• On TV.com: New TV sex symbol: Vintage black PORSCHE
July 10, 2009 4:00 AM PDT

FAQ: What the smart grid means to you

by Martin LaMonica
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 62 comments

Yet again, the tech industry has a buzzword everyone seems to be using but few really understand.

The smart grid follows the footsteps of the Internet and the interstate highway system--they are giant investments in infrastructure. It's not so much a single thing as it is a goal to give the electricity system a digital makeover to make it more efficient and reliable.

Governments and utilities around the world are devoting billions of dollars to lay new transmission lines and make the electricity network operate more like the computer networks we access every day. Big tech vendors and hundreds of start-ups are jockeying for prominence in the smart grid.

The buzz reflects how important reliable, affordable, and cleaner energy is to our modern lifestyle and economy. But what does it mean for individuals? And what technologies make up the smart grid? To give you a clue on what the smart-grid fuss is all about, we offer this FAQ.

What is the smart grid?
Building the smart grid means adding computer and communications technology to the existing electricity grid. With an overlay of digital technology, the grid promises to operate more efficiently and reliably. It can also accommodate more solar and wind power, which are inconsistent sources of energy that can become more reliable with better controls. Much like computers and routers manage the flow of bits on the Internet, smart-grid technologies use information to optimize the flow of electricity.

What would a smart grid be able to do that today's not-so-smart grid can't?
Right now, if there's a breakdown at your local substation, the utility usually finds out when customers call to complain. Placing a networked sensor inside a transformer or along wires could locate and report a problem, or prevent it from happening in the first place.

Despite living in the age of information, most of us only get a glimpse of our energy consumption when the utility bills come once a month. In people's homes, the smart grid should mean more detailed information through home energy-monitoring tools. These can be small displays or Web-based programs that give a real-time view of how much energy you're using, which appliances consume the most, and how your home compares to others. Just surfacing that information will give people ideas on how to shave energy bills by 5 to 15 percent, utility executives say.

What's needed to start is a smart meter with two-way communications or some other kind of gateway. Once that conduit is put in place, consumers can get more detailed energy data and start taking advantage of efficiency incentives, such as charging your plug-in electric vehicle in the middle of the night to get off-peak rates.

In theory, networked appliances are smarter and more efficient. GE and start-up display-maker Tendril, for example, will test big appliances--refrigerators, washing machines, and the like--that can get information on fluctuating electricity prices to do its job more efficiently. It could be as simple as making ice or running the dishwasher in the middle of the night. Or, as part of a home-area network, consumers could program lighting and major appliances on a schedule.

The next step toward efficiency is what's called demand response. The goal here is to dial back energy consumption at peak times. This is very important to utilities because it's costly and polluting to bring on auxiliary power plants to meet, say, a spike in demand from the air conditioning load on a hot summer day. Consumers and businesses have financial incentives to participate, such as a discounted rate. "Shedding load" could mean turning the gas heat off of the clothes drier for a few minutes or dimming the lights in a supermarket in the middle of the day.

A smarter grid also makes distributed energy, such as home solar systems, more viable and user-friendly. With a smart meter and monitoring software, a homeowner can see how much solar panels are producing and their carbon footprint is being reduced. A utility, too, is keenly interested in how much distributed energy is available so it can calibrate its own daily power generation.

What are some examples?
Xcel Energy has dubbed Boulder, Colo., "Smart Grid City" and is installing the equipment on power lines and people's homes. Consumers get access to a free Web-based program that gives them a real-time read-out of use, which helps them lower their usage. It also lets them know when they are buying electricity made from clean sources.

When you go deeper into the smart grid, though, you realize it isn't just about a more detailed utility bill. It can also diversify our energy sources, potentially avoiding the need to build new power plants to meet growing demand.

Consider Duke Energy's smart-grid trial in Charlotte, N.C. A substation--the point that distributes electricity from long-haul transmission lines to a neighborhood--is equipped with 213 solar panels and a large battery. About 100 households have smart meters and in-home energy management tools.

When the sun is shining, the 50-kilowatt solar array makes electricity for the homes in the neighborhood. It also feeds the battery, giving the area a few hours of backup power in the case of an outage and a buffer to draw from during peak times. Consumers can take part in demand-response programs, too, to get a reduction on their electricity bill.

One of the more aggressive utilities in this area, Duke plans to have millions of smart meters installed in homes over the next two years. In addition, it envisions putting sensors along power lines, and networking gear, such as routers, in substations and transformers. In people's homes, individual appliances like water heaters could eventually be networked as well.

The project reflects how the utility industry seems to be following the path of the computing industry, which went from centralized processing with mainframes to a much more distributed and varied architecture.

Who are the companies participating in the smart grid?
The smart grid is shaping up to be a giant mash-up of the electricity utility, computing, and communications industries.

Heavyweight tech companies--Cisco, IBM, Microsoft, and Google--all have serious initiatives in this area and loom large among utility executives working on smart-grid programs.

IBM, which sees big dollar signs when it gets involved in large infrastructure projects, is building the technology backbone for many grid modernization programs. That includes installing communications equipment along the grid as well as the software and servers to process the mountains of data that need to be processed.

Cisco, too, is jumping in with both feet with a broad initiative to supply networking equipment for utilities as well as in-home energy management tools. Verizon is looking at this as well, seeing the home network as a point to gather data on home energy use and, potentially, control lighting and appliances for better efficiency.

Microsoft and Google are going after consumers as well while trying to sign on utility partners.

The other key players are the host of start-ups in the area, many of which focus on energy displays. A handful of stronger network-oriented companies are emerging, notably Silver Spring Networks, which offers a wireless card that goes into smart meters.

Finally, there's the electrical infrastructure itself: meters, transformers, transmission equipment, and other hardware that makes the grid tick. In addition to a number of smart meter makers, there are the global infrastructure companies like GE, Siemens, and ABB that are introducing modern control systems to manage the flow of electricity.

OK, so the smart grid is supposed to reduce wasted energy, give consumers better information, and allow the grid to use more solar and wind power. What's the hold-up?
Where to start?

Utilities aren't known as the most fleet-of-foot businesses and the energy industry invests a lower percentage of revenue in technology than most industries. This helps explain why we've been hearing about the grid for 10 years but very few of us actually have it.

But lack of investment is only part of the picture. The whole point of a smarter grid is to use electricity more efficiently, but in many states in the U.S. utilities operate without strong incentives for efficiency, say industry executives. They invest big dollars--think multibillion-dollar power plants--based on their ability to sell more kilowatt-hours, not less. The more progressive utilities have found ways to justify their investments in the smart grid based on savings from energy reductions, but many utilities aren't nearly as enthusiastic because of how they are regulated.

A key regulatory piece of the smart grid is time-of-day pricing, which is supposed to reflect the fluctuating cost of energy delivery in a day. Some sort of tiered pricing would allow a consumer to take advantage of off-peak rates, but it isn't the norm in many states.

Then there's the lack of standards for a dizzying number of tasks. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is responsible for establishing an interoperability framework for smart-grid standards, recently released a road map but everyone agrees there's much work to be done.

The basic idea: be more efficient, resilient, and able to use more renewable energy.

(Credit: Department of Energy)

Amid all the technical and business challenges, there's the question of consumer acceptance. Consumers, in general, are likely to welcome more detailed information on how much electricity, natural gas, and water they use. But even though there's the promise of energy savings, it's not clear that people are willing to pay much money for home energy-management tools.

Some people and businesses are willing to allow a utility to communicate through a smart meter to remotely control the thermostat on the air conditioner in exchange for cheaper rates. But these demand-response programs are clearly not for everyone. The trick for successful demand response programs is to entice consumers with lower electricity bills without being intrusive or forcing a dramatic change, say industry executives.

Finally, these technology businesses need to be profitable, but many of the technologies and business models need to be ironed out. There's even some concern that a mini-investment bubble is building around smart grids.

Is the smart grid more secure?
Given the smart grid's fledgling status, it's hard to provide a definitive report card. But the rush to modernize the grid has gotten some security experts raising the alarm and calling for more scrutiny.

The increased use of the Internet instead of private networks for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) control systems and the bleeding together of existing corporate networks with energy providers' control networks opens up more potential cyber-vulnerabilities, they say. Security experts are calling for security to be better baked into the standards for the smart grid and for industry professionals to use better security practices to avoid dangerous hacks.

So when will I have my smart grid?
Like the highways and the Internet, the smart grid will take years to build, probably decades.

The first signs will be better energy-saving tools for consumers, much like the Web brought consumers better tools for managing personal finances. Some enthusiasts will want to closely monitor energy use and ratchet down consumption for environmental and financial reasons. Others may just set up "auto pilot" programs to take advantage of off-peak rates, much like you might use a programmable thermostat.

That said, it's early on and there may be a killer application that will emerge from the smart grid platform.

Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.
Recent posts from Green Tech
Nissan says all-electric Leaf will compete on price
Wary green-tech venture investors shift gears
Start-up compresses air in tanks for energy storage
DOE technologist handicaps impact of carbon price
Start-ups partner on universal wireless charger
U.S. Army orders bridges made of recycled plastic
Powering cell phone towers with wind
Flywheels to buffer 20 megawatts on grid
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (62 Comments)
by July 10, 2009 5:23 AM PDT
What this article doesn't say, is that the government or utility can shut power off to your residence, simply because THEY feel you are using to much electricity. Does the grid need an updgrade? I suppose yes. But why does this have to actually invade our dwellings? I'm know some of you are saying I'm just some "wingnut", but this does grant the government access to your home. And lets face it, not everyone in our government is deserving of our trust. And to answer a question posed in the article: NO, I DO NOT WANT TO PAY HIGHER FEES! especially with cap and trade on the way....
Reply to this comment
by monkeyfun14 July 10, 2009 7:45 AM PDT
Name a time when the government has just bullied a single person for doing nothing and just out of a grudge. I can bet you won't find a thing.
by b_baggins July 10, 2009 8:42 AM PDT
@monkeyfun

Strawman BS. You picked the words "nothing" and "grudge" deliberately.

Here's what really happens: The state declares something illegal, then goes after you for violating it. The activity becomes illegal because of a statist agenda. The result: You can go to jail if you build a fence on land the state has declared a wetland. In three years, it becomes illegal to buy an incandescent light bulb. The state can now decide that it would be in the public interest for your house to belong to a commercial developer and can force you to sell. If cap and trade passes, you will have to get permission from an environmental inspector before you can sell your house.

You can bet money right now, that the first thing the smart grid will be used for is to enforce energy usage on your home. It will start with fees, and progress to fines.

History is full of the state finding ways to bully its citizens for any reasons it can think of. The founding fathers knew governments were like this, which is why they wanted to make them small and weak. But ignorant fools have been brainwashed into thinking the government will take all their cares away as it suckles them in its iron embrace, and they gladly sign their souls over as a result.
by monkeyfun14 July 10, 2009 9:07 AM PDT
@B_Baggins


The US government doesn't directly control the power companies so how would they be the blame?

You would need to take these fears up with DTE or w/e energy company provides your power.
by DarkHawke July 10, 2009 10:32 PM PDT
@monkeyfun14: Six months ago, the US government didn't own two of the three domestic car companies. Times change.
by monkeyfun14 July 12, 2009 11:09 AM PDT
@DarkHawke

Government does not control these companies they have non voting stock.
by jaguar717 July 12, 2009 10:40 PM PDT
Government fired CEO Rick Wagoner.
Government picked inefficient, expensive Detroit sites for the small cars it mandated, over the more flexible and efficient TN and WI sites with better tax benefits, after saying they wouldn't dictate to GM but let it make sound business decisions (coincidentally, those Detroit sites voted for The Party).

The list goes on. Do you think they were joking when they said the Peons can't be allowed to set their thermostat how they want? The Anointed Ones know best.
by b_baggins July 13, 2009 7:25 AM PDT
@monkeyfun
The government doesn't directly own your land, either, but they can still put you in jail if they decide its wetland and you build a fence on it.

A government doesn't have to own a company in order to tell that company how to operate. It's called regulation.
by mscritsm July 28, 2009 7:44 AM PDT
Your suspicions are spot on. I live in Boulder, and I can tell you that many people here are already pushing for the city government to monitor electrical use by time and appliance once Smart Gird becomes fully operational. For example, using your A/C to an "excessive" amount (determined by the city) will result in higher costs for electricity than, say, your TV, even when used at the same time. And currently the city has Xcel (our electric utility) report to it the total electrical use by each customer every month. The customer is then taxed on this amount in a silly attempt for the city to become Kyoto compliant.

History has shown that government always takes advantage of new technology to exert greater control, and Smart Grid is no exception.
by iptofar July 10, 2009 5:50 AM PDT
Adding control systems will increase costs long term which is why utilities won't do it unless the gov't pays for it. Lets be honest, networks require user and admin attention and who really wants to schedule their life around electrical appliances? None of what is mentioned will actually save energy. I may reduce utility costs by reducing peak load.

The GAO just release a report that plugin cars do not save much electricity. The 4 or 5 percent of CO2 saved is only because plug in cars have substantially smaller engines and motors than conventional cars.
Reply to this comment
by BenFlavoredCandy July 10, 2009 7:26 AM PDT
Reducing the need for peak generation will save energy by allowing fewer plants to operate. As mentioned in the article, older, less-efficient plants are used to meet peak demand. The less these plants are needed, the more energy we will save.

Electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles are not designed to save electricity. These vehicles are a response to declining supplies of oil, which is in much shorter supply than our sources of electricity. I am not saying we will run out next year, but you get the point. As far as CO2 goes, the savings will increase more and more as we transition to low-carbon generation.
by iptofar July 10, 2009 7:46 AM PDT
Reducing peak load equipment is a trivial amount of 'energy". And i'm glad to hear someone finally admit that currently, electric cars are pointless.

10 billion dollars would pay the electricity bills for 5 million homes for a year. What's the pay off period for smart grid?

The point of my comments should really be that this is putting the cart before the horse. A hard analysis of power generation technology needs to be made and funds need to be diverted to those that actually work rather than those supported by VC hoping they work. Paying for all this other stuff like smart grid and electric cars will only make sense after that has been accomplished. Why this isn't happening is of course the dems and greeenies don't like nukes.
by jaguar717 July 13, 2009 2:57 AM PDT
"Payoff period"? That's assuming they actually want affordable power. They don't.

They're offended by the idea that the unwashed masses can afford to support themselves, and want to make everyday life as difficult and expensive as possible. Their model for this is Old Europe, where government interferes with every aspect of life and takes its cut of every remaining productive venture.

They want to increase prices, decrease quantities, and rinse and repeat until we're dependent on their handouts.
by mscritsm July 28, 2009 7:53 AM PDT
Um, the government will not pay for it. We will. It will be tacked onto your utility bill each month. And you will have no say in it.

At the utility level (outside of homes), it does pay to have Smart Grid technology since faults can be quickly isolated and the whole power grid tuned for efficiency. Even so. there are large start-up costs which ultimately the customers must fund. And inside the home Smart Grid really only helps the customer and it's up to the customer to pay, like it or not.

I live in Boulder. While initially the $100 million price tag for our city of 100,000 to become the first Smart Grid city is being paid for by Xcel, several partner companies, and government grants, Xcel has stated that it fully intends to add a charge to Boulder utility bills in the future to recover their costs if the technology is permanently used.
by KmanFL July 10, 2009 6:06 AM PDT
What the smart grid means to you - it means more nanny state control of your behavior and your personal preferences. You like to keep you home at 74 degrees year round? Well the nanny state says that is bad for you neighbor and sets your thermostat remotely. I guess it would be OK, for SOMEONE WITHOUT A BRAIN! A better option would be to build more power plants. We could even build more nuclear power plants. But wait, that would limit gubments control over your life and We the People would not want that, would We?
Reply to this comment
by BenFlavoredCandy July 10, 2009 7:32 AM PDT
Good idea! Use more energy instead of educating people on efficiency!

Do you keep your thermostat set at 74 all day every day? I honestly hope not. When you are asleep, do you need 74 degrees? What about during the day when you are at work? A $20 programmable thermostat will pay for itself in a couple months AND save energy. Not to mention that your grandmother can figure out how to program them.
by b_baggins July 10, 2009 8:45 AM PDT
Yes, the goal should be to use more energy. Energy is the foundation of human prosperity. The fundamental purpose of energy policy should be to make energy as cheap and abundant as possible.

There's nothing wrong with you getting a programmable thermostat to make your house miserably hot at night to save some money if that's what you want to do. Where you cross the line is when you tell me I have to do it.
by jaguar717 July 12, 2009 10:45 PM PDT
I love the "you don't *need* ____" as if government should have control over everything you can't prove a necessity. The whole point of that pesky Constitution was to create a place where Anointed Ones didn't get to dictate to the Peons every aspect of their lives.

No, I don't *need* my thermostat set to 74 or any other temperature, but I don't see why some parasite politician should be making that call for me or any other. I wonder if you'd be so control-happy with your 1st or 4th Amendment rights (I'm sure you would with the 2nd). I guess soon we'll be replacing the Bill of Rights with the Bill of Needs...
by mlamonica July 10, 2009 6:12 AM PDT
Any readers out there have first-hand experience with demand response programs? Would like to hear how it works in practice. Certainly, that's not all the smart grid is about but it'd be good to get more color on consumers' options.
Reply to this comment
by PeggyInToronto July 10, 2009 7:04 AM PDT
I have experience with Smart Grid in the sense that I have smart meter - both at my home in Toronto, and at a summer cottage. What's my experience? I received a letter from Hydro informing me that a Smart Meter would be installed in each of these locations during a particular week. If I hadn't looked, I wouldn't know they were there.
I am keen to use the electricity monitoring feature of these devices to better control my utility costs, but there is no indication that I will be given that opportunity. Hydro will use data collected from my meter to begin charging me time of use rates - in order to control peak usage. I will have access to those same data 24 hours later, which frankly isn't good enough. I've ranted about this before, but it feels like an opportunity missed: http://www.energycircle.com/blog/2009/05/15/smart-meter-has-arrived-hydro-hasnt/
This is an important conversation to keep going. It feels key to me that the beneficiaries of the smart grid are consumers with the ability to reduce usage.
by Cole_Brodine July 13, 2009 12:22 PM PDT
I work for a utility in Nebraska and we have a demand/response program. Right now it is limitied to larger industrial and commercial facilites. For a discounted rate, we can call them (manually for now) and ask them to curtail their load. Many of them will just run their Diesel Generators but some will actually shut down areas in their facility. We have had a demand/response irrigation system in Nebraska for years now. We tell irrigators (who volunteer to be in the program so they can have a lower rate) when they can;t run their electric wells. Many of the irrigation programs are already "smart". Our company shaves somewhere around 300 MW off of our peak by doing this state wide.


Nebraska is in a unique market, since we sell our own electricity at a lower price to our customers and make up the difference on off system sales. We have been pushing energy efficiency because it will help keep our peak demand down, avoid building costly new power plants, and we can sell the excess energy we save to other states.

We are also implementing a smart meter system. They are installed in quite a few communities that we serve but the whole state won't be converted until somewhere around 2012 I believe. Our company continues to look into "smart-grid" technology where we think it can save Nebraskans money.
by KinetiK_SK8R July 10, 2009 7:22 AM PDT
We are served locally by an electrical cooperative. A few months ago I answered a knock at my door and it was a representative from the coop. He said he needed a few minutes to replace my electrical meter with a new one. I told him I needed a few minutes to power-down my systems and I would let him know once I was done. While powering down my gear, several questions entered my mind that I asked the rep when I went outside.

Q: Why do they need to replace my meter?
A: The old meter required a rep to come out and read on a monthly basis. The new meter allows them to get the data remotely through the electrical lines.

Q: Can I opt out and keep my existing meter?
A: No, as there will be no one to read it any longer.

Q: Can this new meter be hacked?
A: Puzzled look, didn't know.

Thoughts on this:

With the old meter, the only data that could be acquired and analyzed was my kilowatt usage per month.

With this new meter, they will have the ability to monitor my usage in real-time.

Who will be maintaining this real-time data and who will have access to it?

How long will this data be maintained and where?

What could this data be used for?

Conclusions:

Implementing these meters means jobs lost in the local economy.

Implementing these meters provides too much information regarding my electrical usage.

In addition, I read an article a couple of months ago in which the energy czar stated they hoped to actually be able to monitor our usage with the new smart grid technology, and if a person has their thermostat set too low on their air conditioner, they would be able to decrease the amount of current available so the A/C unit will not run at peak efficiency.

So they will have the ability to limit or cut off our electricity, and I wonder if they will charge more for homes that consume too much electricity during peak hours.

Bottom line:

A lot of things sound good on the surface, but when you dig down you find a lot of potential trouble.
Reply to this comment
by BenFlavoredCandy July 10, 2009 7:39 AM PDT
No companies or governments are planning on controlling people's power flow like that. What do you mean by "too much information regarding my electrical usage"? I have been on a real-time meter for 2 years and will look over spikes in my daily data to determine why last Tuesday was greater than this Tuesday. What does that mean to the IT guy at my utility company? Nothing! Finally, if you paid attention to the article you would notice the part about time-of-day pricing, where they do charge more for peak hour electricity than off-peak. Again, they are not planning to cut off your power, but by making the less efficient power more expensive, they are hoping you will change your habits.
by b_baggins July 10, 2009 8:48 AM PDT
@Ben
"No companies or governments are planning on controlling people's power flow like that. "

You are incredibly naive. You're talking about the same government that is hell-bent on controlling what you eat by banning food all over the place. Put money on it now that this same government will want to control how much energy you can use. Get ready for energy quotas. Exceed your kilowatt-hours in a day, and your power gets shut off.
by monkeyfun14 July 10, 2009 10:01 AM PDT
@b_baggins


US government doesn't control US power companies.

Your incredibly paranoid.

Why can't people just take something for what it is instead of always thinking their is some evil plot to it boring life I presume?
by Cedarx July 10, 2009 10:46 AM PDT
Baggins-

Your opinions seem to be very cynical. My guess is that you've been rereading Orwell 1984 a bit too often. What's your next suggestion: for us to smash our cellphones, because the government can *force* the cellphone companies to hand over your signal code, and track you, wherever you may be? Then again, you'd probably agree with me.
I believe that the future of smartgrid technology will never be as twisted as you make it out to be.
by b_baggins July 13, 2009 7:30 AM PDT
@monkeyfun,

Turn on your brain. The government doesn't own restaurants either. It didn't stop it from banning what kinds of ingredients they have to use in the foods they prepare.

The government has incredible amounts of control over power companies. The government didn't own the land or the power company in Kansas, but decreed a power company could not build a power plant in the state.

I'm not paranoid at all. My conclusions are based on current observation of government behavior.
by b_baggins July 13, 2009 7:35 AM PDT
@cedarx,

I'm not cynical at all. I'm a realist. All governments tend toward tyranny. That's why the founding fathers wanted to keep them as small and weak as possible.

Out government in the past 6 months has fired the CEO of an auto company, has forced banks that didn't want to to take federal money (Wells Fargo), has threatened punitive action against companies that pay "unapproved" bonuses. A few years a go, the government decided it had the power to take your land if handing it over to commercial firms would generate more tax revenue. The government can put you in jail if it declares your property a wetland and you build a fence on it. Government in New York and Illinois are telling restaurants what kind of ingredients they can use in the foods they prepare. The government has decreed that incandescent light bulbs will be illegal by 2012.

Is it paranoid or cynical to assume a government with this demonstrated history of a desire to control how people live their lives will use the smart grid to extend that control?
by mscritsm July 28, 2009 8:09 AM PDT
I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks government won't stick its nose into your electrical use is naive. This is happening right now in Boulder, the first Smart Grid city. Some people here are already proposing a "demand-shaped pricing structure" once Smart Grid is fully active (see http://www.dailycamera.com/blogs/letters-editor-blog/2008/mar/18/bailey/ ). The only thing stopping it is that each customer would have to install Smart Grid aware networking on major appliances -- at a cost of hundreds or thousands of dollars -- to make such detailed monitoring possible.

But Boulder has already signaled a willingness to control what should be private business transactions between Xcel (our power utility) and its customers. Every month it forces Xcel to tell it how much electricity each customer uses. Boulder then taxes this amount to fund its effort to get the city Kyoto compliant.
by yleme July 10, 2009 7:58 AM PDT
Some parts sound great, but there are certainly some drawbacks. I like the idea of having a better idea of how I'm using my energy and what I can do to cut down on wasteful use, but as have already been noted, the idea of the gov, having control over where I set my thermostat doesn't excite me too much. Besides that, why only talk of wind and solar energy? Where' s nuclear in the discussion?

So many things to consider, but let's jump in head first without too much forethought, and figure out where we screwed up later!
Reply to this comment
by mlamonica July 10, 2009 8:23 AM PDT
The reason solar and wind are relevant to the smart grid discussion is because you need better controls, potentially some storage, if you want to greatly increase the percentage of solar and wind power since they are intermittent sources. You might have wind blowing hard and feeding the grid at one moment but then it could die down, which has caused problems. Nuclear on the other hand can supply baseload power so you don't have that issue.
by dataJONBOY July 10, 2009 9:51 AM PDT
if every home has a wireless card, which connects to wireless network, which takes up bandwith, requires infrastructure upgrades, more servers etc etc,.. is there really going to be a net loss in power usage? it sounds like what we gain in smarter power consumption, we lose in powering the new equipment to make it possible.
Reply to this comment
by mscritsm July 28, 2009 8:19 AM PDT
Actually, here in Boulder the technology is implemented with fiber-to-the-curb, which Xcel installed explicitly for that purpose. At the home level, the only power is in the smart meter, which also serves as the router. I believe that communication between devices in the home and the router in the smart meter is done via something like Powerline technology. There would also be some extra power use in each appliance to connect with the network. At the home level I don't think the extra power use will amount to much. The utility will have to maintain the fiber network at about the same cost as an ISP. I don''t think the overall power drain will be that much. However, the whole Smart Grid infrastructure for a city of 100,000 will cost about $100 million.

I don't know why fiber speeds are needed. But if there's any excess capacity, none of it will be available for Internet access. Apparently my toaster will be able to access the Smart Grid network at megabit speeds, while I'm stuck with much less on my cable.
by partybill July 10, 2009 10:00 AM PDT
3 points, 1 on the article, 1 on the comments, and a general comment;
Good article Martin, and I know this is a much larger topic than can fit in a few paragraphs.
In the article, one thing that is failed to mention specifically (though it is a bit of a background theme) is the massive scale of the undertaking. Where smartgrid pilot projects have been undertaken there is literally so much data that is coming in that the utilities are having great difficulty managing and making sense of it. The remainder of the article basically deals with smart meters along with billing and usage implications and what it means to the consumer, which brings me to a couple of the comments;
In the comments there is mention of the government controlling electricity to one's house. #1 it is the utility. #2, they do this today, without anything "smart" in the grid, just the operators that are distributing the electrons.
Third & final comment - what is the business problem that the government wants to solve? Greater redundancy in the electrical grid? better use of resources? etc, And can this be done without implementing a full blown smart grid and at a lower cost?
Reply to this comment
by mscritsm July 28, 2009 8:37 AM PDT
As for the government controlling electricity, the answer is yes they will. See my comments above on what's going on here in Boulder.

As to Smart Grid's uses, outside of the home there's a lot for the utility to gain. Power loads can be switched in under a second in case of a failure. Homes with extra generating capacity (e.g., solar and plug-in hybrids) can be contacted to add power to the grid and their loads can be managed. If necessary to prevent total collapse of the grid, any Smart Grid devices in the home can be told to shut down. There's a lot that can be done at the utility level. While each of these advantages can probably be tackled using separate different technologies, my guess is that Smart Grid lets all this be done with one basic technology which is overall the most cost effective for the utility.

Inside the home, it's a lot more questionable. Most of the power savings can be done by using a Kill-a-Watt or other power monitoring device to find power hogs and limit their use. Common sense can tell you when is the best time to run your washing machine or dishwasher. To get the marginal benefit of real-time monitoring and control using Smart Grid, you've got to add Smart Grid network adapters to each major appliance (basically you just plug the appliance's power cord into a Smart Grid network adapter, which then plugs into the wall). Or you can get rid of perfectly good appliances to buy new ones with Smart Grid built-in. Either way, it's expensive and probably not worth the cost. And whether or not you decide to make your home appliances Smart Grid capable, you still have to pay the utility for its costs of installing Smart Grid on its power grid.
by TomPhilo July 10, 2009 10:04 AM PDT
Think of the smart grid like the highway system - there are peak times (traffic jams) and times when it seems the highways are deserted (2 AM till 5 AM). And the smart grid is going the way LOTS of cities want to regulate your travel: you go to work during peak traffic times we will charge you more to get there - the implied idea is that you go to work when it is convenient for THEM and no for you . So you job opens at 8, we want you to travel at 5:30 to avoid the extra rush hour toll fee for using the road that you paid for. Social engineering. With the "smart grid" it allows them to charge you for peak usage during the day - because now they CAN. Umm peak demand for a/c is between 3 and 6 in the afternoon, lets charge more to people to due down the demand to cool down their house the most when it is the hotest park of the day - becasuse we can. We're not going to build more power plants (no mind that 50 million more people will be in the USA in 10 years or so, we want to conserve our way out of this problem) but charging extra to try and get people to not use the air conditioning when they need it to most will work! So what if the regulators say this is proper and we can do it - and earn another 10% above what we would have - its good for society! (And now add in the government overhead to help the low income people afford this extra costs so the others will end up paying even more to pay for this subsidy and the 100%+ governmend overhead costs to run the program).
And with no extra power on the grid, then they WILL lower the voltage down to all to (likley around to 98 or so to keep the system from collasping) and of course then things will run less efficiently and will internally fail faster.
It will mean a few hundred billion dollars spent to allow the government to tell the utilities that they can charge more during peak times to change social and natural behavior - and of course the Government will get more since they tax on income and if you charge more people during peak time for something they need, then the Government gets more money. (Just don't eat dinner between 5 PM and 8 PM when demand is most to cook, eat all your meals after 8 PM to save electrical costs - oh yes, don't turn on your lights during the winter.) They are going to micromanage you life in your house now - and the roads have been the proving ground.
Reply to this comment
by Cedarx July 10, 2009 10:53 AM PDT
1) You seem to have neatly forgotten that the power utilities will charge less for off-peak hours. I'll admit that whether the total cost is more, or less than our current bill is up for debate, but that gives you little right to assume that it'll be more expensive than it should be (i.e. It might become more expensive due to the cap and trade).
2) There is a very likely chance that there will be no power on the grid for the smart system. In one of the worst case scenarios, in which designers totally screw the smartgrid up, and don't provide enough base power. Again, I don't think we should be assuming for the worst. It's not healthy. =P
3) I don't think the highway system is the best analogy. It is pretty inefficient how the highway is congested one moment, then empty the next. If we could smooth this out a bit, it would ease up the headache for everyone. And driving times are more flexible than, per say, A/C usage in the afternoon.
4) The roads have been the proving ground? Can you clarify that a bit- I don't understand your point.
by TomPhilo July 10, 2009 12:56 PM PDT
Various states are currently experimenting, including Portland Oregon if they ever build a bridge, of charging more to use the roads during peak hours than the normal tolls - to try and get people to use the roads during off-peak times, which - in theory - avoids having to widen the existing roads to handle the traffic (demand). Just like here they charge you more to use "clean" energy - 10% more - than the bad bad bad hydro power that the NW has (hyrdo is NOT considered clean energy by the people who created the rules here in Oregon, and in the Federal Government. Only solar, wind, thermal and tidal is considered clean power.)
This means the power is leveled out, but the fundamental issue of the future needs is thus not even looked at. But the leving of power is at best (my guess) 5% change in habit / need.
If charging people to use a road twice as much when the demand is highest - and people still use the road - then they know they can charge more for electrical use when the need is highest - and 95% of the people will still pay. Rush hour congestion time 6 AM till 9 AM - double the charge - well people STILL have to get to work during that time so they HAVE to pay - there is really no alternative travel option. With electicity, there is also NO OPTION to avoid paying, so we will. And the extra income generated by the extra taxes on the higher charge to use it during that time will make the government happy.
Electrical use follows a very common pattern in most everything - peaks in early AM, drops, peaks at lunctime, drops peaks again in evening. Traffic flow patterns are the same - and electrical use peaks around 60 minutes after the typical traffic pattern - duh!
Tom
www.taphilo.com
by mf_ July 10, 2009 10:31 AM PDT
I encourage the author to mention Aclara his articles. They have been in the smart grid arena for years and have a significant customer base. This is not an advertisement, but an observation that a company with a depth of smart grid experience should be on everyone's radar too.
Reply to this comment
by UKStory1355 July 10, 2009 10:54 AM PDT
If we are ever going to have a sustainable energy program, then the smart-grid is vital. A smart grid will be able to allow electricity to be transmitted over longer distances, which makes things like wind power in the plains and solar power in the south west more feasable. It will cut down transportation costs if coal, cellulose/lignin based fuels, and even ethanol. Supervisory Control Systems are also very good at reducing waste by eliminating the wastes of out of control systems. It is likely that we could see a significant difference in power consumption without touching the thermostat.
Reply to this comment
by TomPhilo July 10, 2009 1:03 PM PDT
Yes, and thus a tornado in the midwest going through 4 sets of 500 KV lines at full capacity can wipe out the lights in the east and west coasts a lot easier! If all the load is there, and the power is coming from the center of the US and it being dasiy chained through 5 or 6 power companies goes offline - everyone breaks connections to proect the grid - by design. It is a shuffle game - i shuffle power next door, they shuffle it next to them, and then next to them, till the final person gets the power which is generated locally but the power coming in is feeding other people in the area. If the first person stops giving power to the next - everyone has to stop passing the power to their neighbor.
The more interconnected it is, the more dangerous it becomes to have larger massive power outgages - there is NO spare capacity being planned - it is all efficienies - this is being done to avoid building power plants.
by mscritsm July 28, 2009 8:46 AM PDT
I don't see how Smart Grid will do anything to allow electricity to be transmitted over longer distances. It might aid in faster switching if part of the grid goes down, though.

For transmitting electricity over longer distances, there's talk of higher voltage lines or moving to DC transmission instead of AC. Apparently a big loss of power occurs when trying to interconnect one AC grid to another because you have to match the power cycles (hertz) exactly, and the only way to do that is by converting to DC and then back to AC, which is relatively inefficient.
by bouchecl July 10, 2009 12:04 PM PDT
In my area, the smart grid implementation is mainly geared towards improving the monitoring of high voltage lines and substations against threats to the network (forest fires, thunderstorms, magnetic storms, freezing rain).
Reply to this comment
by mikedgolf40505 July 10, 2009 11:39 PM PDT
Look folks the government does not have to own the electric companies to do this. They can do it in the form of new laws and regulations (the reason they want to get cap and trade passed so bad; the EPA will regulate our energy consumption, and the smart grid will give them the capability to do it). In Lexington, KY where I live; our city government tried to condemn out local water company for absolutely no reason. Thank goodness it came up on a ballot vote and lost. What had the water company done? The founders of our country wrote the constitution to LIMIT the power of the government and protect it's citizens from illegal intrusion from the government. Has anyone actually read the document and looked at what has happened in our country since Woodrow Wilson. The government is involved in thousands of ventures for which it has no constitutional authority. I am all for the smart grid as long as the government stays out of it. I must be missing something in the arguments from liberals on this issue. You protest when the government wiretaps international calls to terrorist countries, but support cap and trade where they can control our own energy use through taxation?
Reply to this comment
by mikedgolf40505 July 10, 2009 11:52 PM PDT
One more thing. I think that both sides, left and right; are for a smart grid. The objection comes in if the government can control your energy use through taxation (the cap and trade bill) or the utility is forced to charge you more because your primary use in peak hours. The motivation here is to cut energy use, which is commendable. But no one should be able to tell me what temperature I can have my house at when I am not there or when I am. If I want to do it voluntarily that is fine. The person who posted earlier about not needing to set your thermostat at 74 all day; my question to you is what business is it of yours? While I do not smoke, look at what the government has done to cigarettes, they have almost taxed them out of existence. You know I would bet that the smart grid would blow up at ole ozone Al Gore's crib/compound.
Reply to this comment
by sslPro July 12, 2009 10:13 PM PDT
core problem - consumers wasting resources whether water/gas /electric what business is it of mine ?

I currently am living here in N america like you ( but have a conscience & under stand
things like social responsibility) If people turn their a/c or furnace up thats their choice but
I perform energy audits & I can tell you most bldgs waste 40% of the energy they pay for -
if people plugged the wasteful gaps in their places and switch to Solid State lighting overall
consumption would give us a much better dynamic regarding Energy Use. Oh and the cost
reductions would make even an old avericious republican happy!
by July 11, 2009 3:21 PM PDT
The Government will control the electric companies. Think not? The Progressives in the Republican and Democratic Party believe that their experts know whats best for the common good. They develop policy to fit a need, pass legislation to support that policy and tax the crap out of you to force it into reality. It is July in Washington, DC and the morning temps are in the 50's and 60's yet they want to pass Cap & Trade because of Al Gore's big lie called Global Warming...How arrogant can a gov. program get? How costly? Who gets rich? Al Gore and the Gov.

The ultimate goal is a docile well behaved citizen who has no choice but to support the eltites. Religion, guns, schooling, parenting, anything and everything to break down the individual is the goal. Read up on Woodrow Wilson..."Progressives are Socialists" no difference...they hailed Musillini's fascism until it blew up the world.

Make no mistake...this Obama government is lead by a Marxist Bigot and supported by the new Democratic National Socialist Workers Party...GM...Gov Motors....stolen by the feds and given to the workers...no rule of law.... You RED vs BLUE voters are being had...and you're told that free thinkers are wingnuts....key word is THINKERS.....they hate thinkers.....think about it and wake up....WE NEED TERM LIMITS AND A REPEAL OF THE 17TH AMENDMENT.
Reply to this comment
by iceman721 July 12, 2009 3:28 AM PDT
Let me educate you guys a little on this initiative. I have worked in government and for a major utility that is currently testing this type of technology. There are those of you who have debated the merits and the power of this initiative back and forth. Let me share some facts with you. Yes the government does control the utility industry to a point based on the heavy regulations that the industry has to live by due to its critical nature to the country. Go and research Enron and the way they tampered with the flow of electricity in and out of California after influencing government regulation for their own benefit. They made billions by sending the flow of electricity out of California to other states causing brownouts and then charging California 3-4x as much to reroute the flow of electricity back into the state and charging more for the power.

Yes with smart meters utilities have access to your power consumption in a real time basis. They eventually with smart appliances can turn on and off your individual appliances to suit the needs of the "grid". The employees at the utility can check your consumption at any time and tell if you or someone is at your home and using energy. Patterns of use can be developed to tell when you get up everyday and what you use when you get up. You can be turned on and off remotely and your meter can be read remotely (which yes will cause the loss of some jobs).

So part of the question should be how much do you trust your local utility and its employees. They will have a tremendous amount of information at their disposal about how you live your life. Here's another one for you. Being for profit companies what's to say they won't begin to sell the information about your energy usage patterns to other companies? After all in this day and age money is king so they will find a way to profit from that information. I would support more investment in nuclear technology and power plants as well as ways to prevent line loss (about 40-50% of all the electricity made never reaches its destination its lost over power lines during the transimission process). This technology in my opinion is too intrusive and there are not enough checks and balances developed to ensure that the vast amount of information gathered is used in an appropriate manner.

My mom lives in the west and she is part of a pilot program with a smart meter on her home. Her air conditioning is turned down at the discretion of the local utility as well as the power to things like her dryer when she tries to use it during peak time. I am filmed at intersections and throughout my daily activity. I have been backround checked and vetted by the government over a dozen times due to the security involved in my job. I am not interested in giving the government or my employer yet another source of information about how I live my life.
Reply to this comment
by belfert July 12, 2009 1:14 PM PDT
There are air conditioning systems that make ice at night when electricity is cheap and store it to provide air conditioning during the day with less electricity used during the day. There are probably no residential versions of this yet, but my church installed this 10 or 15 years ago and the energy savings is huge compared to the original system.

Higher energy costs might push people to more geothermal and other less en ergy costly ways to cool.

I am against time of day power pricing mostly because I expect my bill will go up. During the summer I keep the A/C at 75 degrees all day because I have a device on my A/C that cuts the power on high power demand (i.e. really hot) days. If I tried to set up my thermostat to drop from 78 to 75 at say 3 PM the house would never cool off on a really hot day due to losing power 15 to 20 minutes an hour.
Reply to this comment
by claytonn July 12, 2009 2:53 PM PDT
I have been on time of day pricing before. I don't like it at all. Basically, the pricing was much higher when I was a home, and much lower when I was at work. My electric bill was twice as much as before. The smart grid will cost many people a lot of money. I am now retired (not willingly) and could take advantage of time of day billing, but if I could get work again would want to avoid this billing system at all costs.
Reply to this comment
by sslPro July 12, 2009 9:54 PM PDT
Politics aside -government intrusion is a bad thing (ex real id ,patriot act many more ) but the
flipside of the coin relates to having certain rules & regulations ( like local building codes / mandated
exit lights Ada requirements)
Let's look at the 3rd area of the coin ( the rim ) we would all benefit to use logic and rational thought,
Want to be more judicious with our various resources... ,good example my electric bills - I CUT THEM IN HALF IN 3 yrs. FROM $ 70. to $ 35.00 per month nowadays!!
Anybody who wants to can do logical things like switching to Solid State Lighting/ Weatherize their
property -- Agreement with many- educate the people it's better then legislating /bullying -
Reply to this comment
by Swooley July 12, 2009 11:25 PM PDT
Skynet anyone?
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 2 pages (62 Comments)
advertisement

A CNET Conversation with Eric Schmidt

CNET's Tom Krazit and Molly Wood sit down with Google CEO Eric Schmidt to discuss the future of Android, the Chrome OS, the problem of real-time search indexing, and more.

Verizon tests sending RIAA copyright notices

The No. 2 phone company, known for its reluctance to intervene in antipiracy cases, strikes an agreement to forward copyright notices on behalf of the music industry.

About Green Tech

Innovation in energy and environmental technologies is long overdue, in business and at home. Green-tech guru Martin LaMonica and other CNET writers serve up fresh clean-tech news and commentary.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Green Tech topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right