Response to S. Nyquist "What @BillGates Gets Right About Energy — and the One Thing I'm Not So Sure About" https://t.co/bXEKnUKQOG #EuropeIN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 19, 2016
Thanks for a very timely and interesting post. I agree with you that ‘There’s a saying that where you stand depends on where you sit.”
In that regard, I sit at home with no rings attached to neither public, nor private, electric sector. That’s where I worked, one after the other for close to 20 years at a time. As can be seen in my Linkedin profile, I recommended an Electricity Integral Policy for the Dominican Republic, published in the National Development Agenda of the Dominican Republic, back in 1996.
That recommendation became eventually the project of my life, which emerged, for example, as a self made systems architect, highly active today on a larger mission above politics to enable institutional innovation of direct democracy of the systemic market (look for tweets with the #DD_SM hashtag). Made in response to the tweet by Hillary Clinton: "As Dr. King said, 'Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter.' None of can afford to be silent." —Hillary, such mission, can be considered from our last tweet: “Is leaping from #InclusiveCapitalism to #GreatCapitalism being silenced @HillaryClinton? Please consider https://twitter.com/gmh_upsa/status/755067940387495936 #EuropeIN “
Having said that, we have an example that fits to your post, in the most recent version of the blog post After a million total views in EWPC Blog, a climate change architecting hypothesis breakthrough for COP21, which right now is introduced in the next paragraph (the EWPC Blog was discontinued by Energy Central this year) on the Grupo Millennium Blog:
Second update. To Bill Gates: Why not let customers drive innovation by leaping at COP21 from financial capital to production capital. While they will be very useful for the ongoing future, I strongly disagree on the need to fund energy innovations using public (in coalitions with private) funds as the primary goal of COP21. Instead, COP21 decision makers and investors should consider that climate change antisystemic problems can be dissolved by shifting from energy antisystems to systems. That shift will enable the emergence that Alvin Toffler anticipated about 35 years ago as The Third Wave, which now suggest a Systemic Civilization, which can be created with a Global Declaration of Interdependence at COP21 based on the primacy of the whole, instead of the primacy of the parts.Referring only to what you are not sure about, they do need to work at scale. However, it is under scalable learning as we leap to a zero carbon transformation process to the Systemic Civilization high growth experience curve, as opposed to the myopic scalable efficiency low carbon transition in the highly saturated industrial civilization experience curve. That means a big shift from central stations to customer experience under a vibrant retail market. That also means less high energy intensity exports from developed countries and more high energy intensity import from the rest of the world.
José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Consulting engineer on systems architecting
Servant-leader Dominican and global citizen
Second update. To Bill Gates: Why not let customers drive innovation by leaping at COP21 from financial capital to production capital. While they will be very useful for the ongoing future, I strongly disagree on the need to fund energy innovations using public (in coalitions with private) funds as the primary goal of COP21. Instead, COP21 decision makers and investors should consider that climate change antisystemic problems can be dissolved by shifting from energy antisystems to systems. That shift will enable the emergence that Alvin Toffler anticipated about 35 years ago as The Third Wave, which now suggest a Systemic Civilization, which can be created with a Global Declaration of Interdependence at COP21 based on the primacy of the whole, instead of the primacy of the parts.
2 @BillGates: Why not let customers drive innovation by leaping @COP21 from financial 2 production capital https://t.co/bXEKnUtfX8 #EuropeIN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) November 30, 2015
In that respect, I humbly suggest that basic research about transforming antisystems into systems is already available. What we need is getting government regulators out of the way of energy markets and to enable a shift from short run supply side financial capital to long run demand side production capital. Following the purpose of leading energy towards maximum social welfare will drive high risk private sector investments without traditional distortions, like subsidies and price controls, on great markets, where everyone, including the little customers would have the opportunity to win.
Such investments will be driven by customers mainly on the internet infrastructure on ecosystems platforms, which is where huge value creation is ready to emerge on vibrant retail markets that will reinforce each other with wholesale markets and mainly with prosumers. As can be seen, for example, changing antisystem for system in one of the paragraphs of the Principles of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition makes all the difference.
The existing antisystem of basic research, clean energy investment, regulatory frameworks, and subsidies fails to sufficiently mobilize investment in truly transformative energy solutions for the future.Instead, what we need is to promote deregulation, without privatization, to transform energy antisystems into systems, to help lift all boats, specially those at the Bottom of the Pyramid. In support of the above, please consider the following posts and recent updates on the last two which are related to COP21:
Conclusive evidence: transformative deregulation is the key to electric service innovation
Applying #Jobsism to transform current global #Fordism marketing myopia and its "Fifth update. Can COP21 participants address energy antisystem strategic myopia?"
A Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence and its "Sixth update. A Systemic Declaration of Interdependence model for COP21."
Please take a look at the hypothesis below under a reinterpretation where climate change can be dissolved, based on electric power markets development that transform the whole global energy industry, taking a close look at what follows. Under the parallel version to this post After a million total views, a climate change architecting hypothesis breakthrough for COP 21 on the EWPC Blog, there are 4 comments, two of which I mine that say:
Comment #1: william adams wrote under the discussion "This is a hypothesis to address climate change by changing from an action oriented political attitude debate to an action oriented scientific attitude generative dialogue ( http://bit.ly/777GMH )," in the IEEE Spectrum Linkedin group>
you cant control the climate/weather/temperature/etc
any more than you can stop the tides coming in and going out
or you can control the economy
all these are examples of large complex non linear dynamic systems that always have cycles caused by natural events not people
there is NO MAN CAUSED PROBLEM wrt weather/temp/ climate/ etc.
Comment #2: Next is my response:
Thank you very much for your input which is going to help emerge the second hypothesis. To that end, please provide evidence of how long the systemic delay will be in those large complex non linear dynamic systems if MAN CAUSES those systemic problems.
Comment #3: william adams added:
man is not causing any of those problems
we have had hot/cold cycles for millions of years without people or suvs
there is nothing you can do to change any of those things although you can do a lot of bad things by trying
Jajaja... that's how the action oriented political attitude is based on a debate that have gone from COP 1 to COP 20 in favor of the status quo. That's why we need to shift to an action oriented scientific attitude that helps emerge a new world order for COP 21 in favor of what's described in the long discussion The end of soaring inequality can start with 'demand-side economics' on electricity.
After a million total views in EWPC Blog, a climate change architecting hypothesis breakthrough for COP21
Note 1: the following systems architecting description is the first necessarily nontrivial asymmetric hypothesis of a hopefully few serial of attempts to synthesize the large background freely available mostly on social media, that has emerged organically via the Grupo Millennium Hispaniola (GMH) Blog and the Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) Blog. During the past year, most of those blog posts have also been pinned to social media through the Twitter account @gmh_upsa which have been retweeted by important and intelligent people that have helped socialize them. While the GMH Blog will be 10 years old May 15, 2015, the EWPC Blog has just surpassed 1,000, 000 views today. Please contribute helping get the following hypothesis to those who are able to contribute to the generative dialogue that avoids the COP21 United Nations debate.
Note 2: In order to explain what I mean by nontrivial asymmetric hypothesis, I copy the following story taken from Wikipedia of Nobel Prize winner Paul Samuelson . “Stanislaw Ulam once challenged Samuelson to name one theory in all of the social sciences which is both true and nontrivial. Several years later, Samuelson responded with David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage: ‘That it is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that is not trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them.’”In order to address climate change under a new world order that mutually reinforce each other it is suggested that COP21 consider a change from the current action oriented political attitude debate to an action oriented scientific attitude generative dialogue based on the first of two architecting levels scope. The latter attitude is based on the update of the normative sciences of logic, ethics and aesthetics, which the great American Philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce introduced from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century.
After a million total views in EWPC Blog, a #ClimateChange architecting hypothesis breakthrough for @COP21 http://t.co/bXEKnUKQOG #EuropeINThe first architecting level of such attitude which is above politics, helping for example to avoid world wars, will lead to small minimalists’ states and large great complete markets that self-correct themselves (dissolving the State-markets dilemma) after a global interdependence declaration is agreed upon at the United Nations to help the emergence of the systemic civilization. To address climate change, the trajectory of the systemic civilization will be well above the normal trajectory of (the now over expanded by a marketing myopia) industrial civilization as we enable a cluster of information, communication and renewable energy technologies that mutually reinforce each other.
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) April 24, 2015
As the restructuring failed experiments, that would allow low-cost electricity to flow to high cost states by insisting in scalable efficiency and that wholesale competition would reduce prices, by mistaking risks with significant non quantifiable uncertainty over two decades, they have continue to go beyond the limits of the industrial civilization trajectory creating huge global environmental and local social systemic problems, for example, the one of electricity in the Dominican Republic, which follows the axiom ‘what’s most systemic is most local.’ Now that a restructuring proposal based on the Value Added Electricity (formerly EWPC) Architecture Framework is available to take its place, it would dissolve the intermittency problem by concentrating on scalable learning to go from the current to the higher trajectory.
That's how the Dominican Republic Electric Pact should not waste the opportunity to start to leap capitalism from good to great. Such is a shift to the new world order of the first technological revolution of the systemic civilization would generally replace short run financial capital investments with long run productive capital that would address the ongoing soaring inequality opportunities of innovation to enable a Golden Age. The design of great markets would concentrate on fair competition without State interventions would lead to servant-leaders as the most competitive entrepreneurs, which would implement the second level systems architecture with an action oriented scientific attitude with positive systemic leverage available on great complete markets business to customers platforms under increasing returns.