The Grid of the Future…Is Now?

Remember the good old days of sci-fi, when our hero would come home to a house that knew exactly how warm to be, and would have dinner ready in the oven? Well, the powers that be are working on a vision for a responsive, smarter national electric grid that would deliver greater efficiency and reliability than the current system–no casseroles yet, but give ‘em time.

A recent Business Week article discussed the details of an experiment conducted in 2006 in Washington, in which over 100 homes were outfitted with “smart” technology that knew when energy was at highest demand, and would adjust accordingly. Automatic lowering of the thermostat, for instance, or the dryer providing a gentle suggestion to perhaps come back and try again later. The idea is to relieve stress from the grid at peak demands times. It saves money for the consumer and smoothes out the peaks and troughs that have wreaked so much havoc in times of great energy usage (need we remind anyone of the California rolling blackouts or the Northeast shutdown?).

Funded primarily by the Department of Energy with help from local utilities and donated technology, the project was successful on numerous fronts. Energy supply was smoothed out over the trial period, ensuring no interruption of service during peak times, and consumers seemed happy with the energy supply and with their savings.

Here are the pros to participating in an a national version of this grid: (1) you save money; (2) you save energy; (3) you can remote control your house from the internet, which, let’s face it, is awesome; (4) you feel pretty confident you won’t have to deal with power outages. Here are the cons: (1) you’re not entirely sure that no one else can control your house from the internet; (2) you are confident that integrating a massive amount of new technology on a national scale will cause hiccups, like, oh, say, a six month wait for equipment (just a guess); (3) you’re concerned about where the money for revamping our entire national grid is going to come from.

That last point must be balanced by the fact that our national grid is in dire need of some kind of rehab, regardless of whether this is the route that’s taken. What I think would be best is if renewable energies were pulled into the system revamp at the same time: wind and solar power will provide cheaper electricity over time, and the sooner those technologies are implemented, the sooner they start paying for themselves. And once we have the responsive home energy technology out of the way, the sooner we set our sights on the next level of convenience and innovation. I pretty much just want to be able to walk up to my fridge and say, “Earl Grey tea, hot.” Is that so much to ask?

Adam Said,

January 17th, 2008 @12:45 pm

Cool stuff, Margaret. Just another example of how small, sensible technologies can combine to have a huge beneficial impact.
Here’s an interesting overview of the grid in North America, with details on the post 1970s-deregulation and the economics of electricity generation and distribution: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14726/page/1

Michael Culp Said,

January 22nd, 2008 @11:21 pm

Maybe I should have more faith in my fellow man but I immediately think of all the people who might not get behind this: 1) the every man who would rather save the money it would cost to initially convert their homes as the big picture is more of a distant future, 2) the have’s who would rather not worry about a saving a few pennies, 3) or your average power hog who would opt to override the system more than about 1% of the time in the name of convenience. Then, I wonder, how many of us like the idea yet don’t have the money to cover the upfront costs? So how do we really give incentive? Tax breaks for everyone involved? Maybe a two for one: assistance to lower income families involved and higher taxes on very high income families who don’t switch over? But who in office would support that? Capt. Picard, maybe. You know, if he didn’t live in a future where there were no need for a monetary system, I think you and I just might be in line for tea behind the Captain at that fridge of yours.

January 23rd, 2008 @4:35 am

Michael–I like your suggestions for creating incentives for those who could benefit most from lowering their energy bill, while putting some mild tax pressure on those who can afford to be foot-draggers. I had one more idea: what about a mechanical hand that pops out of the control panel and slaps you every time you try to run the dryer at peak hours?
I have a random concluding remark. While visiting my folks in Maine over the holidays, I was lucky enough to see one of those Chavez-sponsored Citgo ads on TV. Melodrama and politics aside, there are no doubt people out there who are feeling the energy pinch this winter. Apparently some individuals are heating their homes by leaving their oven open longer than usual. Why? Electrical utilities (at least in Maine) are legally obliged to keep the electricity on until April, when warmer weather ensures that a power cut-off won’t result in deaths and/or lawsuits.
http://bangornews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=158845&zoneid=500

Margaret Said,

January 24th, 2008 @2:30 pm

That’s interesting, Adam–I always thought gas stoves with a pilot light rather than an electric ignition could come in handy for warmth, since the oven could still be turned on despite a power outage; that’s a thoughtful law for Maine to have (though there isn’t anything it can do about grid failure, I guess). And thanks for the link to that thought-provoking overview. It makes me want to talk about deregulation issues, but that’s a whole other blog post, I think…
To get to Michael’s point about incentives v. tax pressure, I think the hope for the grid would be that individuals would not be paying out of pocket for any new technology required in their homes. A revamp of the national grid would have to be funded by a combination of a general tax, and the private companies who run the utilities–most likely expressed as even higher fuel prices. The reason I don’t mind this scenario is that it creates a situation where there’s a lot of pressure to get the move on with the transition, so prices can come back down. If the nation worked on a graduated income tax, it would make sense to me if the cost of a new grid were taken out of that chunk of change (I admit I’m not a very good capitalist). Another option might be to make the purchase of wind, solar, and geothermal energy from a utility tax-deductible for a time. Many utilities offer such “clean” options at a slightly higher rate to their consumers. Mass purchasing of these credits might help the utilities fund a general push to increase the percentage of clean power vs. coal they make available to their customers. It wouldn’t by any means pay for a new grid, but it might help.
One final thought: the “haves” might not mind a few extra pennies, but everyone loves a tax break. If the federal rebate for installing renewable energy systems in your home was raised, and state rebates extended/raised/introduced (depending on where you live: see the DSIRE database, http://dsireusa.org/), we could get a much higher number of homes operating at net zero energy, or close enough to it to ease the at-times crippling burden on the grid.