Slashdot Mirror
California Utilities to Control Thermostats?
TeraBill writes "It seems that the California Energy Commission is looking to give utilities in the state the power to control the thermostats in private homes via a radio signal. The idea is that during times of significant energy crunch, the utilities could force thermostats to higher temperatures rather than having to implement a rolling blackout. The thermostats have been around for a while and new ones were on display at the CES show in Vegas this week. While I can see the argument for it, we just had a kid take over a tram system with a remote control, so how long before our thermostat gets hacked by the neighbors. And I'd almost rather have the power drop than have someone significantly raise the temperature in my home if I had a computer running there. (UPS and a graceful shutdown versus cooking something.)"
This is very old technology here in Canterbury New Zealand where the power companies have controlled water heating during the morning and evening peaks. It was done by injecting audio tones into the mains supply. The technology actually originated in WW2 in London to control the air-raid sirens.
..remember that California is HOT. The thermostats referred to are connected to air conditioning, not, as I first thought, heating systems!
By the time they've got this in everyone's home, intruding in their lives like some third world dictatorship rationing bread, they could have built a new nuclear power plant or two.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Here's an idea. Instead of the current typical 200amp service, everybody gets a 20amp service that is "always on", and a 200 amp service that's subject to rolling blackouts. That gives consumers the power to choose what loads will be shit down. It would be a little more complex for metering, but, much more effective, and easier to "convince" homeowners to retrofit. (Look... we can give you SOME power that doesn't go out...).
http://www.cityofames.org/ElectricWeb/PrimeTimePower/Default.htm
Having everyone pulling power willy-nilly from a facility with limited output is a dumb idea. Regulating a more even amount of power to everyone is smarter.
They already have a system like this in place in south Louisiana, some electricity co-ops use load management terminals, which look like a separate electric meter connected to the air conditioner. On hot summer days, they'll shut off the A/C for up to half an hour, to prevent overload to the grid and save money. They don't shut everybody's A/C off at once, they "roll" the shutoffs through the neighborhoods. It can be a bit of an inconvenience because of the temperature rise in your house, but if your house is well insulated, you won't notice it that much. The system is totally voluntary, and you even get a minor rebate on your electric bill.
Looks like the prefect use for a faraday cage.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
That wasn't feasible at the time, as they would have quickly run out of available addresses, but now with IPv6 that's not such a problem anymore. I expect that the proposal will resurface again soon.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
There already exists devices for dropping loads when the supply frequency droops - a sign that the generation is not meeting the load. These are designed specifically for areas where generation will occasionally be insufficient, like developing countries. Now that North America is in the same boat (and the rest of the 'western' world is probably going to follow the same course), why not start using these things.
It wouldn't be hard to develop a small micro-controller driven box that would watch the mains supply frequency and apply small adjustments to a thermostat setting as required.
/* This sig is disabled. Press CTRL-W to enable. Thankyou */
You know the one thing that I really don't understand is saving energy via force, and not via using technology. Actually I really don't understand the whole drive to just save energy as saving energy doesn't necessarily even mean saving environment. We have the technology, we have had for long, to solve all our energy problems without sacrificing environment or economy. So why not build more nuclear power? It's environmentally friendly and economic. From western countries, France and Finland are both building new next generation plants, British government is leaning on building more and even in Sweden, who after the Chernobyl, made an alarmist decision to give up nuclear power, is starting to discuss on reverting that decision.
So why not? Why not build more capacity to California and other parts of US? That way you could have your all the energy you need in low price and in time you could shut down your coal and oil power generation plants and take part in struggle against global warming. That would be a real solution to a problem, not a act to play more time, as is this proposition to take over the thermostats.
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
No, this is a terrible idea.
If there's not enough power to go around, build up the infrastructure. I pay for a service. You provide it. How many decades do you have to suffer poor infrastructure problems before you finally start investing in it? How the hell do you run a business (and it is) by providing only what your current systems can handle and to hell with a growing demand for those services in the future? Imagine if the phone company had decided that, instead of requiring you to dial the area code every time you make a call, they had simply said "sorry, no more phone lines!" and decided not to invest in any sort of build-out whatsoever?
This whole "oh my god, not enough power" thing is fine for a year or two, when it catches you off guard. Its' quite another more than a decade later.
How long people start pointing hair dryers at or placing heat packs over their thermostats?
Anytime time some one further regulates our lives someone will find a way around it. The best way to control demand for a limited resource is to increase the price during peak periods. Once the price gets high enough people will actually start to see the cost savings in turning down the air conditioning or better insulating their houses.
I prefer a cooler temperature however I have spent a lot of money insulating my house and only run the air conditioning in the one room I am using. I use less power than people with uninsulated houses that air condition every room even when their thermostat is set a few degrees higher.
Simple way to accomplish the same means: raise the price during peak hours. Works for cell phones, right?
The power generation infrastructure suffers from too much 'NIMBY'. I lived in Indiana for years, and during the 90's; Duke power wanted to build several 'Peak Power' generation plants fired by Natural Gas. Every time they tried to get permits, the 'NIMBY' (Not In My Back Yard) crowd showed up and whined to the elected officials. Naturally, fearing a loss of votes elected officials caved.
California is in much the same state; They haven't been able to build a power plant (thanks to the NIMBY's) for at least 2 decades. Now, they are suffering for it. Back in 2001, the DOE estimated that the US would need around 1900 power plants built by the year 2021. Yes, they've built wind farms, but now they're finding that the Wind Farms are killing Raptors and causing infestations of rats. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18447
There is no easy answer--Conservation by us will help some, but ultimately we need clean, cheap power. On NUMB3RS last night, they were looking at putting up Solar Panels on Charlies house; which on a nice bright sunny day would generate more than what they used. IIRC, they were looking at some really cutting edge technology stuff. Currently, the break even point is about 12-18 years, but this company looks really promising. http://www.news.com/greentech/8301-11128_3-9835241-54.html?tag=nefd.top At their cost of $1/watt it cuts the break even by as much as 66%.
In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
Here's another idea: Create some competition to SDGE, and the first time they start turning off my A/C during the summer watch me switch to a new provider who builds an infrastructure that can keep up with demand and is willing to provide the energy I pay for.
That prevent the proper and adequate supply of electricity. The hoops my local has to go through to increase generating capacity is shameful. It practically comes down to bribing state representatives in order to build plants. Hell, even when providers try to build "green" sources they are fought in courts by one group or another. It has become downright disgusting how easy it is to prevent any improvement, green or otherwise to the system. It is mainly these roadblocks which result in coal plants being kept in service longer. In some cases making improvements at said plants is difficult as well because of regulation.
You want to ban air condition, then get the government to do so first in their own buildings. Make them come up to the same specifications they impose on commercial and private properties. Make them conserve. Down here in Georgia we are suffering from a regulation caused water shortage. Stupid rules, monolithic government agencies, and ease of filing suits with willing courts have resulted in Georgia flushing billions of gallons down stream with no study to back it up. When the recent reviews didn't turn out like the conservationist wanted they simply went to the courts and lawmakers to get their view imposed. I have two lakes near me near 20 feet down. One of which could generate electricity cleanly provided it wasn't flushing twenty times the water needed for generation down the river. Rivers which because of the volume are near flood stage meaning rains push them over their banks.
If we cannot have comfort in our own homes then something is desperately wrong with the system. We are a nation with great resources, the technology to use them efficiently and cleanly, yet at every corner some interest group gets the government to impose such heavy handed regulation that the public suffers. We are a country that fought for freedom and then began making laws to give it away. Now I bet your the type that would be screaming at government ids and government healthcare yet you turn around and want intervention?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You can always hack that 4-degree swing in the thermostat. Too warm? Use a blow dryer to "persuade" your thermostat that it is too warm to get the AC to kick in.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Here, in Minnesota, I have this already in my house. Hooked up to my air conditioner is a relay that the power company can shut down during peak usage time. I get a discount on my bill for having it (10 or 15% during the summer) and they only shut it off for a maximum of 15 minutes at a time, no more than once every 2 hours, so it doesn't have any major impact on the temp of my house.
Here's another idea: Create some competition to SDGE, and the first time they start turning off my A/C during the summer watch me switch to a new provider who builds an infrastructure that can keep up with demand and is willing to provide the energy I pay for.
This is the sort of naive, knee-jerk reaction that makes sense when you don't understand how the grid works.
Yes, of course we can build more infrastructure, and we may have to, but that's not what TFA is about. TFA is about a solution to high peak loads. Building more infrastructure (generation and transmission) is an expensive solution, especially when you only need it for a few hours per day.
Automatic load shedding, on the other hand (the solution proposed in TFA) moves energy use away from the peaks, allowing greater overall utilization of the existing infrastructure. There are pilot programs in many places already, and you will pay lower rates for your (voluntary) participation. It's very unlikely that you'll ever be forced to participate in such a program against your will.
Time-of-use rates kindof do this - encouraging cutbacks at peak times. Most power companies that do this offer this as an option, so adoption has probably been slower than expected. Basically, the way it works, the power company installs a meter that records not only power consumption, but when that consumption occurs. In exchange for allowing the power company to meter usage in this manner, the customer gets a sharply discounted rate during off-peak hours. However, during on-peak hours, rates are significantly higher. The utility companies, with the consent of regulators, could make these rates mandatory. The resulting jumps from say, $0.08/KwH to, $0.75/KwH or more would probably encourage enough "voluntary" cutbacks to allow time for a long term solution.
1) They stayed the hell away from the south western US.
2) They used the evaporative cooling.
3) They had ice shipped in, and paid exorbitant fees for it.
4) The old and infirm, quite simply, died.
What do I win?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant