TeraBill writes "It seems that the California Energy Commission is looking to give utilities in the state the power to control the thermostats in private homes via a radio signal. The idea is that during times of significant energy crunch, the utilities could force thermostats to higher temperatures rather than having to implement a rolling blackout. The thermostats have been around for a while and new ones were on display at the CES show in Vegas this week. While I can see the argument for it, we just had a kid take over a tram system with a remote control, so how long before our thermostat gets hacked by the neighbors. And I'd almost rather have the power drop than have someone significantly raise the temperature in my home if I had a computer running there. (UPS and a graceful shutdown versus cooking something.)"
The thermostats referred to are connected to air conditioning
Thanks for the info, now it actually makes sense to me. Here I was, wondering how exactly turning the heating up would help with reducing electricity...
So I guess that does make the idea a lot more reasonable, although I would still rather feel that if your power grid can't always deal with the electricity demand, then it's the power grid that needs updating - on the other hand, this probably both cheaper and more enviromentally friendly.
That leaves the one concern then: hacking of the system, especially since this is wireless. If the idea is to turn air conditioning down to reduce the strain on the power grid, then bad guys can use the same system and turn the air conditioning up to crash the grid. And what does TFA say about the possibility of hacking?
That is not possible, said Nicole Tam, a spokeswoman for P.G.& E. who works with the pilot program in Stockton. Radio pages "are encrypted and encoded," Ms. Tam said
Yeah right, like that's ever stopped anyone. Also, what is the difference between encrypted and encoded?
not to mention malls, offices, restaurants and other businesses.
Oh, no, they won't install them in any commercial location, only private homes.
Making people uncomfortable in their own homes, no problem; Interfering with Holy Commerce, now, they just
don't play games there. Won't happen.
Remember, this involves a state that has to pump in water from two states away because of
regular yearly droughts that make the US SouthEast this year look like a bunch of crybabies, yet
when they implement watering bans, they exempt businesses; And even on mornings when they do actually
get a bit of rain, those businesses will still leave the sprinklers on, because it costs less
than having Jose drop by and manually interrupt the cycle.
In any other state, I'd consider this proposal offensive enough to incite riots. But California?
Heh. Relax and just watch the show.
Well - just to let you know - I think that you have a few details wrong. I've lived in CA all my life (over 50) and have lived through a couple of droughts that are far worse than this one has been. CA has implemented mandatory water conservation at least twice at the county level in my life time. I've personally lost a lawn that cost me $1500 to install because of it. Business's turn off fountains and other water displays in the normal course of these things AND the watering you see at the commercial par
It's a bizarre system that charges an uneconomic price for energy and then wants to compensate for that by controlling the thermostat in your home. When there is a shortage of power the wholesale price of energy rises. Charge households the true cost of the electricity they use (which will sometimes be more than the current rate, sometimes less) and if you want to install a thermostat that automatically reduces its power consumption when power is expensive, that's up to you. It would depend on your own i
That reminds me of something that happened at a college back in the 1970s during the energy crisis, when everyone was asked to save energy by lowering their thermostats to 68 degrees. I was taking some classes at a Junior College in Arizona at the time. They lowered the thermostats to 68 degrees during the winter to save energy, as requested, and then several weeks later they discovered that the air conditioning system had come on automatically to get the building down to 68 degrees.
It's interesting that you bring up the 70's. I am reminded that back in the 70's, when Jimmy Carter was president, he proposed and had passed, several laws that were meant to force conservation of oil and gas and to get us off our addiction to foreign oil. All of these laws were repealed by the Reagan Administration, but if they had stayed in effect, who knows what improvement they might have brought to our current situation, in terms of overall carbon emissions and in geo-political terms.
Now that I think about it, he also brokered a peace agreement with Israel and Egypt that has never been broken, not once in more than 30 years.
See, that's where he lost the Republicans. Why would you encourage peace between two countries that purchase arms from you? That just doesn't make sense.
You want to know why Carter is believed to be the worst president? Start with Carters economic policies that caused 17% annual inflation, go from there.
You mean the Inflation that started under Nixon? That later got under control because Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who was so good that even Reagan couldn't find anyone better?
By the time they've got this in everyone's home, intruding in their lives like some third world dictatorship rationing bread, they could have built a new nuclear power plant or two.
Having everyone pulling power willy-nilly from a facility with limited output is a dumb idea. Regulating a more even amount of power to everyone is smarter.
Californians pay for the power they use just like you. They also probably pay more per kW/h.
The problem is that during certain high-demand summer days, California's grid infrastructure cannot provide enough electricity to meet the demand. People are upset because California has not been more aggressive about improving the power grid or building new power plants.
They already have a system like this in place in south Louisiana, some electricity co-ops use load management terminals, which look like a separate electric meter connected to the air conditioner. On hot summer days, they'll shut off the A/C for up to half an hour, to prevent overload to the grid and save money. They don't shut everybody's A/C off at once, they "roll" the shutoffs through the neighborhoods. It can be a bit of an inconvenience because of the temperature rise in your house, but if your house is well insulated, you won't notice it that much. The system is totally voluntary, and you even get a minor rebate on your electric bill.
It can be a bit of an inconvenience because of the temperature rise in your house, but if your house is well insulated, you won't notice it that much.
You notice it, like I did, when the condensing unit is powered down and powered back on too quickly and it trips the circuit breaker causing the house's temperature to rise to 88 degrees (with only a dog inside) while you're at work. When you get home, reset the circuit breaker, and attempt to get the house's temperature to something more reasonable, you cann
And I'd almost rather have the power drop than have someone significantly raise the temperature in my home if I had a computer running there
What the hell you running in there ? California, with the exception of the Central Valley and a few deserts (not all that populated)
is not all that hot. I have run almost all forms of workstations sans AC in 40C + weather with no adverse effects.
This is a fundamentally broken system, like the cable companies relying on cable modems (in the customers' houses) to limit the amount of data customers can upload into the network per second. Uncapping, anyone? Unless the meters get smarter, "uncapping" a thermostat would be easy and very hard to detect.
Instead, why not plan properly so that electricity shortages don't happen?
As an aside, I don't think many people will take kindly to having their thermostats adjusted by an outside force. Being told "no" by technology tends to make people angry, even if it's for the greater social good. Ever seen a person get mad at a red traffic light? They don't realize that a red traffic light is not "the man" telling them no. It's a helpful, sensible warning that the cross traffic has a green light.
Can you imagine what would happen, either locally or world wide, if there is a real shortage of fuel? And prices go up to $30 per gallon or worse? Electricity would costs $2.50 per kwh? OK, this will not happen not today, but it could be the case in 40 years. Than you would think more than twice to even switch on your AC... Some poorer people would not even be able to pay for warming up a meal. Do you know what these people are going to do? I do not want to find out...
Quite a while back, maybe ten years ago or so, I read that the Electric Power Research Institute was proposing that each power and light socket have a unique IP address so that they could be remotely controlled by the power company, for the same reason as given here - to reduce consumption at peak times, and to prevent rolling blackouts.
That wasn't feasible at the time, as they would have quickly run out of available addresses, but now with IPv6 that's not such a problem anymore. I expect that the proposal will resurface again soon.
Oh, I want that. Seriously the ability to monitor every wall socket and tell how much power drain each one is taking. Code up some optimization routines, give access to the power company to certain appliances in my house and get a little kickback money-wise. So long as they don't know what they are turning off, I get something for the added inconvenience, and I specifically give them access rights myself: I have no qualms with that.
Though a massive solar array in death valley would probably be easier... it g
There already exists devices for dropping loads when the supply frequency droops - a sign that the generation is not meeting the load. These are designed specifically for areas where generation will occasionally be insufficient, like developing countries. Now that North America is in the same boat (and the rest of the 'western' world is probably going to follow the same course), why not start using these things.
It wouldn't be hard to develop a small micro-controller driven box that would watch the mains supply frequency and apply small adjustments to a thermostat setting as required.
You know the one thing that I really don't understand is saving energy via force, and not via using technology. Actually I really don't understand the whole drive to just save energy as saving energy doesn't necessarily even mean saving environment. We have the technology, we have had for long, to solve all our energy problems without sacrificing environment or economy. So why not build more nuclear power? It's environmentally friendly and economic. From western countries, France and Finland are both building new next generation plants, British government is leaning on building more and even in Sweden, who after the Chernobyl, made an alarmist decision to give up nuclear power, is starting to discuss on reverting that decision.
So why not? Why not build more capacity to California and other parts of US? That way you could have your all the energy you need in low price and in time you could shut down your coal and oil power generation plants and take part in struggle against global warming. That would be a real solution to a problem, not a act to play more time, as is this proposition to take over the thermostats.
So why not? Why not build more capacity to California and other parts of US?
It's not cost effective. I'm from Australia, but I feel I can still answer your question because my father has worked in the electricity industry and explained it all to me as a kid. Here in Melbourne, we have a few days a year of blackouts, typically. This is because in the peak of summer, the grid gets overloaded and rolling blackouts are implemented. Now, for the rest of the year, capacity is plentiful - the few days of overload
How long people start pointing hair dryers at or placing heat packs over their thermostats?
Anytime time some one further regulates our lives someone will find a way around it. The best way to control demand for a limited resource is to increase the price during peak periods. Once the price gets high enough people will actually start to see the cost savings in turning down the air conditioning or better insulating their houses.
I prefer a cooler temperature however I have spent a lot of money insulating my house and only run the air conditioning in the one room I am using. I use less power than people with uninsulated houses that air condition every room even when their thermostat is set a few degrees higher.
In California If you produce more electricity than your use from the solar panels on your house you not only don't get to sell your excess electricity at wholesale rates you just get credits that expire on your anniversary of having net metering. This is unlike Germany where you get to sell your excess solar generated electricity at retail prices.
Basically PG&E is going to make about $2,000 dollars off of me because I don't use enough electricity. (maybe I need to move some pizza boxes from the office to home, no I can hear the fans in the other room at work even with the door closed)
The only debate we are having is to replace the hot water heaters or the stove with electric instead of gas so that we can increase our electric usage.
California has an electricity shortage and many of their residents are scaling back solar installations and or scheming to use more electricity and they are going to install stupid devices that can be defeated by walking down to the drugstore and getting an instant heat pad to put on the thermostat. (Of course the real nerds will put a second thermostat on the hair dryer that is pointed at the radio controlled thermostat and have it blow hot air at the thing to get the house cool. I guess I need to go patent a really obvious design and get manufacturing lined up if this stupid nanny state regulation gets passed.
Gee this a bad idea that has an obvious workaround by the dishonest and has lots of room for kickbacks and ignores the cause of the problem, I give it about an 80% chance of passing if the elected officials in Sacramento get paid their bribes^w campaign contributions.
The idea is you get a $25 credit for having this installed and then $8/hour of shutoff time and they specific times when they will not shut off your AC. I've seriously thought about it since the possible shutoff times are pretty much while I'm at work.
Anyone pick up on the very obvious communist statement:
Dr. Rosenfeld said. If you can control rotating outages by letting everyone in the state share the pain, he said, theres a lot less pain to go around.
First they're going to tell us what lightbulbs we're allowed to use, now this?
You know how many old/infirm people die every year due to the heat or cold?
Another poster had it right: We pay for a service, make the #(*& service perform like its supposed to. Stop being afraid of atom energy and build more reactors. Right now, its the safest form of energy with the greatest amount of return we can produce.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday January 12 2008, @05:47AM (#22012788)
This is very old technology here in Canterbury New Zealand where the power companies have controlled water heating during the morning and evening peaks. It was done by injecting audio tones into the mains supply. The technology actually originated in WW2 in London to control the air-raid sirens.
Here's an idea. Instead of the current typical 200amp service, everybody gets a 20amp service that is "always on", and a 200 amp service that's subject to rolling blackouts. That gives consumers the power to choose what loads will be shit down. It would be a little more complex for metering, but, much more effective, and easier to "convince" homeowners to retrofit. (Look... we can give you SOME power that doesn't go out...).
Here's another idea: Create some competition to SDGE, and the first time they start turning off my A/C during the summer watch me switch to a new provider who builds an infrastructure that can keep up with demand and is willing to provide the energy I pay for.
Here's another idea: Create some competition to SDGE, and the first time they start turning off my A/C during the summer watch me switch to a new provider who builds an infrastructure that can keep up with demand and is willing to provide the energy I pay for.
This is the sort of naive, knee-jerk reaction that makes sense when you don't understand how the grid works.
Yes, of course we can build more infrastructure, and we may have to, but that's not what TFA is about. TFA is about a solution to high peak loads. Building more infrastructure (generation and transmission) is an expensive solution, especially when you only need it for a few hours per day.
Automatic load shedding, on the other hand (the solution proposed in TFA) moves energy use away from the peaks, allowing greater overall utilization of the existing infrastructure. There are pilot programs in many places already, and you will pay lower rates for your (voluntary) participation. It's very unlikely that you'll ever be forced to participate in such a program against your will.
Do you really need air conditioning? What do you think they did a hundred years ago?
1) They stayed the hell away from the south western US. 2) They used the evaporative cooling. 3) They had ice shipped in, and paid exorbitant fees for it. 4) The old and infirm, quite simply, died.
Hear, hear! Some of the other ideas are ok- getting a discount for adding a relay, etc., so long as there is a payback for lack of service, however none of them address the root of the problem. Where I live, the utilities have an agreement with some local high-consumption industrial facilities to shut down during peak consumption times like heat waves. No further measures have been needed. What I just can not believe is that people are actually putting up with the kind of bullshit they are shoveling in Ca
Why aren't they screaming to get more power plants built?
They are. It's NIMBY syndrome. Everyone wants the voltage, but nobody wants to live near a power plant. The coal fumes or the nuclear risk or the whatever's wrong with gas are all too scary. That's why the state has its solar programs: after state-run rebates, you can get solar basically for free. Why? Because people will actually do it. Don't get me wrong, I hate SDG&E with a passion. But, the infrstructure problem isn't their fault. The
Here, in Minnesota, I have this already in my house. Hooked up to my air conditioner is a relay that the power company can shut down during peak usage time. I get a discount on my bill for having it (10 or 15% during the summer) and they only shut it off for a maximum of 15 minutes at a time, no more than once every 2 hours, so it doesn't have any major impact on the temp of my house.
Time-of-use rates kindof do this - encouraging cutbacks at peak times. Most power companies that do this offer this as an option, so adoption has probably been slower than expected. Basically, the way it works, the power company installs a meter that records not only power consumption, but when that consumption occurs. In exchange for allowing the power company to meter usage in this manner, the customer gets a sharply discounted rate during off-peak hours. However, during on-peak hours, rates are significantly higher.
The utility companies, with the consent of regulators, could make these rates mandatory. The resulting jumps from say, $0.08/KwH to, $0.75/KwH or more would probably encourage enough "voluntary" cutbacks to allow time for a long term solution.
If there's not enough power to go around, build up the infrastructure. I pay for a service. You provide it. How many decades do you have to suffer poor infrastructure problems before you finally start investing in it? How the hell do you run a business (and it is) by providing only what your current systems can handle and to hell with a growing demand for those services in the future? Imagine if the phone company had decided that, instead of requiring you to dial the area code every time you make a call, they had simply said "sorry, no more phone lines!" and decided not to invest in any sort of build-out whatsoever?
This whole "oh my god, not enough power" thing is fine for a year or two, when it catches you off guard. Its' quite another more than a decade later.
>If there's not enough power to go around, build up the infrastructure.
The power generation infrastructure suffers from too much 'NIMBY'. I lived in Indiana for years, and during the 90's; Duke power wanted to build several 'Peak Power' generation plants fired by Natural Gas. Every time they tried to get permits, the 'NIMBY' (Not In My Back Yard) crowd showed up and whined to the elected officials. Naturally, fearing a loss of votes elected officials caved.
California is in much the same state; They haven't been able to build a power plant (thanks to the NIMBY's) for at least 2 decades. Now, they are suffering for it. Back in 2001, the DOE estimated that the US would need around 1900 power plants built by the year 2021. Yes, they've built wind farms, but now they're finding that the Wind Farms are killing Raptors and causing infestations of rats. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18447 [heartland.org]
There is no easy answer--Conservation by us will help some, but ultimately we need clean, cheap power. On NUMB3RS last night, they were looking at putting up Solar Panels on Charlies house; which on a nice bright sunny day would generate more than what they used. IIRC, they were looking at some really cutting edge technology stuff. Currently, the break even point is about 12-18 years, but this company looks really promising. http://www.news.com/greentech/8301-11128_3-9835241-54.html?tag=nefd.top [news.com] At their cost of $1/watt it cuts the break even by as much as 66%.
If you want to make your computer shut down when the temperature gets too hot, you could probably rig something up.
I doubt it's even necessary.
Where I live it's 90F and 85+% humidity 365 days a year, and I absolutely never use air conditioning. Just leave the windows open and turn on a ceiling fan and it's perfectly nice. If I am leaving my computer on while I go out during the hottest part of the day, I leave a desk fan (on low setting) pointed at it, and it's never overheated yet.
Then lets apply it in a lot more places. Remote locks on refrigerators when you've eaten enough for the day. Or cut off your water when you've used your quota. Maybe a machine that dispenses your cigarettes for the day ala 5th Element. Maybe the government thinks you should exercise more so they regulate your TV time. Because, let's face it, a technical solution is just so much more effective than education.
Every really insane piece of regulation started with a
This seems like a reasonable idea if there's not enough power to go around.
No, a reasonable idea would be to raise prices to reduce demand until you can build some friggin power plants! This is what happens when you dick with the free market, it stops working!
It's a bad idea that's very close to a good idea. Remotely controlled thermostats for ten million houses would be a systems nightmare. How the heck would you debug that system, anyway?
Thegood idea, however, would be to have time-dependent pricing on power. Power production is very expensive at some times of day, typically mid-day during the air-conditioning season, and very cheap at other times of day, in fact, nearly cost-free from midnight to 5 AM, when the power plants are still turning over but nob
Yeah, if there's 1000 people and 1000 fillups of gas available, I'd say it's fair to dictate 1 per person as a general rule. Most of your other examples don't deal with scarcity. If you change the facts to 500 cable subscribers on a line that can only support 480, then yes, there is going to be some bandwidth throttling or random dropouts. That's basically what you've got here.
If there are six light bulbs and seven people needing one, someone's not getting a lightbulb, but it's probably not fair to let one
I can't imagine they would. I trust the power companies wants to sell you as much electricity as they possibly can and would only throttle it when they have to.
That prevent the proper and adequate supply of electricity. The hoops my local has to go through to increase generating capacity is shameful. It practically comes down to bribing state representatives in order to build plants. Hell, even when providers try to build "green" sources they are fought in courts by one group or another. It has become downright disgusting how easy it is to prevent any improvement, green or otherwise to the system. It is mainly these roadblocks which result in coal plants being kept in service longer. In some cases making improvements at said plants is difficult as well because of regulation.
You want to ban air condition, then get the government to do so first in their own buildings. Make them come up to the same specifications they impose on commercial and private properties. Make them conserve. Down here in Georgia we are suffering from a regulation caused water shortage. Stupid rules, monolithic government agencies, and ease of filing suits with willing courts have resulted in Georgia flushing billions of gallons down stream with no study to back it up. When the recent reviews didn't turn out like the conservationist wanted they simply went to the courts and lawmakers to get their view imposed. I have two lakes near me near 20 feet down. One of which could generate electricity cleanly provided it wasn't flushing twenty times the water needed for generation down the river. Rivers which because of the volume are near flood stage meaning rains push them over their banks.
If we cannot have comfort in our own homes then something is desperately wrong with the system. We are a nation with great resources, the technology to use them efficiently and cleanly, yet at every corner some interest group gets the government to impose such heavy handed regulation that the public suffers. We are a country that fought for freedom and then began making laws to give it away. Now I bet your the type that would be screaming at government ids and government healthcare yet you turn around and want intervention?
You can always hack that 4-degree swing in the thermostat. Too warm? Use a blow dryer to "persuade" your thermostat that it is too warm to get the AC to kick in.
For those of us in cold climates... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For those of us in cold climates... (Score:4, Insightful)
So I guess that does make the idea a lot more reasonable, although I would still rather feel that if your power grid can't always deal with the electricity demand, then it's the power grid that needs updating - on the other hand, this probably both cheaper and more enviromentally friendly.
That leaves the one concern then: hacking of the system, especially since this is wireless. If the idea is to turn air conditioning down to reduce the strain on the power grid, then bad guys can use the same system and turn the air conditioning up to crash the grid. And what does TFA say about the possibility of hacking?Yeah right, like that's ever stopped anyone. Also, what is the difference between encrypted and encoded?
Parent
Re:For those of us in cold climates... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, no, they won't install them in any commercial location, only private homes. Making people uncomfortable in their own homes, no problem; Interfering with Holy Commerce, now, they just don't play games there. Won't happen.
Remember, this involves a state that has to pump in water from two states away because of regular yearly droughts that make the US SouthEast this year look like a bunch of crybabies, yet when they implement watering bans, they exempt businesses; And even on mornings when they do actually get a bit of rain, those businesses will still leave the sprinklers on, because it costs less than having Jose drop by and manually interrupt the cycle.
In any other state, I'd consider this proposal offensive enough to incite riots. But California? Heh. Relax and just watch the show.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've lived in CA all my life (over 50) and have lived through a couple of droughts that are far worse than this one has been. CA has implemented mandatory water conservation at least twice at the county level in my life time. I've personally lost a lawn that cost me $1500 to install because of it. Business's turn off fountains and other water displays in the normal course of these things AND the watering you see at the commercial par
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That reminds me of something that happened at a college back in the 1970s during the energy crisis, when everyone was asked to save energy by lowering their thermostats to 68 degrees. I was taking some classes at a Junior College in Arizona at the time. They lowered the thermostats to 68 degrees during the winter to save energy, as requested, and then several weeks later they discovered that the air conditioning system had come on automatically to get the building down to 68 degrees.
Will these proposed
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All of these laws were repealed by the Reagan Administration, but if they had stayed in effect, who knows what improvement they might have brought to our current situation, in terms of overall carbon emissions and in geo-political terms.
Hell, if we'd have
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For those of us in cold climates... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Horrible... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some places already do this. It's a good idea. (Score:4, Informative)
Having everyone pulling power willy-nilly from a facility with limited output is a dumb idea. Regulating a more even amount of power to everyone is smarter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that during certain high-demand summer days, California's grid infrastructure cannot provide enough electricity to meet the demand. People are upset because California has not been more aggressive about improving the power grid or building new power plants.
Load management terminals (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You notice it, like I did, when the condensing unit is powered down and powered back on too quickly and it trips the circuit breaker causing the house's temperature to rise to 88 degrees (with only a dog inside) while you're at work. When you get home, reset the circuit breaker, and attempt to get the house's temperature to something more reasonable, you cann
What gear you got at home ? (Score:3, Informative)
What the hell you running in there ? California, with the exception of the Central Valley and a few deserts (not all that populated) is not all that hot. I have run almost all forms of workstations sans AC in 40C + weather with no adverse effects.
hands of my thermostat (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead, why not plan properly so that electricity shortages don't happen?
As an aside, I don't think many people will take kindly to having their thermostats adjusted by an outside force. Being told "no" by technology tends to make people angry, even if it's for the greater social good. Ever seen a person get mad at a red traffic light? They don't realize that a red traffic light is not "the man" telling them no. It's a helpful, sensible warning that the cross traffic has a green light.
Feeling the Draft (Score:3, Insightful)
I would liken the issue to the the
faraday? (Score:5, Funny)
They want sockets to have Internet addresses too (Score:5, Informative)
That wasn't feasible at the time, as they would have quickly run out of available addresses, but now with IPv6 that's not such a problem anymore. I expect that the proposal will resurface again soon.
Oh... I want. (Score:3, Interesting)
So long as they don't know what they are turning off, I get something for the added inconvenience, and I specifically give them access rights myself: I have no qualms with that.
Though a massive solar array in death valley would probably be easier... it g
Why not just watch the frequency. (Score:4, Interesting)
It wouldn't be hard to develop a small micro-controller driven box that would watch the mains supply frequency and apply small adjustments to a thermostat setting as required.
Why not build more capacity? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know the one thing that I really don't understand is saving energy via force, and not via using technology. Actually I really don't understand the whole drive to just save energy as saving energy doesn't necessarily even mean saving environment. We have the technology, we have had for long, to solve all our energy problems without sacrificing environment or economy. So why not build more nuclear power? It's environmentally friendly and economic. From western countries, France and Finland are both building new next generation plants, British government is leaning on building more and even in Sweden, who after the Chernobyl, made an alarmist decision to give up nuclear power, is starting to discuss on reverting that decision.
So why not? Why not build more capacity to California and other parts of US? That way you could have your all the energy you need in low price and in time you could shut down your coal and oil power generation plants and take part in struggle against global warming. That would be a real solution to a problem, not a act to play more time, as is this proposition to take over the thermostats.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not cost effective. I'm from Australia, but I feel I can still answer your question because my father has worked in the electricity industry and explained it all to me as a kid. Here in Melbourne, we have a few days a year of blackouts, typically. This is because in the peak of summer, the grid gets overloaded and rolling blackouts are implemented. Now, for the rest of the year, capacity is plentiful - the few days of overload
How long before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anytime time some one further regulates our lives someone will find a way around it. The best way to control demand for a limited resource is to increase the price during peak periods. Once the price gets high enough people will actually start to see the cost savings in turning down the air conditioning or better insulating their houses.
I prefer a cooler temperature however I have spent a lot of money insulating my house and only run the air conditioning in the one room I am using. I use less power than people with uninsulated houses that air condition every room even when their thermostat is set a few degrees higher.
deadly to humans (Score:3, Interesting)
No way they'll put that in without me having a backup (as we do now).
Economics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything to aviod solar electricity I guess. (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically PG&E is going to make about $2,000 dollars off of me because I don't use enough electricity. (maybe I need to move some pizza boxes from the office to home, no I can hear the fans in the other room at work even with the door closed)
The only debate we are having is to replace the hot water heaters or the stove with electric instead of gas so that we can increase our electric usage.
California has an electricity shortage and many of their residents are scaling back solar installations and or scheming to use more electricity and they are going to install stupid devices that can be defeated by walking down to the drugstore and getting an instant heat pad to put on the thermostat. (Of course the real nerds will put a second thermostat on the hair dryer that is pointed at the radio controlled thermostat and have it blow hot air at the thing to get the house cool. I guess I need to go patent a really obvious design and get manufacturing lined up if this stupid nanny state regulation gets passed.
Gee this a bad idea that has an obvious workaround by the dishonest and has lots of room for kickbacks and ignores the cause of the problem, I give it about an 80% chance of passing if the elected officials in Sacramento get paid their bribes^w campaign contributions.
Already popular in some states (Score:3, Interesting)
The idea is you get a $25 credit for having this installed and then $8/hour of shutoff time and they specific times when they will not shut off your AC. I've seriously thought about it since the possible shutoff times are pretty much while I'm at work.
Communism (Score:3, Insightful)
Dr. Rosenfeld said. If you can control rotating outages by letting everyone in the state share the pain, he said, theres a lot less pain to go around.
First they're going to tell us what lightbulbs we're allowed to use, now this?
You know how many old/infirm people die every year due to the heat or cold?
Another poster had it right: We pay for a service, make the #(*& service perform like its supposed to. Stop being afraid of atom energy and build more reactors. Right now, its the safest form of energy with the greatest amount of return we can produce.
Re:Reasonable idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Reasonable idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Reasonable idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Reasonable idea (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the sort of naive, knee-jerk reaction that makes sense when you don't understand how the grid works.
Yes, of course we can build more infrastructure, and we may have to, but that's not what TFA is about. TFA is about a solution to high peak loads. Building more infrastructure (generation and transmission) is an expensive solution, especially when you only need it for a few hours per day.
Automatic load shedding, on the other hand (the solution proposed in TFA) moves energy use away from the peaks, allowing greater overall utilization of the existing infrastructure. There are pilot programs in many places already, and you will pay lower rates for your (voluntary) participation. It's very unlikely that you'll ever be forced to participate in such a program against your will.
Parent
Re:Reasonable idea (Score:5, Insightful)
1) They stayed the hell away from the south western US.
2) They used the evaporative cooling.
3) They had ice shipped in, and paid exorbitant fees for it.
4) The old and infirm, quite simply, died.
What do I win?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What I just can not believe is that people are actually putting up with the kind of bullshit they are shoveling in Ca
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They are. It's NIMBY syndrome. Everyone wants the voltage, but nobody wants to live near a power plant. The coal fumes or the nuclear risk or the whatever's wrong with gas are all too scary. That's why the state has its solar programs: after state-run rebates, you can get solar basically for free. Why? Because people will actually do it. Don't get me wrong, I hate SDG&E with a passion. But, the infrstructure problem isn't their fault. The
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Reasonable idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Reasonable idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Reasonable idea (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's not enough power to go around, build up the infrastructure. I pay for a service. You provide it. How many decades do you have to suffer poor infrastructure problems before you finally start investing in it? How the hell do you run a business (and it is) by providing only what your current systems can handle and to hell with a growing demand for those services in the future? Imagine if the phone company had decided that, instead of requiring you to dial the area code every time you make a call, they had simply said "sorry, no more phone lines!" and decided not to invest in any sort of build-out whatsoever?
This whole "oh my god, not enough power" thing is fine for a year or two, when it catches you off guard. Its' quite another more than a decade later.
Parent
Re:Reasonable idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The power generation infrastructure suffers from too much 'NIMBY'. I lived in Indiana for years, and during the 90's; Duke power wanted to build several 'Peak Power' generation plants fired by Natural Gas. Every time they tried to get permits, the 'NIMBY' (Not In My Back Yard) crowd showed up and whined to the elected officials. Naturally, fearing a loss of votes elected officials caved.
California is in much the same state; They haven't been able to build a power plant (thanks to the NIMBY's) for at least 2 decades. Now, they are suffering for it. Back in 2001, the DOE estimated that the US would need around 1900 power plants built by the year 2021. Yes, they've built wind farms, but now they're finding that the Wind Farms are killing Raptors and causing infestations of rats. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18447 [heartland.org]
There is no easy answer--Conservation by us will help some, but ultimately we need clean, cheap power. On NUMB3RS last night, they were looking at putting up Solar Panels on Charlies house; which on a nice bright sunny day would generate more than what they used. IIRC, they were looking at some really cutting edge technology stuff. Currently, the break even point is about 12-18 years, but this company looks really promising. http://www.news.com/greentech/8301-11128_3-9835241-54.html?tag=nefd.top [news.com] At their cost of $1/watt it cuts the break even by as much as 66%.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt it's even necessary.
Where I live it's 90F and 85+% humidity 365 days a year, and I absolutely never use air conditioning. Just leave the windows open and turn on a ceiling fan and it's perfectly nice. If I am leaving my computer on while I go out during the hottest part of the day, I leave a desk fan (on low setting) pointed at it, and it's never overheated yet.
Not many people live
Why stop there? (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems like a reasonable idea...
Then lets apply it in a lot more places. Remote locks on refrigerators when you've eaten enough for the day. Or cut off your water when you've used your quota. Maybe a machine that dispenses your cigarettes for the day ala 5th Element. Maybe the government thinks you should exercise more so they regulate your TV time. Because, let's face it, a technical solution is just so much more effective than education.
Every really insane piece of regulation started with a
Re:Reasonable idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Time depending pricing: saving the planet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thegood idea, however, would be to have time-dependent pricing on power. Power production is very expensive at some times of day, typically mid-day during the air-conditioning season, and very cheap at other times of day, in fact, nearly cost-free from midnight to 5 AM, when the power plants are still turning over but nob
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is avoiding the real problem a "good idea"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of your other examples don't deal with scarcity. If you change the facts to 500 cable subscribers on a line that can only support 480, then yes, there is going to be some bandwidth throttling or random dropouts. That's basically what you've got here.
If there are six light bulbs and seven people needing one, someone's not getting a lightbulb, but it's probably not fair to let one
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ban stupid government regulations first (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to ban air condition, then get the government to do so first in their own buildings. Make them come up to the same specifications they impose on commercial and private properties. Make them conserve. Down here in Georgia we are suffering from a regulation caused water shortage. Stupid rules, monolithic government agencies, and ease of filing suits with willing courts have resulted in Georgia flushing billions of gallons down stream with no study to back it up. When the recent reviews didn't turn out like the conservationist wanted they simply went to the courts and lawmakers to get their view imposed. I have two lakes near me near 20 feet down. One of which could generate electricity cleanly provided it wasn't flushing twenty times the water needed for generation down the river. Rivers which because of the volume are near flood stage meaning rains push them over their banks.
If we cannot have comfort in our own homes then something is desperately wrong with the system. We are a nation with great resources, the technology to use them efficiently and cleanly, yet at every corner some interest group gets the government to impose such heavy handed regulation that the public suffers. We are a country that fought for freedom and then began making laws to give it away. Now I bet your the type that would be screaming at government ids and government healthcare yet you turn around and want intervention?
Parent
Hacking the temperature swing (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent