backtop


Print 89 comment(s) - last by Skywalker123.. on Jun 15 at 9:57 PM


President Obama long promised a "green grid", now he's finally prepared to unveil a plan for one.

Upgrades to the aging grid, particularly internet-connected load-balancing technologies could greatly reduce power transmission losses and power costs.  (Source: SDrelo)

Some fear that an internet-connected grid could allow for domestic surveillance or allow foreign nations to sabotage the U.S. power system.  (Source: AP Photo)
A "major" technology provider will reportedly be involved

The United States and other nations are preoccupied with how to deploy "greener" energy.  Many argue they should instead be looking at how to cut the approximately 6.5 percent of generated power that is wasted each year in transmission losses. 

Across the U.S. much of the grid is 50 years old or older.  This not only leads to unnecessary waste, it also makes it difficult to wire new power production facilities, such as nuclear, wind, or solar plants into the grid.  Further, it limits the locations where high-power facilities, like server farms, can be located.

I. Obama Ready to Make Good on Smart Grid Promise

When U.S. President Barack Obama took office he promised to address this issue.  Now three years later, under the leadership of Steven Chu, Ph.d, Secretary of the Department of Energy; Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer; and other officials, he finally appears ready to make good on that promise.

Later today President Obama's staff will deliver a presentation entitled "Building the 21st Century Electric Grid".  The event will be targeted at bringing together the private sector and government resources to help renovate the badly aging grid.

In a press release the government states:
The Administration will announce a number of new public- and private-sector initiatives designed to accelerate the modernization of the nation’s electric infrastructure, bolster electric-grid innovation, and advance a clean energy economy, in part by taking greater advantage of digital and communications or ’smart grid’ technologies.
...
Along with the announcement of new public and private initiatives aimed at building a smarter, expanded grid and empowering consumers, the Cabinet-level National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) will release a new report: ‘A Policy Framework for the 21st Century Grid.’ This policy framework charts a collaborative path forward for applying digital information or ’smart grid’ technologies to the nation’s electricity infrastructure to facilitate the integration of renewable sources of power into the grid; help accommodate the growing number of electric vehicles; help avoid blackouts and restore power quicker when outages occur; and reduce the need for new power plants.
II. Google Gets Involved?

SmartGridNews.com's chief analyst, Jesse Berst, reports that the administration will partner with "at least one technology vendor."  If this is true it should be intriguing to see who that partner is.

International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) is one familiar face in the smart grid movement, having long plugged greening the grid.  Newer players include Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) "Hohm" service and Google Inc.'s (GOOG) "PowerMeter" service.

If one had to guess, Google seems the most likely partner for the job.  The white house press release hints at internet connectedness for the grid, and Google is the king of all things internet.  Further, President Obama has a close relationship with Google and its executive management.

A few leading utilities will also be brought on board.  We'd expected "green-minded" west coast players like Pacific Gas & Electric, Comp. (PCG) to get onboard here.

Mr. Berst claims, "Our sources say the announcements will include a new nonprofit to encourage rapid implementation of consumer tools for choice and control."

III. Privacy, Security Issues Loom

An important elephant in the closet few are discussing is that a connected grid could lead to some privacy and security issues. 

Many sources have pointed out that an internet-connected smart grid would be a far easier target for sabotage by foreign agents than a traditional "dumb grid".  If critical systems were broken into, there's a very real potential for loss of power -- and loss of life.

Further, with your power usage on the internet, it's possible for remote snooping by either the government or malicious individuals.  This is arguably a lesser risk, in that it would require a great deal of effort and ultimately offer relatively little reward (power usage statistics aren't exactly the most sensitive piece of private information).

That said, some critics feel connecting the grid to the internet will compromise their privacy.  Some argue that it's the government sticking its nose in one more place that it doesn't belong.

IV. Check Out the Press Conference Online

Press release will be posted online at whitehouse.gov/ostp and a live video stream will begin playing at whitehouse.gov/live at 10:00 a.m. EST.

UPDATED: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:10 a.m.-

The presentation thus far has had few surprises, and fewer still details.  Full of anecdotal tales and historical references, but short on actual concrete plans for smart grid implementation, the presentation felt more like "Grid 101" than a clear blueprint for progress.

The White House press release [PDF] does offer a few details on what the new plan entails, at least.  It writes that the U.S. government will:
  • Offer $250M USD in guaranteed government loans to utilities and IT partners to deploy smart grid technologies -- this is in addition to the $4.5B USD from the Recovery Act that was pledged to the smart grid.
  • Create a new executive branch entity called the "Renewable Energy Rapid Response Team" whose purpose is to clear the red tape, expediting the permitting process for new alternative energy installations and new grid upgrades.
  • Create a private sector initiative called Grid 21 to connect the public with smart grid players to get clear and informative data.
  • Hold local "peer-to-peer" meetings to involve local governments in the "smart grid" buildup.
This all sounds fine and good, but the Recovery Act "smart grid" investment didn't exactly transform the nation's decrepit grid in any substantial way, so it's unclear how 1/18th of that investment amount in guaranteed loans will make much difference.

Secretary Chu at least acknowledged the security concerns to some extent, stating, "I think all the utilities are very aware that you need the security so someone can't just hack in and see a customer's usage data."

Supporters of the "smart grid" movement will find it nice to see a verbal commitment and a bit of enthusiasm, but ultimately the policy appears mostly political posturing.  Real change will have to come from the private sector; unfortunately many utilities seem relatively unwilling to make major changes.  It appears that the best hope for a true smart grid will lie with tech innovators like Google, Microsoft, and IBM, who can pressure utilities to adopt new technologies in some areas.

Stay tuned for more details.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Why don't they address the bigger issues?
By 91TTZ on 6/13/2011 2:22:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would like to believe we have it in our power to make abundant energy for ALL of mankind.


That's easy to say but what workable plan do you have? If it's that easy, why hasn't it been done yet?

quote:

Not simply look at what we currently have and kill off people who are using "too much" in the name of conservation.


Who said anything about killing people off? I never said anything like that. We're talking about long term planning going forward.

quote:
In layman terms, you suck and should shut up.


Talk like that is juvenile and completely inappropriate. It doesn't help you make a point and really serves no purpose.


RE: Why don't they address the bigger issues?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2011 2:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
A "long term planning" where peoples civil rights are crushed in the name of Conserving resources? No matter how fancy you word it, it still comes down to some politician or agency telling someone they can't have children or can only have so many. You're seriously advocating for the kinds of human rights atrocities China used in population control. You're a MORON!

quote:
That's easy to say but what workable plan do you have? If it's that easy, why hasn't it been done yet?


Economics.


By 91TTZ on 6/13/2011 2:40:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You're seriously advocating for the kinds of human rights atrocities China used in population control. You're a MORON!


You seem really immature. You're getting worked up about a discussion we're having and calling me names for no apparent reason.


RE: Why don't they address the bigger issues?
By SPOOFE on 6/13/2011 2:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No matter how fancy you word it, it still comes down to some politician or agency telling someone they can't have children or can only have so many.

How about we start by removing the financial incentives to have more children? Is that a violation of civil rights?


RE: Why don't they address the bigger issues?
By ekv on 6/13/2011 3:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
Heretic. Racist!

/sarcasm off

What you're suggesting is reducing certain welfare programs?

Read an obit the other day for a 25 yr. old kid in N'Orleans. Gangbanger, 6 kids (@ $1500/mo/kid), was himself the 4th (of 5) child of a gangbanger. Etc. Killed in an "alleged free enterprise transaction", read, drug deal.

Such policies are ripping our families apart. I would posit, most severely in the black community. [Btw, even Bill Cosby speaks out against this kind of thing].


By SPOOFE on 6/13/2011 6:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What you're suggesting is reducing certain welfare programs?

I was specifically thinking of removing tax breaks past the second child.

The argument can be made that such a policy encourages poorer families to have more children in order to get the extra deduction or even a tax credit, though I wasn't referring to welfare reform in general. That's a whole 'nother, much bigger debate.


RE: Why don't they address the bigger issues?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2011 5:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about we start by removing the financial incentives to have more children? Is that a violation of civil rights?


Countries with explosive growth rates do NOT have those policies. We've already proved to you the growth rate of the U.S and other industrialized nations is less than 1%.


RE: Why don't they address the bigger issues?
By SPOOFE on 6/13/2011 6:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
True, but there's not much we can do about the rest of the world, short of large-scale invasion that is impractical, costly, and politically impossible.

Within our country, where we do have direct influence, we have a breeding imbalance; certain sectors are waiting much longer to have kids, and are having fewer kids, while other sectors are breeding like crazy, with certain socio-economic benefits that actually encourage and perpetrate this imbalance.

Think of something along the lines of: Big deduction for the first child - so even wealthier or better educated families might be encouraged to breed sooner, and poorer families would have more incentive and ability to take care of a child - followed by a smaller deduction for the second child, and no further deductions allowed past that.

There's a larger cost in tax receipts from families that only ever have one or two children anyway, with a balance coming from the savings we'd get by not encouraging the ghetto to breed like Viagra-driven rabbits.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2011 6:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well I kinda avoid talking about such things because as a Conservative Republican, I'll be called a racist. So it's just not worth it. We need immigration reform, but clearly the Obama administration isn't interested in this. Seeing as how they threaten to sue states who DO try to do something about it.


RE: Why don't they address the bigger issues?
By mudgiestylie on 6/13/2011 7:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
it comes down to culture, not policy. in poorer countries with huge birth rates, young (fertile) women are congratulated on having children, and consider it a wonderful thing to have many of them. They are serving their purpose within their society. In our society, young women with children are told they are making a big mistake by having them, and ostracized for having them at a young age. Our young women are encouraged to wait until they've gotten a good education and begun a career. Couple that with the overwhelmingly hedonistic attitudes of western culture, and BAM you've got population decline. A lot of that 1% growth comes from immigration too, btw.


RE: Why don't they address the bigger issues?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2011 9:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it comes down to culture, not policy. in poorer countries with huge birth rates, young (fertile) women are congratulated on having children, and consider it a wonderful thing to have many of them.


Higher death rates might have something to do with it as well. Not too long ago, and still in some places today, you can have 4 kids and only have 1 get to adulthood.


By YashBudini on 6/14/2011 11:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and only have 1 get to adulthood

Very few people note that side of the issue. You wouldn't need to create 10 kids if most didn't die from stuff like malaria and dysentery. And with fewer kids they would probably have more to eat.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki