jueves, marzo 24, 2016

La CDEEE no debe negociar contratos por vencimiento del Acuerdo de Madrid.

La razón más actualizada y contundente por la que la CDEEE no debe negociar contratos con los generadores se basa principalmente en "First update. What voters are not expecting but will love: a minimalist State that drives direct democracy systemic markets (Primera actualización. Lo que los votantes no están esperando pero les encantará: un Estado minimalista que impulse la democracia directa)" de la nota  Elections in USA, Germany, Spain, DR are under unstable equilibrium, as they were in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain (Las elecciones en Estados Unidos, Alemania, España, República Dominicana son bajo equilibrio inestable, como fueron en Argentina, Brasil, Venezuela), que se inicia así:
Based on the background on this blog, and in the knowledge of the many repercusions this will have, we are now able to reconfirm that voters are emotionally rejecting representative democracy crony capitalism and are expecting direct democracy great capitalism as trust is quickly migrating from the former to the latter. 
 Cuya tradución dice algo como esto:
Sobre la base del trasfondo de este blog, y en conocimiento de las múltiples repercusiones que esto tendrá, ahora estamos en condiciones de confirmar que los votantes están rechazando emocionalmente el capitalismo de amiguetes de la democracia representativa y están esperando el capitalismo sobresaliente de la democracia directa en la medida que la confianza se está desplazando rápidamente de la primera a la segunda.
Sin repetir el texto en inglés que se desarrolla en la referida nota, a seguidas veremos una traducción del mismo:

En el capítulo 1, "La transformación de los negocios", del libro "la nueva era de la innovación: impulsando valor co-creado a través de las redes globales," el difunto CK Prahalad y MS Krishnan apoya firmemente lo que se sugiere en la nota de octubre de 2014 "La aplicación de #Jobsism para transformar la vigente miopía del #Fordism global," en términos de dos principios fundmentales, que son reinterpretados como sigue (con cursivas del original):
Primer principio del Jobsism: ". El valor está basado en experiencias únicas, personalizadas de los consumidores Las empresas tienen que aprender a concentrarse en un consumidor y su experiencia a la vez, incluso si sirven 100 millones de consumidores. La atención es a la centralidad de la persona."

Segundo principio del Jobsism  "Ninguna empresa es lo suficientemente grande en tamaño y alcance para satisfacer las experiencias de un consumidor a la vez. Todas las empresas tendrán acceso a los recursos entre una amplia variedad de otras empresas grandes y pequeñas - un ecosistema global. La atención se centra en el acceso a los recursos, y no a la propiedad de los recursos "
Mientras que el fordismo es la clave de la democracia representativa (ya que los Estados y las empresas anti-sistémicas que se refuerzan entre sí están muy detrás de las empresas sistémicas), Jobsim es la clave para los mercados sistémicos de la democracia directa. Esto significa que los gobiernos pueden ahora ser disminuidos al mínimo, mediante la eliminación de todas las regulaciones que fueron tomadas en manos del Estado la democracia representativa bajo el supuesto de fracaso potencial del mercado y que ha llevado a la corrupción anti-sistema internacional y local en todo el mundo como la fuente principal de la crisis global de los gobiernos, la creciente desigualdad y la depresión económica. Tal suposición defectuosa había sido anticipada en la nota ¿Podemos estar de acuerdo con la segunda curva, mientras no con Handy?, cuyo último párrafo dice:

Los mercados "sobresalientes"  (en el sentido de Collins) de la civilización sistémica, que resultan de una innovación institucional basado en la nota Servicio eléctrico sobresaliente se concentrarán en lo que John Hagel llama "escalabilidad del aprendizaje" para desempeñar, mejor y mejor a medida que pasa el tiempo, bajo la la regulación gubernamental minimalista como se describe, por ejemplo, en la nota "Una propuesta completa y totalmente funcional reestructuración de la electricidad." Sin embargo, la sugerencia de Handy fue para mercados "buenos" (también en el sentido de Collins) para los antiguos de la civilización industrial, que estaban antes en la "necesidad de una regulación cuidadosa y reglas apretados", y que podría haber inducido a error Amin para concentrarse en lo que John Hagel llama la " eficiencia escalable . '

Systemic civilization “great” (in Collins' sense) markets, that result from an institutional innovation based on the post Great electric service will concentrate on what John Hagel calls ‘scalable learning’ to perform, better and better as time goes on, under the minimalist government regulation as described, for example, in the post A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal. However, Handy suggestion was for “good” (also in Collins' sense) for old industrial civilization markets, which were before in “need careful regulation and tight rules” and which might have misled Amin to concentrate on what John Hagel calls ‘scalable efficiency.’
.


La arriba mencionada repercusión del capitalismo de amiguetes en que se basan los contratos de los generadores es en seguimiento a lo que anticipamos en la nota ¿Podrá Felipe VI crear la civilización sistémica para resolver la crisis de gobierno, revertir la desigualdad y estimular la economía?, que dice, por ejemplo:
Séptima actualización. Lectura práctica: cómo los mejores candidatos pueden aprender del futuro emergente para ganar elecciones. Siguiendo una estrategia electoral de concentrarse únicamente en la promulgación de una Ley Sistémica de Electricidad, que defina el rumbo a seguir luego de las elecciones, con un Congreso Nacional Sistémico, los candidatos estarían aprendiendo del futuro emergente...
En efecto, estamos listos para insistir en el cambio a la Ley Sistémica de Electricidad para responder lo que aparece bajo el renglón "Apagones," de la noticia Generadoras sacan 460 MW, dice que:
Sin embargo, los apagones bajo las citadas excusas se originan cuando está próximo a negociarse un nuevo esquema de contratación de energía por parte de la Corporación Dominicana de Empresas Eléctricas Estatales (CDEEE), debido al vencimiento del Acuerdo de Madrid, en base al cual se realiza el suministro energético. Esta coincidencia podría entenderse como medida de presión para que el Gobierno acepte firmar nuevos contratos sin que exista una licitación transparente en la que se defienda el interés de los ciudadanos, según se explicó.  Además, se da la circunstancia de que los apagones comienzan justo días después que de varias encuestas determinaran que las interrupciones en el suministro de electricidad ya no son un tema que preocupe a la mayoría de dominicanos, sino a una minoría.
La respuesta es que la Ley Sistémica de Electricidad elevará la experiencia individual del cliente y por ende su poder adquisitivo. Ajustando su participación para responder y apoyar activamente el sistema entre todos, que incluye especialmente a los clientes (que hoy son llamados consumidores) es como todos los actores al por mayor y al detalle tendrán la oportunidad de ganar. Como se sabe, no hay que demostrar nada para constatar que la actual Ley General de Electricidad reduce el poder adquisitivo de mucha gente.

miércoles, marzo 23, 2016

David and Goliath

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Dec 31, 1969

Share/Save        
David is EWPC re-regulation and Goliath is the Vertically Integrated Utilities. Both markets architectures and designs are non-trivial paradigms of the power industry. It is argued, that the paradigm shift to EWPC is waiting to happen as engineers take back its control on the controlled market, while the complementary open market is developed to integrate demand into the power system. It is just a matter of David beeting Goliath once again.

To all writers and readers
 
Dear Mr. Giegler,
 
Thank you very much for a decent comment at your stature and for reading with interest something I wrote.
 
While I have not read about Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books, I have read about Samuel Insull, Edison’s Secretary, which you quote on many earlier posts. I suggest you also read Gordon L. Weil’s, “Blackout: How the Electric Industry Exploits America.” Insull's world’s, - the business model of wining rate cases to regulators that do not understand the non-trivial vertical integration - is not today's world, when the information technology revolution is claiming the transformation of most industries, market architecture and design.
 
My strong opinion is that vertically integrated utilities are just plainly obsolete and abusive. EWPC is emerging to allow the introduction of competition in the open market value chain - generation, retail, customer-, under prudential regulations. System engineering and ultraquality transportation of electricity controlled market do without the need of inefficient NERC mandatory rules, in line with my response to Edward A Read Jr. first question about a (worldwide) single market structure [and rules].
 
As a reminder, I copy a paragraph of my response to Edward about my opinion: “Although it is highly worthy, my confidence on EWPC doesn’t depend on the carbon tax. It depends on a non-trivial truth about electric power systems, which is a very complex machine whose design and operation is not a subject of debate, but on the work of a systems architect. It also depends on large changes experienced on fuel [costs] and transactions costs. Lowering of transactions costs allows the integration of demand to the power system with the development of the resources of the demand side, which leads to the development of robust, complete and fully functional retail and wholesale markets.” Forget Sam Insull, his scams are not longer needed!
 
The whole debate with deregulation was designed to be easily won by incumbents that don't want to compete. Thanks to the non-trivial EWPC such a debate can now be shown to be a hell of a great waste of time and resources for the whole world, and incumbents which don’t deserve the helm of IOUs, for lack of leadership. Engineers need to take back the leadership of the industry, by claiming the controlled (not the open) market of EWPC. The IEEE would do its job by recognizing the challenge.
 
I believe there were intelligent people in the US, Japan and Europe, working for the utilities that could have developed EWPC much earlier, but maybe there were not.
 
Maybe not; because there was not anyone left that really understood the non-trivial vertically integrated utilities as a whole with the system’s architecting background. Defending the vertically integrated utilities paradigm, Jack Casazza has written at length of the loss of institutional memory in the power industry. Professor Fred C. Schweppe, a system control genius at MIT, understood the great complexity of the non-trivial vertical integration paradigm, and led the development of Spot Pricing of Electricity, but died in 1988 when he was most needed. Besides Casazza and Schweppe, how many people do you know that truly understood or understand the non-trivial vertically integrated utilities paradigm?
 
The origin of EWPC is 1996, when I was retained to "solve" the electricity problem in the Dominican Republic. I am glad that my clear 1996 vision, based on Schweppe´s and Casazza’s work is becoming a reality, as my intuitive understanding can now be ascertain as another true and non-trivial paradigm (EWPC). It seems that unintentionally and subconsciously, I was working hard until 2003, to prove that my vision is needed. Since then, I became aware of my capacity to fight Goliath. While, I am not my opinion, let's just leave it to the test of time whether David will win once again.
 
Best regards,
 
José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.

yyy

Electric power industry financing

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Jul 30, 2013

Share/Save        
The Spanish electricity crisis is an outstanding example of the failure of the state institution to provide the necessary incentives for electric power industry financing. As can be seen in the post Great electricity service, industry restructuring in the United States and elsewhere has led to a “Doom Cycle,” which is, for example, the result of an unfair short term capital financing of central generation. The state institution privatizes central generation benefits while socializing the risks of the customers.
The source of the Spanish “rates deficit” is exactly the privatization of the benefit to central generators. That crisis gets now worldwide visibility by the state having extended short term financial capital also to distributed generation. Now El País editorial Promoting renewable energy is trying to feed into the “Doom Loop” by saying to the state institution that they “… must revise proposed legislation that discourages home solar power.”
To get out of the “Doom Cycle,” governments must restructure away commercial activities from the state institution into the market institution. They can do it by changing the electricity law to enable long term production capital financing, by opening the retail market to business model innovations, for example, on the internet infrastructure, as described in the mentioned post. The incentives will come from fair central and distributed generation competition with equal risks and benefits.

yyy

Great electric service

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Jul 22, 2013

Share/Save        
Great electric service will be the result of the development of business model innovations in the retail market, for example, on the internet infrastructure. This blog post repeats a comment posted under the article Energy: The smart-grid solution, by Massoud Amin, published online in Nature on 10 July 2013, in which Dr. Amin “…outlines how the United States should make its electricity infrastructure self-healing to avoid massive power failures.”
In the well-researched book “Good to Great: why some companies make the leap… and others don’t” by Jim Collins, HarperCollins 2001, there are three overlapping circles whose intersection defined as the Hedgehog Concept result the required simplicity that guarantees sustainability. Similar work like “Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation,” HarperCollins 2009, by Tim Brown leads to the same result with different wording: overlapping innovation criteria is at the intersection of 1) (technological) feasibility, 2) (economic) viability, and 3) (social) desirability. The smart-grid solution meets the first and second criterions but not the third as a result of two scoping flaws in its underlying architecting act done in 2002 and 2003. The flaws are in industry organizational change scope and in the customer scope.
It is the lack of the social “what you are deeply passionate about” on the Hedgehog Concept that makes the smart-grid industry organizational scope unsustainable, making a non-positive sum game that goes into a start-stop changes in direction mediocre (Good) “Doom Loop”, probably like the one being proposed for making “its electricity infrastructure self-healing to avoid massive power failures.” Examples of changes in direction in the United States of America started with EPAct 92 wholesale markets, open transmission access, the California Crisis, Capacity Markets, NERC mandatory requirements.
Back in 1978, the late MIT professor Fred C. Schweppe, wrote that there was actually not need to avoid massive power failures. He introduced the concept of a societal definition of a blackout to contrast it to the technical definition that is being used in the United States, China and other countries said to be following suit with smart-grid projects. Once that is understood, the public will respond by having supplemental energy sources.
To manage supplemental energy resources, customer scope needs to take into account, for example, the internet infrastructure in the development of electric retail (not wholesale) markets. To develop product and services that people love in that internet infrastructure, after returning to Apple, Steve Jobs said that "You've got to start with the customer experience and work back to the technology, not the other way around." From Jobs standpoint, that smart-grid solution is being been done the other way around.
At present, there are at least two “smart-market and smart-grid” alternatives to the smart-grid solution: the one announced in January 2012 by Germany’s Federal Network Agency Bundesnetzagentur and the unprecedented December 2009 Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework, which defines a minimalist (only two systems-of-systems), top level system architecture that I posted on the EWPC Blog and which meets the three above mentioned criterion, making a positive sum game that goes into Great non-stop “Flywheel Effect” in one direction. To guarantee the positive sum game, a business model (architecture) competition that starts with the customer experience will be set up in the smart-market.

Comments

There is an update to this post in http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2013/11/24/Great-electric-service-first-correction
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio

yyy

Systemic leverage to economies doesn't depend on climate change (has video)

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Jul 8, 2012

Share/Save        
In response to the article Systemic leverage to economies via their electric link, I received a private comment (see below), which I think deserves a public response by itself.

My response to the private comment was: "Thank you very much for the video. It shows the big bet that Europe’s politicians seems to be making. Systemic leverage to economies is valuable on either generation scenario: a lot of gas or a lot of renewable resources."

As a complement, I repeat now the first comment under the post What Would Steve Jobs Do About Energy Innovation? that says:

 
Under the Technology Review article one person disagreed with my suggestion. To get a better understanding of the approach, next is my response:

Thank you very much for your inquiry. What I am suggesting is that the real cause is bad electricity regulation (the same may apply to gas and water networks) designed to protect the PSQ. Think there are two sequential stages of energy innovation: the first to upgrade the power industry as a whole to the digital revolution and the second to introduce new energy technologies.

Because of the bad electricity regulation enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the small systemic changes introduced under the name of deregulation produced huge value destruction, instead of the equally huge value creation that was expected, based on MIT's great research led by the giant late professor Fred C. Schweppe, as described in the book Spot Pricing of Electricity. Schweppe's warnings about the deregulation in the making were not considered because of the PSQ.

An example of the value destruction can be found in [the] post that is carried by the tweet:

@YoQPagoTolaLu: FERC's Order 1000 as a Potential Example of Over-Regulated America #EWPC http://bit.ly/GMH055

Similarly, to see an example of value creation look at the post that is carried out by the tweet:

@gmh_upsa: Will Germany be the First Country to Adopt the #EWPC-AF? http://bit.ly/GMH051


The private comment included a 4 minute video and said: "Fast forward to the second half of this - it is very pertinent to the topic (sound on).Idealism can be put ahead of economies by the zealots, but without a sound economy, nothing can succeed, and nations will regress."

 
." yyy

Why and How the Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Apr 13, 2012

Share/Save        
Catherine Wollard recalls that - Begin quote - California-s private companies have began claiming that HVDC was impractical for the Intertie, and hired a consulting firm to ferret out flaws in the ASEA plan. The showdown came at the Winter General Meeting in New York in early 1963. The consultants read their report, and Lamm spoke in rebuttal, pointing out that the consultant had not even visited existing HVDC installations. She again adds “’to what is common practice in meetings like this’ Lamm says ‘the authors refuse to stand up to answer the criticism, even when the chairman ask them directly.’ The audience of engineers shifted to Lamm’s position. - End of quote.-  Is there any doubt on whether that audience acted ethically?

To continue reading, please take a look at the article First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth

yyy

martes, marzo 22, 2016

A Proposal to Declare the Winners of the IEEE Spectrum Smart Grid 2025 Game

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Apr 2, 2011

Share/Save        
Twitter update on April 4th, 5:00 PM, Santo Domingo:

@gmh_upsa: RT(That’s a Wrap!) @IEEESpectrum #SmartGrid2025 "FYI... Great work... so far. Let’s keep ‘em coming" -- Jake @iftf http://bit.ly/IFTF02

As the system for the calculation of the Idea Points Accumulated left much to be desired, as shown below, in this proposal the leaders are selected taking into account, first and foremost, the number of Achievements awards received from the Foresight Guides. A second list is available for those that didn’t receive any Achievement award.

In order to correct the great distorting effect on the Idea Points Accumulated by each player, during game execution, an adjustment is made. As the Idea Points Accumulated increased by the power of 2, as the level of interactions between players increased on a given engagement, it diluted the real value of the 20 points added by the Foresight Guides for each “Super-interesting” Card. The Points Adjusted are the result of the square root of the Idea Points Accumulated plus 20 times the Number of “Super-interesting” Cards that the player receive from the Foresight Guides. The Adjusted Points serve as the second priority to select the list of winners.

The reduction in the distortion from the shift to Points Adjusted can be seen in the distribution of the Level reached by the players. In total there were 7 Legends, 2 Beyond Extreme Genius, 11 Genius, 15 Luminous, 33 Brilliant, 51 Inspired and 118 Keen.

As a reference, please consider the tweet: @gmh_upsa: How to Play the @IEEESpectrum #SmartGrid2025 Game http://bit.ly/IFTF01 @iftf #ForesightEngine


#
Player Name
Player #
# of Cards Played
 Idea Points Accu-mulated
Super Inter-esting Cards
 Points Adjusted
Level
# of Achi-eve-ments
Achievements
1
EWPC-AF_Creator
55
153
       2,914,297
2
     1,747
Legend
2-5*
Feyman, Heisenberg & 3 more expected
2
secret-engineer
326
132
             2,494
4
       130
Genius
2
Ted Talk & Heisenberg
3
mathpunk
342
120
                752
4
       107
Genius
2
MacArthur Genius & Heisenberg
4
Raul V.R.
548
97
   166,545,599
2
   12,945
Legend
1
Hawking
5
ligtvoet
387
82
       1,385,306
0
     1,177
Legend
1
MacArthur Genius
6
vaclav
70
82
          837,969
1
       935
Legend
1
MacArthur Genius
7
AnuKowli
364
153
          738,532
0
       859
Legend
1
Hawking
8
capt_-stargazer
365
260
          224,564
5
       574
Legend
1
Heisenberg
9
SD
49
196
           69,817
2
       304
Beyond Extreme Genious
1
Ted Talk
10
rmadams
362
86
             6,370
7
       220
Genius
1
Feyman
11
distrib_renew
413
38
           12,578
1
       132
Genius
1
Hawking
12
WarrenBazil
485
51
                  87
4
         89
Genius
1
Hawking
13
Wahine_Ma
385
66
             1,471
2
         78
Luminous
1
Feyman
14
jannamark
446
69
                921
2
         70
Luminous
1
MacArthur Genius
15
thoughtgram
486
84
                561
1
         44
Luminous
1
Heisenberg
16
Quiningqualia
583
34
                  75
1
         29
Brilliant
1
Feyman
17
John Teeter
657
34
                560
0
         24
Brilliant
1
Hawking
18
timkostyk
38
42
                104
0
         10
Inspired
1
Heisenberg
(*) Expecting a Ted Talk award on the EWPC-AF, a Venter award on the EWPC-AF paradigm shift, and an MRF ARC award on the most holistic approach.

yyy

Do the Players in 1st and 2nd Place on the Smart Grid 2025 Game Deserve to be Call Winners? Part I.

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Mar 31, 2011

Share/Save        
April 4, 2011, Update: a key insight emerged, while elaborating the EWPC post A Proposal to Declare the Winners of the IEEE Spectrum Smart Grid 2025 Game: the 20 points awarded by the Foresight Guides, when they identified a "Super-interesting" Card, lost its value as the points earned by players increased as shown below. That insight shifts the importance to said proposal that addresses the distortion on the Foresight Engine system.

Tomorrow April 1st, will be two full weeks from the end of IEEE Spectrum Smart Grid 2025 Game, without any update to enable the players and the public learn about the winners. This report is intended to change that, giving additional evidence to help anyone easily respond to the EWPC post Was the EWPC-AF_Creator the All Around Winner of the Smart Grid 2025 Game?

The evidence is in the particular engagement, shown play by play below, in this Part I, and also in Part II . Raul V.R., from Spain, and Greg, from Europe, seem to have avoided the expected plays, in order to get to the first and second position of the Leaderboard, respectively. At least two observations help show if they played a game or not to deserve its leadership:

  1. It is important to notice (see below) that they both avoided two very important Cards, played by fiskus, from Melbourne, Australia, just 12 and 13 seconds after the start of the mentioned engagement. It is evident that either the Momentum or the Antagonism Micro-forecasts had the potential to show critical weaknesses of the Positive Imagination Micro-forecast. As can be seen, those weaknesses showed up soon as Raul and Greg interacted, but not on the points they received from the system, that, as you may see, grow near the power of two.
  2. It is also important to highlight, that Greg, who only played 20 cards during the 24 hours, did not defend either his initial Micro-forecast, when capt_stargazer started to participate (see Part II  [/script>), by playing the Antagonism Card “Definitely utopian.” Instead, Greg avoids it. In fact, the original Positive imagination is forgotten and continued by Raul V.R in a different direction set by capt_stargazer who, as can be seen, takes control of the engagement, but no the points.





Card Number
Time
Card Followed
Player Name
Type of Card Played
 Micro-forecast or idea
Points for player
2730
3/18/2011 0:22
\N
Greg
Positive Imagination
Create an alternative SG (on same network) for individuals and communities producing energy. Possibility to trade with usual grid if needed.
                -  
2770
3/18/2011 0:34
2730
fiskus
Momentum
A blackmarket in power transmission by maser arises.  'Darksun' technology uses network packet switching algorithms to distribute and hide.
                 6
2775
3/18/2011 0:35
2770
fiskus
Antagonism
Entrenched utilities react to shut down alternate grid, citing safety concerns. Sunshine rebellion begins.
                -  







2740
3/18/2011 0:25
2730
Raul V.R.
Investigation
Will it be possible to run a traditional grid with only some part of it converted in smart grid? will this be worthwhile?
 124,907,519
2747
3/18/2011 0:27
2740
Greg
Investigation
At the beginning no, hence the trading with usual grid. But as more people (=users and producers at the same time) join it will be.
   62,453,759
2763
3/18/2011 0:32
2747
Raul V.R.
Investigation
Then the implementation solution is definitely some test areas? let´s say a few cities in every country, and the spread on?
\
   31,226,879
2769
3/18/2011 0:34
2763
Greg
Investigation
each city should be an important energy producer, and they should e widespread (geography, climate, activity) to spread usage.
   15,613,439
2804
3/18/2011 0:45
2769
Raul V.R.
Adaptation
Every public building should already have FV panels on top, and inject power into the grid, government has to lead the change...
     7,806,719
2823
3/18/2011 0:53
2804
Greg
Momentum
And major companies, supermarkets,... as well.
     3,903,359
2843
3/18/2011 1:02
2823
Raul V.R.
Adaptation
Right, strong support policies should be given. Problems arise when the electricity boards block the access points to the grid
     1,951,679
2860
3/18/2011 1:13
2843
Greg
Adaptation
Maybe not: as EU established as law, the electricity producers can't be providers. Then providers could be interested (by rent or law)
       975,839
2867
3/18/2011 1:16
2860
Raul V.R.
Adaptation
Right in theory. In Spain it is the same, but it doesn´t work. The producers have created new companies to still be providers...
       487,919
3771
3/18/2011 10:28
2867
Greg
Momentum
Totally true, exactly the same in France.
\Could law force providers to rent their network to all producers, in % of their production?
       243,959
3778
3/18/2011 10:32
3771
Raul V.R.
Adaptation
I hope we see it by 2025! The energy lobbies are quite strong, even governments are unable to deal with them
       121,979
3785
3/18/2011 10:35
3778
Greg
Adaptation
Because we votes for the wrong people! We should chose leaders with population's interest in mind, not increased benefits of their supports!
         60,989







3797
3/18/2011 10:43
3785
Raul V.R.
Investigation
It seems to be difficult for the right people to become leaders, how could this be changed? Politicians don´t want clever people around them
         30,487
3803
3/18/2011 10:48
3797
Greg
Adaptation
Maybe it's because clever people don't want to become leaders! Too much hassle with almost no perspective of results.
         15,243
3824
3/18/2011 10:57
3803
Raul V.R.
Adaptation
I agree. But maybe the comming technologycall challenges will lead to this clever people get involved in politics...maybe to utopian?
           7,621


yyy