Our Grid is Getting Smarter

We are about to see the convergence of two of the most influential technologies in the history of men. This statement may sound bold, but it is absolutely based in fact. The emergence of a nationwide utility infrastructure for delivery of household electricity revolutionized life as we know it in the United States. It paved the way for the media and computing revolutions, and the all-important networking infrastructure that ties them together. These technologies, one antiquated, the other in it's infancy, have changed the human landscape tremendously. Possibly as much as the development of firearms, or even the invention of the wheel.

The merging of our electrical grid with networking capability has seemed somewhat inevitable. Scientists and engineers have understood the benefits that could be provided by incorporating real time data into our power management scheme for years. Primarily, combining these technologies promotes a more stable utility system, by addressing the current grid's major problem: the speed at which production and delivery issues can be fixed. Real time data would tell computers, not employees, when and where energy transmission troubles arise, and deal with them accordingly. This system would reduce if not eliminate blackouts and brownouts which can cost our economy billions, as they have in the Northeast in 2003 and California in 2005. The eventual benefit to updating our grid system reads like a laundry list of positives. The new "Smart Grid" or "Intelligrid" as it has been called, would be more efficient, perhaps saving as much as 20% of the electrical energy that we produce today. Our networked utilities would rely less on power from one source, effectively decentralizing the grid, thereby making it more resilient and less attractive as a target for attack. A benefit of this decentralization is the ability to connect more and varied renewable energy sources, which further promotes our nationwide energy independence plan. This new structure would also allow consumers to be more involved in their electrical use, by incorporating devices which could be programed to operate only when demand-based utility rates are low, signaled by information available through their connection to an outlet.

Of course there exist many hurdles for this infrastructure change to occur. Three of the largest are the resistance and inability of utility companies to change, public concerns over increased governmental control of energy and household privacy issues. Certainly for any of these points to be addressed, there will need to be legal mandates that will bring financial muscle to bear upon the problem. This process has already begun, surprisingly in the previous presidential administration. After the strikes of 9/11, president Bush made a clear gesture that improvement of the grid was necessary, mainly to strengthen our defenses, which was then re-emphasized after the above mentioned blackouts. President Obama has picked up this torch, and carried it one step further. As a part of his administration's energy policy, the DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office has received $2.3 billion in funding, partly to aid in the development of smart-grid technologies. The recent economic stimulus package granted the DOE an additional $38 billion, much of which is earmarked to solving the renewable energy integration issue, in which grid limitations play a great role.

The final hurdle to a smarter grid lies partially in the technology itself. Costs of metering equipment for the home must be made affordable. Latency, or the delay in transmission of information within the network, must be reduced to within reasonable levels for the system to work at all. The argument could be made however, that we did not wait to perfect the personal computer before bringing it to market, and sales did not lumber along until someone deemed them perfected. Much of this technology may be refined as time passes, and we see it's real weaknesses. Business too must play catch up, and the practicalities of engaging a workforce must be embraced. In this era of unemployment rates in the near double digits, businesses only need to hang out their shingle and the workers will arrive, not to mention cash. In 2009 the Cleantech market received over half of the venture capital in the U.S. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 put forth $100 million in matching funds per year through 2012 to get smart grid projects going on the state level.

This could be the single largest change to occur within my generation. Experts are saying that a significant portion of the grid modernization project may be in place by 2030. It will involve the unprecedented cooperation between the entities of government, the utilities, and the public, and it will be vastly expensive. The question is, can we afford not to enact this change?

Healthcare Opus, part Two

I hope that you've had a chance to read the first part of this posting. I felt that I had a lot to say, and that it was more than could be reasonably fit into one post. That's a lot to ask. Please read on...

After a series of long conversations, some heated, some a bit threatening, I carried my opinions about the new healthcare bill into the back of my brain in an attempt to understand what all the fuss is about. On a deeper level. To organize my thoughts, I actually drew out charts, made notes, and got generally pretty geeky about all of this. I feel like this has been time well spent.

One big question that I still have is whether or not we should be so concerned about the effect that this law will have on business, and small business in particular. The so called "engine of the economy." If healthcare reform will hurt these entities (while they are down, as it were) then I would agree that this bill has been introduced at an inopportune time. However, this far-reaching change would not have been possible in an era of Republican domination of both houses of congress and the office of the president, such as we have had in recent years. So, I say bravo to the current administration for going for it, even if the timing could have been better. I for one, have seen enough kowtowing to the interests of big business, and their disregard for the general public, to last a lifetime.

I have heard the expression that folks were "using their homes like cash machines" over and over to describe the finance bubble that played a large part in our current economic quagmire. What I feel that most of us have ignored or disregarded is how corporations have continually used the American market and the environment in a similar fashion.

We are, to be sure, an easily manipulated population. Make products, market them effectively, and we will surely buy them. But the question has to be asked in this age of dwindling natural resources (and heightened competition for them) if we have made the right choice for the long term. Currently, I see two systems that are intrinsically linked. Our businesses, in order to move ahead and be profitable, are directly connected to consumerism on an ever increasing scale. Consumerism drives business, and business needs resources, whether in the form of man-power, or raw materials for production. So, as it pertains to a nationwide Healthcare system, should the argument really be about whether or not we will harm American business with the passage of this bill? Continued, rampant business expansion, will use more man power, more resources and more energy. A false prosperity will continue to exist, allowing for even higher global birth-rates, and ever more consumers. I feel I am being carried to the edge of the cliff by a mad wave of lemmings.

The blame for our recent economic woes has got to be focused on our own short-sightedness. The arguments against healthcare are the perfect example. This is by no means an argument against healthcare, but wouldn't you think businesses would see the benefit in covering their employees, so they could afford to go on to have covered children, who would grow into healthy adult consumers? I guess that kind of thinking goes against today's bottom line.

The point is, I'd really like to think that at some time in the near future, we would be willing to put the pieces in place in government to "downshift" our economy to a new model that doesn't require endless consumption for stability. I'd like to think that everyone would be able to do more with less, while waxing nostalgic about "the good ol' days" of $3 coffee drinks available inside your local Wal-Mart.