Energy Utilities changing Models – A Battery of Choice

As one would normally do, chat about renewables and impacts on the utilities business model while relaxing with friends. It was a case of too much uncertainty over how the consumer would be treated because of change. Central to the discussion was that a provider to the electrical distribution system could threaten the current regulatory and centralized generation models of ‘essential services’.

What does this mean?  The business as usual model is failing where supply centric economics demanded you build additional load capacity and transport the capacity to the place of need. This model also meant the assets, including the customer, was owned by the utility. If you think of it this way, Governments tend to discourage demand side solutions. Demand Management was tended to be more of a series of incentive programs for utilities to duplicate infrastructure to transport to the demand source.

So, what happened to change the balance? The obvious: Technologies improved, carbon became issues for society and clean energy and renewables were being shown as a better way to address the logistics of meeting demand where it was needed. As a result some of the conventional infrastructure was at risk of being a stranded asset and the need to build conventional infrastructure required incentives from Government to reduce the financial risk. For example, the Demand Side Incentive scheme (DIS) formulated at about 2004 is dramatically underspent but is comforting for utilities in being a facility to reduce the financial risk.

If we note the changes in the needs of society as a driver for change: Governments and their policies encouraged that traditional public ownership be phased out to pass the needs to private investment. Government was happy for this ‘fix’ as they see it as the asset is sold for a value and ongoing regulated charges and fees and taxes are being paid to treasury, and that is a public benefit. The perfect storm in Australia is this action is also one of the drivers for electricity tariff increases in Australia. Recently the state of Queensland announced a 21% increase to its general tariff.  A source, CO2Land identifies as SF said: “Therefore those consumers with solar PV are subsidising those consumers that don’t have solar PV”.

From that last statement we can assume government policy (Federal and State) is very much the catalyst that resulted in the model change. Whether the change was necessary was more of a political move in this instance. It followed that technology and innovation evolved and the model change was inevitable. If you follow the beliefs of the 5th Column existing, this was done by infiltration of the policy areas by a particular group. It follows, in contemporary Australia, Government policy is more reactive than before, and since the 1970’s the rule of law was modeled as to be reactive to the needs of the dominate influence. Below is an explanation of this view as posted by CO@Land.org on 3 April 2013. Where:

Co2Land org now asks: If we consider the four primary schools of thought in general jurisprudence :

  •   Natural law is the idea that there are rational objective limits to the power of legislative rulers.
  •  Legal positivism, by contrast to natural law, holds that there is no necessary connection between law and morality and that the force of law comes from some basic social facts although positivists differ on what those facts are.
  •  Legal realism is a third theory of jurisprudence which argues that the real world practice of law is what determines what law is; the law has the force that it does because of what legislators, judges, and executives do with it. Similar approaches have been developed in many different ways in sociology of law.
  • Critical legal studies is a younger theory of jurisprudence that has developed since the 1970s which is primarily a negative thesis that the law is largely contradictory and can be best analyzed as an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group.

If you think of the debate of tariff increases. Then you should consider it may have been ‘an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group’, as critical to that issue. We should then think about the set of claims that the “Renewable Energy Targets” (RET’s) had undesirable consequences, and how governments (Federal and State) now realise that the larger than expected number of early adopters who signed up for the long term contracts are now having a negative impact on state & federal budgets, and this is one of the dominate drivers for electricity tariff increases in Australia. For those needing an introduction to the scheme, the RET’s are a federal government initiative commencing during year 2001, and from those bills and legislation various states and territories introduced those targets as various incentive schemes for customers to invest in solar PV with generous feed in tariffs. This incentive had the effect of distorting the demand supply balance, and the popularity embarrassed and alarmed treasury. If we use SF as the source again; “Queensland Govt initially offered 44cents per kWh this has now been reduced to 8cents. That said the response from the customer was rapid with Australia now having 2500MW of solar PV with and average capacity of 3.5kW.”

CO2Land org chose to give an example of Queensland for convenience, as this states geography and population patterns influence the custom that those consumers with a service, are asked to provide subsidies to those that do not.  In the case of electricity you could argue the subsidy required is determined by the length of the extension cords needed. You might understand why that state found it Initially appealing that solar PV was a localized delivery point. However, managing the asset is a different matter.

We are seeing similar issues being evident from around the world – business as usual is failing as the utility model. The danger is stranded assets and less control being possible. A story titled The Clean, Simple Solar and Storage Solution to US Utility Business Model Woes .

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/07/the-clean-simple-solar-and-storage-solution-to-us-utility-business-model-woes?cmpid=SolarNL-Thursday-July4-2013&goback=%2Egde_67258_member_256399748

Tells of an interview with former United States Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu on utility business models.  While the gist of what he said wasn’t new to me, the clean and elegant way he laid out what he sees as the future of utilities and solar power is worth sharing.

Similar to how in the past telephone companies – he specifically named AT&T – used to own the entire telephone system from the overhead telephone lines up to and including the phone in your house, Chu feels that utilities ought to own solar panels and energy storage systems that they put on their customers’ roofs and in their garages. He said if utilities could outfit homeowners with solar panels and a 5-kW battery system, they could continue selling that customer power just as they do now. The utility would own the system, maintain the system and the customer would have no out-of-pocket expenses for it other than continuing to buy power at the same rate or at perhaps an even lower rate.

 In the three-minute interview, Chu didn’t explain another huge reason that utilities should consider this option: distributed generation used in this way counteracts the need to build additional generation as the load capacity needs increase.  And lastly and most important, the utility gets to keep its customer.

Utilities should probably get clear on their approach soon. When it’s just a quarter or a half of one percent of a utility’s customers that have their own PV and are selling their solar power to the grid at the retail rate, the utility doesn’t care. But energy storage and PV panel costs are dropping, and once that percentage of utility customers’  that are zeroing out their bill goes to 5, 10 or 15 percent then “it’s a big deal” said Chu.

Chu said he told utilities that PV and energy storage is going to come and they should “form a new business model” NOW so that what today is a potential revenue loss, could become an area of growth for them in the future.  Plus, he said this model would eventually lead to a more stable grid for us all. “

CO2Land org is finding it difficult to solely blame the RET Scheme as the problem. The evidence is the splitting of the RET’s scheme into a ‘small scale’ offering for predominately solar PV is the problem. It is appropriate to say any change to the utility models would and did have a cause and effect disruption on the industry, and cause and effect type of disruption suggests any intervention will introduce more shocks in the industry, and we can expect that ideologies will continue to influence the Governments policy advisors who are without a full understanding the implications. It also follows that a large dependence on small scale or residential solar PV services implies a need for significant workforce skills shifts to cater for the growth and scope of the model change for utilities to take control of the assets at a domestic level to be to be effective. That is a significant cost driver, and it is reasonable to ask why should the utility be the provider of choice for these services where it would serve to drive up prices?

In defence of RET’s large scale systems, it follows that large systems do not directly affect the utilities mechanism to preserve the current regulatory model, but they shift the balance so that the model needs to be reviewed of the purpose and objectives in the delivery of the product. It follows that centralised generation models are what utilities do very well, and large scale transportation and distribution are well established capabilities of the industry. Expanding that capability to large commercial rooftops and installations might be a good idea. However, it too is not without the need for change. Albeit less dramatic than small scale.

CO2Land org is not proposing we should concentrate on picking winners for the model change.  However, ‘the battery concept’ leads to deeper thinking. The demand initiative needs to be expanded and a battery concept is not just a means of storage of an electron! It can mean tools and equipment that is readily available to balance the total load needs, and not just peak demand requirements. We know solar’s great weakness is peak availability profile and traditional batteries concepts take up rare earth minerals to manufacture. Are they already defunct? A far more sensible battery concept is something that can utilise what we have already consumed and discarded to be returned to there natural elements while producing energy and balancing the supply needs.  If you prefer think of it as a provider it can be an insurance tool for a supply imbalance, So can what they do be a source of energy rationing and balancing that fits neatly into the traditional delivery mechanism.

One such battery concept is the waste to energy gasifiers and their products including pyrolysis retorts. These can easily be written into the current infrastructure and be part of any new regulatory mix – even provide a result for policy without implications – it is not creating anything new – just making something old new again!

For the future, CO2Land org can see a lot more independent renewable sources becoming the norm, and utilities will be using energy exchanges to sell power to customers. This differs from ownership of customers in that bidding could be managed power purchasing agreement with give and take provisions in the price. What regulators will have to deal with is that nationwide and globally installing microgrids for Businesses and Communities will need to fit into economic as well as technical delivery models. A real power of choice if you prefer to think that way.

Advertisements

Sun, Wind and Fire – renewable positioning in a policy trilemma

Sun, wind and Fire is not a story of the Gods – except you could draw a conclusion there is a battle for policy supremacy as a renewable energy source. There is a very rapid growth in renewable energy deployment in recent times, driven by rapidly increasing costs of fossil fuel stocks, and the movement to a low carbon energy system and improvements in the renewable technologies and materials. Are there problems? Yes, the elephants in the room are obvious but largely ignored. Some examples: Solar requires rare earth materials for the products, as does voltage batteries storage systems, and wind needs magnets produced in such a way that land contamination is a major drawback. Ironically, fire can be a battery of capacity and availability and utilise only common earth materials and most importantly make use of waste – and there is more – even revert waste to original elements and products.  Of course the bigger elephant for Solar and Wind is when it comes time for decommissioning. Why is this so, the analogy could be asbestos and who is paying for the removal programs – you.   Few if any governments want that issue known as it would require a future funds program as an assurance when only the positives of the now conditions are ‘sold’ as policy.

If you did not know, renewable energy technologies differ greatly from one another, and a range of issues has arisen that are common to most. This could be taken back to the problem that these tend to be dealt with on a renewable energy industry level forum basis rather than accepting that the problems are technology by technology issues in their battles for policy gods acceptance. Rarely, do you see the fora of the renewable industry admitting to issues to include large deployment growth rates, intermittency with respect to electricity production requirements, distributed rather than centralised deployment and scheduling of loads, the relatively immature supply chains & support networks, the quality issues of the production points, the land use changes for the provision and production of the materials needed, and the need to update regulatory frameworks & institutional inertia outside of our current frameworks.

On that later point, A report prepared for the Consumer Action Law Centre by Allan Asher, Foundation for Effective Markets & Governance November 2012 on http://femag.anu.edu..org.au/ , reads as: “The title of the report—”A policy trilemma: creating an affordable, secure and sustainable energy market”. “Identifies the central challenge facing the energy market—the need for it to deliver affordable, secure and sustainable energy services. The report draws on international developments, particularly from Europe and the United Kingdom, where there has been acknowledgment that, in energy markets, the goals of efficiency and competition have not necessarily ‘trickled down’ to satisfy the needs of consumers in these three key areas. Throughout, the report makes a number of recommendations to inform a policy and regulatory framework that has a more rigorous focus on the interests of consumers. Following publication of this report, Consumer Action will engage politicians, policy makers, regulators, and representatives of industry and consumers on reform measures that will best serve the long-term interests of consumers”.

Co2Land org notes that the messages of the ‘trilemma’ is the view of innovation needs to be incorporated into the ‘system’ where technical and commercial innovation encouragement through: Incentives, responsibility passed on to third parties for their delivery, and building on low carbon funding models. The point is also made that a capacity mechanism or system be incorporated for incentives through both generation and demand management as one of the key elements of the energy market reform (EMR) package.

Fire, has extraordinary abilities to be all that is needed, and as it only requires either common materials or waste to be reformed and it has the capacity to act as a bridging technology it is increasingly likely policy will need to take stock of the realities of the ‘sustainable’ attributes. In terms of the energy market fire products can be assembled as a “package” that compliments a range of utilities and could be deemed part of strategic infrastructure. With advances in ‘smart grid’ systems this is more likely as before the requirement of a high level of automation and remote management on the system was a detractor. Now it is a positive.

This idea is particularly attractive for biomass plants, as the advances and the idea would be to differentiate biomass plants from normal generators and that they can be regarded as “load following batteries” as integral parts of the grid infrastructure, rather than a separate input to it.

Why not call your local member of parliament or future hopeful to discuss innovative restructuring. Think of the idea of how a fixed return on biomass power plants is a true renewable and how other network upgrades can be addressed to accentuate ‘sustainable’, and the capacity requirements of balancing the system infrastructure.

Not selling – no better place to charge your EV!

The promise of electric cars is getting down to the power point. The promise of the dream technology solving our transport challenges is now best described as uneven! The problem might just be the socio-economic structure around us, and where the most car dependent households are distributed.

It seems at odds, that for instance, the City of Sydney is staunchly promoting a sustainable future, that the leading edge they wish to protect and serve with examples of what is the correct thing to do is also being meet with stern and robust opposition. If we put aside the concerns over the city’s trigeneration project and the claims and counterclaims. A very interesting story develops from an article published on http://www.drive.com.au under the heading “Not Selling”.

The story centres on the City of Sydney council having held a press event last week. The announcement being it had bought 10 Nissan Leaf electric cars, and it planned to buy 50 similar vehicles over the next few years. The story said “the event was supposed to be a shot in the arm for electric vehicles, which have barely registered a blip on the sales charts. But instead, it provided an insight into the failure of the Better Place electric vehicle-charging network”. Co2Land org is now very interested in the history of the Better Place network as Canberra and others also touted the wonderful concepts and the advantages of such a network.

What happened to the wonderful network at Sydney: Again, Drive.com published “In 2011, the City of Sydney put out a project to tender for 12 new electric car-charging stations – a perfect opportunity for Better Place to gain a foothold in Sydney. Better Place was considered, but ultimately the tender was won not by a multinational technology provider but a local electrician, who simply installed power points”.  It got down to there is no need for propriety displays and charge points – all based on subscription arrangements. What was needed according to the manager for strategy and assets at the council was 15-amp, 240-volt power points with a timer and flow meter. CO2Land org then though they already have them in most council owned caravan park around the country – interesting thought to think the old technology is suitable for the new, yet we were going to pay more without the need!

Council is also quoted as saying there is a lack of customers to even support installing the power points. The story continues to say after the first two power point stations were installed in September 2012: ”We haven’t had a customer yet,” but there have ”been a few drop-ins”.  Oh dear, or is it still too dear?

encouraged to submit an EOI – but!

We have spoken with our contact, and we are encouraged to submit an EOI for the CRE Grants program. Given that everybody else is submitting EOI’s for Wind and Solar systems, we may be in with a good chance.  This is a response sent in after it was posted Closing 21 Feb – excluded, on February 13, 2013 by co2land

In fact three relevant responses came in and each had a story that you might be interested in:

Renewed Carbon – Have a BioHub design. They have a set of engineering firms in Newcastle ready to: Design the plant, Build the plant, Run the plant for 12 months, Take all the start-up risks, Sell the operating plant to the eventual owner.

All they need is about $12m !!!

They are working towards a pre-feasibility study to establish whether they are just dreaming (They believe such a study will a green-light the project). But the study will cost several hundred grand!

It is matter of hurdles (one at a time) and a simple process of: let’s get the money for the Pre-Feasibility Study and work from there.

Part of the reason for their enthusiasm is they are aware of working Pyrolysis plants in several places in Europe, as such they are confident the ‘Commercially Available’ constraint in the EOI closing 21 Feb 2013 should not be a problem.

With that said, I wonder if many are aware of the more sophisticated Veolia WASP project at Woodlawn, via Tarago in NSW. This project has been held up in NSW Planning approvals for some time now and as we have spoken to the engineers at the plant – it is a source of great frustration.

Then a more detailed retort from Peter and Kerry Davies of Real Power Systems (who have built their gasifier and Pyrolysis retort machine in Australia and demonstrated its commercial application in Australia) lament the issues they have had since showcasing the capabilities on the grounds of Parliament House in 2009). In this response they are responding not only the Closing 21 Feb story they are also referring to happenings in the prickly exchange between www.newmatilda.com  and City of Sydney Tri-generation project, and the general stonewalling they have encountered with their offering in the quest for a commercial outcome.  In direct quote:

“Thanks for the link, we just read through the three associated articles:

The attacks are coming from the green’s associates and heavily rely on BZE, a Melbourne University academics club who want Oz to go solar thermal immediately and trust that in doing so costs will fall and engineering problems overcome. This involves putting several thousand square km’s of solar arrays down in adjoining rural areas…

The core arguments against the renewable component of the plan centre on biogas, which is produced using anaerobic digestion and therefor predominately methane (85% CH4). We would consider these arguments to be largely valid although they don’t go far enough, the cost of efficient closed cycle anaerobic digesters is millions of $ per MWe of capacity and are prone to significant operational problems. In the EU it has been found engines running on biogas have difficulty meeting emission guidelines as some fuel is not burnt (escaped methane) and running excess oxygen to correct this then results in NoX emissions rather than CH4, there is a lot of work being done to overcome this limitation.

These arguments though are not valid at all for gasification whose output is “producer gas”  which has <1% methane and the fuel gas component is CO & H2, much cleaner in combustion and not subject to “methane leaks”. Gasification also is far more flexible in its feed stocks which can readily include waste paper with plastics contamination, and is easily topped up with solid fuels produced from plantations, crop residues or RDF pellets.

NoX  is easily managed in a properly engineered system running on producer gas since its formation is temperature and free oxygen dependent. Modern “lean burn” engine technologies combined with rapid exhaust cooling (via cogen) readily address the emission concerns. Direct combustion systems are more difficult, the critics seem to be confusing the two.

Trigen should be eminently suitable for Sydney so long as it genuinely includes absorption chiller technology for the building climate control required in warmer months. We don’t believe waste heat and inversion layers should necessarily be an issue so long as the trigen plant is not using fossil fuels or high methane biogas. Indeed with some lateral thinking and applied engineering the waste heat from higher rise buildings could be used through thermal siphoning to alleviate air pollution at street level.

We are aware of some very clever “Urban food production” systems that can produce very high outputs from small areas using aquaponics (fish and hydroponics). The rooftops of many high rise buildings would be eminently suited with proper planning to include these which then turns the total system into a “Quad generation”, utilising CO2 from the engine exhausts in the greenhouse above and providing local restaurants with fresh fish and vegetables grown in their own inner city building or precinct! Such innovations are we believe relevant now and can only become increasingly important for the future of sustainable cities.

Heightened ambient noise is an engineering/$ issue. A couple of years ago we responded to a request for tender for a cogen plant at a public swimming pool. The EPA imposed a noise limit of 32 decibels (it turned out there were dwellings within 20m of the installation site…). To put this in perspective such a noise limit can be exceeded by the act of sitting down in a country library and opening a hardcover book… We found a solution with pre-cast acoustic chambers from a Sydney supplier which added about $80,000 to project cost (yes you can also cast in situ). You could rev a Harley at full throttle inside one and not exceed the 32DB limit outside. To give you some idea of what this means in practice the fan running on the RPS system demonstrated at Bungendore for REDay generates 55DB.

Finally Origin/Cogent might consider the following: The RPS plant being commissioned at Sutton at the moment just took delivery of 80m3 of sawdust for further client trials. This plant when operational in the next week or so will consist of:

Gasifier – clean fuel gas and high temperature treated biochar output.

This char output can be used for water filtering and odor control amongst other external applications before going off to be added to compost for final recycling & CO2 sequestration.

Integrated pyrolysis retort – operates off a portion of the gasifier output so as to be more consistent, controllable and able to handle high/variable feed stock moisture contents, capable of sustained temperatures >650oC. Outputs biochar or torrefied biomass depending on temperature/residence time profile selected so effectively could replicate any typical biochar specification required or alternately pre-condition solid fuels for the gasifier.

Also can provide process heat for a range of purposes.

Electricity generator (20kWe) – Dual fuel diesel & producer gas from the gasifier . Typical diesel displacement when the gasifier is running would be 85% (reduction in normal diesel use). Later we will trial recycling a portion of this final exhaust back through the gasifier to re-crack some carbon dioxide (CO2+heat= 2CO) further reducing nett emissions.

We are also currently refurbishing a 50kWe straight gas industrial genset to add later in order to achieve 100% organic power.

Briquette press – for hot briquetting product directly out of the pyrolysis retort. (This is part of RPS’s R&D looking at subsequent material handling/transport/application strategies).

This briquette press is a proprietary design that we own the rights to and is able to be locally fabricated by any competent engineering shop so is not a high cost imported item.

So it is really a combination proof of concept/commercial plant that goes beyond just a functional bioenergy/char retort design and looks more at a whole of system farm scale factory with core components equally at home in the basement of a building in order to give flexible outputs that maximise benefits. This plant is readily brought up to the scale some companies have received offers of multi-million dollar public grants to build…but still haven’t been able to do so.

All of which has been done not only in the absence of government grants or sucking in market venture capital but also in spite of direct obstruction and commercial bastardry by vested interests. What might be described as “Success against Uncommon Odds”.

If the City of Sydney/Origin/Cogent trifecta are genuine they need to stop playing around the edges and get serious with some sort of supportive funding delivered through a credible pilot plant trial to publicly validate what we already know, instead of waiting for people like ourselves with real solutions to solve their problems for them entirely at our own expense.

Best Regards,
Peter & Kerry”

Then from George Paulos, where is writes of his IMPLETERRA new Plasma Gasification System:

“Thanks for connecting with me.

And as you have already pointed out: YES I love my work !

Hopefully we can be of fruitful service to one another.

I would like to move some things in Down Under with you.

For example: Our new Plasma can extract precious metals from ore.

This is currently being tested in our lab in the US.

Thus all these hazardous chemical for extraction get needless AND

of course the overall calculation for the mining company gets CHEAPER In this sense its a win-win for all parties involved: We and our environment and the company and the economy ! And also: These Plasma devices cannot be sold, only leased based on Power Purchase Agreements. Thus no investment necessary ! “

On reflection of what George has said, and repeated by Real Power Systems: The way grants programs are administrated may be what is wrong with the industry, in this it is meant: Why do you need $XXk grant to write a pre-feasibility study and then go to a prospectus costing $XXXXXXK in order to persuade $XXm from investors given that the askers apparently already know the outcome of a larger feasibility study, or learnt from past mistakes…. Would it not be more sensible to do as the UK Government do – have a department and a fund set –up that is open to all, rather than a select few. The caveat is if you can prove the need, that sufficient testing is done and you can show it could work, and the ability to be an entrepreneur – be a doer not just a talker. You will be asked how much do you need and so on. No nonsense approach that makes the bankable process much more streamlined.

CO2Land org thank each for their encouragement. Clearly these are also worthy of encouragement because they each solve real problems to what we have now, WHAT TO DO to turn waste to energy and take the pressure off virgin materials being required every time!

 

 

SMART the Sustainable difference – Built environment.

Should we redefine ‘sustainability’ and can it still have substance in its objectives? The answer could be in redefining sustainability as ‘Smart buildings’. The redefine would be sustainability as a synonymic with smaller environmental footprints, and more importantly, tools to monitor and verify the impact of technology implementation in economic terms. In this way actions could translate actions into economic benefits. The cost benefit test that is linked to sustainability in this way would tick most boxes (output become outcomes – in the policy context) and these dollars makes the sustainability message all the way to the top line enterprise decision makers.

In a post published to IDC Energy Insights’ Smart Building Strategies Program.  It was said: “This new level of transparency and measurability will reshape the future of sustainability and generate radical efficiency.” More information about this program and report can be found here: http://www.idc-ei.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=EI238359#.UMe58uS7P3o

In a similar discussion at a meeting with Cogent in Sydney during December 2012, it was said:

We have the NABERS program (NABERS is an Australian national rating system that measures the environmental performance of Australian buildings, tenancies and homes. Put simply, NABERS measures the energy efficiency, water usage, waste management and indoor environment quality of a building or tenancy and its impact on the environment),

America has LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and is a voluntary, consensus-based, market­-driven program that provides third-party verification of green buildings), and

We both have a comprehensive Energy Star (The Energy Star program was developed by John S. Hoffman, inventor of the Green Programs at EPA, working closely with the IT industry, and implemented by Cathy Zoi and Brian Johnson.[5] The program was intended to be part of a series of voluntary programs, such as Green Lights and the Methane Programs, that would demonstrate the potential for profit in reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gases by power plants.[5] Initiated as a voluntary labeling program designed to identify and promote energy efficient products).

While much of this discussion was on water and energy efficiency and the application of embedded generation the dilemma of future fuel sourcing which includes the policies that affect the price is that prices will rise and it will be as much the fault of intervention as the demand curve.  What was agreed was that the next generation of ‘smart’ requires changes in rules and applications to be value for owners and operators. It is also in context the means to mitigate litigious actions.

Then on 27 December 2012, we heard of the resignation of:

The Obama administration’s chief environmental watchdog, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, is stepping down after a nearly four-year tenure marked by high-profile brawls over global…
news.yahoo.com.

Prior to the 27 December 2012 announcement the IDC EI report said “media attention has fueled heated debate around the inferior energy performance of some certified LEED buildings.  While USGBC and its LEED certification program have been very successful in bringing efficiency and sustainability front and center in corporate consciousness, these programs do not prescribe actions to ensure ongoing efficiency.  The next step is determining what will best promote ongoing efficiency and superior building performance.

VERGE at Greenbuild, the two day launch of this year’s USGBC annual conference, tackled the continuous improvement challenge head on.  The big takeaway is that the adoption of new data-driven technology can deliver ongoing efficiency and sustainability with unprecedented success.  Data, however, is only as transformative as the tools that make it actionable. If data is to define the future of sustainability, then the future of information technology will define how facilities become radically efficient — true smart buildings.  IDC’s four pillars of the future of IT are the answer to call for radical efficiency.  Social business, big data analytics, cloud computing and mobility will be the IT enablers for the new future of sustainability”.

Co2Land org encapsulates in brief these findings:

1. Social business can accelerate the transformation of facilities into smart buildings.  Improving practices, tactics and strategies.  “These platforms are also venues to showcase the benefits of technology implementation and successes”.

2. Big data analytics. Integrate new generation technologies and system architectures as reliable valuable grid resources. Thereby, the design will extract value from very large volumes of a wide variety of data.  These tools focus on automated demand response programs.

3. Cloud computing will be an important enabler of scaling smart buildings through the cost effective and flexible delivery of essential analytics and data management tools.

4.  Mobility will ensure facilities managers adopt and use smart building solutions.

Co2Land org see the defining of sustainable this way carries the promise as ‘Smart buildings’ generate business value for owners, occupants, and utilities through next-generation IT architecture utilizing social business, cloud computing, big data analytics, and mobility.  Our other reference included SMART the two way difference!( Posted on November 25, 2012 by co2land  ).

We should also expect 2013 to be a year of great change and challenges with or without GFC II.

SMART the two way difference!

We hear smart phone, meters, grids, systems all around us and we can be driven to distraction hearing this and not knowing what is really means. Our frustration includes that dictionaries do little to help us understand what SMART really means in the context of today. The context being SMART is more about what is deliverable through clever two-way communication.  But does that mean workable one-way communication is dumb?

Research suggests the first known uses of the term occur in the November 1981 issue of Management Review by George T. Doran (source Wikipedia). Now if we look at the objectives given by our source we find: “SMART / SMARTER is a mnemonic to guide people when they set objectives, often called Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), for example for project management, employee performance management and personal development. The letters broadly conform to the words Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Timely with the addition of the words Evaluate and Reevaluate used in more recent literature.”

However, when we talk in terms of technology we note: “S.M.A.R.T. (Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology; often written as SMART) is a monitoring system for computer hard disk drives to detect and report on various indicators of reliability, in the hope of anticipating failures. When a failure is anticipated by S.M.A.R.T., the user may choose to replace the drive to avoid unexpected outage and data loss. The manufacturer may be able to use the S.M.A.R.T. data to discover where faults lie and prevent them from recurring in future drive designs.”

Then for our energy supply we note: In addition to growing concerns about the electricity grid’s robustness and reliability, the grid was designed and built with one basic objective in mind – keeping the lights on. Meanwhile, other concerns have become increasingly important in the political and public dialogue about the status and future of the electrical grid, particularly: Energy efficiency
- Environmental impacts
- Consumer choice.

Worldwide governments and utilities are investing in new technologies in order to keep up with demand for energy and build a grid that: Runs more efficiently
- Generates higher-quality power
- Resists attack
- Is self-healing
- Enables consumers to manage their energy use better and reduce costs
- Integrates decentralised generation (e.g., bioenergy, renewable energy. Gas fired), and storage (such as fuel cell) technologies.

In addition to meeting the need for reliable, high-quality power, these technologies are intended to meet the economy’s energy needs as efficiently as possible, optimizing energy consumption and related environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions.

CO2Land org notes these technologies are often referred to generically as smart grid technologies. In this usage of Smart, the SMART grid describes a set of related technologies, rather than specific technology with a generally agreed-on specification.

Continuing on with SMART technologies these fall into five main areas:

  1. Two-way integrated communications: allow for real-time control, information and data exchange to optimize system reliability, asset utilization, and security.
  2. Sensing and measurement: evaluate congestion and grid stability, congestion and grid stability, monitor equipment health, detect energy theft, and support control strategies support.
  3. Advanced components: flexible alternating current transmission system devices, high-voltage direct current, first- and second-generation superconducting wire, high-temperature superconducting cable, distributed energy generation and storage devices, composite conductors, and “intelligent” appliances.
  4. Advanced control that enables rapid diagnosis of and precise solutions to specific grid disruptions or outages.
  5. Improved interfaces and decision support that reduce complexity so that operators and managers have tools to effectively and efficiently operate a grid with increasing numbers of variables.

Therefore it could be said Smart Grid is a two way communication system fundamentally concerned with the long-term sustainability of the system.

Then if we go back to SMART project management:

There is no point communicating if you do not want an effect. The effect you want to achieve must start with effective communication giving or developing a clear picture of what you want to achieve. At this point you could be evolving dumb communication as suggested at the start of this discussion – a one-way exchange keeping people informed and being supportive. The one-way communication could be reports, a newsletter or other required proforma. It may be elegant, stylish and easy to read or it might be rubbish – A scruffy report leaves the impression of a lack of control or lack of concern for what is good for the result.

To be smart in this context the communication must achieve change. That is the desired change and several key elements need to be incorporated. To start with, the most important element is:

The information needs to be Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Realistic and Time framed – SMART.

The second element is illustrate the reason why it is important TO YOU. If your audience does not believe you are feeling the need how can you expect them to understand the need.

The last element is to get mutuality. A communication that recognises the receiver can expect something of value for them too. Sometimes called WIIFM – What’s in it for me. It is said SMART people understanding WIIFM trumps altruism 8 out of 10 times.

Of course it must be ethic mutuality, and there is no point in communicating with someone if you don’t want change or an effect.

What does the formal classical description of smart refer to:

“smart  (smärt)

adj. smart·er, smart·est (the freedictionary)

1.

a. Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright. See Synonyms at intelligent.

b. Amusingly clever; witty: a smart quip; a lively, smart conversation.

c. Impertinent; insolent: That’s enough of your smart talk.

2. Energetic or quick in movement: a smart pace.

3. Canny and shrewd in dealings with others: a smart negotiator.

4. Fashionable; elegant: a smart suit; a smart restaurant; the smart set. See Synonyms at fashionable.

5.

a. Capable of making adjustments that resemble human decisions, especially in response to changing circumstances: smart missiles.

b. Manufactured to regulate the amount of light transmitted in response to varying light conditions or to an electronic sensor or control unit: smart windows.

6. New England & Southern U.S. Accomplished; talented: He’s a right smart ball player.

intr.v. smart·ed, smart·ing, smarts

1.

a. To cause a sharp, usually superficial, stinging pain: The slap delivered to my face smarted.

b. To be the location of such a pain: The incision on my leg smarts.

c. To feel such a pain.

2. To suffer acutely, as from mental distress, wounded feelings, or remorse: “No creature smarts so little as a fool” (Alexander Pope).

3. To suffer or pay a heavy penalty.

n.

1. Sharp mental or physical pain. See Synonyms at pain.

2. smarts Slang Intelligence; expertise: a reporter with a lot of smarts.

Are their other SMART’s out there? Check out this list of acronym, is there more?

Acronym Definition
SMART Self-Monitoring, Analysis, and Reporting Technology (hard drive feature; warns of problems before total failure)
SMART Self-Management and Recovery Training
SMART Science, Mathematics and Research for Transformation
SMART Start Making A Reader Today
SMART Simple Modular Architecture Research Tool
SMART Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation
SMART Small Missions for Advanced Research in Technology (NASA)
SMART Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel (project; Malaysia)
SMarT Save More Tomorrow
SMART Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (software development)
SMART Sikh Mediawatch and Resource Task Force
SMART Stress Management And Relaxation Training
SMART Swatch Mercedes Art (Daimler-Benz automobile model)
SMART Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,. Registering, and Tracking (US Department of Justice)
SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timely
SMART System to Manage Accutane Related Teratogenicity
SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-Bound
SMART Simulation and Modeling for Acquisition, Requirements and Training
SMART Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association
SMART Special Medical Augmentation Response Team (US Army MEDCOM)
SMART South Metro Area Rapid Transit
SMART Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
SMART Satellite Mutual Aid Radio Talkgroup
SMART Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Tangible
SMART State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset (US State Department)
SMART Somatic Mutation and Recombination Test
SMART Save Money and Reduce Taxes
SMART Systemwide Mental Assessment Response Team (Los Angeles Police Department)
SMART Sustainable Model for Arctic Regional Tourism
SMART Special Malaysia Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team
SMART Special Military Active-Retired Travel Club
SMART Strategic Marketing and Research Techniques
SMART Sonoma-Marin Area Rapid Transit (California Bay Area)
SMART System Metric and Reporting Tool
SMART Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Relevant, and Timely (process metrics)
SMART Soundly Made, Accountable, Reasonable, and Thrifty
SMART Southern Modified Auto Racing Teams
SMART State of Missouri Alcohol Responsibility Training
SMART Smart Motorcyclists Attend Rider Training
SMaRT Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (Sunnyvale, California)
SMART Somatotrophics, Memory, and Aging Research Trial (clinical trial)
SMART System of Measurement And Reporting for Technologies (Canada)
SMART Surface Mining Association for Research and Technology
SMART Shared Many-To-Many ATM Reservations
SMART Supply Maintenance Aviation Re-Engineering Team (Links maintenance and supply chains)
SMART Self-Measurement for the Assessment of the Response to Trandolapril
SMART Specific, Measurable, Appropriate, Realistic, Time-Bound
SMART Simple Maintenance of Arts
SMART Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-oriented, Time-based
SMART Sun Metro Area Rapid Transit
SMART Standard Modular Avionics Repair and Test (software)
SMART Statistical Methodology Analysis Reporting Technique (performance monitoring model)
SMART Senior Medication Awareness and Training
SMART Sunset Marketing and Revitalization Team (Rail advocacy group)
SMART SCSI Managed Array Technology (Compaq Smart Controller)
SMART Sailor/Marine American Council of Education Registry Transcript
SMART Students Making A Right Turn
SMART Securities Market Automated Regulated Trading Architecture
SMART Supportability Management Assessment Report Tool
SMART Sichang Marine Science Research and Training Station
SMART Safety and Mission Assurance Review Team
SMART Secure Messaging And Routing Terminal
SMART Structural Maintenance And Repair Team
SMART Stockton Metropolitan Transit District
SMART System Monitoring and Remote Tuning
SMART Susceptibility Model Assessment with Range Test
SMART Simulation and Modeling Anchored in Real-World Testing
SMART Sequential Modular Architecture for Robotics and Teleoperation (Sandia Labs)
SMART System to Motivate and Reward Teachers
SMART School Management And Record Tracking
SMART Shop Floor Modeling, Analysis, and Reporting Tool
SMART Service de Mesure et d’Analyse de La Radioactivité et des Éléments Tracés (French: Service Measurement and Analysis of Radioactivity and Trace Elements)
SMART Sales Marketing and Real Technologies Pty Ltd (Melbourne, Australia)
SMART Stockpile Materials Requirement Tabulator
SMART Solid Modeling Aerospace Research Tool
SMART Strategies for Motivating and Rewarding Teachers (Houston, Texas)
SMART Shipboard Modular Arrangement Reconfiguration Technology
SMART Southern Maine Alternative to Residential Treatment
SMART Special Medical Augmentation Reaction Team (US Army, Medical Command)
SMArt Sensor-Fuzed Munitions for Artillery
SMART Specific, Motivating, Achievable, Rewarding, and Tactical
SMART Service Management and Resource Tool (Covad)
SMART Short Maturity Analytic and Reporting Tool
SMART Small Motor Aerospace Technology
SMART Stress-Marginality and Accelerated-Reliability Testing
SMART Submarine Message Automated Routing Terminal
SMART Stock Management And Replenishment Tracking (B&Q)
SMART Supply Maintenance Assessment Review Team
SMART Space Mission Assessment for Reliability and Tactics
SMART Sensors Mounted As Roving Threads
SMART Student Managed Academic Resource Time
SMART Signaal Multibeam Acquisition Radar for Tracking (Dutch naval radar)
SMART Synthetic Multiple Aperture Radar Technology
SMART Sustainable Multi Species Agricultural Resource User Trial
SMART Stimulated Martensite-Austenite Reverse Transformation
SMART Stereoscopic Mapping and Rescaling Technology
SMART Super Music Action Ready Team (cartoons)
SMART Systems Management Analysis, Research & Test
SMART Service Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (Sprint)
SMART Shipboard Multipurpose Analysis and Reduction Tool
SMART Scalable Multi-Priority Allocation of Resources and Traffic (Newbridge)
SMART Soldiers Manual, Army Training
SMART Simulation and Modeling Assistant for Research and Training
SMART Simulation Model for Allocation of Resources for Training
SMART Skilled Motor Vehicle and Rider Training
SMART Ship’s Material Assessment and Readiness Testing
SMART System for the Management of Rejected Transactions
SMART Supply Management Army Retrieval Technique
SMART Standard Multiple Application Regulation Topology
SMART Submarine Modernization and Alterations Requirements Tool
SMART Swinger and Magnetic Analyzer with a Rotator and Twister
SMART Special-emphasis Material Action & Reporting Technique
SMART System Management & Allocation of Resources Technique
SMART Satellite Maintenance And Repair Techniques
SMART Southeast Michigan Astrologers’ Round Table
SMART Structures et Marché Agricoles, Ressources et Territoires (French: Agricultural and Market Structure, Resources and Territories)
SMART Southeast Michigan Area Rapid Transit (Metro Detroit public transit system)
SMART National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (federal grant)
SMART Security Management Architecture (Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.)
SMART Simple, Manageable, Achievable, Realistic, Timely
SMART Service Maîtrise des Risques au Travail (French: Service Risk Management at Work; Electricité de France)

Are you smart enough yet? If I was dumb I might say it is ART (attainable, result orientated and Targeted).  Because it is simply then a rating or action to occur if, rather than IF, THEN, ELSE!

Co/trigeneration sequel – Balancing Energy in your Business

In its draft report on Electricity Networks and the Regulatory Frameworks the Productivity Commission encourages a standard approach to Embedded generation (12.2) and puts a focus on minor distributed generation such as PVs, VAWTs etc (13), and the disparities in tariffs. The general theme is to push toward time based pricing to assist technologies where it can be incorporated within a strategy of load lopping.

On 4 November CO2Land (www.co2land.org) posted “Balancing Energy in Your Business” and a quote from the story said “It might be time, if you have not already, consider curtailment opportunities, renewable generation, cogeneration or trigeneration (albeit some high profile projects may well prove to be an embarrassment for overblown claims), or combinations of technologies with emphasis on energy savings.” This sequel further explains the pros and cons of cogeneration and trigeneration. The message is fully understand it first!

Increasingly common, where gas connections are possible, is the embedding of co-generation and there is an increase trigeneration. A little 101 here:

  • Cogeneration: Also known as combined heat and power, cogeneration uses wasted heat from gas-fired engines to project into other processes such as generating more electricity or producing heating.
  • Trigeneration: Combined cooling, heat and power – goes a step further, simultaneously producing power, thermal energy and cooling. The cooling can be used for production processes or climate control.

Gas Today (www.gastoday.com.au/news/benefits_of_cogeneration_and_trigeneration/078333 ) ran a story on Benefits of cogeneration and trigeneration where the authors said: “Cogeneration and trigeneration are already well established in Australia, with a growing clientele of property owners and developers incorporating them into their new or existing buildings or plants. Flexibility in design makes these applications easy to adapt to different customer demands, and thus cogeneration and trigeneration plants can be found in various different locations, including:

  • Urban areas with office buildings or retail complexes;
  • Residential areas;
  • Industrial or manufacturing facilities, such as breweries, abattoirs and dairies;
  • Hospitals;
  • Education facilities including universities and schools;
  • Airports;
  • Government sites such as state and federal agencies; and
  • Data centres.”

However, with all good marketing efforts should come the balancing with ‘real’ stories. After reading a post of Dru Spork (Manager at Grocon in Sydney), he made the comment  “those with experience should be able to chuckle along with this”, and what did he mean? Pitfalls we suspect and what to avoid when sizing. Some common mistakes and problems are:

  1. Design size for load lopping rather than operation. This can mean the unit is insufficient to handle the building load if isolated from grid connection.
  2. Total reliance on standards measures (AS3000) design ratings and not correctly sizing to match operation. That is not measuring correctly the actual equipment selections coupled with absorbed power/run power modelling.
  3. Not considering the ‘what if’ on the power requirements when other energy efficiency initiatives or technologies are introduced. Will there be a need to run the generator?
    The economics are very important for the business case and overblown estimates could mean a stranded asset. Consider:
  • The Capex investment for different load operations.
  • Modelling the generator operation modeled at say 100%, 75% and 50% load (to predict available electrical load) and match this to absorber performance at 100%, 75% and 50% – rather than checking the quality of the heat output and how this works with the absorbers.
  • Determine building heat load in the operational model.
  • Be prepared for battles with the electrical authorities over fault levels and approval procedures (project approvals can take around 18 months).
  • Empty buildings do not need power. The operations modelling of the generators assume occupation and operations of the building.

CO2Land org considers it is not uncommon that such projects fail and it tend to be because the introduction was not planned as well as it should have been. When talking to Ahmed Abdoh, he said “that is why we in Carbon Training International offer the only nationally recognised course in Cogeneration and Trigeneration that can help how to take the right decision on size and type. check out our course on www.co2ti.com . The primary material of the Course is the work of Winton Evers (Ecoprofit Management) and Ahmed Abdoh (CO2Planet) moderated by Bill McGhie (CO2Ti).

We also ask you to consider, you will get noise complaints from the adjacent buildings when operating, you will not get $120 per KWH value every day for generating, for these projects a ‘too analytical’ engineering report is a good report!

Simplicity, Obviousness and Human Factors with Windows

Why take the chance of alienating the faithful? It is possible that Microsoft must take a chance, to reach the new wave of technophiles. After being the masters of obviousness since 1987 “Microsoft Corp.’s net income fell 22 percent in the latest quarter as it deferred revenue from the sale of its upcoming Windows 8 operating system to PC makers”. It also comes at a time PC sales in general took a dive. You could argue taking the chance is about the need to improve the bottom line and the magic metric is the ability to scale beyond its own organisation as we know it. Windows 8 is aimed to be the magic system that will perform better for the company in the long term.

However as well redesigned this system is and planned as truly elegant, indicators are they could be affected by black swan events (improbable happenings – left field whams – disasters). Critics are saying in the quest for simplicity, they sacrificed obviousness for the joy of technophiles. But, alas thus rejoice may be the ultimate human factors conundrum: The relationships among windows users and the machines and processes they operate – lost.

To put this in perspective on June 19, 2012 co2land posted “Culture of sustainability in a cloud” and the story focused on Apple’s ability to use a robust metric to reduce risk and having a communication platform that can be maintained throughout any event. More recently, it is suggested Microsoft is trying too hard to show they can trump the software market with their own niche and make it with Windows 8, make it with simplicity. Interface and form simplicity with the operating system platform that is portable from PC to Tablet to Smart Phone.

So why is it even before the release date, reported to be 26 October 2012, that so many are critical of how they put at risk the most important following of the brand: The obvious relationship loyal users have between the machines and processes they make? They may have underestimated human factors!

A group called REALInnovation network (a voice of the network is www.triz-journal.com), says human factors is an entire arena that has become a major area of focus. As time goes on, we change and our expectation is the changes around us will make it easier to interact with machinery and how we see and interpret information. It is taken for granted that it is the ergonomic and practical need we have to aspire. There is a classical contradiction with this as we have all experienced that providing a new one size fits all is simple and appealing, and yet at the same time we must forgo access to our obvious need to be comfortable with what we currently know and use.

In the context of this discussion, you will know many professionals, stay at home people, students, and tradespeople that are comfortable with the PC and are happy with the tradition of the software – once you know the fundamentals you go from generation to generation as steps to a better place.

In Microsoft’s defence they need the innovation, and shifting to simplicity is improving practices. However, improved practices include a balance of simplicity and obviousness. In this new release they may be pushing the paradigm to simplicity in a way that will leave the traditional Windows PC user alienated and lost!

So when we use our ‘tools to communicate’ is it simplicity we crave or obviousness? “Take this example blogger Chris Pirillo posted a YouTube video of his father using a preview version of Windows 8 for the first time. As the elder Pirillo tours the operating system with no help from his son, he blunders into the old “Desktop” environment and can’t figure out how to get back to the Start tiles. (Hint: Move the mouse cursor into the top right corner of the screen, then swipe down to the “Start” button that appears, and click it. On a touch screen, swipe a finger in from the right edge of the screen to reveal the Start button.) The four-minute video has been viewed more than 1.1 million times since it was posted in March”. “There are many things that are hidden,” said Raluca Budiu, a user experience specialist with Nielsen Norman Group. “Once users discover them, they have to remember where they are. People will have to work hard and use this system on a regular basis.” In defence of obviousness “Michael Mace, the CEO of Silicon Valley software start-up Cera Technology and a former Apple employee, has used every version of Windows since version 2.0. Each one, he said, built upon the previous one. Users didn’t need to toss out their old ways of doing things when new software came along. Windows 8 ditches that tradition of continuity, he said. “Most Windows users don’t view their PCs as being broken to begin with. If you tell them ‘Oh, here’s a new version of Windows, and you have to relearn everything to use it,’ how many normal users are going to want to do that?” he asked. “I am very worried that Microsoft may be about to shoot itself in the foot spectacularly. Windows 8 is so different, he said, that many Windows users who aren’t technophiles will feel lost”. “It was very difficult to get used to,” he said. “I have an 8-year-old and a 10-year-old, and they never got used to it. They decided, and: ‘We’re just going to use Mom’s computer.” – the old one.

CO2Land org extends to Microsoft the wishes that they have made the right decision to change. However, the cold turkey approach appears odd in that they do not plan to cushion the impact of such a radical introduction, and it is further posted that computer companies have no choice but to make Windows 8 standard on practically all PCs that are sold to consumers. If we take this literally, after 26 Oct you have no choice you will go for simplicity (Windows 8).

Co2Land org source for quotes comes from “Early look at Windows 8 baffles consumers”

By PETER SVENSSON

— Oct. 19

security and authentication skills for the new order of social communications

Knowing the shortcomings of the ‘old’ SharePoint the ‘new’ is showing Microsoft is accepting commercial developers can enhance their product range. Yes, it is reported the SharePoint 2013 will allow custom development despite previous rigid discouragement. This move means some applications will be outside SharePoint and be part of a cloud-based hosting system. Check out (NASDAQ: AMZN) AWS. It also means your application can live independently of your data centre, and you “can move SharePoint among new systems–even to the cloud–without having to change the core application server”.

How did this conversation come about?  We said our customer needs are moving us to a cloud environment and a greater social communication requirement and we note SharePoint 2010 lacks the maturity of Twitter and Facebook. If we just want enterprise collaborate such as customer records management – fine, but the lack of governance-aware tools is critical in making the decision to move forward.

The discussion (with a SharePoint developer) reached agreement that sophisticated social techniques will not be well adopted in the cloud. The increase in the number of venues like Twitter, Facebook, on-premises collaboration and multiple cloud-based document stores, will challenge and be taxing times for interface integration and/or individual patience. Although SharePoint 2010 had improved social networking, it lacks the maturity of Twitter and Facebook and this is a concern for some organizations that want to adopt SharePoint social tools as an ingredient of enterprise collaboration, in part this is due to the lack of governance-aware tools. It was further stressed by Co2Land org that SharePoint as we knew it requires skilled developers as the code is complex and poorly written code has caused some negative opinions to be prevalent and when something needs correcting and be tested it can even prove when preparing for upgrades. Added to these problems SharePoint server API requirements have meant fewer applications can be matched.

We also argued our current SharePoint developer in the conversation will need to be upgrading security and authentication skills for the new order of social communications and this in part will be caused by the rise in client extranets and hybrid cloud developments such as based on python code deployments or apples support for parallel or federated authentication beyond the traditional “Active Directory with LDAP for outside users” that is tradition in on-premises datacentre deployments.

Co2Land org was then told SharePoint 2013 will solve this, goto: 3 to get ready–SharePoint 2013 apps, servers and systems – FierceContentManagement http://www.fiercecontentmanagement.com/story/3-get-ready-sharepoint-2013-apps-servers-and-systems/2012-10-07#ixzz29b8zDyJZ

What does CO2Land org see as important? We use WordPress for our coloration tool; so it makes sense to benchmark against our future needs for social communications, cloud involvement, our governance needs and any new wave coming through. We are yet to benchmark what is coming – however as we see it:

Social communications will be more evident on more premises, it will not be universally accepted. Self-sustaining social collaboration is immature and it will be incremental increase for enterprise acceptance for it to be the normal communications interface.  Third party independent software vendors will be crucial in extending social functions and governance techniques in the cloud, the demand for users to adopt Personal Content (“PCM”) to aggregate and classify their own information will only increase, and large (e.g. SharePoint) sites need to guard against users feeling a personal voice is lost.

Direct quote “Cloud adoption will accelerate due to the escalated discussion about cloud-based solutions generated by Microsoft’s (NASDAQ: MSFT) reintroduction of SharePoint Online as core element of Office 365. We’ll see more cloud adoption in both Office 365 and such third party hosting providers as Rackspace and FPWeb. However, wholesale migrations of mature SharePoint 2010 environments will not be the principal use case, partly due to restrictions on custom coded solutions and functions”. This means wholesale new thinking will be required by ‘old’ Microsoft thinkers to the ‘new’ implementations with little on-premises SharePoint history, “most likely for content migration from non-SharePoint sources (legacy ECM or file system); proofs-of-concept and pilots”. It also means a new platform for document collaboration with external partners, clients and third parties will be necessary.

Governance is what all new users onto the platform will require to exercise care, guidance and oversight. Guidance is the essential for widespread adoption, for fostering sustained growth and usage and is the how and why you need management of you communications for business intelligence, social networking and nomenclatures.

The new wave will require the ability to handle extremely large content pools, and aggregate legacy platforms and divisional rafts (SharePoint calls “islands”) into a unified application and provides a competitive cost of ownership, and be a clear framework towards enhanced scalable capacity.

Ad-hoc quotes were sourced from: Chris McNulty is a strategic product manager for SharePoint Solutions at Quest Software, and blogs at http://www.chrismcnulty.net/blog and http://www.sharepointforall.com. Our SharePoint developed was Australian based and prefers to be anonymous

EOI – the label of convenience at risk

Calling for an Expression of Interest (EOI) gives the impression of progressive policy, but ‘paused development’ is often the result. A high risk for innovation and innovators to participate is the loss of Intellectual Property (IP). In more recent times it is common for government to test reactions to hard issues that are deemed to be important, and there is a belief finding acceptance of ‘real’ truth of the purpose – the use of EOI to assign work to institutions that have been otherwise denied funding at the expense of genuine innovation. Legally this is acceptable, but the morals are questionable when you consider that the ideas come from innovation and the innovators and they are at risk of loss of IP. Before participating in EOI invitations, the best defence could be to better understand Intellectual Property Law – starting with 101.

CO2Land org can give numerous examples of brilliant ideas. Many of these fail to be taken up because the main need was not correctly evaluated. In short a market was either not ready or the opportunity for the market to mature was outside the timeframe to sustain a reasonable return to run a business.  The carbon market is a very good example of brilliant ideas and correct intentions and misreading the timeframes. It follows that the space is a long way from being mature and it is complex as we have green markets, carbon markets and clean markets and a lot of individuals and entities wanting to be in the place where it is seen to be happening.

When we have a commodity we are well protected by our reputation and brand and the profile of what is offered carries warnings on ethical behaviours and legislation for protection. It is acceptable for the society to do this especially where the standards are deficient or omit adequate definition of the goods or services. Despite all this, as an innovator, it is very difficult to protect yourself and your intellectual property. Why? Because most participants establish their trademark/logo believing it is not necessary to establish reputation in the right of the mark. If someone comes along and does a better job of using the trademark or borrowed a look of your trademark to show a better use of it – they have the reputation not you. Also it is important to consider a reputation is not a single dimension it can be words with the addition of pictures, sounds, smells, colours and shapes.  Another question related to trade marks is different entities in different classes of specific goods and services need to be named in the specific classes. It would be prudent to check this matter out if you are moving from one market opportunity to another!

Starting up 101 – Intellectual Property (IP) is just a label of convenience! IP is a number of things that range from subject matter to rights. IP falls into categories in order to get rights and longevity over those rights. The significance of the difference makes the difference in the context of enforcing rights. Conversely you cannot enforce rights you do not have.

In relation to EOI – it could be argued you are permitting others to use or exploit your IP. Before participating you should take the matter up with a specialist IP Lawyer.

Background of what is IP in practice (Australia):

IP Matter Process to approve IP Type Definite Time
Innovation/Inventions yes Patents Yes
Genuine confidential and trade secrets no Trade Secrets and confidential information (not trivial) no – but you must maintain secrecy/confidentiality
Plant varieties yes Plant breeders rights yes
Visual features of a product yes Registered design yes
Signs distinguishing goods or services provided yes Registered trade mark Rollover by renewal fees paid
Original works and aligned subject matter (written down ideas) no Copyrights yes
Original layouts of semiconductor circuits no Circuit layout rights yes