The storm is rising, the house is a mess and crumbling, the father is angry, and the children are squabbling

4 years ago after 10 years of working in tech & energy, having seen every part of the energy sector first hand, I was so frustrated by how decarbonisation was being delivered (or if you are of a scientific mind: failing to be delivered) that I went back to university and started a PhD where I set myself the unenviable task of rethinking energy markets in view of what we are trying to do (decarbonise the system, enable energy security, enable the system to be operable and enable energy to be affordable for people and businesses) and embracing today’s technologies. This involved reducing my own income by >80% and living off less than minimum wage for the last 4 years. I’ve successfully jumped through more administrative hoops set by the university than I can mention. I had to take time away from doing useful work to do this. My character has been attacked for daring to question the prevailing assumptions which underpin the energy market(s) and indeed academia’s approach to delivering research. Imperial tried to send fake doctors on me. They thought that applying critical thinking skills was indicative of a mental health problem. Academia is broken but that’s not what I am speaking about today. Maybe it will be tomorrow. The energy market today is not one market, it’s about 12 different energy markets. None of them communicate or coordinate with each other. Some can be in direct conflict with each other. When we have the internet and mobile phones in our pockets, you might say, it does not pass the sniff test.

Obama era mic drop: The economic theory of how we price electricity does not apply to electricity by its own assumptions, and carbon policies are designed to not deliver climate action

Because of one neoclassical theory from marginal commodity pricing. How was it allowed to go on so long? A complete failure to regulate the energy industry. We’re impoverishing ourselves and businesses are closing because of one theory from economics. The mic drop is that the theory doesn’t apply to the energy system under its own assumptions. It’s a pretty beautiful theory, and it does mostly make sense applied to commodities of other kinds in other markets like copper, oil and wheat.
But it does not apply to electrons or how people’s use or need energy. And it is stopping us from addressing climate change. So as ever, acting in my own interest (call me a selfish prick if you must, but I’m just not a big fan of the concept of our atmospheric system becoming unstable). I like the prevailing weather and climate, slow and steady, calm, amenable to human life. As few climate refugees as there needs to be. There’s something about asylum seekers being a sensitive political topic. I feel I must speak. The truth shall set us free. We must restore trust with the public. The rulers are not listening to the people. There are bad men and bad women I don’t trust will respect democracy. The vultures are circling the carcass. The eyes were pecked out and eaten by the crows. The lions ripped away the skin. There’s no meat left on the bones. The hyenas licked up the blood. The flies left a while back. And the carcass doesn’t even smell anymore because there’s nothing real left which would be required to create the stench. But the father tells us, there is always the possibility of the resurrection. Life after death. Yes, I must, I must speak, to help the people, come of me what may.

It’s a pretty big problem, but my days am I one hell of a pragmatic optimist. I always have been. I hope I always will be. I always believe we can fix things if we work together. If we can’t fix something existing, we can create something new, something for everyone. We just need to love each other, and we need democracy. The ideals of liberal western democracies. We need our institutions to function as they are supposed to and to deliver for public good. To take action on climate, we must urgently reform liberalised energy markets top to bottom. Here’s how, and here’s why. Maybe too many religion references, but I got into it. I like the framing and I think there’s a lot we can learn in taking this approach in particular when we consider how we are governed in society and what we should expect from our rulers, our leaders, and why we pay them, if you will.

To follow the Word of God and achieve salvation, one must make sure for themselves that the priest is passing the word on accurately by checking against the original books, after all, priests are men, and men are fallible.

The storm is coming, we must do everything we can to clean God’s house and pray and pray and pray that we have built it strong enough to survive the storm. Because it looks like it’s going to be a big one. For the day of reckoning, we must have our hair combed, our clothes clean, and we must pray to God that if the storm is the big storm, that God is happy with how we have taken care of his house according to the revelations he has given to us. Because our God is a ruthless god. He is forgiving to all of his children who seek the light and atone and confess and complete their penance, but those who look away and sin shall burn in hell for eternity. The weakest of god’s children are already feeling the effects of the storm but the strongest of god’s children are safe, for now. But they are not listening to the weakest children who are screaming at them to help. They are squabbling.

So why does the energy system use an economic theory that does not apply to it by its own assumptions?
Well, it was in the drawer so the economists reached for it. They built a whole industry around it. They teach it to you. It’s called “energy economics”. They rule by their own appointment with what they perceive as their divine authority over the money flows in the energy system. They’re very, very confident people. How could it be any other way they say. What would anyone else know, because they are the economists. Money flows are their domain as they see it. They confidently tell people how to come up with the price of an electron based on how wheat, oil and copper was priced in the 1850s. They don’t stop to take a breath. People sort of knew it didn’t really apply to electrons but they sort of figured it would be OK. And to be honest, it probably was good enough when the market was liberalised in the 90s and pre-renewables and there weren’t capacity problems. The tech industry had not really got going then. There really wasn’t much else in the drawer. But when we added wind into the supply mix, the problems in the theory started to become very obvious, the first was revenue volatility for generators. Contracts for Difference, sorted. Procurement volume and price risk trading, sorted. Of course it fixes the problem. Move on. Next.

Err…another problem. Revenue adequacy and sufficiency because generators aren’t being dispatched as much.
Easy one mate, capacity market. Long time pricing. Slam dunk.
No bother.

Err, we are having this problem with variability of wind and we would like if we can signal to consumers and businesses to consume at times when it is windy. And we have all this demand, is there any way we could shift demand to the windy periods?
Plug them in to the System Operator’s dispatch system via a third party. Pay them the same as a generator. But are they generating energy? Dunno really, maybe, probably can be a mix, demand reducers and additional generation. And how will they reduce demand? Is it actually reduced or just shifted offsite?
I suppose it could be shifted and not an absolute reduction.
A diesel generator. To reduce demand at times when there is not enough wind. My days.
And we’re going to pay them as a “producer” and move away from theoretical pareto optimality even if the theory did apply? …
How should businesses be rewarded for flexibility? I guess we should pay them in proportion to how much of their demand was flexible. But how do we know how much of their demand is flexible? Pay them in proportion to what they actually consumed vs. what they were going to consume. But how can you know what someone was going to consume? Are you telepathic?
I guess we just do our best: we use baselines. We estimate things based on how much we think they otherwise would have consumed. Sounds like this could be a lot of paperwork? Whatever. I’m an economist, the secretary shall do it.
Small scale flexibility? Just make it a random fixed amount per electron that we assume they might have reduced. We have to decarbonise. We need it. There’s no other way.

Local voltage constraints? Another market mate. Flexibility markets for DSOs.
How will you make sure that these don’t conflict with the System Operator? Umm, hope for the best I guess?!

Inertia? What inertia. That’s one of those things the engineers talk about. But it’s useful to give us a bit of breathing room need it or some other way to balance supply and demand?
You guessed it: another market for reactive power.

But then, there was another problem, how can we fund renewables. Mmm maybe look to the financial markets? I said I’m an economist, what would I know about financial markets. I just do the money design in the energy system. If you want to actually get the money, that’s someone else’s job. An economist, like I said. Well how do we get the money then? I dunno, maybe a market for carbon. How would that work? I dunno, like trade them or something.
Who should pay for it? Ehh..suppliers?
Well how would that work? Do suppliers not get their revenue from customers, and they will just pass the costs through to households and businesses?
I guess so..?
So electricity becomes more expensive? Well maybe but competition will deal with that. The suppliers will figure it out, that’s why we liberalised the market. Innovation duh. What exactly are suppliers supposed to innovate on if their revenue is based on electron consumption of their portfolios? Customer service?
Perhaps how they are charged in the wholesale market could be adapted to give them more freedom to actually deliver action for climate change?
Maybe like, not using the theory that we know doesn’t apply to electrons, and moving to give them total freedom over how to determine their revenues, and full knowledge of costs they will have to pay rather than being about volume procurement risk? Perhaps we could design the way the costs they face are informed around our policy objectives and in line with living in a liberal democracy? Yeh, nah. I like my theory.

But are we not decarbonising demand by using technologies that rely on electricity? Yeh the bits we can electrify we are doing it.
So they will run on electricity? Yes. And we’re going to make electricity more expensive to solve the problem of making investment in generation of renewable capacity attractive to investors? So the cost of electricity is going to be made more expensive for technologies that we need to deploy to decarbonise? Didn’t think about it like that. So electricity for manufacturing products gets more expensive? Wasn’t the government saying something about green jobs? But we have a carbon policy which is designed to make industrial energy bills more expensive and renewable tech less attractive and our economy less competitive?

Is it misleading for a supplier to claim to be green? Dunno really, I suppose no harm done. Maybe the public will like it, maybe it will help people know a bit more about renewables and the climate or something. Whatever, stop asking me questions.

But you’re going to require suppliers to purchase them and fund it through stealth taxes on energy bills and hope the public don’t notice? Is this compatible with liberal democratic values?

Oh one other thing, do the carbon certificates actually help to reduce atmospheric carbon? Well, we give money to renewable generators so renewables are more attractive to investors. But they don’t actually reduce the carbon themselves? The certificate? No, it’s a funding mechanism.

So we’re going to make electricity more expensive for technologies which actually address climate change and therefore make the technologies less attractive due to higher running costs AND give people higher electricity bills instead of looking to the existing financial markets?!! I don’t know about climate change, I said I’m an economist.

They put a stealth tax on your energy bill for carbon, which makes electricity more expensive. While decarbonising a system with technologies which rely on electricity thereby reducing the appeal of the technologies which we need to run a decarbonised system. Today.

A whole new market for pieces of paper relating to carbon funded in a way which makes it less likely that carbon will be reduced by making electricity more expensive and renewables tech less attractive to run by making them more expensive.

Negative pricing? God this theory is being stretched. It doesn’t have a negative axis. The pricing should never go negative. 0 is the theoretical minimum. At that point the producer surplus (the benefit to producers - under the theory) is zero and somehow there’s lots of energy being produced. So the price is 0, the wind generators are receiving a negative price, their benefit is maximised? Really?
And the consumer surplus is maximised at the same time? Maybe for rich people with flexible assets it is, they’re doing pretty well out of it. Not the people paying for it.

Would it ever make sense to have negative energy prices if not following the theory? Perhaps if a generator like nuclear can’t ramp down quickly so fair enough they might judge their opportunity cost i.e. the producer surplus is maximised. Fair enough. Is that when we get negative pricing? Nope. We get it when it’s windy. Wind generators decide that it’s worth putting negative bids in as they make their money back on carbon certificates in the other market. So we now pay people to consume at times when there is too much wind to get people to be flexible. Who has the privilege to be flexible in their energy consumption? Rich people. Carbon certificates paid for by everyone to subsidise rich people being in the privileged position of owning renewables tech and shifting their demand. For shame. Is this the same flexibility market as the flexibility we get via the system operator aggregator dispatch?
Nah we maximise that, we pay them as a generator to increase their demand when there is too much wind. So you pay demand, the negative price bid of wind generators, to increase demand to counteract having too much wind dispatched by system operators AND then you pay people in the retail market the same negative prices to increase their demand? Yeh renewables duh. We want to incentivise this. And you fund this from wind generators receiving carbon certificates to deal with trying to make investment in generation more attractive to investors? My head hurts.

The benefit to society is maximised? Really?!!!!!! They can’t afford to heat their homes. The people can’t afford to cook food. They can’t afford to buy food. Businesses are closing. I don’t think social welfare is being maximised!!!!! Our rulers must listen to the people.

Today, we consider doubling down on it with Time of Use tariffs and Locational Marginal Pricing? The theory doesn’t apply so we are going to put it on steroids?!!! Give it a boost!! Shot in the arm. Yolo, one last roll of the dice. All in on red. The whole house. The economy. Society. Democracy. Seems like an awful lot to bet from where I’m standing. One last roll of the dice, (MHHS) Mandatory Half Hourly Settlement, you’re pretty confident it will work out. You’re happy with the record of delivery in the past. Energy suppliers have got a bit better at not estimating bills dramatically incorrectly. Some of them even reply to their customers sometimes. They’ll definitely be able to manage it.

We’ll pass the fake costs through to people more directly. And the tech will work, the engineers are doing that bit, they’re pretty good. I’m just doing the money. I’m an economist. Why should I have to care if something works in reality, we just follow the theory. If there’s a problem, Martin Lewis will do something. He does the consumer advocation bit. If it all goes too wrong, there’s always the government and the public kitty. I’m pretty sure Rachel can find a couple of quid down the back of the sofa worst case. But yeh, it would be good if we didn’t have another massive price spike. So we’ve dealt with that problem then? It can’t happen again? Mmmmm, well….something about gas prices. So is it definitely worth keeping the theory in or should we reduce our exposure risk to gas market sensitivity? Stop bullying my theory!!!

How about zonal pricing to reduce the constraints charged? What so like a rubbish version of LMPs? But explicitly unfair by design in geography? Leave me alone.

How do you know if it’s fair? Well that’s easy, we don’t have to consider it under the theory as we assume everyone is homogeneous and gets identical utility and has perfect information and is economically rational. The theory is fair by its own definition.
How do you know if it works in physics? Someone else is doing that. But your book copies some pages from theirs? Ehh..next question.

I’m going back to my book.

Over the years, they had asked the energy suppliers to act against their own financial interests by funding energy efficiency measures which reduce energy consumption.

The pages on individual rationality were destroyed at the altar by the priest. The priest reasoned they had to be sacrificed for the greater good.

They created more carbon in the atmosphere by encouraging offshoring of technology production. They made renewables technology less attractive to people to buy. They made energy so expensive people could not afford it. They put grid security at risk.

The pages on incentive compatibility was destroyed at the altar by the priest. Sacrificed, for the greater good.

The government subsidised energy bills and clawed back the profits of the private sector.

The pages on budget balance were destroyed on the altar by the priest. The priest drove a dagger he had taken to carrying strapped to his ankle for protection (the people seemed to be getting agitated about something, stupid people - read your books), through his copy of the book piercing it from front to back. For the greater good.

The pages on economic efficiency. No waste. Don’t make me laugh https://wastedwind.energy/2025-07-22.

The once holy book was now nothing but a front cover and a back cover and a few bits of chewing gum and spills. There were no pages left. And the priest did not know that even when their copy of the book was new, it was always missing a few chapters.

Under the theory, we are all rational actors and have perfect information. If you’re still a proponent of the theory, I say, act like it. Show me how rational you are. Show me that you are sensible and will admit the theory does not apply to the system at hand. I want to reclaim the beautiful history of the energy system and remember why it exists. I don’t want to renationalise anything (because we are hella broke and I’m not a control freak and we have the internet now!!). The climate and the next generation are too important. We should address this through providing clear financial signals to deliver what we need.

The flawed priest did not know what they had done. The word of God had been so corrupted, their messages was no longer recognisable to the original book.

Inadvertently, their immoral actions crossed into the domain of the third book. The rules for how to shepherd god’s house.
Carbon accounting and Net Zero. It all started to cross wires at some point.

There was once a part of carbon accounting that was in line with God’s word to protect the earth. To steward it. A framework to count carbon and other greenhouse gases so men could understand their contribution to harming God’s house. This was to enable them to address it. Good men tried to help people to understand how their activities were contributing to atmospheric greenhouse gases, they came up with a framework and it made sense. God OK’d it. Scope 1, 2, and 3 defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. The UN Sustainable Development Goals. The new book that was pure and correct, a message which had been missing from the first two books and delivered by a new prophet. God’s children were not safeguarding the earth and were not playing nice together. All children were being affected. It would affect all of God’s children so it’s reasonable that they needed some guidance. It made sense to have a new book with the rules to take care of God’s earth. A checklist if you will. To safeguard it, for God’s children who had not been born yet. The three books could exist in harmony without conflict. If only God’s children would stop squabbling and read the books. Not everyone needs to read all 3 books. Some are happy with just the first, and some with just the first and the second. They are confident they can exist without the rules of the third book and keep god’s house clean and in order. They’re doing OK, but they must always check they don't come into conflict with those who read the third book.

Those who read the third book are taking the rules very seriously, if not scientifically, but some are not following the book as God intended. All of God’s children must be free to speak even those who primarily read the first and second books. Who could be the best child. Judgment is God’s and God’s alone to make.

And bad men saw an opportunity to corrupt the word of God in the third book. They forgot the message to love their neighbour as themselves.

They focused on greed, they tried to make money from God’s rules about how to live in his earth in a way that the book did not specify. Carbon accounting and Net Zero. Bad men used it to make money. They don’t care about the earth. They just wanted to make money for their own greed. They shall burn for eternity in hell for their sins unless they seek redemption. God is forgiving and god is good. But we must seek forgiveness for our sins. Not all men who were involved were bad men. But when they become aware that they are sinners, they must repent and chart a new way forward. By involving themselves, they became complicit in a religion which did not follow the rules about how to take care of God’s house and they forgot the lessons from the first and second books. They followed false priests. It is not their fault, they can be forgiven, but they must turn back to God.

Those who say they are most keen to clean god’s house, but are yet to make a start, the goody two shoes, the children who suck-up to daddy and then turn around and stick their tongues out at their brothers and sisters because they think the father loves them more. He does not, he loves all of his children equally. These children have not studied any of the books. They read not even the cliff notes. They just heard some gossip and repeated it. But because they are naturally goody two shoes, suck ups, they would naturally align themselves with God’s children who mostly read the third book who really do try to keep god’s house clean. These children need to be disciplined and given extra reading homework. But for whatever reason, there are those who claim to read the third book who wish to harm those who read the first book. They hate them. All of them. And that needs to be tackled. They must see the light of the lord. Or be destined to a firey death for all eternity. There is no salvation where there is hatred on the day of judgment. They know that God is all mighty and all powerful.

Hatred leads only to bad things in god’s house. Greed leads to corruption of god’s house and hurts his other children. Those who are most keen to clean god’s house, must ensure they have studied the third book sufficiently before they attempt to tell others what it says.

All 3 books can and should exist together. But the original message from God must be restored. We must love our neighbours. We should not be fighting like squabbling children in God’s house which he has created and affords us the privilege to live in and when we know there is a storm coming. It is a beautiful house with rooms for everyone. There is much beauty in nature and we must respect god’s design, and keep God’s house clean and steward it for the next generation so they can share in the beauty.

We must seek the truth of the message. And we must pass on the word.

I am the light and the life says the lord, those who believe in me shall never die, but will live with me in my house in heaven in eternal glory.

I call you out you fake net zero priests, I think you’ve misunderstood the message.

But there is a way back to the light, as God is good. God loves all of his children, even the naughty ones. Forgiveness is there. But first, we must confess our sins and repent, and never turn our back on god again, we must look into the light (don’t look at the sun like Trump did though that’s not healthy). Don’t look up. It’s true and it’s here. The time is nigh. They say sunlight is the best disinfectant.

The economist priests, the carbon priests and the readers of the third book priests stopped and wondered. What had this religious word they are spreading become?!! What were they saying? Was there anything left that the religion actually believed was true despite their eyes and ears indicating otherwise? Has the wisdom from the first book been defenestrated to such an extent by all the Tippex and missing pages, that it might be better to buy a new copy? Or to read the second book and to know how to atone? Or to wonder, if the rules from the third book being translated correctly?
We must seek salvation. We must remember the sacrifices the father has already made. The sacrifice that our brother Jesus made on the cross to save us from ourselves before rising from the dead on the third day. Jesus died on the cross, was laid in the tomb and he rose again and now sits at the right hand of the father in eternal glory.

Perhaps a new implementation which is designed around the old ideals but which would work today? Would it be possible?

They started to see the light. They saw a new way. One which included everyone. Everyone was welcomed into the church with open arms.
God told the people he loved them. I love you my child, please return to the father’s light and if you attone and do penance, you shall be forgiven.

How would they ensure that the new religion does not get to the same point? How can they take care of their copies of their books? So that it always remains true to the word of God, which recognises the ultimate sacrifice of the lamb for our sins and to ensure this sacrifice would never need to be repeated again?
Perhaps there are new technologies which have been created using the hands of men and things from god’s home for good reasons since the dawn which would help. Perhaps they can act as missions to spread the word. To preserve the eternal glory of God's message. We do not need to rebuild what came before. We can build something new. Something better. We can build something for the father that helps us to take care of his house.

Economics is man-made. It does not trump physics. The laws of nature.

Regulate the energy system? You mean, ensure the desired outputs are achieved from a set of inputs? Sounds like control theory? What might the desired outputs be? Affordability, security, sustainability? How are we doing on those?

They started knitting an intricate web of policy incentives to fix the other problems their market was creating. The web of energy incentives are layered and bureaucratic and deeply unfair. It's not like a beautiful inctricate spider's web, but a web of deceit and lies. Paid for by you on your energy bill through carbon stealth taxes.
They double down on it.
Time of Use tariffs are unfair. Locational Marginal pricing is unfair.
The assumptions which underpin the theory, don’t hold for the energy system.
We use one theory at the core of the energy market, which determines the price of energy. And it does not apply to the energy system. Let that sink in.
The patchwork quilt of policy and incentives which have been introduced can all be traced back to this theory.
It is not divine.

The laws of man can never trump the word of god or the laws of nature.

I am no prophet, and I am no priest, I am but a student of the books and I have a working knowledge of history.
I’m trying to learn the lessons from the life of Jesus, but my brothers and sisters throw it back in my face for greed. Don’t nail me to a cross bruv!! Or do, if you simply must. Damn that would be painful. The thought. Nails hammered through your hands. Hanging from a cross. With your brothers and sisters watching you die, slowly, slowly and finally death. And then the resurrection before sitting at the hand of the the father in eternal glory. I’m no Jesus either mate, I just want to build a bit of tech.

I feel I am left with no option but to speak to my brothers and sisters and to hope that they are listening.
We do not need a new religion, only to restore the ideals of the original religion. We just need to clean god’s house. We must respect and love each other.

The energy market is an affront to decency and it is hurting God’s weakest children.
We must turn back to the original books, and remember their lessons.
It hurts God to see his children fighting, their greed makes him angry, and the house needs to be cleaned.

I am the light and the life says the lord, those who believe in me will never die, but will live in eternal glory.
Love your neighbour as yourself.

Peace, peace through strength. Strength to defend our values and our way of life against those who seem to do us harm. Peace for all our brothers and sisters and the Western way and the values of liberal democracies.

Crowd the zone with love, remove the hatred from your heart, this is the way back to God!!!!

United we stand, divided we fall.

The energy grid was not created to sustain a bureaucracy. It was created to interconnect lots of individual generating stations which were doing different things like providing street lighting.
Electrons are commodities but it makes no sense why someone should be paid to generate them if they aren’t enabling a household or a business to do something.
Time of use tariffs don’t make any sense. People are not economically rational actors or some kind of lab monkeys responding to ever more granularity in price signals. They need to heat and eat. We can have energy pricing at every point in time and space but the way that pricing is determined is not required to be based on the neoclassical theory of commodity pricing of wheat, copper and oil. Electrons can’t be thrown in a barrel, on a ship or on a wagon. This should tell us enough.
Hard truths, but I speak the truth because I’m at a university, sanctuaries of truth (lol), defenders of free speech and because friends tell their friends the truth, out of love for them.

I’m going to be putting all my research, methodology and results online on a dedicated site and will be updating it daily, possibly in real time if ChatGPT can figure out the tech. I would love to get a wide range of views on it. Above all, I would love for it to be delivered. We can do it in stages. See how quick the British state can move to do something to help the people when it is given the solution end-to-end and democratic consent from the people. I as ever, remain, an optimist.

How can we ensure fairness, but not bureaucracy? That’s an easy one: tech.
Not IT. But tech. Cold hard big tech.
The tech sector started …must have been 20 years ago? So what’s the difference?
The tech sector builds products. Products are designed taking a product management approach i.e. how do we design the software in a way which solves the problem. It’s about User Experience and customer needs and incremental improvements, not big bang delivery. It's a de-risking approach.
IT replicates existing processes in software. No one gets excited to use payroll software (functional). Some people get excited to have software which provides them with value within an organisation (value creation). Maybe it even makes them smile.

And my god have we got one almighty sized problem in the form of the climate, our biodiversity loss, our water systems and the upcoming energy demand on our infrastructure.
So I think it’s only reasonable we would try to address it.
We can design the financial incentives to achieve the policy. We can use tech to deliver it. We can pull in all the data we need. We can figure out the grid operation bit, this will help it, my core degree is Electrical & Electronic Engineering, I know electrons and I know Power Systems. I hold out the hand of friendship and help.

We need to run the market as a social enterprise under public ownership. The generation assets don’t need to be publicly owned. Supply does not need to be publicly owned. The market operator does in all probability need to be publicly owned to ensure the rules and governance. The platform does the governance. Encoded. In tech. Real time energy system governance. Options for all the market participants to provide feedback. Money goes in, money goes out, directly into the bank accounts of generators and suppliers. Smart meters? Yes please!! More data more value. More options to run the system more efficiently. More opportunities for using AI to process it. More value that can be delivered to households and businesses. Can we perhaps design the financial incentives by charging suppliers differently so they are incentivised to put them in by charging them more for the demand within their portfolio we have to estimate? I’m pretty sure we could do that. It’s just maths and software.

Wouldn’t that help us decarbonise? Can we make sure generators get enough money? Well yeh, obviously lol? We just pay them enough for it to be attractive to investors. We design the financial incentives to value generators in the right place providing energy at the right time. How do we share the revenue fairly among generators? Didn’t James Shapley do something on this in the 50s? But how would that apply? Let me show you.
I know exactly how to build this in tech. I’ve done similar things before in start ups. We can’t have a monolith IT company building this, it has to be from the ground up with an innovation mindset and following product management principles. So public procurement…less of a procurement situation, more of a resourceful employees start up passionate situation. NHS Digital is probably the closest. Or however they did the COVID app. But mine doesn’t require digital ID (😷).

I'm making a start on building it too. Just in case anyone is listening.

--
Solution details:

The solution is not radical, it’s sensible. Radical action may be required to deliver it. I have a feeling it won’t make me any friends in the energy sector.
I do believe this is the single thing we can do easily (software only solution) to release businesses to enable us to grow. They all use energy.
We need a couple of innovative energy suppliers and the generators have to be on board. They’ll probably need some hand holding. But it’s good for them too.
We need to rewrite the rule book for operating the energy grid. We don’t need to update the systems which dispatches generators (i.e. the system operator system, we should probably do that too but we can do it later). Just the platform they use to bid. We can make this very, very simple and intuitive.
Please keep an eye out for updates as I build the tech.
We need the tech industry to support the System Operators in the transition to move to managing the grid in a new way and ensure energy security above all.

Over the next while, I am going to be putting my thesis stuff online on this dedicated site. Some of the topics covered are given below.
I’ll be putting up all my code, methodology, results, graphs etc.
With a full comparison to LMPs (literally hilarious that ANYONE would consider that we should use this!!) on money flows and fairness etc. I’ve used a lot of large datasets.

I’m going to develop a smart tool that will enable people to provide feedback on specific parts in a proper way and do some sort of AI action to synthesise ideas or feedback in the background so we can see trends etc.. Rather than just some rubbish comment box. This is so the ideas can be critiqued in line with following the scientific method.

There won’t be religious references (but hey, I think there is a wider message in the above). There will just be science and democracy references. Because again, I’m selfish, but I’m not naive, please stop wasting my money.

Citations:

God
Moses
Abraham
David
Jesus
Muhammad
Greta