Skip navigation
3comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Perry Grossman

Jun 10, 2016
02:28

Catalyst


1 |
Share via:

Congratulations on making the semi-finals!

I like this flexibility:

"It is important that consumers are enabled to make choices based on what they value most, such as a low price, low CO2 emissions, or empowering the local community."

We can currently do this a little bit in Massachusetts:

https://www.massenergy.org/

"Ultimately we believe that a grid can only considered smart if the people within it are enabled to make smart decisions."

Yes, smart grid technology has being coming for a while; but the ability to make smarter decisions is not there yet.Could you explain this more? Isn't this currently a concern with net-metering as utilities do not want to support infrastructure for a smaller number of paying customers. How will you get utilities on board with this solution?

"Although the utility can potentially lose energy sales; the platform can offer additional payments for the service of providing national energy and energy security. "

Will consumers directly pay these ESCOs?"

"Lastly the local market platform opens up a huge energy service market, offering third-party access for Energy Service Companies."

Isn't a balanced grid a challenge in this model; as people still struggle to understand how much local power, such as wind and solar, will be generated and how much will be used locally, and how much will be fed back into the grid.

(See the cases of Germany and Chile, which had excess solar power-- I think this points to the need for more energy storage and more smart grid managment.)

The video was interesting, but I am still not clear on the auction process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRpYBTE-04

Could you maybe talk more about the companies and institutions involved so far?

http://www.ise.kic-innoenergy.com/web/guest/home

https://www.iberdrola.es/home/

Thanks, good luck, Perry


Nikodem Bienia

Jun 19, 2016
01:49

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

For the semi-final round we updated the following parts: 

 

·       Summary has been updated

·       The section: “What actions do you propose?” has been largely updated, only the subsection: “Smart infrastructure” has stayed unchanged. Especially, the subsection "Transparent and competitive prices" addresses the competitiveness of the Collective Power Platform. Various business models are discussed in the subsection “Open and technology agnostic”

·       The section: “Who will take these actions?” has been completely rewritten. Here we describe who is the “champion” of our proposal and we describe future roles in a smart grid environment besides the Collective Power Platform. 

·       The section: “Key benefits” has been updated and presents options for how active prosumers can become in the collective power platform.

·       The section: “Time line” has been shortened.

 

We are looking forward to receive the feedback of the jury. 

Best regards,
Michiel and Niko


Michiel Roelofs

Jun 20, 2016
11:49

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

He Perry,

Thanks for the feedback it is very much appreciated.

Isn't this currently a concern with net-metering as utilities do not want to support infrastructure for a smaller number of paying customers. How will you get utilities on board with this solution?

This is an important issue, however as we try to explain the impact of renewables on the electrcity system is that selling energy as a commodity is simply a dying business model. Almost all viable renewable energy technology are non-dispactable and display no economies of scale (if you take into account that decentralization requires shorter transport, even dis-economies of scale). Supporting the distribution and exchange of specific energy streams between a large number of prosumers is therefore their only option for the future. In that sense net-metering ,feed-in tariffs, and aggregation are only small in-efficient steps in the transition, as they are basically ignoring the specific value of energy just so that it makes sense in the current incumbent centralized markets (aggregation by definition means a loss in information). 

The "smart infrastructure" is also needed for efficient distribution of energy for the utility as it is a cheaper alterative than increasing grid capacity for a small number of renewable peaks. So there is an incentive for utilities as well.

This transition wont happen overnight, but technological and manufacturing innovation are often exponential so the potential of local energy will only grow faster in the coming years (e.g. the decreasing price of PV in recent years). If utilities are not willing to change the market infrastructure, a growing number of people will be better off increasing self-consumption or even going completely off the grid (e.g. net-zero houses). On top of that there is a new market for ESCOs opening up, where the utility can become a facilitating grid operator or even start offering energy services to prosumers. It is either cooperate with Power Collectives (i.e. virtual utilities) or become extinct.

In Europe the unbundling regulations which separate grid operators from retailers make this transition more easy, since grid operators have to provide grid data to third parties by law. Also a virtual retailer can also use the distribution grid and directly compete with traditional retailers.

Isn't a balanced grid a challenge in this model; as people still struggle to understand how much local power, such as wind and solar, will be generated and how much will be used locally, and how much will be fed back into the grid.(See the cases of Germany and Chile, which had excess solar power-- I think this points to the need for more energy storage and more smart grid managment.)

This is one of the main challenges of a smart grid environment. The Collective Power platform provides a user interface for people to understand the impact of their choices for the (local) grid. This is done both by understanding that using more electricity in the afternoon when other prosumers are producing a lot of solar power, will mean a higher share of local energy. Also the financial benefits of offering a battery with flexibility for example will directly depend on what is most needed in the local grid. In the current market infrastructure there is no financial incentive for flexibility (e.g. battery storage), let alone one that accurately reflects the need in a local grid. This inevitably leads to people just buying solar power and no batteries leading to problems for local grid operators and the energy system as a whole.

The platform basically creates a financial incentive to produce energy and flexibility at the right time at the right place. Although it reflects the complexity of the grid (e.g. local load balancing, distribution congestions), for the prosumer it is only a simple financial nudge to become part of the power collective, and consume from (and potentially invest in) the right technology that is efficient for the local grid and the other people in the collective. If there is a need for batteries the price for energy will be lower if you buy or lease batteries. No need for calculating and controlling when it is most price efficient to charge and discharge your battery, the Power Collective Platform takes care of that.

Could you maybe talk more about the companies and institutions involved so far?

Niko and I are part of the KIC InnoEnergy master school. KIC InnoEnergy is part of the European horizon program that tries to connect knowledge institutes, universities, and the industry. They do this by organizing education, an incubator , and innovation projects between different organizations. 

Hope this answers your questions. If anything else isnt clear we are more then happy to explain.

 

with kind regards,

Niko and Michiel

ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.