Some Caveats on Obama's Smart Grid Funding
The business case for a smarter grid needs to be widely accepted--and larger-scale investments must be made.
David Talbot 10/27/2009
- 2 Comments
Today President Obama announced what the White House is calling "the largest single energy-grid modernization investment in U.S. history." It's actually anything but "single"--it's $3.4 billion in stimulus funds to help pay for a collection of projects scattered around different utilities and companies. (The White House managed to give something to projects in 49 out of 50 states.) The money will pay for, among other things, several million so-called "smart meters" that allow customers to manage their electricity use. Consumers will be able, for example, to take advantage of dynamic pricing and trim consumption at expensive peak times. They can save money while helping utilities make the grid more efficient and reduce emissions.
The move should prod utilities to finally start offering the dynamic pricing -- cheapest at night, with differing prices at various times of day -- needed to make the most use of the technology. "By giving electric utility systems across the country the tools that allow them to realize billions of benefits from dynamic pricing, they are hoping to induce the states to modernize their retail pricing policies," Peter Fox-Penner, principal with the Brattle Group, a consultancy in Cambridge, MA, told me. "There are signs this inducement will cause a historic shift in retail utility pricing policies, but the outcome is not fully visible yet."
The stimulus dole-out is surely going to be very helpful, as far as it goes. The White House says that the expenditures will, taken together, "reduce peak electricity demand by more than 1,400 [megawatts], which is the equivalent of several larger power plants, and can save ratepayers more than $1.5 billion in capital costs and help lower utility bills." If true, this is a remarkable testament to the power of investing in smart grid and other energy-efficiency technologies. (You can find a good example of such an installation in Boulder, CO, here, a good recent analysis of the issues here, as well as a longer piece about building a green grid here.)
But there are a couple of caveats.
First, the White House move does not change the fundamental rationale behind most utility investments. Today it's often too easy for utilities to make a business case for building new power plants to burn more energy in support of wasteful consumption, rather than installing software and smart meters and control systems geared towards saving a similar amount of energy--even though it is very possible for them to make such a case. If this thinking had really changed--meaning, if efficiency-mindedness was really top-of-mind in utility boardrooms and state regulatory agencies--no federal stimulus money would be needed to install these kinds of technologies. Instead, utilities would already be installing them--based on the documented energy and dollar savings they'd be projected to realize.
The second caveat is that, structural issues aside, $3.4 billion is not very much money (even if, as the White House says, the $3.4 billion is being matched by $4.7 billion in private investment). In fact, this total sum ($8.1 billion) is still only about two percent of where we need to be--that is, if you believe Obama's fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Al Gore. Just last summer, Gore made a fairly sensible call for a unified national smart grid that would move power from remote, renewable sources of wind and solar power and, in particular, increase the efficiency of electricity use through smart meters and other technologies installed across the nation, to move beyond today's scattered projects. The analysis by Gore's people put the tab for such a grid at $400 billion.
"We're on the cusp of a new energy future," Obama said today. True enough, but the operative word is still "cusp."



spad12
58 Comments
more than just efficiency
I have a feeling that a smart grid will have a much greater impact on energy security as opposed to energy efficiency.
There was an article in the september issue of Physics Today that discussed the risk that the US power grid currently faces from electromagnetic pulses. These can be generated through large solar events, such as solar flares, or they can be manmade through the high altitude detonation of a nuclear weapon.
Any changes to the grid should heavily consider using components that can either withstand or react to an EMP, which I hope that the current plans for the smart grid don't overlook.
As far as hopes for a smart grid making wind and solar, (renewables include hydro, geothermal, ect, and is not limited to just wind and solar) more reliable as periodic power sources probably won't happen. As Denmark has discovered with their ~20% wind power they still need a Base Power generation system to provide the needed power when the wind isn't blowing. Base Power systems include hydro, geothermal, nuclear, coal, and natural gas, and (hopefully sometime in the next 10-15 years) fusion/hybrid fusion. Currently the only base load power resource that is 100% carbon free, and has the ability to be geographically independent is nuclear. Nuclear currently produces 80% of the US's carbon free electricity, is safe, reliable, and waste really won't be an issue for the next 50 years or so.
Personally I'm rooting for fusion or hybrid fusion. Hybrid fusion is the idea that you use the high energy neutrons coming out of a fusion reaction to "burn" traditional fissile fuel. Hybrid systems have the potential to essential "burn" through nuclear processes, waste from fission plants, while extracting the energy still stored there.
ITER is out under construction, is due to be running by 2018, and will be the first fusion reactor in history with a power gain. They are shooting for at least a gain of 10, so in other words they are going to get out 10 times as much energy as they put in, which is very very exciting.
Shortly after ITER, DEMO will be built, which will be the worlds first fusion power plant, and will have a gain of about 40.
Reply