Will Smart Grid Benefits Be Limited by Dumb Buildings?
by Amy Westervelt - Nov 25th, 2009
Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced $620 million in Recovery Act funding yesterday for 32 smart grid demonstration projects. The projects are divided into two categories: utility-run regional smart grid demonstrations and energy storage demonstrations run either by utilities or private companies.
The regional smart grid demonstrations will test a variety of technologies, such as wireless communication; sensing and control devices that help grid operators monitor and control the flow of electricity; smart meters; home energy monitoring systems; energy storage options; and ways to integrate renewable energy onto the electrical grid. The utility-scale energy storage projects will also look at advanced storage options ranging from flow batteries and flywheels to compressed air energy systems.
Still, experts caution that there is no guarantee yet that a smarter grid will deliver efficiencies, particularly if it is connected to dumb buildings.
With hundreds of applicants hoping to secure funding, the DOE spent months whittling down the final list of grantees to 32 recipients. Among them are some usual suspects, but also a good number of surprises. With the exception of Seeo, a Khosla Ventures-backed company that designs solid-state batteries for utility-scale energy storage, and The Detroit Edison Company, which plans to use A123 Systems batteries for utility-scale energy storage, the bulk of the companies on the energy storage list are virtually unknown.
SustainX, 44 Tech, Primus Power Corporation, Ktech, and Amber Kinetics are among these unfamiliar companies, a sign that the DOE is doing its homework. On the utility side, the picks are a bit more expected: Kansas City Power and Light, Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric—these are all brands that are regularly connected to all things smart grid in the news.
It’s an exciting time for smart grid technology, and with considerable funding flowing from both government and the venture capital community, advances are being made relatively quickly, not typical of energy industry. What still needs to be demonstrated, however, is that the smart grid will translate into energy savings for consumers.
So far, the smartening up of the grid has focused on saving utilities money and preventing blackouts and brown outs. Necessary things, to be sure, but not exactly the efficient utopia that’s often promised by smart grid proponents.
“The smart grid doesn’t necessarily have to be built with energy reduction as a key objective, even though it is almost always promoted as a way to save energy,” Hannah Friedman, of Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. (PECI) told SolveClimate.
Friedman recently wrote a white paper for PECI on the smart grid and energy efficiency in which she outlined the importance of bringing buildings up to speed as the grid is modernized.
“The smart grid could enable communications and networking to very poorly operating, inefficient buildings,” she said. “So we need a focus both on the build out of the smart grid and on making buildings work well at the same time.”
It’s an issue that the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has spent a lot of time thinking about. The green building industry has struggled for years to reconcile the promise of new technology with the realities of energy use. The USGBC’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system has come under fire for not keeping track of how buildings actually operate once they’re certified as “green”. As a result, the USGBC announced earlier this year the launch of its performance initiative, which will require that buildings submit performance data in order to get certified.
Scot Horst, senior vice president of LEED wants to take the performance initiative even further in coming years; right now it only requires that building owners share their operational data with the USGBC, not that the data show that the building is operating well, and Horst would like to see that change.
“I’d like to have a level that you have to maintain over time, I think we really need to go there,” he told SolveClimate. “But we’re a volunteer system so as an organization our job is to have very sensitive antennae out in the market and I don’t think the market is ready for that yet. Still, that’s where we’re heading if I get my way.”
Horst thinks the same sort of thinking should be applied to the build-out of the smart grid.
“The technologies are really interesting and fascinating because they’re changing the way we use energy, but the other side, which is really pertinent to us, is figuring out how we get people to engage when the technology doesn’t do something for them,” he said.
“Part of the idea is that when people see what’s going on they behave differently, so these new systems and monitors provide a new level of feedback for building owners and tenants. But we’ve realized time and again that feedback is not enough.”
Amy Westervelt is the managing editor of Earth Island Journal and writes about clean tech and environmental policy for a variety of print and web publications including Earth2Tech, Consumers Digest, and Sustainable Industries. She recently co-authored a report on sustainable cities for the Living Cities Foundation.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Human Factor biggest Issue
I work in the utility industry and the biggest factor is definitely going to be the human factor.
First is the idea that the utilities spend money on advertising and methods to get consumers to use LESS of their product! Think of this in the capitalist ideals, what if GM or GE was to do this? Spend money to try to get people to buy LESS of their products. This would spell disaster for them in the long run, and so it's the same for any electrical utility. Therefore there has to be another revenue stream added to this equation, else the electrical utility is going to go down quickly (most likely govt assistance OR raise rates which negates the 'savings' the consumers are getting from less usage). This in the end becomes I as a consumer will use LESS electricity and still pay the same as if I used more, so why save?
Second, growing up in a ghetto area where the city pays for the welfare housing, utilities etc, why would these particular people ever close their doors in the summer when the AC is on? What incentive do they have when its all free to them? Unless we as a nation have more self worth and even self esteem, these pie in the sky ideas will only add more layers of bureaucracy and legislation as well as make corporations and their 'cronies' more money with our tax dollars.
In the end, the average North American is an energy hog. Regardless of what is done to the 'Grid', a major event in regards to energy is coming up. The world is running out of oil fast, and the US govt and other Govt's have stockpiled ALOT of oil to power the war machine when the oil crisis hits (since who wants to be defenseless during a crisis? They have to fuel all those planes, tanks etc). If all the vehicles are moved to the 'Grid' then its overloaded (as the population will continue to grow).
Check out the documentary 'CRUDE IMPACT'.
Peace out.
All up to behavior
Absolutely right. Ultimately, even with the best information and immediate feedback, and even though efficiency will save money, people still have to care enough to pay attention and behave sensibly. Buildings cannot be 'smart' or 'green' if the tools built into them aren't used, or aren't used well, or aren't verified, maintained at commissioned specs, and so on.
People want an appliance that will save the world (or at least the polar bears) for them. But in the end it will require will and steadfast effort. Change in behavior.
Sorry about that.
my favorite example would be the energy star air conditioners cooling the retail store that props its doors open wide all summer, to draw in customers. This is so common as to be normal practice. The advantage gained by installing highly efficient ac in such a store is essentially zero. The life cycle carbon balance may even be for the worse if an old and "less efficient" ac system that still worked was scrapped before its true death in order to order and install the new and more efficient model. All just to pour the "efficiently cooled" air out onto the street. What is the true carbon cost of that whole mess of creating, shipping, and installing the new system, scrapping and hauling away the old, and so on?
All our green building programs, or our smart grid/smart meter installations, or any other program or technology we introduce must be accompanied by training, orientation, motivation, inspiration. And, on the larger level, by a culture shift. Or the value of that installation or investment will not be realized.
Post new comment