Futuristic car, futuristic company

Had a great morning interviewing one of the founders of Riversimple.  It's the most inspirational company and one that caught my interest a few years ago because of its open source car design.

The company itself aspires to change personal transport, and so has created a hydrogen fuel cell car; no battery, no combustion engine.  Amazing what you can do when you start with a blank page and a problem - i.e. how to make transport sustainable.  When you compare this with the normal approach of  tweaking what you already have, you can understand why both their proposition and their business model is so exciting and, I think, demonstrates so well what I am talking about when I speak about collaborative capitalism.

More to follow.  I'll edit the podcast this week so you can hear all about it for yourselves!

Austerity versus Investment - the double dip answer

ONS GDP and the Labour Market - 2012 Q1 - April GDP update

Last week the ONS released the official statistics that show we are once again in recession.  As the table I've copied here, and the explanation summary that goes with this table state:

"..total output has declined by 0.5 % over the last two quarters.  The economy has not expanded at all over the last year.  Since 2010 Q3, when the economy had grown for five consecutive quarters following the 2008-09 recession, real GDP has contracted by a total of 0.2%."

Now as a Keynesian, I unashamedly will see this as an example of how the austerity package isn't working, especially when compared to the current performance of say, the USA.  However I believe it also demonstrates the importance of one of the key characteristics of collaborative capitalism - long-term sustainable investment.


When I talk about sustainable investment, I am of course talking about triple bottom line investment, but with the environment as perhaps the most important of the three factors.  The last Government invested heavily in our social infrastructure - in rebuilding schools and hospitals in particular.  What I believe is now needed is an investment in our environmental infrastructure, if we are to be truly competitive and have an economy that has a chance of being successful over the next few decades.


At the CIWM Midlands AGM last week, Martin Brocklehurst gave a great presentation about the importance of resource security and how that is currently driving the EU environmental agenda.  It is an argument I have mentioned before; one being made by the Green Alliance and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation in this country.  But it is one that our policy makers talk less about.  If we want to 'rebalance' the economy then we need to make sure that our manufacturers have a secure and price-stable source of the resources they need.  And the thing we know about most of these resources, if they are raw materials? That despite the dismissal of the limits to growth arguments, they will run out (in an economic, if not a real sense).  


Right now, China produces over 90% of the world's heavy rare earth metals which are used in mobile phones, computer screens and hybrid car technologies.  Until quite recently US demand was met by its domestic supply, now that demand is met by China.  This oft-cited example is a snapshot of potential future resource security issues, but there are many more examples on our doorstep.  In the waste and resources sector we collect valuable materials for recycling, and then send them abroad for processing, while domestic companies struggle to find the same clean materials as feedstocks for their processes.


Environmental investment would be investment in these areas.  We must support the infrastructure that will allow us to keep these valuable resources and materials in the UK, beingprocessed here and made available for manufacturing.  This is how we will support business and job growth in the future.


It's not just waste and resources infrastructure that needs the investment.  In environmental investment I also include energy, water and transport.  We have benefitted hugely from the Victorian legacy of infrastructure built to last and benefit future generations, not just this week's shareholders.  This is the type of investment that should be at the heart of Government policy right now.  It's a key part of Collaborative Capitalism and a should be top of George Osbourne's to-do list.

£250m Weekly Waste Fund Workshops

Busy travelling the country at the moment, facilitating some workshops on behalf of the LGA.  We've been to London and Manchester and have the following dates booked in:


Tuesday 17 April - Birmingham
Wednesday 18 April - Newcastle
Thursday 19 April - London.


The aim of the workshops is to give local authorities guidance and support for the Weekly Waste Fund application, and a clearer idea about the fund and how assessments can be made.  Supporting partners include Local Partnerships, WRAP, iESE and of course, DCLG and the LGA.


Responses so far have been positive and I think the sessions have been really constructive.  If you want to find out more, or are looking for support with your application, please do get in touch.

'Competition' in the Water Industry

This is a procrastination blog.  Because I should be doing something else right now that is more important, but I have had a couple of conversations this week about competition and then saw an LSE blog about competition in the water industry.

The LSE blog gave the recent Water White paper an amber light for competition because it says that retail competition for businesses is currently limited based on how much water you use, so the potential market is only 2,200 customers.  What it doesn't mention is that Ofwat, in its review of Competition in the Water and Sewerage Industries: Part II, states:

"- the WSL regime, which allows about 2,200 customers who are likely to use at least 50ML of water a year to switch supplier.


These forms of competition are useful, but very limited.  The WSL regime is the principle framework for allowing customers to choose their water supplier.  It was introduced in December 2005, but to date has not been successful in enabling any customer to switch their supplier."

Now, it could be that the WSL regime is ineffective or cumbersome and that is why competition has not resulted in any customers changing supplier.  Or it could be that water is water wherever you buy it, and that competition has limited appeal.

The more I talk to people in the industry, the more I feel that something huge and strategic, like the physical infrastructure of the water network, should be owned by the state.  Perhaps like Network Rail, or the National Grid.  Competition will mean asking companies to compete when they are all selling an identical product, but with very different infrastructure costs.  As the Government subsidy to South West Water has shown, it costs more if you have hundreds of miles of coastline and bathing water to clean-up and protect, than if you are landlocked, like Severn Trent and Thames.  So you have different infrastructure costs, which have to be maintained in a highly regulated industry, but you are going to be competing - on price and service levels?

Considering the furore over recent months about the lack of transparency in the consumer electricity markets, I find the Water White Paper and its ideas for competition myopic.  In a world with the possibility of increased drought and, at the same time, increased flooding incidents, you are introducing competition to a strategic monopolistic industry who's main infrastructure was built by the Victorians?  It doesn't make sense to me.

Back to the original quote above - competition has existed, albeit in a limited area, since 2005.  It hasn't worked.  Is the solution right now really more competition?

Moving the goalposts - again!

At the beginning of this week DECC published its timetable for implementing the RHI or Renewable Heat Incentive.  It's a great incentive because it works in the same way as Feed-in Tariffs and ROCS - it pays you to produce, and hopefully use, renewable heat.

And yet, in the same ways as they dramatically changed Feed-in Tariffs at short notice, the Government have now announced a delay of the second phase of RHI till 2013.  The disappointment within the renewables industry is palpable.  The Solar Trade Association, ABDA (the anaerobic digestion industry body) and the Renewables Energy Association have called the changes "premature", "unhelpful" and a "source of huge frustration".

The sting in the tail, however, is the small part of the announcement that stated the Government is proposing a policy of "cost control".  In other ways, it is keeping the door open to do what it did with FITs, dropping the level of incentive at short notice.

While the talk this week has been about panic buying petrol, pies and postage stamps, the serious issue is the lack of growth in the economy.  There is little plan for growth and absolutely no plan for sustainable growth.  This change, once again, to existing schemes continues to undermine the fledgling green industries that should be at the centre of our economic strategy.  People will not invest when the future is so uncertain.  A depressing time for all of us working in this area.

Podcast: The Co-op Approach to Solar

Copyright Ben Whittle 2012 Leominster's Solar PV

This podcast discusses what you need to do to get a community-owned solar PV project up and running.  Ben Whittle and Philippa Roberts talk about the issues faced in Leominster, Herefordshire.


Start: How Ben became involved
3min: Why a solar co-op?
6min: Who else is involved and why?
9min: How to set up a solar co-op
13min: Changes to the Feed in Tariff (FIT)
18min: Getting PV on the roof and the support from Good Energy
20 min: The future of community renewables.

Can Community Solar Survive?

Copyright Ben Whittle 2012

I recently interviewed Ben Whittle, a founding Director of the Leominster Community Solar Co-op.  This Herefordshire based community project aimed to put a large solar PV array on the local sports centre; owned and funded by people who lived in the area.  Unfortunately, the launch event happened a matter of days before the Government's first 'review' of the Feed-in tariff.

While the solar industry has seen strong growth in recent years, and should be considered a success story, it is under threat from a lack of faith in the investment environment.  Regular and unexpected changes to any subsidiary will always cause uncertainty, and make it harder for projects to get off the ground.  I personally know projects that were cancelled as a result.



So did the Leominster project make it?  Listen to the interview and find out!