As tomorrow's deadline approaches, only Mr. Len Gould has provided a dissent to EWPC as the winning market for the first phase of competition. The second phase is the company vs. company competition after the market is set up and running.

So Far Just ONE Objection to EWPC as Winner

Mr. Chris Neil, Prof. Ferdinand Banks, Mr. Len Gould, Mr. Edward A Read Jr., Mr. Todd McKissik, Mr. Don Giegler, Mr. Joseph Rosenthal, Mr. Jim Bayer, Mr. Jeff Presley, Mr. Kenneth Kok, Mr. Henry Nelson, Mr. Mark Krebs, and any other ladies and gentlemen helping to find the truth about the EWPC paradigm.

Dear intelligent and important friends,

This is not a process to develop a consensus. On the contrary, so far no one has written her o his approval about EWPC being the winning paradigm. At the moment, only one real objection has been made, the one by Mr. Gould which I acknowledged earlier.

In addition, as advanced in the post Final: IMEUC not a Market Architecture and Design, IMEUC – a physical solution – clearly cannot compete. If you read the post, please consider any allusion that may seem to be a personal attack, as being an attack on the opinion, not to the specific intelligent and important person or persons.

EWPC is not about the best system solution. If we want to promote innovation and economic growth, there should not be such thing, in real life, as a single best solution for the whole market to start with. Instead, we should develop a market environment for the second phase of competition where – the real market - will be enabled, so that each market segment is populated with the best (several competitor that shift market share as time goes by) business model innovations interact in the USA, Europe, etc. and eventually worldwide.

We all due respect for Mr. Presley and Mr. Gould, I will show tomorrow that there is definitely no need at all for simulation, nor implementations to this process. Goliath is dead forever. Nothing will buy time to get him out of the grave.

Some heavy duty friends seem to have opted so far for the silence approach, which I mentioned. Thank you very much, that's fine.

As a lesson learned, however, in this and future debates and dialogues, I suggest that we should take the silence message as being like the “no objections” documents that the multilateral institutions provide. That way, this media will be much more effective.

Any comment or suggestion is invited.

Have a nice rest of the day.

José Antonio

Article An Analysis of the Carbon Emissions Impact of the Senate Energy Bill Viewed 2100 Times 81 Comments so far.