The Grid, Our Cars, and the Net 222
Wired is running a piece on the big idea of Robin Chase — the founder of Zipcar — that we need to build our smart power grid on open standards and include cars as nodes in a mesh network. "'Today in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers and tanks and airplanes are running around using mesh networks,' said Chase. 'It works, it's secure, it's robust. If a node or device disappears, the network just reroutes the data.' And, perhaps most important, it's in motion. ... Build a smart electrical grid that uses Internet protocols and puts a mesh network device in every structure that has an electric meter. Sweep out the half dozen networks in our cars and replace them with an open, Internet-based platform. Add a mesh router. A nationwide mesh cloud will form, linking vehicles that can connect with one another and with the rest of the network. It's cooperative gain gone national, gone mobile, gone open."
great idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Regarding the US: Mass transit is fine for many but certainly not all people living in urban areas, a lot fewer people who live in the suburbs, and almost nobody who lives in rural areas. The nearest grocery store to my house is 18 miles away. Mass transit would be an extremely inefficient method of transport out here. Either you'd have to eat a really, really big cost-per-ride bill while providing some semblance of decent and frequent service, or you'd have to provide really, really poor, infrequent, PITA
Re:Sure, but (Score:4, Interesting)
Regarding the US: Mass transit is fine for many but certainly not all people living in urban areas, a lot fewer people who live in the suburbs, and almost nobody who lives in rural areas. The nearest grocery store to my house is 18 miles away. Mass transit would be an extremely inefficient method of transport out here.
If you build roads and no transit you get the US-style sprawl you describe. If you build transit and only minimal roads you get high-density transit-friendly development.
The transport infrastructure "drives" the style of city you get. Build it and they come.
Re:Sure, but (Score:4, Insightful)
His point was that public transportation is useless for rural U.S., and that no amount of infrastructure re-organization will ameliorate the need for private vehicles in those areas.
Public trans. is great for cities; we need more of it there, no doubt. I live in a city and work 8 miles from my home (in a neighboring city) - using the current bus system actually takes more time than walking there directly (2.5 hrs vs. 2 hrs), and I feel a little guilty about driving so short a distance.
But the need for privately owned vehicles will never go away in the U.S. - at least not until our population exceeds some 2 billion or more people, and given that our birth rate has just recently fallen below the rate of replenishment (yay!), it'll be a good long time before that happens, if ever.
We have a need, more than any other industrial nation (save maybe Australia), for clean and efficient cars. The fact that our auto industry is so very reluctant to supply them demands a paradigm shift. If I, as a layman, can design a 3 person vehicle that gets 180 miles to the gallon (of biodiesel) based on existing designs and current technology, what exactly is the holdup?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the holdup is supply-and-demand. even though you can build it, would anyone buy your eco-friendly biodiesel? i can think of only a few that might [southparkstudios.com], unless the gov't starts forcing people to buy them. in light of the recent detriot bailouts, that may very well happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My point isn't that mass transit should be ignored, or that we shouldn't look at doing it in a more effective way where it makes sense, but that wide scale mass transit that has as a stated goal of replacing the automobile in most circumstances, even in rural America, would not be advisable. There are about 303 people per square mile in France (non-euro territories not included), compared to 33 people per square mile in the US (excluding Alaska's area). I've excluded the no-mans-land of Alaska from this equ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Buses carry more than one person per hour or two.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Why are cars needed at all in this pipe-dream?
Would not home routers serve as well? Any area not populated densely enough for home routers would not gain anything by having an occasional car drive by.
Mesh networks do not need to be based on mobile elements.
But the sooner or later you reach the edge of the mesh. Then the piper must be paid. Someone has to fund the next hop, whether its a boarder or an ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe instead of continuing to focus on the dinosaur that is the automobile, more effort should be put into building very a efficient mass transit infrastructure. Just a thought.
Mass transit is efficient only when it moves point to point along a narrow and very densely populated corridor.
The Manhatten Transfer. The Chicago Loop.
It is efficient in the city that never sleeps.
It is effcient in moving passengers with a single small carry-on bag - nothing too awkward or fragile. Passengers wth mobility proble
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How many miles are you willing and able to walk to and from work, every day, in all weather conditions, year-round? More to the point: How many HOURS are you willing and able to walk to and from work, every day, in all weather conditions, year-round?
Figure 80 paces/minute cadence (standard military marching pace), 6 steps to 5 yards (standard military marching pace) and you get 12,000 ft/hour, or about 2.3 mph. If you live 5 miles from work, that's over two hours EACH WAY. On a bicycle, that's less than
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, most people don't travel around by military march. The individual, taking his time, walks at 3 mph. A fit individual walking briskly moves at about 4 mph. A power-walker covers ground at 5-6 mph. I know these things because I used to cover around 100 miles on foot every week, for exercise and exploratory purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>more effort should be put into building very a efficient mass transit infrastructure.
The automobile IS a very efficient mass transit infrastructure. It's extremely flexible, allowing people to leave home whenever they want, make detours to buy food or meet with the kids' teachers, and thanks to innovations from manufacturers can get 70mpg (Honda Insight) or even 240mpg (Volkswagen 1 Liter car).
Contrast that with trains which have inconvenient stops located miles-apart, only serve a few people w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Contrast that with trains which have inconvenient stops located miles-apart, only serve a few people within walking distance of those stops
Maybe you would consider walking distance to a train station an advantage when looking for a new home? People certainly do here, which has stimulated dense development close to train, subway and tram stops.
Re:Sure, but (Score:4, Interesting)
Cars are not inherently inefficient.
And neither are SUV's.
The energy expenditure comes from moving mass, be it of cargo, passengers, or vehicle.
An SUV is a gas-guzzler when used for just a few folks, but it can't be beat if you have heavy and/or bulky cargo to carry. If you have a big family and go on camping trips frequently, an SUV is probably the best way to do transportation. Whether said family should be big enough or go on enough camping trips to make an SUV cost effective to begin with is another matter altogether.
Public transportation or even bicycles are a good thing. Only economics and personal greed stand in the way.
It's one kind of efficiency to reduce energy consumption for a given task. It is quite another to decide if that task should be performed in the first place.
The earth is capable of healing itself if pollution is generated no faster than it can be metabolized away.
It's every earthling's obligation to not harm the earth. However, it's only due to greedy human nature that "what's in it for me" ruins the economics of it. If everyone cared about the common good (cooperated) instead of themselves (defected), then the Game Theory of Life would benefit all.
Pollution is nothing more or less than Tragedy of the Commons.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Add surveillance and security and I'd do it
Re: (Score:2)
Actually , my company already does something like this , and called it bike-to-work .
Basically , they give you a bike , and even pay you a small amount of money every month , if you promise to use the bike to go to work.
The idea is mainly to reduce the need for more parking space , which is very costly here. After all , a bike takes a lot less space than a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Cars are not inherently inefficient.
They are inefficient due to the amount of space they require for driving and parking. It's all that space taken up by roads and parking that stretches out the distance between travel points.
Smaller vehicles such as bicycles require much less road space and parking space, thus making cities more compact, and therefore reducing fuel consumption even for those who drive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Drive a smaller car. Drive one that's only 2 seats, and you have a car that is about half as wide and uses half the space.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all that space taken up by roads and parking that stretches out the distance between travel points.
umm, I think you've missed the difference between length and width.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot's packets are going to get to you via 300,000 WiFi hops?
Re: (Score:2)
This tech does work; it's in OLPC and it's widely deployed in military applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I for one welcome our new power company and mechanic internet overlords. They'll surely understand issues like P2P and fight the good fight for us.
Payback (Score:3, Funny)
don't bogart it (Score:2)
Imagine it, man. It would be like so many little nets inside of bigger nets going on forever (deep inhale, coughing exhale). Wow, uh, it would be like TRON, only way better. I need a salty snack.
A nationwide mesh cloud will form, (Score:2)
And the crackers and vandals will pee themselves with joy.
Re: (Score:2)
Too much to lose (Score:5, Insightful)
Big ISPs and phone companies have too much to lose to allow this to ever happen.
It would be too hard to be tapped by various 3 letter government agencies so they wouldn't like it either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, a mesh network assumes enough nodes to form a mesh.
This may work great for a town or city, but what about between towns and cities? In the US where there seems to be civilization every mile down the interstate, this may be doable, but if that low-density node goes gown, so does all connectivity.
And what about connecting say, one
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Forget cars (Score:4, Insightful)
a) consumers choose phones with over phones without
b) we can use it even outside the car and
c) it's not connected to cars (better to stop the car rebellion right there, tyvm).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fumes (Score:2)
A nation-wide cloud? That sounds pretty bad. I heard the fumes were toxic, that's why I stopped making it in my basement. ... OH! MeSh cloud. I see.
"Only those with something to hide..." (Score:5, Insightful)
I vote thanks but no thanks on this. Despite whatever wild-eyed claims about "openness" or "oneness" or whatever other hippie bullshit the brainchilds of this are spouting, there is absolutely NO information of any kind that is appropriate for my vehicle to be broadcasting. I'm sure the police and Federal government would absolutely LOVE to have a way to track the location of every vehicle in the country, not to mention who owns it and who they're talking to via their built in net cellphone at the time. Integrating this with the idea of a vehicle is a hilariously bad idea, because the instant it comes about there will be DOT, Federal, and State laws with a laundry list of mandates about how "open" this system will be allowed to be to be "roadworthy," and I guarantee you not a single one of these mandates will be in your best interest.
Pass.
If we're going to do the mesh network thing, I'd rather have it in a portable device like a phone or PDA that doesn't give the government a billion inroads to regulate, legislate, and subvert it, and one that I can chose not to buy, to turn off, or to leave at home.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to rain on YOUR parade, but you should read and comprehend my entire post before trying to nitpick.
You can turn your cell phone off, you can leave it at home, or you can chose not to have one. Try doing that with a mesh networking "black box" that's buried somewhere within your car's computer system and the DOT has mandated is illegal to disable or remove (if the future-car-to-be even works without it). If this weird vision of the future comes to be you may just want to invest in a bicycle.
My point wasn
Re: (Score:2)
You can turn your cell phone off, you can leave it at home, or you can chose not to have one. Try doing that with a mesh networking "black box" that's buried somewhere within your car's computer system and the DOT has mandated is illegal to disable or remove (if the future-car-to-be even works without it). If this weird vision of the future comes to be you may just want to invest in a bicycle.
Do you have any idea how irrelevant your cellphone is? If the government really wants to track your car, they can simply use automated image processing of satellite data. Actually, satellites are only a piece of the puzzle; we have constant overflight from surveillance planes AND drones over much of the USA. And of course, the RFID tags in tires (every major manufacturer uses them or will, for "inventory"... because the bar codes on the side of tires apparently weren't enough) are "easy" to read with embedd
Re:What if the black box is SATAN? (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to break it to you, but this far everything everyone's ever penned on this particular subject because... are you following along with this at home? The technology doesn't exist yet. We don't know. It's an unknown, and anything could happen up to and including nothing at all.
All I'm doing is putting forth a possibility tainted by my own opinion. I'm straightforward enough to be honest about that. Why are you so hell bent on turning speculative opinion into some kind of bullshit personal affront?
While we're on that topic, though, let's look at the track record of our illustrious elected officials. It is already mandated that all cell phones sold in the US come with GPS chipsets capable of transmitting your phone's location. In most cases this can be disabled excepting 911 calls, but the technology is there. Your position can already be triangulated fairly accurately just via cell towers. This is a proven fact. Warrantless wiretapping and general spying on US citizens without cause by the Federal government is so well documented that there's already been massive outcry and a million and one headlines about it. This is a proven fact. OBD2 compliant automobiles sold in the USA are required by the DOT to have black boxes (for lack of a better term) that record vehicle speed, brake status, RPM's, and the other assortment of telemetry available in a modern engine for the sole purpose of the police using it against you in post-crash investigations. This is a proven fact. Traffic cameras are already in place in many locations throughout the country and are not only used to hand out speeding tickets as well as track individual vehicle movement when the police so desire, as has made headlines more than once. This is a proven fact.
None of the above is speculation. People who live off your tax dollars want to know where you are and what you're doing at all times, and the demonstration of this desire is made clear again and again and again. How many stories are posted to Slashdot to the effect of "company developing X technology to recognize faces/scan fingerprints/track crowd movements/snoop on cell or internet conversations?" Count them. How many of them go on to say they're doing it with government funding or for homeland security purposes, and all those other buzzwords? There's a reason Slashdot has a "Your Rights Online" section. There's a reason stories like these are of so much interest.
What is speculation is what will happen if a widespread vehicle based network of no concrete design or aim is put into service. My speculation is that bad things will happen if it is, especially given the track record of the US government both Federal and local in passing mandates involving automotive technology. If you don't agree with my speculation, that's fine. But if you want to blow it out of proportion and turn it into some kind of affront that's all you.
Re: (Score:2)
People who live off your tax dollars want to know where you are and what you're doing at all times,
Oh boy, believe me, there are times that they'd probably rather not know what I'm doing.
In addition, I am sure that my doings are well under the radar, so to speak.
Re: (Score:2)
OBD2 compliant automobiles sold in the USA are required by the DOT to have black boxes (for lack of a better term) that record vehicle speed, brake status, RPM's, and the other assortment of telemetry available in a modern engine for the sole purpose of the police using it against you in post-crash investigations. This is a proven fact.
No, it is not. The box stores "telemetry" data (i.e. sensor state) when ANY fault occurs. Also, if you're driving within the legal requirements, then the data can be used by your defense on your behalf during post-crash investigations.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I really need to find a new shtick, don't I?
This just in... No, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
A very good (old school) friend of mine had a run in with some blackmailers a while back - the whole "give us money or we'll damage your family" thing - V. Unpleasent indeed. The thought that there may be a tracker in his cars that woul
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Only those with something to hide..." (Score:5, Informative)
It is true. Phones are NEVER off, they are in sleep mode.
If by "sleep mode" you mean:
The most important bit there, of course, is "radio turned off". If the radio weren't off, your battery would go dead in a matter of days even when the phone is off, just as it does when the phone is on. It might last a couple days longer off than on, but that's all.
Since that doesn't happen -- turn the phone off with a full battery and turn it on a month later and you'll still have most of a full charge -- that means the radio is off. And if the radio is off, then the FBI can't send your phone any signals telling it to turn anything on.
The CPU being off and the RAM refresh off, by the way, are the reasons that when you turn your phone on it takes anywhere from 20 to 60 seconds to become functional. It's gotta boot.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the idea was that the government could turn certain functions on remotely without us realising?
That idea is wrong. When the phone is off, it's off.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know that your phone's radio isn't waking up inside every so many uSec to see if anyone is trying to activate its "hidden features"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame the technology for all the government bullshit.
One thing of note (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing that interested me in the article was this quote, " the Obama Administration allocated $4.5 billion in the stimulus bill for smart grid R&D." So we're getting some kind of smarter grid anyway, at least some research into it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
She wants anything connected to the smart power distribution grid to communicate using a mesh network with an open design. She thinks that putting the same sort of mesh nodes into vehicles would allow the overall mesh network to function better and, apparently, that it would be useful for something.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One thing of note (Score:5, Interesting)
And why you'd mount it on a car, I'm not sure: the car itself doesn't have too much data to transmit
Some ideas:
And for some privacy nightmare:
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, somebody gets it.
Re: (Score:2)
Which shows why we need TPM like devices for computers such as these.
What would happen if, instead, humans started sending out really bad warnings or spamming completely wrong information? ..while on the Interstate... " HIT BRAKE. ACCIDENT AHEAD" ... and your car listens.
A TPM, or some sort of signing mechanism could avert the problems above.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hell, I'd like the ability to overlay the windshield with a HUD conveying speed information and wheel angles so I know what everyone around me is doing. Maybe shade the lanes so I know when it's safe to change. Or something. Apple will figure it out when they produce the iCar system, found only in select fancy-ass cars.
Re: (Score:2)
car to the police: I've been in an accident at [GPS coordinates]. My driver's vital signs are fluctuating.
All I think when I read that is "Michael... Michael, are you alright??? Michael!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes! Exactly. This has the potential to (ultimately) make automobie-related deaths a thing of the past.
Go one step further:
Basically have cooperative traffic "networks" where cars can be saf
Re: (Score:2)
And for a different kind of privacy nightmare:
* I just saw a cop with a speed camera, everyone behind slow down now. (you'd probably get this for free as cars behind are informed you slammed on your brakes, so they know to slow down to avoid the accident/obstacle/whatever you just braked for)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually prefer my car not to break. Which is why I'd prefer it not take commands from an external network. Yes, that means I'd rather it didn't brake under external car-jacker control too.
Re: (Score:2)
or go for a joyride.
ad-hoc mesh networking (Score:3, Insightful)
15 years ago when i looked at the literature there were substantial problems with the efficiency of the selected routes, route convergence and message overhead. these things got much worse as the rate of change in the peer graph goes up.
have things gotten that much better?
Re: (Score:2)
If you throw enough computing power / bandwidth at it, message overhead and efficiency aren't as much of a problem - particularly for sending boring data packets that can tolerate a little latency and lossiness. We've made huge strides in the past 15 years.
The part I'm trying to figure out is, "why put them in a car?" It's not like the car is a major consumer or producer of data. Is this really going to change all that much? If not, and if non-car-things are to be using this mesh, it seems that you'd be
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, until sunspot activity randomly interrupts the mesh network on some random day, simultaneously causing millions of accidents across the country...
The solution to congestion in cities is public transportation - automobiles were originally designed for rural areas and sparsely populated towns in mind, and for crossing the empty spaces in between, not navigating the dense urban environments that we have today.
The solution to get higher speeds, less congestion, and less (I won't say no) drunk driving is m
And exactly WHAT... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In her own words, from TFA: "Our electric infrastructure is designed for the rare peak of usage," Chase says. "That's expensive and wasteful."
She's trying to use the charging and discharging of electric cars to balance peak and off-peak demand for electricity.
Much cheaper electricity. Fewer rolling blackouts. Perhaps even cleaner
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that someone who openly admitted ignorance still feels compelled to offer an opinion on the idea proposed here.
You must be new here.
In 15 words or fewer - what is the point of this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Those who actually bothered to read TFA, what exactly is the point of this? I understand Robin Chase loves feel-good social causes, and she is a good organizer, but no one ever accused her of being an engineer. Having read TFA, it sounds to me a bit like confused meandering of someone trying to figure out how to use some of the stimulus billions for yet another social pet cause, but without the clear definition of what that cause is.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo.
You will see more of this soon.
Agreed (Score:3, Insightful)
Having read TFA, it sounds to me a bit like confused meandering of someone trying to figure out how to use some of the stimulus billions for yet another social pet cause, but without the clear definition of what that cause is.
My feelings exactly. It has lots of woo-woo words and ideas which seem magical and yet, I can't understand what the fundamental idea is exactly. --It almost sounds like she's suggesting that we use phone system-like switching technology to route power to individual homes and devices.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Basically, it's single-use public transportation for people in cities who don't own cars. I use one two or three times a month to make runs to the big suburban shopping centers and such. Occasionally I take one for a few days and visit my parents. Otherwise I'm on foot, bike, train, or bus.
It works very well in my opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It has lots of woo-woo words and ideas which seem magical and yet, I can't understand what the fundamental idea is exactly.
That is actually a great description of anything appearing in Wired...
Re: (Score:2)
my guess is that zipcar probably pays alot to provide the network that their cars currently use.
Re: (Score:2)
Allow high load devices to communicate with energy producers to reduce peak
Re: (Score:2)
Its nothing new, the idea of cars talking to each other to transmit road conditions, keep a certain distance, allow faster fluid road usage, impose road-travel pricing, etc have been around for a while.
http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/070508_network-on-wheels.aspx [ucla.edu]
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10895_7-6733591-1.html [cnet.com]
There are probably other reasons to have it, from the 2nd link:
Google is also taking a strong interest in this technology. Why would an Internet search company be interested in car technology? Because it wants to extend its reach into your car. And where Google goes, Yahoo and Microsoft are likely to follow. Right now, navigation systems have static databases of restaurants, gas stations, and other businesses. A vehicle communication infrastructure could make that dynamic by sending requests for local restaurants, for example, over the network, with results coming back from Google, Yahoo, or any other online database.
so - safety, taxation, and advertising. I suppose it would also make stealing your car nigh on impossible, and it might help with
Inter-vehiclular communications (Score:2)
The Dumb Electrical Grid Is Very Reliable! (Score:3, Insightful)
Folks who write articles about smart grid communicating with cars, etc bring to mind foolish talk of internet toasters and networked refrigerators.
The current electrical grid (speaking of USA; PJM region in particular) is very reliable as it is. Grid operators already have the ability to shape production; with millions of users, usage patterns are easy to spot and plan for ahead of time.
In my view, smart grid and smart meters are simply a way to control people's usage and charging them more; residential electric bills will likely become very complicated.
All this talk about people charging their cars at night and then selling it back during the day for extra credit is nonsense, because when millions of people are charging at night, it's easily conceivable that nightly usage could be just as high as during the day.
In respect to cars communicating with other cars - why? It's obvious that most people will charge their cars as often as possible, even if told not to, in particular, at night so they are sure to have enough charge to get to get the kids to school, get to work, etc.
The internet is another means of communication - it's not going magically solve energy issues nor change human nature.
In my view, a better approach than a so-called smart grid is developing / promoting more efficient energy production methods, in particular nuclear (solar, wind, etc are nice, but are lacking in energy density), along with encouraging people to produce some of their own energy for their needs, such as with solar panels on their roof.
Ron
Plus, electrical demand is != bandwidth demand. (Score:4, Informative)
I did a lot of tariff programming back in the day and I loved it...
Electrical demand is not the same as network demand. If your ISP is short on bandwidth, everyone just slows down. But if your power company is short on power, at worst, they have to start throwing people off of the grid, because everyone must have 110VAC 60hz power.
This reality is reflected in the pricing of electricity, especially for larger customers.
The kind of an electric bill a refinery gets, for example, shows this. In such bills, you start with the raw data obtained from power recorders - every kwh and kvarh (reactive power), is recorded at either 15 minute or hourly increments, depending on the utility. This data is rolled up to look at peak demand, and bill to date usage, broken out into buckets representing time of use, each of which has its own price. For the most part, the demand portion of the bill is roughly half, and the other half is the cumulative portion.
So, of all the actionable items in a bill that one could act on, really, instantaneous demand is the most important thing to optimize. If you jack up your demand during the day, for just one hour, by 50%, you've significantly increased your monthly bill... because the utility still has to have equipment to satisfy peak service.
The thing is, industrial customers have known this now for at least 10 years, if not longer, and there's a whole electrical services industry designed to help them avoid that maximum demand charge. Some companies making ice at night for cooling by day. Others try and have multiple shifts. Still others just put in their own local generation that kicks in when their utility usage gets too high. All of this is controlled by automated SCADA systems that have been field proven for at least a decade, if not longer.
The point is, I'm wondering how much smarter the electrical world can actually get? What you are really talking about is putting residential customers on industrial style tariffs. But, what would be the benefit? I mean, there's not too much a residential customer could practically do that would cost effectively help them lower their peak demand in such a way as to be cost effective.
For example, in California, for SCE, the GS-2 tariff specifies a demand charge of less than $10 / kw. SCE GS2 [sce.com]. If you figure that most homes use less than 2Kw max demand, there's not much room for economical demand shaving. If you lowered your peak demand from 3kw to 2kw, you would be saving $120 a year. There's few, if any devices that could store energy at night, help with peak demand by day, where you could actually recoup that investment economically.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea is that future electrical cars will consume heck loads of power, if they all started charging at the same time when everyone gets home they'd probably break the grid however if they're connected to the "smart grid" then they could be nice and spread out their charging through the night so everyone is charged by the morning.
Fully charged cars could even help the grid out by sending out power at peak times.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can see the peaks in demand happen every day from internal power dispatching stuff. Systemwide, if you look at PJM LMP prices, for that ISO at least, you can get a good handle on where the peaks occur..
I think really the big thing would not be so much a smart grid but one that can store electricity. If there was anything that humanity needed, it would be a better way to store and transport energy.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet is another means of communication - it's not going magically solve energy issues nor change human nature.
Not only that but the same idiots also fail to realise these systems need electricity to run. My phone does, not allot, but times by a few million and suddenly the power consumption is in a measurable quantity. Same goes for my WiFi point.
Damn it... (Score:5, Funny)
Stevens was wrong (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We may also finally find out what the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway [wikiquote.org] really is.
Vehicle networks... (Score:2)
Sweep out the half dozen networks in our cars and replace them with an open, Internet-based platform.
Most vehicles have just two networks, one for components inside the cabin and one for the rest of the vehicle. Both are implemented with hardware that's way too primitive to cope with IP. They're completely datagram-based services whose primary requirement is to be able to cope with a large amount of line noise, hence the protocols are slow (typically 250Kb/s or thereabouts). Opening these networks up to
Not my car (Score:2)
Don't want my car part of anything not under my complete control and with no monitoring by anyone other then myself by sitting in the drivers seat.