Energy is a hot topic these days. There is a free market solution, however, government restriction and regulation does not allow market forces to develop that solution. What is a free market? How does the current energy system work? How would the free market solve the energy problem?
Defining the Free Market
The free market may seem allusive, as many times it is not clearly defined. What one person has in mind of what a free market is, differs from that of another individual.
The free market is based on three concepts, an individual can voluntary exchange with any other individual, any individual/business can enter the market place, and any individual/business can leave the market place. In essence, a free market is free exchange, free entry, and free exit.
If anything, governments role is minimal or non-existent. A free market is a market that is free of government intervention and regulation, besides the minimal function of maintaining the legal system and protecting property rights, and is also free of private force and fraud. By corollary, any regulation by government of exchange, entry, or exit is no longer a free market, but a controlled market.
The Current Energy System
The current energy market is not a free market in energy, it is a controlled market, filled with restrictions and regulations. For nearly 100 years, the government has coaxed the energy market into the current chaos we now have.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2419enr.txt.pdf
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.6:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.R.776.ENR:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ058.109
http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/fedpowr.html
Corporations are granted monopolies on power production and transmission. If it were an organic monopoly, that wouldn't it be a problem, because the free market would allow competitors in. However, in a mandated monopoly, few players if any are allowed to play in the current energy market. The mandated monopoly restricts competition. There is no free entry into the marketplace.
Furthermore, by law, individuals are not allowed to share power with other individuals.
http://www.off-grid.net/2006/01/18/laws-prevent-effective-off-grid-power/
Not only are corporations granted monopolies on power production and transmission, but individuals are not allowed to freely exchange electricity the individual generates.
The Free Market of Energy
The Free Market solution of Energy would be to repeal all the regulations and restrictions preventing free exchange, free entry, and free exit into the marketplace for energy. This includes the Department of Energy. Individuals would be able to freely exchange energy with one another. It is a fairly simple solution, that would lead entrepreneurs the ability to innovate and invent newer, better, more energy efficient methods of production and transmission.
Production to Transmission, Transmission to Transmission, to Consumption
As it stands today in the highly regulated controlled energy market, the Grid is not an efficient method to distribute energy. There is substantial energy losses during transmission, some estimate as low as 7% to as high as 30%+ loss in energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission
http://www.clf.org/general/index.asp?id=374
http://www.bsharp.org/physics/stuff/xmission.html
The reason behind the transmission loss is the distance electricity has to travel from production to transformers, transmission to transformers, to transmission, to transformation to consumption. AC Energy is created thousands of miles away, transmitted over thousands of miles of transmission lines, all the way to our living rooms, transferred back to DC to be consumed.
With all these inefficiencies, why are we still forced to use the grid?
Production to Consumption
Now rather than transmitting energy thousands of miles away, what if it were only 100 miles, 10 miles, 1 mile or even right in your own home? No longer are we wasting 7%-30% energy. Truly deregulating the energy industry and allow the free market to work would allow this to happen. Rather than centralized power plants that we can't even see, power would be generated locally or individually. Individuals will have the choice to choose affordable sustainable energy solutions.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Defining Sustainability
Personal Definition:
Sustainability is upholding volition for what an individual desires, granted that the individual is not infringing on the volition of other individuals both present and future.
Digression:
It may appear somewhat out of the ordinary to insert volition in the definition of sustainability. However, I see volition as one of the driving forces and necessary components to sustainability. Volition is a conscious choice, decision, and/or action. Infringing on volition hinders choice, decision, and/or action. An individuals actions and interactions with the other individuals and the planet can promote and/or hinder volition either directly or indirectly. It is a give and take, and in constant exchange. Even in our inaction's, we are acting. Sustainability is maximizing the impact of our own free will while minimizing hindrance of another individual's free will.
Sustainability is upholding volition for what an individual desires, granted that the individual is not infringing on the volition of other individuals both present and future.
Digression:
It may appear somewhat out of the ordinary to insert volition in the definition of sustainability. However, I see volition as one of the driving forces and necessary components to sustainability. Volition is a conscious choice, decision, and/or action. Infringing on volition hinders choice, decision, and/or action. An individuals actions and interactions with the other individuals and the planet can promote and/or hinder volition either directly or indirectly. It is a give and take, and in constant exchange. Even in our inaction's, we are acting. Sustainability is maximizing the impact of our own free will while minimizing hindrance of another individual's free will.
From Impact to Input
Edwards' The Sustainable Revolution provides an overview of sustainability movements, a spectrum including the private sector, the public sector, and public-private partnerships (so to speak.) It is interesting that Max Dunn started kicked off his post utilizing the term DRY. I had thought he was making a Ruby on Rails Computer Programming reference, where DRY stands for Don't Repeat Yourself. At first glance, it may seem as if all the organizations are trying to reinvent the wheel. Each organization is repeating the others efforts. Each organization has its own vision for sustainability and holding stakeholders accountable. Some may question as to why a centralized body of sustainability does not exist? Would it not make it easier if there was a one size fits all approach? However ironic this sounds, collaborative competition may be the best solution.
One of my favorite quotes comes from George Box, "Every model is wrong, but some are useful." I venture to say that ALL these sustainable models are wrong. But many of these sustainable models are useful. Each has a certain nuance that we can learn from.
I myself am partial to the free market oriented efforts. IMHO, the free market is the best venue to explore and implement sustainability, granted that the market is actually free to do its work. From my understanding, much of the leaps of the sustainability movement occurred in the market place, rather than government bureaucracy, i.e. Biomimicry Principles, Permaculture, and A Biocentric Perspective. I am not too fond of LEED, since it relies on the governmental machine for its execution.
Progressing through the chapters, a theme arises. In the first half, it focuses on IMPACT. How does an an individuals or organizations actions affect other individuals? Affect the planet? And to a further extent, affect the economy?
However, the second half focuses on INPUT. What is nature providing that we have yet to harness? What can individuals do to participate? The nuance between INPUT and IMPACT is slight, but IMHO, quite important to distinguish. IMPACT is results oriented, whereas INPUT is process oriented.
I would like to take an opportunity to critique/reformulate the three E's of Economy (Profits), Environment(for the Next Generation), and Equity(What individuals get out of the system) utilizing the IMPACT/INPUT framework. The way the book frames the three E's, the focus is on IMPACT. Who are the stakeholders of the 3 E's? What do we hope to gain on the bottom line? What do we hope to gain on the triple/integrative bottom line? Implicitly, focusing on IMPACT is a very results oriented approach. There is nothing wrong with that.
However, equally, if not more important is the process, the INPUT. Who are the change agents of the 3 E's? What do we INPUT at the top line? What do we hope to INPUT on the triple/integrative top line? Implicitly, focusing on INPUT is a very process oriented approach.
I know these are broad questions, and which seek detailed answers. I hope to delve into these questions in subsequent readings.
One of my favorite quotes comes from George Box, "Every model is wrong, but some are useful." I venture to say that ALL these sustainable models are wrong. But many of these sustainable models are useful. Each has a certain nuance that we can learn from.
I myself am partial to the free market oriented efforts. IMHO, the free market is the best venue to explore and implement sustainability, granted that the market is actually free to do its work. From my understanding, much of the leaps of the sustainability movement occurred in the market place, rather than government bureaucracy, i.e. Biomimicry Principles, Permaculture, and A Biocentric Perspective. I am not too fond of LEED, since it relies on the governmental machine for its execution.
Progressing through the chapters, a theme arises. In the first half, it focuses on IMPACT. How does an an individuals or organizations actions affect other individuals? Affect the planet? And to a further extent, affect the economy?
However, the second half focuses on INPUT. What is nature providing that we have yet to harness? What can individuals do to participate? The nuance between INPUT and IMPACT is slight, but IMHO, quite important to distinguish. IMPACT is results oriented, whereas INPUT is process oriented.
I would like to take an opportunity to critique/reformulate the three E's of Economy (Profits), Environment(for the Next Generation), and Equity(What individuals get out of the system) utilizing the IMPACT/INPUT framework. The way the book frames the three E's, the focus is on IMPACT. Who are the stakeholders of the 3 E's? What do we hope to gain on the bottom line? What do we hope to gain on the triple/integrative bottom line? Implicitly, focusing on IMPACT is a very results oriented approach. There is nothing wrong with that.
However, equally, if not more important is the process, the INPUT. Who are the change agents of the 3 E's? What do we INPUT at the top line? What do we hope to INPUT on the triple/integrative top line? Implicitly, focusing on INPUT is a very process oriented approach.
I know these are broad questions, and which seek detailed answers. I hope to delve into these questions in subsequent readings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)