Slashdot Mirror
Building the Energy Internet
Ant writes "This article talks about transforming today's dumb electricity grid into a smart, responsive and self-healing digital network--in short, an 'energy internet'."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
People used to say that when the Internet becomes as invisible as the electricity grid we'll know it has succeeded in becoming an invaluable part of our lives.
;-)
Now people are wanting to turn the electricity grid into an "internet". Does this mean that it will suffer from the same problems in reliability, be difficult to install and that early adopters will bost about "having electricity use at home"??
A little planning goes a long way...
To implement a system that would do this wouldn't require any new technology. The ability to sense grid changes before problems occur has been happening in some places for years. The ability to reroute power is already there. It's just a matter of integrating the technology together and installing it all over. That is where the problem would fall as it would cost a lot of $$$$$.
I have seen demonstrations of this technology on a smaller scale already.
Evolution or ID?
I would fear that a "new electricity net" would be less secure than the current control systems because the control nodes would inevitably be connected to the public internet with packets tunneled via a VPN to the central office. I don't see power companies laying their own independent fibers for connectivity. And even if they use their own BPL, there is a good chance the control nodes, sensor nodes, and ccentral office will be connected to what is a public-exposed BPL net. The cost efficiency of routing packets over the public net are just too tempting. Despite best efforts, I'm sure someone will figure a way to hack into the sensor nodes, control nodes, or the central office if it is connected to a public internet.
The current system is more secure (if unreliable and uncontrollable) because compromising it requires physical access.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Encourage people to have power generation in their own homes. Solar panels, generators, etc, designed for home use, would not only ease strain on the grid during hot days in the summer, but would also make their owners money, and make them energy independent.
This would also provide security in an attack, because the entire electrical grid will no longer be supplied by a few power plants that are large targets for any attacker.
The only reason this wasn't implemented during the Cold War is because the technology wasn't there yet, but it is now. And what better way to promote the hydrogen economy that having people put fuel cells on their property to power their house when the main grid fails? People who don't want to have hydrogen in their cars probably won't mind having a tank in their back yard. A lot of people already have tanks of propane for heating and cooking where there's no natural gas service. (Yeah, yeah, I know it's not a cryogenic liquid, but it sure does explode like hydrogen.)
This would create a distributed network of power generation, and no RIAA-like actions by Al Qaeda or Mother Nature would be able to bring much of the grid down at any one time.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Although I hate calling a bug a "feature", the fact is that blackouts are often a testament to fault-detection which could otherwise overload a grid and cause more substantial problems that would take longer to resolve.
Yes, blackouts small blackouts should occur by design to isolate a fault. When the much of the north eastern US is in a black out, the system did not work. The grid should have isolated the fault and blacked out the minimum area.
When ever there is a power outage, a grid must be brought back up slowly. Otherwise, all the lights, motors, air-conditioners, fridges etc. switched on will overload the system and shut it down again - bunnyhopping.
100% correct.
Moreover, grids are deliberately designed (1950s or not) to channel energy where it's needed. This prevents overloading or underpowering.
Absolutely correct again. The problem is that after deregulation power companies send their power to whatever area will pay the most $$$. This is not always the place that is in the most need of power. Thus many lines have a lot more power going through them than before deregulation. In addition electricity is being carried much farther than before. This is not how the grid was designed, and is a partial contributor to the august blackout.
I agree with the article. We need to upgrade the US power system. An alternative would be to do away with deregulation and go back to using the grid as it was designed. (This would require a political change and probably won't happen.)
An alternative would be to do away with deregulation and go back to using the grid as it was designed.
It seems to me that such a change would result in building a lot more powerplants closer to cities. I'm not very excited about that, unless they were nuclear power plants, because of the amount of pollution generated by powerplants. I bet that nuclear powerplants wouldn't be built because of environmental and n.i.m.b.y. concerns.
If I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion, please correct me. I don't know much about the electrical system.