USING
COMMODITIES
MORE EFFECTIVELY
December 2019 / January 2020Defining and designing critical services for a
multi-commodity energy business ecosystem
which incorporates flexibility in energy
A design science approach
3
ABSTRACT
Flexibility in energy can be used to achieve higher resource utilization from commodities. This thesis had the goal of defining a framework of primary services required to operate an energy exchange on which multiple commodities are exchanged. Such an exchange that incorporates flexibility in energy between businesses is called a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem. In this thesis the two commodities hydrogen and electrical energy are considered. To define and design a framework of services, a design science exercise was employed. To gather data semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and experts were conducted and synthesized with existing literature to create a framework of services. The framework and services were improved and validated with the help of an expert workshop.
The result is a framework of services which was applied to a real life case to further test the framework. The primary result was that services in multi-commodity energy business can be categorized into flexibility services, aggregation/ operational services, and supporting services. The thesis contributes to existing knowledge by advancing the knowledge and definition of flexibility services in a multi-commodity setting. The framework was designed to allow for incorporation of additional commodities or substitute present commodities. Finally, the application of the framework to a real-life case allowed managerial insights on how to implement a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem in practice.
4 MASTER’S THESIS / DISSERTATION by N. Radstaak
Lissabonstraat 14, 9718AZ GRONINGEN n.radstaak@student.rug.nl
nradstaak@gmail.com
Defining and designing critical services for a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem which incorporates flexibility in energy
A design science approach.
December 2019/ January 2020
Word count (not including tables, references, and appendices): 14 171
DOUBLE DEGREE MASTERS
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc. Technology and Operations Management Supervisor: prof. dr. ir. J.C. Wortmann
Student number: s2378000
Newcastle University Business School
MSc. Operations and Supply Chain Management Supervisor: prof. dr. A. Small, MSc.
Student number: 180629437
Written during an internship at:
Groningen Seaports N.V.
Company supervisor: H. Zwetsloot
5 CONTENTS Nomenclature ... 7 List of tables ... 8 List of figures ... 9 Acknowledgement ... 10 1. Introduction ... 11 2. Literature Research ... 13 2.1 Flexibility in Energy ... 13 2.1.1 Flexibility types ... 13
2.1.2 Operational flexibility features ... 14
2.1.3 Roles in flexibility of energy ... 14
2.1.4 Flexibility in electricity and hydrogen ... 15
2.2 Multi-commodity energy business ecosystems ... 17
2.3 Services and multi-sided platforms ... 20
2.4 Research gap and relevance ... 21
3. Methodology ... 23
3.1 Research design framework ... 23
3.2 Data collection and processing ... 26
3.2.1 Data collection methods and protocols ... 26
3.2.2 Data processing ... 28
3.3 Service framework formulation methodology ... 28
3.4 Application of framework to case... 29
3.5 Research reliability and validity ... 30
4. Service framework formulation ... 32
4.1 The product/service perspective (general) ... 32
4.2 Focal actor perspective (general) ... 33
4.3 Business ecosystem perspective (general) ... 35
4.4 Technology perspective (general) ... 39
4.5 Service categorization and overview (general) ... 40
5. Results ... 44
5.1 Applying the framework to a case ... 44
5.1.1 Product/service perspective ... 44
5.1.2 Focal actor perspective ... 46
5.1.3 Business ecosystem perspective ... 48
6
5.1.5 Service categorization and overview ... 52
5.2 Research questions ... 56
6. Discussion ... 58
6.1 Discussion of the methodology ... 58
6.2 Discussion of the service framework formulation ... 59
6.3 Discussion of the results and validation approach ... 60
6.4 Limitations, future research directions, and insights ... 61
6.4.1 Limitations ... 61
6.4.2 Future research directions ... 65
6.4.3 Implications and insights from the thesis ... 65
7. Conclusion ... 68
References ... 69
Appendices ... 76
Appendix 1: Table of operational flexibility definitions and table of roles in flexibility for electricity with description and source ... 76
Appendix 1A: Operational flexibility definitions with commodity and source description . 76 Appendix 1B: Roles in flexibility ... 77
Appendix 2: Smart grid literature research ... 78
Appendix 3: Research on other commodities and platform markets ... 84
Appendix 4: Perspectives in multi-commodity energy business ecosystem design ... 87
Appendix 5: Research protocols used in this thesis ... 88
Appendix 5A: The unit of analysis ... 88
Appendix 5B: Interview protocol and questions ... 88
Appendix 5C: Interview acquisition ... 94
Appendix 5D: Interview consent forms ... 95
Appendix 5E: Overview of design science study ... 102
Appendix 5F: Protocols data collection and analysis ... 103
Appendix 6: Case description, stakeholder description, and hydrogen ecosystem ... 106
Appendix 6.1: Case description ... 106
Appendix 6.2: Stakeholder summary ... 106
Appendix 6.3: Hydrogen ecosystem description of case (current situation) ... 112
7
NOMENCLATURE
ABBREVIATION DEFINITION
AC Alternating Current BMC Business Model Canvas BRP Balance Responsible Party CCHP Combined Cooling, Heat & Power
DC Direct Current
DSO Distribution System Operator
ICT Information & Communication Technology IT Information Technology
MSP Multi-Sided Platform
P2H Power-to-Heat (Power 2 Heat)
PV PhotoVoltaic
8
LIST OF TABLES
Table number Title
2.1 Flexibility characteristics as identified by van der Burg et al. (2019a), applied to electrical energy
2.2 Building blocks of a viable energy business ecosystem model, adapted from D’Souza et al. (2015) with implementation of literature research.
2.3 Sub-questions of the research project
3.1 Perspectives from D’Souza et al. (2018), how they are reported in the
thesis, and accompanying references used for result formulation
3.2 Data collection methods for replicability and reliability of the thesis
3.3 Characteristics of interviewees
3.4 Attendees of expert workshop 1 and their focus area
3.5 Case company representatives that helped implement the framework to the case
3.6 Attendees of (validation) expert workshop and their focus area
4.1 Stakeholders in a general multi-commodity energy business ecosystem framework
4.2 The general services framework in a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem
5.1 The general services framework in a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem applied to the case
6.1 Validation results from the experts for the general framework and application to the case
A1 Various definitions of operational flexibility related to commodity
A2 The main identified roles in flexibility from literature for an electricity network, along with a short description of tasks and literary source
A3 Smart grid components, adapted from Wei (2010), along with a description of contents
9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure number Title
2.1 Flexibility service system in the electricity supply chain from (van der Burg et al., 2019a)
2.2 Most common hydrogen production and storage methods, as well as the most common uses of hydrogen as a commodity
2.3 Core multi-sided platform elements creating the exchange of the value unit (Van der Burg et al., 2019b) adapted from (Parker et al., 2016)
3.1 The research design in four steps along with inputs to and outputs from the research process.
4.1 Service perspective of the general framework
4.2 Business model canvas for the general service framework
4.3 The e-3-value model for the general framework
4.4 The information services architecture of a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem
5.1 The service concept of a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem that incorporates flexibility in energy and commodity exchanges, adapted from Minnee (2019)
5.2 Business model canvas applied to the case from the case company perspective (facilitating role)
5.3 e-3-value model applied to the case
5.4 Energy data hub technology architecture that measures and processes data, created from an interview with an ICT-expert
5.5 Information services architecture applied to the case
10
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is executed along the guidelines and requirements of the University of Groningen (NL) and the Newcastle University Business School (UK). I would like to thank both of my supervisors, dr. Hans Wortmann and dr. Adrian Small for their guidance, insights, and feedback during this research process.
A special word of thanks goes to Henk Zwetsloot at Groningen Seaports N.V. for involving me in his organization and enabling me to seize the opportunity to study the area in which his organization operates. This opportunity provided me with the experience of working in an organization and brought me into contact with a wide range of knowledgeable and enthusiastic people. Working on this thesis in Delfzijl provided a unique perspective on the challenges involved in the energy transition and taught me a lot. Hopefully, my contribution in researching multi-commodity energy business ecosystems may help Groningen Seaports as much as it helped me.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the cooperating participants whom I interviewed and those whom supported this research project in any other way. I thoroughly enjoyed meeting experts in various fields and representatives from a wide spectrum of businesses. The company visits and insights from practitioners helped me in feeling that my research is meaningful in practice.
Finally, I would like to thank my family from ‘de Bosheurne & de Brinkmanshoek”, and my parents in particular, for supporting me throughout my studies and providing me with the opportunity to pursue a double Master’s degree.
11
1.INTRODUCTION
In recent decades the traditional energy production methods have made a transition towards becoming increasingly sustainable. Two examples include the increasing presence of electricity generation from photovoltaic (PV) panels, and from wind turbines. The unpredictability of production from renewables due to weather dependency has led to a requirement for congestion management and grid balancing issues (Verzijlbergh et al., 2014). Balancing of grids and congestion management are required to prevent energy grids from becoming unstable, which may lead to interruption of energy distribution to end-users (Verhaegen et al., 2006; Henneaux et al., 2013). Flexibility in energy is used to as a tool to aid in congestion management and balancing of energy grids. Flexibility in energy can be defined as ‘the ability (and willingness) to increase or decrease energy power fed into the grid and or the power drawn from the grid over time’ (adapted from van der Burg et al., 2019a).
Services in flexibility of energy are different for consumers, producers, and aggregators of energy flexibility (van der Burg, 2019a). Flexibility consumers are usually the parties responsible for grid operating, whereas flexibility producers are industrial parties who have flexible production levels or households and industries who can have flexibility in consumption (Biegel et al., 2014). Aggregators are intermediaries that collect distributed flexibility from flexibility producers and exchange this flexibility with flexibility consumers (Carreiro et al., 2017).
A multi-commodity energy business ecosystem is a system in which multiple commodities such as electrical energy, heat, hydrogen, and their corresponding production, conversion, transportation, and integrated storage capabilities are present (Mancarella, 2014). Energy in such systems can flow from one form to another through conversion, and these flows depend on supply and demand dynamics, which thus provides flexibility in energy. Flexibility in energy therefore exists in multiple commodities. Complexity increases when moving from a single commodity setting to a multiple commodity setting. The increased complexity is a result of having to balance multiple grids (Manfren, 2012) and requiring alignment of differing stakeholder interests while creating an environment of which stakeholders want to be a part (D’Souza et al., 2018).
12 Recent literature on multi-commodity energy business ecosystems defined building blocks that are used as a basis for developing business models in multiple commodity settings (D’Souza et al., 2015). Among these building blocks is a services concept that describes what is done for end-consumers and how this is achieved. On the other hand, a common technique is to include an information services architecture to describe information exchanges in energy business ecosystems (Bouw et al., 2015; D’Souza et al., 2018). Flexibility in energy can also be viewed as a service and is integral to multi-commodity energy business ecosystems (Eid et al., 2016).
So there are various types of services in multi-commodity energy business ecosystems, and after a literature research it was found that the services of flexibility in energy are defined for electrical grids (van der Burg et al., 2019a). Services are mentioned and discussed in multi-commodity energy business ecosystem literature, however no consistent definition of the term services, and no existing framework of services was found.
Currently services in multi-commodity energy business ecosystems and services in flexibility services are not explicitly and consistently defined. In this thesis the services in multi-commodity energy business ecosystems are first defined, and then put into perspective through formulation of a framework. A goal of the framework design is to produce a scalable artefact so that any commodity can substituted or implemented into the framework. To do so, design science methodology is used to produce an artefact, the framework, which synthesizes flexibility in energy and multi-commodity energy business ecosystems services research. Therefore, the remainder of the thesis will investigate the following research question:
RQ: What services are required in a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem in which flexibility can be exchanged, and how can these services be realized to create a viable system?
13
2.LITERATURE RESEARCH
This section of the thesis discusses the various relevant existing research publications on the topics: flexibility in energy, multi-commodity energy business ecosystems, and services in energy. The literature is presented to help the reader gain insights into relevant literature that is used as a background to the thesis research project. The literature research is sorted on a per-topic basis so that relevant insights are grouped in categories. The existing research and background are then synthesized into a problem statement and formulation of supporting research questions to answer the main research question. The supporting questions are built upon the problem stated in the introduction and the result from the literature research. To help understand services in multi-commodity energy business ecosystems and in flexibility in energy this chapter of the thesis first discusses what flexibility in energy entails. Flexibility services will also be discussed in the context of flexibility in energy. Subsequently, multi-commodity energy business ecosystems, services, and platform markets are discussed. The literature research is used to build a gap this thesis aims to fill, which is explained in the research relevance section of this chapter.
2.1 Flexibility in energy
2.1.1 Flexibility types
Flexibility is a commonly used term, and flexibility in energy is most commonly differentiated between in two ways (Lannoye et al., 2012; Ulbig & Anderson, 2015). On one hand, structural flexibility in energy mainly refers to the adaptability of infrastructure of energy systems, and therefore to the possibility of changing energy systems through investment and implementation of new infrastructure and flexibility devices (Lannoye et al., 2012) Structural flexibility is integral to a sustainable design, as adaptability and scalability of a system in the future rely on structural flexibility and contribute to lengthening the lifespan of a project or a system (Kasarda et al., 2007).Therefore, structural flexibility needs to be considered in long term planning more so than in day-to-day operations of an energy system.
14
2.1.2 Operational flexibility features
Operational flexibility in energy consists of characteristics that together make up a measureable and tradeable commodity (van der Burg et al., 2019a). The four characteristics are listed in figure 2.1 and exemplified using electricity as a commodity. Flexibility form (1) differentiates between infeed and outfeed flexibility. Infeed flexibility is the ability to increase or decrease energy fed into a grid, whereas outfeed flexibility is the ability to increase or decrease power taken from a grid (Eid et al., 2016). Physical features (2) of operational flexibility include a ramp-rate capability, a power provision capability, and an energy provision capability (Makarov et al., 2009). A fourth physical feature defined by Makarov and colleagues is ramp duration, however Ulbig and Andersson (2015) stated that ramp duration is a product of power provision capability, and ramp-rate, and is therefore not included in the table. The time (3) at which flexibility is available and the duration of the availability makes up the third category of operational flexibility characteristics (Makarov et al., 2009; Eid et al., 2016). The start and end-time jointly decide the total end-time availability of flexibility. Finally, the location of flexibility is a relevant operational flexibility characteristic as different geographical locations come with different restraints and flexibility services (van der Burg et al., 2019a).
Flexibility characteristics
Details Source(s)
1) Flexibility form Infeed flexibility or Outfeed flexibility Eid et al. (2016) 2) Physical features Power provision capability (measured in kW)
Ramp-rate capability (measured in kW/h) Energy provision capability (measured in kWh)
Makarov et al. (2009) Ulbig & Andersson (2015) 3) Available time Start time availability
End time availability
(implicit) Total time availability
Makarov et al. (2009) Eid et al. (2016) 4) Location The physical location on the (micro)grid at
which flexibility is needed or provided
Van der Burg et al. (2019a)
Table 2.1: Flexibility characteristics as identified by van der Burg et al. (2019a), applied to electrical energy.
The characteristics in table 2.1 can be used to quantify the value of flexibility, as physical features can be linked to market prices during the specified time slot (van der Burg et al., 2019a). I the remainder of the thesis when the term flexibility in energy is used interchangeably with operational flexibility, unless stated otherwise.
2.1.3 Roles in flexibility of energy
15 With the rise of flexibility providers and the existence of flexibility consumers, aggregation of provided flexibility became high in demand. Aggregators established as organizers of markets of flexibility who provide flexibility services to energy producers, balance responsible parties (BRP), and to TSOs and DSOs (Burger et al., 2017). Flexibility is provided by the aggregator to several parties, who together make up the flexibility consumers (van Gerwen & de Heer, 2015; Eid et al., 2016). The relationship between the various roles in flexibility is presented in figure 2.1. In figure 2.1 the physical energy flow is presented to move from energy producers to consumers. Prosumers can situationally deliver energy to the grid to help maintain balance services. Flexibility providers sell or auction their flexibility to an aggregator who further sells or auctions the aggregated flexibility to the flexibility consumers. In appendix 1B the roles that have been visualized in figure 2.1 are accompanied with a further description, along with the sources of the descriptions.
Aggregator
BRP TSO DSO
Flexibility service
Flexibility
service Flexibilityservice
Physical energy flow
Flexibility consumers Energy prosumers Energy Consumers Flexibility providers Control over flexibility
Energy Energy
Figure 2.1 Flexibility service system in the electricity supply chain from (Van der Burg et al., 2019a)
The categories and roles such as defined for electrical grids in figure 2.1 can exist in other grids if conversion to other commodities is used as a flexibility tool (Kroniger & Madlener, 2014). Some flexibility providers and consumers use conversion of excess electricity in applications such as chemical storage, in batteries, or through producing energy carrying gasses (power-to-gas) (Bloess et al., 2018).
2.1.4 Flexibility in electricity and in hydrogen
Electrical energy is currently one of the most widely used commodities in the world, and can theoretically be produced in full from renewable sources (Crabtree et al., 2004). Currently production is largely done using non-renewable fossil fuels, or other non-renewable methods such as through nuclear production. Cost efficiency is the largest contributing factor to the non-renewable production methods, as these are cheaper than most non-renewable options (Palmer & Burtraw, 2005). Electricity has high potential in flexibility of energy due to its large amount of production methods and widespread consumption (Makarov et al., 2009).
16 traditionally supply-side flexibility was the most commonly used tool for balancing electrical grids (Eid et al., 2015). With the increased demand and production of renewable energy over recent decades, and its associated variable production, demand-side flexibility is increasingly demanded to aid grid operators in balancing electrical grids (Eid et al., 2016; Verzijlbergh et al., 2017). Demand-, and supply-side flexibility are used to balance energy grids and prevent congestion, which is required to prevent blackouts, where electricity is cut off and power outages occur through whole networks (Saleh et al., 2015).
The flexibility characteristics as described in section 2.1.2 of this thesis jointly create a valuable and tradable good. Due to the difficulty in storing electricity, conversion or curtailment is often a preferred option for excess electrical energy production that cannot be consumed within temporal restrictions (Whittingham, 1976). In curtailment the produced energy is lost, and this loss can be eliminated by using flexibility (Ulbig & Andersson, 2015). A common incentive for curtailment results from not having the technical capability or information service capability to predict and match supply and demand at all moments (Kondziella & Bruckner, 2016). Kondziella & Bruckner found in their literary review that electrical energy can be stored through conversion. Conversion is an example of demand flexibility where consumers convert electricity to commodities for storage such as: heat, gasses such as hydrogen, and mobility (Hlusiak et al., 2012). Other storage options include batteries, where chemical processes that require energy are used in batteries to shift the temporal production of electricity (Doughty et al., 2010).
Supply side flexibility in electricity can be achieved through management of VRE infeed (Schill, 2013) when renewables are part of the electricity production process. Another option is co-generation, where energy production processes can shift from electricity to one or multiple other commodities, depending on demand for electricity and the other commodities (Cormos, 2012). Furthermore, flexible power plants are plants that can both consume and produce electricity, depending on the need for balance (Kondziella & Bruckner, 2016). Finally, a long-term solution lies in grid extension measures (Whittingham, 1976).
Since some of the aforementioned flexibility sources incorporate conversion to other commodities. The remainder of this section focuses on one particular commodity, hydrogen. Hydrogen has interesting characteristics, such as being a very light chemical compound, being a common element in chemistry, and having uses in carrying energy or producing energy (Crabtree et al., 2004).
Hydrogen can be stored, has a high energy density per weight compared to other commonly used fuels, and can even be used to power cars (Eberhardt et al., 2002). Hydrogen can furthermore be burned to produce heat energy and water, or used in fuel cells to produce electricity through chemical processes. Moreover, hydrogen is commonly used as feedstock to chemical production processes and therefore production methods are well documented (Crabtree et al., 2004). Hydrogen can also be produced using electricity, by electrolyzing water with electrical energy. In processes such as electrolysis and fuel cell hydrogen burning conversion losses occur, where some of the energy is lost as heat energy (Denholm & Hand, 2011).
17 been addressed (Durbin & Malardier-Jugroot, 2013). Hydrogen can also be stored in transportation pipes, which is called line-packing. Line-packing has limited storage capabilities due to pipelines being commonly used for transportation (Crabtree et al., 2004). Hydrogen storage can also be done under very low temperatures and high pressure levels in solid or liquid form. Storage and production of hydrogen are increased in price per volume resulting from having to take safety precautions (Eriksson & Gray, 2017).
Hydrogen production methods are generally divided into green, blue, and grey methods (Crabtree et al., 2004). Green methods incorporate renewable production methods, grey methods incorporate non-renewables, and blue methods are often grey methods where harmful byproducts are captured and used in chemical processes (Dincer, 2012). Production of hydrogen can be done through electrolysis of water, which is called green hydrogen when the electricity is produced from renewable sources, and can be a flexibility tool for dealing with variable renewable electricity production. Another method includes steam reforming, which uses high temperatures and fossil fuels to produce hydrogen. Steam reforming is the most common production methods in large-scale chemical industries (Crabtree et al., 2004) . Hydrogen can also be produced from biomass fermentation, a relatively new development (Abuadala et al., 2010). The combination of hydrogen production methods is a source of flexibility, as well as the combination of hydrogen uses and storage methods. In figure 2.2 the most common production methods, storage methods, and uses of hydrogen are presented.
Figure 2.2: Most common hydrogen production and storage methods, as well as the most common uses of hydrogen as a commodity.
2.2 Multi-commodity energy business ecosystems
multi-18 commodity energy business ecosystems account for those conversion efficiencies and attempt to minimize such losses (D’Souza et al., 2015; D’Souza et al., 2018).
One way to incorporate optimization of (minimalized) losses is through a techno-economic model. In such a model locations within a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem are carefully considered to use losses such as excess heat at nearby nodes in a system (Bachmaier et al., 2016). In such a design curtailment such as discussed in the previous section of this thesis is minimized. The 2016 study does not account for stakeholder roles and positions, which is significant, considering stakeholder participation is crucial to a viable business model in an energy business ecosystem setting (D’Souza et al., 2018; van der Burg et al., 2019b).
Stakeholder roles and stakeholder participation are several of the building blocks required for viable designs (Al-Debei & Avison, 2010; D’Souza et al., 2015). A list of building blocks in business models for energy business ecosystems is presented in table 2.2.
Building
block
Description
Source(s)
Stakeholders Stakeholders participate in business models as entities, and can fill any role such as for example aggregator, regulatory body, consumer, etc. Their participation is seen as key to a viable business model.
Gordijn & Akkermans (2003)
D’Souza et al. (2018)
Role The part a stakeholders fulfills within a business model. Each role has characteristics, and other behavioral patterns. Roles are not strictly defined and can be redefined over time.
Al-Debei & Avison (2010) Van der Burg et al. (2019b)
Technology architecture
Describes how technological elements in a business model fit together to support the business model. There is a differentiation between physical technology and information services within this building block.
D’Souza et al. (2014)
Value proposition
A set of benefits offered to stakeholders in the BM. Only when benefits are divided fairly from the perception of stakeholders can a business model be viable.
Timmers (1998) D’Souza et al. (2018)
Service concept
Conceptualization of the intended service or set of services. Included in the concept is a description of what should be done for the participations of the business model and how it is done.
19 Value creation
activity
An activity performed by an actor, creates value for actor as well as other stakeholders in the business model.
Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010)
Value Exchange
Value exchanges take place between participating actors of the business model. Through these relationships objects of value (for example money) are exchanged.
Gordijn & Akkermans (2003)
Resources Resources contain all products and services for value creating activities. The choice is made to not focus on all resources used by all stakeholders but rather only for the value creating activities.
Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010)
D’Souza et al. (2015)
Channels Media employed to both communicate with, and to deliver value to stakeholders and customers.
Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010)
Revenue streams
Revenue streams describe how a business model intends to generate value and how it is captured. Moreover, describes the revenue streams of the participating actors of the business model.
Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010)
Cost structure Distribution of costs for the various stakeholders in the business model.
Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010)
Relationship type
Describes the nature of relationships between different stakeholders within the business model. Different types can be established and maintained and these can evolve over time.
Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010)
Van der Burg et al. (2019b)
Value captured Total value retained per stakeholder of the business model.
Gordijn & Akkermans (2003)
Table 2.2: Building blocks of a viable energy ecosystem business model, adapted from D’Souza et al. (2015) with implementation of literature research.
20
2.3 Services and multi-sided platforms
A commonly cited form of business ecosystem is the multi-sided platform (MSP), a business model in which matchmaking services, commonly called MSP services, create value through linking of distinct customer groups that would not usually interact (Hagiu & Wright, 2015). At least one of these customer groups prefers to enter into potential transaction with the other group(s), and an essential component of a successful MSP is the underlying services platform (van der Burg et al., 2019b).
A services platform for an MSP requires processing capabilities that both links customers (or customer groups), and enables transactions between these customers (or customer groups), and this platform is operated by the MSP company. Moreover, these services need to have a capacity to evolve over time to adapt to changes in a market (Parker et al., 2016). Evolution of services relates to: the potential addition of commodities and associated service requirements (D’Souza et al., 2018), the scalability of the envisioned system, and the potential integration of more advanced services that replace or evolve from existing services (Gungor et al., 2011; Van der Burg et al., 2019b). The structure of roles is similar to that in figure 2.1, and an aggregator of flexibility is usually an MSP owner.
In a multi-sided platform three roles exist, the intermediary which is similar to the aggregator in the flexibility model of figure 2.1, a consumer role, and a producer role. The producer and consumer trade a value unit using the information provided by the MSP owner. It is also possible for the consumer to be a prosumer (Van der Burg et al., 2019b). Multi-sided platforms aid in bringing together consumers and producers through information and communications technology (ICT). Hagiu and Wright (2015) note that platforms differ from other business models such as re-selling or vertical integration because a direct transaction occurs between the consumption and production side, which is facilitated by the ICT and affiliation to the MSP. This direct transaction does not occur in non-platform business models where an intermediary is used. A more precise definition and explanation of platform markets is provided by a 2016 article about platform markets and energy services.
‘A platform market is a market where user interactions are mediated by an intermediary, the platform provider, and are subject to network effects. As opposed to a marketplace or trading exchange, a platform intermediary must offer inherent value beyond the simple mediation process for the two sides of the market. This added-value usually comes from ICT and the associated complementary innovation that increases utility and attractiveness of the platform to all user groups.’ (Weiller and Pollitt 2016, p. 7)
21
Figure 2.3: Core multi-sided platform elements creating the exchange of the value unit (van der Burg et al., 2019b) adapted from (Parker et al., 2016)
In platform markets, services such as information sharing help bring together producers and consumers, which also applies to producers and consumers of flexibility and commodities (van der Burg et al., 2019b). Other services which are required are flexibility services, such as listed earlier in the literature research. Further research on multi-commodity energy business ecosystems related to platform markets and feasibility is described in appendix 3. Some of the research described in appendix 3 incorporates other commodities and explores how smart grids and platform markets can help parties in exchanging their flexibility.
2.4 Research gap and relevance
From the literature research the concept of a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem is identified. This thesis aims to research a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem in which two commodities and flexibility in energy of both of these commodities can be exchanged. The selected commodities are hydrogen and electricity. In the existing literature the concept of services in multi-commodity energy business ecosystems returns frequently. However, no general definitions of services, and no framework of services exists. A further observation is that the transition towards multiple-commodity energy business ecosystem is largely theoretical, and one of the main reasons is the economic feasibility, as well as the technological feasibility (Weidner et al., 2018). A potential trading system for flexibility between multiple commodities is hypothesized (Lamparter et al., 2010), though the article is almost ten years old. From the services section of the literature research it is noted that ICT-services play an important role in energy business ecosystems (Peffers et al., 2007; D’Souza et al., 2015), in potential multi-sided platforms (Van der Burg et al., 2019b), and in smart grids (Rodríguez-Molina et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2016).
The combination of existing research and the lack of service definition lead to the formulation of the following main research question:
RQ: What services and other critical components are required in a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem in which flexibility can be exchanged, and how can these services be realized to create a viable system?
22
Research sub-question Source/ motivation
1: What services are required to balance a system in which two grids, electricity and hydrogen, are present, in an integrated way?
Flexibility section of literature research 2. Who are stakeholders to the envisioned system and what are
their service requirements to become involved in the system?
D’Souza et al. (2015) D’Souza et al. (2018) 3. In what ways are the identified services possible to realize from
a financial, legal, ethical, and technological perspective?
Weidner et al. (2018)
4. What technologies are available to create a feasible multi-commodity energy business ecosystem on which flexibility can be exchanged?
Sub-question 3 Peffers et al. (2007) 5. How can the services and technologies be implemented in a way
that allows future growth and evolution of the system?
Van der Burg et al. (2019b)
Table 2.3: Sub-questions of the research project
The sub-questions were formulated to help build a general framework of services. By formulating a defined framework of services this thesis aims to build a set of services that future designers and researchers of multi-commodity energy business ecosystems can apply to their problem. The framework should therefore allow for contextual factors, which is tested using a real life case, and through validation from an expert panel.
23
3.METHODOLOGY
The objective of this thesis was to define services and a framework of required services in multi-commodity energy business ecosystems. The literature research provided a structure in the form of a platform market, and different types of services. From the established research questions this thesis aimed to develop defined services, service categories, and finally a service architecture. The framework was designed with both managerial and academic perspectives in mind. Due to the explorative nature of the research, in combination with the research subject, design science was chosen as the methodology based on recommendations from Karlsson (2016).
The thesis entails a design science exercise to develop a framework which is then tested by applying the framework to a real-life case. The core product of design science research in operations management is a generic design that produces desired results while addressing a significant field problem or exploiting a promising opportunity (van Aken et al., 2016). The promising opportunity identified from the literature is an energy exchange on which flexibility is used to increase resource utilization, while producing the desired results of increasing sustainability, and optimizing local consumption and production on a decentralized grid. The commodities considered were hydrogen and electricity, as two is the minimum requirement for a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem, and these two forms can be converted into one another through flexibility. Future research may be able to focus on more than two commodities. The problem was further complicated by having to integrate information and communication technology (ICT) which supports an exchange system. An article by Peffers and colleagues (2007) described design science as a good fit for integrating ICT into physical networks.
In the remainder of this chapter the research design is elaborated on, including a section on data collection, analysis methods, and a section on reliability and validity to ensure the research integrity, validity, and replicability.
3.1 Research design framework
Following the objective of this thesis, a research design and protocols were formulated and adapted based on elements from D’Souza et al. (2015) on designing business models, D’Souza et al., (2018) on multi-commodity energy business ecosystems, and van der Burg et al. (2019a) on services in flexibility. The protocol includes a visual representation of steps taken during the research and design process, which is presented in figure 3.1.
24
Figure 3.1: The research design process steps with inputs to and outputs from the research process.
25
Perspective Method Source
Service/product The service will be conceptualized by creating a schematic overview of what the flexibility exchange looks like. The service design differentiates between various parties such as the flexible consumers, the producers, the aggregator, and the external market. The system also allows for storage flexibility. The approach taken is that of system platform modeling to depict a service concept. The system and underlying assumptions are verified in a master’s thesis from an economic perspective.
D’Souza et al. (2018) Minnee (2019)
Morelli & Tollestrup (2006) Edvardsson & Olsson (1996)
Focal actor The focal actor plays a role in crafting the business ecosystem, even more so for a closed system such as the one researched. To clearly conceptualize the service from a focal actor perspective a business model canvas is created in a workshop joint by experts on ICT in energy, innovation, multi-commodity energy business ecosystems, and an energy innovation consultant along with the researcher and a peer student.
The Business Model Canvas (BMC) allows for clear differentiation between different aspects of the service, as well as the different participants.
Osterwalder et al. (2014) D’Souza et al. (2018) D’Souza et al. (2015)
Business Ecosystem Since the focal actor alone lacks the resources or capacity to implement a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem the focal actor needs to work together with stakeholders. The relevant stakeholders to the system and their demands are listed in section four of this thesis. Each stakeholder has to be viable for the system to work.
The business ecosystem is then mapped out using an e-3-value
26 approach to help understand what
roles various stakeholders in the system play and to describe relations. Technology The technology perspective will be
mapped out using an information services architecture. The physical architecture is described but not mapped out due to lack of time, and to leave space for future developments in physical technology developments.
D’Souza et al. (2018)
Table 3.1: Perspectives from D’Souza et al. (2018), how they are reported in the thesis, and accompanying references used for result formulation.
From the four mapped out perspectives a comprehensive list of services was created, which serves as the answer to the research question. The four mapped out perspectives were created to help understand future researchers and managers how the defined services can be synthesized to create a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem.
The resulting mapped out perspectives were then applied to a case, an industrial park in the north of the Netherlands, where a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem can potentially be implemented. This was done to validate the framework and to test it from a managerial perspective, as well as to identify shortcomings from an academic perspective and to improve the framework.
3.2 Data collection and data processing
3.2.1 Data collection methods and protocols
Data was collected from multiple sources during the research project. Most data was collected from existing literature and from semi-structured interviews with experts and potential key stakeholders to a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem. Moreover, two workshops with experts were held in which insights and ideas were shared with the researcher and a fellow student.
Data collection followed protocols to increase research integrity and replicability. Semi-structured interviews were recorded where allowed, and followed protocols such as described in appendix 5. Consent forms were used so that the interviewees understood what the research was for and how their input was used in the thesis. Two interviews were allowed to be recorded, the interviews lasted 31 and 51 minutes. Transcripts of these interviews were sent to the interviewees for validation and to assure no sensitive data was used as input to the research. Names, locations, and company names were anonymized, this was communicated to the interviewees, and the interviewer explained that interviewees may still be traceable from their inputs. For this reason, the transcripts were not included in the appendix, but were sent to the supervisors in a separate text document.
27 developed framework. Furthermore, the design outputs relevant to the four perspectives described in the previous section of the methodology section were discussed and validated with an expert on energy ecosystems who also researched multi-commodity energy business ecosystems. The data collection methods were summarized in table 3.2.
Expert interviews Stakeholder interviews Case company interviews Expert workshops Literature research Conference Observations General information ○ ● ○ ○ Infrastructure ● ○ ○ ○ IT/ICT in energy ● ○ ○ ○ ○ Flexibility services ● ○ ○ ○ ○ Supporting services ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ○ Platform markets ● ○ Service architecture ○ ○ ●
Table 3.2: Data collection methods for replicability and reliability of the thesis (● = first method, ○ = additional method)
In setting up interviews the researcher was put behind by lack of response from potential interviewees as well as not being able to obtain full consent for making recordings. The group of potential key stakeholders to a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem in particular was not interviewed in the quantity the researcher would have preferred.
Semi-structured interviews were held from September-November. One potential key stakeholder was interviewed by phone. Other semi-structured interviews were held on the company premises of the interviewees. The researcher implemented feedback from previous interviews to improve the process in interviews that followed. The researcher followed the protocols regarding interviews as described in appendix 5 at all times. Interviews with stakeholders were all held with interviewees who worked in the company and in energy related fields for at least two years. The experts that were interviewed all had at least two years of experience in their respective fields. No follow-up interviews were held, which is usually considered good practice (Yin, 2014), although for some interviews follow-up questions were asked by e-mail or through phone calls afterwards. An overview of the characteristics of interviewees that were interviewed for this thesis is presented in table 3.3.
28 2 case company employees* Hydrogen/ infrastructure Not disclosed, more than 2 Semi-structured No 50 Case company employee Supporting services 2 Brainstorm session No 52 Electricity consumer (industrial stakeholder) Flexible consumption of electricity Not disclosed, more than 2 Phone No 35 Hydrogen prosumer (industrial stakeholder) Flexibility in hydrogen Not disclosed, more than 15 Questions during company tour No 70
Table 3.3: Characteristics of interviewees. *The case company experts were interviewed together and responded to questions depending on their expertise, and supplemented each other’s responses
Another seven potential key stakeholders were approached through email messages or phone calls and either did not respond or did not want to be interviewed.
3.2.2 Data processing
The transcripts from interviews were altered depending on interviewee input before being put into a text document. From the interview notes, interview transcripts, workshop notes, and other observation notes a database was made in the form of a text document. This database is not included in the appendix to protect potentially sensitive information. The text document was sent to the supervisors so that information and statements in the thesis were traceable. The researcher sporadically cited quotes from interviewees in the results section of the thesis. Insights from interviews were compared to existing research and literature when possible before these were implemented into results.
Interviews were transcribed and interview notes were added to transcripts where applicable. In one of the interviews an image was drawn by an expert, which was recreated from a picture. Due to the exploratory nature of this thesis the responses from interviews were used as inputs to the design process of the various perspectives at the digression of the researcher.
3.3 Service framework formulation methodology
29
Attendant Focus area Notes
ICT developer 1 Developer ICT/ ICT in energy Helped develop energy data hub ICT developer 2 Business partnerships in ICT/ ICT in
energy
Manages business
relationships for ICT
company
Energy consultant Strategy and innovation advise, energyinfrastructure Independent consultant (Multi-commodity) energy business ecosystem researcher
Business models in multi-commodity energy business ecosystems,
Flexibility in energy Multiple published articles on energy ecosystems that incorporate flexibility in energy Innovation manager case company
ICT innovation, energy infrastructure 40+ years spent in energy business Peer researcher
(student)
Researches business models in multi-commodity energy business ecosystems
Master student Researcher
(student)*
Researches services in multi-commodity energy business ecosystems
*Author of the thesis
Table 3.4: Attendees of expert workshop 1 and their focus area
The insights from the expert workshop were used in combination with work from existing literature to identify services and place them in the various perspectives by considering contextual factors.
3.4 Application of framework to case
The formulated services and framework of services was applied to a case to test whether the framework is applicable from a managerial perspective. Application of the framework was also done so that the theoretical contribution of the framework could be tested and validated. The case and contextual factors, as well as stakeholders to the case, and the current hydrogen ecosystem are discussed in appendix 6.
The application of the framework to the case was done using inputs from various workers at the case company. Their contributions are presented in table 3.5. Various potential key stakeholders did not respond to the request of assisting in applying the framework to the case. Commonly cited reasons were not understanding how hydrogen can be a commodity that is exchanged or not having time. Therefore, case company representatives were used as proxies for key stakeholders. The reliability and validity of taking this approach is discussed in the next section.
Case company role Focus area Notes
Innovation manager Hydrogen and infrastructure Explained production methods and exchange methods Infrastructure expert Physical infrastructure, gas pipelines Explained storage
and transport Sustainability
manager
30 contributed to designs choices.
IT-developer ICT development Helped apply
information system architecture
Table 3.5: case company representatives that helped implement the framework to the case
3.5 Research reliability and validity
To ensure reliability and validity of the thesis the formulated framework and results were presented to a group of experts in a workshop. The workshop lasted around three hours, of which 90 minutes was spent discussing the results and defined services. The expert input from the workshop was subsequently used to create the discussion section of the thesis and the directions for future research. Due to insufficient time the defined services and services framework was not fully adjusted based on expert recommendations. Because of the limited time until the thesis deadline after the second workshop there was not enough time to plan a follow-up validation session.
The individual perspectives were validated and adjusted with the help of a researcher on multi-commodity energy business ecosystems. The application of the framework to the case was validated using inputs from two case company experts whom both have worked at the case company for over twenty years, and were used as proxies for the non-interviewed stakeholders. Interviewed stakeholders also did not respond to the request of helping apply the framework to the case. Therefore the case company representatives and sources from literature were used to implement the framework to the case. This approach is further discussed in chapter six, the discussion section of the thesis.
Attendant Focus area Notes
ICT developer 1 Developer ICT/ ICT in energy Helped develop energy data hub ICT developer 2 Business partnerships in ICT/ ICT in
energy
relationships for ICT
Manages business
company
ICT developer 3 ICT in energy and in businessapplications
Manages ICT
company, did not
attend workshop 1
Energy consultant Strategy and innovation advise, energyinfrastructure Independent consultant (Multi-commodity) energy business ecosystem researcher
Business models in multi-commodity energy business ecosystems,
Flexibility in energy Multiple published articles on energy ecosystems that incorporate flexibility in energy Innovation manager case company
ICT innovation, energy infrastructure 40+ years spent in energy business Peer researcher
(student)
Researches business models in multi-commodity energy business ecosystems
Master student Peer researcher
(student)
31 Researcher
(student)*
Researches services in multi-commodity energy business ecosystems
*Author of the thesis
Table 3.6: Attendees of (validation) expert workshop and their focus area.
32
4.SERVICE FRAMEWORK FORMULATION
In this chapter of the thesis the general framework for the services is formulated using inputs such as described in the methodology section of the thesis. The structure of this chapter follows the four perspectives such as described by D’Souza et al. (2015) and D’Souza et al. (2018)
4.1 The product/service perspective (general)
The service perspective is described using an adaptation of the platform market such as described by van der Burg et al. (2019b). The value unit consists of three value units that can be exchanged separately or together. To exemplify, hydrogen can be exchanged in a pre-determined amount which is pre-determined through information sharing with the exchange platform owner. The predetermined amount is accompanied by a flexible amount (flexibility exchange) which depends on flexibility characters such as balance requirements and production/ consumption deficits or excesses. The service perspective is visualized in figure 4.1. In such a system the platform exchange is owned by an internal aggregator such as described by van der Burg et al. (2019a). The service platform was created based on inputs from a researcher on platform exchanges and flexibility services. A citation from the researcher:
“You can certainly have multiple value units exchanged on a platform market, think of Uber who first offered car drivers the ability to pick up people looking for ride, nowadays multiple people can share a taxi, and UberEats exists, operating from a similar platform market, without getting rid of the original services. This can also happen with the multiple commodities you described if a market for them exists” - (Flexibility services and platform market researcher)
33 It should be noted that operating a platform is a service, yet flexibility services are also services. The differentiation between types of services will be presented at the end of the chapter once all perspectives have been considered and a summarized list will be presented. To allow for scalability and evolution of the platform the value units can be altered. New commodities could be added and present commodities removed, depending on contextual factors. Moreover, flexibility as a value unit can take different forms, which is not visualized in figure 4.1.
A quantification of flexibility value is provided in van der Burg et al. (2019a). Opposite to the flow of goods and services in a platform market for flexibility and commodities is a monetary reward. This monetary reward can also be substituted with a physical good such as another commodity.
“The producer of one commodity can exchange their commodity for money, but also for another commodity or flexibility in a commodity.” (Flexibility services and platform market researcher)
4.2 Focal actor perspective (general)
A business model canvas (BMC) was created with the help of the first expert workshop such as described in the methodology section of the thesis. The business model canvas was created from the perspective of the internal aggregator, who takes the role of the owner of the platform exchange. In the business model canvas it is visualized what types of resources and services are required in a multi-commodity energy business ecosystem and what key partnerships are required to acquire the key resources and services. The BMC is visualized in figure 4.2 and was created with input from expert workshop 1.
Providing a platform market for exchange of energy commodities and flexibility in energy is a service that requires a business model according to the business model canvas and the experts present in the expert workshop. The business model side of multi-commodity energy business ecosystems for hydrogen and electricity is further discussed in a thesis by Minnee (2019).
From the BMC it is observed that physical and digital infrastructure are separate entities and both would require a separate business model that needs to be synthesized with other business models in the system.
34
35
4.3 Business ecosystem perspective (general)
By assigning roles to various stakeholders the system can be mapped out (van der Burg, 2019b). A summarized list of stakeholders is provided in table 4.1. Not listed in table 4.1 is a conversion service or a storage service. This choice was made based on a quote from the first expert workshop. The quote was agreed upon by the multi-commodity energy business ecosystem researcher. In the literature conversion and storage are seen as distinguished flexibility services (van der Burg et al., 2019a).
“When you think about it, storage is simply delayed consumption or supply of a commodity, which are flexibility services. Conversion is part of flexible consumption of one commodity while simultaneously producing another commodity, which can of course be seen as flexible production” (ICT-expert 2 during expert workshop 1). To understand how the various stakeholders can interact in the system and how value is created from services and interactions an e-3-value model (Gordijn, 2002) for the general framework is visualized in figure 4.3. To prevent cluttering of the image every consumer of a commodity and every producer of a commodity were reduced to singular entities. In a realistic scenario every single participant that can produce or consume a commodity is displayed separately for every commodity this party can produce or consume. Doing so in an e-3-value model would lead to cluttering of the picture and make understanding the image increasingly more difficult. The internal aggregator in this system is supported by a supporting party that provides supporting services such as ecosystem planning, and providing protection of data. The supporting party can consist of multiple parties fulfilling different roles. A way in which data protection can work is explained later in the thesis when the framework is applied to a case. Since multi-commodity energy business ecosystems require physical infrastructure there needs to be a way for new producers and consumers to enter the system. Ecosystem planning is used to help the system grow and evolve over time (van der Burg, 2019b). This is achieved by a party that has access to data looks at shortages and overages in commodities to attract new flexibility providers the under-, or overproduced commodity to allow more flexibility options.
36
Role Description Source
Internal aggregator Acquires and aggregates flexibility of both commodities from flexible producers and consumers. Balances two grids, electricity and hydrogen. If flexibility from within the system is insufficient the internal aggregator can trade with the external market or external aggregator to maintain balance of supply, demand, and grid balance. Provides the platform on which flexibility and commodity can be exchanged. Provides a matchmaking service of supply and demand of commodities and flexibility depending on data and available flexibility.
van der Burg (2019b)
“The internal aggregator creates value for its customers by maintaining balance, a steady grid, and offering the best possible flexibility options given flexibility characters” (multi-commodity energy business ecosystem researcher)
Flexible consumers hydrogen Flexible consumers flexibly consume hydrogen to accommodate balance on the hydrogen grid. Flexible consumption can also be influenced by price dynamics, for example high hydrogen prices lead to less hydrogen consumption. This party supplies demand flexibility of hydrogen to the internal aggregator. Optionally: converts electricity to hydrogen or uses storage buffer to consume excess hydrogen.
“Flexible consumers usually have a ratio of steady consumption and flexible consumption, in my research I assumed 80% fixed consumption and 20% flexibility, the flexibility level then depends on factors such as prices and other factors such as capacity availability” (multi-commodity energy business ecosystem researcher)
Flexible producers hydrogen Flexible hydrogen producers can vary their supply of hydrogen depending on balance requirements and offered value for hydrogen.
Multi-commodity energy business ecosystem researcher
“These parties are valuable because hydrogen is currently not produced a lot, an excess of hydrogen is in high demand, especially when green hydrogen is considered” (Case company hydrogen expert)
Flexible consumers electricity Provides flexible electricity consumption to the internal aggregator to help maintain balance on the electricity grid. Optionally: converts electricity to hydrogen or stores electricity.
van der Burg (2019a)
“We currently offer 90% of our consumption as flexibility to the national grid operator, and they reward us well. This flexibility is used to help maintain balance on the grid.” (Flexible electricity consumer)
37 Flexible producers electricity Provides flexible electricity production to the internal aggregator
to help maintain balance on the electricity grid.
van der Burg (2019a) System facilitator Provides services such as infrastructure maintenance and data
protection. The facilitating role can be fulfilled by multiple parties rather than a singular one. Other services include evolving the information exchange of the platform.
“Because of energy trading laws, in the Netherlands at least, in Germany this is not so much a problem, the internal aggregator cannot actively trade commodities, and may not have the required capabilities to provide all services. For this a supporting role exists which can be fulfilled by whomever has capabilities that the internal aggregator does not possess” (Platform market researcher)
van der Burg (2019b) External market In case the internal aggregator cannot solve supply or demand
shortages within either of the two present grids trade can be done with the external market to maintain balance.
Kondziella & Bruckner (2016)
External aggregator Excess flexibility has value and can be exchanged to the external aggregator, the value from this exchange can be distributed to either the flexibility providers or to the internal aggregator. This depends on what type of cost and reward structure is used in the multi-commodity energy business ecosystem.
“The external aggregator has a lot of value in capacity planning and acquiring or exchanging flexibility with the internal aggregator, unfortunately they prefer to take a large amount of the monetary gains involved” (Energy consultant)
Bouw et al. (2015)
38
39
4.4 Technology perspective (general)
The technology perspective incorporates ICT-based systems which are used to exchange data from stakeholders to the internal aggregator and to the external market. Exchanges that take place can be coupled to prices from the external market. Pricing flexibility services such as storage and conversion depends on factors such as storage costs and conversion efficiencies, and are not considered within the scope of this thesis. Billing services are important to multi-commodity energy business ecosystems, as one of the reasons to implement such a system is to offer the best possible transaction of flexibility or commodities given flexibility characteristics as was described in the business model canvas.
“Flexibility in energy has inherent value, whether it be from offering a cheaper alternative to external markets, or through utilization of price dynamics of commodities. Quantifying the value of flexibility could be a research project of its own” (innovation manager, during expert workshop 1)
“The transformations of energy required to transport it on the external grid can be avoided, thus saving costs and increasing resource utilization. I would like to see that technology developed further, such as the smart grids in city districts I described to you earlier” (ICT-expert during interview)
