Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japan Looks To Distributed Control Theory To Manage Energy Market Deregulation

Posted by Soulskill on from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong dept.

Hallie Siegel writes: Japan's power industry is currently centralized, but it aims to deregulate by around 2020. Coupled with this major structural market change, the expansion of thermal, nuclear and renewable power generation will place additional demands on the management of the country's energy market. Researchers from the Namerikawa lab at Keio University are working with control engineers, power engineers and economists to designing mechanical and control algorithms that can manage this large-scale problem.

54 comments

  1. Regulation is the enemy of free markets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Fucking government always wants to destroy the free market economy.

    1. Re:Regulation is the enemy of free markets. by QuantumReality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't see the bigger picture here. There are certain segments of market that NEED to be regulated. 2008 finance crisis was because of deregulation's in finance market. 90% of products do not need to be regulated, but energy,finance etc. are not one of them.

    2. Re:Regulation is the enemy of free markets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      No, the bigger picture is that government exists for the sake of government, and is left to its own devices it would take over everything if you let it. This has happened many times throughout history, and the Free Market is the best defense against runaway bureaucracy. Always remember that.

    3. Re:Regulation is the enemy of free markets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel sad when I see that still we've people blaming deregulation for 2008 crisis

    4. Re:Regulation is the enemy of free markets. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since unregulated derivatives markets were to blame for the collapse, no it's not sad. What is sad is ass-holes like you who don't understand that unregulated markets do not operate in their own best interests.

    5. Re:Regulation is the enemy of free markets. by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Regulation is required for free markets. And example of a free market gone haywire due to lax or no regulation was the housing market. And without the FDA, you'd feel perfectly safe getting your prescriptions from Joe's Medical Stuff and Bait Store, right? Or maybe you wish to turn safety entirely over to the airlines so that an acceptable level of crashes that can be insured against would work for you. Your car company would never think to cut corners and get you killed dead because they could save on not installing proper safety equipment in their vehicles. Your bank account need not be insured by the FDIC because you mistakenly stuck your money in a bank whose owners absconded with your loot. The food you eat need not be inspected regularly to keep your death from being the result of bad processing. The guard rails on your way to work don't need any standard over keeping you from your freedom to plow straight down a ravine into that swiftly flowing river. The next hurricane won't bother you because you'll be safe in your house which didn't need to conform to hurricane building standards, also see earthquakes.

      Your grandmother can come and live with you because of the nursing home fire which was caused because the owners didn't need to conform to fire protection standards. And, by the way, it wiped out the money she kept in her room which was destined for you in her will but which she didn't trust a bank to keep and hence kept it in large denomination bills which, tragically, met their end in the fire.

      Need I continue?

    6. Re:Regulation is the enemy of free markets. by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1, Informative

      Enron and the California deregulation debacle (rolling blackouts anyone?) 'Nuff said concerning deregulation...

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    7. Re:Regulation is the enemy of free markets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is that deregulation or over-regulation? Seems like they got the natural consequences of their NIMBY policies.

    8. Re:Regulation is the enemy of free markets. by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

      And example of a free market gone haywire due to lax or no regulation was the housing market.

      Which regulations were lax or missing? From what I saw it was a pretty heavily regulated market even on the banking side.

      And without the FDA, you'd feel perfectly safe getting your prescriptions from Joe's Medical Stuff and Bait Store, right?

      No I wouldn't. Who said they would be? This is a straw man argument. And possibly a false dichotomy.

      Or maybe you wish to turn safety entirely over to the airlines so that an acceptable level of crashes that can be insured against would work for you. Your car company would never think to cut corners and get you killed dead because they could save on not installing proper safety equipment in their vehicles.

      I don't think the parent suggested that torts and other forms of liability should be abolished.

      And so on. There are multiple ways that problems like these can and have been resolved, and centralized federal regulation isn't the only choice.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    9. Re:Regulation is the enemy of free markets. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You needn't continue, you should listen.

      Government regulations are the opposite of free markets, free means free of government regulations. Free markets do not go haywire due to lack of government regulations, market did go haywire due to government regulations. Housing market, equity market, now bond market and money markets are all haywire and they are all haywire due to government regulations.

      Governments regulate interest rates by ensuring that the so called 'reserve banks' (which have no reserves but only debt actually) control interest rates and create fake money, which is what destroys actual free market.

      Fake, government regulated fiat and interest rates destroy free market operations and cause them to go haywire, which is what has been happening for over 100 years now, the Great Depression was due to the Feds creating fake money, the 1971 stagflation was government destroying the very principle of reserve and going full fledged retard with money being nothing at all but paper.

      The entire USA and most of the rest of Western economy is a rude facade, there is no production behind it and only inflation creating one bubble after another, each new one having to be ever bigger than the previous one to continue the pretence that there is an actual economy, while the reality is that without production there is no economy and without real money there is no production and the real money is outlawed by the government.

      The actual people responsible for the 2008, for the late 1990s, for 1970s, for 1930s and all the crap in between are in power, they are dictating the rules, the so called 'professors' propaganda pushers like Krugman are doing what they are trained and paid to do to help the government to stay in power and the useful idiots like the masses who buy into this crap are the ones who eventually pay with destruction of their economies and standards of living.

      FDIC shouldn't exist. FDA shouldn't exist. Federal reserve bank shouldn't exist or at the minimum should HAVE RESERVES and should NOT be allowed to print paper money and manipulate interest rates.

      Government should not be allowed to meddle with money or with business and specifically with individual rights of people and you are talking about 'free market going haywire'! Ha!

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    10. Re:Regulation is the enemy of free markets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Question: Do you buy your electronics from Best Buy (or any other electronics retailer in the US or Canada)? Do you feel they are particularly dangerous?

      If the answer is that you do buy electronics in the US or Canada, and that you feel they are safe, congratulations, you believe that regulation is not necessary. UL, CSA, and ETL aren't government agencies. They simply review devices and decide if they meet safety requirements. There is absolutely requirement in the NEC or CEC (the regulations) that require devices have UL/CSA/ETL certification *except* if you'd like to connect them to your local utility (go ahead, have a read, I can wait).

      Effectively, you are buying unregulated devices that the free market builds. You buy them with those certifications because you know that means they're safe. Your utility asks they have those certifications because they don't need to see houses burn down. But if you want to build and market a non-certified device, you are free to do so. Just be certain it doesn't plug into standard utility power.

      But, regulation is *required*... right? Yet, you just typed your message on an unregulated device, and you didn't even know it, and had no reason to worry. Sucks when *required* changes to *often happens*.

    11. Re:Regulation is the enemy of free markets. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No. That was deregulation combined with businesses illegally colluding together.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    12. Re:Regulation is the enemy of free markets. by ananamouse · · Score: 1

      No, the bigger picture is that government exists for the sake of government, and is left to its own devices it would take over everything if you let it. This has happened many times throughout history, and the Free Market is the best defense against runaway bureaucracy. Always remember that.

      I am starting to wonder about that. The government does not exist to protect us from the Robber Barons(tm), and it would not be an efficient way to protect them from us. I am starting to wonder if the government exists to protect them from each other, or something like that.

    13. Re:Regulation is the enemy of free markets. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      What are you saying? One side of those trades TOTALLY operated in their own best interest..they totally ripped off the banks by lying to them.

      Then the banks operated in their own best interest by demanding large amounts of money directly from the gov't to save themselves from their own greed.

      The sad thing is regular people have been tricked into believing that it was all done in our best interest.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. This is how you deregulate by rolias · · Score: 1

    Replace the regulations with a functional equivalent. Don't just magically figure that the free market will figure it out. I hope it works.

    1. Re:This is how you deregulate by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      This is how you deregulate the energy market: you don't. It always turns into a cartel anyway.

    2. Re:This is how you deregulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And which market doesn't degenerate into a cartel?
      Spoiler: monopoly.

    3. Re:This is how you deregulate by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      It is very hard to deregulate electrical because it has an instantaneous supply/demand response, hence the consideration of unique methods. Also, a short sighted market may not be best for long term planning needs that require large investment with very long term ROI. Its not like the deregulation of the phone companies, which although it was messy, worked out for the better.

    4. Re:This is how you deregulate by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'll just point out that markets are an ancient solution to the distributed control problem.

    5. Re:This is how you deregulate by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      Tell California how well deregulating the energy markets worked for them. In a word: Enron.

    6. Re:This is how you deregulate by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Indeed. How soon we forget.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    7. Re:This is how you deregulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just point out that markets are an ancient solution to the distributed control problem.

      I'll just point out markets do not equal anarchy. Regulations, even government regulations can exist and you still have a market.

      (and yes, the GP doesn't seem to get that either)

    8. Re:This is how you deregulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to the instantaneous supply demand property - the grid is an electric circuit with ever changing loads that are both capacitive and inductive. Keeping power (both real and reactive) moving efficiently is a non-trivial task. Regulated monopolies (in the US) have an "obligation to serve". If you want power the power company is not allowed to say no, even if the supply is insufficient. When Apple or Google can put up a data center in a few months from breaking ground to switching it on and draw energy equivalent to a steel mill, but new power plants require more than a decade to site, permit, build, test, and put in service the challenges can be daunting. Libertarian "markets good - regulation bad" can be as unhinged from reality as creationism. Its bad religion to pretend the world works in accordance with your faith regardless of the data. In these instances free market evangelism isn't an economic theory, its religion.

    9. Re:This is how you deregulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell California how well deregulating the energy markets worked for them. In a word: Enron.

      That wasn't a failure of deregulation, that was political stupidity. The deregulated ISOs in the rest of the country (NEPOOL, PJM, MISO, etc) that are run by actual engineers that understand power networks and game theory were Enron-proof. You did'nt think Enron only attempted their shenanigans in California, did you? They only succeeded in CA because that's where the clueless political cronies were running the show.

    10. Re:This is how you deregulate by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'll just point out markets do not equal anarchy.

      Of course, they don't. Even the most anarchic of markets still have regulation else there is no support for trading, it's just regulation imposed by the traders instead of an external source like a government or powerful leader.

    11. Re:This is how you deregulate by khallow · · Score: 1

      I notice how so many of the supposed examples of deregulation cited in this discussion are actually examples of government incompetence and malfeasance. Sure, you can deregulate in a way that is a disaster as you demonstrate. But just because California created a market which heavily favored Enron and then the governor of California deliberately forced those conditions to continue for about half a year until one of the three large electricity utilities were in bankruptcy and a second was about to file for bankruptcy, doesn't mean that there is anything inherently wrong with deregulation or markets,

    12. Re:This is how you deregulate by khallow · · Score: 1
      You have yet to mention a thing relevant to libertarians or their beliefs on markets.

      In addition to the instantaneous supply demand property - the grid is an electric circuit with ever changing loads that are both capacitive and inductive. Keeping power (both real and reactive) moving efficiently is a non-trivial task.

      So this is hard? So is virtually everything we use markets for.

      Regulated monopolies (in the US) have an "obligation to serve". If you want power the power company is not allowed to say no, even if the supply is insufficient.

      They don't say "no", they just don't deliver at all. That's obviously a vast improvement. And of course, this has nothing to do with markets.

      When Apple or Google can put up a data center in a few months from breaking ground to switching it on and draw energy equivalent to a steel mill, but new power plants require more than a decade to site, permit, build, test, and put in service the challenges can be daunting.

      And most of the delay is due to California regulation. Again, we have that because this is "daunting", that somehow magically means it can't be done by a market.

      Libertarian "markets good - regulation bad" can be as unhinged from reality as creationism. Its bad religion to pretend the world works in accordance with your faith regardless of the data. In these instances free market evangelism isn't an economic theory, its religion.

      What data? What reality? I notice you don't bring any up yourself. It's annoying when libertarians are supposed to provide all this data and reality while their Slashdot critics can merely observe that electricity is hard and make up straw men on the fly.

    13. Re:This is how you deregulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, they don't. Even the most anarchic of markets still have regulation else there is no support for trading, it's just regulation imposed by the traders instead of an external source like a government or powerful leader.

      Actually, it's the other way around. As a market heads towards anarchy, it's the regulation imposed by traders that disappear first.

      The closer you are to an anarchic market, the more transactions will be uniquely negotiated on a case by case basis. So there wouldn't be much common one-size-fits-all conventions or solutions that could translate into regulation.

    14. Re:This is how you deregulate by khallow · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's the other way around. As a market heads towards anarchy, it's the regulation imposed by traders that disappear first.

      I'll meet your erroneous generalization with a real world counterexample.

  3. Glad they're trusting in the free market by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    Deregulation already worked so well for their housing market back in the 90's.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Glad they're trusting in the free market by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      And it worked fairly well for their railway system. It's not completely without flaws, or without regulations and subsidies, but private companies have demonstrated an ability to create both effective and profitable transportation systems which government run companies could never manage to do. Deregulation and privatization are not panaceas, but they can and do work well when done smartly. Japan seems to at least have a track record of success in this area.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  4. Japanese Reagan strikes again by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    What a brilliant idea, especially in the wake of a nuclear power accident!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Japanese Reagan strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure the wake was from the tsunami.

  5. Accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coupled with this major structural market change, the expansion of thermal, nuclear and renewable power generation will place additional demands on the management of the country's energy market.

    I don't want to dispute the summary, but I see nuclear listed there as an expanding sector.

    I was under the impression that post Fukushima, Japan has committed to shrinking its nuclear sector?

  6. How Does One Pronounce "Enron" in Japanese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually, this is not so much "Deregulation" as "Reregulation".
    A new National Grid under Central control, with Free-er Market solutions at the Generation level.
    Of course, something corrupt like CALISO may occur, but there is always _some_ corruption.

    1. Re:How Does One Pronounce "Enron" in Japanese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I should comment a bit more about CAL-ISO.

      I represented a Stakeholder when California Power was de-regulated. I opposed this then, and I oppose it now.
      We got our Feed from WAPA Bank 2. This was "Interruptible Power"- if the demand on the Commercial Grid was too large, WAPA would divert our Federal Power to it.
      In exchange, we got a fixed rate of ~$70/MVA.
      I had a Beeper. If it went off, I had 90 minutes to shut everything down. Sudden Blackouts for us could be _very_ expensive.
      I kept a sharp eye on the California "Independent" System Operator website, along with a proprietary website that tracked actual chargebacks.
      The Beeper never went off, even as Power was lost elsewhere, and chargebacks hovered around ~$480/MVA.
      It's almost as if they didn't _want_ cheap, reliable, Federal Hydropower.
      Because Communism.

    2. Re:How Does One Pronounce "Enron" in Japanese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were a certain large customer in NorCal, the real reason is because many of those events occurred when the line temperatures heading down the central valley were high enough that they really couldn't handle more current. We measured one of them at 208C, which is close to the design temp of ACCR, and we were really concerned about sagging. For reference, most transmission lines max design temp is 75C, and you need special high temp conductors for anything over 100C. We replaced the cables on several of the lines to allow roughly 40% more current with the same towers and no decade-long environmental litigation, but it's still not enough.

    3. Re:How Does One Pronounce "Enron" in Japanese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, a good explanation as to the transmission line limits at that time.
      I tried to find a detailed WAPA map, but I understand that they are now deliberately obscure.
      Nonetheless, WAPA power got routed to us through the Grizzly Hillside Substation.
      But...

      This doesn't explain the Pricing. If CAL-ISO was shedding loads and generating capacity solely because of line limits, the spot prices for Electricity should have gone _down_, due surplus capacity.
      Instead they went into the Stratosphere.
      I haven't been to the CAISO.com website for a while, but they used to chart Projected Load, Actual Load, and Generating Capacity, along with details about scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. I kept an eagle eye on it during Weekdays back then. (There were no issues on Weekends, when most people were at home running their washers, dryers, and air conditioners.)

      Let's not fool ourselves; I stated up front that this is a corrupt System, and ENRON did not operate in a vacuum, unlike a lot of my equipment.

  7. 50 Hz vs 60 Hz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd be impressed if they can figure out how to link the east side of the country (50 Hz) with the west (wired later at 60 Hz).

    1. Re:50 Hz vs 60 Hz by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

      I agree. Probably not, though. It's all Tokyo and Germany's fault.

    2. Re:50 Hz vs 60 Hz by Orne · · Score: 1

      HVDC tie lines and rotary frequency converters can do this. There are many instances of this in the US interconnection, just look where the Amtrak network (25 Hz) connects to the transmission grid (60 Hz).

      It's all a matter of how much money are you willing to spend for the additional reliability. Until the nukes went offline, Japan's two grids were self-sufficient enough that transferring energy between the two wasn't cost effective to justify a highly connected interface. By the time you needed it, it was too late to build.

      Heck, there are only 24 transmission lines above 200 kV that connect New York to the rest of the eastern interconnection.

    3. Re:50 Hz vs 60 Hz by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      There is such a thing as TW scale powerconversion. You just need to order it.
      Most long distance runs are HVDV because that has lower losses. The same equipment can be used to convert from 50 Hz to DC to 60 Hz and back.
      The reason this was a problem during the Fukishima disaster is that there was no time to make it. Not that it was not possible to make it.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    4. Re:50 Hz vs 60 Hz by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that should have been "GW scale powerconversion". TW scale in a single location is technically possible but not done as of yet.
      For scale: the average power consumption over 2010 was approximately 17 TW.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    5. Re: 50 Hz vs 60 Hz by PedroDeAlvarado · · Score: 1

      Easy: with DC instead of AC.

    6. Re:50 Hz vs 60 Hz by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Yes this was going to be my comment. Good luck doing that through deregulation! The only hope would be that some government is forward thinking enough to regulate the change to force the issue, you know for the good of everyone in the future. Deregulation to corporations that have much smaller frames of reference (profit quarters), pretty much ensures that it will never happen, or at least in the foreseeable future.

  8. Is this....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this how skynet starts?

  9. Technically interesting proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we just forget the politics of energy deregulation for a moment?

    Managing an energy network without a system operator is a revolutionary concept, and theoretically very interesting.

    Currently networks have operators who monitor the flow of energy, coordinate outages, conduct system planning and procure operating reserves to ensure network stability. As I understand the Japanese proposal they intend to replace this all with a decentralised decision making system, like TCP/IP achieves packet routing without any one actor having complete system knowledge.

    This is a very bold proposal- particularly for a field so vital to the national interest and so conservative. Best of luck to them.

  10. Time to switch to DC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should just switch to high voltage DC for power transmission and distribution. With DC, you can put solar power directly into the distribution grid without conversion inefficiencies and phase synchronization issues. Not only is solid state DC voltage conversion more power efficient than passive transformers, you do not run into nasty polarity and phase issues, which can be huge infrastructure liabilities. DC circuits have much simpler and effective polarity protection. You can convert into legacy AC at the home, but a surprising number of devices already support DC between 110V and 240V: high efficiency motors that convert AC to DC, then DC to 3 phase AC, any high efficiency power supply, such as in a computer, LED TV, power brick, wall wart, cell phone charger, LED lamps, and anything that is essentially a resistor, such as a heater or incandescent bulb.

    You can phase this in (unintentional pun) by offering power cycle conversion (50hz/60hz) at the border and grow cheaper DC service from there outward.

    1. Re:Time to switch to DC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me strongly encourage you to take a power class in a EE program. The cost of the voltage converters (hardware and losses) are enormous for the system you propose.

    2. Re:Time to switch to DC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Academia teaches outdated stuff. Look at what we are deploying right now.

      Solar panels for powering an entire house 20 years ago was enormously expensive. Solar has come down in price because there are more people looking at it. It is already cheaper than nuclear, and will eventually be cheaper than coal.

      The same is begin done with voltage converters. You are aware of wall adapters becoming cheaper. Computer power supplies are basically larger versions of those with extra features. They are also becoming cheaper and more efficient. We are now deploying higher voltage DC converters for data centers because it will save them money in operational costs.

      The expense comes from a lack of knowledge on how to build cheaper high voltage DC voltage converters. This is something that we can change. AC power conversion will always be less efficient and more vulnerable to accidental and intentional damage than DC. That will never change.

    3. Re:Time to switch to DC? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      With DC, you can put solar power directly into the distribution grid without conversion inefficiencies and phase synchronization issues.

      You still have the same system wide frequency compensation and phase margin (not related to AC phase) problems which overshadow AC phase matching.

      Not only is solid state DC voltage conversion more power efficient than passive transformers, you do not run into nasty polarity and phase issues, which can be huge infrastructure liabilities.

      DC is only more efficient when long distance high voltage transmission lines are used. DC allows a higher voltage to be used without excessive current and radiative losses. The transmission line itself takes a lot less metal for the conductors.

      For distribution AC has the advantages of better arc interruption, easy passive impedance matching via transformers, and easy passive isolated current sensing. Ever notice how a given switch, circuit breaker, or fuse has a much lower DC than AC voltage rating? This has implications for high voltage DC connectors as well.

      While high efficiency motors can make better use of DC, that excludes all other AC motors which are too small to make that economical and motors are pretty efficient already so there is not much to be gained there.

  11. Regulation PRESERVES free markets by jsepeta · · Score: 2

    Regulation helps to keep markets free and open by preventing abuse of the system. Your libertarian lies are worthless here.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  12. Sounds great.. NOT by whitroth · · Score: 1

    I mean, energy deregulation and the "free market" worked *so* well in California a dozen years ago. (This assumes that slashdotters reading this are old enough to remember that, or are at least willing to read the news stories about the criminals selling the energy....)

                    mark

                           

  13. Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enron. The letters/sounds are all there. It's a perfect fit.