Comments on: Transformation in the energy business. http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/transformation-in-the-energy-business/ Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:29:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: stephanie gerson http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/transformation-in-the-energy-business/#comment-743 stephanie gerson Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:03:04 +0000 http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/?p=951#comment-743 aha, thank you Adrian. so it indeed may be inherent to solar and wind technologies to favor companies that create the most value for their customers. which presumably bodes well for those of us in the business of helping companies create value...... ;) aha, thank you Adrian. so it indeed may be inherent to solar and wind technologies to favor companies that create the most value for their customers. which presumably bodes well for those of us in the business of helping companies create value…… ;)

]]> By: Adrian Ho http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/transformation-in-the-energy-business/#comment-742 Adrian Ho Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:37:14 +0000 http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/?p=951#comment-742 Hi Stephanie, my logic is much simpler: Unlike fossil fuels, wind and solar are available to anyone. As an individual, I can set up my own system to extract energy from them. So any company that wants my business is going to have to provide better value and service than I can get by myself. Equally there's nothing (other than money) stopping a hundred or a thousand different companies from going into the wind and solar business. It's difficult to control access to the sun and the wind. Sure some places have more of some or the other but in general these are things I can't simply build a business around owning. I think that has to force a different business strategy and I think the ones who'll win will be the ones who deliver more. Starry eyed perhaps but much more likely to happen with wind and solar than with fossil or biofuels. Shell already owns the vast majority of biofuel production. Good thread on slahdot here: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/19/0319248&from=rss Hi Stephanie, my logic is much simpler:

Unlike fossil fuels, wind and solar are available to anyone. As an individual, I can set up my own system to extract energy from them. So any company that wants my business is going to have to provide better value and service than I can get by myself. Equally there’s nothing (other than money) stopping a hundred or a thousand different companies from going into the wind and solar business. It’s difficult to control access to the sun and the wind. Sure some places have more of some or the other but in general these are things I can’t simply build a business around owning.

I think that has to force a different business strategy and I think the ones who’ll win will be the ones who deliver more. Starry eyed perhaps but much more likely to happen with wind and solar than with fossil or biofuels. Shell already owns the vast majority of biofuel production. Good thread on slahdot here: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/19/0319248&from=rss

]]> By: stephanie gerson http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/transformation-in-the-energy-business/#comment-741 stephanie gerson Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:34:01 +0000 http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/?p=951#comment-741 "The winners in solar and wind won’t be the ones who control the source, they’ll be the ones who create the most value for their customers." this is a fascinating proposal, though one I'm not convinced of. is there something inherent to solar and wind, as opposed to fossil fuels, that makes this the case? or is it just that fossil fuels are the status quo, and any emerging competitor to the status quo would (at least initially) fare better not by controlling the source, but by creating the most value for customers? it is clear that we will use a diversity of energy sources to satisfy our needs. but the question of how to organize our energy portfolio, so to speak, depends on the ability to characterize and therefore compare different energy sources according to well-defined criteria - not only carbon dioxide emissions, but socio-economic and political criteria as well. if it could be plausibly argued that solar and wind inherently reward companies that create the most value for their customers (as opposed to fossil fuels, which reward companies that control the source), it would make a strong case. it would be, well, WOW. [note: I actually wrote a way-too-long comment responding to my own question but then decided not to post it. that said, I highly recommend Langdon Winner's article, "Do Artifacts have Politics?"] “The winners in solar and wind won’t be the ones who control the source, they’ll be the ones who create the most value for their customers.”

this is a fascinating proposal, though one I’m not convinced of.

is there something inherent to solar and wind, as opposed to fossil fuels, that makes this the case? or is it just that fossil fuels are the status quo, and any emerging competitor to the status quo would (at least initially) fare better not by controlling the source, but by creating the most value for customers?

it is clear that we will use a diversity of energy sources to satisfy our needs. but the question of how to organize our energy portfolio, so to speak, depends on the ability to characterize and therefore compare different energy sources according to well-defined criteria – not only carbon dioxide emissions, but socio-economic and political criteria as well. if it could be plausibly argued that solar and wind inherently reward companies that create the most value for their customers (as opposed to fossil fuels, which reward companies that control the source), it would make a strong case.

it would be, well, WOW.

[note: I actually wrote a way-too-long comment responding to my own question but then decided not to post it. that said, I highly recommend Langdon Winner's article, "Do Artifacts have Politics?"]

]]>