Public opinion will ultimately drive decisions by industry and government leaders, which is why I stress the need to focus on consumer education now. We know we must modernize our energy system, and policy, regulatory, and pricing models that go with it, but we have to do a better job of convincing consumers – the real smart grid decision-makers -- of this need.
They need to understand that smart grid encompasses more than just "visible" technologies such as meters and appliances. Most people don't realize that smart grid is about making decades-old transformers more intelligent in order to minimize outages in their homes. And many don't realize that without investment in our infrastructure today, we won't be able to support the electric car tomorrow. We have to educate consumers about everything a smart grid is -- a way for our nation to regain a competitive edge and maintain energy security.
With 79 percent of consumers unfamiliar with the term "smart grid," much less what is really means, we truly have a challenge for the road ahead.
Finding Better Inroads
Despite not fully understanding what smart grid is, the majority of Americans actually support the premise of smart grid. In June, 73 percent of Americans surveyed said they believe that how electricity is generated and used could affect the country's economic growth, and 63 percent said they would be willing to work with their power company to change their consumption habits. (GE Energy commissioned a consumer survey earlier this summer to better understand the general public's perceptions of smart meters and smart grids. The six-question omnibus survey was conducted in June 2010 by StrategyOne among a census representative sample of 1,000 U.S. consumers via telephone.)
With the seasonal summer impact of increased energy demand, we have an opportunity to communicate the purpose and value of smart grid investments in a way that will resonate with consumers. People may not care about saving a few dollars on their electric bill using insights from smart meters, but they will do whatever it takes to make sure they can turn on their AC as heat indexes hit triple digits.
We have had to work hard to convince government decision makers that smart grid is the right plan of action, which we did despite challenges by early skeptics. Now we must expand our circle of advocates to a much broader and diverse group.
It is time to connect with consumers in way that explain smart grid in terms relevant to their specific interests and attributes: income level, age, green interests, lifestyle habits, change motivators, political engagement, etc. We need to demonstrate that smart grid is a worthy investment with meaningful personal benefits. To succeed, we need to assure consistency in our messages and tactics by designing a consumer education model that can be easily replicated across all markets to move us forward at a more accelerated pace.
Bob Gilligan is vice president of digital energy for GE Energy Services.
Images CC licensed by Flickr user Peter Kaminski.
the real rest of the story...
We do not face a shortage of generation. What we face is regulations that make it nearly impossible to put any generation online. After trying for 2 years to get a PPA for a wind farm in the North central US, one developer gave up and sold the project to someone who could self fund it. Multiple companies went out of business on this one deal just because two power authorities couldn't manage their red tape faster than two dozen months! That's the problem with too little generation on the large scale. With the small scale it is essentially the same thing. Too many regs to deal with and no one will put in small wind, PV or the hundreds of yet-to-be-certified distributed generation systems that are being built in some engineers' garages around the country. I can name a dozen that have better economics than any 'approved' system today but can't get $10-200k development money because they aren't willing to give up 90% ownership for that paltry amount.
Regarding the 'extra bandwidth' needed. Full readings each second at each meter only amounts to 0.02% increase in the internet traffic. Four minutes of the country watching Victoria Secret's fashion show online uses the same bandwidth. Non-issue.
Why bill by the hour? If hourly is better than monthly, and we have the bandwidth for by-the-second as above and can get this info to all players on the grid, why not go straight to the final solution?
If we have instant price signals, won't all the grid devices be able to optimize their operation to best profit? Wouldn't that in essence, be the exact same thing the grid needs to stabilize and cut costs the most?
the rest of the story...
The US faces an electricity generation shortage. Two solutions - build more plants and reduce consumption. On the consumption side, the Utility wants to provide incentive for people to use energy more evenly throughout the day so they don't have to build plants just for peak load. PHEV's are also on the mind of capacity planners at the Utility. What happens when everyone comes home from work and plugs their car in at 5:30 PM on a 100 degree day. That will be a problem. Solution - bill by the hour. Incentivize people to plug in after peak. Charge X times more during peak and X times less during off-peak. Today the electric company only needs to read your meter once a month today to bill you. Now they have to read it every hour! That's 720 times more reads and the network, storage, bandwidth, software, billing, etc all have to be upgraded to support that exponential of an increase. That's the smart-grid. Hey while we are at it, lets throw in DR, remote disconnect, Volt/Var control, etc. That's why it's not just one thing. But the smart-grid at it's core is in preparation for the day of plug-in vehicles, and the load shaping that has to happen to make it work.
We need the rest of the story
Bob, Nice article but I didn't find any actual information in there. Why not tell people how there are competing technologies for the smart grid that offer drastically different benefits to opposing sides of the game. The so called smart grid, the one you refer to and utilities push, is one of command control and demand response with very little savings from aggregate load sharing. The other one is more like the internet with one live, published price for power for each power location. This one never gets any news because it only benefits us end users.
This price is constantly and automatically updated based on the price for all the components like generation, transmission and distribution. Should a shortage occur to drive it higher, loads like appliances can automatically go into more economical operating modes, generators can turn on or ramp up, transmission lines can open up and distributed generation or storage systems can begin exporting to the grid. The best and smartest generation systems would even be able to learn enough about daily swings to predict usage fairly accurately to profit best and this is exactly what reduces transmission waste the most so we all benefit.
Should the price the drop (based on milli-second decisions), all those decisions can back off toward the other direction without any more info than this simple price change. If a transmission line breaks, the price only changes for those affected by it so those customers have the most incentive to cut back or generate more. If a sister transmission line can supply enough of the difference, it adds its cost into the mix and no customers even learn there was this 'major problem' unless they see that the price rose for a couple seconds. In this manner, no control is wielded over the customer and those customers who choose the smartest appliances, renewable energy systems or conservation methods will reap the most benefit. This is the incentive for people to adopt a technology like this.
The only losers are the utility company officials who want to maintain their monopoly over electricity prices.
Even in emergency times like what would have been traditional power outages, some users may choose to power their life support when prices temporarily go sky high. To them, it's better than losing power.
Smart Grid, Dumb People
A smart grid could be knocked out by a computer virus or war move.
Not so smart really.
although perhaps it would be smart enough to isolate/ disconnect itself in the event of a EMP pulse (from the sun or nuke attack - this would be one good aspect to it)
In the near future the govt will limit your power supply if need be, a smart grid is the tool needed for this type of control. We are being acclimatised to living under societal control
Lots of good sounding technology has the added benefit of bringing a control mechanism into the hands of those who should not have it.
the government is becoming commercialized, this smart grid is a way of saving money through efficiency but don't expect those savings to passed onto the end consumer.
you best bet is to get off the grid wherever possible.
get a solar backup system, get a wind generator, get a water tank.
make a small "faraday cage" for flashlights, radios, harddrives, laptops and batteries (save some knowlege) Because a EMP sun strike is on its way one day.
When electricity is generated
When electricity is generated it needs to be transported to where it is used which uses much of the generated power. The smart grid could reduce the use of the energy by directing it more efficiently. It can also be a two-way system as well, if you chose to install a solar-panel you can generate your own electricity. If you don't generate enough for yourself, you buy the rest, if you produce more than needed you sell it back. Selling the electricity back to the grid is 10x more expensive for the electricity company to buy it off you.
At least that's how it works here in Australia. There was a controversy where pensioners who had solar-power and were selling it back to the grid received less pension because the money they earned from the solar-panel was considered income. This has been rectified so pensioners who installed free solar-panels (from stimulus package money) and now produce more electricity than they need, can get tax-free income which doesn't affect their pensions.
Smart Grid, distributed power?
One thing I haven't heard much about is the use of distributed storage in the "smart grid". There has been some talk about using the batteries of electric vehicles for temporary storage. If you think about it, this isn't a very practical idea, most vehicles are in use, charging, or off-grid during peak usage times.
Grid-interactive (grid-tied / grid-backup) systems are on the rise which use large battery banks for emergency storage for power outages, a big household UPS system if you wish. With some modifications to the inverter systems used, utility communication and control, these systems could be used, in mass, to help buffer the peak swings on the electrical grid. Better yet, because of the distributed nature of such storage, no major modification of the electrical infrastructure needs to be done.
An option I thought I should bring up. A lot of ground work would need to be done, but still doable in the short term.
I'm one of those people that
I'm one of those people that doesn't fully understand the smart grid. Is it to more accurately measure the amount of energy a home uses? How is it different than the current analog technology? Will this eliminate the jobs of meter readers? I'm pretty left as far as politics go, the other night on WGN radio, I heard someone from the right stating that this technology will allow the government to turn off smart grid equipped appliances if they think your using too much energy. In other words, turning off your dishwasher during peak times. This idea sounded ludicrous to me. The host went on to say that you could buy carbon credits to keep your appliances running, but that Fanny May would receive the royalties to these credits. The whole conversation sounded far fetched, but it did leave me wondering how exactly will having your home wired to this extent benefit me? Is it simply to manage outages? What data can the smart grid gleam that we can't already measure?
The "smart grid" isn't any
The "smart grid" isn't any single type of technology nor does it have any definition. Generally, it is anything that will produce more efficient energy consumption. This can be any type of new technology starting at the generation of electricity, to transmission lines (the big country wide power lines), to the distribution lines (smaller power lines - like the ones you see in your backyard), that would help reduce the loss of power as it travels to your home. Generally, from the power plant to your home there is about a 10% loss to due heat dissipation (this varies).
It also means other things, like new power management systems for the power plant managers who are constantly gaging power usage throughout the country and making adjustments. A "smarter" grid would help that person behind the desk who flicks the switch make faster and more accurate decisions about when and how much power to move to X area of the country.
Furthermore, it can be smaller things as well, like a better power meter that can be hooked into your house line enabling you to understand your usage in a more helpful way, allowing you to adjust your consumption accordingly (if you wish), instead of just looking at the black arm on your meter go in circles and have no idea what it means. Another example would be a device that you connect to your fridge to reduce the power given to it in times of low usage - like at night. The one example you mentioned about the dish washer is the same kind of thing, except, from what I've learned you would never be restricted from accessing any power utilizing device.
In general, it is about efficiency, not conservation. You'll get the same benefits of having power when you want it and how much you want it, but it's just used in a better way (though, there's nothing wrong with conservation either).
Hope that helps.