La versión publicada en este día, 20 de septiembre, 2012, en el Listín Diario del artículo El laberinto eléctrico español no tiene híperenlaces. La que sigue a continuación sí los tiene.
Al igual que en Dominicana, España ha sido metida en un laberinto – un juego de intereses de suma muy negativa (enlace actualizado). Algo similar al Acuerdo de Madrid ha generado el llamado déficit de tarifa que hasta el año 2011 acumuló 24,000 millones de euros. Ese monto lo adeudan los consumidores españoles con intereses para ser pagados en los próximos 15 años. Está claro que esa no es la salida del laberinto eléctrico (enlace actualizado)..
En un mensaje por email que envié al final de noviembre del 2008, dije que “desde que Unión Fenosa inició sus gestiones para ‘laminar’ los contratos que eventualmente resultaron en el Acuerdo de Madrid, mi opinión fue contraria porque sabía con certeza que era muy riesgoso a futuro para el país. El Acuerdo de Madrid extendió el modelo de negocios del control de precios innecesariamente. En vez del grave retroceso que ocasionó el Acuerdo de Madrid, para seguir extendiendo la vida útil del modelo de negocio desarrollado por [Sam] Insull [hace un siglo], lo lógico era tomar en consideración (lo que no se ha hecho todavía) mis observaciones de experto para profundizar la reforma y abrir el mercado minorista para completar el mercado.”
La nueva explicación que sigue fue copiada de Linkedin el 12 de mayo del 2015.
José Antonio Vanderhorst-SilverioMuy interesante la propuesta de Tesla Motor. ¿Será ese el fin de la industria eléctrica verticalmente integrada? ¿Elimina o complementa esa propuesta también el desarrollo del Modelo Marco de la Electricidad con Valor Agregado?1d ago
Frederic Emam-ZadeNo se si será el fin de otras industrias pero definitivamente es algo que podría ser bien Disruptivo, si lo logra.23h ago
Kimberly WilcoxNo sera por seguro el fin de otras industrias por causa de los lobbies del gas, petroleo, y electricidad y cuanto dan a los politicos.22h ago
José Antonio Vanderhorst-SilverioLa historia del Ferrocarril se está repitiendo en la industria eléctrica. Los carros, los camiones y los aviones no pudieron ser detenidos. Los suplidores de rieles y los fabricantes de acero perdieron esos mercados. ¿No será un efecto sistémico que los lobbies no podrán controlar? Ahora la propiedad de los carros, los camiones y los aviones son compartidos. ¿No será ahí donde entran el Modelo Marco de la Electricidad con Valor Agregado y sus competidores?less9h ago
Kimberly Wilcox¡Que buena comparasión, José Antonio! Ésto sí funcionaría si el capitalismo sin interferiencia del govierno estuviera suelto para trabajar libremente. Ojalá que sea la verdad.7h ago
José Antonio Vanderhorst-SilverioLa propuesta de Tesla Motors está basada en la economía de escala y por tanto podría generar problemas sistémicos en el mercado de la Base de la Pirámide. Sin embargo, ofrece una historia muy pegajosa para la clase media del mundo, que puede ayudar a lograr una importante penetración de mercado "si lo logra." Sería insensato de los gobiernos, como le pasó a las industrias que Steve Jobs reestructuró con sus propuestas disruptivas querer restringir a Tesla Motors a situaciones de Off-the-Grid, porque de forma sistémica tienen el juego perdido. ¿Creen ustedes que los lobbies van a poder conseguir la prohibición del Off-the-Grid de las comunidades que decidan hacerlo?less4h ago
Rafael TremulMe parece que para países con dificultades de suministro la generación distribuida es la solución perfecta. Pero nosotros, en España, hemos exigido a las compañías eléctricas que tengan distribución en red para no tener interrupciones, que no aceptamos, exigimos que tengan estabilidad de tensión, y adaptabilidad a nuestro consumo sin decirles cuanto va a ser, y ahora de repente les decimos que queremos desconectarnos cuando nos interese, y que además nos deben vender la electricidad barata por la noche para que nos salga a cuenta instalar una batería muy bonita que nos ha vendido un experto en marketing. ¿Ustedes creen que vamos a ahorrar con esta batería? less4h ago
José Antonio Vanderhorst-SilverioRafael esta es mi sincera explicación de lo que les pasa. En España usaron el Estado para promover las renovables sin entender bien lo riesgoso que era hacer contratos a largo plazo, como lo han hecho con las grandes empresas eléctricas, en medio de una gran incertidumbre que les generó y les puede seguir generando el déficit de tarifa. Al igual que en muchos países del mundo, la reestructuración de los mercados eléctricos está diseñada para proteger los combustibles fósiles. El error está es la "adaptabilidad a nuestro consumo sin decirles cuanto va a ser." Lo que deben hacer es que los consumidores se vuelvan clientes que se ajustan a un mercado completo invirtiendo en renovables.less2h ago
Frederic Emam-ZadeLos lobbies de las industrias nacen cuando ellas maduran, redoblan sus esfuerzos cuantos sus industrias entran en declive y lentamente pierden peso cuando la industria es sustituida por otra mejor.1h ago
Propuesta para el Pacto Eléctrico del Dr. José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio
From: Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio
Sent: lunes, 16 de marzo de 2015 03:53 p.m.
To: Elena Argentina Almonte Polanco
Cc: Personalidades expertas
Subject: Nuevo Formulario del Comité Técnico de Apoyo sigue desperdiciando el Pacto Eléctrico
Muchas gracias por el envío del nuevo formulario. Lamentablemente, dicho formulario sigue diseñado para una estrategia de terreno, que impide por mucho acercarse al máximo bienestar social o quizás hasta superarlo. Es así porque impide el desarrollo de la innovación institucional que nos merecemos para no desperdiciar la crisis de más de 40 años que tenemos en el sector eléctrico como consecuencia de la desaparición de la garantía de la energía barata que hace que todos los administradores de la CDE y la CDEEE fracasen.
Reitero que el Pacto Eléctrico necesita introducir grandes decisiones de innovación institucional para aprovechar la garantía de la información cada vez más barata, como por ejemplo, cambiar la Ley General de Electricidad y la Estrategia Nacional de Desarrollo. Sacar la política del sector eliminando la CDEEE y más que todo abrir la comercialización de electricidad al por mayor y al detalle a la innovación.
En vez de seguir con ejes temáticos en generación, transmisión y distribución que mantienen círculos viciosos en el sector, la propuesta para la redefinición del Pacto Eléctrico divide el nivel superior de la arquitectura del conjunto de la industria eléctrica global en dos grandes partes:
1) las redes eléctricas de transmisión y distribución se reintegran y se mantienen reguladas; y
2) se crea un mercado sobresaliente de comercialización en que los mercados mayorista y minorista se refuerzan entre sí en un círculo virtuoso abierto a la competencia con la mínima intervención del Estado.
Coordinando esas dos grandes partes para que se refuercen mutuamente también en un círculo virtuoso, las redes se expandirán al mínimo costo a largo plazo, mientras que el mercado amparado con la garantía de la información cada vez más barata se expandirá para agregar el máximo valor a largo plazo con el propósito de aproximarnos entre el conjunto de ambas lo más posible al máximo bienestar social.
José Antonio Vanderhorst-SilverioWilliam thanks! It is a wonderful read indeed. Just as Henry Ford's legacy was understood as Fordism, that article as a whole is a welcome contribution to Steve Jobs' legacy to be understood as Jobsism. The most viewed blog post I written on it is "Applying #Jobsism to transform current global #Fordism marketing myopia ( http://bit.ly/634GMH )."
José Antonio Vanderhorst-SilverionowJosé Antonio Vanderhorst-SilverioThe article has a quote that can be seen as Fordism, when Iain McGilchrist makes the case that the Western world has become overly reliant on the quantitative or left hemisphere of the brain... During a talk at the RSA in 2010, he said: “In our modern world we've developed something that looks awfully like the left hemisphere's world. The technical becomes important. Bureaucracy flourishes. And the need for control leads to a paranoia in society that we need to govern and control everything.”
Thanks for a very timely and interesting post. I agree with you that ‘There’s a saying that where you stand depends on where you sit.”
In that regard, I sit at home with no rings attached to neither public, nor private, electric sector. That’s where I worked, one after the other for close to 20 years at a time. As can be seen in my Linkedin profile, I recommended an Electricity Integral Policy for the Dominican Republic, published in the National Development Agenda of the Dominican Republic, back in 1996.
That recommendation became eventually the project of my life, which emerged, for example, as a self made systems architect, highly active today on a larger mission above politics to enable institutional innovation of direct democracy of the systemic market (look for tweets with the #DD_SM hashtag). Made in response to the tweet by Hillary Clinton: "As Dr. King said, 'Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter.' None of can afford to be silent." —Hillary, such mission, can be considered from our last tweet: “Is leaping from #InclusiveCapitalism to #GreatCapitalism being silenced @HillaryClinton? Please consider https://twitter.com/gmh_upsa/status/755067940387495936 #EuropeIN “
Second update. To Bill Gates: Why not let customers drive innovation by leaping at COP21 from financial capital to production capital. While they will be very useful for the ongoing future, I strongly disagree on the need to fund energy innovations using public (in coalitions with private) funds as the primary goal of COP21. Instead, COP21 decision makers and investors should consider that climate change antisystemic problems can be dissolved by shifting from energy antisystems to systems. That shift will enable the emergence that Alvin Toffler anticipated about 35 years ago as The Third Wave, which now suggest a Systemic Civilization, which can be created with a Global Declaration of Interdependence at COP21 based on the primacy of the whole, instead of the primacy of the parts.
Referring only to what you are not sure about, they do need to work at scale. However, it is under scalable learning as we leap to a zero carbon transformation process to the Systemic Civilization high growth experience curve, as opposed to the myopic scalable efficiency low carbon transition in the highly saturated industrial civilization experience curve. That means a big shift from central stations to customer experience under a vibrant retail market. That also means less high energy intensity exports from developed countries and more high energy intensity import from the rest of the world.
Best regards!
José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Consulting engineer on systems architecting
Servant-leader Dominican and global citizen
Second update. To Bill Gates: Why not let customers drive innovation by leaping at COP21 from financial capital to production capital. While they will be very useful for the ongoing future, I strongly disagree on the need to fund energy innovations using public (in coalitions with private) funds as the primary goal of COP21. Instead, COP21 decision makers and investors should consider that climate change antisystemic problems can be dissolved by shifting from energy antisystems to systems. That shift will enable the emergence that Alvin Toffler anticipated about 35 years ago as The Third Wave, which now suggest a Systemic Civilization, which can be created with a Global Declaration of Interdependence at COP21 based on the primacy of the whole, instead of the primacy of the parts.
In that respect, I humbly suggest that basic research about transforming antisystems into systems is already available. What we need is getting government regulators out of the way of energy markets and to enable a shift from short run supply side financial capital to long run demand side production capital. Following the purpose of leading energy towards maximum social welfare will drive high risk private sector investments without traditional distortions, like subsidies and price controls, on great markets, where everyone, including the little customers would have the opportunity to win.
Such investments will be driven by customers mainly on the internet infrastructure on ecosystems platforms, which is where huge value creation is ready to emerge on vibrant retail markets that will reinforce each other with wholesale markets and mainly with prosumers. As can be seen, for example, changing antisystem for system in one of the paragraphs of the Principles of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition makes all the difference.
The existing antisystem of basic research, clean energy investment, regulatory frameworks, and subsidies fails to sufficiently mobilize investment in truly transformative energy solutions for the future.
Instead, what we need is to promote deregulation, without privatization, to transform energy antisystems into systems, to help lift all boats, specially those at the Bottom of the Pyramid. In support of the above, please consider the following posts and recent updates on the last two which are related to COP21:
First update: Can the climate change systemic problem be dissolved with the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework?
Please take a look at the hypothesis below under a reinterpretation where climate change can be dissolved, based on electric power markets development that transform the whole global energy industry, taking a close look at what follows. Under the parallel version to this post After a million total views, a climate change architecting hypothesis breakthrough for COP 21 on the EWPC Blog, there are 4 comments, two of which I mine that say:
Comment #1: william adams wrote under the discussion "This is a hypothesis to address climate change by changing from an action oriented political attitude debate to an action oriented scientific attitude generative dialogue ( http://bit.ly/777GMH )," in the IEEE Spectrum Linkedin group>
you cant control the climate/weather/temperature/etc
any more than you can stop the tides coming in and going out
or you can control the economy
all these are examples of large complex non linear dynamic systems that always have cycles caused by natural events not people
there is NO MAN CAUSED PROBLEM wrt weather/temp/ climate/ etc.
Comment #2: Next is my response:
Thank you very much for your input which is going to help emerge the second hypothesis. To that end, please provide evidence of how long the systemic delay will be in those large complex non linear dynamic systems if MAN CAUSES those systemic problems.
Comment #3: william adams added:
jose
man is not causing any of those problems
we have had hot/cold cycles for millions of years without people or suvs
there is nothing you can do to change any of those things although you can do a lot of bad things by trying
Comment #4:
Jajaja... that's how the action oriented political attitude is based on a debate that have gone from COP 1 to COP 20 in favor of the status quo. That's why we need to shift to an action oriented scientific attitude that helps emerge a new world order for COP 21 in favor of what's described in the long discussion The end of soaring inequality can start with 'demand-side economics' on electricity.
After a million total views in EWPC Blog, a climate change architecting hypothesis breakthrough for COP21
Note 1: the following systems architecting description is the first necessarily nontrivial asymmetric hypothesis of a hopefully few serial of attempts to synthesize the large background freely available mostly on social media, that has emerged organically via the Grupo Millennium Hispaniola (GMH) Blog and the Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) Blog. During the past year, most of those blog posts have also been pinned to social media through the Twitter account @gmh_upsa which have been retweeted by important and intelligent people that have helped socialize them. While the GMH Blog will be 10 years old May 15, 2015, the EWPC Blog has just surpassed 1,000, 000 views today. Please contribute helping get the following hypothesis to those who are able to contribute to the generative dialogue that avoids the COP21 United Nations debate.
Note 2: In order to explain what I mean by nontrivial asymmetric hypothesis, I copy the following story taken from Wikipedia of Nobel Prize winner Paul Samuelson . “Stanislaw Ulam once challenged Samuelson to name one theory in all of the social sciences which is both true and nontrivial. Several years later, Samuelson responded with David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage: ‘That it is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that is not trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them.’”
In order to address climate change under a new world order that mutually reinforce each other it is suggested that COP21 consider a change from the current action oriented political attitude debate to an action oriented scientific attitude generative dialogue based on the first of two architecting levels scope. The latter attitude is based on the update of the normative sciences of logic, ethics and aesthetics, which the great American Philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce introduced from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century.
The first architecting level of such attitude which is above politics, helping for example to avoid world wars, will lead to small minimalists’ states and large great complete markets that self-correct themselves (dissolving the State-markets dilemma) after a global interdependence declaration is agreed upon at the United Nations to help the emergence of the systemic civilization. To address climate change, the trajectory of the systemic civilization will be well above the normal trajectory of (the now over expanded by a marketing myopia) industrial civilization as we enable a cluster of information, communication and renewable energy technologies that mutually reinforce each other.
As the restructuring failed experiments, that would allow low-cost electricity to flow to high cost states by insisting in scalable efficiency and that wholesale competition would reduce prices, by mistaking risks with significant non quantifiable uncertainty over two decades, they have continue to go beyond the limits of the industrial civilization trajectory creating huge global environmental and local social systemic problems, for example, the one of electricity in the Dominican Republic, which follows the axiom ‘what’s most systemic is most local.’ Now that a restructuring proposal based on the Value Added Electricity (formerly EWPC) Architecture Framework is available to take its place, it would dissolve the intermittency problem by concentrating on scalable learning to go from the current to the higher trajectory.
That's how the Dominican Republic Electric Pact should not waste the opportunity to start to leap capitalism from good to great. Such is a shift to the new world order of the first technological revolution of the systemic civilization would generally replace short run financial capital investments with long run productive capital that would address the ongoing soaring inequality opportunities of innovation to enable a Golden Age. The design of great markets would concentrate on fair competition without State interventions would lead to servant-leaders as the most competitive entrepreneurs, which would implement the second level systems architecture with an action oriented scientific attitude with positive systemic leverage available on great complete markets business to customers platforms under increasing returns.
(1) Spinrad, Robert J., in a lecture at the University of Southern California, 1988. Maier, Mark W. (2011-07-16). The Art of Systems Architecting, Third Edition (Systems Engineering) (Page 4). CRC Press. Kindle Edition.
The GMH post Why global Middle-Class Indignados should unite to demand strategies of trajectory is what’s needed to shift away from the... January 27, 2015
Under the Forbes article "Smart Meters: Between Economic Benefits And Privacy Concerns," [External Link] I added the following comment: “You’ve got.. June 25, 2014
