A Service of Energy CentralEnergyBlogs.com Logo

 

Taking in consideration the article Decentralizing Electricity: The Coming Energy Revolution, by Stefan Schultz in SPIEGEL ONLINE, I ask the following questions:

Is Germany ahead of the US in the energy revolution?

Are Germans (1), like the US, incrementally extending the Investor Owned Utilities Architecture Framework (one shot final inflexible regulated architecture); (2) adopting the Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework (an intermediate flexible two stages transition architecture); or (3) developing under an alternative architecture framework?

Given the value destruction described in the EWPC article Huge States’ Costs as Utilities are Unable to Cross the Home Energy Management Chasm, is the federal state jurisdictional problem of the US a big burden in the emerging energy revolution that will make customer king and might leave the US behind?

 

1414 Views Comments 9 Comments Comments Add Comment Author BioAuthor Bio
ReportReport This Post as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Are you aware that Germans pay more than DOUBLE US power consumers?
# Posted By James Carson | 1/27/10 8:05 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo I am questioning if the US is behind Germany in the Coming Energy Revolution? There is not need to go on tangencial issues. Please stay in focus.

However, with respect to the price of energy, there should be no doubt that the US is well behind Germany. Are you aware of what the renowned energy expert Peter Schwartz calls "the constitutional right to cheap energy," which is integral to the failure of American energy policy? Please learn about it in his blog American Energy Economics: Maximize demand and minimize supply... http://bit.ly/5vtWnn
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 1/27/10 10:47 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo So, your position is that the impact on prices is irrelevant, and that Americans pay too little for energy anyway.
# Posted By James Carson | 1/27/10 3:45 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo This is what Schwartz concludes and I suggest it to all American as the right position:

The days of simply increasing the supply of energy to fuel ongoing economic expansion and prosperity are over. We've built an entire system and way of life that are out of kilter with the current realities of supply and demand as well as new challenges like climate change. For decades we've only paid for the exploration and production cost of our energy while ignoring the environmental, social and geopolitical price. The United States can no longer afford to be as thoughtless as we've been in the past about energy. There is no going back, we must make the radical transition from a low-cost to a high-cost energy world which will have implications with regards to where and how we live, where we work, how we go to work and where we shop and play.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 1/27/10 4:54 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Keep in mind that fantastic investments have been made in mining, generation, and transmission at the German consumer's expense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_293

Germans do indeed pay way too much for power, but they would otherwise be freezing in the dark with the wolves gnawing at their ankles.
# Posted By William Norquay | 1/28/10 10:12 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo William you have added an example of the coal supply side technology. The coming energy revolution is about balancing the supply side and the demand side to come to try to reach the maximum social welfare. Most value creation will result by interchanging costly energy with cheap information wherever possible, for example by virtual travelling.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 1/28/10 1:00 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo The US has enough natgas and coal to power the economy for many decades. Nuclear can extend that. The problem is political, not economic. The only "geopolitical" problem we face is the fact that the North American oil market is bound to the world market. We import comparatively little oil from the Middle East.
# Posted By James Carson | 1/28/10 3:43 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo To further explain "The United States can no longer afford to be as thoughtless as we've been in the past about energy. There is no going back, we must make the radical transition from a low-cost to a high-cost energy world which will have implications with regards to where and how we live, where we work, how we go to work and where we shop and play,"
in "My Point of View," Peter Schwartz wrote the following on November 22nd, 2009:

... The debate today over energy, climate change, and security is particularly misleading because it fails to recognize the reality of the American energy situation. Let me explain what I mean.

The policies that have had the greatest impact on energy demand are not about energy per se, but are social, economic, housing, transportation, and land use policies intended to make the average American a wealthy suburban home owner. Let's be clear--every country in the world is trying to make its people richer. In the US, however, we're particularly thoughtless about the consequences of our economic development for energy consumption, which has led to one of the highest per capita energy consumption rates in the world. We spread our people all over the landscape because land was cheap and abundant, causing many to drive long distances for work, school, and fun. We use our technological advances to boost performance and make devices bigger and more feature-laden at the expense of efficiency...

On the supply side, since the early seventies we have been much more adept at blocking new energy supplies than at developing them. The list of energy sources we don't like has grown progressively longer. It began with nuclear power, followed by offshore and Arctic oil and liquid natural gas (LNG) ports. Then came coal mines and power plants, and now we don't even like big wind turbines that kill birds and block views. Some of us also object to big solar developments that cover precious desert landscapes or the power lines required to bring renewable energy to the cities. No wonder that we have continued to import more oil from the Middle East, South America, and Africa.

We have also dramatically expanded our use of natural gas for electricity production. So despite substantial increases in renewable energy, our electricity systems today are more carbon intensive then they were 30 years ago. And if we do not start building more nuclear plants, these systems will become even more carbon intensive. Fortunately we had a positive supply surprise in this country with shale gas--a domestic natural gas with roughly half the emissions of coal. It has allowed us to push LNG imports further into the future and slow the pace of coal development.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 1/28/10 4:47 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo I think that the POTUS SOTU address is in line with Schwartz suggestions, which I copied from the post "Obama, energy efficiency & accountability" in the Elisa Wood Lisa Cohn - Real Energy Writers Blog:

"I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation,"
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 1/28/10 8:52 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
 
Toolbox

Blog Editor
Search
Calendar
Recent EntriesRecent Entries
Recent CommentsRecent Comments
RSS


Sponsored Content

Copyright © 1996-2014 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.