Texas power company controlling consmer theromstats remotely to save energy

a reply to: neutronflux

Well if the flash fires that happened last year are anything to go by i imagine California is in for an interesting summer.

More power generation capacity and infrastructure would seem to be the obvious answer given the demand, after all its a growth industry, or i would have thought it was.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well arguing about politics wont meet the demands that's for sure.

I hope the problems rectified soon bigfatfurrytexan because if we are addicted to anything its lecky. LoL

Texas politics is a real hot mess, and always has been. I cannot think of a time when politics in Texas was anything short of "hand on pistol" at all times. Right now the Democrats are threatening to leave the state, which means the Texas Rangers will likely be sent out looking for them to arrest them and bring them back. Last time it happened they hung out in New Mexico and only threats were made of arrests...i doubt that'll happen this time. When they walked out of the last legislative session, Abbott rescinded their funding. So our legislative branch, including aides and janitorial services, are not being paid and are due to be terminated. So its a ratcheting up. And its being pushed by out of state politicians like DeSantos, who i actually support.

This applies to ERCOT in that they are political appointees, and i suspect part of their MO relates to ensuring that energy investments by the elected folks are maximized.

One day we can get into why marijuana won't be legalized in any form in Texas any time soon. Its the same story...too much money made from local folks to enable trafficking, and kick cash up to elected folks. Im shocked Abbott went so far as to try to take action at the border. It has to be a major money maker for him personally. Its just another hail mary to try to keep people like Chad Prather, a freaking comedian of all things, from taking his seat.

a reply to: andy06shake

If you don't have a third option your probably going to have to find one.

I'd like to know what that would be. One can argue politics or not argue politics; what is the third option? A shootout?

Strange thing is, a lot of this problem is coming from the White House, according to the gorilla that lives there. I distinctly remember you clamoring that we needed someone different in power for the last four years. OK, we got someone different in power like you wanted. Now what?

TheRedneck

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

People not getting paid sounds horrendous present climate, and at the arse end of the pandemic no less.

It's not like there much of a social safety in place to pick up the slack.

No power and no money is quite the recipe for disaster for some.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah. But getting paid to not work is pretty crappy too, especially when its taxpayer dollars.

A year ago, folks thought Texas might be turning blue. Abbott absolutely started kissing the ass of the left in Texas, and he started trying to distance from Trump around/about June of 2020. People took notice, and you saw folks like Chad Prather come out to start representing a challenge. Abbott is widely considered a "RINO" in Texas today. My only real beef with him was the COVID shutdown....Texas should not have participated. This isn't my hindsight...its been my position the entire time. That, alone, is enough to push him out of office for me.

And if we are being truly honest....the legislative session having anything completed prior to dealing with ERCOT is enough to overturn the entire game board for me. I mean, i approve of constitutional carry and border protection. But that is a lower priority than our energy grid. I have no partisan blinders here...i see the failure of both parties to address the issue. Probably because they both stand to lose future income by doing so.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think plenty of rich fat cats might disagree there bigfatfurrytexan.

They seem to sit on there arses and get paid no matter the climate, and they seem happy enough.

Getting paid to do what you like is the real ticket, else the pay better be good.

Needs must all the same, food on the table and roof above your head is always preferable to the alternative..............and some power might be nice.

This is an absolutely prime example of the type of battling concepts I like to speak about.

There is almost certainly a benefit to optimizing cooling and heating cycles in homes. The 2 questions are; 1) Do people want this controlled from a central authority 2) Will their approach actually be effective and used for the purposes they claim with the marketing

Of course, we could use decentralized tech to accomplish the same thing. Just without the control inherent in absolute authority over peoples energy use. All of the tech, tools, concepts, etc. claimed to be so important to the future would be significantly better if deployed in a decentralized infrastructure.

All of these energy sources can complement each other too. I know it is trendy to hate on fossil fuels, but doing so has likely stalled progress on efficiency and fossil fuels are really quite useful (to put it laughably mildly). LFTR is extremely (!!) interesting stuff, as well as modular nuclear reactors, and even organic energy sources like algae.

My concerns with tech like tidal generators is that that energy has to come from the tides, and at a certain point, this may become extremely detrimental.

I thing the future is diverse. All of these things can supplement and complement each other while we work on making all of them better. Generating energy from smaller sources can really add up. Meaning, say, generating some power from turbines in gutters and downspouts on a home is unlikely to provide total energy self-sufficiency, but in unison with allll the other tools we have.. It could create quite a secure and effective energy infrastructure that is nearly impervious to downtime, attacks, and general environmental changes that may affect production. Changes such as no wind in a region depending on wind energy, or a severe winter storm in a region that doesnt normally have them (apropos, eh?).

So, maybe the goal shouldnt be to demonize one over the other.. But to use all of the amazing tools we have created together in a way that is easy to adjust in real time. The latter can best be achieved through decentralized, diverse installations and then optimized per home using tech that isnt connected to the outside world.. Much less controlled by a central institution that is prone to everything from corruption to being weak in emergencies or even attacks.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Nanogenerators are, to me, the best possible solution. And efficiency continues to improve.

But if you create circuitry with nanogenerators embedded in literally everything, you can generate energy from wind resonance, the trains going up and down the tracks, cars on the highway, living near an airport and being able to generate power from the roar of the planes, or just picking upon the energy of the waves crashing ashore and against retaining walls. That last one seems promising from the perspective of turning kinetic energy into electric energy relieves physical stress against the wall, albeit incrementally.

a reply to: Serdgiam

"Do people want this controlled from a central authority?"

Ever seen "Brazil"?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I believe we are entering an age where progress in these areas (among others) will outpace the ability for centralized structures to keep up with them.

When we build a power plant, vast sums of money are invested into a system that struggles to make any shifts outside of some pretty narrow margins. The same goes for manufacturing.

However, actually building an infrastructure that has foundational premises (rather than specific systems) instrinsically leads to reduced control & authority.

By building a system that is wildly diverse, where every piece (large or small) has a role to play.. Emerging novel technology first hits the smaller installations (individual homes) with large systems (power plants) providing an underlying stability. This is the inverse of how these things usually go, and is anathema to the Iron Law of Oligarchy, but it creates better overall material conditions even for the "aristocracy."

Historically, the progress of our tools has happened at relatively slow rate in comparison to the past 100 years. I dont see this changing.. In fact, I fully expect it to increase. Which is why I try to shift the focus from specific solutions to building a framework that can best incorporate the evolution of our tools.

Given the amount of social and cultural momentum driving awareness of energy production.. I think we are going to see some pretty wild stuff in the next decade or two. I know I have my own ideas, but Im only willing to consider talking about them in a decentralized paradigm. And, imo, the only way to maintain centralized paradigms will be strict information control alongside removing the ability of the average person to adopt the tech in their own home even if they are aware of it.

So, in order to do this, absolute & total control is necessary and with modern tech.. That is more feasible than it has ever been. But, in the eons old Story of maintaining power and control at any cost, I think too many in positions of influence & authority are willing to shoot themselves in the foot to cure a limp.

a reply to: Serdgiam

what you suggest is a deployability that is just never going to happen in our grandchildrens lifetime. We can't even agree which side of the road to drive on, or what unit of measurement to use. Hell, we can't even agree on a calendar for the whole planet to follow. Or even just the US, as daylight savings time isn't always observed.

How long did it take to get standardization on phone charging ports? The only reason relates to the cheapness of USB connections, and them offloading that cost.

I agree with you. Standardized sizes and shapes for building. And i bet someone with strong enough mathematical accumen would be able to device a system like that, maybe based on polygons and trig relationships or something.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think the "ideal" time frame would be a couple generations too. But I also think that platform/foundation can be built here and now using already existing technology. It goes far beyond just power production though (as you probably know), and I think the biggest hurdle might be the general social/cultural perception surrounding centralization. It has existed, in earnest, since the Neolithic Revolution. So, it is quite deeply embedded and has essentially enabled our civilization to become what it is today.

The issue is that Im not sure we have that time. I give it 10-15 years before corporate-political, centralized authorities are able to assume absolute control. All the traditonal measures that could be taken to fight it, from protests to outright revolution, are impotent in context if not outright detrimental.

A simple thermostat, like the one spoken about here, can just as easily be used to force individuals & their families to comply as it can be used to make a home more "efficient." I suspect we will be seeing an enormous amount of this kind of thing. It will be marketed under the auspices of "green," "sustainability," and it will save you moneh! But, they will also have the capability to shut down dissidents at the root.

Alexa or your phone picks up a conversation where you say something verging on the blasphemous? Well, subtle (but effective) behavioral manipulation can happen by making the home environment slightly more uncomfortable. The effects of this can then be monitored in real time with the data gathering that is already in place. Particularly in concert with things like social media in general, endless propaganda, and the relentless radicalization engine that we have built the internet to be.

I truly believe it isnt really about the philosophy of it all anymore, but a conflict for the future of our civilization. And, its fought in ways that are almost stereotypically unique to the modern age. Its much, much less of a physical conflict.. it only happens to manifest physically a bit in that space with things like riots or even akin to proxy wars in other nations.

Aspects like universal standards become significantly less relevant in a framework that can build the adapters & bridges between vastly different systems though. In other words, we focus less on specifics and more on platforms that can rapidly adapt, or build the products that can bridge the gap between what will eventually become a continuous transition.

Using the USB example, we would simply have the means to manufacture our own adapter for whatever connection we already have to what connection we wish to use. We would "add it to cart" in some kind of aggregate website/app and then our in-home manufacturing would create it. To transition to this, parts that are still beyond that capability of in-home tech would be available for purchase. For a great many things, this is already surprisingly present because of the momentum behind "DIY" in general. Not ideal, no.. But if its going to happen, it has to start somewhere.

Of course, for the USB these already exist. But, hopefully Im successfully illustrating the notion of focusing on a system that can adapt any USB type connector (power/data) to any other similar connector, rather than attempting to maintain a universal standard. Though I would still expect them to emerge over time, it wouldnt be a necessity for continued operation or keeping up with dynamic situations. When this is potentiated by modern communication and file sharing, it only takes one person to actually design it and then its instantly available for manufacture globally.

a reply to: machineintelligence


Ah , so just Buy a " Dumb Thermostat " and Crank Up the AC .............Duh ?

As someone who works in the HVAC field I can say with 100% certainty, shutting down and starting up the systems to meet the desired set point consumes ALOT more energy than just letting it run continuously.

It's analogous to the way refrigerators work. When they are first plugged in, a large amount of electricity is consumed getting the interior to the proper temperature. Once the inside is nice and cool, the refrigerators basically cuts completely off. Only when the temperature rises above a certain point does the compressor kick back on and bring the temp back into range. If it were to stay off for a long period, the interior temperature would climb to ambient conditions and require a large amount of power to bring things back into spec. Kicking on once an hour for 2 minutes is much more power friendly than having to continuously cycle through huge swings.

To add to this, most HVAC systems these days are designed with this in mind and are engineered to make use of this principle. Most of our modern day minisplits will not even allow the fan to shut down because 1. The start up of the fan motor draws the most current, and 2. with the fan running constantly you can achieve a more even and stable temperature as the air is more properly circulated.

The idea that you want to completely shut down or make huge changes in the temperature settings of any AC system for 'power conservation' is nothing but folly.

a reply to: IanMoone2
There are a lot of variables involved. It's not so simple that you can make blanket statements like that which apply to all situations.

For example, from an analytical point of view, you could take your refrigerator example, and time how long it runs when you first start it up to get it down to stable temperature. Depending on how long you shut the refrigerator off, there will be some breakeven point where the maybe 24 hours start up of running constantly is exactly matched by the amount of time it was not running because it was shut down. So, once you determine how long the refrigerator must be shut down to break even on the huge cost of restarting it, then you might be able to conclude that shutting it off for less time than the breakeven time will cost more, but shutting it down for more time than the breakeven time will cost less. For an extreme example, let's say you shut it off for a month, that's got to be cheaper than keeping it running for a month, even after accounting for the restart costs when it runs a long time.

So where is that breakeven time? It depends on many factors. With the refrigerator things like the efficiency of the refrigerator, temperature differentials and so on.

Similarly with office HVAC, what is the breakeven time, as with the fridge? Depending on a number of factors, maybe the numbers work out such that turning it off overnight causes costs to increase, but turning it off over the weekend causes costs to decrease. We can't really say in generalities, because there are so many variables that need to be accounted for specifically, but I think like with the fridge, the longer it's shut down, the more the restart costs are overshadowed by the amount of time it wasn't running.

So I completely believe people saying they have done tests and found out the costs increased when they tried to shut it down overnight to save money. However I don't infer from that true statement that the same results will always occur no matter what other variables are different in a different situation. I would say it depends, but if in doubt it shouldn't be too hard to do the test to see if energy usage goes up or down with particular shutdown intervals.

In any case what the power company is usually worried about is peak load, so that's what they would want to control thermostats for, not so much to save people money.

I had a nice plan with one power company in the past. Like this thermostat plan, it was an opt-in. You could pay the standard rate, or if you opted into the "peak load" plan, you paid a reduced rate per kWh, but then you paid a surcharge depending on your peak power usage for the month, I think it was for over any 15 minute interval (not instantaneous peak). That peak surcharge only applied during peak hours from I forget exactly maybe it was something like 10AM to 9pm. So, all I had to do to get cheap power was make sure my peak usage was low from 10AM to 9pm. I saved some money and the power company managed their peak load they had to deliver to me and the other participating customers so it was a win-win. But, it's not for everybody. Some people would just not be able to manage their peak usage as well as I did, and their costs could actually go up on the same plan that was saving me money. Those people would be better off on the standard rate plan.

a reply to: Serdgiam

My concerns with tech like tidal generators is that that energy has to come from the tides, and at a certain point, this may become extremely detrimental.

Tidal generation is really not a big thing. The tides actually rise and fall too slow to be practical.

Wave generation is ideal, though. The idea is that a floating platform is created which has an artificial "shore" surrounding it. The slope of this artificial "shore" is designed to cause the most waves to break as they approach it, spilling water into a central trough. This trough then allows the water to return to the ocean below via a turbine which uses it to produce electricity.

It is essentially a hydro power plant that uses the breaking of waves to lift water high enough to create flow instead of relying on a dammed river.

Last time I looked into it, there were two concerns: the electricity produced must be transmitted back to shore, which is a problem because of the wave forces on the platform bending the wires constantly, and the corrosion of salt water. If those two problems can be overcome, wave generation could power the coastlines of every first-world country and take a massive amount of the load off of more conventional power generation technologies like nuclear and regular hydro.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Arbitrageur

For example, from an analytical point of view, you could take your refrigerator example, and time how long it runs when you first start it up to get it down to stable temperature. Depending on how long you shut the refrigerator off, there will be some breakeven point where the maybe 24 hours start up of running constantly is exactly matched by the amount of time it was not running because it was shut down.

The refrigerator does this already, automatically. It shuts itself down until the inside temperature rises above a preset point, then turns itself on just long enough to cool the interior down. It draws no power when the compressor is not running (well, the light inside draws a little if someone opens the door, but you know what I mean).

The thermostat literally draws microamps... so low that if you could operate the fridge without a thermostat, you would save maybe a penny or two a year... maybe. Almost all of the energy cost is running the compressor.

TheRedneck