Slashdot Mirror


Alphabet's Nest Wants to Build a 'Citizen-Fueled' Power Plant (bloomberg.com)

Mark Chediak, reporting for Bloomberg:Alphabet Inc's Nest Labs is looking to enlist enough customers in California to free up as much power as a small natural gas-fired plant produces, helping alleviate potential energy shortages in the region following a massive gas leak that has restricted supplies. Nest, which supplies digital, wireless thermostats, is partnering with Edison International's Southern California Edison utility to get households enrolled in a state-established energy conservation program. The company wants to attract 50,000 customers through next summer that could shrink their total demand by as much as 50 megawatts when needed, Ben Bixby, Nest's director of energy businesses at Nest, said by phone. "We are building a citizen-fueled clean power plant," he said.

157 comments

  1. Soylent Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    is power!

    1. Re: Soylent Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Nazis experimented with a similar concept. Though, they never got past the fire box stage or added water tubes to create a boiler.

    2. Re:Soylent Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how it says "when needed". Shouldn't we always try to shrink it so we can use that energy for more important stuff in the future?

    3. Re:Soylent Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soylent Gas is a biofuel.

  2. Effecient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you burn the citizens for fuels you make more power, and need less in the future. It's a win-win

    1. Re:Effecient by lgw · · Score: 2

      If you burn the citizens for fuels you make more power, and need less in the future. It's a win-win

      Or perhaps the people will be kept alive and used as a sort of "battery" providing the power to the plant. I can see no flaws in that plan.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Effecient by npslider · · Score: 1

      That does explain the deja-vu I keep getting all the tim -- did you see that cat?

    3. Re:Effecient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What cat? I can't take my eyes off the lady in the red dress.

    4. Re:Effecient by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      However the body is nearly 50% carbon. So half of your weight will go towards carbon pollution.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re: Effecient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tommy knickers, Tommy knickers knocking at the door...

    6. Re:Effecient by unixisc · · Score: 1

      If you take all obese people, and make them power things - like having them run on a treadmill attached to a generator, you'll solve obesity w/o increasing the carbon footprint

    7. Re:Effecient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought we were, "ugly bags of mostly water"

    8. Re:Effecient by sexconker · · Score: 1

      > the body is nearly 50% carbon

      Check your math on that one.

    9. Re:Effecient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the average american is something like 20-30 pounds overweight, there could be millions of barrels of unused oil just waddling around out there! Even better if you could use it to produce a carbon-neutral product. Like expensive soaps or something.

    10. Re:Effecient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely than not, you will join that group someday.

    11. Re: Effecient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, the first AI post on /.

    12. Re:Effecient by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Well, it's only about 18% carbon.

      But another fun fact: When you "lose weight" (not the short-term weight loss you can get when losing water, but the long-term weight loss of losing body fat) then THAT pounds of weight actually add to CO2 pollution.

    13. Re:Effecient by bugs2squash · · Score: 2

      On the plus side - obesity is a form of carbon sequestration that is getting more popular.

      --
      Nullius in verba
  3. Yes! Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What California needs is to fuel its power plants with citizens.

    I've been saying this for years. That will solve their "fruit and nut" problem.

    1. Re:Yes! Finally! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      They stole that from the last ship

    2. Re:Yes! Finally! by PPH · · Score: 1

      I'll bet that dirty hippies burn pretty well what with all that patchouli oil.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  4. Google want's to burn people for energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GOOGLE WENT FULL EVAL

    1. Re:Google want's to burn people for energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They changed the name to Alphabet in a vain hope that you wouldn't notice Google doing evul.

    2. Re:Google want's to burn people for energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the big deal? They only streamlined their motto to be more efficient.

      They simply remove the "n't" from their "Don't be evil" motto and all of the sudden people all get up in an uproar.

      People are so touchy these days!

  5. Uh, no you're not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We are building a citizen-fueled clean power plant,"

    Uh, no you're not. You are running an energy saving campaign. You are not creating anything new power here.

    1. Re:Uh, no you're not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Misleading statement is misleading.

      Sadly, energy conservation just isn't sexy. The sales pitch is that consumers drive the economy, and we have to consume more and more or the whole economy will go to shit.

    2. Re:Uh, no you're not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "We are building a citizen-fueled clean power plant,"

      Uh, no you're not. You are running an energy saving campaign. You are not creating anything new power here.

      Just like rationing food is the same as farming.

    3. Re:Uh, no you're not by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 0

      Just like rationing food is the same as farming.

      Analogy of the day award.

    4. Re:Uh, no you're not by fche · · Score: 1

      Yeah, isn't it weird that this industry is so unique in that its supply curve bends backward in places?

    5. Re:Uh, no you're not by dj245 · · Score: 1

      "We are building a citizen-fueled clean power plant,"

      Uh, no you're not. You are running an energy saving campaign. You are not creating anything new power here.

      I agree, but under some current regulatory models, such shenanigans are treated similarly as an actual power plant. To the grid, adding 50MW of supply is the same as subtracting 50MW of demand (in most cases). There are several things about this that greatly concern me, especially the part about a tech company entering the energy market and extracting large amounts of money while providing very little benefit.

      Despite the reforms after Enron, the energy market is not regulated very well, regulation varies by location within the US, and some of the tricks being pulled would make Wall Street blush. It's a complicated system that requires a lot of specialized experience to understand. I work in the energy industry and we have a saying- "Whenever there is confusion, someone will exploit it".

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    6. Re:Uh, no you're not by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      Energy conservation isn't sexy because those pushing it (hard) don't give a fuck about the environment. Energy conservation programs are all about not building new power plants to meet ever increasing demand.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    7. Re:Uh, no you're not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. If they call it a power plant, lets regulate it as a power plant. See if they choose to go ahead with that.

    8. Re:Uh, no you're not by bsdewhurst · · Score: 1

      Exactly this is just demand response/load management (the terminology depends on who has the control, the utility doing it automatically or the customer doing it when requested).

      For the last decade this has been going on for industrial and commercial properties, where customers are paid either to turn off interruptible load (say a cool store) or run their backup generators for a couple of hours. Industrial and commercial because you only need to manage a few sites to get a large response, e.g. ringing up Google and asking them to switch a data centre over to generators for a hour.

      For residential customers this is even older, pilot lines and ripple control have allowed utilities to turn off stored water heaters/night store heaters as required, this is 60+ years old. The first trials for this were used as energy saving measures during WWII.

    9. Re:Uh, no you're not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. This seems to indicate that Alphabet will be paid money to get me to use less power. No thanks.

    10. Re:Uh, no you're not by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Energy saving is just the start, eventually they aim to take the excess gas produced by their customers in much the same manner as the "cow backpacks" aimed at extracting methane from cows to fuel an actual power plant. Step 1 is getting people comfortable with thermostats and smoke detectors which stream their every action out via wifi, once the customer base accepts that it's a relatively minor step to shoving tubes up their asses and using them as a fuel source.

  6. They actually want to kick appliances off. by tlambert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They actually want to kick appliances off. When the load is high, your blender quits working, basically.

    They actually mean "the equivalent of adding a gas-fired power plant by subtracting users who can damn well wait for their smoothies.

    Hopefully no one is stupid enough to buy a Nest dialysis machine...

    1. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      I volunteered for a similar program in Nebraska. When demand is highest my AC doesn't run, or rather runs less.

    2. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully no one is stupid enough to buy a Nest dialysis machine...

      Why?

    3. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah go fuck yourself alphabet. Like I'm going to secede control over my life to some douche-bag for "the greater good." How about I install solar panels and a nice battery and you and the power company can both go fuck yourselves.

    4. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by b0bby · · Score: 2

      They actually want to kick appliances off. When the load is high, your blender quits working, basically.

      They actually mean "the equivalent of adding a gas-fired power plant by subtracting users who can damn well wait for their smoothies.

      Hopefully no one is stupid enough to buy a Nest dialysis machine...

      These kinds of programs are fairly common, although usually they make you use a special thermostat which can be triggered via radio. When it gets the message on high demand days, it turns your AC off for an hour. I used to do the local program, and usually it meant that 3 or 4 times a year the temperature in the house would go up 5 degrees or so. I thought it was a reasonable way to avoid brownouts or building another gas plant, but I got an ecobee which they don't yet support. If they do, I'll sign back up.

    5. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      I once lived in Iowa when I lived in the US, and my then-spouse signed us up for one of those programs without consulting me first. I just came home one day and the AC was no longer operating when it was hottest. Utterly, utterly miserable, and I had to wait weeks to get the thing disconnected. Why would anyone willingly choose to have one of those things in their home?

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    6. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's simply a case of making appliances like fridges and freezers that are on all the right schedule their operation to avoid peak times.

      Dial your freezer down an extra 1C. Have a smart plug that switches it off for up to 10 minutes on command, max once per hour. The food won't be affected.

      We have similar things in the UK, but for cheap energy over night. Water heater is controlled by the energy company, only runs at night and stores the hot water in a tank for use during the day.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by sinij · · Score: 0

      The same reason people drive Prius, to appear to Do Something without actually putting any consideration or effort into it. When instead they should properly insulate their house, optimize air ducts to channel cold air to where it is needed most and maybe, depending on local climate, install some solar panels.

    8. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      MONEY. They pay you to do this.

      Also, connecting your thermostat is not the smartest decision. But laundry and dishwasher both make a lot of sense to do it.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    9. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      It's real simple why you might want a load controller shutting off your A/C at times, the electric company is willing to sell you power for a substantial discount.

      You don't have to be miserable, you just have to plan.

      Pre-cool your house, don't run the electric dryer between noon and 9pm, ...

      Tesla/SolarCity will likely eventually announce an integrated system that uses a battery pack plus load controller to minimize your peak demand and allow you to save substantially on your power bill.

    10. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once lived in Iowa when I lived in the US, and my then-spouse signed us up for one of those programs without consulting me first. I just came home one day and the AC was no longer operating when it was hottest. Utterly, utterly miserable, and I had to wait weeks to get the thing disconnected. Why would anyone willingly choose to have one of those things in their home?

      How much was the discount?

    11. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Some people properly insulate their house, ... and also drive a Prius.

      That driving a Prius is pretty effortless isn't a bad thing, though some people seem to take a dislike to people who Do Something like driving a Prius, I'm not sure why.

    12. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by sinij · · Score: 0

      some people seem to take a dislike to people who Do Something like driving a Prius, I'm not sure why.

      Usually, Do Something is limited to driving a Prius (and maybe ordering free trade lates) but it always comes with self-righteousness set to 11.

    13. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      smart thermostats and other timers are the way, not surrendering control. then if you do happen to be home at unexpected time you can run things.

    14. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I volunteered for a similar program in Nebraska. When demand is highest my AC doesn't run, or rather runs less.

      Which tends to be the time when you're must likely going to want the A/C on.

    15. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by jittles · · Score: 2

      Some people properly insulate their house, ... and also drive a Prius.

      That driving a Prius is pretty effortless isn't a bad thing, though some people seem to take a dislike to people who Do Something like driving a Prius, I'm not sure why.

      Usually because you find them trying to hyper mile in the left hand lane of the interstate/highway going about 30 under the speed limit while they watch their MPG or L/100km gauge instead of the road.

    16. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Rei · · Score: 1

      The program was to connect it to the thermostat.

      Furthermore, I'm not sure how your average clothes or dish washer would take to having the power just randomly going off on it.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    17. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Rei · · Score: 2

      If you're willing to lose your AC during the hottest part of the day, then you might as well not have AC at all. So there's no reason to get such a device, you might as well just sell your AC.

      "Pre-cooling" a house does not work. In the hottest part of the day it was enough of a challenge for the AC to just keep up.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    18. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Rei · · Score: 1

      Not a clue. My power could have been free for all I cared, I still would have had it removed. I would have rathered live in an air-conditioned tent than a house with no AC during the hottest part of the day.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    19. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      Dial your freezer down an extra 1C. Have a smart plug that switches it off for up to 10 minutes on command, max once per hour. The food won't be affected.

      In one corner we have the modern fridge with variable speed compressor and in the other a "smart plug".... My money is on the "smart plug" because it has the word smart in it.

    20. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      In my part of CA, if you have an electric vehicle, you can sign up for a rate plan whereby electricity during summer afternoons is 44c/kWh and 12c/kWh at night.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    21. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I should also mention that, since my house is equipped with solar panels, I am generally selling electricity to the grid at 44c/kWh and buying it back at 12c/kWh.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    22. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electricity used to drop the freezer by 1 degree will certainly outweigh any savings gained by turning the unit off for 10 minutes an hour.

    23. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with you on this one having done the same experiment in the 90's myself. AC savor switches are aggressively stupid. Guess when all the summer time "peak times" are, hint its when everyone spins up the 2500W HVAC systems.

      If your AC was installed by a reputable professions who correctly sized the unit and it has a decent SER rating 14+ than turning it off at peak time is a terrible idea. These things are designed to cycle, to short a cycle the wear prematurely to long a cycle (well that won't happen they will cut off ) or rather to frequent cycles they wear prematurely and will be less efficient (hot side of the loop stays to hot).

      The outcomes will be that you are less comfortable. Your total energy use might actually go up with you unit always playing catch-up, unless the utility really leaves you shut down for a long time. Net energy wise recall most of us don't get billed less for off peak on residential circuits won't be improved unless you live in a very poorly insulated home, meaning you will be subject to even more violent temperature swings.

      The whole point of investing in AC is so that you can be comfortable, if you sabotage the things ability to deliver that why have it at all? No a much much better solution would be have enough generation/storage and distribution capacity to meet peoples needs.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    24. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by i+work+on+computers · · Score: 1

      So you wouldn't be willing to say, go to the store or the library for a few hours on the hottest days of the year, for $1000 or so? Or get a fan and open your windows? Or use a window air conditioner?

    25. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Because you usually don't connect an AC or any other life important equipment to it but fridges, washing mashines dryers etc.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    26. Re: They actually want to kick appliances off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, I'm not sure how your average clothes or dish washer would take to having the power just randomly going off on it.

      How often in a given week is either of those running in your house?

      How often do you need either to run at a particular time?

      It isn't about randomly cutting off power, it is about not drawing power so as to cause a random cut off from a brownout.

      Better to schedule your loans appropriately.

    27. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're willing to lose your AC during the hottest part of the day, then you might as well not have AC at all. So there's no reason to get such a device, you might as well just sell your AC.

      I assure you, I can refrain from using the AC during part of the day, while still utilizing it when appropriate. Mostly because I'm not bothered by the heat so much when I want to be awake, but I like to be cooler when going to sleep.

      "Pre-cooling" a house does not work. In the hottest part of the day it was enough of a challenge for the AC to just keep up.

      Sounds like you had a serious problem. With your house.

      I suggest you should have contemplated improving the thermal envelope. Then this system would have worked better for you.

      Also a better AC, I know somebody who got an undersized AC because they thought it would save money, but they didn't, so...

    28. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure it must be something else. I live in the land of the Prius and haven't seen any hypermiling in the left lane at 40mph.

      It must be something else, maybe related to whatever causes people to engage in hyperbole.

    29. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Smart thermostats just regulate your home's temperature without any ability to reduce peak demand. They can reduce your total consumption but not peak demand. Timers also don't reduce peak demand, unless you simply set them to not run during peak hours.

      Imagine a city with 100,000 A/C units. They run an average of 25% of the time during peak use times. If more than 25% of them are on at one particular time then they increase peak demand. By understanding demand needs of all the homes an intelligent algorithm can give each home all the A/C cooling they need while minimizing peak demand.

      You can still have your home at 76 degrees while home if that is what you want. Your individual need for more cooling soon is in the noise, but in the aggregate all those units cooperating can substantially reduce peak loads. Particularly when coupled with other high load appliances that also don't need to run at specific times, such as hot water heaters.

    30. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Pre-cooling a house absolutely does work because you aren't pre-cooling it "during the hottest part of the day", you are cooling it during the non-peak demand periods which are non-peak precisely because they are the cooler parts of the day/night. You specifically run your A/C less during the hottest times of the day.

      You don't "lose your A/C during the hottest part of the day either", you completely misunderstand, you just try to use it less during the hottest part of the day.

      A smart thermostat is able to pre-cool and then use the A/C just enough to keep the temperature rise down to the point that it doesn't exceed a desired max while using the A/C the least during peak periods.

    31. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      The devices do not deprive you of A/C during the hottest part of the day or indeed during any part of the day.

      They merely reduce peak demand by leveling usage.

    32. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      All the load controllers I'm familiar prevent short cycling your A/C unit.

      I'm sure the units you used in the 90's were stupid, it's now 20+ years later and $5 microcontrollers are quite smart.

      If you believe you won't be comfortable because your A/C turns on 10 minutes later than it would have turned on if your existing dumb thermostat was installed then you are mistaken. But I'm all in favor of letting you continue to have your dumb thermostat turn your A/C on and off whenever you want and for your to pay 4X as much for your power as me. No skin off my nose.

      Personally I prefer saving a few hundred dollars a month in electric bills while remaining just as comfortable.

    33. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Rei · · Score: 1

      Right. I should have redone my entire house in order to get a device to shut my AC off during the hottest point in the day. Got it.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    34. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Hopefully no one is stupid enough to buy a Nest dialysis machine...

      Why?

      It's one of those things, like an iron lung, that you don't want being turned off on you via grid management.

    35. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Rei · · Score: 1

      I don't "misunderstand" anything, that is exactly what the device did. It didn't precool anything, it didn't ramp anything down, it just randomly shut off when too many people had their AC on (aka, when it was hottest). And in Iowa in July, even if you did know when it was about to go off and tried to "precool" (which I assure you, does not work well), you'd be burning up long before the AC kicks back in.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    36. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. I should have redone my entire house in order to get a device to shut my AC off during the hottest point in the day. Got it.

      Oh, do you think that would be the only benefit? Is that it? Well, that just goes to show you're mistaken.

      There's a reason I suggested you contemplating improving the house's thermal envelope. Unfortunately, you have chosen to be irascible, and make a snappy remark, which only shows that the soundness of your judgment remains questionable. Why don't you want to stop and think about it, instead of just sounding bitter and angry/

      You see, if you had thought about it, instead of rushing to respond without thinking just because you were irritated once upon a time, you'd have considered the possibility that a house remaining more thermally stable, would have been good for its inhabitants in general. It could have increased the personal comfort, both in summer and winter, and reduced costs, and gotten to the point where this program would have been effective without being disruptive. Even just reducing drafts and eliminating hotspots can be quite beneficial.

      But no, you didn't want to do that, you just want to gripe and rail against something that upset you once, to the point of showing that you're not thinking.

      I mean, really, it's not like I've seen the house, and I don't know your personal situation, but then again, I look at all the poorly insulated rental homes around here, and I just sigh, because I know nothing will change in that regard. And of course, I really want to shake my fist at all the poorly located driveways. There's one so steep, I wonder who even approved putting a house there, let alone the driveway.

      Oh well, maybe one day we won't have an idiot in the planning commission.

    37. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Colorado (especially near Boulder), if there's somebody impeding traffic in the left lane, it's either:

      • a Prius (political bumper stickers optional)
      • a pickup truck (Wyoming license plates optional)
      • an expensive European car (almost certainly an aging sell-out hippie)
    38. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by jittles · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure it must be something else. I live in the land of the Prius and haven't seen any hypermiling in the left lane at 40mph.

      It must be something else, maybe related to whatever causes people to engage in hyperbole.

      So what, you think hundreds of thousands of people hate prius drivers for no apparent reason? Its like an "OMG that guy can afford a hybrid and I can't" jealousy? I don't live in the land of the prius but I agree with the Colorado AC who also replied to you. It's (almost) always a pick-up truck or a prius that is blocking traffic in the left hand lane.

    39. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't "misunderstand" anything, that is exactly what the device did. It didn't precool anything, it didn't ramp anything down, it just randomly shut off when too many people had their AC on (aka, when it was hottest). And in Iowa in July, even if you did know when it was about to go off and tried to "precool" (which I assure you, does not work well), you'd be burning up long before the AC kicks back in.

      Randomly shut off? That sounds like a brownout situation, not a "Smart Meter"

      I can believe that would happen in Iowa, but it's the sort of thing that the "Smart" systems are trying to avoid.

      You do seem irate over this, but I just don't believe your problem is genuinely what anybody is trying to do. Part of the reason for that is you keep using the term "randomly" to describe it. No, the whole point is to eliminate that certain randomness factor without say, overbuilding to compensate for peak demand.

    40. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electricity used to drop the freezer by 1 degree will certainly outweigh any savings gained by turning the unit off for 10 minutes an hour.

      That's ok, the goal isn't to save energy, but manage demand. It's a similar, but markedly different situation.

    41. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everyone pre-cools their house and moves running the dryer and washing machine to 9:30pm, doesn't that simply move the peak period around?

    42. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      wrong, if enough people's smart themostats have the AC off during peak demand time since they're not home anyway, then peak demand is reduced.

    43. Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      When they came for the smoothies, I did not speak up.

  7. Citizen-Fueled?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We are building a citizen-fueled clean power plant,"

    A new twist on "Soylent Green?" A conspiracy against cemetery plots? Trumps "Final Solution" to the Immigration problem?

    1. Re:Citizen-Fueled?? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      "We are building a citizen-fueled clean power plant,"

      A new twist on "Soylent Green?" A conspiracy against cemetery plots? Trumps "Final Solution" to the Immigration problem?

      Or maybe it's just a way to use the results of a bean-heavy diet, given that the goal is to get "as much power as a small natural gas-fired plant produces" - get enough, umm, natural gas from citizens, and you've solved your problem!

    2. Re:Citizen-Fueled?? by number6x · · Score: 1

      The Immigrants aren't citizens yet, but using citizens as fuel will create openings for the immigrants to fill.

      Google Fuel is People!

  8. Building Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are building THE EQUIVALENT OF citizen-fueled clean power plant, he MEANT.

    Selling 50,000 Thermostats.
    Unless he is also trying to get existing Thermostat owners to sign up.

  9. Is that a hispter name by I4ko · · Score: 1

    for a crematorium? Last time I checked burring citizens was done either as an occupation of a foreign country ( e.g. Vietnam), as oppression against internal population (Auschwitz), or as an alternative to wasting a lot of land for cemeteries.

    1. Re:Is that a hispter name by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      No they are generally not fat enough. Only the doughy whites have decades of excess calories stored.

  10. Word for word my first thought by mpercy · · Score: 1

    Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.

    But it was not necessary.

  11. its been tried before in socal. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    Socal edison tried this 10 years ago by extending their peak-usage pricing from corporate to residential customers only to find it was effective to the point of creating a profit loss. scheduled blackouts and rolling brownouts are a thing of the past largely due to advances in LED home lighting and a switch from desktops to laptops and eventually tablets. SCE dropped the tiered pricing plan in 2012 --even for corporate customers-- but revived it in 2016 as a boogeyman to scare regulators into remission after their blatant obstructionism and utter failure to contain the porter ranch gas leak. it took nearly a year for them to even acknowledge it was a growing concern.

    regulators didnt buy it and the whole thing was revealed in the LA Times as a transparent attempt to muscle the state into letting it open porter ranch wells again despite having made little effort at cleanup or repair. By partnering with Nest and alphabet, it seems like edison is trying the carrot approach to getting the state to look favourably on their business again.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  12. Less Power For You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Data Centers need reliable power and cooling. You, not so much.

    Too much demand? no A/C for you.

    Too much demand? No heat for you.

    Too much demand? No TV/PS3 for you?

    Basically, this is to teach people that industry's demands are first, next the state, and if there is any power remaining, you.

    Get used to doing more with a whole lot less.

    Want to use the PS4, better get on the bicycle generator.

    1. Re:Less Power For You by I4ko · · Score: 2

      Doing more with less was a Communist slogan. And the main reason communism failed. At one time there was nothing left to do something from.

    2. Re:Less Power For You by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Doing more with less is how technology works; and technology comes with discovery, not mandate.

      Natural gas burned in power plants and transmitted as electricity produces much more light out of LED lamps than natural gas piped to gas lamps. They couldn't just up and switch to electricity and LED lamps 50 years before Edison and Westinghouse, even if the Government told them they had a week to figure out how to produce more ten times light with half as much gas.

      (The chief effect of all this is less labor: you use 5% as much gas to run lights, that means 5% as many human labor-hours invested in running lights, and that proportion of society--not those particular people, but the constant inflow of people becoming working-age adults to replace the retiring seniors, at least at least--can now become doctors and engineers, since we don't need them mining for gas. Again: you can't just dictate there shall be more doctors and fewer farmers, and the halved farm workforce shall work to produce twice the food output at half the price; it won't work.)

    3. Re:Less Power For You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, this is to teach people that rich people's demands are first, next industry's, next the state, and if there is any power remaining, you.

      FTFY

    4. Re:Less Power For You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FALSE.

      Doing more with less is a CORPORATE/CAPITALIST slogan.

      BTW, in case you haven't noticed, corporations are exactly who/what are running the world now.

  13. lol, greenwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's nothing more laughable than a high tech ad broker going GREEN.

    You know what takes up a ridiculous amount of energy? 1) The technological infrastructure required to build and maintain Google's services and the infrastructure it relies on; 2) The mindless consumerism from which Google gets 95% of its profits, i.e. adverts.

    So, go fuck yourselves, you vapid, hypocritical cunts. You want to do something about unsustainable consumption? Shut down, and use your warchest to promote limited a less materially wasteful pursuit of happiness. Christ, even switching to a for-pay search service would be good enough - I'd happily pay $10/month for Google Search if it meant I wasn't tracked or served ads.)

    1. Re:lol, greenwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck your $10/month. I'd settle for 1 cent per day. At that price practically everybody would sign up for the service, generating millions of dollars.

    2. Re:lol, greenwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to know how much Google makes from each person with ad views/clicks, and I expect it wildly depends on area/demographic... but AIUI their systems are unaudited anyway, so it's potentially not run honestly.

  14. They should work on a thermostat that doesnt crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Nest resets itself at least once every other month or so and then I have to re-enter my WiFi network name and password -- super annoying. And no its not because of any power outage because I sat there once and watched it reboot while my TV was on in the same room.

  15. BUGS! by npslider · · Score: 1

    And when something goes wrong, or the system is compromised:

    - Heater goes on and stays on, on a sweltering hot day
    - Lights start communicating in morse code
    - Freezer decides your food is too cold
    - Garage door opens, and stays open on a very cold day

  16. ool ritter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wear only a cape when i rub one off

  17. hahahah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No fucking way! My home is my ice box.

  18. Better idea... by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...Have Alphabet Inc (what a stupid name) turn off the AC at the headquarters in the summer and turn off the heat in the winter. Just circulate the outside air.

    Same for all the other groups who want average consumers to make their lives uncomfortable in the name of...what the fuck ever.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re: Better idea... by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      I hear goobolboxes, flooblecranks and gloobleyanks are an effective means of power generation and ensuring subservience.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re:Better idea... by CaptainLard · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just circulate the outside air.

      That would be called an economizer in HVAC speak. Pretty much every new commercial building has one and they are often retrofitted as part of maintenance and repair to existing buildings. Also those who choose to give up A/C control are paid for it. Such programs are widespread across the country. Good thing that Nest is finally using it's google $Billions and existing user base to implement it though.

    3. Re:Better idea... by zlives · · Score: 1

      yes but how does that help DoNoEvil install a device in homes that talks to their servers and have govt subsidize it?

    4. Re: Better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have paid for one of those goobolboxes but it was a invite only release and then discontinued. I don't know why anyone would be excited to allow them into the utility and public service sector. What happens when they want to play with my emotions by pumping different frequencies of power throughout the home? Or if they decided to discontinue, does that mean I can't heat my home mid-winter? That said, I just unboxed my new gloobleyank and I'm so excited they are my carrier!

  19. Slashdot = Fair & Balanced. . . by Idou · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Or. . . maybe they want to do things like turn on A/Cs earlier in the day to cool off houses while the solar power generation for the day is still high, instead of waiting for people to get home later in the day and manually turn on their A/Cs (after solar power generation has gone down, so you have to use natural gas)?

    Coming home to a cooled house is actually a plus for both the consumer and the grid, but don't let that get in the way of your FOX like "'bama's gonna take our guns!" like interpretation. . .

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  20. logical fallacy by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    I love the stupid pro-eco hipster logic on saving energy. Should 50 million people drastically change how they live to save every little bit of energy and have their lifestyles affected on a daily basis
    OR
    Should someone build a solar/wind/wave/whatever power plant and then 50 million people can do whatever the hell they want. Which one is easier and more reasonable to implement?

    1. Re:logical fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Well let's see. 50 million people making "drastic" changes costs $0. I have no idea how much the other one costs.

      Aside from that, here's the final answer, which apparently the right wingnuts are too blind/stupid to see: BOTH are perfectly reasonable, and utterly drop dead simple to implement. But, according to wingnuts, we don't want to do either, because 1) FUCK YOU, and 2) BOO HOO FUCKING HOO it's too expensive, ABLOO BLOO ABLOO.., and 3) doing either one would require acknowledging what educated research scientists have been saying for years, specifically that human profit seeking activity DOES have an impact on the Earth's climate.

      And god almighty in heaven FORBID we ever do any of THAT.

    2. Re:logical fallacy by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      The first one. Duh.

    3. Re:logical fallacy by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      I'd say that reducing peak demand is less expensive than building a solar power plant just as replacing an 80W light bulb with a 6W light bulb is cheaper than adding 74W of capacity to a power plant.

      It really is just math, nothing to do with hipsters or eco logic.

      I'm sure your hyperbolic "drastically change how they live" assertions can be safely ignored as untrue.

  21. Great idea by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    They should call the venture Soylent Power.
    One could then say in a certain sense that it's green power because it's "powered by people!"

    Oh wait, that isn't what you meant?

    --
    -Styopa
  22. 'Citizen fuelled' != 'saving energy' by kheldan · · Score: 2

    Doublespeak! Saying 'this power plant is citizen-fuelled' when all they're doing is forcing people to turn off their heat or air conditioning, is like a advertisement for something 'on sale' saying you're 'saving money': you're not 'saving' anything, you're 'spending less', which is still 'spending money'! It's not a 'citizen fuelled power plant' because 'citizens' are not 'fuelling' anything, they are just being forced to use less of what is already generated. Want to have a 'citizen fuelled power plant'? Put them on treadmills connected to generators in 8 hour shifts. Oh and by the way it'll cost more to feed them than you'll charge per kilowatt hour generated.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:'Citizen fuelled' != 'saving energy' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and by the way it'll cost more to feed them than you'll charge per kilowatt hour generated.

      That's why you have to make it back on the back side - call it a gym and charge them too!

    2. Re:'Citizen fuelled' != 'saving energy' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All they need to do is bump the daily connection charge to $1 or $2, and 25c/kWh. People will soon start using less.

      The New Zealand government bestowed this reality upon its citizens who had already paid for the electricity network generations ago, and had a perfectly working system. Sold off the assets to greedy profit making companies. You too could enjoy $200 per month electric bills just by owning a fridge and turning on the TV for a couple hours a day, and having a quick 10 minute shower once a day, never using the electric oven, not even owning an electric drier.

    3. Re:'Citizen fuelled' != 'saving energy' by kheldan · · Score: 1

      That's called 'price gouging' and no one would stand still for it. Electric service isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. In many places if you don't have electric service your property is declared 'condemned' and you'll be required to either get electric service or have your house demolished.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    4. Re:'Citizen fuelled' != 'saving energy' by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      I don't know why but anymore I have a hard time reading BS and when I read TFS I completely missed that they were saving power using thermostats and assumed that they were working on a sewage to energy plant and forgot to mention it in TFS.

      As the only way you are going to get a citizen-fuelled power plant is if people give a shit.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    5. Re:'Citizen fuelled' != 'saving energy' by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      In other countries such concepts are called virtual power plant.
      And yes, from the perspect of the grid operators: it is a power plant

      You might disagree, but neither does legislation nor actually handling of grids, power production or power consumption here in germany.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:'Citizen fuelled' != 'saving energy' by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Reducing peak demand doesn't mean using less electricity and reducing peak demand by 50MW can in fact eliminate the need for 50MW of generating capacity.

      If you have a cafeteria that seats 100 and there are 200 employees who want to eat their lunch for 30 minutes at the cafeteria simply have half go at 11:45 and half at 12:15. It really isn't that big of a deal and it does save the cost of building a bigger cafeteria. If it makes you angry to eat at 11:45 instead of 12:15 then simply get someone to swap with you. I'm not sure you'll notice if your A/C runs from 11:45 to 12:15 instead of 12:15 to 12:45 but if the thought bothers you too much maybe they can have the system change the clocks in your house as well so you think it is running from 12:15 to 12:45 so you can be content.

    7. Re:'Citizen fuelled' != 'saving energy' by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Then they should just refer to it as 'reducing demand' and not 'generating power' because it is NOT.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  23. New Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great! Good of you to volunteer.

    I'll be in to replace all your equipment with low power modules.

    I'll decide when your load is too high.

    I'll penalize you on your electric bill for using too much.

    I'll penalize you on your electric bill for not using a certain minimum amount of power.

    I'll add a participation charge, and a non-participation charge.

    I'll basically determine when you can do laundry, run your TV, Dishwasher or other high load devices, basically anything over say 50W.

    Next, I'll determine how much water you are allowed to use each day, and when you can use it. I'll also reduce the amount of hot water allowance.

    You can shower between 6AM and 6:30AM for up to 5 minutes.

    Your dishes can be done in cold water.

    You don't need a dryer, you can dry outside, or inside in winter.

    You can wash clothes in cold water.

    You can flush your toilets up to 5X per day.

    Next, I'll add a water usage charge, a minimum water usage charge, and a participation/non-participation charge.

    This is a the new world order that is coming. Get ready.

    1. Re:New Idea by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Wow, you must be a utility customer in austin. You forgot the community benefit charge, resource recovery fee, code compliance fee, drainage fee, and street sweeping fee. Oh, and taxes on all that. The future is now.

  24. And so it begins by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    What starts out "voluntary" quickly becomes mandatory. Expect scheduled brownouts when the Great Computer gets hungry. Let's see if any resistance will develop. Citizen fueled... doubleplusungood

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:And so it begins by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Expect scheduled brownouts when the Great Computer gets hungry

      Well, that *is* interesting. Will Alphabet* be reducing the capacity of its services in response to high grid utilization?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:And so it begins by pao93 · · Score: 1

      thats a great idea. presumably a 3-5 second delay in retrieval of a search result could be translated into less available cores for processing. and based on all the data they capture it should be fairly straightforward to calculate this. so peak energy utilization hits, shut down cores, customers have a bit of delay and voila. they likely do this already but to a degree that is probably unnoticeable to most people.

  25. A Modest Proposal by avandesande · · Score: 1

    A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Oferfæt Poor People From Being a Burthen to Their Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  26. 'Citizen-Fueled' by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Soylent Power: "The Power of People (IT"S PEOPLE!!)"

  27. Market Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basically, this is how the future will work.

    You "Offer" to pay max X for power per KW/H.

    The Market sets a per Kw/H rate.

    You use electricity, you pay the Per/KwH rate.

    If the rate increases past your max you either pay more, or get no power past a certain load.

    The people who can afford power get it.

    The poors can get power from bicycle power or beg for power for services.

    1. Re:Market Rates by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      The poors can get power from bicycle power or beg for power for services.

      Nah, they'll simply commit crimes for money to pay for power, steal power directly with unauthorized line taps, and build generators that burn anything (wood, plastic, diesel, old tires, cooking oil, coal, anything available and burnable, basically) and pump out tons of particulates, GHGs, and other pollutants and toxins and thus make the entire situation worse all around.

      People will not go without energy and if you try to stop them they'll simply go around, over, or through you to get/make what they feel they need.

      Prohibition never works regardless of whether it's alcohol, drugs, guns, or energy.

      Interesting fact: The US Government intentionally poisoned liquor during Prohibition and allowed it to be distributed killing between 10,000 and 50,000 people. Then there was Paraquat used on marijuana that poisoned and sickened unknown numbers of people.

      The US government does not have the welfare of its' citizens as a high priority.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  28. Figures by Holi · · Score: 1

    So Google wants people to give up using electricity so they don't have to be more efficient? What selling away their privacy wasn't enough?

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  29. Savings != Powered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice wording, folks.

  30. Taking Credit for Saving, Not Generating Energy by eepok · · Score: 2

    What a stupid story. So Nest wants to reduce demand artificially and take credit (carbon credit... financial credit) for doing so. The "power plant" concept comes in their spin saying, "Removing demand is just like increasing supply. Effectively."

  31. Solar City by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

    I'd be more interested with what a company like Solar City can do on this front.
    I'm wondering if you could have some sort of distributed mesh-network power utility where each node has battery storage and solar panels, and sets its own input and output prices, with more traditional means of generation filling in the gaps.

  32. I remember this storyline on Last Ship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EOM

  33. Ye olde 'negawatts' concept by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    California has given up on bringing new power generation online, so it turns to the popular Seventies idea of paying people to conserve more. Conservation is fine is a short-term solution to shortage - of anything - but in the long run there is no substitute for generating more power by the cleanest feasible means. If CA continues to be short of water it will have to start desalinating, and just by itself that will require new capacity. Arizona can't supply all of California's power needs.

    1. Re:Ye olde 'negawatts' concept by evilviper · · Score: 1

      California has given up on bringing new power generation online,

      "Almost half of all capacity added in 2013 [across the US] was located in California." "Nearly 60% of the natural gas capacity [across the US] added in 2013 was located in California." http://www.eia.gov/todayinener...

      California's total electrical generation capacity has gone from 55,344 MW in 2001, to 79,359 MW in 2015. That's an average increase of 1,644 MW of new capacity going online each and every year.

      http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/el...

      Energy standards in California call for 33 percent of the stateâ(TM)s power to come from renewables by 2020 and 50 percent by 2030, and so the state is building new wind and solar capacity as fast as possible. The recently built Ivanpah plant was the world's largest, and it's in California, not Arizona, for good reason.

      In fact you can get a current list of power plants planned, under construction, and newly online, here:

      http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitin...

      Conservation is fine is a short-term solution to shortage - of anything - but in the long run there is no substitute for generating more power

      California "has one of the lowest per capita total energy consumption levels in the country. California state policy promotes energy efficiency. The state's extensive efforts to increase energy efficiency and the implementation of alternative technologies have restrained growth in energy demand." https://www.eia.gov/state/anal...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Ye olde 'negawatts' concept by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Great rebuttle to my response there...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  34. Finally! by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

    Someone has found a way to put some of the unemployed back to work. I can see it now. Vast warehouses with thousands of citizens pedaling away on stationary bikes connected to generators. Although "citizen-fueled" might mean something else entirely...

  35. Nothing new - PG&E was doing this 33 years ago by russbutton · · Score: 1
    Waaaaaaaay back in the year 1983 - you may have read about it in your history books, I worked for Pacific Gas & Electric. We had a project to engage customers to raise their thermostats and thus reduce cooling and power loads during times of peak demand. Air conditioning is the single biggest end use during times of peak demand.

    This is nothing new.

    Save power. Use less of it.

    Genius!

  36. Yes, you can read TFA with your adblocker on by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    It's goddamn brain-dead Bloomburg paywalling. As soon as you see the text in your browser, hit Escape. You can then read the article without disabling your adblocker.

  37. Less is more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    spending is saving

  38. Re:Nothing new - PG&E was doing this 33 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Waaaaaaaay back in the year 1983 - you may have read about it in your history books, I worked for Pacific Gas & Electric. We had a project to engage customers to raise their thermostats and thus reduce cooling and power loads during times of peak demand. Air conditioning is the single biggest end use during times of peak demand.

    This is nothing new.

    Save power. Use less of it.

    Genius!

    And here in Chicago, the local power utility gives you a bill credit proportional to your demand reduction. They will email/text you the day before an expected high demand day and then give you a report a few days later.

    For example, "During the Peak Time Savings Hours on Friday, August 19 between 1pm -3pm, you used 0.9 kWh of electricity, which is 0.7 kWh less than your typical use. You earned $1.00 for each kWh you saved. Look for the credit on your electric bill."

  39. As Usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fuel is citizens, and the fire is human suffering.

  40. We've come so far. by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

    Google, 1998: Don't Be Evil
    Alphabet, 2016: Get in the Oven

  41. What is mine is mine, what is yours is . . . by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    My gripe with a plan like this is that there is a lot of "what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine" from the power company. The retail peak-pricing plans I have seen, you have to endure a good deal of disruption to shift your electric use just to break even on such a plan, forget about saving any money on it. If the tech could be used to advantage to allow customers to save money for a barely noticeable change in comfort level (anticipating the peak and pre-cooling the house), I could see a great deal of enthusiasm for this, but my experience is that power company pricing won't let that happen. You will end up paying more, and the power company will tell you that what you are paying for is "the satisfaction of 'going green' as they say."

  42. Better call Wesley by hraponssi · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the vampires have managed to set up another nest. Wesley Snipes to the rescue.

  43. The gMatrix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The human body generates more bio-electricity than a 120-volt battery and over 25,000 BTU's of body heat. Combined with a form of fusion, Alphabet had found all the energy they would ever need.

  44. Cloud spoils the dream by Etcetera · · Score: 1

    I'm fine with a smart home. I'm old enough to remember the DAK Catalog and more-or-less drooling over the advanced dreams that the 80s could sell me. But I'm not fine any of this data leaving my property line, or with intelligence or non-aggregated usage telemetry resulting in internal details going over the wire for evaluation. Even if Alphabet "Did No Evil" (which it probably does), transmission to control on the outside opens me up for spying and makes me vulnerable to hack.

    If a company wants to provide a means for me to control and automate my life, that's great. Do it with local control.

  45. The real reason Nest is Doing This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that families using their thermostats do not save any energy compared to families with manual thermostats. Messing with any programmable thermostat is a PITA, nest included. So much so that folks are reluctant to adjust it when their needs change (vacation, etc). Manual thermostats are as easy to use as a light switch so folks make smarter use of them. So, the real reason nest is doing this is just to get paid by the utilities. The utilities are doing this to avid paying billions for a peaking power plant that is only needed a few hours a year.

  46. Re:Nothing new - PG&E was doing this 33 years by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

    Reducing peak loads isn't at all the same as using less power.

    This is also about reducing aggregate peak demand which is different than just reducing your home's peak demand. It's quite possible for non-cooperative homes to all individually reduce peak demand while in the aggregate increasing peak demand.

  47. Re:Nothing new - PG&E was doing this 33 years by russbutton · · Score: 1

    The point of reducing peak demand is that your generating capacity pretty much runs flat out 100% of the time. You can't readily bring added power production on-line at a moment's notice. You have to build to meet peak demand, not overall demand. If you reduce peak demand, you reduce the need for overall production.

  48. Crematoriums by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    You are not creating anything new power here.

    Indeed you are not. Citizens make very bad fuel which is why crematoriums need to use gas.

  49. Sounds like volunteer for freeezing to death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or heat exhaustion, depending on where you live.

  50. Citizen fueled? by vanyel · · Score: 1

    Why does the Matrix come to mind?

  51. Basically "austerity measures" under another label by Chas · · Score: 1

    That's what this is.

    "Just don't use as much."

    Now, sure, that works...up to a point.

    In California, the problem is that deregulation has TOTALLY fucked up the power industry. Where it's more lucrative to "sell" power out of state, claim insufficient capacity, then import power (which isn't so heavily price-fixed) and mark it up horrendously and at just barely-there availability.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  52. Good title by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    By dodging taxes, Google is indeed using citizen as fuel.

  53. Does not "generate" anything, so really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's just further evidence we are being slowly turned into Marxists.

    Under free market economics, people get quantity discounts - becasue it costs a certain amount to deliver ANY amount of something, but that cost gets divided across all units and added to the per-unit costs asyou buy more units, and more units enable mass/large-scale production.

    Under Marxists, government manages the allocations and the declines "for the public good" of course. The elites and the government get all they need and everybody else is allocated their portion of the left overs. Mussolini invented his hybrid Marxism (Fascism) as a more-efficient socialism that used "private" industry, heavily regulated by government, to do the managing of the rationing.

    Younger generations of Americans have never experienced freedom, and likely never will, but the government will increasingly encourage them to use pot so that they will be docile and never notice.

  54. Oh, these capitalists⦠by moxsam · · Score: 1

    trying to make money out of every disaster that comes along. Every crisis is an opportunity is a good thing.