{"id":2495,"date":"2022-03-14T13:44:10","date_gmt":"2022-03-14T13:44:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussexenergygroup\/?p=2495"},"modified":"2022-03-14T13:46:39","modified_gmt":"2022-03-14T13:46:39","slug":"reflections-on-industrial-decarbonisation-where-does-it-come-from-where-might-it-go","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/sussexenergygroup\/2022\/03\/14\/reflections-on-industrial-decarbonisation-where-does-it-come-from-where-might-it-go\/","title":{"rendered":"Reflections on \u201cIndustrial decarbonisation where does it come from, where might it go?\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This is a repost from https:\/\/marchudson.net\/<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last week I gave a seminar as part of the Sussex Energy Group\u2019s seminar series. This was, for me, a Big Deal, because the Sussex Energy Group<\/a> is a very cool collection of scholars, mostly from the Science Policy Research Unit but also from University of Sussex (the clue is in the name) more broadly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019d given my seminar the catchy title \u201cIndustrial decarbonisation: where does it come from, where might it go?<\/strong><\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attendance was good, the questions were good, it was all okay (I think). This blog post, written out of narcissism disguised as reflexivity\/iterativeness, will cover (not briefly enough) the process, the product \u2013 though you could watch it here<\/a>) and the outcomes. The \u201cwhat would I do differently\u201d question gets a run too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Process<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A couple of months ago I offered to do a seminar on the industrial decarbonisation project that I am a research fellow on. The date of March 8th was pinned down and I made plans to spend some time putting it together, bit by bit so it wouldn\u2019t be a mad rush at the end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I then of course ignored those plans. Then came the strike (a whole week, and half of a week over the next two weeks).  It was all a bit like that odd scene in Monty Python in the Holy Grail where the guards in the room are looking out the window at some guy in the distance charging towards them. He never seems to get any closer, and so they don\u2019t do anything and then \u2013 suddenly, impossibly quickly \u2013 he is in the room killing them\u2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And who am I kidding \u2013 if it hadn\u2019t been the strike, there\u2019s have been Something Else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So there is the Six P rule \u2013 \u201cProper Planning Prevents Pretty Poor Performance\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then, in the real world \u2013 or my real world \u2013 there\u2019s the Four Ps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Procrastination <\/strong>(which is more disorganisation and fear than straight-up laziness)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pivotting <\/strong>away from other important stuff I was doing (trying to get my head around clusters and their internal workings)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Productivity <\/strong>\u2013 Initially I thought to write my script and then do the slides. I found that a bit alien, and couldn\u2019t sustain it, so I created the slides, and then the script. Over time I refined the slides, talked it through to myself a couple of times, consolidated some stuff. I thought about throwing the International Women\u2019s Day stuff overboard, but then chose to keep it, and am glad I did<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Panic <\/strong>\u2013 there wasn\u2019t too much of this. I knew that as long as I didn\u2019t go over time, then then it wouldn\u2019t be a disaster.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Product<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

You could watch the whole thing here <\/a>if you wanted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, after a nice introduction, there was a tolerably smooth 30 minute talk, which covered a lot of ground.  I put in a \u201cquestions of clarification\u201d moment about halfway through, but nobody availed themselves, so I ploughed on to the end<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was then about 25 minutes for questions (I absolutely hate those talks where someone says they are going to leave plenty of time for questions and then they keep going and going and there\u2019s only time for two or at most three.  I think it\u2019s either rude or cowardly or both. I am sure I\u2019ve been guilty of it in the past, but at least on the 8th I was not).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Immediate Outcome<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some really good questions (which I could have answered more clearly and concisely)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I also got sent two very useful sources, one known and one not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hydrogen Enabling Green Hydrogen: Industrial Policy, Certification Systems, and Inclusiveness (irena.org)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Green hydrogen for industry: A guide to policy making (irena.org)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

And a reminder of a paper called \u201cMoving policy implementation theory forward: A multiple streams\/critical juncture approach\u201d by Michael Howlett, 2019 (sagepub.com)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As a semi-direct outcome of delivering the seminar, I also am now supervising a Masters dissertation (my first, and here\u2019s me without an actual Masters myself\u2026)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Doing the seminar also contributed to further discussion between me and the PI about the project, which is now significantly different (in an improved way).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next time<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I should<\/p>\n\n\n\n