Smart Power

ajnsue writes "How would you like to control your homes power consumption at the level of the appliance - About 300 Washington State and Oregon Power users are now testing software and devices that allow them to actively control their household power consumption based on the price of power. From the article... "...(Using)real-time price information (provided) through a broadband Internet connection and automated equipment that will adjust energy use based on price. In addition, some customers will have computer chips embedded in their dryers and water heaters that can sense when the power transmission system is under stress and automatically turn off certain functions briefly until the grid can be stabilized by power operators." This technology also provides beneift to the provider network "...The Grid Friendly TM Appliance Controller chip could help prevent widespread power outages by turning off certain parts of an appliance when it senses instability in the grid - something that happens about once a day on average. Shutting down the heating element for a few minutes, while the drum continues to tumble, would likely go unnoticed by the homeowner but drastically reduces power demand within the home...""

Comments

Excess power usage

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It's about as unlikely that a dryer would be affected by a momentarily jittery power signal as an elephant would notice stepping on a cracked peanut shell.

As for dryers automatically shutting down the heating element, it makes sense to do so to conserve energy anyway. You wouldn't leave your car engine running all night just to keep the seats warm for when you wake up the next day.

Re:Excess power usage

[squiggleslash]

That was outstanding, those analogies made about as much sense as a sausage mixer in a hot-tub to a certified accountant.

Welcome to my friends list...

Re:Excess power usage

[CMiYC]

As for dryers automatically shutting down the heating element, it makes sense to do so to conserve energy anyway

The example of the dryer shutting down isn't to conserve energy. The example given is for when the power grid is un-stable because of execessive usage. If enough appliances suspend their power activities for a few minutes or have the ability to coordinate their usage, then the power-grid will remain stable.

Re:Excess power usage

[peacefinder]

Some folks at work do insist on leaving their space heaters on all weekend to ensure that they do not face fifteen minutes of chilly discomfort on Monday morning. I took this up with their department's supervisor, only to discover that it was her idea.

So your second analogy might be bad for a reason other than you thought. Good effort, though. :-)

Re:"Benefit"?

[Tx]

Well, cost, according to TFA. It's not strictly rationing, since the consumers choose when to curtail their energy use. But as usual I suspect the energy companies will benefit more than the consumers, and since they control the other important parameter, energy price, I guess it could indeed be seen as a sort of rationing.

Re:"Benefit"?

[Capt'n Hector]

Where was the bit about how it benefits the consumer...?

Less power outages. People in California know what I'm talking about...

Dynamic Demand

[bjpirt]

A friend of mine is working on a similar system here in the UK. Have a look at his website for more information.

It is a really elegant solution to the problem of grid instability. I love the idea that by measuring the frequency of the grid you can tell whether there is a surplus or deficit of power and then decide to either cool the fridge further or wait until there is a surplus (or until the temperature drops to it's lowest limit). This way you could treat all of the fridges in the country as a massive battery, using the surplus power so they don't need it when there is a deficit.

One of the big benefits is to make it easier for energy sources with an unpredictable output to be integrated into the grid, such as renewables. It also avoids having to turn on extra turbines when there is a grid emergency, saving lots of CO2.

Re:Dynamic Demand

[outcast36]

my utility company (FPL) has been doing this for years. It's never been a problem. Everybody I know (we're talking families & grandparents here, not weirdo techies like ourselves) does it and nobody has ever noticed. I would suggest you look into it.

Re:Dynamic Demand

[radtea]

I think this is a great idea, but wonder about some of the implementation details. In particular, this implicitly couples all the homes using the load-leveling technology. That creates the possibility for feedback.

A simple scenario goes like this: demand on a given sub-grid is high due to a particular industrial load, say. All the homes in the area dutifully stop running their fridges and moderate their air-conditioning (by far the two biggest cyclic loads). The industrial user goes off-line, and all the homes turn back up to full power at once, causing wires to vapourize, milk to curdle and frogs to rain from the sky. Or something like that.

I'm sure the real failure mode will be far more complex than this--the people doing this kind of thing will obviously think of all the obvious things that could happen. But even weakly coupled complex systems can exhibit remarkably complex behaviour, and I fully expect that if we go this route in a big way we will necessarily discover some of the less likely failure modes over the first few decades of use.

Re:"Benefit"?

[skinfitz]

As do I - was not pleasant being stuck in a house in Highland Park in July last year during power outage lasting a few hours in 90+ degree heat.

Off-peak meter

[tdemark]

Doesn't all this technology re-invent what we already have via the "off-peak meter"?

When our house used electric drying, cooking, and water heating, we had a secondary meter on the outside of the house. This meter powered a separate panel to which the above devices were connected to and was scheduled to be turned off from Noon to 7 PM every day and could be turned off at any other time at the POCO's discretion.

In exchange for this, power from that meter was about 25% the cost of power from our main meter.

Doesn't all this extra technology do the practically the same thing, except a little more granular control, but with the addition of a lot of "complicated" technology (as compared to flipping a switch once a day)?

- Tony

Re:Off-peak meter

[warpSpeed]

Doesn't all this technology re-invent what we already have via the "off-peak meter"?

Two point to this. First the power company controls this, thus elimnating your ability to pay more to get power when you need it.

And second, with the individual appliances doing the work you get more granular contol over your power consumption.

I think allowing your appliances to be programmed by you is a good start to the power problems we face. If this comes as a standard option in most appliances, much like the "green energy approved" appliacnes more people will start to use it. People savvy enough to take advantage of it will (in theory) save money. The Power companies will save money, and there will be less demand for power during peak usage periods, thus less outages.

The 2nd power meter is a good theory, but the costs to deploy it in a wide spread fasion are too large. Rewiring and adding a second meter is cost prohibative in general for most home owners. Having all your appliances manage your power consumption for you is a much better plan. Your going to have to replace your appliances at some point, but you do not have to install a whole new power system in your house.

Definitely cool and beneficial

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

There are lots of hair-brained ideas to merge the Internet with Fridges and toasters, but when it comes to energy conservation, this is where the idea makes sense. It's not an outrageous idea at all.

First, by having each appliance monitor its energy consumption, this will make consumers aware of just how much energy respective appliances are using. Outside the Geek and Nerd community, many people are simply not aware that running an oven or dryer for hours at requires a lot of energy and can cost a lot of money. If you got an electric bill that could actually break down how much money your dryer or oven costs in power, energy consumers could make more informed choices about how they use these appliances.

Second, it gives customers more control over how they use their products. Ever leave a light on at home while your at work? How about those moments when you can't remember if you turned off your oven. Having internet access connected to the appliances and circuitry in your home gives you greater control and would allow you to stop situations where you might waste energy unknowingly.

For instance, why not just shut off power going to your oven when your at work. From 9 to 5pm, no power goes to the oven. This prevents the potential waste of energy (or potential disaster of fire) of forgetting to turn the oven off.

Having this level of home automation may not be for everyone, but for those who consider themselves environmentally friendly, having more information about and greater control over how they use energy makes a lot of sense in the long run.

Limited usefulness

[blueZ3]

I can only think of one appliance that runs without intervention--that's the refrigerator. Everything else in my house that requires significant electricity is run on demand. I'm not sure I see how helpful this is going to be overall.

Take this scenario: I am running a load of laundry through the clothes dryer and it's about 1/2-way dry. The dryer "senses" that the grid is under stress and turns off the heating element, but the drum continues to spin. The grid stays under stress for 30 minutes, then things return to normal. The dryer senses that the grid is normal and turns the heating element back on. The element must return to its heated state and dry the clothes the rest of the way. To me, this sounds like a recipe for selling more power, not less.

In any event, having worked for a company that provided metering services to electric utilities, I can say that "grid stress" is almost certainly not the real reason behind a push for this technology. The idea of "grid stress" makes it sound like the transmission mechanisms are under stress. But in reality, the problem is peak power generataion. During peak power usage, utilities rely on "peaker" power generation (sometimes small diesel plants) which frequently cost an order of magnitude more to operate than regular power generation. For instance, if it costs the utility $0.07 KWH to produce power, peaker power may cost $0.70 per KWH. However, most utilities are not set up to charge based on time of consumption, so the flat rate the PUC allows them to charge (say $10.10 per KWH) means that generating this extra power is a loss for them. So anything the utility can do to reduce spikes and eliminate the need for this type of generation is going to save them big money.

Smart Power Usage (Offtopic)

[OzPeter]

[rant-ish]
Its interesting that the article summary mentions the dryer as one appliance to turn off when the power grid gets stressed, as I feel that the dryer is the one thing for which there is a perfectly good solar equivelent .. its called "the Sun".

Growing up in Australia, pretty well every house had a Hills Hoist in the backyard, and clothes were dryed by the power of the Sun. It was only during the most shitty weather that you couldn't get the 1/2 day needed to dry your load of clothes.

Now fast forward to me living in the US. I find that 2 story houses are being built with the Laundry room on the upper floor as it minimises the transport of clothes to/from the bedrooms/bathrooms where they are most likely to be removed/stored, so you are being coerced to use the power hungry dryer over the use of a more environment friendly method. But what astounds me more is that many communities have laws restricting placing any sort of clothes line out in the backyard. Thus on a day like today, when the sun is streaming in my window, I am going to have to use the dryer to dry the clothes I will be washing (And yes I do realise that I could string my clothes out inside the house .. but dripping water doesn't do carpet any good either)

It just seeems crazy to me that arbitrary asthetic restrictions are forcing people to use more energy, and that high tech solutions are being enacted to reduce peak energy usage. What is being proposed is not really energy reduction or energy effieciency, but rather shifting the production of energy to time periods when it won't be noticed. To me this is really sweeping the energy production limitations under the carpet while allowing society to keep increasing average usage. In the long term its nuts to do so.

Why are we headed in this direction? Where are the programs for reducing energy consumption? Or are the leaders who dictate energy policy playing Nero while Rome is starting to smoulder in the background? I wish I knew the answer to these questions.

As an example of energy policy, there is the current US issue of drilling in the arctic wilderness (Note that I am not Bush bashing, just that he is currently the leader and this is a current issue .. I am sure other leaders had their own examples) A few years ago I saw the projected energy output from the potential arctic park drilling. Over the course of its lifetime, it amounted to at most 10% of the total US energy consumption at any one time, while the energy usage growth over that same period was huge, easily more than 10%. It would seem that if you could enforce more energy effieciency, then you wouldn't have to be scrapping around in contreversal places looking for more.

As a final stat, it is pretty common knowledge that in rough terms, the US has 5% of the worlds population, but uses 20% of its energy. I can't see this as being sustainable in the long term, as what happens when the other 95% of the worlds peoples want *their* 20% of the worlds energy? Somewhere it is all going to end in tears for some people.

[/rant-ish]