust and secure – a critical aspect; and you have the energy retailer that wants to buy cheap and sell higher the electricity. What energy retailers do wont particularly affect the grid directly. It was argued that the above creates tensions as well as technical challenges, which implies the need for regulation done well, with understanding of the whole picture and connected to long run goals.

Smart meters continue to play a pivotal role in the smart grid. They will give near real time meter reading, not needing visits. This leads to more accurate forecasting and billing which energy provider like, as perhaps do most consumers. Extra home energy information can lead to strongly lower consumption, again given the new customer involvement. But it also enables time-of-use pricing, much more detailed than as in Economy 7. Pricing could vary hourly for example. Customers could run programmes to analyse this data automatically, and to automate their choice of demand response. This would last long after they might become used to the novelty of home energy data from monitoring and metering.

In modern design product lifecycles including for smart energy, an area of growth for product design work, the product is making first contact with the customer (perhaps a utility company) much earlier in the process, for extended trials. They will buy in large numbers. This means developing and making a demonstration in a single design iteration that works like the real thing, through rapid development with a multidisciplinary team. Rapid can mean 3-4 months. This is a case of understanding the route to market and developing an approach to suit this route.

It is contended by some and not others at the HEAT conference that you can change consumer/customer behaviour.

There must be benefits to consumers in the this evolution which seeks to decarbonise energy and provide security of supply for the long run.

TOU tariffs, demand response and microgeneration all have the potential to make life more complex and overall worse for the consumer. This would be bad for the market. So we must strive to unravel that complexity and stay focused on consumer benefits. We repeatedly overestimate the appetite of the mass market consumer for screens and technology.

Visibility of pricing, through alerts for example, and automation could work in favour of TOU price choices.

Consumers do not think about consuming energy, they think in concrete terms of appliance use. And motivation without empowerment leads to frustration. With empowerment, action follows. Being social animals, motivation comes from role modelling and reputation, and from collaboration.

Homeworking and the obligation of large companies to report carbon emissions of employees has meant companies are able to help consumers know more about their footprints and what to do about it.

People are not going to be moved towards utilities web portals for their energy data. This is only one of many places and not the favourite.

Consumer behaviour change goes through in three stages: reveal, reduce and renew. We reveal through ‘usage shock’ and better tariff options (diagnostics). Then we reduce by establishing active behaviour change around smarter use, turning things off or down, more efficient appliances. And finally, through self-generation the bills and emissions can come down yet further.

In Holland smart meter roll out was rolled back as a result of not taking consumers along and informing them properly: It is vital to put consumers at the centre of our thinking.

Energy information is dull. We must watch out for schemes for behaviour change that do not help the energy situation and lead us down yet more wrong paths. This may seem good for business in the short run, but ultimately it is not going to help business either.

There is a shift to DC: web, lighting – everything above the waist. Design is an issue and one cuts out a lot of losses by keeping to a smart DC network with variable power.

Distributed storage sent back to the grid doesnt make sense, but DC storage and use as DC does.

Provide energy through a DC connected energy harvester. Retain the energy and provide power to a smart DC network.

Channels to market for SME tech providers include energy retailers, retailers, installers, and possibly government and own-brand websites direct.

In a talk entitled: The challenge of retrofitting homes for low carbon, the government, DECC, appears to have taken on board that retrofitting will be key, rather than new builds, which are relatively easily legislated in for much higher efficiencies on a timeline. We note in passing however that that aspect too is unlikely not to miss targets in the next 6-10 years.

Governments are said to be good at setting long run targets, such as to 40 years maturity, since they probably wont be in power when the time comes. But the 80% cut versus 1990 emissions for 2050 is a landmark piece of legislation. The legislation is coupled with binding interim targets called carbon budgets. These are total levels of carbon capped within 5-year periods from now 2008 onwards, when the Climate Change Act was agreed. Then the long run target law is coupled with an accountability framework: a committee that has access to government officials, in meetings and through auditing.

In 2006, carbon emissions had fallen 3% versus 1990 levels. So a further 77% to go over the 44 years from 2006!

Electricity generation was the highest contributor, followed by domestic transport, then residential and commercial heat and in similar amounts, industrial heat and processes. Taken together residential, commercial and industrial heat is the highest segment.

In the residential segment (heat), since 2008, the government claims that the levels of emissions have come down by 5% and to 2020, the target is to fall another 29%.

In houses, there are three ways to fill the gap: reduce energy needed through insulation, better heating systems and controls; producing low carbon heat through solar thermal and heat pumps; and finally: behaviour – attitudes and enabling technologies.

The way government looks at reaching this target, is to break down the achievement of the target into segments: policies, zero carbon homes, smart meters, and ‘whats left?’ It then tries to predict the effect of these areas of action in terms of contribution to the target. Existing policies are supposed to produce 60% of the target. Zero carbon homes a very small amount of 3%. Smart meters about 6%. New policies of Green Deal, the Future Energy Company Obligation including the Renewable Heat Incentive are supposed to produce the remaining 30% of the needed reductions to 2020 in this segment.

Looking at the usual graph of approaches to reductions ordered by cost effectiveness, solid wall insulation and lofts and cavity walls, those that remain to be done, seem to be a logical area to focus on. There are 10m, 7.5m, and 2.3m further lofts, cavity walls and solid walls to insulate respectively.

There are barriers to delivery, as noted before, that government is aware of. These are barriers that exist even when money can be saved in taking action.

From a consumer survey by government, some people, 20% of households, are aware but just not interested in loft insulation. Does this mean 80% are engaged and likely to go ahead? And many people are overestimating costs without checking the reality.

Will the Green Deal policy, in development now, to be completed late 2012, really be a Game Changer? This will try to plug the information and awareness gap with marketing and co-ordination. The idea is to get high street and utility brands on board. Brands that people cannot avoid being aware of. They will sell energy efficiency products and provide energy efficiency advice. There will be independent surveys to individual households. Then finance: Green Deal Finance will provide all or a good chunk of the money needed upfront. The construction industry and building trade generally has a fairly bad reputation. The government is keen to make sure this does not hamper the roll out of greener buildings. There will be accreditations so that people can show that they are qualified to install a given set of measures. The financing is designed to be taken from savings in the energy bill of the householder who has installed the measure. This will mean the bill will not go down as much, or not at all for a time, but this is still better than not having carried out the installation.

For those who or technologies which cannot obtain the Green Deal Financing, there is an additional piece of legislation, the Energy Company Obligation, which causes the energy companies to subsidise installations. Theoretically, all consumers would then be covered for all reasonable types of installation.

The Green Deal applies to non-domestic buildings as well. In this segment it is much more focused on electricity use. Business sector emissions amount to 214MtCO2, of which electricity causes about 100 MtCO2.

The CRC applies to less energy intensive industries, such as universities and supermarkets etc.

At the other end of the scale, of the nearly 5m organisations in the UK, 99% are SMEs, about 2m operate out of domestic premises (so dont be embarrassed if that is your business!)

CIR Conferences looks forward to meeting you again at Smart Grids and Cleanpower 2011 23-24 June Cambridge, for the followup conference. (see and