EWPC is sufficiently flexible to enable a transformation ot the electric power industry into the new internet.
EWPC As The New Internet
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Dear Mr. Tornal, Mr. Powers and Mr. Gould,
With a lot of respect for the author, I understand that DER is just one of the six disruptive technologies already identified (please see The Sixth Disruptive Technology) under electricity without price controls (EWPC) for the transformation of the electric industry. EWPC is the winning market architecture and design breakthrough paradigm shift that satisfies "... these changes and require new ways of thinking and operating..." that the author calls for.
I agree with Mr. Gould about "...a difficult time seeing any plus side in this transition for incumbent utilities..." However, instead of doubts, I see Second Generation Retailer - 2GR business model innovations disruptive technologies, developed under EWPC, eventually fully enabling the new electric internet.
Contrary to the idea that "... often times without the awareness of the elctric utility," 2GRs will have the necessary awareness, as they integrate demand to power system planning, operation and control.
By looking at the "Speaker Notes," of Mr. Powers, I see no inconsistence on EWPC to support it as a likely scenario. Agreeing with the drivers, 2GRs will be able to enable such long-range vision of the "energy-moving business" in the open market, while the centralized transportation (no just transmission) utilities do the actual movement.
For more information on EWPC, please go to www.energyblogs.com, where other 50 articles on EWPC are already posted.
Reference and context: Distributed Energy Resources - The New Internet?, by Jeff Tolnar, Chief Technology Officer, BPL Global.
Jose Antonio: "EWPC is the winning market architecture and design breakthrough paradigm shift" -- How many people here aside from yourself have ever agreed to this claim? If your's are the tactics required for success in academics then I'm very happy not to be there.
No intelligent, nor important person, as yourself, which may not understand certain non-trivial constructs, has to agree with me at all, as can be see in the Conspiracy Theory Against Mr. X and the comment I added to the it from The Sixth Disruptive Technology, which will be developed by the retailers you dislike with business model innovations.
By the way, the conspiracy was confirmed today by Mr. M under the article The Lecture on EWPC Re-Regulation.
Now we are only missing the comments of Mr. Y, who wrote "Well, Einstein is merely the most famous and recent example of a scientist who went against the popular CONSENSUS of the time, Mr. M."
Best regards,
Mr. X
Len Gould said: " I have a difficult time seeing any plus side in this transition for incumbent utilities, and therefore strongly doubt we will ever see any progress toward the vision. "
You're right. The big dog eats first.
Distributed energy....good on paper and its cute to liken it to the internet to popularize it but it is nothing of the sort and there is no comparison.
Only works when there is the great invisible "battery" called the grid with large machines supplying it and large organisations maintaining those machines in tip top shape to give the grid the reliable supply it needs.
The phrase peer to peer sounds really good and again a knock off of internet parlance. But if your peers generator doesn't operate (no sunlight, no wind, generator packs it in) do your other peers lights go out?
The scheme works if there is a grid network available. It does not work without it.
Problem is that millions of disributed generators will results in no income for the people that supply and operate the grid. No money no maintenance, no maintenance no grid and the scheme falls apart.
Good idea on paper....just like the nuclear aeroplane....able to fly for days on no fuel.
I wonder why that did not get off the ground? Even the military did not build one of those.
Malcolm
You are absolutely right! Distributed energy needs the grid. What we don't need anymore is the obsolete vertically integrated utility paradigm. Please read the details in the article Storage is Ready to Cross the Chasm (hit please the link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2007/11/...)
In brief: As experienced in the Dominican Republic, the disruptive technology of distributed storage has been ready for prime time for quite some time, lacking a shift to the EWPC paradigm. The reason it has not crossed the Chasm is because of the "native load" barrier that unnecessarily extends the life of the obsolete vertically integrated utilities paradigm. Storage is Ready to Cross the Chasm.
Best regards,
José Antonio
Now I will also address your statement "Problem is that millions of distributed generators will results in no income for the people that supply and operate the grid. No money no maintenance, no maintenance no grid and the scheme falls apart."
Look closely in the Storage is Ready to Cross the Chasm (hit please the link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2007/11/...) article and your will see "... system crashes are mitigated by a least cost mix of supply and demand risk management tools that may be applied in time and space." That means that under EWPC, the system engineer will work on system adequacy long term planning to optimize the grid by taking information from the investment plans of generators and customers (via second generation retailers).
With distributed energy at 20 cents/kWh vs. 8 cents/kWh for system electricity, using Mr. Ellis example, there is no threat with the paradigm shift to EWPC to efficient generating central stations that supply energy nor with the controlled (T&D) transportation monopoly charges the transportation tolls. By doing that, excessive reserves will no longer be needed, while customers select the business plan from the second generation retailers that best fits their perceived needs.
Best regards,
José Antonio
Malcolm: "Problem is that millions of disributed generators will results in no income for the people that supply and operate the grid. No money no maintenance, no maintenance no grid and the scheme falls apart."
I thought for a while I had you pegged for living in Ontario. Must have been mistaken though, else you would know that the simple solution to that is to make the distribution entity an independent wires-only regulated monopoly charging a flat monthly fee per service point to cover their costs and a fair profit, as has been done in Ontario now since de-regulation of generation was introduced. It works fine.
That is the distribution works fine. Generation needs to be fixed, and retailing eliminated, see IMEUC papers this site.
Second Generation Retailer - 2GR (hit links here and below http://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/2007/07/second-...) are certainly a required organizational institution to integrate demand. Most customers, at least in the beginning, will remain as price takers under spot pricing of electricity, just as they have remained associated to their incumbent retailers. That is just human nature.
A spot price of electricity is the basic unit forecasted by the system operator in the controlled transportation marketplace that needs to be referred in the definition of all kinds of forward economic transaction in the competitive energy marketplace.
2GRs will developed business design innovations as The Sixth Disruptive Technology (http://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/2007/09/sixth-d...), to support investments of end-customers and themselves, that will result in economic transactions, as a mix of hour ahead, day ahead, or any contractual period or periods leading to long term contracts, leading to a futures market, that make sense to end customers in the competitive marketplace.
In the competitive energy marketplace it is required that the controlled transportation market guarantees service "with high system reliability and without price spikes," as can be seen in the "practice" article To EEI: "Let's Ban Regulation," Starting in Ohio (http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2007/11/...) that says: "What that means in practical terms is that EWPC also ensures generation investments. However, as EWPC will also allow the replacement of financial capital with production capital as the industry becomes one again a predictable environment, which is now no longer possible with regulation, it is now advisable to ban deregulation. A simple explanation can be found in the practical message We Need Demand Elasticity (http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2007/11/...) that also reaffirms EWPC as the market winning paradigm, with high system reliability and without price spikes."
However, it has been known, for almost two months, the article IMEUC: Unreliable Service and Price Spikes (http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2007/9/2...). That article says in brief that: "In response to the suggestion by Mr. Jeff Presley about simulations, it is shown that there is not a need to look further, as a simulator already exists, and its information's confirm the EWPC is the winner of the first phase of competition with the VIUs, as IMEUC doesn't even qualify."
Best regards,
José Antonio
Jose Antonio: "and its information's confirm the EWPC is the winner of the first phase of competition with the VIUs"
to which Don Giegler responded "Pardon my skepticism, but until you quantify such results and show them side-by-side with the VIU paradigm run on Black's simulation, your arguments ring hollow."
Jose, you have taken simply the existing de-regulation paradigm as now operating in Ontario, Canada and in Britain (competitive generation, regulated transmission and distribution, and independent retailers), re-labelled it EWPC and claimed it as some sort of new invention of your own, ignoring and not responding beyond flowery adjectives to and questions on particulars, e.g.
1) Why would any retailer risk the financial investment to implement real demand control on their customers when the resulting benefits will accrue not to them or their customers, but to all connected customers including those of their competitive retailers?
2) How will any entity in your system accrue the financial credibility with large investment organizations to be able to build large new nuclear generation or "clean coal" etc? Note that this capability is an ABSOLUTE MUST in any new system. Will you propose fallback to government / rate-payer guarantees? If so, what effects will that have on your market design?
At minimum, these and other questions which have been put to you in the past MUST be dealt with specifically and in detail before anyone can take you in any way seriously, instead of as they do now.
Don't forget to hit the links while reading the article EWPC is NOT the Ontario Model Either (start by hitting this link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2007/11/...).
Thanks,
José Antonio