mm wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:59:12 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

Dave M wrote:

Starting about 25 years ago, the local power company started a program
whereby they installed these boxes to home AC units and electric water
heaters, supposedly to reduce peak demand on the grid in times of high
demand.
Wonderful idea. If the AC units are creating an excessive load, just
turn them off remotely. Beats investing in grid infrastructure.

SDWOTN.

(Sarcasm does not work on the net.) You might be serious. If so, I
think you're right. The infrastrucutre would be generators. Very
expensive.

It was intended as sarcasm, but of course it's also a true statement
from the perpective of power suppliers.


Most homeowners don't really need air conditioning anyhow. They
should open the windows and buy some fans. My greatgrandparents
didn't even have electric fans.

I have AC installed. It only gets used for a dozen days a year (and a
few nights) at most. But at those times, it wouldn't be much fun without
it. The problem with comparing the present situation with that in the
past is that people in the past didn't have a choice, just as they
didn't have a choice about dying from diseases that are now either
easily treatable, or easily preventable.

Even fans are not so effective when the air is so warm that sitting in
front of a fan feels like sitting in front of a fan heater.

Would I survive if I didn't have AC? Probably. Would I like it? No.


In a way, I shouldn't take this money for putting a switch on my AC.
I only use it for 2 or 3 weeks most summers anyhow, so they probably
don't cut down the load when they radio me. Last summer was the
least hot of my life, and I didn't use the AC at all.

It's fair to take the money. The infrastructure required to support
extreme peak loads (which is not just generators, but transmission gear
as well - lines, switches, transformers, the works) is only used
infrequently. If the need for it can be obviated by persuading people
not to use it, then there is a substantial cost saving. Although you may
only use AC for two or three weeks in the summer, it's likely to be the
same two or three weeks that other people are using it.

Sylvia.

D, it was pretty easy to get me to sign on. They pay 10 or 15 dollars
(I forget which) dollars a month during the summer for the AC and
since I almost never use the AC, it's defitely a bargain. But I think
a substantial percentage of people have signed up, 10, 20, 30 percent
or more. I have one friend who uses it all summer who did.

They also pay maybe 5 dollars a month during the summer for the water
heater. I don't know why, but I didn't like the idea of them
fiddling with that.

That actually makes more sense. It encourages people to have tanks with
a decent capacity so that turning them off at times of high load has no
impact. My own hot water is heated overnight at a lower tarif anyway.

I think I thought it woudl come out ugly looking,
even though it is in the basement, sort of like the AC did the second
time (I had signed up 10 years ago during the previous round. I don't
know if BG&E had the first round that Dave mentioned.)

I get the impression they only turn off the power for short periods
two or three days a summer. Maybe 20 days at the most in a hot
summer.

I can't even see how that would help them. ACs run on thermostats. Turn
them off for a while, and they'll simply run for longer when they're
turned back on. So unless they're left off until the peak load drops
(ie, because the outside temperature has, or at least the sun goes
down), there'll be little or no net saving.

The real problem power suppliers face is that consumers are not subject
to the true costs of supplying the power. Indeed, those consumers who
cannot afford things that create high peaks, like airconditioning, are
subsidising those who can. In Sydney, where I live, time of day metering
is being introduced, which at least charges more during period where
demand tends to be higher, but even they don't ramp up the cost during
heat waves. As an AC owner, I'm not complaining, but it doesn't seem at
all equitable.

Sylvia.