This week’s issue of The Economist features a commemorative piece on Bill Gates, who stepped down from his position as Chief Executive Officer (or CEO) of Microsoft last week.
Gates had an arguably turbulent career, due to his aggressive or monopolistic business tactics as the lead in the industry, but one that has been inconceivably successful and world-changing. Among the many legendary attributes The Economist article points out is Gates’ determination and eventual responsibility for personalizing computers in the form of desktops. Gates made the technology accessible to individuals, homes, and businesses rather than keeping giant computers centralized.
The article argues the ways in which Gates’ ways of doing business are ex post facto. It’s the end of era. But it should also be considered the opening of an opportunity for distributed energy generation.
Two academics – Richard F. Hirsch (professor) and Benjamin K. Sovacool (student) – that study the history of electricity generation and utility evolution in the U.S. often apply the theoretical framework of historian Thomas P. Hughes. Hirsch and Sovacool write, “Hughes posits that the generation, transmission and distribution of power takes place within a technological system.” The system is driven not only by technological and scientific factors, but also by institutional, political, economic, and attitudinal factors, which Hughes labels as momentum.
Based on Hughes set-up, Hirsch and Sovacool argue that in sync with the modern-day technological system, momentum is changing such that it is cause utilities to turn to distributed, or on-site and small-scale, generation. The reasons are many, from the effects of deregulation to the heightened environmental concerns surrounding coal-fired electricity (distributed generation is much more friendly to renewable energy sources).
Speaking with much less background and experience, Hirsch and Sovacool’s argument intrigues me. So far, distributed generation has not been launched on a large-scale, though there are many arguments about how that could benefit utilities (if they owned and operated the units). But it does seem that the technology trend of the twenty-first century is personalization – desktops, laptops, iPods, cell phones, GPS systems installed in individuals’ vehicles. Plus, distributed generation has so much to offer in terms of energy security and reliability, renewable energy generation, and the potential to change the face of how urban settings use rooftops to electrify cities, reducing the need for large coal plants and transmission/distribution lines.
So I ask myself what distributed generation needs to take off – like desktops, like iPhones, like the electrification explosion in the U.S. in the 20th century. Perhaps the answer is a Bill Gates – a smart guy and strategic businessman, willing to take risks, and ready to make loads of money by personalizing energy generation. With that hope, Gates’ business and technological legend is no distant memory.
– Kari M.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
The next fifty years will be dominated by diminishing oil and natural gas, increased world population and CO2 concentrations greater than 450 ppm.
I do not hold much optimism for the global capitalist marketplace to survive these massive challenges. Rather, I see a collective will to survive and struggle forward. That will mean far greater role for governments–I mean us, folks; we tax payers — to buy and build what we will need to keep functioning.
Nationalizing the electric grid would be the firs smart move followed by TVA-like energy islands around the US to provide bulk electric supply to regions that have subsidized energy efficiency retrofitted buildings, homes, appliances, workplaces, gadgets.
Nuclear power parks utilizing pebble-bed reactors and other high temp, thorium fueled nuclear assemblies would be the backbone of this federal electric network.
Sounds like I will be condemned to hell for even thinking this but I am a realist and a parent and have not heard any convincing alternative that will rely upon individual choices to install solar, wind or whatever on their homes, apartment buildings, businesses.
Think about the three massive challenges facing our children and ask yourself what you want for them or what options they should have a right to choose. If we choose for them, based upon our limited vision of the real future I mentioned above, what time and money will they have to correct another massive defect in our current collective thinking about energy choices; does ethanol give you a warm feeling now? Are you satisfied that Union of Concerned Scientists urged us to switch the natural gas to generate our electricity? Do you still trust Environmental Defense Fund since it forced sulfur dioxide cap and trade in the Clean Air Act which caused utilities to buy compliance coal mined from the mountains of West Virginia?
No time for amateur hour as we discuss our children’s energy future.
And, maybe a few smart gals and strategic business women might have even better ideas!
John McCormick
You ask what does distributed generation require to take off? How about a feed-in tariff structure?
As an aside, while PCs are potentially distributed computing, they are often used as mere terminals to access giant centralized computers. The data centers of the U.S. are so large that the EPA estimates they use 1.5% of all our electricity.
I’m sure there are energetic young guys setting up small companies to install solar heating, and loft insulation, and micro-generation devices. They’re bound to make a good living for the next 20 years because – with record high energy prices and environmental pressures – these are boom products.
But I don’t see how these small companies are going to become huge.
In general, huge centralised projects like railroads or electrification or telephony need huge, centralised companies to invest big and make big profits.
But tiny, distributed projects like micro-generation are more suited to small, agile, local companies.
I’m being a bit vague, Kari, but I think Bill Gates is a prime example of “one standard for the entire world” – a central company delivers one solution to many problems. But what you’re looking for, personalizing energy generation, is the opposite – many solutions are wanted for one problem. What I need to improve my home’s CO2 (insulation, say, or a mini wind turbine) will be very different to what you might need (solar panels, say, or more efficient air-con).
Maybe some engineer has just invented the perfect rooftop electricity-maker. His company will obviously become very rich. But, like hardware/software, I suspect more money will be made globally from installation and maintenance and operating solutions, than from the hardware itself.
Apologies for thinking outloud, but maybe what’s needed is less Bill Gates and more Ross Perot/EDS – IBM rejected the chance to manage data processing because 80% of the money in computing came from hardware, and data processing management was notoriously bitty and small scale and distributed. Ross Perot/EDS was happy with the 20% and prepared to put up with the administrative hassles – and got lucky when the ratio reversed, until only a fraction of the money in computing went to IBM’s hardware.
On living without regard to hard truths, matters of scale or limits to growth.
How do rich and famous people, who live large and have huge ecological footprints, as well as corporate ‘citizens’ that cast giant shadows over the Earth today, so easily get away with socially irresponsible behavior which could soon precipitate an ecological catastrophe?
As everyone knows but few openly discuss, wealth and power buy freedom. What is all too obvious but often cloaked in silence is this: A small minority of individuals in the human family with great fortunes and virtually all large corporations exercise their great wealth and power in ways that allow all of these self-proclaimed masters of the universe to live lavishly as well as to willfully refuse assumption of the responsibilities which necessarily come with freedom.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
“what distributed generation needs to take off”? – a good question.
Part of the answer: a DC standard; that is, a simple definition of a DC voltage with a standard plug and socket, just like our 120 VAC, 60 Hz with the common 3-pronged plug. (We actually have three such standards already: USB, Firewire, and the good old 12V cigarette lighter.) Bill Gates got rich making MSDOS, then Windows a privately owned de facto standard. A DC standard would be a public, open standard.
A DC standard, especially a global one, allows every manufacturer of every electronic device, to discard the AC adapters (“wall warts”) that clutter our lives. Every device can plug in anywhere, worldwide. More important, PV is no longer burdened with the expense and energy loss of inverters, and can power all those wonderful digital devices directly.
Who would produce that standard? Is it NIST? IEEE? Commerce department? Energy department? An international standards body? Whoever does it will make distributed generation, especially PV, much more economical.
So thanks for asking the question!
I’m sorry; this is my second off-topic comment on this blog, but I couldn’t let this slide:
“Gates made the technology accessible to individuals, homes, and businesses rather than keeping giant computers centralized.”
That’s utter crap. Gates did no such thing. Pioneering visionaries like Steve Wozniak / Jobs and the good people at Xerox made this happen. Gates lied, cheated, and stole his way into this game, and consumers (knowingly or not) have been sorry about it ever since. Bill Gates set computer industry innovation back at least a decade and doesn’t even come close to deserving the stature and attention that he has received.
Allan has the right of it, largely.
Before everybody gets all excited about distributed generation, first do consider the applicable physical laws. Proper governmental regualtion must not violate these, hmm?
I’ll leave the Gates-sinner-or-saint question to my betters; regarding Mr. Benson’s question about gov’t regulation – - yes we have seen some clunkers, but I can’t think of any that actually violated a law of physics!
But gov’t would have to lead to create a universal DC standard, one that would link PV (and batteries and fuel cells, too) directly to all electronic devices without the waste of DC to AC conversion and back again. It would also help provide reliable DC power to the server farms Mr. Killian mentioned. Imagine a server farm with PV on the roof and modular fuel cells, all providing DC directly to the servers with no conversion loss. . .
Mark Shapiro — In effect, that is what happened with so-called ‘deregulation’ in California. I think a couple of utilities went bankrupt?
Anyway, distributed generation will require some sort of control system, governed by some sort of legislation, i.e., regulations. It is those which need to be done right.
Agreed that appropriate regulation is absolutely necessary. The California so-called ‘deregulation’ was awful: the Enrons simply bought the right to raise rates without limit and game the system.
Not to be flippant, but I don’t think I’d mind if fossil fueled utilities were put out of business by distributed PV. It could and should be done gracefully – without hurting the poor.
My memory is that decoupling provisions in California’s deregulation were what Enron used to perpetrate its scam.
Paul — Thank goodness your memory ain’t reality. Any other memories you’d like to share with us? You weren’t married to Uma Thurman once, were you?
Joe,
Uma has asked me not to discuss our relationship. If not decoupling, what was the error in California’s deregulation that Enron exploited?
Paul — California made utilities to sell off their generation. Very dumb. They failed to see how companies like Enron could game the system by cornering the market and by cleverly scheduling some plans for maintenance at critical times to create shortage conditions. Enron was smarter than California — in the short term, anyway.
Joe,
I thought decoupling meant separating the utilities from the generation, so I stand corrected.
ATTN: Allan! How right you are!
In the awsome computer game, Jazzjack Rabbit, Gates is the “nerdy-yet- powerful Tortise King Devan Shell (as in Windows) who has kidnapped the beautiful rabbit princess Eva Earlong, and has inhabited the galaxy with his looting goons (i.e., Steve Balmer and his crowd). (This gmes was released by EpicMegames in the summer of ’94 begfore Win 95 was released for sale).
If you recall, Gates made a big pile of money by forcing clone sellers to pay him royalites on every prcessor in a PC sold even if that PC did not use MS-DOS. DR-DOS was better at that time (i.e., early ’90′s). Thus, Gates cut a real sweetheart deal with all the clone sellers (i.e., Eva Earlong).
The hero of the game is Jazzrabbit is a soldier of fortune who has been hired by IBM (cf, the Big Bright Blue gems in the 3-D levels) to vanquish the tortise King and his goons, rescue Eva Earlong, recover IBM’s fortunes lost (i.e., the Big Bright Blue gems) and save Carrotus, the planet home of the open and free software movement.
Who is Jazz? I figure he repesents Linux. This is a great game, but nobody ever figured out what it was really about.
Here is the description for Planet Letni (=inteL): This is Devan’s ENORMOUS super-computer designed especially for building battleships, and figuring where to get lunch on a rainy Tuesday afternoon (i.e., in Richmond). Beware of magents and bugs in the system (i.e., Neptune chip sets).
MS eventually paid Caldera, who bought Digital Research from Novell) 180 million for all the lies the Balmer and his goons spread about DR-DOS not being compatible with Windows. DR orginally sued from several billion.
BTW: Devan escapes at the end of the game and he still trying to gain control over all PC and platform gaming.
Paul- You almost have it right: it’s separating utilities from profits earned through generation. Through decoupling utilities make money based on other factors besides how much electricity you or I use. This eliminates their incentive to generate as much energy as possible to earn profits–and will be a hugely important part, along with net metering, advanced metering and other smart grid technologies, of electricity generation & distribution of the future!