Original:
http://www.gerad.ca/fichiers/activites/act0469/callaway.20090116.direct%20load%20control.pdf
This paper is an important contribution to understanding what demand-side resources like thermostatically controlled loads could accomplish if linked seamlessly into the grid. I realize that this paper is but a first blush analysis of what is possible, given a host of assumptions. However, I am left wondering not whether this strategy is possible or not, but whether it is implementable. No doubt, these sort of questions arise further along in research. But I am still curious as to what the prospects are for such a strategy when we seem to have so much trouble with implementation of demand-side strategies when the goal is many times simpler than remotely controlling the set points on vast amounts of thermostats in real-time according to the generation profile of wind on any given day.
The principle that load shedding can function like storage is very powerful and this paper is inspiring in the way that it demonstrates the outer reaches of where this idea can take us. I wonder if there are not more mundane issues to be worked out first, however. It seems that with the "smart grid" issues that are raised today that these mundane issues are often not as trivial as we initially conceive them to be.
The best example of this that comes to mind is the recent debacle that has arisen over the installation of smart-meters in residential homes. Advanced metering infrastructure not only make good sense from a rational perspective because it allow homeowners to explore the energy consumption of their houses, but is also a fundamental prerequisite to a more dynamic balancing of supply and demand on the grid. They are basically the stepping stone to solutions like those proposed here and a host of others. Yet, even the simple (and free!) installation of this technologies in residential homes has been a disaster so far in California. Citizens in Bakersfield have protested en masse the installation of advanced meters in their homes since PG&E decided to use the city as a test bed. Many have complained that the meters lead to higher bills and view them as simply another tactic of the utilities to nickel and dime them out of more money. I don't see this debacle as being reflective of an overall trend; AMI is by most accounts an eventual certainty. However, I think that it is a good example of the completely different set of obstacles one must face when transitioning from a good and rationally sound idea to actual implementation.
This paper raised several questions to me that may be relevant in moving from the principle of this idea to the practical. The first may be obvious, but I wonder who would actually manage the manipulation of the set points on these thermostatically controlled loads? Would this be something that the CAISO or utilities manage remotely? If it is, does it imply a new set of responsibilities and tasks for the maintenance and upkeep of such a network? CAISO might be a very sophisticated an adept creator of markets and market products, but would they necessarily want an entirely new job to handle?
Even if these loads can be controlled remotely without infringing on occupant comfort levels, would owners of these thermostats still be willing to cede control--even if it is only of the set points--of their house? Americans are very protective of their home environment. I wonder if an idea like this could be twisted by some to be seen as some sort of a privacy invasion. I realize the point made by the paper that the model simulations dictate that " large changes in supply (or demand from other loads) can be followed without compromising the end-use function of the loads subject to control". However, I am not convinced that it would be an easy task to actually get these remotely monitored units installed into people's homes without any hassle. I can just hear the oversimplifying reactionism of the Bakersfield crowd, "NO WAY is the government going to control MY air conditioner!"
Assuming that all the technology exists to realize an operation of this scale, is there sufficient interoperability and technical stability to make this kind of a network actually work? I may be wrong but I suspect that there might be a host of unforeseen installation and interoperability issues, many of which may be impossible to predict. It seems like the only way to know would be to actually do it.
Related to this is the issue of latency, how fast does the response need to be and are technological innovations substantial enough to support it? This might be less of a problem since the paper focuses on providing ancillary services that can have more than an hour of response time. However, the conclusion mentions that "the fidelity of the control signal was assumed to be perfect", and that "the frequency (one per minute)
may be difficult to achieve in practice". That these were mentioned in the end as further avenues of research leads me to believe that this is an issue of concern that will be looked at in the future.
The basic premise of this paper opens the door to using a host of demand-side resources for load following. Technically, it seems that the sky is the limit. However, I cannot read this paper without thinking of the implementation challenges of this strategy. Tackling those, and taking it this lofty proposal from inception to fruition, would be an exciting challenge to undertake. It may be one, however, that would likely involve an entirely different skill set than what it takes to create a model like this.
No comments:
Post a Comment