Search Archives
Why New Daedalus?

Daedalus was the mythical great architect and artificer of the classical world. Today, embedded intelligence is enabling the most profound changes in the way we create and use buildings since his day.

Building Intelligence meets the Intelligent Building. The Intelligent Building negotiates with the Intelligent Grid. How will this transform how we interact with the physical world?

More on the Web
Powered by Squarespace
« How should green builders prepare for smart grids? | Scheduling our Things, Scheduling our Lives »

Energy Collisions and Autonomous Appliances

Appliance manufacturers are moving beyond energy pain points to energy collisions. Utility-based energy standards are stuck on energy pain. Energy collisions can offer much more benefits to smart grids than can pain points; they can offer still more to the off-grid or near grid building. Collisions are part of a wide variety of autonomous energy behaviors we will see in the near future—if only the energy suppliers will stop blocking them.

Too many energy suppliers are stuck on models of direct control. When they accept using prices, they want to use them to create direct control. (There is a name for this in Economics—drop me a line or comment if you know what it is…). To use a cartoon version of this approach, if I knew that when the yellow light comes on, I will be charged $1000 / minute to run the air conditioning, that yellow light is as good as an on / off switch. This mechanistic approach, seeking only for the right price that will achieve direct control, will not get any better results than the direct control of the 1980’s

The appliance manufacturers have a more engaging vision, in which they can compete as to how well they engage the consumer in better energy decisions. Most appliances can run in high and in low energy modes. The low energy mode may use half the energy but take three times as long. If time is money, this approach asks the question, “But how much?” Do you want that shirt clean and ready in 30 minutes [high energy mode]? Is it OK if it takes 90 minutes [low energy mode]? Is it OK to wait for 10 minutes until the energy price drops? How about 45 minutes? How about seven hours to get the overnight energy prices—or the wind-sourced energy?

The appliance manufacturers know how to do this already. They are starved for information. They want not only information about the price now, but predictions about price in the future. They want to compete on how well they can communicate energy decisions to the consumer.

This model of autonomous response can reach past the relatively low energy appliances. The intelligent thermostat may want to cool more now to in anticipation of higher prices later. The Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) must support the household schedule while deciding when to charge.

There is renewed focus within the autonomous appliance community on energy profiles to support this model. Energy profiles as defined by Open Smart Grid efforts or by ZigBee have a simple model of energy use, low energy mode, turn off mode and ramp time. Building systems and appliances have a more complex mode. That washing machine may use no energy while filling, and then plenty while agitating the clothes. If an appliance understands its own energy profile, it may start filling its tank five minutes before the price drops—and time its final spin to complete before energy prices step up.

And then they began talking about systems working together to avoid energy spikes…

One of the foundational approaches in networking is collision sensing and detection (CSMA/CD) on a shared bus. Nodes on a network can transmit message whenever they want. Each is responsible for detecting when another node is transmitting at the same time, called a collision. When a collision is detected, each node waits a random period of time and then re-transmits. You may recognize this pattern as what humans do in conversation.

Today’s appliance manufacturers are talking about comparing energy profiles avoid the spin cycle and the refrigerator’s compressor cycle from running at the same time. With almost no degradation of performance, these autonomous systems can begin to shape the overall load profile of a building—or of the green neighborhood.

This approach can provide a smoother, more predictable load to the utilities. When combined with price responsiveness. It could produce a very predictable market. It really becomes interesting, however, when it applies to off grid buildings, and something that I call near-grid buildings.

If a building is running on site-generated energy, it has very distinct energy budget. That budget is not merely aggregate energy over 15 minutes, but hard, clear limits on maximum energy use at any moment. That upper limit may be continuously varying as, say, the speed of the wind changes. Continuous autonomous load shaping, based upon detailed energy profiles, may be critical to a distributed energy future.

To get there, we must get beyond price as a proxy for direct control. To paraphrase General Honore, don’t get stuck on pain.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (3)

While the load shaping idea for each home is a good Idea, you must realize that the price for residential energy in many jurisditions is not directly tied to it's costs but rather to it's regulatory regime, public vs private utility owenrship and other cross subsidization political decisions. You keep suggesting that the utilities are the BAD guys and they won't let the customer have complete control of the information he needs to maximize his/her benefits. In many cases the utility business customers are paying dearly and in real time for the energy to make a profit so that the residential customers can have low energy prices for the basic essential services to live. The GRID electrical system with it's mandated obligation to serve at any costs is not well suited for all aspects of the market and the pricing models and standards you suggest. The instantanious production of the same electricity from a host of sources with prices varied by 100 % or more is not well suited for the I WIN /YOU LOSE market system where the loser can stop the PAIN by withdrawing from the game. I had to study the potential bankrutcy of GPU after Three Mile Island and was unthinkable just like the recent financial crisis.

September 10, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterDavid Katz

Hi Toby,

I guess you might be aiming at is the monopolistic anticompetitive behavior of IOUs.

I see two widely different paradigms being used by Toby and David.

Toby is not just writing about load shaping in the utility sense but in the customer sense. Toby is writing about autoorganization to replace centralization. Toby wants to know about efficient prices for the whole, not about an obsolete price regime that fits one part and that keeps destroying huge value. It is in that sense that utiliies have become BAD for the customer pocket and society as a whole.

The mandated obligation to serve is not required anymore when customers agree to respond to efficient prices. Under EWPC it is changed as a responsibility to transport, by regulated wires only utilities. This shifts commercial activitiies to the market, where Second Generation Retailers (2GRs) replace utilities by developing business models.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>