‘Big Brother’ in your fridge

[clv101]

Key points about Dynamic Demand:
The energy available at the socket is totally unaffected - it's always on just as it is now.
The coolness of your milk is unaffected - it'll be kept just as cool as it is now.
The benefit is that it makes it easier for the grid to deliver that energy service.

There really isn't anything not to like here. If you want something to be concerned about, smart meters. Your argument is valid about them, but not DD.

All this talk of big brother, with respect to DD, is a red herring.

[adam2]

Key points about Dynamic Demand:
The energy available at the socket is totally unaffected - it's always on just as it is now.
The coolness of your milk is unaffected - it'll be kept just as cool as it is now.
The benefit is that it makes it easier for the grid to deliver that energy service.

There really isn't anything not to like here. If you want something to be concerned about, smart meters. Your argument is valid about them, but not DD.

All this talk of big brother, with respect to DD, is a red herring.

Yes.

[AndySir]

These are all red herrings.

Nooo... they were all jokes at the expense of your neo-Luddism.

[Little John]

These are all red herrings.

Nooo... they were all jokes at the expense of your neo-Luddism.

So, irrelevant and facetious red herrings in the absence of actual substantive points then. I've noticed you seem to have something of a preference for that kind of cheap debating tactic and would imagine I'm not alone in that observation.

[Tarrel]

With regard to fridges, I can't really understand how this would work, given that the intention is to ensure the fridge stays at an acceptable temperature.

Say you have an A+ rated fridge, set to keep its internal temperature at 4 degrees. What could the DD system do that the fridge's own internal thermostat can't? If the internal thermostat is doing an effective job at maintaining 4 degrees, then there will never be any "slack" that would allow the DD system to cut the power. If it did, then the temperature in the fridge would rise, which is contrary to the ethos of making sure the correct temperature of the fridge is a priority.

Or am I wrong?

[Little John]

With regard to fridges, I can't really understand how this would work, given that the intention is to ensure the fridge stays at an acceptable temperature.

Say you have an A+ rated fridge, set to keep its internal temperature at 4 degrees. What could the DD system do that the fridge's own internal thermostat can't? If the internal thermostat is doing an effective job at maintaining 4 degrees, then there will never be any "slack" that would allow the DD system to cut the power. If it did, then the temperature in the fridge would rise, which is contrary to the ethos of making sure the correct temperature of the fridge is a priority.

Or am I wrong?

I don't think you are wrong. where DD would presumably be less contentious would be in temporarily turning off/adjusting power levels of items that were non-critical. This is the point though. People are perfectly capable of making their own decisions with regard to energy conservation within their houses. In terms of getting them to use more energy efficient products, all that would be required would be to set a rationed limit on how much energy each citizen has a right to extract from the grid. A free market of energy efficient products would take care of the rest.

[Tarrel]

The problem is that "rationing" immediately implies "Crisis". Don't want to frighten the horses!

The challenge is how to incentivise reduced energy use in a way that is fair and equitable, and ideally not draconian. Simply increasing prices favours those who have more disposable income, rather than incentivising those who are most effective at reducing their usage.

TEQs are a solution. Another idea would be to increase the price of energy, either on a flat-rate basis, or exponentially (i.e. price per unit increases as number of units used increases), then to return the additional revenue raised directly to consumers on a fixed-amount-per-person basis. In this way, those who are average consumers and do nothing will be no better or worse off. Those who are above average consumers will be worse off, and those who choose to reduce their consumption will actually be better off as they'll be spending less on energy, but still getting the rebate.

[adam2]

With regard to fridges, I can't really understand how this would work, given that the intention is to ensure the fridge stays at an acceptable temperature.

Say you have an A+ rated fridge, set to keep its internal temperature at 4 degrees. What could the DD system do that the fridge's own internal thermostat can't? If the internal thermostat is doing an effective job at maintaining 4 degrees, then there will never be any "slack" that would allow the DD system to cut the power. If it did, then the temperature in the fridge would rise, which is contrary to the ethos of making sure the correct temperature of the fridge is a priority.

Or am I wrong?

Presuming a thermostat setting of 4 degrees, under normal conditions the compressor would probably be set to start when the temperature rises to 5 degrees, and to stop when the temperature falls to 3 degrees thereby giving an average of about 4 degrees.

Under conditions of low grid frequency, then if the compressor IS running then it might stop when the temperature falls to 3.5 degrees, rather than 3 degrees. If the compressor was not running, then it would still start at 5 degrees, but with a delay of 60 seconds, in theory of course the temperature would increase during those 60 seconds, but the effect is of no consequence and is much less than the increase caused by opening the door.

There is no energy saving by doing this, it is not the same as rationing or restricting the supply, but does increase the efficiency of the grid by reducing the amount of part loaded plant that is kept available for emergencies.

[Little John]

The problem is that "rationing" immediately implies "Crisis". Don't want to frighten the horses!

The challenge is how to incentivise reduced energy use in a way that is fair and equitable, and ideally not draconian. Simply increasing prices favours those who have more disposable income, rather than incentivising those who are most effective at reducing their usage.

TEQs are a solution. Another idea would be to increase the price of energy, either on a flat-rate basis, or exponentially (i.e. price per unit increases as number of units used increases), then to return the additional revenue raised directly to consumers on a fixed-amount-per-person basis. In this way, those who are average consumers and do nothing will be no better or worse off. Those who are above average consumers will be worse off, and those who choose to reduce their consumption will actually be better off as they'll be spending less on energy, but still getting the rebate.

Quite like the sound of all that. Need to think about it for a bit though.

[Little John]

With regard to fridges, I can't really understand how this would work, given that the intention is to ensure the fridge stays at an acceptable temperature.

Say you have an A+ rated fridge, set to keep its internal temperature at 4 degrees. What could the DD system do that the fridge's own internal thermostat can't? If the internal thermostat is doing an effective job at maintaining 4 degrees, then there will never be any "slack" that would allow the DD system to cut the power. If it did, then the temperature in the fridge would rise, which is contrary to the ethos of making sure the correct temperature of the fridge is a priority.

Or am I wrong?

Presuming a thermostat setting of 4 degrees, under normal conditions the compressor would probably be set to start when the temperature rises to 5 degrees, and to stop when the temperature falls to 3 degrees thereby giving an average of about 4 degrees.

Under conditions of low grid frequency, then if the compressor IS running then it might stop when the temperature falls to 3.5 degrees, rather than 3 degrees. If the compressor was not running, then it would still start at 5 degrees, but with a delay of 60 seconds, in theory of course the temperature would increase during those 60 seconds, but the effect is of no consequence and is much less than the increase caused by opening the door.

There is no energy saving by doing this, it is not the same as rationing or restricting the supply, but does increase the efficiency of the grid by reducing the amount of part loaded plant that is kept available for emergencies.

Yes, but I would argue that this is approaching the energy scarcity problem from the wrong side of the equation. In other words, it is trying to squeeze micro managed efficiencies out of a system that must be, by definition, running on the edge of its input capacity otherwise such micro managed efficiency gains would not be necessary.

If the system is running so close to the edge as to require the above level of micro management, then the simplest solution is to reduce overall consumption to levels where the system is not running so close to the edge and so no longer requires that level of micro management to keep us running right up to the edge without falling over it.

We need to move away from the edge and the way to do that would be by per-capita rationing.

[adam2]

If we simply reduce overall electricity demand then that will result in the closure and scrapping of the least efficient or most obsolete generating plant. (or not replacing plant that reaches the end of its life)
The grid would still keep enough regulating reserve to cover all but the most improbable events, but no more.
The provision of dynamic demand control would reduce the amount of expensive regulating reserve needed.

Dynamic demand is NOT about reducing overall electricity use, it is about generating electricity more efficiently by reducing the fuel waste inherent in part load operation.

Reducing overall demand is desireable, but is a seperate issue.

[emordnilap]

We need to move away from the edge and the way to do that would be by per-capita rationing.

Steve, what we need is growth, not your mad hippie schemes. Just ask the politicians, they're the ones making the decisions.

[Little John]

If we simply reduce overall electricity demand then that will result in the closure and scrapping of the least efficient or most obsolete generating plant. (or not replacing plant that reaches the end of its life)
The grid would still keep enough regulating reserve to cover all but the most improbable events, but no more.
The provision of dynamic demand control would reduce the amount of expensive regulating reserve needed.

Dynamic demand is NOT about reducing overall electricity use, it is about generating electricity more efficiently by reducing the fuel waste inherent in part load operation.

Reducing overall demand is desireable, but is a seperate issue.

To be clear, are you suggesting that by reducing demand through, say, rationing, it is an absolute material/technological/economic inevitability that generating capacity will always fall to a level where supply is always on the edge of being incapable of meeting demand? If you are, then that cannot be correct. It is not inevitable, it is a matter of policy choice.

As for reducing demand, it is entirely related to the issue of DD. If demand was not so high due to per-capita rationed constraints on domestic consumption, the micro-managed efficiency gains of DD would be unnecessary because there would be enough spare capacity in the system for fluctuations in demand. Furthermore, there would be no longer any need to impose DD on products by statute since consumers would have every organic incentive to make their own free choice to purchase such products in order to make the best use of their rationed supply. Hell, they might even be incentivized to start turning shit off when they don't need it.

A debate about statute-imposed DD in the absence of that debate being placed in a larger debate of overall consumption reduction is basically fiddling while Rome burns and doing so in a way that is unacceptably micromanaging people's lives

[adam2]

Yes, generating capacity will allways fall to a just sufficient level.
This applies to the total existing capacity, no one is going to build or keep generating capacity that is far in excess of likely need.
A modest amount is kept for breakdowns and exceptional demand, but there is an economic limit to this.

It also applies to the generating capacity available for any given hour on any given day. This is calculated by the national grid and instructions given as to what plant is to be made available, again a modest allowance is made for breakdowns and errors in forecasting demand.
No sensible person would instruct a large power station with a long run up time to be on "hot standby" with fuel being burnt to raise steam, unless there was a reasonable liklehood of it being needed.

[adam2]

[quote="stevecook172001]To be clear, are you suggesting that by reducing demand through, say, rationing, it is an absolute material/technological/economic inevitability that generating capacity will always fall to a level where supply is always on the edge of being incapable of meeting demand? If you are, then that cannot be correct. It is not inevitable, it is a matter of policy choice.

[/quote]

To a certain extent, yes it is a matter of policy. We could make a policy of building more power stations and running them at low efficiency on part load, at considerable capital and running costs, and carbon emmisions.
Dynamic demand control sounds the better option to me.

Electricity cant be readily stored on a large scale, for utility scale applications it must be made as it is used.
Therefore if power cuts are to be avoided there must be some spare capacity for breakdowns or unexpected increases in demand, but not too much on account of the waste that results.