Bulletin of Electroprosumerism Markets no. 1 (6) /2023 – introduction

Let’s remember that there is always another perspective!

To start with, let’s reverse the sequence of articles presented to You, Readers of the Biuletyn RE. We do it in order to change the perspective of the on-going energy transition to an opposite one – from bottom to top – so as to familiarize the novelty shock and the shock of transition complexity. The transition that in terms of innovativeness and complexity cannot be compared with anything in the past and in case of the novelty shock we deal with a mass autonomization of electroprosumeric control front-ends relative to KSE. The article Elektroprosumeric on/off grid microinstallation (PV and a battery pack) – case study (building of the electroprosumeric resilience in the population segment) considerably helps to rationalize the novelty shock (already empiric) of the grass-roots transition on the lowest level, i.e LV, of the KSE network voltage which means in the biggest electroprosumeric segment of over 6 million detached houses (in over 6 million electroprosumeric control front-ends).

The second effect of reversing the sequence of articles is the easier (but not easy at all) rationalization of the on-going energy transition complexity. If in case of rationalization of the novelty shock the grass-roots autonomization of electroprosumeric control front-ends relative to KSE is a good reference then in case of rationalization of the energy transition complexity shock (at global level i.e. at the highest one) a hypothesis that a good reference is the fourth industrial revolution in the form shaped by Klaus Schwab i.e. focusing on technological dimension (mainly on artificial intelligence so on the technology being the successor of digital revolution and not of the third industrial one) would seem eligible. Further on this (fourth) industrial revolution, being a possible reference to the on-going energy transition, is called “potential”. And here emerges a rhetorical question: what (which) energy transition is (potentially) compatible with the potential fourth industrial revolution. The answer is only one: it is the TEE transition (energy transition to electroprosumerism). And to this transition dedicated is the article White Paper of energy transition to electroprosumerism (Part 1) specifically addressed to Poland but covering also global conditions as it is now imperatively demanded (for methodological reasons) by White Papers of every national energy transition, not only the Polish one.

So, the first article of the Biuletyn (before reversing the sequence and the last one after this reversal) is the one that by its very nature had to undertake rationalization of energy transition complexity in a global perspective. And, in this way, it led to – unexpectedly, as it was not the intention of the author commencing his work on the Polish White Paper to formulate too far going hypotheses looking like the utopia-making ones – an embarrassing (compound) question: Is not the hypothesis – timidly prophesying termination of industrial revolutions ending on the third one because of their conservative character (only imitative innovativeness relating to the foregoing three) – the answer to the global challenge of the modern world? And is it not already necessary to find alternative to the concept which is the potential fourth industrial revolution? And the TEE transition, focusing on the social dimension, is not this particular alternative? If for no other reason, it is because this transition (TEE) focused on the social dimension, though absolutely not neglecting the technological one, and taking into account the environmental and climate dimension (paradigmatic triplet of electrical monism consisting of paradigms: electroprosumeric, egzergetic and virtualizational ones) – already began a competition on a global scale (under many names while the name “TEE” is only paving itself the way) for a primacy with a perspective of administered from above transitions realized in the mode of political goals. And the one (TEE transition) that has perhaps the greatest potential of efficiency in protecting the world from derailment.

Still remains a question what role is played by the “middle” article in the Biuletyn RE: Energy transition of the Pomorskie voivodeship to elctroprosumerism (TEE) – innovation shock: heuristics initiating the building of the voivodeship electroprosumeric crisis resilience. Well, it is important in the context of familiarization both the novelty shock and the complexity shock of TEE transition in electroprosumeric control front-ends (in Poland in voivodeship front-ends) appropriate for autonomization relative to KSE on the level of distribution/regional 110 kV network determining the upper voltage limit of the electric energy market 1 i.e. the RTM (real-time market) market. Relevancy of this voltage level – as a technological prerequisite for separation of electric energy network markets 1 exploiting distibution networks (LV, MV and 110 kV) and the market 2 making use of transmission networks (EHV, 400 and 220 kV) – is crucial because this technological (empiric) prerequisite of electric energy markets division into 1 and 2 determines (entails) compatible social prerequisites of the markets. So, in this regard, electric energy markets 1 are the markets of the social market economy (belonging to electroprosumers and pretenders). Market 2 is the domain of GSTA (global forceful anti-democratic triplet). Competition on the control front-end between markets 1 and 2 becomes in this way a main tool (market) stabilizing divergencies on the whole electroprosumerising trajectory TEE (A→B). And opposition (counteraction) of the two triplets – GSTA and the paradigmatic electric monism – becomes the most transparent emanation of the growing domination of the energy transition social dimension over its technological one. Social dimension in which electroprosumerism stimulates (on a global scale) the development of a good/healthful society and blockades the insane spiral of entropic consumptionism whipped up by GSTA.

* * *

The earlier statement concerning TEE transition and saying that it has perhaps the greatest potential of efficiency in protecting the world from derailment is not an exaggeration if one can recognize that the current energy transition is nothing else than the next stage of functioning of developmental logic that underlies the previous three industrial revolutions and their social systems. The logic which nonetheless must be talked about in the past tense. And here again is the need to repeat the question whether the present energy transition itself is not a better alternative for the fourth industrial revolution (with AI in the centre) because in the case of TEE transition (break-through version of energy transition) there are many signs of it.

Especially fascinating, in this concept that is called here the potential fourth industry revolution (if it would really concern an industrial revolution), will be the relationship between technological innovations (as well as economy and economics) and social relations (systemic order) and it is this relationship which is the core of TEE if (this way or another, under this name or another one) it (TEE) spreads across the world. Much bigger world than that in which the first three industrial revolutions had taken place still before the digital revolution. It shoukd be borne in mind, without going into details, that the development of modern technical sciences and consequently the technological development being the economy (economics) base of industrial revolutions was taking place (for a long time) in a very small part of the world: in Western Europe and the United States. And the development of philosophical sciences and building of the enlightenment systemic order was passing on the parallel trajectory, “in the shadow” of the technological innovations one (and as a consequence in the shadow of economy, economics) and certainly not on the trajectory same as it (technological trajectory). This entails numerous consequences.

In particular, these technological and social trajectories were in simply terms, at different times (over a period of 300 years) and in different parts of the world (first small, but in the course of time a big one) practically “glued together” and at other times exactly the opposite – separated. Without doubt, the cradle of industrial revolutions in technological dimension are Europe (with Russia) and the United States. And here we could end this “technological” story about three industrial revolutions (even if the logic of these industrial revolutions needed their teritorially narrowed – to Europe and the USA – capitalistic genotype, empirically it does not exist any more just because the East Asia has come into the big technological play and the digital revolution swept the whole world with no exception).

And now, moving on to the social (systemic) order we can in turn conclude that the enlightenment order was definitely not the systemic order of Russia. Instead of it, there was firstly there the autocratic one, then we had 70 years of communism, and for the last 20 years we have had a new autocracy in an extremely negative form having its roots in communistic practice. On the other hand, the communism had after all its roots in the mainstream of enlightenment philosophy counterposing two systems: capitalistic and socialistic. And it is the communism that is responsible for distortions of the enlightenment socialism ideas from which there’s not much left. In turn, in Western Europe one must not forget about fascism in Italy and nazism in Germany which cast a shadow on the whole social order in the Euro-Atlantic zone. Still bigger sin on the side of the European capitalism (three industrial revolutions with a technological turbocharger) was the colonial imperialism (including the Russian and, in the final phase, the American one). In this regard, in no way can the logic of the three industrial revolutions be implemented into the potential fourth one. But we should admit the right of the whole South to postcolonial reparations regardless of what it means (may mean)in the process of constructing the new global systemic order.

There are two more sinister things that will cast a shadow on all versions of energy transition in which inexorably the social dimension begins to dominate. Things that cannot be forgotten if we want to profit from two lessons: one historical, the second – the present one. So, in the context of the GSTA triplet we must remember that – though for a short time –nazism and communism went hand in hand. Cynical non-aggresion pact signed by Germany and the USSR on 23 August 1939 – a week before the WW II began with the German attack on Poland – is a hard fact. The contemporary imperialism of the GSTA triplet is a carrier of similar exotic alliances nowadays. This time, if even not directly in favour of fossil-fuels wars, but in favour of linear growth and climatic effect as well as paramilitary nuclear energy industry that has never developed in separation from nuclear armaments. Nobody knows why the South, that already most strongly senses the impact of linear growth and climate effect in the North, could not treat the all three (and every one separately) possibilities of the GSTA triplet actions in other way than the ones aimed at it.

* * *

Digitization (digital revolution) and climate and environmental hazard totally changed conditions both in the domain of industrial revolutions and the energy reforms. The potential fourth industrial revolution, just like the present energy transition, cover the whole world and not only its developed part (the one which is the beneficiary of the first three industrial revolutions i.e. the fully electrified one and spanning hardly more than one billion people inhabiting Euro-Alantic zone and the OECD club countries). Thus there is a need to discern the expansion of the potential fourth industrial revolution in relation to the third one and it happens both on the technological (object) side as also on the side of social participation (on the population side of up to eight billion residents of the Earth). But changes in the energy transition domain are – together in the object range (technological) and in subject engagement (social) – the breakthrough ones. In turn, changes in the potential fourth industrial revolution domain have no such character but, in this case, they have clearly the character of incremental innovation (in relation to the previous three revolutions). As a result, in case of the energy transition one can (and even should) bravely speak about the novelty shock not only in the case of a detached house front-end but also in the global scale. In case of the fourth industrial revolution speaking about such (novelty) shock would be unjustified.

* * *

As to the analysis of spreading of both domains (potential fourth industrial revolution and energy transition) all over the world, the subject gaining importance now is China which was able to transform the unipolar (American) geopolitics into the bipolar one – the USA and China. This obliges us to carefully look at these technological segments which China invests in with the aim to achieve geopolitical predominance (independently on the harassing it current economic difficulties). They are undoubtly technologies of energy transition but carried out in the mode of political goals (unfortunately by the autocratic state). It means that they are the positive taxonomy technologies i.e. comprising – except small-scale RES generation technologies and an intelligent infrastructure for distributed energy – also technologies of the large-scale corporative energy industry (WEK-OZE/iEJ), state-owned (the role of oligarchs is not yet stabilized in this system except for a specific oligarchy in the form of hereditary party aristocracy). In this context there must be emphasized the China’s involvement into development of such technologies like nuclear power stations from one side (associated with armaments) and 5G and AI technologies (technologies, in which China has already achieved strategic global predominancy while inland they constitute the testing ground for building competency aimed at total surveillance of its own community).

* * *

In the aspect of energy transition it is extremely important – on its social side – to extend the political sphere and the whole systemic sphere onto the religious one. In this case it must be especially remembered that the great creators of enlightenment order did not set the bases of that order from atheistic positions but created them not discarding their “religiousness” at least such one like in this fundamental Leibniz question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”. Additionally, one must not forget that in every one of the 5 major religions (Christianity – 2 billion Christians, in which, 0,9 billion Catholics, Islam – 1,6 billion Muslims, Hinduism – 1 billion followers, Buddhism – 0,5 billion followers and Judaism – 14 mln of Jews; altogether about 5 billion followers, about 62% of the global population) the relationships between politics and religion can be completely different – starting with the ones that can be called the political-religious identity ending with the deadly hostile ones (in communism).

* * *

Here we come to the core of the problem that the world must cope with and which focuses on confrontation between progressiveness of the grassroots TEE transition paradigmatic triplet and shaping of the GSTA triplet in the imitative innovation mode (like it was historically i.e. administered from above but a little better in details). In amplification of the preceding sentence the grassroots perspective (TEE transition) is in particular the electroprosumerisation in the form of two extremes – RES re-electrification in the North and primary RES electrification in the South. In turn, the perspective of changes administered from above is – the same for the North and the South – the large-scale corporative energy industry (WEK-PK/OZE/EJ) i.e. the one based on fossil fuels, RES sources (but in a distorted form like big solar farms, huge wind farms and gigantic hydropower plants), huge nuclear power plants (in case of the North) and finally irrational (from domestic to continental) power networks as well as the twisted GSTA triplet (global, forceful, anti-democratic). It must be emphasized here that on the historical development trajectory of energy industry WEK-PK/OZE/EJ realized in the incremental innovation mode, the extent of this system distortion was much smaller than it is potentially on the trajectory of the commencing itself energy transformation in the breakthrough mode (here works the positive feedback between TEE advantages and GSTA distortions). Furthermore, it is the logic of all the previous three industrial revolutions processes. And it cannot be avoided in case of the commencing energy transition to electrprosumerism which most likely will replace the present energy industry in the (future) social-economic history.

* * *

Not long ago the Author in his editorials for recent Bulletins – RE nr 2(5)/2022 (“Energetyka” nr 11/2022) and PPTE nr 2(5)/2023 (“Energetyka” nr 4/2023 – has already formulated an expressive hypothesis concerning bonding the electroprosumerism with the correction of the systemic order. In the first article of this Bulletin (the first one before the sequence reversal described in the beginning of this article) there comes the time to strengthen this hypothesis with the help of a set of fundamental terms/definitions concerning the socio-technological TEE transition compatibility. They are in particular definitions from the conceptual area of the triplets: paradigmatic/egzergetic TEE and oligarchic/entropic GSTA. The most important of them are connected with technological taxonomy: negative TEE and positive GSTA. Moreover there are the selected definitions of legal regulations comprised in the Code of Energy Transition like the negative ones – mainly from the Electricity Act and also pilot acts to this Act like the act concerning ZWZ-KSE principle (National Energy System Resources Sharing Principle) – and positive ones, mainly Energy Law Act and acts relating to it like DURE (Second Systemic Energy Reform).

Jan Popczyk

English version: Jacek M. Dubrawski


More in the issue 8/2023 Energetyki.

Call Now Button

Jeśli chcesz kontynuować oglądanie tej strony musisz zaakceptować użycie plików cookie. Więcej informacji

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.