|
|
|
|
| Consumer Bills Lower - HA! |
| When was the last time you heard of a consumer bill getting lower. As consumers all we do is cut back and cut back and then up getting higher power bills. I am tired of having a 60 watt light blub to read by and having to wear a sweater around the house. |
| Steve Miller - 09/01/2007 - 08:06 |
| Defining Energy Efficiency |
| It will be critical for us to collectively and carefully define energy efficiency in this context. Energy Efficiency should not be measured by how much energy is saved or reduced...that would be energy "reduction". Efficiency must be clearly offset by productivity gains so that your energy efficiency improves by either increasing productivity for the same increment of energy or keep the same productivity for less energy use. This of course begs us to better define "productivity", but until we do that, one measure would be GDP...thus one of the ways to measure EE is GDP/kwh. I'm sure there are others and with better IT systems in place we should be able to create a metric or metrics that make sense. |
| Steve Hauser - 09/09/2007 - 17:53 |
| Smart Grid |
| I think you are missing the big picture, schools, hospitals, police stations will be able to cut back THEIR cost. In turn taking that revenue and putting it back into research, or in a budget that is low on funds. Don't you see that? |
| Alex Maddox - 09/27/2007 - 18:23 |
| Generation Energy Efficiency |
| I've done energy conservation (or reduction as Steve Hauser points out) for 30+ years. The best efficiencies are obtained at the generation site by baseloading the generator vs peaking or startup/shutdown cycling due to fluctuating loads on the grid. Plus non-baseloaded operation is usually in adverse air temperatures (e.g., hot) which further decreases turbine efficiency. Thus, by helping optimize/stabilize the predictable system load on generators via a dynamic/interactive Smart Grid, conservation of the "source generation energy" (i.e., input fuel BTUs to power plant) is possible. This is much more effective energy conservation than "end use" energy conservation, such as by turning off a lightbulb, both in numbers of end-use installations required for the same Btu savings, as well as saving 11,600 Btu/kWh source vs 3,412 Btu/kWh end-use. This is because the energy is saved (by not being used) before the generation efficiency losses (simple cycle is only around 35-40% efficient) where it is converted into "end use" energy that can then be saved by the lighting conservation measure, for example. That is why I'm for the Smart Grid because it is a "force multiplier" in energy conservation and saves "source" BTUs as well as "end-use" BTUs. And that reduces the overall cost to all utility grid consumers AND most efficiently reduces emissions. |
| Jim Baker - 10/16/2007 - 05:33 |
| BPL and Smart Grid solutions |
| I have been studying BPL technology (low frequency under 35mhz) for two (2) years now and G-line technology (high frequency above 80mhz) for 1yr. I see many people missing the point with BPL. As with any technology, it takes time to mature and engineers to resolve technical issues (remember how long it took most people to realize that Microsoft really did us a dis-service with Windows. Apple/Mac is by far a better product). That said I’m confident all the technical interference issues have been resolved with BPL now that filters, couplers and frequency notching equipment is available. Fiber (FTTH or FTTN) is not a viable option for any Telco, but the largest (AT&T, Verizon, etc.). The cost even though coming down, is still prohibitive as a solution and will never be the answer for eliminating the digital divide. That is why Femtocell, Nanotechnology and many other Copper Ethernet and wireless technologies are being vigorously pursued. Everyone wants to solve the last mile problem with a cost effective solution. What I see many people missing, proponents and adversaries of BPL, is the fact that with BPL it is truly the one (1) wire solution. In any environment (government, residential, commercial, industrial) you have to run an electric line. The electrical poles are used to provide electricity, telephone, cable TV and security wiring. Just imagine if all this can be done on one cable? Just the savings on pre-construction cabling cost alone would be astronomical! As a former owner of a cabling company (voice/data/fiber/CCTV) I know what this can translate into. This is the selling point of BPL! Thing of the cost savings to mobile cell companies that can reduce all these towers? Not to mention the fact that we are already polluting the airwaves with far too many RFs (Radio Frequencies) and EMF (Electro-Magnetic Frequencies) and still can’t get coverage in many areas. Primarily in countries where the telecom market is just developing, BPL is the answer. Competition is a necessary condition but it may not be sufficient to accelerate the required investment in advance of demand. What is needed is for the respective government’s to “Re-Distribute” the Broadband services utilizing the preferred medium of BPL. Existing license holders (wireless, cable and internet providers) will need to be “encouraged to now provide their services utilizing the governments “Grid”. As such, the respective governments and/or owners of the “Grid” will now become the backbone providers of all broadband services in the country. All the Grid management software now available will have to also be a part of the solution. Meter management, load balancing, theft detection, transformer monitoring and network management are all commercially available solutions with the BPL service. Smart-Grid services are more important than the consumer services offered (Broadband/VOIP/IPTV), but they must all be offered in a complete package to the customer. Keep in mind; I am a proponent of the one (1) wire solution. |
| Glen Taylor - 05/12/2008 - 01:59 |
|
|
|
|
Big Companies get what they want?
|
|
|
