Further to Ed’s comment, “Using prices it is clear in most cases that there is
no customer economic benefit to coordinating the use of appliances at least in
the US residential markets where there is no demand charge”; this
is absolutely true. The appliance vendors want to be able to sell into Europe,
which does have such a restriction, and they are likely anticipating (if they’ve
though this far about it) that such a restriction may eventually be seen in some
US markets.
I fully agree with Ed’s elaboration on
the vectors-of-prices concept and feel that, combined with potential demand
changes in the future, Jim is right that peer-to-peer communication of
capabilities and present/near-future energy use of appliances with other
appliances is the right thing to address. It’s a concept near and dear
to my heart, being so integral to the LonWorks platform, but it just makes good
sense for things to be aware of their surroundings. Barring that peer
relationship, the ESI/EMS has a great deal to negotiate and while it could and
should handle scenarios, it should be peer-to-peer that handles the
instantaneous (and near-term) occurrence of energy use within devices.
Kind Regards,
Jeremy J. ROBERTS,
Technical Director
LONMARK International - http://www.lonmark.org/
Technical Office - mailto:
PO Box 268, Jamison PA 18929-0268, USA
Tel:+1-215-918-1026 . Fax:+1-215-918-1027
________________________________________________________________
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of James Tillett
Sent: Friday, 30 October, 2009
5:06 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: RE: Error Condition Re:
Re: [energyinterop] Observations from the Appliance workshop
All,
Some thoughts I have
here is as follows:
An EMS of some type
would likely be able to orchestrate a much more tuned and efficient use of all
resources in a facility (whether residential or commercial), IF it is setup
properly. Each environment is a little different than its neighbor but
having a versatile EMS which can understand and manage its surroundings with
appropriately intelligent energy devices (appliances, HVAC, etc.) should be
very effective and getting the most out of the facility, whatever “the
most” happens to be at that location and/or time.
The downside of this
EMS is that for it to be most effective it probably needs some specific
tuning. This may not be such a big deal for commercial locations because
they are used to the commissioning process anyway. That’s not to
say that commissioning is easy, but having a central location (EMS) from which
to manage all resources (which have appropriate standards to enable
cooperation) should make it easier and more effective.
Particularly in a
residential environment the typical homeowner doesn’t want to learn about
“commissioning” their house and doesn’t have that much
ambition or desire to go down that road. It would be possible to build a
pretty smart “out of the box” residential EMS, but I’ts still
using a general purpose solution on a specific and unique location.
Here is where
intelligent collaboration of devices may be more valuable. If all
appliances are connected to each other, have an appropriate awareness of each
other and their capabilities, an awareness of key external conditions (weather,
DR, etc.), and a rough idea of homeowner preferences then they could probably
take some basic actions between each other that benefit the home. These
could be things like stagger power usage, precool in preparation of a peak
period, and many others. In this way the appropriate intelligent
collaboration would reduce the impact on the homeowner to be manageable and
still provide overall benefit to all stakeholders.
Of course this would
be predicated on proper communication standards, capability, and overall
modeling, but in time I think it would work out. This passive interaction
might also be useful to commercial locations as well.
Hope that makes
sense.
-Jim
James Tillett P.E.
Endeavor
Engineering Inc.
Ph:
503.336.1717
Cell:
503.706.6913
www.endeavoreng.com
From: Ed Cazalet
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, 30 October, 2009
4:54 PM
To: ;
;
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] RE:
Error Condition Re: Re: [energyinterop] Observations from the Appliance
workshop
David,
Great discussion.
Let's go back to the last point in your initial email:
"Appliance
manufacturers want to hear what it is worth to the grid. I can give you 5kW for
15 min, 2kW for an hour, 1 kW for 8 hours. What’s it worth to you? The
appliance manufacturers haven’t gotten this data yet. "
Appliance
manufacturers may not yet think of it this way, but the simplest and only way to convey this information is in
terms of the current and forward prices of electric energy. This tells the
appliance exactly what it will cost to run the appliance for any scenario.
And as
Sec. Steven Chu said, "the simplest way to communicate consumer
preferences is a green button and a red button on the thermostat, dryer,
etc." The red button says I am willing to pay a lot for comfort /
convenience and the green button says I will give up comfort to save money.
Given the
current and forward prices of power a very simple device can figure out how
much is saved by extending the drying cycle to get a lower price later or letting
the air temperature rise above or below the air conditioner set point based on
the differences between current and forward prices. Based on which button is
set, (red or green ) the device can decide how to operate.
The
actual set point on the thermostat can based on manual setting, occupancy,
iphone control, etc. independent of price. The prices and the consumer
preference button will determine the variability in room temperature about the
set point.
Using
prices it is clear in most cases that there is no customer economic benefit to
coordinating the use of appliances at least in the US residential markets where
there is no demand charge.
Note that
the prices can reflect both transmission and distribution system limits and
overall energy costs on the grid..
And the
prices can change as system conditions change and such changes broadcast or
transmitted to all of the devices.
Prices
will be communicated to devices as a vector of prices. Some devices will only
use the current price, other devices will use the current price and the price 5
min from now or an hour from now and other more intelligent devices such as air
conditioners with ice storage or electric vehicles may look a vector of prices
over several hours
Such
price vectors can be determined by tariffs, supply or demand or can be
reliability prices ( critical peak prices) imposed over short periods during
emergencies or peak demand response.
Comments
welcome.
Ed
Edward G. Cazalet,
Ph.D.
101 First Street,
Suite 552
Los Altos, CA 94022
650-949-5274
cell: 408-621-2772
www.cazalet.com
From: Michel Kohanim
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009
12:54 PM
To: ;
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] RE:
Error Condition Re: Re: [energyinterop] Observations from the Appliance
workshop
Hi David,
I think what’s
missing from your argument is the pivotal role of customer comfort and his/her
preferences. If we remove the customer from the equations/use cases, then you
are 100% correct: some preliminary configurations on the device and
that’s it.
Now, if you add
alternative sources of energy in addition to customer comfort/preferences, then
you will either have to have smart devices that can communicate with one
another and with other sources of energy and then decide what to do OR you
could have a higher level of intelligence (ESI) that implements/orchestrates
these scenarios.
In short, I posit
that it all depends on how much importance is given to customers’ comfort
and preferences.
With kind regards,
********************************
Michel Kohanim,
C.E.O
Universal Devices,
Inc.
(p) 818.631.0333
(f)
818.436.0702
http://www.universal-devices.com
********************************
From: Holmberg, David
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009
12:43 PM
To: ;
''
Subject: [energyinterop] RE: Error
Condition Re: Re: [energyinterop] Observations from the Appliance workshop
All,
I am thinking of
EISA and their interest in collaboration among appliances, versus EMS central
control, versus independent appliance operation. The Whirlpool rep at the workshop
mentioned the need for the washer to talk with the dryer, and expressed some
concern for collaboration between appliances to limit demand peaks inside the
house (although I don’t see why that matters in the US residential market
now, yes for Europe, yes for commercial). From the grid perspective—who
cares what the peak is in your house since it all gets averaged out over a
thousand homes? So, what is the business imperative that would support all the
effort needed to get some distributed mesh appliance collaboration standard?
For EISA, I guess it’s the commercial market.
Thanks Larry for the
observations. Let me comment on that.
·
The cake must finish
cooking. The oven will not shut off if the price goes up, unless I tell it
it’s worth it to me in general to turn off the oven in the case of very
high prices. But a smart oven will know that a peak is coming and recommend
waiting and give you the option to save money or turn on the oven now.
·
I must get the
clothes dry. So, the dryer defaults to smart saver mode and would normally
delay load start or ask if it can delay. I say NO, or hit the start button
TWICE to tell it I mean NOW.
·
I’ll take a
cold shower. So, take one. The smart water heater could learn your normal usage
patterns. We even discussed pre-heating of hot water tanks with safety features
to prevent scald. Maybe even Daikin in doing this already.
·
The house should be
cool when I get home. So, I program the thermostat. And I have some app on my
iPhone that can allow updating it from work if I’m early/late, if
I’m nerdy enough.
·
Seems to me that
pool pumps are like the defrost on the fridge—run it off peak anyway,
always.
In each case, the
interface is at the appliance, or default built into the appliance. EISA sees a
reason for collaboration among appliances, but I don’t see it really. I
see the need for appliances to get power use off peak, either by shed or shift.
But what does the
EMS bring to the table? A single interface to collect general home preferences
maybe. Also, the potential for requiring less smarts in the individual
appliances. But my contention is that removing smarts from the appliance
depends on developing energy profiles for different appliance classes that
somehow communicates all the nuances of how that appliance could shed or shift
or store energy by different amounts in different combinations for different
future price curves. Am I missing something? I guess EISA members are focused
more on the commercial market and have given significant thought to the sweet
spot for energy profiles (amount of detail). I look forward to getting more
details on that. This gets to John’s input below (sorry—John Who
(?) since it bounced, and apparently on energyinterop list as well).
Thanks,
David
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009
8:47 AM
To: Holmberg, David
Cc: Holmberg, David
Subject: Error Condition Re: Re:
[energyinterop] Observations from the Appliance workshop
Hi,
If I may I would like to add a few comments to this thread. If we make
the assumption that all of these "smart, communicating devices" are
thrown into the application (our homes) without any preparation for response
models then I agree it would be daunting to achieve the use case that started
this thread. But here is where standards could greatly contribute.
If we develop a model for typical "smart grid event types' (that
list would not be that long) and a model for logical actions that devices
should take in response to events they may be informed of, (which would be
defined by the equipment mfg based on their knowledge of their equipment and an
understanding of the events) we can create the kind of orchestrated response
described.
All that would need to be communicated to the devices would be event
types or "scenarios" that group events together. Devices would not
have to be in direct peer to peer communication with each other (although they
could be), and the user would not have to be involved in complex configuration
or programming. As an example, when the dryer was installed a simple menu would
be used to select the responses (a short list) that it should make in response
to a defined list of smart grid events. This could include pricing, or more likely
pricing would be abstracted into levels of response communicated by the defined
events.
With this type of a model defined, the communications could be very
compressed binary format capable of being consumed by simple devices with
limited CPU power and using limited bandwidth on low energy networks. Equipment
mfg could implement this model in their devices without ever having to be aware
of the details of any specific end installation.
John
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Michel Kohanim <>
wrote:
Larry,
I am in total agreement with you.
Further to your point, how would you configure all these isolated devices to do
what you want? Would you go to each individual device and set them up
individually? What if you are not home? Does this then mean that each
device/appliance should have a user interface? Should all be schedule aware?
Should they be able to communicate amongst one another? If so, what is the
minimum set of communications constructs?
When EISA talks about Zero Net, one has
to also consider alternate sources of energy and thus it would be quite a
daunting task to have independent devices act in unison (and based on customer
preferences) to achieve such goals.
With kind regards,
********************************
Michel Kohanim, C.E.O
Universal Devices, Inc.
(p) 818.631.0333
(f) 818.436.0702
http://www.universal-devices.com
********************************
From: Larry Lackey [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009
3:57 PM
To: Holmberg, David; ;
Subject: RE: [energyinterop]
Observations from the Appliance workshop
David,
Thanks for the observations. For fun,
let’s suppose you have several of the items mentioned below: AC, pool
pump, dryer, hot water, and oven, and some friends are coming over for dinner.
You might say:
The cake must finish
cooking.
I must get my
clothes dry in time
I’ll take a
cold shower
The house should be
cool when they arrive
And nobody will be
swimming
Seems to me hard for any automated system
to do, let alone an isolated appliance with limited computational abilities.
But if I had a home EMS, I could tell the
EMS provided the appliances used U-SNAP or another method of communication to
the EMS to receive instructions rather acting in ignorance.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Larry
From: Holmberg, David [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009
3:35 PM
To: ; ''
Subject: [energyinterop]
Observations from the Appliance workshop
All,
I attended the EPRI “DR-Ready Appliance Workshop” yesterday
in Knoxville, and the discussion ranged around appliance communications and
action for demand response.
Basic agreement on what “smart grid ready” means:
·
Can shed
·
Can shift
·
Can communicate
·
Can understand SEP (or, as I observed, some standard data syntax
and semantics and transport)—EPRI and U-SNAP are pushing for a standard connector
that would allow plugging in an external comms chip. But you still need the app
layer.
·
Security
Other observations:
·
Of course, how you accomplish the above for specific device
classes (in different regions, see below) might need some definition when it
comes time to do compliance testing. And what kind of signal are you going to
feed an appliance to prove it can shed/shift, and how much? Maybe you need a
standard forward price curve representative of different kinds of typical
peaks. Maybe you need a standard forward mode signal, similar to what the DRAS
feeds to the Simple Client in OpenADR.
·
Another model that was advocated (not by the appliance
manufacturers nor by me) is having more/most of the intelligence at some EMS
and passing a simpler signal to the appliance. To me, this requires
communications from the appliance to the EMS (at least a standard energy
profile) plus it requires a standard EMS.
·
I realized that there are perhaps limits on how universal
appliances can be. DR programs have very real differences in different utility
territories due to very real weather and regulatory differences. AC is all that
matters in Phoenix (besides turning off pool pumps)—hot water is not an
issue because water comes into the house hot. That won’t be the case in
some other places. This came up relative to the question of whether appliance
loads really matter. But a dryer and oven draw more power than the AC. And a
refrigerator only draws 70W on average, but I have 3 and they run 24/7. So, how
much does the regionality issue affect energy management algorithms for
appliances? A rep from Daikin says they ship products that can go anywhere,
just need the right software update to get tuned control algorithms.
·
Appliance manufacturers want to hear what it is worth to the
grid. I can give you 5kW for 15 min, 2kW for an hour, 1 kW for 8 hours.
What’s it worth to you? The appliance manufacturers haven’t gotten
this data yet.
David Holmberg
NIST Building and Fire Research Lab
301-975-6450
