For a while I have been thinking and talking about the need to change the language around energy efficiency because the old language that we grew up with isn’t working well. If it was working we wouldn’t have “low hanging fruit” and huge untapped potential for cost effective investment in energy efficiency. We wouldn’t be hearing the same old objections to energy efficiency we have been hearing for more than 30 years like, “energy efficiency doesn’t work”, “you can’t measure the results” and “it is not strategic” etc etc.

At the recent workshop I attended at KAPSARC (King Abdullah’s Petroleum Studies and Research Center ) one of the participants made an excellent point about changing the language of energy security. As he pointed out we don’t actually want energy we want services like comfort, light etc and therefore we should not talk about ensuring energy security but rather ensuring the security of the services that energy provides. This comment was “a light bulb moment” for me, not about energy services of course – this has long been a given – but about the potential effects of changing the language around energy security.

Think about it – if you say “energy security” you immediately think about how do we physically secure the physical flow of energy commodities – usually oil, gas, LNG or coal. That takes you into trade deals, (there is nothing wrong with trade of course but let’s face it – some energy deals have had a heavy moral price), strategic investments in pipelines and other infrastructure to gain preferential treatment, potentially having to outbid the competition for energy supplies, and of course ultimately military force projection starting with the question all US Presidents supposedly ask whenever there is a crisis, “where are the aircraft carriers?”, to all out invasions and occupations. Historically and to this day much overt military force and of course lots of covert military and espionage work is dedicated to causes related to securing energy supplies.

So how does this change with changing the language to one around securing energy services? First of all it makes you focus closer to home (literally) – the services are needed/consumed here – not in some remote place where we get physical energy supplies from. Next it pushes you towards a strategy in which you look at how to reduce the energy you need to use to deliver the services – energy efficiency gets elevated as a way of securing supply of comfort in people’s homes. Ensuring security of energy services – for example comfort in people’s homes – becomes less about doing deals to buy gas from Russia or elsewhere, or making sure the Straits of Hormuz stay open to ensure the flow of oil, and more about making sure we have as many near zero energy consuming households through super insulating new homes and retrofitting old ones.

So here is an idea – next time someone talks about “energy security” just say “we should not be interested in energy security – only in the security of the services that energy is used to supply”. Then start a conversation about the true cost of “securing energy” as opposed to “securing energy services”. Putting aside the non-financial costs and as a starter on the financial equation the US spent $6.8 trillion between 1976 and 2007 on military force projection in the Persian Gulf[1], an average of $323 billion per annum. Given c.17 million barrels of oil a day go through the Straits of Hormuz[2] this represents a cost of c.$50 per barrel of oil – and only about 10%[3] of this goes to the US so for the US the cost of oil is c.$500 per barrel – on top of the actual price of just over $100 per barrel. Of course that only counts the US contribution and does not count the considerable expenditure in the Persian Gulf by the UK and many other countries.

Of course we could not reduce expenditure on keeping the Straits of Hormuz open to zero even if we didn’t need the oil – which I think we always will if only for petrochemicals – free trade and the idea of free passage on the high seas should be defended as a general principle otherwise the pirates and the terrorists will take over and that is not good for anyone.

[1] Stern, R.J. United States cost of military force projection in the Persian Gulf, 1976–2007.

[2] Energy Information Administration. World oil transit choke points.

[3] Energy Information Administration. U.S. Imports from Persian Gulf Countries of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products.

The retrofit of the Empire State Building (ESB) a few years back deservedly got a lot of publicity and helped put energy efficiency on the agenda for commercial property owners – at least in the US.  Once completed in all tenant spaces savings are projected to be 38%.  The measured savings have exceeded the targets in the first two years.  The savings were 5% higher than the target level in year 1 and 4% higher in year 2.  The ESB is a brilliant case study of what is possible using state-of-the-art retrofit practice and is now widely referred to.  Some commentators, however, seem to miss the real lessons of the ESB project.  Based on my readings of the project and talking directly to some of the participants these are my take-aways.

Timing

The ESB project was part of a much larger $500m refurbishment designed to bring the ESB into the 21^st century, reduce voids and increase rentals.  This is an important point, the best time to do deep energy retrofits is during a major refurbishment.  Expecting building owners to do them at any other time is simply unrealistic.  Therefore we need to ensure that these opportunities to improve energy (and water) performance are not missed and at that point integrated design techniques are applied.  Policies need to be put in place to ensure that the highest energy performance standards apply to major refurbishments as well as new buildings.  Right now buildings are being refurbished and major opportunities to do deep retrofits are being missed – locking in excessively high energy consumption and costs for at least the next twenty years until the next major refurbishment.

Energy efficiency can improve yields but it is only one factor

The effect of the energy efficiency projects in the ESB means that tenants have electricity bills about half of those in unimproved buildings.  This has a definite effect on the attractiveness of the office space but at the end of the day other features such as location, design, the overall fit with the organisation’s needs and ultimately price are likely to be bigger drivers on a  relocation decision.  The real driver of improved yields at the ESB was that the office space, which had been dated, was brought into line with the needs of 21^st century clients.

The need for holistic or integrated design. 

The ESB retrofit is a great case study of how to implement integrated design and the great benefits that come from applying it.  Integrated design gets us away from the argument “efficiency costs more” – in many cases it can cost the same or less when integrated design is applied properly.  Integrated design has been promoted by Eng Lock Lee in Singapore, the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) and others for many years now but the uptake remains low – at least in the UK – despite the proven benefits of reduced energy usage and often reduced capex.   We need to promote the use of integrated design and step-up training amongst engineers and architects as well as clients.  Supply of integrated design solutions would be improved if more building owners demanded it.  In the case of the ESB it was lucky that Tony Malkin, the owner, was an informed and determined client.  Original proposals for the refurbishment did not include integrated design and Tony made it very clear that if vendors and contractors wanted to be on the job they had to do it this way or they would be shown the door.  We need more clients who know enough to do this.

The power of leadership and open source information

Tony Malkin is a committed environmentalist but he also insists on a three year payback period on any investment.  The use of integrated design and techniques such as remanufacturing the windows on-site meant that the additional capital required for energy efficiency, (net after all additions and subtractions of $13m on top of an original $93m for energy related work), had a three year payback.  One of the great things about the ESB project is that all the other New York City property owners know that Tony Malkin insists on a three year payback – this gave the project great credibility and helped lead to other owners starting similar projects on their buildings.  Tony also insisted on the project being “open source” and all the contracts and M&V reports are available on-line.   He has also spoken widely about the project.  As a result of this leadership and the work of RMI and the other companies involved there are now many other similar integrated design retrofit projects now being worked on.

The importance of Measurement and Verification (M&V). 

M&V was built into the process right at the beginning and independent M&V professional report on the savings – calculated using techniques under the International Performance Measurement & Verification Protocol (IPMVP).

Look at all the costs.

When looking at energy costs it is important to look at all the costs associated with energy usage.  This includes electricity and fuel costs, capex of energy using equipment, operations & maintenance costs and any other associated costs e.g. energy taxes etc.  Only a full consideration of all the costs can give the building owner (or an external investor) an accurate investment analysis.

EPC does not need to be externally funded

The ESB often comes up in discussions of energy performance contracts (EPC) in the commercial building sector.  The work was undertaken under an EPC but entirely financed by the owner.  It does raise the prospect of an externally financed energy retrofit using the same kind of techniques.  Integrating external financing into the financing needed for the building itself or a major refurbishment can be challenging but is certainly possible.  By adopting more integrated design techniques EPC contractors can differentiate themselves and make externally financed solutions more attractive than they often are now.

So to sum up, the lessons of the ESB for building owners are:

•  use the opportunity of major refurbishments to implement deep energy retrofits and don’t just accept “business as usual” solutions

• use integrated design – it can reduce capex as well as energy costs
• count all the costs including energy, maintenance and capex in evaluating alternatives
• use independent M&V to prove results and manage contractors.

For policy makers:

• work with the design professions and building owners to improve capacity in integrated design – both on the supply and demand sides

• enact policies (building regulations) to ensure that the opportunities for deep retrofits presented by major refurbishments are not missed.

I saw an interesting guest blog on Steve Blank’s blog by Henry Chesbrough who developed the idea of Open Innovation which is relevant to the discussion of innovation in the energy sector.  It was comparing start-ups to established companies and defined the difference like this:

• A startup is a temporary organization in search of a repeatable, scalable business model.
• A corporation is a permanent organization designed to execute a repeatable, scalable business model.

This is simple but profound realisation, and understanding it is critical to success in corporate venturing and creating new products and services within existing companies.  “The processes that companies have optimized for execution inevitably interfere with the search processes needed to discover a new business model”.   Although existing corporations have far more resources than startups this conflict can severely hamper them those very resources can become liabilities in searching for new ventures.  A corporate venture effectively has to fight two wars; one in the external market, and internally against the parent company.  This is something that those of us who have been in that situation definitely recognize.  It is a major issue for energy companies trying to innovate new products, services and business models.  It drives you to the conclusion that any corporation that really wants disruptive innovation has to either explicitly encourage and reward it in the culture, as 3M has successfully done for decades, or if that is not appropriate (and for many companies it won’t be) you have to separate people and resources entirely in the manner of a Lockheed Skunk Works^®.

Given the massive economic and political disruption going on in the energy markets that threatens the very existence of the incumbent suppliers, if I was an energy company CEO I would be setting up a skunk works with the objective of coming up with a repeatable, scalable business model that will disrupt the traditional energy supply model.   If the big suppliers don’t do it someone else will (or is already).

A few days after I published my blog on innovation warning about the dangers of technology hype and a lack of understanding of the realities of the innovation process, particularly in the energy sector, the Independent on Sunday provided a perfect example.  Across the bottom of the front page the headline said (screamed?) “Exclusive: Renewable energy from rivers and lakes could replace gas in homes“ and the article started by saying “millions of homes across the UK could be heated using a carbon-free technology that draws energy from rivers and lakes in a revolutionary system that could reduce household bills by 20 per cent”.  The whole of page 4 was devoted to reporting on this “magic” “new” technology that takes heat out of rivers and lakes and turns it into heat for use in heating buildings.  The Secretary of State Ed Davey was quoted as saying it was “game changing” and it reported that he has asked officials at DECC “to draw up a nationwide map showing where renewable heat can be drawn from water to explore the potential of heat pumps”. If you read the piece with no prior knowledge you would have thought that this technology would soon be everywhere providing cheap, low carbon heat.

Here are a few facts to consider:

• Using heat pumps to take low grade heat out of rivers and turn it into higher grade (higher temperature) heat is not new.  (To be fair the article did acknowledge this). The Royal Festival Hall on London’s South Bank had a heat pump installed to use the heat in the Thames in 1951 (subsequently removed I believe).
• The main advantage of the Mitsubishi technology referred to in the article seems to be the relatively high output temperature of 45^oC.  Higher temperatures are usually better but heat pump efficiency goes down as output temperature goes up.  (See below for the real innovation in the system).
• A traditional wet heating system using radiators operated with flow temperatures of c.75-80^oC but modern systems in well insulated houses can operate at 50-55^oC.  Large surface area low temperature heating systems such as under-floor heating operate at c.30-60^oC but the majority of houses don’t have this (unless the sample of houses is from Grand Designs!
• The real innovation in the Mitsubishi system referred to seems to be dynamic control of flow temperature rather than the heat pump itself.
• The combination of having to build coils in water plus use of low temperature heating systems means this kind of system is likely to be confined to new build and will make it expensive (but not impossible of course) for retrofitting existing buildings.
• Fouling of river coils can be a long-term issue that affects performance and hence costs.
• Performance of heat pumps is measured by Coefficient of performance or COP.  COP is defined as the total energy out (heat) divided by the electrical energy input.  Heat pumps always sound neat because COPs are typically three to five, meaning you get three to five times more energy out than you put in.  As output temperature goes up COP goes down.
• The total system efficiency is lower than the COP as it takes into account the delivered heat (less than total heat generated) and electricity supplied to circulation pumps and any additional electric heating required.  An Energy Savings Trust (EST) report on the Mitsubishi web site reported on measured results in 23 heat pump sites between October 2011 and March 2012.  The average system efficiency reported was 2.91 with a standard deviation of 0.37.

A few critical questions:

• How much does it cost (capital, Operations & Maintenance and running cost) and how much does it save compared to conventional systems?  There was absolutely no mention of cost in the Independent on Sunday article.  The EST report quoted above found in the 23 sites studied that the estimated annual operating cost savings were 8%.  (These installations may not have been the new system so savings on the new system could be higher).  The Mitsubishi web site claims savings of 20% savings compared to conventional radiator systems but does not mention capital costs – either total or marginal compared to a conventional system.
• Why is the Secretary of State making such a song and dance about this particular technology and this particular solution provider?  Perhaps the Secretary of State is just desperate to show green credentials in the wake of recent pro-nuclear and pro-shale gas decisions he was forced to take?  Or was it just to push the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) which applies to heat pumps even if they use grid electricity which is currently 67% driven by gas and coal (source: Digest of UK Energy Statistics).
• How many houses and buildings in the UK are close enough to rivers and lakes to benefit from this kind of system? (Hopefully to be answered by the DECC study).

I have always been puzzled by the DECC Chief Scientist’s (and consequently DECC’s) apparent obsession with heat pumps.  Replacing gas boilers with heat pumps theoretically makes sense if you are seeking to minimise carbon and you assume a switch to low carbon electricity.  Based on the belief that heat pumps were a good idea and that millions of households (a target of 4.5 million covering both water and air source heat pumps) would somehow switch to heat pumps from gas boilers, along with equally aggressive assumptions about the rate of adoption of electric vehicles led to an analysis that showed electricity demand growing significantly.  This whole analysis always struck me as a neat theoretical set of calculations without much real engineering, economic or market reality and yet it was a major driver for the Electricity Market Reform (EMR).  As opposed to growth in electricity demand there is increasing evidence that we may well find ourselves in a world where more efficient lights and appliances result in stable or even declining electricity use.

It seems extremely unlikely to me that water source heat pumps will be the solution to the UK energy problems of cost and security that the Independent on Sunday seems to think.  This critique is not aimed at the technology per se or the particular solution provider or project developer – more the lack of analysis and quality of reporting on innovation.  There will be some circumstances where water source and air source heat pumps may make good sense for some new buildings but they are unlikely to solve the massive problems of a grossly inefficient building stock and fuel poverty.

To sum up when looking at articles like this remember:

• the stages of the hype cycle
• there isn’t a single technology solution to our energy problems
• the viability of technologies is usually very site specific
• adoption of technology is usually driven by real cost saving and/or regulation and not by hope
• answers promoted by politicians – especially before any serious analysis has been done – should be treated with a large pinch of salt.

The last few weeks for me seem to have been focused on innovation.  First I spent a day in Paris with the EDF Pulse awards team pitching to a jury chaired by Henri Proglio chairman of EDF and more exciting for me, Claudie Haigneré, the first French woman in space.  (She visited the Russian Mir space station in 1991 and became the first European woman to visit the International Space Station in 2001.  Having met astronauts and cosmonauts but never a French spationaut chatting to Mme. Haigneré was a great bonus on an interesting day.)  However – back to energy matters.  EDF Pulse is a global innovation award started last year as part of EDF’s open innovation programme and the team of eight “sensors”, of which I am one, gathered more than 90 early stage companies with technologies in home, health and a mobility into the competition.  The finalists in each category will go forward to a public vote and the winners will be announced in April.  After the EDF Pulse day I spent a day teaching a module on innovation and financing at the Westminster Energy forum course for new graduates in the energy industry.  Then RBS asked me to join the panel and attend two events to launch their Innovation Gateway, an innovative programme designed to bring new innovations that can improve resource efficiency into RBS’s 2,500 building portfolio.

All this led me to summarise a few thoughts on innovation and the process of technical change, specifically in the energy world.  This isn’t designed to be a definitive article on innovation in the energy industry but rather a collection of observations that are often forgotten or discounted.

We need to start by saying that innovation is a greatly misused word.  Strictly speaking it means the first commercial use of a technology but in every day use it is often used to mean the process of change and the massive differences between a concept, a prototype, a pilot plant, a first commercial plant and a standard off the shelf, well proven piece of technology are forgotten or confused.  A glossy presentation or a graphic showing “a new technology” is not an innovation (and probably not even a technology) – it is a concept, possibly a great concept that will change the world and possibly a concept with no hope of ever making it into reality.  A small-scale prototype plant is just that, it isn’t a proven technology that can be rolled-out globally and change the world.  In reviewing a “new technology” or “innovation” always remember the hype cycle. We should also not forget that process innovations and business model innovations can be just as important, if not more important, than shiny new pieces of technology – however seductive they are.

Making innovation happen, whatever the sector, is inherently difficult. New ideas and concepts abound but only a small percentage of ideas ever make it into reality and have any significant effect on the world. This is because turning an idea into reality or bringing about change, the role of the entrepreneur, is fundamentally difficult.  As Machiavelli said in a famous quote; “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”  Making effective and persistent change happen requires human energy and determination, a thick skin, a range of technical, financial and managerial skills, availability of finance, good timing and a lot of luck.

Innovation in the energy system is harder than other sectors for a range of reasons.  Firstly of course energy is a massive industry, global energy sales are $6 trillion per annum and account for 7% of global GDP.  Global investment in energy is about $1.2 trillion.  Even a small energy investment in the energy sector is usually big compared to other sectors.  The rate of capital replacement is slow, energy system assets tend to last a time, typically twenty five years plus – there are plenty of power stations out there which are forty years old or more.  A 2008 survey of 500 electricity industry professionals in the USA referenced by the NorthWestern Energy Stakeholders Group  reported that more than half of electricity distribution assets are at or beyond their intended life.  The Black & Veatch 2012 Strategic Directions in the US Electric Utility Industry survey reports that aging infrastructure remains a major concern for US utility managers.  The US Department of Energy reports that the average large-power transformer in the USA is now more than 40 years old.    Another important factor is that the application of industrial energy has significant health and safety risks, it can and does kill people.  This goes some way to explaining conservatism in the industry.  Next, the energy industry is heavily regulated and in all countries there are strong links between energy supply and politics.  (I wrote about the link between electrical power and political power here.  These and other factors make change in the energy industry even more difficult than in other sectors.

Despite these difficulties of course the energy industry has always innovated.  In electricity we moved from Faraday’s first primitive generator in 1831,  (if you haven’t seen it go straight to the Royal Institution in London and see it along with Faraday’s original lab – one of the best free exhibitions in London), through the world’s first public electricity supply in Godalming in 1881 (powered by water wheels), to Edison’s first steam powered power station in Holborn in 1882, (note this was several months ahead of the more famous Pearl Street power station in New York), to the London Power Company’s “super power station”, the 400 MW Battersea Power Station A in 1934 which included Europe’s largest generator set of 105 MW, through to Drax in 1974 with a 660 MW generating set.  In fuel we have moved from burning wood to coal to oil and then to gas, with each transition reducing carbon intensity.  The first commercial oil well was drilled in 1859 in Titusville to a depth of 69 feet and now we have remote, steerable wells drilling under the ocean floor for more than ten kilometres horizontally at a depth of more than twelve kilometres.  After the first oil crisis in 1973/74 the energy industry establishment believed that there was a shortage of natural gas in the United States and persuaded the US Congress to pass laws stopping use of gas for power generation.  Now on the back of the shale gas revolution led by entrepreneurs who, if they got any attention at all were originally considered crazy by the energy establishment, the US is heading towards exporting natural gas.

Although it is tempting to think that they had it easy we should remember that Edison and the other energy pioneers also had to raise capital to develop and deploy new technologies and had their own difficulties raising money.  The sophistication of financial models and techniques may have changed dramatically but the basic truth that the inventor or developer usually has to persuade someone else to invest in their company or project remains the same – and the fundamental risks are similar.

Venture capitalists (VCs) often talk about the valley of death for early stage companies, the period between the initial funding round and generating revenues.  In energy technology investing there are really two valleys of death.  The first is between moving from research to pilot plant and the second is between successful demonstration of a pilot plant (assuming this is actually achieved) and mass roll-out.  A lot of research projects are measured in the millions of dollars, pilot plants in the tens of millions (sometimes hundreds of millions), and roll-out is measured in hundreds of millions and billions.  Many of the venture capitalists moving from the software/IT world into energy technology development did not appreciate the difficulties, as well as timescales and expense, involved in even demonstrating a successful pilot plant.  In some cases they also forgot that utilities don’t buy mission critical equipment from small VC backed companies, they buy from the likes of GE, Siemens, ABB and Kawasaki Heavy Industries who have decades of experience in the energy sector and very large balance sheets which can guarantee performance.

Just to illustrate how hard bringing innovation is to commercialise consider the AiM market of the London Stock Exchange.  AiM was created to support growing companies and became the darling of clean tech and new energy companies.  In the period 2004 to 2007 there was a flurry of activity, a bubble really, of such companies coming to the market and raising money and at one point the highest value company on AiM was a wind turbine company.  Analysis by Adam Forsyth of Arden Partners shows that as of September 2013, of the 75 new energy and clean tech companies that came to AiM only 11 made their investors more than 20% (since their IPO), 4 made between 0 and 10%, and 60 have lost money.  12 of the companies lost 100% of the money invested and 42 have lost more than 50% of the original investment.  This means that if you had spread your portfolio and put £1,000 into each new energy and clean tech IPO on AiM by September 2013 you would have lost £38,500 so your £75,000 would have been turned into £36,500 – not a good outcome.  Of course if you had put your £75,000 into the top performing company you would have made £146,000.  Technical change and innovation comes at a real cost to investors!  The progression of the AiM market (and all other markets were the same) for new energy and clean tech exhibits all the signs of a classic investment bubble and demonstrates the hype cycle in action.

While I was with EDF I was reminded that in January EDF issued 100 year bonds with a 6% coupon and that the proposed reactor at Hinkley Point is designed to have a 65 year lifetime.  Just think how much even the conservative energy world has changed in 100 years.  Any energy executive in 1914, no doubt thinking that the “safe” Edwardian world would continue pretty much as it was, lived in an energy system dominated by coal and by gas lighting.  The Royal Navy had experimented with burning oil from 1903 (with the first tests failing miserably) and at the behest of First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill was building the new Queen Elizabeth class dreadnoughts powered by oil, although most of the fleet remained coal fired.  The British government established Anglo Persian Oil (the forerunner of BP) in 1914 in order to exploit newly discovered oil in Persia and fuel the Royal Navy.  Although the Wright brothers had first demonstrated controllable flight in 1903 the aeroplane was still a new and exciting technology, Bleriot had only accomplished the first flight across the English Channel in 1909 and in 1914 the world’s first commercial airline, the St. Petersburg-Tampa Airboat Line, was launched in Florida with one fare paying customer.  Now 8 million people fly commercially every day.  Although radioactivity had been discovered at the end of the 1800s (Mme. Curie received the Nobel Prize in 1903) it was still widely regarded as a curiosity with little or no application.  It wasn’t until the late 1930s that the idea of using nuclear energy to generate electricity was proposed.  In 1913 UK coal production peaked at 300 million tonnes with the coal industry employing 1 million men.  In 2013 the UK produced 16 million tonnes (and used 64 million tonnes) and employed about 6,000 people.  In 1914 gas lighting accounted for about 90% of all lighting systems.  Telephones were still reserved for the rich and it was not until 1915 that the first transcontinental telephone call was made in the US.  This year we are going to see the number of active mobile phones, at 7.3 billion, exceed the human population.  On the road Henry Ford launched the Model T, the car that brought motoring to the masses, in 1908 but its effect was only just starting by 1914 and motoring was still largely reserved for the rich.  In 1909 143,000 private vehicles (53,000 cars) were registered in the UK, compared to 34.5 million private vehicles (28.7 m cars) today – of which 1.4 million were Ford Focus and 1.3 million Ford Fiestas.

Whatever your views on the direction of progress and economic development, or on specific technologies, the last 100 years of innovation really is amazing.  It was of course driven by “cheap” fossil fuels, mainly coal and then oil – as well as two world wars.  The next hundred years may be defined by greatly improving resource efficiency by focusing on end-use rather than energy supply, the deployment of “smart” technology into dumb systems, and possibly the supply of unconventional gas and truly cost-effective renewables using technologies that are not commercial yet (and I don’t mean silicon based PV or wind turbines). The only certainty about the energy system of 2114 is that it won’t look like that of today.

To finish, some quotes on innovation that are worth remembering.

“Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You’re crazy.”

Workers whom Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.

“Electric lighting is a completely idiotic idea”

Chief Engineer, Post Office, 1881

“The substitution of oil for coal is impossible, because oil does not exist in this world in sufficient quantities.”

Lord Selbourne, First Lord of the Admiralty, 1904

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Arthur C. Clarke, science-fiction and science writer

“We over-estimate what we can achieve in the short-term and under-estimate what we can achieve in the long-term.”

Arthur C. Clarke

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”

Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize winning physicist

“..as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.”

Donald Rumsfield, US Secretary of Defense