| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sábado, mayo 24, 2014
Twitter: ¿Debería ser el primer punto del #PactoElectrico Innovación: puerta al progreso? exitó la gente esta semana.
viernes, mayo 23, 2014
Sequence of tweets @InfoEcon @fjmep about Is NRG Energy repeating a platform strategic mistake? http://bit.ly/350GMH
@gmh_upsa nice use of #platform thinking to anticipate where #energy markets are heading http://t.co/y621K06jCO
— Marshall Van Alstyne (@InfoEcon) May 22, 2014
Thanks @fjmep | @InfoEcon Just like IBM vs Microsoft, you will get insights of platform strategic error by looking at the link on my tweet.
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) May 22, 2014
@fjmep @InfoEcon I have mixed feelings. Is Crane leading the #platform transformation? Does he know the vision? See http://t.co/rb608bNOMg
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) May 23, 2014
lunes, mayo 19, 2014
A comment posted under Forbes' Steve Denning article "What Thomas Piketty Got Wrong"
“Even if none of Piketty’s theories stands up, the establishment of this fact has transformed political discourse and is a Nobel Prize-worthy contribution.” -- Larry Summers, The Inequality Puzzle.
Dear Mr. Denning,
Thank you for your interesting review of What Thomas Piketty Got Wrong. This comment is a continuation of my comment "I guess that the attention Piketty is receiving will lead to the new economics," posted under your article Is The Creative Economy Also In Trouble? We should hope that such attention continue.
At the beginning of the month he and 14 others wrote the article Our manifesto for Europe, which was published on The Guardian. That manifesto says that "The central issue is simple: democracy and the public authorities must be enabled to regain control of and effectively regulate 21st century globalised financial capitalism." However, I believe they are jumping to conclusions with three proposals that need to be reconsidered based on what follows.
I guess the most important issue with his book refers to the future, as you have been pointing out both in the article and in the comments. This starts with the same error of Ricardo's extrapolation, under the assumption that the future is a continuation of the past. That assumption is integral to the restriction of his macroeconomics tools. But today, it is possible to learn from the emergent future. In addition, such learning is leading increasing returns based on positive feedback.
While positive feedback is behind virtuous circle growth, it is also behind vicious circles induced by good (mediocre) management, as Jim Collins (and his research team) empiric evidence suggest in the book Good to Great. See chapter 8, "The flywheel and the doom loop." Only 11 out of 1,435 companies selected from the Fortune 500, from 1965 to 1995, made the leap from good to great. On the back of the book there is a quote by Peter Drucker that says:
While Piketty is concentrated in learning from the past on the financial system, I have been concentrated on the electricity system to help learn from the emerging future. The difference is that instead of growing inequality, we should expect most countries to become egalitarian. Please take a look at the first paragraph of the summary of the paper A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal, where I suggest that we should enter a different civilization that has been emerging as predicted by Alvin Toffler in his book The Third Wave:
Dear Mr. Denning,
Thank you for your interesting review of What Thomas Piketty Got Wrong. This comment is a continuation of my comment "I guess that the attention Piketty is receiving will lead to the new economics," posted under your article Is The Creative Economy Also In Trouble? We should hope that such attention continue.
At the beginning of the month he and 14 others wrote the article Our manifesto for Europe, which was published on The Guardian. That manifesto says that "The central issue is simple: democracy and the public authorities must be enabled to regain control of and effectively regulate 21st century globalised financial capitalism." However, I believe they are jumping to conclusions with three proposals that need to be reconsidered based on what follows.
I guess the most important issue with his book refers to the future, as you have been pointing out both in the article and in the comments. This starts with the same error of Ricardo's extrapolation, under the assumption that the future is a continuation of the past. That assumption is integral to the restriction of his macroeconomics tools. But today, it is possible to learn from the emergent future. In addition, such learning is leading increasing returns based on positive feedback.
While positive feedback is behind virtuous circle growth, it is also behind vicious circles induced by good (mediocre) management, as Jim Collins (and his research team) empiric evidence suggest in the book Good to Great. See chapter 8, "The flywheel and the doom loop." Only 11 out of 1,435 companies selected from the Fortune 500, from 1965 to 1995, made the leap from good to great. On the back of the book there is a quote by Peter Drucker that says:
This carefully researched and well written book disproves most of the current management hype – from the cult of the superhuman CEO to the cult of IT to the acquisitions and merger mania. It will not enable mediocrity to become competence. But it should enable competence to become excellence.Like Eamonn Kelly in his book Powerful Times, I believe that "the stakes are too high: our era is too complex, its challenges too significant, its promises too great, and its velocity to fast for us to simply react. Rather, we must amplify the power of our brains, individually and collectively, to match our new circumstances." A bit later he adds "the lucky news is that we have never, as a planet, been more equipped to make sense out of utter complexity..."
While Piketty is concentrated in learning from the past on the financial system, I have been concentrated on the electricity system to help learn from the emerging future. The difference is that instead of growing inequality, we should expect most countries to become egalitarian. Please take a look at the first paragraph of the summary of the paper A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal, where I suggest that we should enter a different civilization that has been emerging as predicted by Alvin Toffler in his book The Third Wave:
Adequate electricity system restructuring is a key subsystem component of the adequate global society system restructuring needed to enter the Golden Age of the first technological revolution of what this author conjecture is a systemic civilization. From a heuristic system architecting perspective that Golden Age will be the result of the design of the value creation generated by the highly complex socio economic system that none of the subsystems by themselves is able to provide. Such value is the result of the relationships among global society subsystems.
domingo, mayo 18, 2014
Knoweledge worker: How much do you earn versus how fast do you learn in this guilded age?
#PactoElectrico Knoweledge worker: How much do you earn versus how fast do you learn in this guilded age? http://t.co/3rC0v7NJkc
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) May 18, 2014viernes, mayo 16, 2014
MY MOST POPULAR TWEETS FOR THE WEEK OF 09 MAY
MY MOST POPULAR TWEETS FOR THE WEEK OF 09 MAY: 716 total views, 10 new followers and 10 retweets, See tweets on #PactoElectrico
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) May 16, 2014
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sábado, mayo 10, 2014
9 Electricity Without Price Control blog posts that shows an avalanche to the electric power industry from April 9 to May 9, 2014
"El Zagal y Su Daño”: Rentabilidad, Eficiencia y Riesgo del BNV y su Reconversión en el Banco Dominicano de las... http://t.co/7RSea2M0y6
— Sterling Jiménez R. (@Stejimenez) June 27, 2014OK @Stejimenez | @Kirsis_Jaquez @fredemamzade @CONEP_RD explotemos falla estructural matando 2 pájaros de 1 tiro http://t.co/NA59IXXAZX
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) June 27, 2014@Stejimenez @Kirsis_Jaquez @fredemamzade @CONEP_RD @SipenRD @ANJE_RD ¡Sumemos! Tercera invitación a conversar. http://t.co/ACXVeI9YJT
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) June 27, 2014To @Stejimenez | @Kirsis_Jaquez @fredemamzade @CONEP_RD structural failure avalanche in DR-CAFTA electricity market http://t.co/qKY99ucNM0
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) June 29, 2014
2014
Electricity Without Price Control blog posts
|
|
jueves, mayo 08, 2014
Comments under Utilities: Your monopoly days are numbered. (Yes, we've heard this before, but this time...)
Talk Back to the Author Current Comments (7) Leave a Comment
The last mile
What Mr. Munson doesn't seem to see is that the last mile is still the sticking point. If he (or anyone) can find a way to magically multiply the the copper lines in every suburban neighborhood across the country and make them available to competitors (and this is true for communities worldwide), then we can argue about the necessity of publicly regulated power delivery companies. Public utility monopolies exist not so much because they are forced on us by control hungry corporate meanies, but by the simple realities of economies of scale. The reason there are not two, or three, or more sets of power lines running down every suburban street, or even through every industrial park, is because the cost to lay and maintain them is only practical if there are a critical mass of users. With the exception of some highly populated urban areas, having two companies laying and maintaining infrastructure will require both to have higher rates per user to offset their duplicative infrastructures. When Mr. Munson finds a magic bullet to slay that beast, he can argue for multiple last mile suppliers.
Tom Campbell - 05/07/2014 - 07:39
New Players in the Electricity Market
The “last mile” and “stick-with-the-status-quo” arguments didn’t sway cell phone providers, nor are they stopping distributed generators and microgrid developers. The arrival of new players into the electricity market, to put it simply, is shaking up assumptions monopolies used to hold sacred.
Dick Munson - 05/07/2014 - 12:14
Where's the competition?
Well said Mr. Campbell. Aside from comfort services, I see nothing in this article that suggests that anyone is competing to provide electricity to the home for 8760 hours per year. The closest thing to this would be solar or fuel cell companies but typically any power source that can be built for distributed generation has been produced more economically at a utility scale. I get energy from the grid and it cost me no money down, free maintenance, 99.9999% reliability and my monthly payment is cheaper than solar or fuel cell options. It cost less than my cell phone and internet bills too. Here in Iowa only about 45% of the electricity I use comes from coal and that number is going down every year.
Russ Steven - 05/07/2014 - 12:24
The creative destruction of the end to end Smart Grid
Mr. Berst, this is an excellent introduction of the emerging electricity-services market. It doesn't matter whether or not Mr. Campbell is right in that public utility monopolies may partially remain because transmission and distribution are natural monopolies. What matters is that this is the time to correct the architecting flaws of the 1992 U.S. Energy Policy Act that remained after “The Integrated Energy and Communication Systems Architecture (IECSA)” in 2003. It’s interesting to note that while IECSA useful life was set for 5 to 10 years the end-to-end Smart Grid was introduced to support investments well beyond that useful life. For more detail, please look at the 2010 EWPC blog post “"Should the Smart Grid be a Technological Project to Address a Challenge Faced by Utility Executives?” I say it doesn’t matter because of the great progress done since then as can be seen, for example, in the EWPC blog post “A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal.” Both blog post can be found by a Google search.
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. - 05/07/2014 - 12:48
New players in the electricity market are insufficient
Mr. Munson posted while I was writing my comment in response to Mr. Campbell. New players in the electricity market are necessary, but totally insufficient. In addition to new players, a nimble internet architecture that replaced OSI is essential, as can be seen in IEEE Spectrum article "OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t: How TCP/IP eclipsed the Open Systems Interconnection standards to become the global protocol for computer networking," by Andrew L. Russell. That is an update to my comment under Russell’s article, with the reinforcement from the most recent EWPC blog posts in response to timely articles posted by Mr. Berst. For example, in the EWPC blog post “Utilities need to move from lobbying against the transformation to leading it.” – Ernst & Young," you can see: “And no, we don't know where it will lead. We just know there's something much bigger than any of us here.” -- Steve Jobs. That's exactly the argument used in the EWPC blog post Is the State of New York Public Service Commission Electric Utility Vision Bankrupt? to say that vision is emergent.” Please Google those blog posts if interested in the details.
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. - 05/08/2014 - 06:10
Distributed Generation
The discussion of solar replacing grid power is not valid without cost-effective batteries that don''t need replaced every 4 years. Some homeowners may want to deal with these headaches and get poer 95% of the time but there will always be a demand for some form of reliable grid power. Solar energy will displace some utility energy revenues but those customers will begin to pay higher grid access charges and less per kwh. This in turn will diminish incentive for customers to save energy. It will also discourage further solar development as the benefits of energy savings go down. This will take years to play out so no the end is not near. Once cost-effective reliable and hopefully environmentally friendly (doubtful) batteries are in place, utilities will become players.
Russ Steven - 05/08/2014 - 10:33
“And no, we don't know where it will lead...
Mr. Steven: you seem to be expecting that the future is a continuation of the past, instead of quite different from it. Do you disagree with Steve Jobs quote “And no, we don't know where it will lead. We just know there's something much bigger than any of us here.” By eliminating all unnecessary restrictions to competition, Should we expect or not innovators, that are able to learn from the emergent future, like Steve Jobs, that will make proposals customers are not expecting but will love. For more details, please Google the EWPC blog post "Why the Current Smart Grid Process Doesn’t Let the New Steve Job Connect the Dots."
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. - 05/08/2014 - 12:24
The last mile
What Mr. Munson doesn't seem to see is that the last mile is still the sticking point. If he (or anyone) can find a way to magically multiply the the copper lines in every suburban neighborhood across the country and make them available to competitors (and this is true for communities worldwide), then we can argue about the necessity of publicly regulated power delivery companies. Public utility monopolies exist not so much because they are forced on us by control hungry corporate meanies, but by the simple realities of economies of scale. The reason there are not two, or three, or more sets of power lines running down every suburban street, or even through every industrial park, is because the cost to lay and maintain them is only practical if there are a critical mass of users. With the exception of some highly populated urban areas, having two companies laying and maintaining infrastructure will require both to have higher rates per user to offset their duplicative infrastructures. When Mr. Munson finds a magic bullet to slay that beast, he can argue for multiple last mile suppliers.
Tom Campbell - 05/07/2014 - 07:39
New Players in the Electricity Market
The “last mile” and “stick-with-the-status-quo” arguments didn’t sway cell phone providers, nor are they stopping distributed generators and microgrid developers. The arrival of new players into the electricity market, to put it simply, is shaking up assumptions monopolies used to hold sacred.
Dick Munson - 05/07/2014 - 12:14
Where's the competition?
Well said Mr. Campbell. Aside from comfort services, I see nothing in this article that suggests that anyone is competing to provide electricity to the home for 8760 hours per year. The closest thing to this would be solar or fuel cell companies but typically any power source that can be built for distributed generation has been produced more economically at a utility scale. I get energy from the grid and it cost me no money down, free maintenance, 99.9999% reliability and my monthly payment is cheaper than solar or fuel cell options. It cost less than my cell phone and internet bills too. Here in Iowa only about 45% of the electricity I use comes from coal and that number is going down every year.
Russ Steven - 05/07/2014 - 12:24
The creative destruction of the end to end Smart Grid
Mr. Berst, this is an excellent introduction of the emerging electricity-services market. It doesn't matter whether or not Mr. Campbell is right in that public utility monopolies may partially remain because transmission and distribution are natural monopolies. What matters is that this is the time to correct the architecting flaws of the 1992 U.S. Energy Policy Act that remained after “The Integrated Energy and Communication Systems Architecture (IECSA)” in 2003. It’s interesting to note that while IECSA useful life was set for 5 to 10 years the end-to-end Smart Grid was introduced to support investments well beyond that useful life. For more detail, please look at the 2010 EWPC blog post “"Should the Smart Grid be a Technological Project to Address a Challenge Faced by Utility Executives?” I say it doesn’t matter because of the great progress done since then as can be seen, for example, in the EWPC blog post “A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal.” Both blog post can be found by a Google search.
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. - 05/07/2014 - 12:48
New players in the electricity market are insufficient
Mr. Munson posted while I was writing my comment in response to Mr. Campbell. New players in the electricity market are necessary, but totally insufficient. In addition to new players, a nimble internet architecture that replaced OSI is essential, as can be seen in IEEE Spectrum article "OSI: The Internet That Wasn’t: How TCP/IP eclipsed the Open Systems Interconnection standards to become the global protocol for computer networking," by Andrew L. Russell. That is an update to my comment under Russell’s article, with the reinforcement from the most recent EWPC blog posts in response to timely articles posted by Mr. Berst. For example, in the EWPC blog post “Utilities need to move from lobbying against the transformation to leading it.” – Ernst & Young," you can see: “And no, we don't know where it will lead. We just know there's something much bigger than any of us here.” -- Steve Jobs. That's exactly the argument used in the EWPC blog post Is the State of New York Public Service Commission Electric Utility Vision Bankrupt? to say that vision is emergent.” Please Google those blog posts if interested in the details.
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. - 05/08/2014 - 06:10
Distributed Generation
The discussion of solar replacing grid power is not valid without cost-effective batteries that don''t need replaced every 4 years. Some homeowners may want to deal with these headaches and get poer 95% of the time but there will always be a demand for some form of reliable grid power. Solar energy will displace some utility energy revenues but those customers will begin to pay higher grid access charges and less per kwh. This in turn will diminish incentive for customers to save energy. It will also discourage further solar development as the benefits of energy savings go down. This will take years to play out so no the end is not near. Once cost-effective reliable and hopefully environmentally friendly (doubtful) batteries are in place, utilities will become players.
Russ Steven - 05/08/2014 - 10:33
“And no, we don't know where it will lead...
Mr. Steven: you seem to be expecting that the future is a continuation of the past, instead of quite different from it. Do you disagree with Steve Jobs quote “And no, we don't know where it will lead. We just know there's something much bigger than any of us here.” By eliminating all unnecessary restrictions to competition, Should we expect or not innovators, that are able to learn from the emergent future, like Steve Jobs, that will make proposals customers are not expecting but will love. For more details, please Google the EWPC blog post "Why the Current Smart Grid Process Doesn’t Let the New Steve Job Connect the Dots."
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. - 05/08/2014 - 12:24
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)