Smart Grids

[jackellis]

This is the kind of stuff I'm deep into. I keep telling folks it takes Grid Smart consumers to make a Smart Grid work.

[JR]

Very interesting article. I had seen television reports on this topic, mostly focusing on the transmission grid and the benefits of improvements as more generation comes from wind and solar in the West. The smart meters thing was kind of new to me.

The article mentions the challenge of setting communication standards for the various elements in the network. I imagine this can be done relatively easily for the grid, but meters presents a whole 'nother level of complexity. There are so many utility companies, each with a preference for capabiliites, that it can be difficult to get agreement on feature requirements.

Another innovation, but not mentioned in the article, is the participation of electric cars in the system. Obviously it makes sense to charge the batteries during low-cost periods. It has also been suggested that the batteries could return power to the grid during high-demand periods. There's an Israeli guy who has developed a whole system for this, focused on making the use of electric cars more convenient. His system design includes the plug interface, communication standards, billing, etc.

JR

[just started]

Sorry, it's just another way for them to give us the shaft! Once they have everyone hooked watch what happens to your total bills then.

[cgallery]

In skimming the article I read that there are times where the utility pays customers to use electricity.

I can't fathom a scenario where a utility would have costs if more people didn't start using juice.

Anyone have any ideas?

[jackellis]

Sorry, it's just another way for them to give us the shaft! Once they have everyone hooked watch what happens to your total bills then.

Well maybe. Part of my job is to keep up with what regulators are saying and thinking, and I sometimes get confused. We hear all this talk about saving energy, which I'm all for. But energy is pretty cheap. In inflation-adjusted terms, electricity is a lot cheaper today than it was back in 1910 or so when power companies were springing up like PC companies used to. So if it's relatively cheap, why do we have to conserve it? And if we have to conserve it, that means its in short supply, so why should it be cheap.

I'm not in favor of increasing the fraction of people's income that goes to paying their electricity bills. But if we (collectively) want people to use less to reduce pollution and avoid building more transmission lines and power plants, the price has to be higher. If it can't be higher, then let's stop making a fuss about conserving it.

In skimming the article I read that there are times where the utility pays customers to use electricity.

I can't fathom a scenario where a utility would have costs if more people didn't start using juice.

Anyone have any ideas?

Here's how it works in California. There are a bunch of power sources that have to run all the time, even when demand is low, including a bunch of hydro plants, cogenerators, wind machines and four nuclear reactors. They all have to tell the grid operator how much they expect to produce, and the utilities have to forecast how much consumers will take. If the amount of juice these plants produce exceeds demand, prices on the wholesale market become negative, which means some producers pay to put power on the grid and some buyers get paid to take it (the complete explanation is a bit more involved). The objective, of course, is to provide an incentive for consumers to soak up the surplus and/or generators to cut back production. As weird as it sounds, it's actually very rational and the correct thing to do, except that consumers don't have a way to know when the prices have turned negative, at least not yet. If they did, consumers with air conditioners might have good reason to buy a device that can use the A/C compressor to make ice at night that gets melted during the day to provide cooling. There are a lot of these in commercial office buildings and an outfit called Ice Energy is now making one that's sized for residences and small businesses.

[crokett]

I would love to be able to schedule things like the WH to turn off during the day when we aren't here to use it. I'd also like to be able to schedule the dishwasher like I do my coffee maker. I already run it at night after we go to bed because it is noisy, but now I guess it might be cheaper to do that.

[Kristofor]

Going out on a limb (that's about 8 feet wide), you're not going to pay any less to run at night, you just won't pay the higher rates that will be imposed during the day, or maybe only half of the increased rate .

Right now the electric company will give you a break if you let them put a controller on your AC to cycle it on and off during periods of peak demand. In the future I'd expect this to switch where they simply charge much more during the hottest days.

Energy is cheap and should be cheaper as technology/desire improve. Conservation isn't bad per se, but it's a sucker bet as long as we're still growing our population and level of development. Saving half of the electricity use on a device that's already been cut in half twice before will not keep up with even modest exponential growth in population to say nothing of the billions who would like to move up to an electrified lifestyle...

[cwithboat]

Check out the April issue of Wired magazine on fixing the grid
http://www.wired.com/science/discove...17-04/gp_intro

[LCHIEN]

In skimming the article I read that there are times where the utility pays customers to use electricity.

I can't fathom a scenario where a utility would have costs if more people didn't start using juice.

Anyone have any ideas?

each power generating utility company puts power into the grid using an array of generation plants. Some are coal fired, some are gas or oil-fired, some are nuclear, some are hydroelectric or wind-powered.

as a matter of practical practice, the utility company fires up more plants as demand increases. Normally, he uses the cheapest per KWH first, meaning wind-powered and nuclear plants first, then as demand grows they turn on more plants using the newest, most efficient hydrocarbon-burning, then finally the older, less efficient, hydro-carbon-burning last when they hit 100% capacity every plant will be running. if they go over 100% then there will be brownouts or rolling blackouts or they will have to buy excess capacity from other utilitites.

These are all large plants and some remarkably have to be started up hours before anticipated demand hits. All companies have a committee that decides, based on predicted weather and hsitorical patterns what the power demand might be and puts more generation on-line than it expects it wil need since adding a stood-down coal plant will take hours. Staff is required and large boilers have to be stoked and the steam turbines brought to 100% heat flow and matching speed before they can be connected to the grid.

So, one possible likely scenario would be a forecast blizzard (or heat wave) that does not materialize - in this case they already have the plants running and producing energy the heat stored in the boilers is going to be wated if they just shut down the plant, and of course adjoining utility comapnies will likely be in the same boat and not a customer for excess power.

[massanutten]

Sorry, it's just another way for them to give us the shaft! Once they have everyone hooked watch what happens to your total bills then.

I agree. It's too easy to say for the sake of conservation (or global warming, national duty) that "should" conserve becomes "mandatory" to conserve. I can imagine if we use too much - that's where a form of cap and trade comes in. I know I won't convince my wife to hang out the laundry to dry - so I guess it will be me! Likewise, maybe I'll only be able to do my woodworking from 2-4AM - better yet, I'll just use just hand tools for everything and work by candle light.