Los tres primeros párrafos de plan de gobierno que se instalará mañana, son anticipados por el Editorial del Listín Diario En la antesala del nuevo gobierno:
“El licenciado Danilo Medina toma posesión mañana como Presidente de la República con un portafolios muy puntual de las medidas que piensa impulsar en sus primeros cien días de mandato.”
“Coinciden, en su mayoría, con las que figuran en las agendas de las medidas posibles o deseables que han sugerido distintos sectores de la sociedad.”
“Y que, en definitiva, podrían resumirse en cuatro aspectos básicos e impostergables: la necesidad de conferir al sistema educativo mayores recursos (4 porciento del Producto Interno Bruto) en el nuevo presupuesto; aumentar la oferta de energía eléctrica y corregir las distorsiones tarifarias; minimizar el déficit del Estado mediante una combinación de medidas de ahorro y de políticas de estímulo a la producción y la exportación y poner control al ambiente de inseguridad ciudadana.”
De esos cuatro aspectos, el que se refiere al sector eléctrico es sumamente contrario al bienestar de la población. Ese aspecto se basa en el engaño de que la energía barata es una opción. En realidad es fácil comprobar que amparados en ese engaño, los generadores del Acuerdo de Madrid y los clientes no regulados son altamente subsidiados por el Estado dominicano. Ese subsidio es el resultado de poner de forma administrativa un tope a los precios mayoristas, que los hacen artificialmente bajos en muchas horas del año, especialmente cuando hace falta capacidad en dicho mercado.
En vez de ese engaño, existe la oportunidad de reactivar la economía dominicana, generando nuevos negocios y sus correspondientes empleos, no solo durante el período 2012-2016, sino por mucho más tiempo. Lo que hace falta es aprovechar la señal real de los precios de la energía para invertir en la reducción de la demanda y equilibrarla con la oferta. Todos sabemos que las distribuidoras han sido incapaces de reducir el hurto de la electricidad porque como monopolio siempre pueden acudir al presupuesto de la nación. La solución está en desconectar el sector eléctrico del presupuesto.
Pero es con base al engaño de la energía barata que se argumenta la necesidad de aumentar la oferta de energía eléctrica, cuando esos clientes no regulados disponen de suficiente capacidad para autoabastecerse cuando los precios reales del mercado mayorista suben por encima del tope. Visto de esta manera, queda en evidencia que no es verdad que hace falta aumentar la oferta de energía eléctrica.
El excesivo riesgo que involucra el aumento de generación fue el incentivo que originó el Acuerdo de Madrid y cerró el mercado. Ese acuerdo se aprovechó de contratos a largo plazo para obtener rentas del tope del precio mayorista para aumentar el monto del subsidio. La decisión del Estado de hacer las inversiones por su cuenta, no cambian en absoluto la realidad de los gigantescos riesgos futuros de esas inversiones.
miércoles, agosto 15, 2012
sábado, agosto 11, 2012
Las distribuidoras nunca han sido parte de un plan integral del sector eléctrico en su conjunto
Contrario a lo que dice el artículo, Las distribuidoras en el plan integral del sector eléctrico, escrito por Radhamés Segura, publicado en la página 10A, como Especial para Listín Diario, las distribuidoras nunca han sido parte de un plan integral del sector eléctrico en su conjunto.
El Índice de Recuperación de Efectivo (CRI, siglas en inglés) está diseñado para optimizar una parte (las distribuidoras y sus consumidores) del conjunto y no para optimizar dicho conjunto. Usando el CRI es totalmente imposible sustentar un plan integral del sector eléctrico. En vez de ser un instrumento integrador, el CRI es todo lo contrario, porque está diseñado para garantizar la privatización de las ganancias en el mercado mayorista y socializar las pérdidas en el minorista.
Es así como los indignados dominicanos han sido tratados por todas las administraciones de la CDEEE con el CRI desde el 2004. Para integrar el sector, es absolutamente necesario desterrar de una vez por todas el CRI en la reunión del gobierno con el FMI, adoptando tan pronto como sea posible la energía con impuestos, con base a una transformación integral del sector como un todo, que incluye especialmente los modelos mentales (recetas) de la banca multilateral.
El Índice de Recuperación de Efectivo (CRI, siglas en inglés) está diseñado para optimizar una parte (las distribuidoras y sus consumidores) del conjunto y no para optimizar dicho conjunto. Usando el CRI es totalmente imposible sustentar un plan integral del sector eléctrico. En vez de ser un instrumento integrador, el CRI es todo lo contrario, porque está diseñado para garantizar la privatización de las ganancias en el mercado mayorista y socializar las pérdidas en el minorista.
Es así como los indignados dominicanos han sido tratados por todas las administraciones de la CDEEE con el CRI desde el 2004. Para integrar el sector, es absolutamente necesario desterrar de una vez por todas el CRI en la reunión del gobierno con el FMI, adoptando tan pronto como sea posible la energía con impuestos, con base a una transformación integral del sector como un todo, que incluye especialmente los modelos mentales (recetas) de la banca multilateral.
viernes, agosto 10, 2012
Taxed energy: thought Occupiers aren’t expecting, but will love
Note: the following text is an adapted translation of the article Energía con impuestos: pensamiento que indignados no esperan, pero adorarán, published in acento.com.do weekly column “Systemic Leadership.” The translation does not include hyperlinked material which remains in Spanish.
In the story "The 15-M is emotional, lacks thought," published in El Pais, October 17, 2011, Zigmunt Bauman, Polish philosopher and sociologist known for his concept of liquid modernity, said of Occupiers that:
"The movement grows and grows but ‘it does through emotion, lacking thought. With emotions alone, without thought, you don’t get anywhere.' The uproar of the collective emotion plays a carnival show that ends in itself, without consequences. 'During the carnival anything goes but ended the carnival with a business as usual comes back.'"
Taxed energy would be, for example, at the crux of the Dominican agenda with the IMF and everything else would be secondary. Although they don’t expect it, for having a counterintuitive thought, Occupiers would love it. It's like Henry Ford and Steve Jobs made thoughtful proposals we were not expecting, but love.
Innovator of cars we love, Ford is quoted as saying that if he had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses. Jobs transformed several industries, with products, services and systems that people did not expect, but love.
Increasingly, electricity grows its share of total energy consumption. For example, road transport is changing from liquid fuels to electricity. But then, Why has electricity not been transform to be loved? Because he who made the law, also made the loophole.
For several decades until 1972, the world depended on cheap oil and was organized around it. Since then, the guarantee of cheap energy is gone, but not the energy sector legislation designed to protect it under that guarantee. Although legislative changes were made in many jurisdictions, the sector continuous protected from startups.
Maintaining this illusion, energy is subsidized, benefiting those on "Wall Street" and hurting Occupiers. With subsidized prices all consumers are encouraged to waste energy, promoting unsustainable consumption that later on taxpayers, mainly Occupiers, will pay dearly for through taxes.
The best example of the damage caused by artificially cheap energy and which tax reform should correct is that of the Dominican Republic. Here we have many Occupiers since long ago and probably will have many more if the highly risky large coal plants (see a 10 minutes’ video) or natural gas of 300 or 600 megawatts government bet goes through.
Dominicans have been suffering a prolonged systemic electricity crisis of major proportions, which encourages unchecked and unbalanced demand, accumulate excessive debt, undermines the national budget and from time to time significantly increases foreign debt. Although less visible, a similar legal situation also occurs in the U.S. and Europe affecting their Occupiers. The opportunities are just as important here as in all these countries.
The guarantee of cheap information, for example, with the legislation based on the value-added electricity architecture framework, will encourage thoughtful proposals that Occupiers will love, for lower taxes and higher job opportunities. Such legislation will curb excessive generation increases with consumption reductions.
Thus, taxed energy: will encourage investment in energy efficiency and energy savings in final consumption, will decrease and decongest land transport, while it will significantly increase virtual communication, for example, at the premises of the productive sectors and households for education and health services.
In the story "The 15-M is emotional, lacks thought," published in El Pais, October 17, 2011, Zigmunt Bauman, Polish philosopher and sociologist known for his concept of liquid modernity, said of Occupiers that:
"The movement grows and grows but ‘it does through emotion, lacking thought. With emotions alone, without thought, you don’t get anywhere.' The uproar of the collective emotion plays a carnival show that ends in itself, without consequences. 'During the carnival anything goes but ended the carnival with a business as usual comes back.'"
Taxed energy would be, for example, at the crux of the Dominican agenda with the IMF and everything else would be secondary. Although they don’t expect it, for having a counterintuitive thought, Occupiers would love it. It's like Henry Ford and Steve Jobs made thoughtful proposals we were not expecting, but love.
Innovator of cars we love, Ford is quoted as saying that if he had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses. Jobs transformed several industries, with products, services and systems that people did not expect, but love.
Increasingly, electricity grows its share of total energy consumption. For example, road transport is changing from liquid fuels to electricity. But then, Why has electricity not been transform to be loved? Because he who made the law, also made the loophole.
For several decades until 1972, the world depended on cheap oil and was organized around it. Since then, the guarantee of cheap energy is gone, but not the energy sector legislation designed to protect it under that guarantee. Although legislative changes were made in many jurisdictions, the sector continuous protected from startups.
Maintaining this illusion, energy is subsidized, benefiting those on "Wall Street" and hurting Occupiers. With subsidized prices all consumers are encouraged to waste energy, promoting unsustainable consumption that later on taxpayers, mainly Occupiers, will pay dearly for through taxes.
The best example of the damage caused by artificially cheap energy and which tax reform should correct is that of the Dominican Republic. Here we have many Occupiers since long ago and probably will have many more if the highly risky large coal plants (see a 10 minutes’ video) or natural gas of 300 or 600 megawatts government bet goes through.
Dominicans have been suffering a prolonged systemic electricity crisis of major proportions, which encourages unchecked and unbalanced demand, accumulate excessive debt, undermines the national budget and from time to time significantly increases foreign debt. Although less visible, a similar legal situation also occurs in the U.S. and Europe affecting their Occupiers. The opportunities are just as important here as in all these countries.
The guarantee of cheap information, for example, with the legislation based on the value-added electricity architecture framework, will encourage thoughtful proposals that Occupiers will love, for lower taxes and higher job opportunities. Such legislation will curb excessive generation increases with consumption reductions.
Thus, taxed energy: will encourage investment in energy efficiency and energy savings in final consumption, will decrease and decongest land transport, while it will significantly increase virtual communication, for example, at the premises of the productive sectors and households for education and health services.
viernes, agosto 03, 2012
La agenda eléctrica de RD con el FMI
En el artículo La banca multilateral debería apoyar el desarrollo está la clave para negociar tan pronto como sea posible con el Fondo Monetario Internacional sobre el sector eléctrico. Ahí se incluye una respuesta desarrollista al informe del BID que cuestiona el rol de la CDEEE (lo que está bien) pero sin apoyar nuestro desarrollo. Es una reforma integral del conjunto socio-técnico no de las partes por separado. Esta es la forma de garantizar que los clientes tienen la razón. Basada en la garantía de la información barata, la competencia en comercialización lleva consigo al equilibrio entre aumentos de generación y reducción de demanda.
A continuación un ejemplo que reitera sugerencias defectuosas sobre como se debe evaluar la transición para mantener el status quo que privatiza las ganancias y socializa las pérdidas. En respuesta, se sugiere pasar tan pronto como sea posible a todos los clientes regulados con suficiente poder adquisitivo a volverse clientes no regulados.
En su artículo, como especial para LISTÍN DIARIO, Evaluación al sector eléctrico en transición, Francisco Antonio Méndez escribe:
Luego dice "Pienso que en cierta medida ambos tienen razón..." Contrario a Francisco, a quien respeto como persona, ninguno de los dos tiene razón. Estoy, no obstante de acuerdo en que “... lo importante es tratar de diagnosticar dónde radica el problema, a los fines de que en la nueva gestión gubernamental de Danilo Medina, se puedan tomar los correctivos de lugar.”
No tienen razón porque el problema radica en que ser eficiente en base a promedios mensuales no garantiza la eficiencia que se necesita en un mundo en que la información es muy barata, lo cual genera un apalancamiento sistémico. Para aumentar la eficiencia se necesita medir en lapsos mucho más pequeños, por ejemplo de una hora, para la mayor parte de la oferta y la demanda. Es de esa forma en que se puede obligar a los generadores a competir con comercializadores que al mismo tiempo compiten entre sí. En el artículo Experto cree falta asesoría en rechazo a resolución de SIE, también como especial para LISTÍN DIARIO, se introduce lo que hay que hacer en el mercado mayorista. Aquí se sugiere darle esa oportunidad a todos los clientes regulados vía la competencia entre comercializadores, lo más pronto posible, pero para entrar en vigencia en el mercado minorista tan pronto vayan concluyendo los contratos del Acuerdo de Madrid.
A continuación un ejemplo que reitera sugerencias defectuosas sobre como se debe evaluar la transición para mantener el status quo que privatiza las ganancias y socializa las pérdidas. En respuesta, se sugiere pasar tan pronto como sea posible a todos los clientes regulados con suficiente poder adquisitivo a volverse clientes no regulados.
En su artículo, como especial para LISTÍN DIARIO, Evaluación al sector eléctrico en transición, Francisco Antonio Méndez escribe:
A raíz del sometimiento por el poder ejecutivo del esperado presupuesto complementario se generó un debate entre el vicepresidente ejecutivo de la CDEEE, Celso Marranzini, y el presidente de la Comisión de Finanzas del Senado, Tommy Galán. Marranzini señala que ha tenido un adecuado desempeño gerencial, y que si no fuera porque el fuel oil No. 6 está en los niveles en que se encuentra no necesitara del subsidio, el cual, argumenta, en un 75% es para no aumentar la tarifa. El senador Galán cuestiona que si el desempeño ha sido tal, por qué entonces el monto del subsidio no se ha reducido.
Luego dice "Pienso que en cierta medida ambos tienen razón..." Contrario a Francisco, a quien respeto como persona, ninguno de los dos tiene razón. Estoy, no obstante de acuerdo en que “... lo importante es tratar de diagnosticar dónde radica el problema, a los fines de que en la nueva gestión gubernamental de Danilo Medina, se puedan tomar los correctivos de lugar.”
No tienen razón porque el problema radica en que ser eficiente en base a promedios mensuales no garantiza la eficiencia que se necesita en un mundo en que la información es muy barata, lo cual genera un apalancamiento sistémico. Para aumentar la eficiencia se necesita medir en lapsos mucho más pequeños, por ejemplo de una hora, para la mayor parte de la oferta y la demanda. Es de esa forma en que se puede obligar a los generadores a competir con comercializadores que al mismo tiempo compiten entre sí. En el artículo Experto cree falta asesoría en rechazo a resolución de SIE, también como especial para LISTÍN DIARIO, se introduce lo que hay que hacer en el mercado mayorista. Aquí se sugiere darle esa oportunidad a todos los clientes regulados vía la competencia entre comercializadores, lo más pronto posible, pero para entrar en vigencia en el mercado minorista tan pronto vayan concluyendo los contratos del Acuerdo de Madrid.
jueves, agosto 02, 2012
Video Completo Conferencia Magistral Dr. Vanderhorst Silverio en Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Parte 1 de 8:
Parte 2 de 8:
Parte 3 de 8:
Parte 4 de 8:
Parte 5 de 8:
Parte 6 de 8:
Parte 7 de 8:
Parte 8 de 8:
domingo, julio 29, 2012
¿Cree Usted que el Acuerdo de Brasil podría ser la reedición del Acuerdo de Madrid?
Primera actualización. La noticia falsa del “aumento de generación eléctrica a bajo costo” en Punta Catalina. Esa noticia falsa es la que dominó y sugerimos que invalida el “Informe de la Comisión Investigadora del Proceso de Licitación y Adjudicación del Contrato de EPC de la Central Termoeléctrica Punta Catalina.” Al igual que en otros experimentos de pensamiento como el que aparece en la nota La Marcha de la Locura de la Globalización Oscura: versión de la República Dominicana, seguiremos un nuevo modelo que se modifica aquí en base a lo que aprendimos del futuro inmediato en los intercambios de tuits que aparecen más adelante,
Mientras tanto, haciendo la nota de "La Marcha de la Locura..." parte integral de esta nota, cabe notar que en este momento tiene las siguientes actualizaciones:
La primera clase de conversaciones de tuits son colaboraciones de calidad que tratan el mismo tema con mayor profundidad, para que intelectuales, periodistas y articulistas, apegados a la verdad tengan la oportuniad de procesarlas para acercarse al Tercer Grado de Claridad (#3rdDegreeOfClarity en Twitter). Esta es la Versión para Twitter que corresponde a los profesionales de la #EcoSiNuestra o #EcoIsOurs como yo que interactuan con dichos intelectuales.
La segunda clase de imágenes corresponden a varios intercambios de tuits, la mayoría de los cuales en esta ocasión se originaron a partir un primer intercambio, son más que suficientes que se aproximan al Segundo Grado de Claridad (#2ndDegreeOfClarity en Twitter) para que los intelectuales se entere de la situación y decidan procesarlas para difundirla al publico general como colaboraciones de cantidad, sin entrar en simplismos, que resultan en noticias falsas (Fake News), como “aumento de generación eléctrica a bajo costo,” que inundan la prensa masiva. En esta ocasión entendemos que dichas noticias falsas son más importantes para el públoco que la imagen que cuestiona si la licitación fue diseñada para favorecer a Odebrecht, que responde precisamente a lo que anticipa esta nota del 2012. Esa es la versión para, por ejempo, Facebook y Linkedin.
¿Cree Usted que el Acuerdo de Brasil podría ser la reedición del Acuerdo de Madrid?
Resumen: la sociedad dominicana necesita evitar otra gran apuesta garantizada por el Estado, como, por ejemplo, contratos de grandes plantas de generación a carbón o a gas natural, bajo el artificio de que producirán energía barata. Si surgen apuestas, que las haga el sector privado, tan pronto se cambie el modelo marco que privatiza las ganancias y socializa las pérdidas por otro en que todos tengan la oportunidad de ganar. Este tema debería ser una parte prioritaria en la agenda del Estado con el FMI.
Estoy socializando esta larga nota que está abierta a comentarios para facilitar la respuesta a la pregunta de su título. Con la misma, sugiero evitar lo que podría ser el gran peligro que entiendo asecha a los dominicanos, por lo que se vislumbra sería un Acuerdo de Brasil para reemplazar el de Madrid y así seguir manteniendo cerrado el mercado eléctrico.
En vez de seguir empleando el consenso, que es incapaz de aproximarse a la realidad, como se constata en los errores gigantes sobre el monto del subsidio de electricidad, necesitamos adoptar una actitud orientada a la acción que incentive el ahorro de energía y se aproxime a la realidad. Con esa nueva actitud necesitamos aprovechar con carácter de urgencia la magnifica oportunidad que se presenta con la conclusión en pocos años de los contratos del Acuerdo de Madrid, para cambiar tan pronto como sea posible la Ley General de Electricidad.
La urgencia necesita colocar este tema en la agenda de negociaciones con el FMI, al ser una situación similar a la del artículo Desconectemos el Presupuesto del Sector Eléctrico, que introdujo el modelo marco de la Electricidad Con Valor Agregado (ECVA), que permite implantar la actitud científica orientada a la acción.
Ese gran peligro que asecha a los dominicanos se debe a las grandes apuestas de plantas caldeadas con carbón, o lo que puede ser lo mismo con grandes plantas caldeadas con gas natural, sean estas amparadas, o no, por la Ley General de Electricidad vigente. Ya en el 2006 escribí la nota Cambiemos a una Ley Eléctrica que se Pueda Cumplir y que luego amplié en el 2007 con la nota Por una LGE que se Pueda Cumplir.
Esa última nota contiene un comentario de un importante representante de los consumidores, que creía que la Ley General de Electricidad (LGE) se podía cumplir con licitaciones a largo plazo. De la Conferencia Magistral que dicté en la Academia de Ciencias, se puede concluir la gran dificultad de negociar contratos a largo plazo en tiempos de gran incertidumbre, como se infiere de las discusión sobre la conferencia ¿Será posible pronosticar el flujo de efectivo de las plantas a carbón para los próximos 30 o 40 años?¿Quién pierde si esa gran apuesta falla?
Aunque presentado en orden inverso, destaco primero la segunda parte del comentario sin desperdicios que hizo el Sr. Miguel Artiles, en The Dominican Connection, debajo de esa discusión, que dice “…si existen culpables de la mala elaboración y aplicación de la ley de energía, no existen las mismas herramientas legales (pro-pueblo) que permita enmiendas? Creo que a usted con el tiempo de servicio activo que tiene en el mundo eléctrico, a sus opiniones se le debe dar el espacio para el debate y si se considera Pro- pueblo, sin ningún artificio ni triquiñuela, no solo aceptarlo si no aplicarlo.”
Como son tantos los que no pueden lanzar la piedra, incluyendo posiblemente a los organismos multilaterales de financiamiento que, al igual que las autoridades y los clientes consumidores, son parte integral del todo sistémico socio-económico del sector eléctrico, con excepción de procesos jurídicos particulares, no creo necesario, ni productivo, empezar una cacería general de brujas. Al contrario, debemos concentrarnos de forma proactiva en la estrategia para cambiar la LGE. Entiendo que está claro que es totalmente insensato repetir una nueva versión del Acuerdo de Madrid, con el Acuerdo de Brasil, cuando ya se sabe que hacer: una ley eléctrica basada en el modelo marco ECVA que aprovecharía con suficiente tiempo el fin del Acuerdo de Madrid.
Al salir de la conferencia, una persona del sector que sabe lo que dice, me sugirió que se podía empezar a hacer esto poco a poco. En realidad, yo no veo que pueda ser de otra manera. Pero, sin la seguridad jurídica de lo que se logre innovar, nadie en su sano juicio va a asumir los riesgos que corresponden para ponerse a emprender, ni mucho menos innovar.
Le recordé posteriormente a esa persona, y a otras más, que se acordara que en la década del 1990 algunos de los borradores de la ley eléctrica tenían un plazo, creo que de 36 meses, para empezar a aplicar algunas disposiciones que de otro modo pudiesen afectar derechos adquiridos. Eso es lo que hay que hacer para crear el incentivo lo más pronto posible para que los emprendedores tengan tiempo suficiente para, por ejemplo, crear los modelos de negocio competitivos de mercadeo de electricidad al detalle, mientras también se dedican a desarrollar relaciones ganar-ganar con los clientes consumidores.
El Sr. Artiles también escribió “He leído y he oído las opiniones en cuanto a la conferencia del Sr. Vanderhorst y todos comulgan que fue excelente y basada en estudios hechos por una persona que tiene toda una vida en la rama eléctrica. Ahora bien, me gustaría saber: Si todas las formas o tipo de energía que hasta el momento se han aplicado y no ha funcionado, cual seria la mas conveniente para nuestro país?”No solamente yo, sino todos los dominicanos de buena voluntad, debemos agradecer infinitamente al Sr. Artiles por la primera parte de su comentario, por ser una señal evidente de que el todo emergente de la industria eléctrica global está aflorando en nuestro país.
Mi respuesta es que la inquietud por saber cuál sería la fuente más conveniente para aumentar la generación, es la misma que suponen equivocadamente, por ejemplo, las autoridades dominicanas, europeas, brasileñas y estadounidenses, de que el mundo debe seguir organizado en base a la garantía de la energía barata y por defecto a la información cara. Sin embargo, por todos los esfuerzos de investigación y desarrollo que se están haciendo, no dudo que en 20 ó 30 años volvamos a encontrar una fuente de energía barata, pero esta vez para la civilización post industrial.
Ahora debería ser muy fácil para cualquier persona decir desde las gradas que la garantía de la energía barata desapareció con la primera crisis energética de la OPEC a principio de la década de 1970. Como sucedió en las cuatro revoluciones industriales anteriores, que se sucedieron por lapsos de 50 a 60 años, primero con el algodón (y el hierro), segundo con el carbón (y el transporte), tercero con el acero y cuarto con el petróleo, que son los que mueven toda la economía en el largo plazo, desde 1980 el mundo ha estado esperando ser reorganizado para los próximos 50 o 60 años, con base a la garantía de la información cada vez más barata, pero los grandes intereses extranjeros y locales no han dejado que suceda, manteniendo su esperanza en la energía barata.
Entiendo que esa es la principal razón, por ejemplo, porque las crisis económicas que viven Europa, los EUA y nosotros, son esencialmente las mismas, que se deben a los modelos marco en uso. Las actividades de reforma que se iniciaron en la década de los años 90, en particular el grave error en el modelo marco que se introdujo en la ley estadounidense de 1992, ha retrasado la creación de empleos y nuevos negocios que por efectos de apalancamiento sistémico a la economía como un todo pudieron tener grandes repercusiones en todas las economías del mundo.
Entiendo también que no hay por el momento ninguna fuente de energía más conveniente en cada momento, por ejemplo, horario, en las presentes circunstancias. Por eso, los aumentos en generación necesitan competir en cada momento con las reducciones del consumo de la energía cara haciendo inversiones en tecnología de información para desarrollar e integrar a los clientes consumidores (que pueden autogenerar). Esa es una de las razones para cambiar el modelo marco.
La evidencia en el país del mercado vibrante Sálvese Quien Pueda (SQP), que identifiqué en el año 2005, fue una gran señal de lo que estaba por venir en el mundo bajo los nombres un tanto ambiguo de, redes inteligentes, en EUA, y mucho más específico, mercados inteligentes, en Alemania. Lo que necesitamos es integrar el mercado SQP, que es uno de los grandes beneficios dominicanos de la crisis, al mercado del Sistema Eléctrico Nacional Interconectado (SENI), con base a un cambio en la ley que se ampare en el modelo marco ECVA.
Aunque se trata de separar lo que puede ser el robo legal, que induce un modelo marco defectuoso, del robo ilegal, debemos entender que desde el punto de vista sistémico los dos se refuerzan mutuamente. Mucha gente está preocupada por la corrupción ilegal, pero yo sostengo que por medio de la ley se logra la corrupción legal que ayuda a incrementar la ilegal. Ese es uno de los temas importantes que debemos tratar con los organismos financieros multilaterales, como el FMI, el BM, el BID, para proponerles el cambio de la LGE.
Por ejemplo, el robo legal induce el robo ilegal por la falta de un doliente, que mantiene el conectado el sector al presupuesto. Con el modelo marco ECVA, se introducen como dolientes a los comercializadores que deben seguir regulaciones prudenciales para, por ejemplo, competir unos con otros comercializadores para poder subsistir en el mercado.
Creo que todo lo anterior podría ayudar a generar un movimiento que no solo reconoce mi humilde pero muy prolongada labor que se inició en 1966, cuando la CDE me dio una beca para estudiar en la Universidad de Cornell. El movimiento a que me refiero sería para acabar de una vez por todas con una LGE en que unos pocos ganan y muchos otros pierden, para poner en vigencia una ley en que todos tengamos la oportunidad de ganar.
x
Mientras tanto, haciendo la nota de "La Marcha de la Locura..." parte integral de esta nota, cabe notar que en este momento tiene las siguientes actualizaciones:
- Saquemos a #PuntaCatalina del ojo del huracán con un “Cisne Negro” positivo.
- ¿Sería 'rídículo popular' pedirle a Donald Trump, a Mariano Rajoy y a Nicolás Maduro que renuncien?
- Un punto de apalancamiento muy oportuno para desarmar La Marcha de la Locura de la Globalización Oscura
La primera clase de conversaciones de tuits son colaboraciones de calidad que tratan el mismo tema con mayor profundidad, para que intelectuales, periodistas y articulistas, apegados a la verdad tengan la oportuniad de procesarlas para acercarse al Tercer Grado de Claridad (#3rdDegreeOfClarity en Twitter). Esta es la Versión para Twitter que corresponde a los profesionales de la #EcoSiNuestra o #EcoIsOurs como yo que interactuan con dichos intelectuales.
La segunda clase de imágenes corresponden a varios intercambios de tuits, la mayoría de los cuales en esta ocasión se originaron a partir un primer intercambio, son más que suficientes que se aproximan al Segundo Grado de Claridad (#2ndDegreeOfClarity en Twitter) para que los intelectuales se entere de la situación y decidan procesarlas para difundirla al publico general como colaboraciones de cantidad, sin entrar en simplismos, que resultan en noticias falsas (Fake News), como “aumento de generación eléctrica a bajo costo,” que inundan la prensa masiva. En esta ocasión entendemos que dichas noticias falsas son más importantes para el públoco que la imagen que cuestiona si la licitación fue diseñada para favorecer a Odebrecht, que responde precisamente a lo que anticipa esta nota del 2012. Esa es la versión para, por ejempo, Facebook y Linkedin.
@giovannida @DJavierTH @ClaudioCaamano @lsnmafalda @OlayaDotel Primera pregunta sobre el informe de la Comisión Presidencial #PuntaCatalina pic.twitter.com/Wvr91pTHsu— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 1, 2017
No son adornos. Son del nivel de transparencia al que se llega sin suposiciones erradas como “aumento de generación eléctrica a bajo costo.”— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 1, 2017
Con #2ndDegreeOfClarity nos engaña el informe. Separa lo práctico de lo teórico que no se separa en #3rdDegreeOfClariy en que hay que pensar pic.twitter.com/Rqz4YeUxxq— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 1, 2017
Opino igual Giovanni más llano— Evelin Placido-Almon (@EvelinPlacidoAl) July 1, 2017
Gracias. ¿Podrán intelectuales (periodistas y articulistas) ofrecer contenido de #3rdDegreeOfClarity que sugiero en https://t.co/TEMMF1pMUH? pic.twitter.com/7gmbcnKEOp— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 1, 2017
¡Prueba eso que dices! Aquí puedes ver con fundamentos como despejé importantes dudas a lo mismo que respondiste https://t.co/QFsL8x9FGm pic.twitter.com/RWYUHlb1if— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 1, 2017
¿Tweeland de colaboraciones de cantidad? Expliqué en https://t.co/D06X81UFNF mis colaboraciones son de calidad dirigidas a inteclectuales, pic.twitter.com/vAHmHON66x— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 1, 2017
Reitero lo que dije hace 4 años: El presidente @DaniloMedina necesita declarar la última quiebra de la @CDEEE_RD >> https://t.co/vFMVauBbDk pic.twitter.com/wqlbqrZJgN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 1, 2017
¿Cree Usted que el Acuerdo de Brasil podría ser la reedición del Acuerdo de Madrid?
Resumen: la sociedad dominicana necesita evitar otra gran apuesta garantizada por el Estado, como, por ejemplo, contratos de grandes plantas de generación a carbón o a gas natural, bajo el artificio de que producirán energía barata. Si surgen apuestas, que las haga el sector privado, tan pronto se cambie el modelo marco que privatiza las ganancias y socializa las pérdidas por otro en que todos tengan la oportunidad de ganar. Este tema debería ser una parte prioritaria en la agenda del Estado con el FMI.
Estoy socializando esta larga nota que está abierta a comentarios para facilitar la respuesta a la pregunta de su título. Con la misma, sugiero evitar lo que podría ser el gran peligro que entiendo asecha a los dominicanos, por lo que se vislumbra sería un Acuerdo de Brasil para reemplazar el de Madrid y así seguir manteniendo cerrado el mercado eléctrico.
En vez de seguir empleando el consenso, que es incapaz de aproximarse a la realidad, como se constata en los errores gigantes sobre el monto del subsidio de electricidad, necesitamos adoptar una actitud orientada a la acción que incentive el ahorro de energía y se aproxime a la realidad. Con esa nueva actitud necesitamos aprovechar con carácter de urgencia la magnifica oportunidad que se presenta con la conclusión en pocos años de los contratos del Acuerdo de Madrid, para cambiar tan pronto como sea posible la Ley General de Electricidad.
La urgencia necesita colocar este tema en la agenda de negociaciones con el FMI, al ser una situación similar a la del artículo Desconectemos el Presupuesto del Sector Eléctrico, que introdujo el modelo marco de la Electricidad Con Valor Agregado (ECVA), que permite implantar la actitud científica orientada a la acción.
Ese gran peligro que asecha a los dominicanos se debe a las grandes apuestas de plantas caldeadas con carbón, o lo que puede ser lo mismo con grandes plantas caldeadas con gas natural, sean estas amparadas, o no, por la Ley General de Electricidad vigente. Ya en el 2006 escribí la nota Cambiemos a una Ley Eléctrica que se Pueda Cumplir y que luego amplié en el 2007 con la nota Por una LGE que se Pueda Cumplir.
Esa última nota contiene un comentario de un importante representante de los consumidores, que creía que la Ley General de Electricidad (LGE) se podía cumplir con licitaciones a largo plazo. De la Conferencia Magistral que dicté en la Academia de Ciencias, se puede concluir la gran dificultad de negociar contratos a largo plazo en tiempos de gran incertidumbre, como se infiere de las discusión sobre la conferencia ¿Será posible pronosticar el flujo de efectivo de las plantas a carbón para los próximos 30 o 40 años?¿Quién pierde si esa gran apuesta falla?
Aunque presentado en orden inverso, destaco primero la segunda parte del comentario sin desperdicios que hizo el Sr. Miguel Artiles, en The Dominican Connection, debajo de esa discusión, que dice “…si existen culpables de la mala elaboración y aplicación de la ley de energía, no existen las mismas herramientas legales (pro-pueblo) que permita enmiendas? Creo que a usted con el tiempo de servicio activo que tiene en el mundo eléctrico, a sus opiniones se le debe dar el espacio para el debate y si se considera Pro- pueblo, sin ningún artificio ni triquiñuela, no solo aceptarlo si no aplicarlo.”
Como son tantos los que no pueden lanzar la piedra, incluyendo posiblemente a los organismos multilaterales de financiamiento que, al igual que las autoridades y los clientes consumidores, son parte integral del todo sistémico socio-económico del sector eléctrico, con excepción de procesos jurídicos particulares, no creo necesario, ni productivo, empezar una cacería general de brujas. Al contrario, debemos concentrarnos de forma proactiva en la estrategia para cambiar la LGE. Entiendo que está claro que es totalmente insensato repetir una nueva versión del Acuerdo de Madrid, con el Acuerdo de Brasil, cuando ya se sabe que hacer: una ley eléctrica basada en el modelo marco ECVA que aprovecharía con suficiente tiempo el fin del Acuerdo de Madrid.
Al salir de la conferencia, una persona del sector que sabe lo que dice, me sugirió que se podía empezar a hacer esto poco a poco. En realidad, yo no veo que pueda ser de otra manera. Pero, sin la seguridad jurídica de lo que se logre innovar, nadie en su sano juicio va a asumir los riesgos que corresponden para ponerse a emprender, ni mucho menos innovar.
Le recordé posteriormente a esa persona, y a otras más, que se acordara que en la década del 1990 algunos de los borradores de la ley eléctrica tenían un plazo, creo que de 36 meses, para empezar a aplicar algunas disposiciones que de otro modo pudiesen afectar derechos adquiridos. Eso es lo que hay que hacer para crear el incentivo lo más pronto posible para que los emprendedores tengan tiempo suficiente para, por ejemplo, crear los modelos de negocio competitivos de mercadeo de electricidad al detalle, mientras también se dedican a desarrollar relaciones ganar-ganar con los clientes consumidores.
El Sr. Artiles también escribió “He leído y he oído las opiniones en cuanto a la conferencia del Sr. Vanderhorst y todos comulgan que fue excelente y basada en estudios hechos por una persona que tiene toda una vida en la rama eléctrica. Ahora bien, me gustaría saber: Si todas las formas o tipo de energía que hasta el momento se han aplicado y no ha funcionado, cual seria la mas conveniente para nuestro país?”No solamente yo, sino todos los dominicanos de buena voluntad, debemos agradecer infinitamente al Sr. Artiles por la primera parte de su comentario, por ser una señal evidente de que el todo emergente de la industria eléctrica global está aflorando en nuestro país.
Mi respuesta es que la inquietud por saber cuál sería la fuente más conveniente para aumentar la generación, es la misma que suponen equivocadamente, por ejemplo, las autoridades dominicanas, europeas, brasileñas y estadounidenses, de que el mundo debe seguir organizado en base a la garantía de la energía barata y por defecto a la información cara. Sin embargo, por todos los esfuerzos de investigación y desarrollo que se están haciendo, no dudo que en 20 ó 30 años volvamos a encontrar una fuente de energía barata, pero esta vez para la civilización post industrial.
Ahora debería ser muy fácil para cualquier persona decir desde las gradas que la garantía de la energía barata desapareció con la primera crisis energética de la OPEC a principio de la década de 1970. Como sucedió en las cuatro revoluciones industriales anteriores, que se sucedieron por lapsos de 50 a 60 años, primero con el algodón (y el hierro), segundo con el carbón (y el transporte), tercero con el acero y cuarto con el petróleo, que son los que mueven toda la economía en el largo plazo, desde 1980 el mundo ha estado esperando ser reorganizado para los próximos 50 o 60 años, con base a la garantía de la información cada vez más barata, pero los grandes intereses extranjeros y locales no han dejado que suceda, manteniendo su esperanza en la energía barata.
Entiendo que esa es la principal razón, por ejemplo, porque las crisis económicas que viven Europa, los EUA y nosotros, son esencialmente las mismas, que se deben a los modelos marco en uso. Las actividades de reforma que se iniciaron en la década de los años 90, en particular el grave error en el modelo marco que se introdujo en la ley estadounidense de 1992, ha retrasado la creación de empleos y nuevos negocios que por efectos de apalancamiento sistémico a la economía como un todo pudieron tener grandes repercusiones en todas las economías del mundo.
Entiendo también que no hay por el momento ninguna fuente de energía más conveniente en cada momento, por ejemplo, horario, en las presentes circunstancias. Por eso, los aumentos en generación necesitan competir en cada momento con las reducciones del consumo de la energía cara haciendo inversiones en tecnología de información para desarrollar e integrar a los clientes consumidores (que pueden autogenerar). Esa es una de las razones para cambiar el modelo marco.
La evidencia en el país del mercado vibrante Sálvese Quien Pueda (SQP), que identifiqué en el año 2005, fue una gran señal de lo que estaba por venir en el mundo bajo los nombres un tanto ambiguo de, redes inteligentes, en EUA, y mucho más específico, mercados inteligentes, en Alemania. Lo que necesitamos es integrar el mercado SQP, que es uno de los grandes beneficios dominicanos de la crisis, al mercado del Sistema Eléctrico Nacional Interconectado (SENI), con base a un cambio en la ley que se ampare en el modelo marco ECVA.
Aunque se trata de separar lo que puede ser el robo legal, que induce un modelo marco defectuoso, del robo ilegal, debemos entender que desde el punto de vista sistémico los dos se refuerzan mutuamente. Mucha gente está preocupada por la corrupción ilegal, pero yo sostengo que por medio de la ley se logra la corrupción legal que ayuda a incrementar la ilegal. Ese es uno de los temas importantes que debemos tratar con los organismos financieros multilaterales, como el FMI, el BM, el BID, para proponerles el cambio de la LGE.
Por ejemplo, el robo legal induce el robo ilegal por la falta de un doliente, que mantiene el conectado el sector al presupuesto. Con el modelo marco ECVA, se introducen como dolientes a los comercializadores que deben seguir regulaciones prudenciales para, por ejemplo, competir unos con otros comercializadores para poder subsistir en el mercado.
Creo que todo lo anterior podría ayudar a generar un movimiento que no solo reconoce mi humilde pero muy prolongada labor que se inició en 1966, cuando la CDE me dio una beca para estudiar en la Universidad de Cornell. El movimiento a que me refiero sería para acabar de una vez por todas con una LGE en que unos pocos ganan y muchos otros pierden, para poner en vigencia una ley en que todos tengamos la oportunidad de ganar.
x
sábado, julio 28, 2012
¿Será posible pronosticar el flujo de efectivo de las plantas a carbón para los próximos 30 o 40 años?¿Quién pierde si esa gran apuesta falla?
Este es un extracto del reportaje Conferencia Magistral Dr. Vanderhorst Silverio en Academia de Ciencias RD
Como asunto de última hora, que modificó su conferencia previamente elaborada, se refirió a los "beneficios y pérdidas con las plantas a carbón." Adaptando una leccion de Jim Colins, en su libro "How the mighty fall," algo así "como las empresas sobresalientes caen," dijo que "... las empresas sobresalientes hacen grandes apuestas con decisiones irreversibles, pero evitan las que pueden hacer una tronera al buque debajo de la línea de flotación. Sugirió ante la gran apuesta de esas plantas, en tiempos en que es prácticamente imposible pronosticar por 6 meses el subsidio presupuestado para el sector, es todavía mucho más imposible saber el impacto sobre los consumidores y la economía para los próximos 30 a 40 años. Entonces ofreció las siguientes preguntas:
Beneficios. ¿Quién gana si las cosas van bien?
Pérdidas. ¿Quién pierde, si van mal?
Podemos vivir con las pérdidas. ¿De verdad?
La respuesta a la segunda pregunta se encuentra el artículo El que hizo la ley eléctrica, hizo la trampa, que recuerda la advertencia de Joseph Stiglitz, el Premio Nobel de Economía, sobre privatizar la ganancia y socializar las pérdidas, que están en el centro de la necesidad de cambiar el modelo marco de la industria eléctrica a nivel global. Dijo además que los clientes llevan 40 años experimentando las troneras de la CDE y la CDEEE por esa situación.
Para ver el reportaje completo pulse el primer enlace.
jueves, julio 26, 2012
Conferencia Magistral Dr. Vanderhorst Silverio en Academia de Ciencias RD
VANDERHORST SILVERIO PLANTEA CAMBIAR EL MODELO MARCO TECNOLOGICO DISEÑADO PARA REESTRUCTURAR LA INDUSTRIA ELECTRICA
En su magistral conferencia dictada en la Academia de Ciencia de la República Dominicana: “Electricidad con Valor Agregado: Entusiasmo Basado en Ignorancia Parcial”( ver la presentación ), auspiciada por la Consultoría de Cooperación Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología (COCECYT) y la Academia de Ciencia de la República Dominicana (ACRD), el Dr. José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio consideró que una parte importante de la situación económica que mantiene en crisis a los Estados Unidos, Europa y al país se debe “ al fracaso del modelo marco tecnológico diseñado para reestructurar la industria eléctrica verticalmente integrada y que la mantiene en una zona de comodidad”.
Dijo que con el cambio de modelo marco de la electricidad con valor agregado, se amplía el alcance del sector para incluir a todos los consumidores para llevar la industria “a donde se produce la magia,” de la imaginación y la innovación.
Como asunto de última hora, que modificó su conferencia previamente elaborada, se refirió a los "beneficios y pérdidas con las plantas a carbón." Adaptando una leccion de Jim Colins, en su libro "How the mighty fall," algo así "como las empresas sobresalientes caen," dijo que "... las empresas sobresalientes hacen grandes apuestas con decisiones irreversibles, pero evitan las que pueden hacer una tronera al buque debajo de la línea de flotación. Sugirió ante la gran apuesta de esas plantas, en tiempos en que es prácticamente imposible pronosticar por 6 meses el subsidio presupuestado para el sector, es todavía mucho más imposible saber el impacto sobre los consumidores y la economía para los próximos 30 a 40 años. Entonces ofreció las siguientes preguntas:
La respuesta a la segunda pregunta se encuentra el artículo El que hizo la ley eléctrica, hizo la trampa, que recuerda la advertencia de Joseph Stiglitz, el Premio Nobel de Economía, sobre privatizar la ganancia y socializar las pérdidas, que están en el centro de la necesidad de cambiar el modelo marco de la industria eléctrica a nivel global. Dijo además que los clientes llevan 40 años experimentando las troneras de la CDE y la CDEEE por esa situación.
Afirmó que la participación activa de consumidores con el empleo intensivo en tecnología es lo que se requiere en un mundo donde la garantía de la energía barata se sustituye por la garantía de la información cada vez más barata.
Sostiene que el cambio propuesto evita que el regulador, “sin ser en realidad un doliente”, se vea obligado a tomar decisiones riesgosas sobre aspectos totalmente fuera de su competencia.
En este contexto, cito como ejemplo, la aprobación de tarifas que amparen decisiones como la compra masiva de medidores inteligentes, cuya obsolescencia temprana les pasa grandes riesgos a los consumidores.
En ese sentido, afirmo que “en vez del regulador, la decisión de compra de medidores quedaría a cargo de los comercializadores al detalle, que compiten entre sí y por eso son dolientes.”
En este cambio de modelo, los comercializadores al detalle se dedicarían a la labor principal a corto plazo de “cobrar, cobrar y cobrar a los morosos y regularizar a los que hurtan”, al mismo tiempo en que aseguran desarrollar las mejores relaciones de servicio posible a los clientes.
En su magistral conferencia, el Dr. Vanderhorst Silverio expuso el progreso obtenido desde el mes de marzo 2006, fecha que abordo en la Academia de Ciencia el tema “La Solución a los Apagones: Electricidad sin Control de Precios. El Elemento Clave de una Estrategia Robusta para Insertarnos en la Globalización.”
En esa ocasión, el Dr. Vanderhort Silverio ofreció una solución local a la crisis sistémica de electricidad, mientras que en esta última comparecencia sugirió crear un espacio de solución en la industria eléctrica global a dicha crisis.
Finalmente, sostuvo que basado en que la crisis eléctrica es esencialmente la misma que en Europa y Estados Unidos de América, el cambio al modelo marco socio-técnico de la electricidad con valor agregado es justificado.” Ampliando que ese modelo marco separa la industria en actividades reguladas de redes de transmisión y distribución y en actividades liberadas de comercialización al por mayor y al detalle.
El Dr. Vanderhort Silverio ofreció sus servicios profesionales en la otrora Corporación Dominicana de Electricidad (CDE) y en el Complejo Metalúrgico Dominicano (METALDOM).
Asimismo, fue funcionario del Instituto Tecnológico de Santo Domingo (INTEC), donde diseño la carrera de ingeniería eléctrica, miembro del Colegio Dominicano de Ingenieros, Arquitectos y Agrimensores (CODIA), del Institute of Electrical and Electronic Enginneers, Inc.(IEEE), del cual es miembro vitalicio senior y miembro de número de la Academia de Ciencia de la República Dominicana.
Su “entusiasmo basado en ignorancia parcial” es el resultado de la gran influencia que ha ejercido sobre él Uno Lamm, el padre de la tecnología HVDC- La corriente directa en alto voltaje – cuyo comportamiento ha venido emulando sin estar plenamente consciente de ello durante los últimos 30 años.
En la conferencia estaban presentes, el Presidente de la ACRD, Lic. Milciades Mejía, el Director Ejecutivo de COCECYT, Ing. Héctor Báez Tisol, representantes públicos y privados de los sectores eléctricos y de telecomunicaciones, educadores, funcionarios del gobierno , suplidores de plantas , inversores etc.
En su magistral conferencia dictada en la Academia de Ciencia de la República Dominicana: “Electricidad con Valor Agregado: Entusiasmo Basado en Ignorancia Parcial”( ver la presentación ), auspiciada por la Consultoría de Cooperación Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología (COCECYT) y la Academia de Ciencia de la República Dominicana (ACRD), el Dr. José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio consideró que una parte importante de la situación económica que mantiene en crisis a los Estados Unidos, Europa y al país se debe “ al fracaso del modelo marco tecnológico diseñado para reestructurar la industria eléctrica verticalmente integrada y que la mantiene en una zona de comodidad”.
Dijo que con el cambio de modelo marco de la electricidad con valor agregado, se amplía el alcance del sector para incluir a todos los consumidores para llevar la industria “a donde se produce la magia,” de la imaginación y la innovación.
Como asunto de última hora, que modificó su conferencia previamente elaborada, se refirió a los "beneficios y pérdidas con las plantas a carbón." Adaptando una leccion de Jim Colins, en su libro "How the mighty fall," algo así "como las empresas sobresalientes caen," dijo que "... las empresas sobresalientes hacen grandes apuestas con decisiones irreversibles, pero evitan las que pueden hacer una tronera al buque debajo de la línea de flotación. Sugirió ante la gran apuesta de esas plantas, en tiempos en que es prácticamente imposible pronosticar por 6 meses el subsidio presupuestado para el sector, es todavía mucho más imposible saber el impacto sobre los consumidores y la economía para los próximos 30 a 40 años. Entonces ofreció las siguientes preguntas:
Beneficios. ¿Quién gana si las cosas van bien?
Pérdidas. ¿Quién pierde, si van mal?
Podemos vivir con las pérdidas. ¿De verdad?
La respuesta a la segunda pregunta se encuentra el artículo El que hizo la ley eléctrica, hizo la trampa, que recuerda la advertencia de Joseph Stiglitz, el Premio Nobel de Economía, sobre privatizar la ganancia y socializar las pérdidas, que están en el centro de la necesidad de cambiar el modelo marco de la industria eléctrica a nivel global. Dijo además que los clientes llevan 40 años experimentando las troneras de la CDE y la CDEEE por esa situación.
Afirmó que la participación activa de consumidores con el empleo intensivo en tecnología es lo que se requiere en un mundo donde la garantía de la energía barata se sustituye por la garantía de la información cada vez más barata.
Sostiene que el cambio propuesto evita que el regulador, “sin ser en realidad un doliente”, se vea obligado a tomar decisiones riesgosas sobre aspectos totalmente fuera de su competencia.
En este contexto, cito como ejemplo, la aprobación de tarifas que amparen decisiones como la compra masiva de medidores inteligentes, cuya obsolescencia temprana les pasa grandes riesgos a los consumidores.
En ese sentido, afirmo que “en vez del regulador, la decisión de compra de medidores quedaría a cargo de los comercializadores al detalle, que compiten entre sí y por eso son dolientes.”
En este cambio de modelo, los comercializadores al detalle se dedicarían a la labor principal a corto plazo de “cobrar, cobrar y cobrar a los morosos y regularizar a los que hurtan”, al mismo tiempo en que aseguran desarrollar las mejores relaciones de servicio posible a los clientes.
En su magistral conferencia, el Dr. Vanderhorst Silverio expuso el progreso obtenido desde el mes de marzo 2006, fecha que abordo en la Academia de Ciencia el tema “La Solución a los Apagones: Electricidad sin Control de Precios. El Elemento Clave de una Estrategia Robusta para Insertarnos en la Globalización.”
En esa ocasión, el Dr. Vanderhort Silverio ofreció una solución local a la crisis sistémica de electricidad, mientras que en esta última comparecencia sugirió crear un espacio de solución en la industria eléctrica global a dicha crisis.
Finalmente, sostuvo que basado en que la crisis eléctrica es esencialmente la misma que en Europa y Estados Unidos de América, el cambio al modelo marco socio-técnico de la electricidad con valor agregado es justificado.” Ampliando que ese modelo marco separa la industria en actividades reguladas de redes de transmisión y distribución y en actividades liberadas de comercialización al por mayor y al detalle.
El Dr. Vanderhort Silverio ofreció sus servicios profesionales en la otrora Corporación Dominicana de Electricidad (CDE) y en el Complejo Metalúrgico Dominicano (METALDOM).
Asimismo, fue funcionario del Instituto Tecnológico de Santo Domingo (INTEC), donde diseño la carrera de ingeniería eléctrica, miembro del Colegio Dominicano de Ingenieros, Arquitectos y Agrimensores (CODIA), del Institute of Electrical and Electronic Enginneers, Inc.(IEEE), del cual es miembro vitalicio senior y miembro de número de la Academia de Ciencia de la República Dominicana.
Su “entusiasmo basado en ignorancia parcial” es el resultado de la gran influencia que ha ejercido sobre él Uno Lamm, el padre de la tecnología HVDC- La corriente directa en alto voltaje – cuyo comportamiento ha venido emulando sin estar plenamente consciente de ello durante los últimos 30 años.
En la conferencia estaban presentes, el Presidente de la ACRD, Lic. Milciades Mejía, el Director Ejecutivo de COCECYT, Ing. Héctor Báez Tisol, representantes públicos y privados de los sectores eléctricos y de telecomunicaciones, educadores, funcionarios del gobierno , suplidores de plantas , inversores etc.
Desde izquierda, Lic. Milcíades Mejía, Dr. José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio y el Ing. Héctor Báez Tisol.
Mesa Directiva: Mejía, Vanderhorst Silverio y Báez Tisol
Público Asistente
Conferenciante, Dr. Vanderhorst Silverio
lunes, julio 16, 2012
sábado, julio 14, 2012
The Dominican electricity crisis is essentially that of Europe and the United States
Summary: This Grupo Millennium Hispaniola (GMH) article responds to the criticism that says "Don’t tell us ... that in the United States and Europe there is also the same problems with electricity that we have here [in Dominican Republic], because nobody is going to believe it ... " What follows is an edited translation of the article La crisis eléctrica dominicana es esencialmente la de Europa y EUA, posted on July 13, 2012, on acento.com.do.
These three crises come from architecture frameworks which hold an excessive state intervention that interferes with the best relationships between the producer, the retailer, and the consumer. These relationships need to consider that the assumption of the guarantee of cheap energy is replaced by the guarantee of increasingly cheap information.
The architecture framework of the vertically integrated power industry, under the protection of cheap energy, evolved successfully until the early 70's, becoming essentially the same throughout the world. Practices shows considerable differences in the electricity sectors in the world before and after those years. For example, before as in Europe and the USA the industry prospered; after as in the Dominican Republic that infant industry began to fail miserably before the others, becoming a political problem.
After the disappearance of the basic assumptions that held the vertically integrated industry in Europe and the USA, the crisis in those industries have contagion their respective economies. Similarly, the architecture framework which replaced it in some jurisdictions remained under the same assumption of cheap energy, instead of that of cheap information. To see the contagion effect, for example, according to a report by the United States Department of Energy at the end of 2008, for every dollar charged to end customers in that country poor quality add an average of one half of a dollar.
Note the criticism made to the article Systemic leverage to economies via their electric link, that says "Don’t tell us ... that in the United States and Europe there is also the same problems with electricity that we have here [in Dominican Republic], because nobody is going to believe it ... " The problems are definitely the same, as in the financial sector crisis, it is systemic risk (adverse leverage) caused by the architecture framework, in which as always the local manifestations are totally different.
Peter Senge, C. Sharmer Otto, Joseph Jaworski and Betty Sue Flowers, during the investigation that resulted in the book “Presence: human purpose and the field of the future” discovered the axiom "what is most systemic is most local,” which definitely applies to any sector. Hence, that axiom confirms both that the systemic crisis is essentially the same, as well as the large differences that manifest themselves in the different economies they contagion.
The reality is that we in the Dominican Republic have been witnessing the global emergent whole of the electricity power industry long before others, but the result here has been the socio-electric anti-system. From the 1990s, in Dominican Republic we have had the opportunity to increasingly witness ever more of the whole that has been trying to emerge but that has been stopped by political decisions at the expense of professional ones, for example, by means of huge subsidies.
In explaining the axiom, Senge and his colleagues say that "... Unlike machines, living systems, such as your body or a tree, create themselves. They are not mere assemblages of their parts but are continually growing and changing along with their elements." They added that “[t] he deepest systems we enact are woven into the fabric of everyday life, down to the most minute detail ... This is so important for us to understand. We, every one of us, may be able to change the world, but only as we experience more and more of the whole in the present."
To make matters worse, the current basic assumptions are based on smart grids as technologies, inanimate things, when interconnected electric power sectors are active things that have much more life with the information technology that will enable people to actively participate.
These three crises come from architecture frameworks which hold an excessive state intervention that interferes with the best relationships between the producer, the retailer, and the consumer. These relationships need to consider that the assumption of the guarantee of cheap energy is replaced by the guarantee of increasingly cheap information.
The architecture framework of the vertically integrated power industry, under the protection of cheap energy, evolved successfully until the early 70's, becoming essentially the same throughout the world. Practices shows considerable differences in the electricity sectors in the world before and after those years. For example, before as in Europe and the USA the industry prospered; after as in the Dominican Republic that infant industry began to fail miserably before the others, becoming a political problem.
After the disappearance of the basic assumptions that held the vertically integrated industry in Europe and the USA, the crisis in those industries have contagion their respective economies. Similarly, the architecture framework which replaced it in some jurisdictions remained under the same assumption of cheap energy, instead of that of cheap information. To see the contagion effect, for example, according to a report by the United States Department of Energy at the end of 2008, for every dollar charged to end customers in that country poor quality add an average of one half of a dollar.
Note the criticism made to the article Systemic leverage to economies via their electric link, that says "Don’t tell us ... that in the United States and Europe there is also the same problems with electricity that we have here [in Dominican Republic], because nobody is going to believe it ... " The problems are definitely the same, as in the financial sector crisis, it is systemic risk (adverse leverage) caused by the architecture framework, in which as always the local manifestations are totally different.
Peter Senge, C. Sharmer Otto, Joseph Jaworski and Betty Sue Flowers, during the investigation that resulted in the book “Presence: human purpose and the field of the future” discovered the axiom "what is most systemic is most local,” which definitely applies to any sector. Hence, that axiom confirms both that the systemic crisis is essentially the same, as well as the large differences that manifest themselves in the different economies they contagion.
The reality is that we in the Dominican Republic have been witnessing the global emergent whole of the electricity power industry long before others, but the result here has been the socio-electric anti-system. From the 1990s, in Dominican Republic we have had the opportunity to increasingly witness ever more of the whole that has been trying to emerge but that has been stopped by political decisions at the expense of professional ones, for example, by means of huge subsidies.
In explaining the axiom, Senge and his colleagues say that "... Unlike machines, living systems, such as your body or a tree, create themselves. They are not mere assemblages of their parts but are continually growing and changing along with their elements." They added that “[t] he deepest systems we enact are woven into the fabric of everyday life, down to the most minute detail ... This is so important for us to understand. We, every one of us, may be able to change the world, but only as we experience more and more of the whole in the present."
To make matters worse, the current basic assumptions are based on smart grids as technologies, inanimate things, when interconnected electric power sectors are active things that have much more life with the information technology that will enable people to actively participate.
domingo, julio 08, 2012
Systemic leverage to economies doesn't depend on climate change
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:
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."
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."
viernes, julio 06, 2012
Systemic leverage to economies via their electric link
First update. The following comment is from the original EWPC Blog.
...........................
What follows is an edited translation of the article Apalancamiento sistémico de economías vía su eslabón eléctrico, posted today on acento.com.do. Please considered it as a follow up to the post What Would Steve Jobs Do About Energy Innovation?
In the U.S., Europe, and the Dominican Republic, legal restrictions on the architecture framework of the electricity industry seem to doom to fail their economies. To bring the industry to "where the magic happens," I suggest here a small model change that facilitates great results by effectively opening wholesale and retail markets (maintaining networks regulated) to innovators like Steve Jobs.
The subtitle of the story Tumbling towards the summit, of The Economist magazine, says "Europe is trying to deal with the euro crisis one problem at a time. That approach is doomed to fail." The introduction added," [a] system is only as strong as its weakest point. Reinforcing one link in the chain exposes the vulnerability of the next. The euro zone is now so fragile in so many places that if the single currency is not to break apart, Europe must set about redesigning the system as a whole. "
By redesigning the entire economy system, it is very important to use the systemic leverage, small changes in key links, for example, in electricity, which produces great results. Thus, the result of the chain will be superior to the result of the sum of the contributions of the links.
Despite the large differences in their economic crises, the non-systemic European approach is essentially the same as it legally restricts innovations in the U.S. and Dominican electric sectors. As we shall see, what is needed is a systemic leverage as the one Steve Jobs defined to take Apple to the first place in its sector.
To address these crises, I repeat that I loved a graph I saw on Facebook that has a small and a large circle that are separated. The small one says "your comfort zone" and the other "where the magic happens." While the non-systemic approach remains in the "comfort zone," the systemic approach leads to "where the magic happens."
In a world used to saying yes to the electric power industry to legally leave it in their "comfort zone," that yes keeps pushing us into bankruptcy. While Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy, Steve Jobs defined that "focus is about saying no." I interpret that Jobs could easily left the "comfort zone" for Apple and focused himself to go to "where the magic happens." Jobs explained his idea in this video.
In another brief video, Jobs described his vision of the world. I interpret the "comfort zone," like living the world without bashing into the walls too much; trying to have a nice family life, have fun, save a little money. I also interpret that for Jobs the "comfort zone" is a very limited life, as it is the electricity industry to the economies.
Jobs added that life can be much broader once you discover one simple fact, and that is everything you find around you, that you call life, was made by people that were not smarter than you. He believed that you can change it, influence it and build your own things that others can use. Once you learn that, you will not be the same again. I interpret that it suggests that to get out of the crisis we need to go to "where the magic happens" in the electric power sectors.
The architecture frameworks of the electricity sectors, kept by force in the "comfort zone," like Apple before the return of Jobs, make the outcome of the whole economy less than the sum of the work of each of its parts. To achieve systemic leverage throughout the economy, I suggest legislation to take the electricity sector to "where the magic happens.”
Comments
Sun, 07/08/2012 - 1:01pm
As a response to a private commnet, please take a look a the new post "Systemic leverage to economies doesn't depend on climate change ( http://bit.ly/GMH229 )."
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio
What follows is an edited translation of the article Apalancamiento sistémico de economías vía su eslabón eléctrico, posted today on acento.com.do. Please considered it as a follow up to the post What Would Steve Jobs Do About Energy Innovation?
In the U.S., Europe, and the Dominican Republic, legal restrictions on the architecture framework of the electricity industry seem to doom to fail their economies. To bring the industry to "where the magic happens," I suggest here a small model change that facilitates great results by effectively opening wholesale and retail markets (maintaining networks regulated) to innovators like Steve Jobs.
The subtitle of the story Tumbling towards the summit, of The Economist magazine, says "Europe is trying to deal with the euro crisis one problem at a time. That approach is doomed to fail." The introduction added," [a] system is only as strong as its weakest point. Reinforcing one link in the chain exposes the vulnerability of the next. The euro zone is now so fragile in so many places that if the single currency is not to break apart, Europe must set about redesigning the system as a whole. "
By redesigning the entire economy system, it is very important to use the systemic leverage, small changes in key links, for example, in electricity, which produces great results. Thus, the result of the chain will be superior to the result of the sum of the contributions of the links.
Despite the large differences in their economic crises, the non-systemic European approach is essentially the same as it legally restricts innovations in the U.S. and Dominican electric sectors. As we shall see, what is needed is a systemic leverage as the one Steve Jobs defined to take Apple to the first place in its sector.
To address these crises, I repeat that I loved a graph I saw on Facebook that has a small and a large circle that are separated. The small one says "your comfort zone" and the other "where the magic happens." While the non-systemic approach remains in the "comfort zone," the systemic approach leads to "where the magic happens."
In a world used to saying yes to the electric power industry to legally leave it in their "comfort zone," that yes keeps pushing us into bankruptcy. While Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy, Steve Jobs defined that "focus is about saying no." I interpret that Jobs could easily left the "comfort zone" for Apple and focused himself to go to "where the magic happens." Jobs explained his idea in this video.
In another brief video, Jobs described his vision of the world. I interpret the "comfort zone," like living the world without bashing into the walls too much; trying to have a nice family life, have fun, save a little money. I also interpret that for Jobs the "comfort zone" is a very limited life, as it is the electricity industry to the economies.
Jobs added that life can be much broader once you discover one simple fact, and that is everything you find around you, that you call life, was made by people that were not smarter than you. He believed that you can change it, influence it and build your own things that others can use. Once you learn that, you will not be the same again. I interpret that it suggests that to get out of the crisis we need to go to "where the magic happens" in the electric power sectors.
The architecture frameworks of the electricity sectors, kept by force in the "comfort zone," like Apple before the return of Jobs, make the outcome of the whole economy less than the sum of the work of each of its parts. To achieve systemic leverage throughout the economy, I suggest legislation to take the electricity sector to "where the magic happens.”
martes, julio 03, 2012
sábado, junio 30, 2012
Talks | TEDx Damon Horowitz calls for a "moral operating system"
At TEDxSiliconValley, Damon Horowitz reviews the enormous new powers that technology gives us: to know more -- and more about each other -- than ever before. Drawing the audience into a philosophical discussion, Horowitz invites us to pay new attention to the basic philosophy -- the ethical principles -- behind the burst of invention remaking our world. Where's the moral operating system that allows us to make sense of it?
martes, junio 19, 2012
How to use your freedom to choose in Linkedin
The post Knowledge leaders: ye shall know them by their achievements, whose summary says “Learned along the way, the story told here is a lesson of the important role that local and network knowledge leaders can play. I understand that this lesson applies to any organization,” shows the byproduct of how I used my freedom to choose as a discussion leader in two Linkedin groups. Next is an explanation of how I am trying to help other Linkedin discussion leaders that become aware of being prisoners of Cartesian managers can use their freedom to choose to “find meaning in their suffering and dignity in their prison existence.”
In the international bestseller “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” Steven R. Covey tells the story of Victor Frankl, who “… began to become aware of what he later called ‘the last of the human freedoms’ – the freedom his Nazi captors could not take away. They could control his entire environment, they could do what they wanted to his body, but Victor Frankl himself was a self-aware being who could look as an observer at his very involvement. His basic identity was intact. He could decide himself how all of this was going to affect him. Between what happened to him, or the stimulus, and his response to it, was his freedom or power to choose that response.”
Covey adds that “[t]hrough a series of such disciplines – mental, emotional, and moral, principally using memory and imagination – he exercised his small, embryonic freedom until it grew larger and larger, until he had more freedom that his Nazi captors. They had more liberty, more options to choose from their environment; but he had more freedom, more internal power to exercise his options. He became an inspiration to those around him, even to some of the guards. He helped others find meaning in their suffering and dignity in their prison existence.”
Now Linkedin members will see how most Cartesian group managers keep those members that try to become discussion leaders in prison. In the preface of the second edition of his book “The New Economics,” the late W. Edwards Deming wrote “This book is for people who are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of Management. The huge, long-range losses caused by this style of management have led us into decline. Most people imagine that the present style of management has always existed, and is a fixture. Actually, it is a modern invention – a prison created by the way people interact. This interaction afflicts all aspects of our lives – government, industry, education, healthcare.”
Although members that have been in Cartesian prisons since school years have not develop their imagination, a discussion leader should emulate Victor Frankl until he has more freedom that his Cartesian captors.
In the international bestseller “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” Steven R. Covey tells the story of Victor Frankl, who “… began to become aware of what he later called ‘the last of the human freedoms’ – the freedom his Nazi captors could not take away. They could control his entire environment, they could do what they wanted to his body, but Victor Frankl himself was a self-aware being who could look as an observer at his very involvement. His basic identity was intact. He could decide himself how all of this was going to affect him. Between what happened to him, or the stimulus, and his response to it, was his freedom or power to choose that response.”
Covey adds that “[t]hrough a series of such disciplines – mental, emotional, and moral, principally using memory and imagination – he exercised his small, embryonic freedom until it grew larger and larger, until he had more freedom that his Nazi captors. They had more liberty, more options to choose from their environment; but he had more freedom, more internal power to exercise his options. He became an inspiration to those around him, even to some of the guards. He helped others find meaning in their suffering and dignity in their prison existence.”
Now Linkedin members will see how most Cartesian group managers keep those members that try to become discussion leaders in prison. In the preface of the second edition of his book “The New Economics,” the late W. Edwards Deming wrote “This book is for people who are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of Management. The huge, long-range losses caused by this style of management have led us into decline. Most people imagine that the present style of management has always existed, and is a fixture. Actually, it is a modern invention – a prison created by the way people interact. This interaction afflicts all aspects of our lives – government, industry, education, healthcare.”
Although members that have been in Cartesian prisons since school years have not develop their imagination, a discussion leader should emulate Victor Frankl until he has more freedom that his Cartesian captors.
lunes, junio 18, 2012
Knowledge leaders: ye shall know them by their achievements
Summary: Learned along the way, the story told here is a lesson of the important role that local and network knowledge leaders can play. I understand that this lesson applies to any organization. Note: a Spanish version of this article can be found here.
I propose leapfrogging to the opportunities of the emerging systemic civilization. Believing that impossible with just knowledge workers, I suggest developing knowledge leaders.
Contrary to 'knowledge worker,' I understand that the concept 'knowledge leader' has no place in the hierarchical authority of a person or a small steering group. The root cause of this limitation is the great influence of the Cartesian paradigm. Such leapfrog will avoid bankruptcy to organizations that will add enough value.
System leadership stems from the inefficiency of hierarchical authority in an interdependent world that has come close to their limits in important variables. Instead of a single type of leader, for example, in the book "The Dance of Change," Doubleday, 1999, Peter Senge and his colleagues envisioned three types of leaders: local line leaders, executive leaders, and network leaders.
Learned along the way, the story told here is a lesson of the important role that local and network knowledge leaders can play. I understand that this lesson applies to any organization.
The experience happened in several discussion groups devoted to specific themes, in which, as expected, my participation has been misunderstood by managers who expect their Cartesian groups to be closed, while I wanted to get the value added by the interdependence between groups. Managers exercised their hierarchical authority when they thought that a discussion or comment was deviating from the scope of the group.
For example, participating in 5 groups with the same discussion on a proposal for a systemic code of ethics, a manager interrupted repeatedly stopping the local and network learning that was emerging. Trying to transfer the discussion to a group he said was the best, the manager asked the other manager new Cartesian rules of discussion.
Trying to learn from the future, I started another discussion in many groups. Wondering if it was possible for a regular member might emerge via systemic 'scientific' contributions as a community leader of the group. I interpret this 'discussion leader' would be a local leader; while I also interpret I was trying to take on the role of the network leader between groups. This is the lesson perfected that responds to the new rules:
I propose leapfrogging to the opportunities of the emerging systemic civilization. Believing that impossible with just knowledge workers, I suggest developing knowledge leaders.
Contrary to 'knowledge worker,' I understand that the concept 'knowledge leader' has no place in the hierarchical authority of a person or a small steering group. The root cause of this limitation is the great influence of the Cartesian paradigm. Such leapfrog will avoid bankruptcy to organizations that will add enough value.
System leadership stems from the inefficiency of hierarchical authority in an interdependent world that has come close to their limits in important variables. Instead of a single type of leader, for example, in the book "The Dance of Change," Doubleday, 1999, Peter Senge and his colleagues envisioned three types of leaders: local line leaders, executive leaders, and network leaders.
Learned along the way, the story told here is a lesson of the important role that local and network knowledge leaders can play. I understand that this lesson applies to any organization.
The experience happened in several discussion groups devoted to specific themes, in which, as expected, my participation has been misunderstood by managers who expect their Cartesian groups to be closed, while I wanted to get the value added by the interdependence between groups. Managers exercised their hierarchical authority when they thought that a discussion or comment was deviating from the scope of the group.
For example, participating in 5 groups with the same discussion on a proposal for a systemic code of ethics, a manager interrupted repeatedly stopping the local and network learning that was emerging. Trying to transfer the discussion to a group he said was the best, the manager asked the other manager new Cartesian rules of discussion.
Trying to learn from the future, I started another discussion in many groups. Wondering if it was possible for a regular member might emerge via systemic 'scientific' contributions as a community leader of the group. I interpret this 'discussion leader' would be a local leader; while I also interpret I was trying to take on the role of the network leader between groups. This is the lesson perfected that responds to the new rules:
In a non systemic way only the internal value exists at a point which is discussed in which supposedly is the best group. This is where the analysis is king. It's about learning from the past.Notice that the update to From better places… to the emerging civilization, with Daniel Gulati’s post Be Proud of Your Accomplishments, Not Your Affiliations, is a signal of the systemic civilization to knowledge leaders which "ye shall know them by their fruits.”
In a systemic way, however, additional value can be obtained from the interaction between discussion groups on the same point so as to increase the internal values. The total value added is obtained from the dynamics between groups, which is difficult to anticipate. This is where the synthesis is the queen. It also is learning from the emerging future.
In the discussion of the code of ethics emergent learning came from the interaction of three groups. In fact, the best contributions on the code emerged from the group of the opposing manager, rather than the obvious group he suggested.
viernes, junio 08, 2012
From better places… to the emerging civilization
First update. Can this qualify under "It’s A Time For Disobedience: MIT Media Lab Will Pay $250,000 To Support It?" This is about "The new prize for disobedience, funded by LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, wants to reward creative nonviolent protest by activists or government officials who stop illegal acts." I have more examples to offer to anyone interested in nominating me for a new type of award: a prize for disobedience.
While some of the links in the initial post don´t work anymore, here I have what has organically emerged, for example, under the post A Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence 14 Dec 2014.
From better places… to the emerging civilization
Summary: as the world run by Cartesians (as defined here) is under huge systemic problems, the rest of the world needs to unite themselves into Peircians (also defined here) to enable the systemic civilization to emerge. A Spanish version of this article without hyperlinks is available here.
I recently experienced first hand the term "from better places I have been thrown out…" but instead of being sad, I was glad to learn so much in a sacrifice for others. In a hectic process of discussion in the Design Thinking Group , which is supposed to be the ideal means to solve wicked or systemic problems that affect billions of people, it became clear why the promises of that movement have not arrived.
To arrive, you need leaders to change the René Descartes Cartesian paradigm legacy to another more linked to reality. That was how the Cartesian administrator demonstrated her lack of leadership when she decided to expel me. Then the Cartesian administrator of the IEEE Smart Grid Group , took advantage of that fact to expel me for my insistence on a systemic code of ethics, the repeated request that the status quo respond to criticism made about the development of such smart grids and other larger issues so that the IEEE can fulfill the promise to advance technology for humanity. Update June 11, 2012 - please read Daniel Gulati's blog post Be Proud of Your Accomplishments, Not Your Affiliations.
Also under the numbing effect of the Cartesian paradigm, a friend asked me alarmed, did you sent a message to many people where you say you were kicked out of two groups? I said yes because I learned to recognize the emerging civilization Carlos Fuentes anticipated before he died.
I noted that Carlos Fuentes said that for young people in the world there are many shortages and inadequacies ... in the world young people are demonstrating for a different civilization ... he could not define ... that was the result of the inability of many governments to meet those needs. Many of these young people are mistaken blaming the system for their problems, when guilt is precisely the lack of leadership to implement the system. So I suggest that the emerging civilization is systemic.
It is clearly shown that neither the consensus nor the opinion of the majority, consisting in believing that which is agreeable to reason, are reliable methods of fixing belief, because they don’t contrast with the reality experienced. For example, we are tired of promises and broken promises.
I identified the consensus and the opinion of the majority are driven by the obsolete Cartesian paradigm and linked them to what W. Edwards Deming proposed that demonstrates the tyranny of the prevailing style of management that prevents timely leadership not only here but almost everywhere in the world. To resolve the situation, Deming proposed a change to what he called the system of profound knowledge.
How to implement the system of profound knowledge? The answer is a change to the paradigm proposed by the great philosopher of the United States of America, Charles Sanders Peirce, who showed that the only method that comes close to reality, is the scientific or experimental that integrates truth, beauty and goodness, which were separated by the Cartesian paradigm.
The issue that divides people into practical and theoretical is a result of the Cartesian paradigm that is dissolved in the Peircian paradigm by being replaced with the fixation of beliefs with an action oriented scientific attitude. Instead of frustration, all I see are missed opportunities for organizations and society in general. This is an example of what systemic leadership, based on the Peircian paradigm, should help us face the dictatorship of the prevailing style of management.
From better places I have been thrown out... and I hope they call me from even better places.
First update of February 2, 2015.
Second update: 5 min. video. Is systemic corruption a problem of civil obedience? 24 Jun 2015
Third update: How much does Greece matter to the 99.9%? 25 Jun 2015
Fourth update: What about a high leverage European referendum that avoids the Greece's crisis go to waste? 27 Jun 2015
Fifth update: Will the Eurozone continue in its Doom Loop unless the Troika is killed? 28 Jun 2015
Sixth update. A Systemic Declaration of Interdependence model for COP21. 29 Nov 2015
Seventh update. Global Debout proposal to create Systemic Civilization solves Big Problems. 8 Jul 2016
Eigth update. See how the Industrial Civilization 'Groupthink' is hiding the Big Ideas emerging from The Wealth of Globalization. 9 Dec 2016
Ninth update. Great System of Profound Knowledge ideas for the management theory of the Wealth of Globalization. 16 Dec 2016
Tenth update. Can the solution to Micklethwait and Wooldridge’s Revolution 3.5 on Big Government be on The Wealth of Globalization? 18 Dec 2016
Eleventh update. A letter to Ken Silverstein in response to his timely article Is American Enterprise More Powerful Than The President Of The United States?” 1 Dec 2016
Twelfth update. Proposal and complement of a third scenario for the IV CAF-LSE CONFERENCE in London January 13, 2017. 11 Jan 2017
Thirteenth update. There is nothing so powerful as The Wealth of Globalization whose time has come. 16 Jan 2017
Fourteenth update. All processes of global restructuring under the Washington Consensus resulted in legalized corruption. 21 Jan 2017
Fifteen update. Is Donald Trump a disruptive transitional not transformational figure, as Katrina vanden Heuvel suggested? 22 Jan 2017
Sixteenth update. Do President Trump’s initial actions trying to fulfill campaign commitment approximate the First Degree of Clarity? 6 Feb 2017
Seventeenth update. For French, German, Dutch Global Debout voters: please claim for the bright globalization. 7 Feb 2017
Eighteenth update. French, German, Dutch Global Debout voters need a new 'common sense' to help emerge the bright globalization. 8 Feb 2017
Nineteenth update. Can French, German, Dutch Global Debout voters help us avoid world war by choosing bright globalization? 10 Feb 2017
Twentieth update. Our response to Yanis Varoufakis: Grexit 'never went away' is that the EU is a Titanic under #DarkGlobalization. 11 Feb 017
Twenty-first update. As we’re all developing countries now, it is time to leapfrog to the systemic civilization. 25 Feb 2017
Twenty-second update. Synthesis: this is the proof why society needs to create the systemic civilization. 18 Mar 2017.
From better places… to the emerging civilization
Summary: as the world run by Cartesians (as defined here) is under huge systemic problems, the rest of the world needs to unite themselves into Peircians (also defined here) to enable the systemic civilization to emerge. A Spanish version of this article without hyperlinks is available here.
I recently experienced first hand the term "from better places I have been thrown out…" but instead of being sad, I was glad to learn so much in a sacrifice for others. In a hectic process of discussion in the Design Thinking Group , which is supposed to be the ideal means to solve wicked or systemic problems that affect billions of people, it became clear why the promises of that movement have not arrived.
To arrive, you need leaders to change the René Descartes Cartesian paradigm legacy to another more linked to reality. That was how the Cartesian administrator demonstrated her lack of leadership when she decided to expel me. Then the Cartesian administrator of the IEEE Smart Grid Group , took advantage of that fact to expel me for my insistence on a systemic code of ethics, the repeated request that the status quo respond to criticism made about the development of such smart grids and other larger issues so that the IEEE can fulfill the promise to advance technology for humanity. Update June 11, 2012 - please read Daniel Gulati's blog post Be Proud of Your Accomplishments, Not Your Affiliations.
Also under the numbing effect of the Cartesian paradigm, a friend asked me alarmed, did you sent a message to many people where you say you were kicked out of two groups? I said yes because I learned to recognize the emerging civilization Carlos Fuentes anticipated before he died.
I noted that Carlos Fuentes said that for young people in the world there are many shortages and inadequacies ... in the world young people are demonstrating for a different civilization ... he could not define ... that was the result of the inability of many governments to meet those needs. Many of these young people are mistaken blaming the system for their problems, when guilt is precisely the lack of leadership to implement the system. So I suggest that the emerging civilization is systemic.
It is clearly shown that neither the consensus nor the opinion of the majority, consisting in believing that which is agreeable to reason, are reliable methods of fixing belief, because they don’t contrast with the reality experienced. For example, we are tired of promises and broken promises.
I identified the consensus and the opinion of the majority are driven by the obsolete Cartesian paradigm and linked them to what W. Edwards Deming proposed that demonstrates the tyranny of the prevailing style of management that prevents timely leadership not only here but almost everywhere in the world. To resolve the situation, Deming proposed a change to what he called the system of profound knowledge.
How to implement the system of profound knowledge? The answer is a change to the paradigm proposed by the great philosopher of the United States of America, Charles Sanders Peirce, who showed that the only method that comes close to reality, is the scientific or experimental that integrates truth, beauty and goodness, which were separated by the Cartesian paradigm.
The issue that divides people into practical and theoretical is a result of the Cartesian paradigm that is dissolved in the Peircian paradigm by being replaced with the fixation of beliefs with an action oriented scientific attitude. Instead of frustration, all I see are missed opportunities for organizations and society in general. This is an example of what systemic leadership, based on the Peircian paradigm, should help us face the dictatorship of the prevailing style of management.
From better places I have been thrown out... and I hope they call me from even better places.
domingo, junio 03, 2012
abducing - forget abDucTing it’s really ugly
Summary: While asking to investigate if one or two Linkedin group managers are guilty of hijacking discussions and arbitrarily removing members from their groups, I am asking to be reinstated without any delay in the IEEE Smart Grid and the Design Thinking groups of Linkedin and to order that Linkedin’s system use their backups to have each group show the discussions I iniciated and all the comments I have ever posted.
abducing – a very simple, appropriate, and beautiful expression, that complements deducing and inducing, has emerged today as Design Thinking in one word. I just learned the hard the way the value of diplomacy. One misunderstanding with a single word might be abducted by some interested parties, with hidden agendas unknown by many members of their communities, to benefit themselves from the community. Such is the inquiry I am after with the scientific experiment, in the Peircian sense, Who can be a LinkedIn’s community leader.
Emulating my hero Uno Lamm’s ideals on innovation and truth, I apparently exceeded my effort in the Design Thinking Group community of Linkedin in the defense of abDucTing as Design thinking in one word? The reason behind my persistence is documented in the post A Battle of the Peircian - Cartesian War, in which, I am happy to add now that, as Mark Klein pointed out last Friday, “a group of individuals can form a common opinion and redirect their own statements in mob fashion,” for example, maybe via the group manager hijacking the discussion, “thus forcing an individual or other group to participate by oligarch rule.”
While the very disrepectful comment made by Loyd (see item 4) can still be seen in the discussion thread at this moment, Mark’s comment was deleted by the group manager, Paula Thorton, at the time she deleted all of my discussions and comments ever. I hope that if she is found guilty of hijacking, all of my comments will be reinstated by Linkedin in the Design Thinking Group and also in the IEEE Smart Grid Group, where the most important part of the interchanges of my proposal of an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics were also deleted.
But before addressing the potential case for hijacking done by one, the other, or both group managers, I first need to accept that abDucTing has taken a meaning that's very difficult to erase, especially in the short term. As I said in the first sentence of this post, the new word is abducing. Looking at my old Webster's American Dictionary, College Edition, of 1997, instead of feeling down as I was thrown out of Linkedin group for the third time, I went back to look at deduction and induction, as related to abduction and what a great surprise I had: the first two are unrelated to logic. Instead, we should have been looking for deduce and induce. As there is no definition for abduce, I am very happy to propose it to the world as an entirely new word that will have a great diplomatic value.
Does that end the Peircian - Cartesian war? I guess no! The second battle is this inquiry is whether or not there is a case for group hijacking. Still convinced that Loyd was wrong, I got arbitrarily removed, no only of the Design Thinking Group, but also of the IEEE Smart Grid Group, whose manager I called Cartesian after he sent me the following message:
Were the members that complained part of a mob that included Lee to hijack the discussion? I guess they were just waiting for me to make a mistake, like posting the comment about the Peircian-Cartesian war? Lee and Paula had the opportunity to arrange a mob of the two groups, because I had carbon copied Lee of all my “private” discussions with Paula. The day before, I received the following comment:
abducing – a very simple, appropriate, and beautiful expression, that complements deducing and inducing, has emerged today as Design Thinking in one word. I just learned the hard the way the value of diplomacy. One misunderstanding with a single word might be abducted by some interested parties, with hidden agendas unknown by many members of their communities, to benefit themselves from the community. Such is the inquiry I am after with the scientific experiment, in the Peircian sense, Who can be a LinkedIn’s community leader.
Emulating my hero Uno Lamm’s ideals on innovation and truth, I apparently exceeded my effort in the Design Thinking Group community of Linkedin in the defense of abDucTing as Design thinking in one word? The reason behind my persistence is documented in the post A Battle of the Peircian - Cartesian War, in which, I am happy to add now that, as Mark Klein pointed out last Friday, “a group of individuals can form a common opinion and redirect their own statements in mob fashion,” for example, maybe via the group manager hijacking the discussion, “thus forcing an individual or other group to participate by oligarch rule.”
While the very disrepectful comment made by Loyd (see item 4) can still be seen in the discussion thread at this moment, Mark’s comment was deleted by the group manager, Paula Thorton, at the time she deleted all of my discussions and comments ever. I hope that if she is found guilty of hijacking, all of my comments will be reinstated by Linkedin in the Design Thinking Group and also in the IEEE Smart Grid Group, where the most important part of the interchanges of my proposal of an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics were also deleted.
But before addressing the potential case for hijacking done by one, the other, or both group managers, I first need to accept that abDucTing has taken a meaning that's very difficult to erase, especially in the short term. As I said in the first sentence of this post, the new word is abducing. Looking at my old Webster's American Dictionary, College Edition, of 1997, instead of feeling down as I was thrown out of Linkedin group for the third time, I went back to look at deduction and induction, as related to abduction and what a great surprise I had: the first two are unrelated to logic. Instead, we should have been looking for deduce and induce. As there is no definition for abduce, I am very happy to propose it to the world as an entirely new word that will have a great diplomatic value.
Does that end the Peircian - Cartesian war? I guess no! The second battle is this inquiry is whether or not there is a case for group hijacking. Still convinced that Loyd was wrong, I got arbitrarily removed, no only of the Design Thinking Group, but also of the IEEE Smart Grid Group, whose manager I called Cartesian after he sent me the following message:
Lee Stogner, PMP has sent you a message.
Date: 6/02/2012
Subject: Removal from the IEEE Smart Grid Group
Jose,
After numerous complaints from members of the IEEE Smart Grid Group, I have removed you from the member list.
Good luck with your postings on other groups.
Thanks,
Lee Stogner
Moderator, IEEE Smart Grid Group
Were the members that complained part of a mob that included Lee to hijack the discussion? I guess they were just waiting for me to make a mistake, like posting the comment about the Peircian-Cartesian war? Lee and Paula had the opportunity to arrange a mob of the two groups, because I had carbon copied Lee of all my “private” discussions with Paula. The day before, I received the following comment:
Jose,
Your mission is too important to be lost on just one Linkedin group. I encourage you to start your own group. Please try to setup your group over the next week and then I will promote your new group to the Smart Grid group as a final favor for supporting these discussions. Then we need to get back to the technology of Smart Grid only.
Thanks,To anyone unaware of the hidden agendas, my response rejecting the separate group would have seen as antisocial, when it was really philosophical. I guess that this was my response (I understand Linkedin has a flaw that doesn’t give you back your own comments or at least I don’t know how to do it):
Lee Stogner
Lee’s decision, whom I repeat had carbon copies all the background messages I sent Paula, was so fast that I didn’t even had time to complete repeating the message I posted on the IEEE Smart Grid Group to update all the groups that had the discussion Who can be a LinkedIn’s community leader. I went back to those groups to tell readers that the links didn’t work because I had been also removed from the IEEE Smart Grid Group. Only in the other four IEEE Linkedin Groups I added the questions: Does that club truly represent the long term interest of active IEEE members of Advancing Technology for Humanity? How can that be tested?”@Lee – thanks for the proposal. I am glad that the IEEE Smart Grid Group seem to have begin to understand the importance of what I have been trying to accomplish for the IEEE and for society. As you can see below, the creation of a new group instead of helping face the systemic problems, it will at best neutralize the effort.Under the Cartesian paradigm, in which the mechanical separation of a whole into its parts, your proposition would seems appropriate and understandable. However, to face wicked or systemic problems, like those required to be addressed to modernize the global electric power industry as a whole, the effective and careful selection of the subsystems and their interrelations – the system of systems architecture - is where most of the leverage of value creation comes from.In systems architecting, the interfaces between subsystems are where the value is added or destroyed. By keeping arbitrarily the existing subsystems of the restructured power industry, to organize a system of systems, value destruction in some of those interfaces are almost guaranteed. In addition to the value destruction on the transmission and distribution interface, that I documented, such is most likely also the case of what has been the afterthought named as customer engagement.Plato said in the fourth century B.C. that “The beginning is the most important part of the work.” I have documented that there was an architecting flaw at the outset of the restructuring process, which enacted the Energy Policy Act of 1992. At the beginning of this century that flaw could have been addressed, but as I also have documented it was bypassed. I guess it was simply lack of leadership.Instead of separating the truth, the beauty and the good, as the obsolete Cartesian paradigm suggests, Peirce scientific or experimental method consider them as part of a whole. One way to explain that idea with respect to the smart grid is by quoting Donald Norman who said that "... technology is the easy part to change. The difficult aspects are social, organizational, and cultural."Just like before, I am not just running this discussion in this group, but in several parallel groups. As you may recall, when you suggested that I move my discussions to the IEEE SSIT Group, they proposed new posting rules. In the remainder of this post, you will my objections to the rules, which sort of repeat the above arguments:In a non-systemic way, there is important value on a point being discussed in one main group which can be sure is the best group. This is where analysis is king. It is about learning from the past.
However, in a systemic way, there is good value to be obtained also from the interaction between groups discussing the same point. The actual value is obtained from intergroup dynamics, which is difficult to anticipate. This is where synthesis is the queen. It is also learning about the emergent future.
In the Code of Ethics discussion, insightful emergent value came from the interaction of three groups. In fact, the real problems on the IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics are in the IEEE Smart Grid Groups, not in the very obvious IEEE SSIT Group.
The great American philosopher Charles Sander Peirce said something like this: ideas need to be discussed because there is no one truth about the enterprise. Instead, there are many partial truths. To try to get to the truth we need to collaborate with others, because we are limited and need that social learning.Best regards,José Antonio
sábado, junio 02, 2012
A Battle of the Peircian - Cartesian War
The scientific experiment, in Peircian sense, "Who can be a LinkedIn’s community leader, that started the war against the Cartesians, has now a rich proof of the abuse committed by the Design Thinking manager, as the witness of our “private” discussions might confirm.
As I have been expelled out from the Design Thinking Group, the battle to have Charles Sanders Peirce recognized by the DT community seems to have been lost. The Cartesians, led by Paula Thorton, think they have won. However, nothing is father than the truth. Since it is still an open group, there is clear evidence at this moment that no discussions are left about Peirce and only one on Verganti.
Under the discussion, Summary of my interchanges with Lloyd Philpótt, you can see Bruce Renfrew’s last comment, deleted in the DT Group and repeated for convenience now:
Thirty percent of the contributions to this discussion originate from one man with an almost obsessive determination to stamp his definition of Design Thinking on the minds of the other contributors. It's clear he won't rest until his definition is acknowledged and adopted by the group, and the wider design community. (it's also clear, for various reasons, some aesthetic, some philosophical, that this is unlikely to happen).
What began as a kind of 'break-time' intellectual challenge, has now mutated into a rather disagreeable power struggle, recently accompanied by a side blog justification and chronicle of key exchanges in a spat between our man-on-a-mission and another who dared to challenge him.
There's no absence of humor in this discussion, but during his bludgeoning of us with his definition, our major contributor has failed, (or perhaps rather refuses) to recognize its existence. For contributors used to more courteous, lighthearted behavior in social medial forums, this is all rather tiresome.This whole post can be considered as and my reply which I guess has important evidence for how managers unable to deal with non trivial issues should not be allowed to be community leaders.
@Bruce - when you write “What began as a kind of 'break-time' intellectual challenge, has now mutated into a rather disagreeable power struggle, recently accompanied by a side blog justification and chronicle of key exchanges in a spat between our man-on-a-mission and another who dared to challenge him,” I guess you missed my repetition of group manager in my last comments. This has been a power struggle all alone with Paula. I guess that was the main reason she wrote: “I'm entirely not sure why you'd want to. One word for this discussion: useless.”
This battle started with my post Who can be a LinkedIn’s community leader, which I guess she deleted several days ago. I further guess that Lloyd and you were used. He was certainly not the master mind of the deletion.
As a matter of fact, the struggle from my side has been not personal and as you discovered it is mostly philosophical. I also guess Lloyd took it personal, while being used by Paula. However, as you can see, it’s a year old struggle with a group manager unfit for the job, that I restarted with my first comment that I also guess you didn't see. That comment started an unintended discussion, which then led to my second comment to a discussion that was deleted this morning as Paula expelled out me and any trace of the Peircian Philosophy.
As you can see in the section "Battles," in the blog post First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth," I try hard to emulate my hero Uno Lamm, as "'The “Renaissance Man' story adds that 'As befits a widely educated man who is observant, articulate and outspoken on a broad range of issues, Dr. Lamm has not failed to attract his own share of criticism. That this has not visibly irritated him over the years is probably due to the fact that he is concerned with issues, not personalities. His targets are imprecise thinking, questionable logic an uncritical acceptance of political propaganda. In the course of his running battle to promote orderly processes of thinking in a frequently disordered world, he has not hesitated to cross swords (or at least exchange typewriter fusillades) with a prime minister, a Nobel laureate, a best-selling critic of capitalism and a host of other who, he often feels, are debasing modern communications.” I guess Lloyd fit that description.
@Bruce – thank you for saying “(it's also clear, for various reasons, some aesthetic, some philosophical, that this is unlikely to happen).” As you now may see, abDucTing is only a byproduct of the larger Design Thinking, Cartesian versus Peirce, philosophical war.
I left the Design Thinking Group for more than 10 months, when I discovered that the umpire Paula didn’t play a fair game as she took as personal my rebbutals. Although you didn’t see a response after my first post, because you didn’t hit the link (now unavailable) to go to the discussion "A Proposal to Define the Limits of Design Thinking" you can at least see the last three posts of that discussion:
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio • Thank you Paula. Those are very good points. I will try to see if my proposal still stands.
According to the Webster's American Dictionary, “determinism” is "a doctrine that all events have sufficient causes.” A boundary or limit may not be reached in every DT intervention, because the DT events are not deterministic. They depend on many circumstances, including those that you mentioned. Hence, abductive reasoning does not need to be a sufficient mechanism which is enough to guarantee a result.
I guess the fallacy that you mentioned was superseded by Roberto Verganti with his Design-Driven Innovation and also by Roger Martin’s article “Logical leaps into the future." I quote Roger saying that: “Apple has managed to leave open the possibility of abductive logic and has limited use of deductive and inductive logic to the areas for which it is actually useful. This has resulted in Apple becoming organizationally adept at inventing the future.”
Two minor details on "Top Influencers This Week," that doesn't seem to be working properly. You don't have a photo and I was included yesterday, but not today.
Paula Thornton • Jose: Note specifically "has limited use of deductive and inductive logic". It doesn't say that they've abandoned it. Again, it's a matter of balance and no one is suggesting what the balance should be. I guess a better term here would be equilibrium -- where sometimes the equilibrium might need to be somewhat 'out of balance' to allow for creative dissonance (noise).
[I've never figured out how Top Influencers works -- but surely you're not suggesting that I have any control over it? It's all automated by LinkedIn -- ask them.]
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio • Paula: By writing "If there is no abductive reasoning, in the reasoning mix, there is not Design Thinking" I meant not to abandon deduction and induction either. Roger's quote is way out of balance in the reasoning mix.
[I am not suggesting you have control, but that you are in charge of the group. There was a third minor detail that I could see. This conversation is not shown on Latest Discussions. Of the first two minor details, my photo is on. They could be just a bugs or maybe BIG BROTHER. ].
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)