Is the smart grid all hot air?(austinvernon.site)
austinvernon.site
Is the smart grid all hot air?
https://austinvernon.site/blog/smartgrid.html
145 comments
This also exposes the risk of hackers (state-sponsored or otherwise) to selectively or indiscriminately deny power to people just by flipping off their meter(s).
The architecture of the GB smart grid only allows any given meter to be remotely disconnected on certain days. This is to make it impossible for an attack to disconnect more than a fraction of all meters with any one attack.
What is the mechanism by which this is allowed or disallowed? Could that also not be hacked?
It's built into the meters based on a hardware ID code, so any particular meter will only accept a certain set of highly sensitive operations on particular days. So if you need to shut off Mrs. Miggins for non-payment (not legal to do remotely without sending an engineer at present but technically possible) or switch her meter to pre-pay (which is legal) then that command might only be acceptable to the meter once every 20 days. That does mean you can't immediately do it if you're the supplier but also limits the damage that a catastrophic compromise of the smart metering security system can do.
I wonder do those meters have remote software update. And if so when we will see hack where as many as possible of them are bricked... Requiring massive operation to reconnect and replace each...
Jumper cables: not just for cars!
(don't do this)
(don't do this)
The trend should be clear now, everything that's marketed as "smart" isn't for your benefit, but for the $$$ of someone else.
I don't understand this sentiment. Utilities already can and do sacrificially shut off parts of the grid to prevent greater outages, this isn't giving them a capability they don't already have except for increased granularity and hopefully inconveniencing fewer people.
More granular targeting is potentially concerning in itself depending on your threat model - e.g. if it's only possible to attack an entire town, then you're safe as long as any actor is not willing to attack the entire town, and likely to have allies in your neighbors if they do. If it's possible to attack all of the people who I don't like in that town specifically, that changes things.
Also, the smart meters do more than just enable remote shut-off on a per unit basis, they also allow for more granular data capture around your usage patterns throughout the day, which someone might not appreciate for a number of reasons, e.g. viewing that data as private, or preferring flat-rate billing as opposed to the time of day based pricing schemes that it enables.
More generally, these sorts of systems are not without their advantages, but they are characterized by an increase in centralized control and surveillance.
Also, the smart meters do more than just enable remote shut-off on a per unit basis, they also allow for more granular data capture around your usage patterns throughout the day, which someone might not appreciate for a number of reasons, e.g. viewing that data as private, or preferring flat-rate billing as opposed to the time of day based pricing schemes that it enables.
More generally, these sorts of systems are not without their advantages, but they are characterized by an increase in centralized control and surveillance.
The claim wasn’t that there was an increase in control beyond that which you acknowledge (improved granularity) - it was about how that new power will be used.
It could be used to avoid unnecessarily inconveniencing customers, as you suggest, or it could be used to improve the strength of utility companies’ positions in disputes. Perhaps both?
It could be used to avoid unnecessarily inconveniencing customers, as you suggest, or it could be used to improve the strength of utility companies’ positions in disputes. Perhaps both?
I finished a project on a smart meter with a remote disconnect in late 2021 for an African client.
You would not believe how much more money they began to make once they started selling power using scratch cards. It was n-times the difference.
People, paradoxically, spend more when they can easily see how much they spend.
You would not believe how much more money they began to make once they started selling power using scratch cards. It was n-times the difference.
People, paradoxically, spend more when they can easily see how much they spend.
This is the "You don't need to pay the whole price, pay only what you use" scam. Based on the fact that people don't know how much they need and when they need it. Like electricity being cheaper at night or at certain hours but being mainly used during the day (those people cannot afford electric cars, they have to wash during the day with a noisy washing machine and they have to cook during the day).
Water tank and water pipe analogies fail pretty fast when it comes to thinking about electricity. Keeping grids energized by real-time management of supply and demand is not much like keeping water or gas flowing through pipes.
If you want to examine smart grids, it's strange to ignore what's been developed in Germany and NW Europe over several decades. A lot of this revolves around fast communication strategies and supply/demand prediction algorithms:
https://eu.landisgyr.com/blog/grid-control-the-future-of-the...
> "To be able to operate this complex solution infrastructure, Netze BW has applied a so called “traffic light concept”. The green light indicates that no congestion is predicted, while the yellow light is a sign of a potential bottleneck in the grid that might require certain restrictive measures by the market players. For example, a Virtual Power Plant operator would adjust the operating mode of its storage and generation assets to avoid predicted transformer overload. However, despite these actions taken during the yellow phase, the actual technical limits of the electricity network might still be violated in real time due to unforeseen events. In this case, the red light would call for immediate mitigation measures enabled automatically by the REMS system."
If you want to examine smart grids, it's strange to ignore what's been developed in Germany and NW Europe over several decades. A lot of this revolves around fast communication strategies and supply/demand prediction algorithms:
https://eu.landisgyr.com/blog/grid-control-the-future-of-the...
> "To be able to operate this complex solution infrastructure, Netze BW has applied a so called “traffic light concept”. The green light indicates that no congestion is predicted, while the yellow light is a sign of a potential bottleneck in the grid that might require certain restrictive measures by the market players. For example, a Virtual Power Plant operator would adjust the operating mode of its storage and generation assets to avoid predicted transformer overload. However, despite these actions taken during the yellow phase, the actual technical limits of the electricity network might still be violated in real time due to unforeseen events. In this case, the red light would call for immediate mitigation measures enabled automatically by the REMS system."
> Water tank and water pipe analogies fail pretty fast when it comes to thinking about electricity.
In what ways does this analogy fail, for the purposes of understanding power grids?
In what ways does this analogy fail, for the purposes of understanding power grids?
The fact that the AC power grid is synchronous is very unlike any water/gas system:
> "In a synchronous grid, all the generators naturally lock together electrically and run at the same frequency, and stay very nearly in phase with each other...Small deviations from the nominal system frequency are very important in regulating individual generators and assessing the equilibrium of the grid as a whole. When the grid is heavily loaded, the frequency slows, and governors adjust their generators so that more power is output (droop speed control). When the grid is lightly loaded the grid frequency runs above the nominal frequency, and this is taken as an indication by Automatic Generation Control systems across the network that generators should reduce their output."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_area_synchronous_grid#Fre...
Cascading power grid failures might be another good example:
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aan3184
> "In a synchronous grid, all the generators naturally lock together electrically and run at the same frequency, and stay very nearly in phase with each other...Small deviations from the nominal system frequency are very important in regulating individual generators and assessing the equilibrium of the grid as a whole. When the grid is heavily loaded, the frequency slows, and governors adjust their generators so that more power is output (droop speed control). When the grid is lightly loaded the grid frequency runs above the nominal frequency, and this is taken as an indication by Automatic Generation Control systems across the network that generators should reduce their output."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_area_synchronous_grid#Fre...
Cascading power grid failures might be another good example:
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aan3184
We are talking about electrical water analogies.
Stability issues are beyond the network being electrical and correspond to the electromechanical dynamics of the grid.
These types of analogies are very sound and well studied [1].
Great power engineering books, such as Olle Elgerd's Electric Energy System Theory, make extensive use of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical–electrical_analogie...
Stability issues are beyond the network being electrical and correspond to the electromechanical dynamics of the grid.
These types of analogies are very sound and well studied [1].
Great power engineering books, such as Olle Elgerd's Electric Energy System Theory, make extensive use of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical–electrical_analogie...
The water pipe - electrical circuit analogy is not necessarily horrible for DC circuits, but I think it becomes an impediment to learning pretty quickly. There's no water model that works for things like p-n silicon junctions for example.
There's also the fact that transmission of energy by fluid in a pipe (sound wave speed I think) isn't anywhere near as fast as transmission of energy in a wire by electric fields, even though the electrons themselves aren't really moving that fast at all in bulk (*drift velocity is low). There's a 'pipe full of marbles' analogy for that effect, but the actual energy is carried by the electric field, not by a flow of electrons as with a flow of water through a water turbine. There's also the Drude model which treats the electrons as something like an ideal gas with electrons scattering off the positive metal ions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drude_model
However if you get into band theory of solids as a means of explaining conductors, insulators and semiconductors, anything related to a water pipe analogy falls apart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_band_structure
There's also the fact that transmission of energy by fluid in a pipe (sound wave speed I think) isn't anywhere near as fast as transmission of energy in a wire by electric fields, even though the electrons themselves aren't really moving that fast at all in bulk (*drift velocity is low). There's a 'pipe full of marbles' analogy for that effect, but the actual energy is carried by the electric field, not by a flow of electrons as with a flow of water through a water turbine. There's also the Drude model which treats the electrons as something like an ideal gas with electrons scattering off the positive metal ions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drude_model
However if you get into band theory of solids as a means of explaining conductors, insulators and semiconductors, anything related to a water pipe analogy falls apart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_band_structure
A specific analogy doesn't have to be used forever. You can drop it when it starts being problematic.
Asked a different way, what didn't work for the purposes of this article? It's at a high enough level that "becomes an impediment" isn't really an issue. Nor are "p-n silicon junctions". Nor the speed of transmission.
Asked a different way, what didn't work for the purposes of this article? It's at a high enough level that "becomes an impediment" isn't really an issue. Nor are "p-n silicon junctions". Nor the speed of transmission.
That's the concern being raised. It's indeed problematic to use a water bucket/pipe analogy in an AC grid when talking about transmission and generation of power, and related things like spinning reserves. (It's less problematic when discussing energy.)
The water analogy is perfectly fine to use to talk about the bulk AC transmission grid (which is low-frequency alternating current).
photochemsyn speaks about how the hydraulic phenomena is not adequate to describe some electronic aspects (e.g., modeling p-n silicon junctions). These issues are irrelevant to how well the hydraulic analogy works to describe the workings of the AC transmission grid.
photochemsyn speaks about how the hydraulic phenomena is not adequate to describe some electronic aspects (e.g., modeling p-n silicon junctions). These issues are irrelevant to how well the hydraulic analogy works to describe the workings of the AC transmission grid.
Yep, exactly my point. For the purposes of this explanation in the article the analogy works fine, hence why I'm asking what exactly didn't work.
That it doesn't work in all possible cases talking about A/C transmission doesn't really impact its use as an analogy in a high-level view of the grid.
That it doesn't work in all possible cases talking about A/C transmission doesn't really impact its use as an analogy in a high-level view of the grid.
There are many aspects where the analogy is flawed, when talking about the electrical grid, e.g. you will have different types of loads (capacitive, resistive, inductive) and those loads will change the way your grid behaves. This is not something that you have in fluid dynamics at all (to my knowledge) yet any grid operator who would ignore such things would have their gear just explode.
A load being inductive, capacitive, or reactive has to do with its impedance, which is a concept related to the steady-state analysis of AC networks.
The hydraulic analogy easily extends here - just imagine water flowing back and forth.
This is well studied [1] and power engineering books make use of this analogy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_analogy.
The hydraulic analogy easily extends here - just imagine water flowing back and forth.
This is well studied [1] and power engineering books make use of this analogy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_analogy.
I had a great teacher try to explain thusly:
The grid is a heavy rope that you are trying to keep tension on so that it doesn't touch the ground. One side of the rope is the power station, the other end splits and frays into individual strands that connect to every meter on that grid.
Strands are continually, almost randomly, disconnected (let go), reconnected (picked up), and the amount of "pull" on the rope each strand creates will vary (usage fluctuations). This means the power station needs to continually be adjusting how much it "pulls" on the rope to maintain tension and keep it from dropping.
I like this one because it not only avoids water and pipes and cuts to the core of the balance issue that is going on. It's not "thing A flows from point B to point C" but rather "this is an active system and careful balancing act".
That being said I recognize that the water pipe models are well studied, even in how they successfully model some aspects (and fail to capture others) of electrical grids.
The grid is a heavy rope that you are trying to keep tension on so that it doesn't touch the ground. One side of the rope is the power station, the other end splits and frays into individual strands that connect to every meter on that grid.
Strands are continually, almost randomly, disconnected (let go), reconnected (picked up), and the amount of "pull" on the rope each strand creates will vary (usage fluctuations). This means the power station needs to continually be adjusting how much it "pulls" on the rope to maintain tension and keep it from dropping.
I like this one because it not only avoids water and pipes and cuts to the core of the balance issue that is going on. It's not "thing A flows from point B to point C" but rather "this is an active system and careful balancing act".
That being said I recognize that the water pipe models are well studied, even in how they successfully model some aspects (and fail to capture others) of electrical grids.
Well, for one, if you get low pressure in one set of water pipes the entire water grid doesn't attempt to collapse because it goes out of sync.
The grid is a gigantic clock that at least in the US is running at 60 ticks per second. This is pretty easy to manage if you have some massive power source on it like gigantic turbines at a nuclear power plant. All your small clocks aren't going to push that around so much.
The problems come in when all you have is small clocks, who sets the phase of the grid?
The grid is a gigantic clock that at least in the US is running at 60 ticks per second. This is pretty easy to manage if you have some massive power source on it like gigantic turbines at a nuclear power plant. All your small clocks aren't going to push that around so much.
The problems come in when all you have is small clocks, who sets the phase of the grid?
https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/inertia-and-the-power...
> “We find that replacing conventional generators with inverter-based resources, including wind, solar PV, and certain types of energy storage, has two counterbalancing effects,” said Paul Denholm, NREL principal energy analyst and lead author of the guide. “First, it’s true that these resources decrease the amount of inertia available on the system. But second, these resources can reduce the amount of inertia actually needed
> “Ultimately, although growth in inverter-based resources will reduce the amount of inertia on the grid, there are multiple existing or possible solutions for maintaining or improving system reliability,” Denholm said. “So, declines in inertia do not pose significant technical or economic barriers to significant growth in wind, solar, and storage to well beyond today’s levels for most of the United States.”
> “We find that replacing conventional generators with inverter-based resources, including wind, solar PV, and certain types of energy storage, has two counterbalancing effects,” said Paul Denholm, NREL principal energy analyst and lead author of the guide. “First, it’s true that these resources decrease the amount of inertia available on the system. But second, these resources can reduce the amount of inertia actually needed
> “Ultimately, although growth in inverter-based resources will reduce the amount of inertia on the grid, there are multiple existing or possible solutions for maintaining or improving system reliability,” Denholm said. “So, declines in inertia do not pose significant technical or economic barriers to significant growth in wind, solar, and storage to well beyond today’s levels for most of the United States.”
The NREL inertia video explainer felt a little like it was begging the question - "inertia protects the grid because it has inertia and keeps spinning" - it doesn't quite feel like it explains where the extra energy comes from or goes, just that the mass keeps spinning. (I also haven't had a physics class in a long long time so some of this is not obvious to me, except that I understand from just common sense that if something's spinning you had to put a bunch of energy into getting it going in the first place and it's going to keep going if left on its own)
Anyway, I was hoping someone could fill in some details for me. Imagine a simplified grid: a dam that sends water through a penstock past a turbine/generator and into an electrical circuit, and a couple of resistance heaters on the other side of the circuit. The energy comes from water flowing through the dam - the dam operator opens up the sluice gate to let water flow through, the generator extracts the mechanical energy and turns it into electrical energy and it goes down the wire to the resistance heater where it gets turned into heat energy. Everything is balanced - the right amount of water is flowing through the dam to turn the turbine at the right speed to balance out all of the energy flowing through the wires and into the resistance heaters (and lost along the way, like losses in the transmission lines, etc). In this setup, there's some measure of pressure that turbine pushes back against the water flowing through the penstock of the dam, which is balanced out by how much pressure is coming from the water behind the dam and the pressure being put on the surface area of the penstock in the dam and the pressure being relieved by the water leaving the dam.
I get that thanks to inertia, if the sluice gate accidentally slams shut and all water stops flowing through the dam, the turbine is going to keep spinning for a bit and energy is going to keep going out onto the grid, though it will start to slow down due to friction at the turbine and energy being extracted from the system by the resistance heaters on the other end of the grid.
What I'm less clear about is how does inertia help when the water keeps flowing at the regular speed but when demand drops from the grid load. Let's say one of the resistance heaters turns off in a home somewhere - what happens to the energy from the water that was previously flowing into the grid via the turbine? Does the inertia in the spinning of the turbine somehow push back against the water flowing the dam, slowing the water down a bit/building pressure up in the penstock and behind the dam - with that pressure buildup being exactly equal to the energy that used to be going into the resistance heater? And that pressure either stays built up from the turbine until someone lowers the sluice gate a bit to cut back on the waterflow through the dam? Or does nothing involving inertia happen here - if the resistance heater gets turned off the overall load is reduced and the turbine spins a bit faster because there's less pushing back on it, and the water can move through the dam a bit faster, and the turbine just spins faster until someone notices it's going a bit too fast and the gate needs to be lowered so it drops back to rotating at 60hz?
Similarly, if someone turns on another resistance heater and now more energy is needed on the grid, but the sluice gate isn't opened up immediately, is inertia involved here somehow? If the turbine has to push harder on the grid side because of extra load, presumably the turbine slows down? Or does the turbine get pulled along by the new load somehow (more inertia?), and so more water can push past the turbine, giving it the extra energy it needs (and presumably dropping the water pressure in the penstock in the dam? And the pressure stays low until the sluice gate is opened up a bit more and more water can flow through the dam?)
I am using water pressure from a dam here, but I assume this would be equally true in a gas plant generating steam - if more energy is needed, the pressure in the steam drops until someone turns up the burner and creates more steam, etc, or if less steam is needed the pressure just builds up until someone notices and turns down the burner?
If anyone can explain how inertia and the grid translates into changes in the actual source of energy, I'd much appreciate it!
Anyway, I was hoping someone could fill in some details for me. Imagine a simplified grid: a dam that sends water through a penstock past a turbine/generator and into an electrical circuit, and a couple of resistance heaters on the other side of the circuit. The energy comes from water flowing through the dam - the dam operator opens up the sluice gate to let water flow through, the generator extracts the mechanical energy and turns it into electrical energy and it goes down the wire to the resistance heater where it gets turned into heat energy. Everything is balanced - the right amount of water is flowing through the dam to turn the turbine at the right speed to balance out all of the energy flowing through the wires and into the resistance heaters (and lost along the way, like losses in the transmission lines, etc). In this setup, there's some measure of pressure that turbine pushes back against the water flowing through the penstock of the dam, which is balanced out by how much pressure is coming from the water behind the dam and the pressure being put on the surface area of the penstock in the dam and the pressure being relieved by the water leaving the dam.
I get that thanks to inertia, if the sluice gate accidentally slams shut and all water stops flowing through the dam, the turbine is going to keep spinning for a bit and energy is going to keep going out onto the grid, though it will start to slow down due to friction at the turbine and energy being extracted from the system by the resistance heaters on the other end of the grid.
What I'm less clear about is how does inertia help when the water keeps flowing at the regular speed but when demand drops from the grid load. Let's say one of the resistance heaters turns off in a home somewhere - what happens to the energy from the water that was previously flowing into the grid via the turbine? Does the inertia in the spinning of the turbine somehow push back against the water flowing the dam, slowing the water down a bit/building pressure up in the penstock and behind the dam - with that pressure buildup being exactly equal to the energy that used to be going into the resistance heater? And that pressure either stays built up from the turbine until someone lowers the sluice gate a bit to cut back on the waterflow through the dam? Or does nothing involving inertia happen here - if the resistance heater gets turned off the overall load is reduced and the turbine spins a bit faster because there's less pushing back on it, and the water can move through the dam a bit faster, and the turbine just spins faster until someone notices it's going a bit too fast and the gate needs to be lowered so it drops back to rotating at 60hz?
Similarly, if someone turns on another resistance heater and now more energy is needed on the grid, but the sluice gate isn't opened up immediately, is inertia involved here somehow? If the turbine has to push harder on the grid side because of extra load, presumably the turbine slows down? Or does the turbine get pulled along by the new load somehow (more inertia?), and so more water can push past the turbine, giving it the extra energy it needs (and presumably dropping the water pressure in the penstock in the dam? And the pressure stays low until the sluice gate is opened up a bit more and more water can flow through the dam?)
I am using water pressure from a dam here, but I assume this would be equally true in a gas plant generating steam - if more energy is needed, the pressure in the steam drops until someone turns up the burner and creates more steam, etc, or if less steam is needed the pressure just builds up until someone notices and turns down the burner?
If anyone can explain how inertia and the grid translates into changes in the actual source of energy, I'd much appreciate it!
I think the very simplified idea is that inertia slows down how rapidly the generators slow down respectively speed up in response to load changes, thereby giving you a better chance of adjusting power generation to match the new load.
If your ratio of inertia to power demand variability is too low, then any sudden change in power demand will lead to your generator rapidly spinning up/slowing down before (in the case of your imagined dam) you have any chance of de-/increasing the water supply to the turbines as required. If it slows down or speeds up too much, then whoops you're hitting the grid frequency limits, power trips, and you've got a blackout.
If it spins up too much and too rapidly it might even exceed the mechanical limits of the generator, though normally real-life systems should of course always be designed to be capable of safely handling even a complete load trip, because there's always the possibility of a tree suddenly falling onto a power line or whatnot…
With sufficient inertia on the other hand, any mismatch between power generation and power demand now only manifests itself as your generators gradually starting to spin faster/slower, giving you enough time to adjust the water supply valves as required.
If your ratio of inertia to power demand variability is too low, then any sudden change in power demand will lead to your generator rapidly spinning up/slowing down before (in the case of your imagined dam) you have any chance of de-/increasing the water supply to the turbines as required. If it slows down or speeds up too much, then whoops you're hitting the grid frequency limits, power trips, and you've got a blackout.
If it spins up too much and too rapidly it might even exceed the mechanical limits of the generator, though normally real-life systems should of course always be designed to be capable of safely handling even a complete load trip, because there's always the possibility of a tree suddenly falling onto a power line or whatnot…
With sufficient inertia on the other hand, any mismatch between power generation and power demand now only manifests itself as your generators gradually starting to spin faster/slower, giving you enough time to adjust the water supply valves as required.
In the pipes analogy, pressure corresponds to potential energy (voltage). Low voltage conditions does not necessarily trigger frequency stability issues.
Grid synchronization is a different issue to the electrical-hydraulic analogy (which, by the way, was the one that Maxwell used and its pretty useful). Grid synchronization comes from the fact that electrical quantities in the network (current, voltage) are alternating periodic. Generators, which are usually mechanical, oscillate and induce such periodic signals. The system must remain synchronized. But this has nothing to do with the network being electrical.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_analogy
Grid synchronization is a different issue to the electrical-hydraulic analogy (which, by the way, was the one that Maxwell used and its pretty useful). Grid synchronization comes from the fact that electrical quantities in the network (current, voltage) are alternating periodic. Generators, which are usually mechanical, oscillate and induce such periodic signals. The system must remain synchronized. But this has nothing to do with the network being electrical.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_analogy
For one the "water" moves near light speed effectively and tanks andand reservoirs are far more expensive, and gravity doesn't meaningfully apply. And there is some leakage with distance. And you cannot use a turbine to generate water from torque. Even if many equation structures are the same as fluid mechanics the assumptions break from differences.
> The "water" moves near light speed effectively
This is not how the hydraulic analogy works. The "speed" of the water is irrelevant. The analogy is used to understand losses, energy balance, energy conservation, reactive power, etc.
The hydraulic analogy is very sound.
This is not how the hydraulic analogy works. The "speed" of the water is irrelevant. The analogy is used to understand losses, energy balance, energy conservation, reactive power, etc.
The hydraulic analogy is very sound.
> Small Wind Turbines
> Car companies have been relentlessly making electric motors (which generate electricity if spun backward) smaller and cheaper. A small wind turbine only has to be cheaper than retail electricity rates.
It likely won't be cheaper. Small wind turbines have very high levelized cost of energy because:
- The wind at the lower heights they are built at is multiple times weaker and also less consistent than the wind that large turbines can access.
- The power output of a wind turbine is a function of swept area, which is the square of blade length and therefore very limited with small turbines.
No matter the efficiency of the generator it can't make power that the blades can't capture.
Small wind turbines only make sense in off-grid setups in areas with poor solar resources.
> Car companies have been relentlessly making electric motors (which generate electricity if spun backward) smaller and cheaper. A small wind turbine only has to be cheaper than retail electricity rates.
It likely won't be cheaper. Small wind turbines have very high levelized cost of energy because:
- The wind at the lower heights they are built at is multiple times weaker and also less consistent than the wind that large turbines can access.
- The power output of a wind turbine is a function of swept area, which is the square of blade length and therefore very limited with small turbines.
No matter the efficiency of the generator it can't make power that the blades can't capture.
Small wind turbines only make sense in off-grid setups in areas with poor solar resources.
Solar panels continue to get better, and storage unit s getting cheaper. 140 wh/kg sodium ion will be a game changer for home batteries.
Imo the future is more independent home generation while the grid is backup and for commercial and ev recharge needs, outside of urban areas. That will be a far more resilient overall system.
Lcoe of non grid solar is high, but I believe this could be greatly improved with federal leadership and incentives. Of course that means opposing the power lobby
Imo the future is more independent home generation while the grid is backup and for commercial and ev recharge needs, outside of urban areas. That will be a far more resilient overall system.
Lcoe of non grid solar is high, but I believe this could be greatly improved with federal leadership and incentives. Of course that means opposing the power lobby
What about solar for commercial buildings with large roof surface area, and/or multifamily homes and apartment buildings? Are the costs better in those situations?
They certainly should be in theory.
There are basically two industries: grid, and residential. A massive plant like a car factory has a huge roof, they might be able to get the grid people to show up with their contracts.
Multi-family homes would probably be punted to the residential sector.
Part of the residential issue may be that the utilities are so balkanized across the US. If we had some national residential companies that could do aggressive negotiation and train and cost-cap installation...
Tesla solar was doing some interesting stuff with google maps for initial estimates, and the like. General Electric once upon a time before Jack Welch turned it into a hollowed-out zombie would have been another.
The power companies can't be trusted, fundamentally you'd be paying them to undermine their raison-de-etre: centralized power generation and central importance of the grid. No CEO looks at "hey, how about you distribute and lose control and ownership of your core product" and jumps at that thought. You need a well-funded external player.
Honestly, some company like Uber who DGAF about local regulations and has a playbook for providing a service with overwhelming value and using that to completely undermine the balkanized local regulations and entrenched power structures.
Uber sucks for many reasons, but the taxi services SUCKED and were local monopolies, and Uber pushed them to modernize to some degree.
There are basically two industries: grid, and residential. A massive plant like a car factory has a huge roof, they might be able to get the grid people to show up with their contracts.
Multi-family homes would probably be punted to the residential sector.
Part of the residential issue may be that the utilities are so balkanized across the US. If we had some national residential companies that could do aggressive negotiation and train and cost-cap installation...
Tesla solar was doing some interesting stuff with google maps for initial estimates, and the like. General Electric once upon a time before Jack Welch turned it into a hollowed-out zombie would have been another.
The power companies can't be trusted, fundamentally you'd be paying them to undermine their raison-de-etre: centralized power generation and central importance of the grid. No CEO looks at "hey, how about you distribute and lose control and ownership of your core product" and jumps at that thought. You need a well-funded external player.
Honestly, some company like Uber who DGAF about local regulations and has a playbook for providing a service with overwhelming value and using that to completely undermine the balkanized local regulations and entrenched power structures.
Uber sucks for many reasons, but the taxi services SUCKED and were local monopolies, and Uber pushed them to modernize to some degree.
One thing I'd really like to see more of is demand management - specifically ripple switches for eletric boilers
1) 1950s era technology, so well understood
2) Comically cheap vs storage
3) Instant response
4) No/low inconvencience - well insulated boilers hold temp of 24hr+
It's such an easy win to shave the top off the evening peak & thus reduces need for battery storage.
1) 1950s era technology, so well understood
2) Comically cheap vs storage
3) Instant response
4) No/low inconvencience - well insulated boilers hold temp of 24hr+
It's such an easy win to shave the top off the evening peak & thus reduces need for battery storage.
Smart demand management hasn't been rolled out because there are many different people involved who would all like to pocket the profits.
Eg. a tesla plugged in at 6pm could shift it's charging time to earn quite a profit on the realtime-priced wholesale electricity markets.
* Tesla et al (the company) would like to make that money - in the lifetime of a car, it could be tens of thousands of dollars. They propose to do it with 'virtual power plants' which can make/use power and trade on the power market.
* The homeowner would like to make that money too. Through the use of manually setting timers to use power at cheaper times and having a peak/off-peak plan.
* The electricity distributor would like to make that money - by mandating that devices like cars and water heaters be remotely controllable by them, so that they can buy less of the most expensive power generation.
* Electricity generators would like to make that money too - by not doing any demand management, prices vary more widely, and they get big profits when they can spin up gas turbines to cover that peak demand.
Technically, none of the above ideas are hard to implement - but each party blocks policies and rules that move in the direction of someone else making the money.
Eg. a tesla plugged in at 6pm could shift it's charging time to earn quite a profit on the realtime-priced wholesale electricity markets.
* Tesla et al (the company) would like to make that money - in the lifetime of a car, it could be tens of thousands of dollars. They propose to do it with 'virtual power plants' which can make/use power and trade on the power market.
* The homeowner would like to make that money too. Through the use of manually setting timers to use power at cheaper times and having a peak/off-peak plan.
* The electricity distributor would like to make that money - by mandating that devices like cars and water heaters be remotely controllable by them, so that they can buy less of the most expensive power generation.
* Electricity generators would like to make that money too - by not doing any demand management, prices vary more widely, and they get big profits when they can spin up gas turbines to cover that peak demand.
Technically, none of the above ideas are hard to implement - but each party blocks policies and rules that move in the direction of someone else making the money.
SRP in Phoenix Arizona has a form of this, I’m currently switching to it.
They have peak/off-peak rates with an additional monthly fee based off your maximum kilowatt usage in any 30minute on-peak interval. They also integrate with an ecobee thermostat (and give a $100 credit for buying them - just got two for $50 a piece) and will automatically adjust your thermostat up by at most 4 degrees during on-peak conservation events where demand is spiking in the valley. They can even pre-cool your house by 2 degrees prior to the event on off-peak rates to try and comfortably get you through the conservation event.
I’ve configured my pool pump to turn off during peak hours and will avoid doing dishes and laundry during peak. I imported last years hourly usage into spreadsheet and ran the numbers. If my math is right, I should save on average between $100 and $200 per month on electric (I’ve had winter bills as low as $150 and summer bills as high as $750!).
They have peak/off-peak rates with an additional monthly fee based off your maximum kilowatt usage in any 30minute on-peak interval. They also integrate with an ecobee thermostat (and give a $100 credit for buying them - just got two for $50 a piece) and will automatically adjust your thermostat up by at most 4 degrees during on-peak conservation events where demand is spiking in the valley. They can even pre-cool your house by 2 degrees prior to the event on off-peak rates to try and comfortably get you through the conservation event.
I’ve configured my pool pump to turn off during peak hours and will avoid doing dishes and laundry during peak. I imported last years hourly usage into spreadsheet and ran the numbers. If my math is right, I should save on average between $100 and $200 per month on electric (I’ve had winter bills as low as $150 and summer bills as high as $750!).
What is your $/kwh rate? I've also been a resident of the desert southwest, but that bill seems insane, about 5x what my bills were. At the time, I think we were paying around $0.13/kwh peak and $0.09/kwh off-peak. You may just have a much nicer/bigger spread, though
I’m currently on the Basic Plan: https://www.srpnet.com/prices/home/basic.aspx
Between $0.0829 and $0.1299 depending on peak/off-peak and seasonal. 3k sq ft house built in 2004.
Switching to their Time Of Use Demand plan, which it doesn’t seem like they have a public page for. It’s substantially cheaper per kwh than TOU - as low as $0.03 - but they have a fee for your peak demand in the month as high as $17 per excess kw.
Between $0.0829 and $0.1299 depending on peak/off-peak and seasonal. 3k sq ft house built in 2004.
Switching to their Time Of Use Demand plan, which it doesn’t seem like they have a public page for. It’s substantially cheaper per kwh than TOU - as low as $0.03 - but they have a fee for your peak demand in the month as high as $17 per excess kw.
I can't imagine wasting that much water by having a pool in Phoenix, insane
I don’t (currently) think water is wasted in any meaningful way by my swimming pool. When it evaporates it turns to water vapor. Then it comes back down as liquid water when it rains. There is an argument that we put extra work into this water to transport it and make it potable - but PHX’s water is positive sum. Water demand in the valley is accounted for during construction and sourcing it is part of the project cost. I’m also prepared to pay the cost of continued sourcing of water over time as the valley grows - including projects like desalination.
When the Colorado river starts to reach the ocean again, then maybe this attitude can be tolerated.
Right now, your comments are shockingly ignorant.
Voodoo accounting is all over the west. You can tell by the water levels, which is the "final accounting".
Right now, your comments are shockingly ignorant.
Voodoo accounting is all over the west. You can tell by the water levels, which is the "final accounting".
Arizona takes a very practical approach to water management which is part of why I chose to live here. We take a true positive sum approach that I believe in, humans can do this. We find water where it exists and transport it into a desert. We’ve built a human settlement in a space where very little life has chosen to live - distancing ourselves from the biosphere seems like a solid play.
Our approach to water is part of why we are able to give up so much from our pull on Lake Mead during this drought. Nevada is giving up 21k acre-feet, Mexico 80k af, and AZ is giving up a whopping 512k af. Nothing as far as I know for cutbacks from CA's draw.
If it doesn’t work out, I dont understand a worst case scenario less than “move closer to water”
Our approach to water is part of why we are able to give up so much from our pull on Lake Mead during this drought. Nevada is giving up 21k acre-feet, Mexico 80k af, and AZ is giving up a whopping 512k af. Nothing as far as I know for cutbacks from CA's draw.
If it doesn’t work out, I dont understand a worst case scenario less than “move closer to water”
I'm not an AZ resident but this seems the exact opposite of sustainable. It sounds like mining: yes, technically the metal or whatever is still somewhere out there in the world, but no longer usable or accessible to humans after it has been used the first time.
Using water is sustainable - life has been doing it since the beginning - it's where you pull that water from that really matters. Water has a natural cycle where the earth recycles it. Sustainability is making sure your draw from earth's reservoirs are in balance with the rate the earth is replenishing them.
If you pump water out of your groundwater table faster than the water cycle replenishes it - that isn't sustainable. If you draw from lakes faster than the water shed and streams replenish them - that isn't sustainable.
The Salt River Project in Arizona carefully monitors the water shed, reservoir levels, and ground water levels to sustainably provide water to the valley. Arizona seeks out new sources of water that will provide sustainable water moving forward. When we build - we take water demand into consideration and source water upfront. Yes we have pools and water parks, but we plan for those and work to make them sustainable. We don't just let almond farmers tap our ground water and drain our water tables like some neighboring states. It helps that the only solution for us is a sustainable solution; the only way to survive here in the desert is to have a sustainable water supply.
To GP's point, many of these measurements are showing that humans are unsustainably pulling from these reservoirs. The levels are dropping, lakes are running dry, and rivers aren't making it to the ocean. But, when I look at the numbers, I can't say it's Arizona causing that. Arizona seems to be doing it's diligence in sustainably using water. I can't say the same for our neighboring states.
If you pump water out of your groundwater table faster than the water cycle replenishes it - that isn't sustainable. If you draw from lakes faster than the water shed and streams replenish them - that isn't sustainable.
The Salt River Project in Arizona carefully monitors the water shed, reservoir levels, and ground water levels to sustainably provide water to the valley. Arizona seeks out new sources of water that will provide sustainable water moving forward. When we build - we take water demand into consideration and source water upfront. Yes we have pools and water parks, but we plan for those and work to make them sustainable. We don't just let almond farmers tap our ground water and drain our water tables like some neighboring states. It helps that the only solution for us is a sustainable solution; the only way to survive here in the desert is to have a sustainable water supply.
To GP's point, many of these measurements are showing that humans are unsustainably pulling from these reservoirs. The levels are dropping, lakes are running dry, and rivers aren't making it to the ocean. But, when I look at the numbers, I can't say it's Arizona causing that. Arizona seems to be doing it's diligence in sustainably using water. I can't say the same for our neighboring states.
"Arizona seeks out new sources of water that will provide sustainable water moving forward."
We need breathing room!
Arizona is a desert, and there are ... googles ... 7 million people living there that should not be. There are 300 golf courses! There should be ZERO open air heavily-manicured grass golf courses in a landlocked desert.
When people joke that if you want to settle mars, let's settle Antarctica, it's closer and easier to do... well, the REAL settling-mars project is Arizona.
I've also heard that Las Vegas, another middle of the desert atrocity, is also 100% water efficient.
I've also been told about things like "clean coal", "fracking doesn't turn farmers water on fire", "pesticides are safe", "global warming isn't real", and a host of other big fat lies that you'll only discover are wrong in the future when it is too late.
So either you are being mendacious, or you are happily eating the big lie served up to you on a platter.
Humanity is so screwed.
We need breathing room!
Arizona is a desert, and there are ... googles ... 7 million people living there that should not be. There are 300 golf courses! There should be ZERO open air heavily-manicured grass golf courses in a landlocked desert.
When people joke that if you want to settle mars, let's settle Antarctica, it's closer and easier to do... well, the REAL settling-mars project is Arizona.
I've also heard that Las Vegas, another middle of the desert atrocity, is also 100% water efficient.
I've also been told about things like "clean coal", "fracking doesn't turn farmers water on fire", "pesticides are safe", "global warming isn't real", and a host of other big fat lies that you'll only discover are wrong in the future when it is too late.
So either you are being mendacious, or you are happily eating the big lie served up to you on a platter.
Humanity is so screwed.
> that you'll only discover are wrong in the future when it is too late
Too late for what? If what you’re saying is true - we won’t be able to reliably move water to the desert over the next 1000 years. Then Arizona won’t have enough water and those people will have to move closer to a water source. But is Arizona reducing the amount of available water on Earth? I feel like you’re referring to a long-term ecological crisis that this is causing, but I’m failing to see it.
Too late for what? If what you’re saying is true - we won’t be able to reliably move water to the desert over the next 1000 years. Then Arizona won’t have enough water and those people will have to move closer to a water source. But is Arizona reducing the amount of available water on Earth? I feel like you’re referring to a long-term ecological crisis that this is causing, but I’m failing to see it.
Depends how well they cover it (temporarily with a cover or permanently with a gable/roof or completely indoor pool). Transpiration from lawn grass will evaporate a similar amount of water as an outdoor uncovered pool. At least they don't have to worry about heating it in AZ. Ideally their air conditioner would dump heat into the pool for any heating (no idea if pool heaters are a thing in AZ).
No cover due to its odd shape. During summer months I use evaporative cooling to keep the pool cool enough to swim. To do this, we intentionally run the water feature to increase the evaporation rate - evaporating water takes the higher energy water molecules and ejects them from the pool reducing the temp.
We also use a pool heater about 3 months out of the year. Never considered the A/C condenser as a heater. Initial thought is that the time of year you need to heat the pool is the time of year you aren’t running your A/C.
We also use a pool heater about 3 months out of the year. Never considered the A/C condenser as a heater. Initial thought is that the time of year you need to heat the pool is the time of year you aren’t running your A/C.
Hasn't been rolled out in the US, although that's shifting as well. My employer (Tibber) have hundreds of thousands of paying customers in EU, and the bulk of the pitch is that we smart-schedule your EV and home heating to hit low prices, and sell ancillary services (eg. stop your charger for ~15s to help grid do frequency control).
While people may argue over who should get what slice of the pie, I think the situation in Europe has already answered that: you, the owner of the EV and charger or heat pump, get the pie.
I think Tibbers business model is good here: We charge a flat (~$5) monthly fee to smart-schedule your assets and buy electricity for you, and then you get ~100% of the profit from your demand-responsive asset. We also make some money if you spend less $$ on energy, since we settle daily with producers, but monthly with you, so lower cost of financing if you spend less.
The major blocker to more demand response, at least in EU, is the pace at which countries (looking at you Germany) roll out meters capable of hourly remote reading.
While people may argue over who should get what slice of the pie, I think the situation in Europe has already answered that: you, the owner of the EV and charger or heat pump, get the pie.
I think Tibbers business model is good here: We charge a flat (~$5) monthly fee to smart-schedule your assets and buy electricity for you, and then you get ~100% of the profit from your demand-responsive asset. We also make some money if you spend less $$ on energy, since we settle daily with producers, but monthly with you, so lower cost of financing if you spend less.
The major blocker to more demand response, at least in EU, is the pace at which countries (looking at you Germany) roll out meters capable of hourly remote reading.
People are usually aware of Big Oil but often forget that power generation and distribution companies also have they own interests (and are able to buy politicians).
Unsurprisingly, they dislike distributed/democratized power generation and storage.
> shift it's charging time
*its
Unsurprisingly, they dislike distributed/democratized power generation and storage.
> shift it's charging time
*its
A market that works properly depends on electricity market design[1], and the design of regulations for the network, the generators, and the consumers. Each country has solved this in their own way, some networks have successful regulations and some don’t. I live in New Zealand and the market[2] works okay (although it helps that NZ is reasonably functional compared to many other countries).
The network/grid infrastructure is mostly a natural monopoly: infrastructure which requires communal long-term goals via regulations and the infrastructure cannot be run as a normal pure-profit business.
Generators and consumers need an electricity market designed to meet capacity and other[3] goals (link mentions: Ancillary Services, Frequency Keeping, Over-frequency reserve, Instantaneous reserve, Black Start, Voltage support, Automatic Under Frequency Load Shedding (AUFLS), Dispatch-Capable Load Station Setup, Frequency Keeper Selection, Infeasibilities, Load Forecasting, Offer and Bid Setup, Scheduling and Dispatch, etcetera).
I like your point. It is hard to design regulations to avoid the monopoly capture your examples show, and how to have a functional regulator that isn’t captured, and a market that encourages participants to develop functioning systems. Tesla needs some incentive to build and maintain a system to optimise charging schedules and load shedding.
[1] https://www.nera.com/practice-areas/energy/energy-market-des...
[2] https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natu...
[3] https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/electricity-mar...
The network/grid infrastructure is mostly a natural monopoly: infrastructure which requires communal long-term goals via regulations and the infrastructure cannot be run as a normal pure-profit business.
Generators and consumers need an electricity market designed to meet capacity and other[3] goals (link mentions: Ancillary Services, Frequency Keeping, Over-frequency reserve, Instantaneous reserve, Black Start, Voltage support, Automatic Under Frequency Load Shedding (AUFLS), Dispatch-Capable Load Station Setup, Frequency Keeper Selection, Infeasibilities, Load Forecasting, Offer and Bid Setup, Scheduling and Dispatch, etcetera).
I like your point. It is hard to design regulations to avoid the monopoly capture your examples show, and how to have a functional regulator that isn’t captured, and a market that encourages participants to develop functioning systems. Tesla needs some incentive to build and maintain a system to optimise charging schedules and load shedding.
[1] https://www.nera.com/practice-areas/energy/energy-market-des...
[2] https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natu...
[3] https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/electricity-mar...
Insightful post.
I've long suspected that the most viable path (only viable path?) is for Tesla to capture the profits and share a percentage with the equipment owner.
Since the payoff to the homeowner happens "in front of the meter," it gets around the bureaucratic nightmare of fixing the perverse incentives in electricity pricing (eg the flat rate problem /u/rr808 mentions). All you need is one large aggregator to participate in the real-time wholesale market, issue commands to the "fleet," and divvy up the profits.
I've long suspected that the most viable path (only viable path?) is for Tesla to capture the profits and share a percentage with the equipment owner.
Since the payoff to the homeowner happens "in front of the meter," it gets around the bureaucratic nightmare of fixing the perverse incentives in electricity pricing (eg the flat rate problem /u/rr808 mentions). All you need is one large aggregator to participate in the real-time wholesale market, issue commands to the "fleet," and divvy up the profits.
Tesla could make an open API at just let whoever capture the profits.
Then owners could group together on their own terms to get market power.
Then owners could group together on their own terms to get market power.
>Tesla could make an open API at just let whoever capture the profits.
Presumably this is supposed to be different from what I said (sharing profits), so are you suggesting the service provider should take 0%?
>Then owners could group together on their own terms to get market power.
Thats precisely the part consumers don't want to do (and where Tesla can add value): aggregation and Autobidder.
Presumably this is supposed to be different from what I said (sharing profits), so are you suggesting the service provider should take 0%?
>Then owners could group together on their own terms to get market power.
Thats precisely the part consumers don't want to do (and where Tesla can add value): aggregation and Autobidder.
API on the car, not on the service. A way for the owner of the car to control what the car is doing remotely.
If there are thousands of dollars on the line, third parties will bid against Tesla...
If there are thousands of dollars on the line, third parties will bid against Tesla...
I think the API already exists since you can use the phone app (e.g.) to control charging. I haven't looked at this for some time but while the API isn't/wasn't open it's been reverse engineered and I think there's an ecosystem using those APIs (not for this purpose but for other purposes).
EDIT: I think in my location all that has to happen for demand to shift is for the power company (BC Hyrdo in this case) to offer different rates. They can do this statically or dynamically and one way or another things will shift. As a person I can figure out to charge my car or heat my house/water or whatnot for a lower cost. I don't think they care.
EDIT: I think in my location all that has to happen for demand to shift is for the power company (BC Hyrdo in this case) to offer different rates. They can do this statically or dynamically and one way or another things will shift. As a person I can figure out to charge my car or heat my house/water or whatnot for a lower cost. I don't think they care.
Your edit is on the money.
We switched to a new power company purely based on rates. They offer free power for a 3 hour slot between 9pm and midnight.
We spent $2k on hardware to take advantage - a 7kw fast charger for the EV and a clockwork timer for the water tank.
In return we could load shift so much that 45% of our power is now free. That's with no other behavior changes (well one small change - family members became aware that having long hot showers in the day meant a lukewarm shower at night).
All super simple, and all driven from the bottom up by specific rates.
We switched to a new power company purely based on rates. They offer free power for a 3 hour slot between 9pm and midnight.
We spent $2k on hardware to take advantage - a 7kw fast charger for the EV and a clockwork timer for the water tank.
In return we could load shift so much that 45% of our power is now free. That's with no other behavior changes (well one small change - family members became aware that having long hot showers in the day meant a lukewarm shower at night).
All super simple, and all driven from the bottom up by specific rates.
That sounds pretty great. I can't imagine my utility, PG&E, doing the same. Their TOU rates start at about the same as their tiered rates and go up from there. Even under maximal load shifting that plan costs me more than the simpler (yet still complicated) plan.
Instead it's more economical for me to drive my grid dependence to zero. I'm one of the "no thanks" folks in the article.
Instead it's more economical for me to drive my grid dependence to zero. I'm one of the "no thanks" folks in the article.
This is exactly the perverse pricing problem that Tesla (or someone else) can easily solve with aggregation+Autobidder.
Tesla knows your utility rate, including the absence or presence of time-of-use billing. They also have access to the real-time market behind the meter. In this position, they can always Do The Right Thing to minimize total cost of EV charging (electric bill minus earned Autobidder revenue).
In your case the Right Thing sounds like choosing the tiered PG&E rate, and letting Tesla aggregation pay you for load shifting.
Tesla knows your utility rate, including the absence or presence of time-of-use billing. They also have access to the real-time market behind the meter. In this position, they can always Do The Right Thing to minimize total cost of EV charging (electric bill minus earned Autobidder revenue).
In your case the Right Thing sounds like choosing the tiered PG&E rate, and letting Tesla aggregation pay you for load shifting.
I have no interest in letting Tesla, or anybody else, capture that value. Nor do I have any interest in propping up a failing grid at my own expense. I've been DIYing-at comically low cost-my way towards an off-grid electrified home. And I've driven up my energy consumption and quality of life dramatically while also reducing my costs and environmental footprint.
Looking at my data so far, it's cheaper for me to have a tiny gasoline generator to fill in under the quite-rare shortfalls (e.g., the two continuously rainy weeks in December where I don't quite charge up my batteries during the day, and I need to run heating overnight) than it is to pay the minimum grid connection charge.
I expect that as our local grid costs continue to skyrocket at about 4x CPI, and with distributed generation costs coming down, that many more folks will do the same.
Looking at my data so far, it's cheaper for me to have a tiny gasoline generator to fill in under the quite-rare shortfalls (e.g., the two continuously rainy weeks in December where I don't quite charge up my batteries during the day, and I need to run heating overnight) than it is to pay the minimum grid connection charge.
I expect that as our local grid costs continue to skyrocket at about 4x CPI, and with distributed generation costs coming down, that many more folks will do the same.
It's fascinating how the economics play out. Thanks to this deal, it no longer makes sense for us to go solar or to have a house battery. So the power company has us as a loyal customer (at least, while they keep offering this deal).
Every EV already has this API, it’s just exposed to the “charger” not the internet.
Because all EV need to negotiate with the charger their plugged into to determine if they can charge, and how fast. It pretty easy to build a charger compatible with any EV that simply caps the cars charging rate until electricity is cheap.
Here in Europe at least, there are already several companies that make these chargers, including ones that just MitM the cable between your car and your normal charger, and allow you get better rates though aggregation with other owners.
Because all EV need to negotiate with the charger their plugged into to determine if they can charge, and how fast. It pretty easy to build a charger compatible with any EV that simply caps the cars charging rate until electricity is cheap.
Here in Europe at least, there are already several companies that make these chargers, including ones that just MitM the cable between your car and your normal charger, and allow you get better rates though aggregation with other owners.
Thanks. Yes, a more open car API would be welcome.
For V1G (ie one-way demand response charging), I'd prefer cars also have a Set It And Forget It option:
Always charge immediately to [ 30% ], then charge to [ 80% ] by [ 7 AM ] [ weekdays ].
And then it just Does The Right Thing.
For configuring stationary batteries, the equivalent would be:
Always reserve [ 40% ] backup, then trade with the grid when payout exceeds [ 20¢/kWh ].
Current generation Tesla systems allow some of this configuration, but not all.
For V1G (ie one-way demand response charging), I'd prefer cars also have a Set It And Forget It option:
Always charge immediately to [ 30% ], then charge to [ 80% ] by [ 7 AM ] [ weekdays ].
And then it just Does The Right Thing.
For configuring stationary batteries, the equivalent would be:
Always reserve [ 40% ] backup, then trade with the grid when payout exceeds [ 20¢/kWh ].
Current generation Tesla systems allow some of this configuration, but not all.
I hate navigating utilities as it is, now I need to join/form a co-op just to use my car?
I don’t know man. This sounds awful. Like an even worse HOA. Unless I’m misunderstanding your concept here.
I don’t know man. This sounds awful. Like an even worse HOA. Unless I’m misunderstanding your concept here.
No, do what you want, stick with giving Tesla thousands of dollars a year instead of opting into the coop that runs the simple algorithm and gives you the money.
What makes you think a "simple algorithm" from a cash-strapped coop can compete with more sophisticated systems?
If better systems (eg Tesla's Autobidder) generate more revenue, then even after paying a percentage you still come out ahead.
Meanwhile an under-sophisticated algorithm will just end up being the "dumb money" in the marketplace.
If better systems (eg Tesla's Autobidder) generate more revenue, then even after paying a percentage you still come out ahead.
Meanwhile an under-sophisticated algorithm will just end up being the "dumb money" in the marketplace.
The algorithm isn't awfully complex. If it's 6pm, and you need your car charged by 6am, and you need to be charging for 6 hours, then you just purchase the cheapest 6 energy futures for the 6 hours you know you'll need, and don't purchase the other 6.
If at any time during the night the prices of the unpurchased futures drop below that of the ones you have purchased, you can sell one and buy a different one (rescheduling the charge).
There isn't any better algorithm within those constraints. As long as the energy futures market is a fully liquid market, the price you'll get will be (on average) equal to the spot price you would have paid if you'd made the ideal scheduling decisions and bought on the spot market.
If at any time during the night the prices of the unpurchased futures drop below that of the ones you have purchased, you can sell one and buy a different one (rescheduling the charge).
There isn't any better algorithm within those constraints. As long as the energy futures market is a fully liquid market, the price you'll get will be (on average) equal to the spot price you would have paid if you'd made the ideal scheduling decisions and bought on the spot market.
Fair point. For car charging the algorithm can be relatively simple (if suboptimal due to imperfect assumptions like "fully liquid"), but for stationary batteries + solar it gets much more complex.
I still suspect more sophisticated players will find easy ways to "game" such an algorithm (eg pre-bidding). Whenever you have a large herd of predictable sheep, it's an opportunity for a wolf.
I still suspect more sophisticated players will find easy ways to "game" such an algorithm (eg pre-bidding). Whenever you have a large herd of predictable sheep, it's an opportunity for a wolf.
I’m specifically saying this “energy HOA” sounds miserable/time-consuming just to run my car, and if people immediately have a negative reaction like that then the “solution” is potentially very flawed, if for no other reason than it hurts adoption. There’s no need to get so hostile over a simple critique. I also don’t think it’s reasonable to assume a “simple algorithm” will solve this.
For the record, I don’t own a Tesla and I don’t want to. I have no plans of giving Elon Musk any of my business.
For the record, I don’t own a Tesla and I don’t want to. I have no plans of giving Elon Musk any of my business.
> is for Tesla to capture the profits and trickle down some crumbs to the equipment owner.
Capitalist labour relations, but now with your car manufacturer :)
Capitalist labour relations, but now with your car manufacturer :)
I don’t think this is quite true, although their maybe local politics that are making it true in certain areas.
Each of the demand response techniques you mentioned address a different concern, and are all complimentary to each other.
Planning and managing grid capacity happens on many different timescales. From decade long planning of large scale infrastructure, through to the millisecond-by-millisecond management that occurs during a grid crisis.
Each of the techniques you mention create a demand response effect at different timescales.
Simple multi-rate tariffs that offer different rates and different times of day, create macro scale changes in a grids daily demand curve. Reducing the peaks, and filling in the troughs, allowing distributors to reduce their total future CapEx spend.
Virtual power plants like Tesla allow distributors to “buy electricity” for cheaper than buying it from peaked plants for periods where they known that total demand is going high, and cheaper energy producers are already saturated. You’re operating on timescale looking a few hours or a few days into the future here. It’s important to note that Tesla themselves are creating addition value here, beyond simple tariff changes. Teslas virtual power plant will be committing themselves to a guaranteed load reduction at a specific period of time in the near future, failure to produce that reduction means Tesla has to buy extra electricity to make up the shortfall at extremely inflated rates. So Tesla create value through the efficient and accurate aggregation and management of many cars, dealing with issue like cars being unplugged, or already charged and varying levels of owner participation.
Electricity distributors requesting remote control is less effective than Tesla’s approach, because the distributor now has to carry all the risk associated with loads ignoring their commands. It’s basically impossible for them to mandate control, not unless their gonna employ the plug police to make sure nobody wires up a heater without telling them. Ultimately distributors can create and enforce load mandates by simple refusing to upgrade electrical connections to provide more supply, and downrating existing ones. This is already how industrial electricity supply works.
The number of types of demand response a specific load supports isn’t zero sum, it’s multiplicative. Each additional form of demand response supported creates additional value, and markets already exist to price that value.
In parts of the world with well functioning energy markets, the issues of how best to do demand response are handled by the energy markets. Each type of demand response (generally measured on two axis, speed of response and reliability of response) creates value for different market players. They can then create schemes to buy different types of demand response that fits their needs, or it can be bought though existing markets. The final piece of the puzzle is figuring out how properly aggregate individual loads into a large enough fleet that it can have a meaningful impact on the grid.
Unfortunately you changing the charging times on a Tesla has very little impact on the grid. But changing the charging time of 10,000 Tesla’s, now that might buy you a seat in the energy markets.
Each of the demand response techniques you mentioned address a different concern, and are all complimentary to each other.
Planning and managing grid capacity happens on many different timescales. From decade long planning of large scale infrastructure, through to the millisecond-by-millisecond management that occurs during a grid crisis.
Each of the techniques you mention create a demand response effect at different timescales.
Simple multi-rate tariffs that offer different rates and different times of day, create macro scale changes in a grids daily demand curve. Reducing the peaks, and filling in the troughs, allowing distributors to reduce their total future CapEx spend.
Virtual power plants like Tesla allow distributors to “buy electricity” for cheaper than buying it from peaked plants for periods where they known that total demand is going high, and cheaper energy producers are already saturated. You’re operating on timescale looking a few hours or a few days into the future here. It’s important to note that Tesla themselves are creating addition value here, beyond simple tariff changes. Teslas virtual power plant will be committing themselves to a guaranteed load reduction at a specific period of time in the near future, failure to produce that reduction means Tesla has to buy extra electricity to make up the shortfall at extremely inflated rates. So Tesla create value through the efficient and accurate aggregation and management of many cars, dealing with issue like cars being unplugged, or already charged and varying levels of owner participation.
Electricity distributors requesting remote control is less effective than Tesla’s approach, because the distributor now has to carry all the risk associated with loads ignoring their commands. It’s basically impossible for them to mandate control, not unless their gonna employ the plug police to make sure nobody wires up a heater without telling them. Ultimately distributors can create and enforce load mandates by simple refusing to upgrade electrical connections to provide more supply, and downrating existing ones. This is already how industrial electricity supply works.
The number of types of demand response a specific load supports isn’t zero sum, it’s multiplicative. Each additional form of demand response supported creates additional value, and markets already exist to price that value.
In parts of the world with well functioning energy markets, the issues of how best to do demand response are handled by the energy markets. Each type of demand response (generally measured on two axis, speed of response and reliability of response) creates value for different market players. They can then create schemes to buy different types of demand response that fits their needs, or it can be bought though existing markets. The final piece of the puzzle is figuring out how properly aggregate individual loads into a large enough fleet that it can have a meaningful impact on the grid.
Unfortunately you changing the charging times on a Tesla has very little impact on the grid. But changing the charging time of 10,000 Tesla’s, now that might buy you a seat in the energy markets.
With modern technology there are much more interesting things you can do, esp if you combine with battery storage and real time pricing.
One of the main issues is that for residential pays a flat rate all the time. There is no incentive for people not to use electricity during those huge peaks which really drives generation costs. Ideally people would not cook/clean/heat water/charge anything during those hot summer afternoons or cold dark windless evenings. Your electric water heater is a good example of it could be saving costs by charging when its windy/sunny/low demand periods and even better lower water temperature so wont be so hot when prices are high. Smart EV charging is even more important, if you leave the car plugged in every night, but with logic so some hours it'll charge quickly and maybe some nights not at all.
One of the main issues is that for residential pays a flat rate all the time. There is no incentive for people not to use electricity during those huge peaks which really drives generation costs. Ideally people would not cook/clean/heat water/charge anything during those hot summer afternoons or cold dark windless evenings. Your electric water heater is a good example of it could be saving costs by charging when its windy/sunny/low demand periods and even better lower water temperature so wont be so hot when prices are high. Smart EV charging is even more important, if you leave the car plugged in every night, but with logic so some hours it'll charge quickly and maybe some nights not at all.
> residential pays a flat rate all the time
Only true for some countries.
Denmark has a mix of flat rate and hour-based variable rates. In my case prices are often 3 timers higher in "rush hours" (typically weekdays 5pm to 8pm, 17:00-20:00) than during a midday in a weekend with a lot of wind.
I cannot choose flat-rate due to the situation in Ukraine.
edit: This map is very good to see the price and source of electricity in Europe (and how well the countries are interconnected): https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DK-DK1
Only true for some countries.
Denmark has a mix of flat rate and hour-based variable rates. In my case prices are often 3 timers higher in "rush hours" (typically weekdays 5pm to 8pm, 17:00-20:00) than during a midday in a weekend with a lot of wind.
I cannot choose flat-rate due to the situation in Ukraine.
edit: This map is very good to see the price and source of electricity in Europe (and how well the countries are interconnected): https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DK-DK1
Yes Denmark is a great example of high proportion of Wind power where it could make a big difference. I'm not sure what the hour-based variable rates are - do you know what the price is so you can change usage? Is power free or very cheap on windy days?
On windy days the price can go to zero, so you only pay the fixed tax.
I can log into my provider at see the price for previous days and for tomorrow.
I can log into my provider at see the price for previous days and for tomorrow.
Tomorrow, that's cool. Its the whole point to be able to adjust your usage based on the market. I was thinking appliances can be smart enough to get the pricing to adjust usage, but if you can see tomorrow you can adjust your life yourself.
Tomorrow Wednesday we will have prices at zero some of the day: https://i.redd.it/cpmx4cvj56b91.png
> One of the main issues is that for residential pays a flat rate all the time.
One of the problems with real-time energy pricing is: poor people don’t have the cash on hand to replace their furnaces or upgrade their insulation- or worse yet rent and can’t improve energy efficiency at all.
It’s difficult to raise prices enough to make it economically rational for middle class types to get batteries and heat pumps without reducing the poor to poverty.
One of the problems with real-time energy pricing is: poor people don’t have the cash on hand to replace their furnaces or upgrade their insulation- or worse yet rent and can’t improve energy efficiency at all.
It’s difficult to raise prices enough to make it economically rational for middle class types to get batteries and heat pumps without reducing the poor to poverty.
Yep, or worse the real-time energy pricing causes the highest prices during weather crises introducing ethical issues, such as during the 2021 Texas Winter Storm on customers using real-time energy pricing plans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis#Power_...
Sometimes consumer smart grid gets evangelized as 'the fourth industrial revolution' - Dr. Simon Michaux argues the material blindness of it in such a way that only the rich may experience it : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0pt3ioQuNc&t=625s ( Dr. Simon Michaux: “Minerals and Materials Blindness” | The Great Simplification #19 with Nate Hagens ).
Sometimes consumer smart grid gets evangelized as 'the fourth industrial revolution' - Dr. Simon Michaux argues the material blindness of it in such a way that only the rich may experience it : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0pt3ioQuNc&t=625s ( Dr. Simon Michaux: “Minerals and Materials Blindness” | The Great Simplification #19 with Nate Hagens ).
You could just cap the max price and let the grid make it up during other times. That's basically what time of day billing does anyway: a blended approach to electricity rates that averages out but provides some incentive.
Of course, my jurisdiction rolled out time-of-day billing and found that demand shifted only a few percent, so I wonder if the program even covered its costs for smaller users.
Of course, my jurisdiction rolled out time-of-day billing and found that demand shifted only a few percent, so I wonder if the program even covered its costs for smaller users.
And the funded programs which offer rebates for upgrades are a pain to navigate, even if you know they exist. Even if you overcome the awareness, procedures, etc. hurdles, the financial relief (rebate) is often too delayed to affect decision making when struggling financially.
I don't expect zero energy costs to arrive at the consumers. Prices will artificially be inflated based on demand. The only way for consumers to profit will be to not play the game and go as much off grid as possible. But then you explicitly do not need smart meters.
Going off grid typically costs more and is often less reliable. It's not zero cost.
> There is no incentive for people not to use electricity during those huge peaks
Is that documented / true on a large scale? Anecdotally, I know a few people who turn on the clothes dryer, dishwasher, etc. at night or schedule the washing machine to start at 5am to run them on the lower tariff period. Maybe it's not very common though.
Is that documented / true on a large scale? Anecdotally, I know a few people who turn on the clothes dryer, dishwasher, etc. at night or schedule the washing machine to start at 5am to run them on the lower tariff period. Maybe it's not very common though.
You’ve missed the previous sentence.
> One of the main issues is that for residential pays a flat rate all the time. There is no incentive for people not to use electricity during those huge peaks
I’ve you’ve got a lower rate at night, then you dont’t have flat rate tariff. Something very common in most of the world. Having a lower night rate means you obviously have an incentive, that’s the entire reason it’s offered.
> One of the main issues is that for residential pays a flat rate all the time. There is no incentive for people not to use electricity during those huge peaks
I’ve you’ve got a lower rate at night, then you dont’t have flat rate tariff. Something very common in most of the world. Having a lower night rate means you obviously have an incentive, that’s the entire reason it’s offered.
Depends on the utility/state. Some have different rates depending on time of day. Where I live does not. We pay a straight per kwh rate regardless of when used and how “spikey” our pattern is. The total per month is segregated into tiers, so the per kwh rate is incrementally higher as your total consumption climbs.
This is a good description of electric rate tariff which is becoming more prevalent in USA. It depends on what rate tariffs are approved by the regulator.
Ontario Canada found that residential Time of Use (TOU) billing only shifted demand by 3% at the beginning of rollout, diminishing to 1% shifting in subsequent years. And "little evidence of conservation".
Figure ES1, Pg 8:
https://www.brattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/7289_anal...
And "General service class [IE: commercial] customers show little evidence of load shifting behavior and are less responsive to the TOU prices than residential customers. However, general service class customers show some mixed evidence of conservation, although this is still marginal."
But they don't like to publish this info much. Smart meters were controversial (from it's giving me headaches, to this costs a lot of money for ? benefit over regular metering).
Electric utility pricing is regulated to be based on Return on Equity, so if they could increase their capital base through smart meter infra and cut the opex of meter readers, it economically benefits the utility, but not the consumer.
Figure ES1, Pg 8:
https://www.brattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/7289_anal...
And "General service class [IE: commercial] customers show little evidence of load shifting behavior and are less responsive to the TOU prices than residential customers. However, general service class customers show some mixed evidence of conservation, although this is still marginal."
But they don't like to publish this info much. Smart meters were controversial (from it's giving me headaches, to this costs a lot of money for ? benefit over regular metering).
Electric utility pricing is regulated to be based on Return on Equity, so if they could increase their capital base through smart meter infra and cut the opex of meter readers, it economically benefits the utility, but not the consumer.
Does it matter? At least people are paying the right price for power, and it gives those who need it the ability to save money by shifting demand.
If it costs more to precisely meter than the savings for 99% of individuals, it was a bad (forced) program to upgrade to smart meter infra - it's not free. Could have invested the money into demand reduction (free LED bulbs, insulation loans etc.) or supply improvements.
Don't overspend on getting to 100% fairness.
Same reason why if you ask for a meter audit, they'll do nothing if it's +/- 2%, even though anything other than 0.000000000000000000000000% error is unfair.
Don't overspend on getting to 100% fairness.
Same reason why if you ask for a meter audit, they'll do nothing if it's +/- 2%, even though anything other than 0.000000000000000000000000% error is unfair.
Every country and plan seems different. For everyone in my city we have a flat price all month.
The GB grid has half-hourly pricing for retail customers (with a cap and floor to prevent exposure to full wholesale risk i.e. not like those Gridly clowns in Texas).
[deleted]
Also depending on residential they might not care about price. Like I don't. I live in apartment. So best I can do is choose some activities. And even then I could save what couple dozen euros? Maximum of hundred? Just easier to not really have the mental load to think about it.
Yeah, I lived in a rental apartment where they wanted to rebate the average electricity cost and run the metered electricity scam. But at a ~$40 rent reduction and a $13/month account fee, you'd have to reduce your electricity consumption to 33% below average just to break even.
All so the installer/metering provider can buy a bigger yacht.
Hard to do conserve much when the apartment operator provides your major appliances (typical in north america), no dishwasher, laundry is in a central laundry room, and HVAC+hot water are centrally provided.
Would do a lot better if they just ran a program to replace all of our light bulbs/fixtures.
All so the installer/metering provider can buy a bigger yacht.
Hard to do conserve much when the apartment operator provides your major appliances (typical in north america), no dishwasher, laundry is in a central laundry room, and HVAC+hot water are centrally provided.
Would do a lot better if they just ran a program to replace all of our light bulbs/fixtures.
Most residential plans in the US are either time of day rates or are a tiered flat rate.
There was an electricity provider in Texas that charged market rate plus a small markup. They were crucified when the freeze happened last year and they continued to charge market rate plus a small markup. They also went bankrupt.
Yeah, that's why I said "most". Texas is an especially weird case because of their almost total lack of regulation around pricing. From what I gather there were actually a number of power providers in Texas that charged cost plus. I don't know if any of them still exist but I'm sure there's demand for it because it's such a good deal most of the time.
So, there are two problems:
1. When the price of power went up, everyone spontaneously decided that charging the market rate for power was evil and the company deserved to be destroyed.
2. The company delivered a lot of power at high market rates because customers demanded it. But those customers then refused to pay (and in many cases weren't able to pay), which is why the company went bankrupt.
It doesn't matter so much that there's demand if the government and the population all hate you and you can't collect the money you're theoretically owed.
1. When the price of power went up, everyone spontaneously decided that charging the market rate for power was evil and the company deserved to be destroyed.
2. The company delivered a lot of power at high market rates because customers demanded it. But those customers then refused to pay (and in many cases weren't able to pay), which is why the company went bankrupt.
It doesn't matter so much that there's demand if the government and the population all hate you and you can't collect the money you're theoretically owed.
Use sand [1] instead of water and you'll be able to store a lot more energy in a limited area. Water can't be heated above 98°C at atmospheric pressure which puts a limit on how much energy can be stored per m³ while sand can be heated above 1000°C without problems. Add enough insulation and you'll be able to store enough heat to warm your house through the long winter. Sand is cheap, non-corrosive and doesn't freeze or boil [2]. The specific heat for sand (830 J/g K) is markedly lower than that for water (4000 J/g K) but the density is ~50% higher. Together with the much higher temperature spectrum this translates to a higher capacity per m³.
[1] https://polarnightenergy.fi/technology
[2] it can boil - silicon boils at 3265°C - but it is hard to see how such a temperature can be reached
[1] https://polarnightenergy.fi/technology
[2] it can boil - silicon boils at 3265°C - but it is hard to see how such a temperature can be reached
> doesn't freeze
In the sense that something that is frozen can't freeze. Apparently the melting point of sand is about 1700°C, so 1000°C sand indeed should handle about the same as 20°C sand or -100°C sand. That does sound rater neat for a large scale setup.
In a small-scale setup the convection currents, easy handling and lower insulation requirements of a water setup would probably still win out.
In the sense that something that is frozen can't freeze. Apparently the melting point of sand is about 1700°C, so 1000°C sand indeed should handle about the same as 20°C sand or -100°C sand. That does sound rater neat for a large scale setup.
In a small-scale setup the convection currents, easy handling and lower insulation requirements of a water setup would probably still win out.
If water tank holds water above 70C, it’s safety requirements make it significantly more expensive. Plus water close to the boiling temperature is rather corrosive. So I cannot rule out that even for small scale sand setup will be cheaper.
Residential water heaters, at least in the USA, don't typically go above 60°C. So there's room to grow here, at least for now, without building a more exotic, and therefore expensive, system.
And the reason they don't go much higher could be that at higher temps water hardness starts depositing water stone on the heating element and lining.
There's nothing exotic in a storage heater. They've been extremely common in UK for many decades.
A resistor, some bricks and some insulation. If anything they are too rudimentary.
A resistor, some bricks and some insulation. If anything they are too rudimentary.
Berlin is building this in a somewhat bigger version
https://www.energy-storage.news/vattenfall-starts-filling-up...
https://www.energy-storage.news/vattenfall-starts-filling-up...
I was recently looking for the address of this build. Anyone know it?
Here (use Google translate): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heizkraftwerk_Reuter_West
That would be especially interesting for hours with negative energy prices (at least once they become accessible for retail customers). Also various appliances like washing machines or dish washers can be timed
> Also various appliances like washing machines or dish washers can be timed
In theory. Then the fire department comes and says "do not run washing machines and dish washers while you're asleep or away". And with that you're back to running them during peak hours.
We just had that discussion in the media here, due to the introduction of peak power as a part of the electricity bill.
In theory. Then the fire department comes and says "do not run washing machines and dish washers while you're asleep or away". And with that you're back to running them during peak hours.
We just had that discussion in the media here, due to the introduction of peak power as a part of the electricity bill.
Also insurance companies. Your home insurance might cover water damage from appliance going wrong, but if you aren't present or sleeping they might try to get out of it... And single bigger leak will waste any gains from price savings for years or forever...
Where does this happen? Also, how do they know?
Here's some semi-random news articles regarding this:
https://www.nrk.no/livsstil/advarer-mot-oppvaskmaskin-om-nat...
https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/bonn-fra-brannsjefen-i-fredri...
They know because they have to put out the fire in the middle of the night, and they do an investigation afterwards to determine the cause of the fire so they know it was e.g. the washing machine.
https://www.nrk.no/livsstil/advarer-mot-oppvaskmaskin-om-nat...
https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/bonn-fra-brannsjefen-i-fredri...
They know because they have to put out the fire in the middle of the night, and they do an investigation afterwards to determine the cause of the fire so they know it was e.g. the washing machine.
Presumably the fire department is merely offering advice, because they’ve been called out to dryer fires. And they’re the fire department, not the energy efficiency department.
You will be surprised how often disembarkations in the electrical space go hand in hand with a potential embarkation into the fire space.
At Octopus Energy, I think we’ve made negative prices available to retail customers (at least in the UK, not sure about the other countries we’re retailing in).
People getting paid to charge their cars because the grid has a surplus of (probably green) energy.
People getting paid to charge their cars because the grid has a surplus of (probably green) energy.
Everybody I know with an electric car has this tarriff.
One of them is trying to install a heat pump too to double down on this approach.
It rarely gets discussed in the media for some reason.
One of them is trying to install a heat pump too to double down on this approach.
It rarely gets discussed in the media for some reason.
I just want to compliment Octopus Energy, I just tried popping over for a quote, and the website just says "No. You don't want to switch right now". Not sure if this is common with other energy suppliers, but it looks good (I'll remember for when/if I do end up switching next).
This is mandated by OFGEM in the UK now. uSwitch will also give you the current "best deal".
I have done some work with the Octopus systems and they are very new an agile, but don't handle the complexity that the big 6 have put in place over several decades. The overall metering and settlements business in the UK is quite complex especially including legacy gas and elec accounts and meters.
I have done some work with the Octopus systems and they are very new an agile, but don't handle the complexity that the big 6 have put in place over several decades. The overall metering and settlements business in the UK is quite complex especially including legacy gas and elec accounts and meters.
The most recent in the UK was 11 June, I can confirm I had a negative rate for a few hours then.
I don't have skin in the game but the electromechanical computers of the previous eras were all superb and solid yet digital electronics wiped the market away. Making a simple analogy (sic) I'd say the smart grid thing might be a glimpse of where society is going. Or it might be a marketing fad.
Mechanical computers were ‘superb and solid’? What are you talking about?
Not a great article. Beta-decay nuclear batteries? Come on. They're real, but are low-power devices.[1]
Useful reading: PJM 101.[2] This is a training course from the PJM Interconnect, the power grid for the northeastern US. It's for people who need to know the basics of how it works.
There's a lot of confusion about how big AC grids distribute power. Direction of power transfer is controllable. Capacitors and inductors are switched in and out to get a leading or lagging phase angle. It's not just everything in parallel.
[1] https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/leesona_moos/nuclear_battery...
[2] https://www.pjm.com/Globals/Training/Courses/ol-pjm-101.aspx
Useful reading: PJM 101.[2] This is a training course from the PJM Interconnect, the power grid for the northeastern US. It's for people who need to know the basics of how it works.
There's a lot of confusion about how big AC grids distribute power. Direction of power transfer is controllable. Capacitors and inductors are switched in and out to get a leading or lagging phase angle. It's not just everything in parallel.
[1] https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/leesona_moos/nuclear_battery...
[2] https://www.pjm.com/Globals/Training/Courses/ol-pjm-101.aspx
I'm surprised this didn't touch on some of the other distribution grid ideas that have been piloted. At a past job I helped create software that valued power from DERs based on real-time grid conditions [1]. The idea was that some distributed generation was worth more to the distribution operator because it alleviated other problems in the grid such as congestion.
1. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/opus-one-tests-...
1. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/opus-one-tests-...
The current market/use-case for "Smart Grid" technologies is in replacing the various legacy control system interfaces within Plants with a single (IP-based) one for the immediate goal of reducing opex through synergies within the Plant and to the edges of that Plant operator's owned infrastructures. The next step, obviously the hardest part, is establishing and implementing IP-based standards that facilitate the realtime brokering of inputs/outputs between different, potentially competing operators. This is the same issue as the competing/proprietary residential IoT standards that have been holding back the "Smart Home". This stuff only makes economic sense for vertically-integrated players (like Duke Energy) that benefit from the opex reduction. Any sort of "value-added" capabilities are only a bonus to that opex reduction and aren't enough of an ROI by themselves.
The real future is a fully distributed series of microgrids, which affords all of distributed generation, smart grid coordination, and resilience. If you want to work on this, think about joining Enphase, which makes grid-forming microinverters and the software to coordinate on a micro and macro level: https://enphase.com/careers
A 'smart grid' that continues to give utilities a mainframe style monopoly position will not work and will never be the solution. They simply aren't capable of building or maintaining the infrastructure, at any price.
Or email me if interested.
A 'smart grid' that continues to give utilities a mainframe style monopoly position will not work and will never be the solution. They simply aren't capable of building or maintaining the infrastructure, at any price.
Or email me if interested.
Meanwhile, there are sporadic reports in Toronto of short power outages at 6AM on a regular basis. I suspect it's because power pricing switches from night time low to high-peak at 7AM, so many people (like me!) have programmed their hard-start Air Conditioners to kick in hard at 6AM for an hour leading to phantom faults.
2020 reports: https://www.reddit.com/r/askTO/comments/hhdv0o/east_york_alm...
2020 reports: https://www.reddit.com/r/askTO/comments/hhdv0o/east_york_alm...
Isn't there a spot market for power? Why are pricing changes hard-coded to a specific time?
Not at the residential side in most places. Probably because people would find it "too complicated" and are unlikely to change their habits anyway, but they deal with it for automotive fuel so...
>Many proposed projects trigger infrastructure upgrades that cost more than the power plant. It hasn't been clear to developers which projects will incur these costs, so they spam the ISO with many applications. The excess applications mean it takes longer for the ISO to run studies. Attempts for ISOs to increase staff have struggled as developers poach engineers that can estimate what grid upgrade costs will be.
Is digital twin type modeling used? If not, is the problem space a good one for digital twin modeling?
Is digital twin type modeling used? If not, is the problem space a good one for digital twin modeling?
To answer the question directly: No.
Why don’t we have a ‘smarter’ grid then?
it is an economics problem at heart, not a pure technical one. Until, the incentives align to solve the issue around big power monopoly, smarter regulatory bodies, the tech can’t do much.
Arguably, tech might be focused on the wrong side of things. That is a much better debate.
Why don’t we have a ‘smarter’ grid then?
it is an economics problem at heart, not a pure technical one. Until, the incentives align to solve the issue around big power monopoly, smarter regulatory bodies, the tech can’t do much.
Arguably, tech might be focused on the wrong side of things. That is a much better debate.
The author mentions demand charges where a substantial part of the bill is based on the peak capacity available to you at the most congested time rather than energy unit charges. In many places, large customers already pay this way.
In France, which has low marginal production but high capacity costs due to its nuclear fleet, even residential customers have been charged this way for a long time. It's easy to charge anyone this way now with smart meters but the way that EDF did it historically is that your meter has a circuit breaker set to the peak that you've paid for. Go over, the breaker trips and you need to reduce load and reset. (Of course there is a safety circuit breaker with higher rating as well). If you want more capacity, you pay for it and they come and install a bigger breaker.
I do think that future electricity networks, energy will be cheap most of the time but peak power at congested times will be very expensive. That's pretty inevitable with the grid mixes being proposed since the grid will be net over-supplied most of the time (energy very cheap) and very occasionally undersupplied (energy very, very expensive). This asymmetry arises from the asymmetry between the economic cost of too much energy (linear economic loss to the producer) and too little (non-linear loss to everyone). This is intuitive: A grid that has too much energy 1% of the time is fine, not enough 1% of the time is three days of blackouts a year.
In France, which has low marginal production but high capacity costs due to its nuclear fleet, even residential customers have been charged this way for a long time. It's easy to charge anyone this way now with smart meters but the way that EDF did it historically is that your meter has a circuit breaker set to the peak that you've paid for. Go over, the breaker trips and you need to reduce load and reset. (Of course there is a safety circuit breaker with higher rating as well). If you want more capacity, you pay for it and they come and install a bigger breaker.
I do think that future electricity networks, energy will be cheap most of the time but peak power at congested times will be very expensive. That's pretty inevitable with the grid mixes being proposed since the grid will be net over-supplied most of the time (energy very cheap) and very occasionally undersupplied (energy very, very expensive). This asymmetry arises from the asymmetry between the economic cost of too much energy (linear economic loss to the producer) and too little (non-linear loss to everyone). This is intuitive: A grid that has too much energy 1% of the time is fine, not enough 1% of the time is three days of blackouts a year.
So the argument is:
Smart grid is hard and we suck. Therefore stupid grid is way to go?
I learned about this 3-6 months ago when PG&E erroneously remotely disconnected a large number of people in the Bay Area, including my apartment. I walked outside my unit and the entire building had power except for me -- the maintenance team was mystified and said the meter specific to my apartment reported it had been remotely killed.
It was impossible to figure out what had happened, and after many hours of vague outage status messages, I was finally able to reach the billing department who said they had been fixing this issue all day, and they remotely reactivated my meter as I was still on the phone with them (they had a whole disclaimer about turning it on remotely too).
I got a vague letter and $100 statement credit a month later that admitted an issue accidentally cut off a lot of meters, but no further details on how or why. Very strange experience and made me question the whole smart meter thing.