A Service of Energy CentralEnergyBlogs.com Logo

Will the US Stimulus Bill Prove the Savior for Nanotech? is an IEEE Spectrum's Tech Talk commentary, under which I submitted the following letter to the blog owner:

Mr. Alan B. Shalleck
NanoClarity LLC

Dear Sir,

My congratulations for a truly excellent article that will help prove, without any doubts, that innovation belongs to the small. That is in sharp contrast with the new conventional wisdom that STEVE LOHR sold, a few days ago, to the readers of the New York Times, with his article Who Says Innovation Belongs to the Small? Mr. Lohr’s piece was a resounding success being in 5th place of all email articles as well as having hundreds of tweets in the past four days.

Mr. Lohr’s article aim is without any doubt to increase the huge barriers to the start-up companies you are suggesting in the power industry. To open the power industry to innovation, there is a need to perform a paradigm shift away from the investor owned utilities (IOUs) architecture framework (IOUs-AF) into the emergent electricity without price (EWPC) control architecture framework (EWPC-AF).

In one hand, the IOUs-AF, that keeps demand as an externality, has evolved from successive incremental extensions well beyond its useful life. The smart grid development is already heading very fast towards another incremental extension and time is very short to do otherwise. In that evolving architecture there was a big flaw at the outset that can be explained with a policy economics first, system performance second, leading to the deregulation fiasco and later to the Northeast blackout of 2003 to name two key events.

On the other hand, the EWPC-AF integrates demand to power system planning, operation and control, enabling elastics retails market and under a policy of systems performance first, economics second. EWPC is the first stage of the architecture. The second architecting stage will be the done by Second Generation Retailers (2GRs) under competition to try to develop business model innovations of 2GRs Service Enterprises.

I invite you to take a look at the EWPC Blog (link is below) which supports the above findings, with more than 160 articles and post. The EWPC is in fact an organizational basic innovation, which is well aligned to face the systemic climate change and energy crisis with a great cornucopia of opportunity.

If you think that I can be of service to the nanotechnology and/or VC industries, please advice.

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity.
EWPC’s System Architect
BS ´68, MS ´71 & PhD ´72, all from Cornell University.
Valued IEEE Member for 38 Years.
Follow on http://twitter.com/gmh_upsa
Research and practice areas, and interests: Electricity Without Price Controls; Systems architecture; Systems thinking; Retail marketing; Customer orientation; Information systems requirements and design; Market rules; Contract assistance.

2321 Views Comments 5 Comments Comments Add Comment Author BioAuthor Bio
ReportReport This Post as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo At least some of the following comments are transcribed from the original posts under the article "The Pitfalls of and Opportunities in Electric Power Deregulation," by Harry Valentine (see link at the beggining of this article).

On 6.9.09 Joseph Rosenthal wrote the following comment:

Gee, those silly Chinese are going to be sorry for building all those coal plants lately. I guess they should have been encouraging their peasants to make a 20-year investment in some shiny DG units for their 600 square foot homes.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 6/9/09 2:01 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Yes they will Joseph, but probably after the U.S. have closed down many of their own coal plants to show how serious the effort is.

Ethically, we should calculate how much GHGs exports are still accumulated so far in the atmosphere. Do you know what that figure is? I bet that the Chinese have added only a small percentage of the total, which mostly belongs to the U.S. Maybe something like that is what is in store for the end of the year.

I guess that there is nothing than a good example for the peasants, who would like to have 6000 square foot homes to be comfortable with some shiny DG units on their roofs to export what they don't need to the grid for the factories to use. Maybe the Chinese government will own the homes and the production of the shiny disruptive technology.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 6/9/09 2:03 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Joseph Rosenthal added on 6.9.09

Um, we're not shutting down our coal plants. A small number may retire. When push comes to shove, we are not going to double or triple the electricity costs of those in the U.S. who have cheap, coal-based power. Not going to happen. I have about 25 years remaining in my career, and for better or for worse, central station power will be the primary means of getting reasonably priced, reliable power to all sorts of customers for those 25 years. The hope is that we don't overpay through silly market schemes and treat power like cheeseburgers.

And that's just how it is.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 6/9/09 2:05 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Joseph,

"Um, we're not shutting down our coal plants." How can you be so sure. That is a perfect example of the certainty of wishful thinking.

As a planner under uncertainty, I have indirectly admitted that I can not be certain what the future will bring. That is why I wrote "Whether considering or not the above [environmental] statement, Harry's emerging scenario will be only possible under the EWPC-AF."

However, the EWPC-AF is a predetermine element of all plausible scenarios that is also able to satisfy not shutting coal plants down. In addition, there is at least another plausible scenario in which a large number of the coal plants will be shut down sooner than 25 years. In those situations, the EWPC-AF works just as well, but the barriers set by the IOUs-AF, which unnecessarily protects the coal plants while slowing progress, means that it is not a predetermined element.

Whether you want it or not, electricity produced with coal power plants may involve subsidies not accepted in the global market, as border tax is also a likely action to discipline markets.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 6/9/09 2:07 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo As I was trying to add another set of interesting comments, I just realized that the above comments are under the wrong article. They belong to "The Obsolete Generation Economies of Scale Argument," at the link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2009/6/8...
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 6/9/09 7:02 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate

Blog Editor
Recent CommentsRecent Comments

Sponsored Content

Copyright © 1996-2016 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
Energy Central ® is a registered trademark of CyberTech, Incorporated.
CyberTech does not warrant that the information or services of Energy Central will meet any specific requirements; nor will it be error free or uninterrupted; nor shall CyberTech be liable for any indirect, incidental or consequential damages (including lost data, information or profits) sustained or incurred in connection with the use of, operation of, or inability to use Energy Central.
2821 S. Parker Rd. Ste 1105 Aurora, CO 80014
Contact: Phone - 303-782-5510 Fax - 303-782-5331 or service@energycentral.com.