Smart energy grid

Yesterday, I finished reading Thomas Friedman’s Hot, Flat and Crowded, which was nicely thought-provoking at times.  Imagine how happy I was, then, so soon after having been introduced to the notion of a smart energy grid by Friedman, to run across this article on exactly that in the New York Times!

As far as I understand it, the smart energy grid would be highly useful in flattening the demand curve(s) for energy, and allow energy suppliers to build plants according to average demand, rather than having always to bet on peak demand and/or catastrophe.  This, in turn, could allow more uncertain or fluctuating energy production methods - such as wind power or solar power - to be phased in, since there would be built-in flexibility in the grid should the wind suddenly stop or the sky cloud over.

Additionally, there is the feedback to the consumer.  It seems that many people still don’t realize just how much energy is wasted in everyday life, and certainly none of us are usually given a monetary breakdown of what it’s costing to power things from minute-to-minute, or hour-to-hour.  The smart grid does that, and as such should, it is hoped, provide impetus for individuals and companies to examine their power usage and find out where economies can be made.

What I don’t completely understand is how this smart grid will help with environmental concerns down the line.  I suppose that, as energy costs rise due to the rising cost of oil and the non-substitution of renewables, consumers will eventually find themselves at the point where they have economised their power use as much as they are willing, and consumer demand for renewables will rise.  Also, Friedman hypothesises in his book that consumers could sell energy back to the grid; this is also mentioned in the NY Times article.  This would encourage uptake of microgeneration technologies, which is almost certainly a part of future life, despite being uneconomical at the moment.

All in all, the $200 buy-in cost mentioned as a potential barrier in the NY Times article is something that I would certainly not be hindered by… if I had an extra $200.  But I don’t, and even if I did, I am at least nominally an environmentalist.  What about those who aren’t?  Then again, as with any new technology, the onus is usually on the enthusiasts/geeks to buy in when costs are high, and in doing so to fund advancements that will make said technology both more efficient and more affordable for the masses.  I guess I’m just not used to being on the cutting edge in my consumer desires!