Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Jul 11, 2010
Applying the IEEE tagline Advancing Technology for Humanity to the power (and maybe gas and water) grids is the mean to propose the need for a strong coalition to initiate a transformation for Advancing Grids for Customers. It is very urgent and important for the IEEE Smart Grid Group of LinkedIn to start a practical coalition in every way, as soon as possible, to advance this technology for humanity, since “IEEE is the only organization able to thoroughly provide the diversity of expertise, information, resources, and vision needed to realize the Smart Grid’s full promise and potential.” Relative to humanity, we IEEE members able to contribute should go the IEEE Code of Ethics to reflect if we like the person we have become.
A Strong IEEE Coalition Might be required to Start Transforming the Power Industry Part 2 of 6
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Creator of the EWPC-AF
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on July 4th 2010.
Copyright © 2010 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write tojavs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
|
Most Viewed on the EWPC Blog
July 4th, 2010
· · The EWPC Textbook (23,717)
· The Sixth Disruptive Technology (17,003)
· The BIG California LIE. (9,673)
|
Most Commented on the EWPC Blog July 4th, 2010
· The Next Energy Secretary (57)
· Response to Professor Banks (46)
· EWPC’s Tipping Point (44)
· IMEUC False Facts (41)
|
This is when 5th person makes a strong contrary post to the need for initiating a transformation that ends with “I do appreciate your fervor for your EWPC despite my view that it’s impractical in many ways.” Next is my response:
Just as 1st person said theUS is “… back to the same inducement as the White Queen offered Alice
In generative dialogues we use the assumption that we not our opinions. First, I would not start with "I agree that utility business model innovation and market transformation should be at the core of smart grid initiatives...." Instead of using the word utility and also the two word phrase smart grid, I would start with the phrases “power industry” and “advanced power service,” respectively, in order not be biased. The modified opinion would start as "I agree that power industry business model innovation and market transformation should be at the core of advanced power service initiatives.” Would you agree?
Based on many words of your opinion, I am for the moment suspending the opinion "...about a huge government financial stimulus opportunity" to simplify the interchange. Even after suspending it, in accordance with the whole discussion of more than 70 posts, the logic-arguments of my posts still stand quite firmed to support that "the real problem is that the smart grid is not really about a real transformation effort."
One of the most relevant lessons of architecture is the heuristic “Don’t assume that the original statement of the problem is necessarily the best, or even the right one” applies. The problem with US Energy Policy started at the outset in EPAct 92, when a key architecting flaw was added that has very large repercussions today. No amount of incremental extensions with the support of all kinds of respected institutions would change such a bad bones architecture situation.
Contrary to the needed transformation effort to integrate active demand to power system planning, operation and control, the underlying political assumption on EPAct 92 was based on inactive demand and thus inactive distribution, making Open Transmission Access a big architecting mistake that assumes erroneously low coupling between transmission and distribution that is the source of many of the above mentioned complex repercussions. EWPC-AF is based on the architecting ultraquality imperative that required tightly integrated transportation. For details, please read the EWPC article Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics.
To suggest that it is the right time (when an old economy has lost the fight with a new economy) for the political decision for the transformation, I should add at this moment a parallel between the IOUs-AF and the railroad highlights the reality versus illusion as a result of the big change being experienced in the business environment. John Naisbitt' s 1982 Megatrends, explains under the section "Law of the Situation: the railroads did not understand," the illusion IOUs and regulators are, with the quote of Walter B. Wriston, chairman of Citicorp, who in 1981 said:
Just as 1st person said the
In generative dialogues we use the assumption that we not our opinions. First, I would not start with "I agree that utility business model innovation and market transformation should be at the core of smart grid initiatives...." Instead of using the word utility and also the two word phrase smart grid, I would start with the phrases “power industry” and “advanced power service,” respectively, in order not be biased. The modified opinion would start as "I agree that power industry business model innovation and market transformation should be at the core of advanced power service initiatives.” Would you agree?
Based on many words of your opinion, I am for the moment suspending the opinion "...about a huge government financial stimulus opportunity" to simplify the interchange. Even after suspending it, in accordance with the whole discussion of more than 70 posts, the logic-arguments of my posts still stand quite firmed to support that "the real problem is that the smart grid is not really about a real transformation effort."
One of the most relevant lessons of architecture is the heuristic “Don’t assume that the original statement of the problem is necessarily the best, or even the right one” applies. The problem with US Energy Policy started at the outset in EPAct 92, when a key architecting flaw was added that has very large repercussions today. No amount of incremental extensions with the support of all kinds of respected institutions would change such a bad bones architecture situation.
Contrary to the needed transformation effort to integrate active demand to power system planning, operation and control, the underlying political assumption on EPAct 92 was based on inactive demand and thus inactive distribution, making Open Transmission Access a big architecting mistake that assumes erroneously low coupling between transmission and distribution that is the source of many of the above mentioned complex repercussions. EWPC-AF is based on the architecting ultraquality imperative that required tightly integrated transportation. For details, please read the EWPC article Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics.
To suggest that it is the right time (when an old economy has lost the fight with a new economy) for the political decision for the transformation, I should add at this moment a parallel between the IOUs-AF and the railroad highlights the reality versus illusion as a result of the big change being experienced in the business environment. John Naisbitt
yyy
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario