Add capacity with demand response and energy management
Yes, we all know the things we can do individually to help conserve energy. But there is an emerging class of company that makes conservation their business, like EnerNOC.
The service EnerNOC and others offer is called demand response and energy management. Effectively, this is a network of computer monitoring and control points scattered across the largest consumers of energy in a region. Based on pre-negotiated actions with participants in the network, the power levels can be reduced on demand to help take the peak loads down during periods of high-demand.
What may not be apparent to casual readers is that peak demand in the grid happens only a few days per year. Special power plants called “peakers” are built and connected to the grid to activate when demand is projected to rise above supply in a given time period. Demand response is an alternative to this approach where the demand is intelligently monitored and managed below the supply threshold in a given time period.
While at the REFF conference last month, Tim Healy, the CEO of EnerNOC spoke and mentioned that with their small customer base, they have eliminated the need to build over 100MW of new power plants simply by managing demand in this way. This is a smart approach and one that is sure to catch on.
Yes, but unfortunately these providers often enable a shell game. The power demand is taken off the grid and diverted to diesel backup generators which emit more GHGs. To reduce demand in a real way, efficiency initiatives are more effective and provide continuous cost and emissions reductions, not just a few days a year.
This entry is not intended to say “just do demand management” and everything will be OK.
Yes, shell games can be played. But, having the capability across the board and using it surely is much better than not. Turning off demand at the peaks does make a difference. I’ll see if I can find the link for CalISO, but it’s clear looking at their supply vs. demand charts that, in fact, demand is greater than supply a few days per year. If you have different information, cite the source please – love to read it.
Yes, demand is greater than supply a few days a year. The question, though, is what is the net gain if consumers are moving energy demands and not reducing them? My point is that energy efficiency initiatives provide a more durable payback, no matter what the demand. Certainly having the capacity to respond to DR calls is a great additional way to save $, particularly in concert with an efficiency program, but in order for DR to be beneficial, users must have workable load-reduction strategies in place so they’re not simply shifting the load to a more cost- and emissions-intensive alternative. The amount of attention and investment being thrown at DR right now may well prove to be misguided in the long run if consumers don’t develop more comprehensive energy efficiency strategies.
I believe it’s both/and -not- either/or. Demand management is important as is conservation. But, it’s difficult to see that demand overall will slacken while base growth (population to start) continues to increase.
Therefore, in addition to conservation, increased use of renewable energy generation, demand management has it’s place. Having the ability to manage the demand in such a way that the older, less clean plants can be retired and not act as peakers is a good thing.
It’s going to take the sum of every technology and technique we humans can dream of to get our climate problems under control.
Demand management does positively impact GHGs. Peak demand is met by the least effecient, fossil fueled powerplants – simple cycle gas turbines. To the extent that you can clip that peak, even if the consumption is merely TIVO’ed to another time, you can make that power more economically and with less adverse environmental impact.
Great point Bill, thanks for sharing your perspective.