PV market saturation and manufacturer ownership

two things:

1) if a PV manufacturer is concerned with product quality rather than maximizing market share (remember that markets are psuedo spatially defined, i.e. a market could be in a town, state, nation, region, global etc...) why wouldn't they focus on maxizing their product output to a given region: the benefits would be twofold: first Energy shares would be increased as a fraction of a regional energy grid: i.e the PV manufacturer would approach market saturation within their zone of influence: i.e. the range of their distribution network:

and 2) by decreasing the size of the distribution network the producere minimizes time to delivery and allows manufacturers to reclaim products at reduced cost: as well as facilitating regional loyalty to their product AND optimizing their product (PV and supporting network/local infrastructure) for the regional conditions...

there is a caveat to the above two propositions:
PV manufacturers would have to transfer their business philosophy to service provision rather than product sales: i.e. the PV manufacturer would sell the energy of their panels to the consumer (at comparable current market rates) rather than the panel itself (i.e. manufacturer maintains ownership of the panel creating incentive to make the panel durable (without legal fees and other troubles of warranty creation and enforcement) and to constantly improve the product (i.e the company Directly reaps increased profit from an increased Quality product)... similar to the ideas laid out in Lovin's Natural Capitalism...

at pure Interactions we could do a similar deal with solar thermal set ups: the problem to solve would be attaining infrastructure to own/recycle and improve solar thermal technology...rather than just fulfilling traditional roles of contracting: however, perhaps the panel/heat tube manufacturers would be willing to retain ownership while we provide the service of optimized site design and contracted installation; as well as verification of installation quality; a pure interactions certification if you will....

In the name of the game

while global carbon markets slowly self organize along lines of maximizing profit, it is important to realize that as human beings we have no need to be driven, as automatons, by the blind laws of economics.  Whoever decided that profit maximization was a legitimate human and institutional goal?  

Why wouldn't we, as a species decide that ensuring human health and well being, along with the well being of the planet, are in fact socio-economic priorities?  It seems there needs to be more involvement in the creation of standards, even regulations, that put people and the planet first, especially in the framework of environmental policy and economics (i.e. ecosystem service oriented projects, such as carbon sequestration).  Rather than follow the blind path to further exploitation of people and our natural capital, I see this as an opportunity for pure interaction; pure in the sense that we have our motives straight, and interaction in the sense that we know the consequences of our actions.

a slight historical moment

this being our first post, i have taken the liberty of going ahead and setting this thing up, regardless of us (as pureInteractions) choosing to continue this blog through an alternate venue at a later point. Several things have precipitated this event: one a need and frustration to get out into the world and start doing/exchanging ideas with others who are interested, rather than just my friends who seem to be getting slightly sick of the crusade to save everything...

so lets get that straight, I wouldnt say that we are out to save the world: this is not another crusade; this is an honest attempt by reasonably intelligent people to create a tool, a method, and most importantly a mode of thought that can be applied to some of the more pressing problems posed by current human and environmental relations.

we will be part software, part implementation, part network, part thought and hopefully, part culture: our aim (as I see it) is to address the current disconnectednness of human beings and their environment: via waste, inefficiency, callous destruction of each other, self and other life, and most importantly, to do so through a framework that PROVIDES forward thinking solutions, rather than just another voice complaining about the eternally unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Im in cambridge trying to finish 16 things at once, so ill leave it at that for now, vague as usual: but still intent on applying ecological knowledge and systems principles to the design of human systems and modes of existence (commercial, industrial, residential, life, work, creation, and of course, food)...

cheers!