[Greenbuilding] Triac Thermostats

[Richard Garbary]

Corwyn:

Thank you for your response.  You say "Randomness and averaging are our
friends, uniformity is the enemy."
To me, averaging and uniformity are our friends, randomness is the enemy.

I think Lovins, et al explain it much better than I.

http://www.smallisprofitable.org/pdfs/SIP_PartTwoExcerpt.pdf

Please refer to: Tutorial 1: Operational Fluctuations. Pages 112 - 115


Richard





===============================================================================================
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Corwyn <corwyn at midcoast.com> wrote:

> On 12/24/2011 10:55 AM, Richard Garbary wrote:
>
>> Corwyn:
>>
>>
>> Argument:
>> "First, outside temperature changes slowly."
>>
>> Response:
>> The slower the acceleration and smaller Delta T =  fewer baseboards
>> coming on simultaneously = less demand on the grid.
>> The greater  the acceleration and bigger Delta T  = more  baseboards
>> coming on simultaneously = more demand on the grid.
>>
>
> Only if the change is faster than the cycle time of the heater.  Let's say
> that a baseboard heater in a hypothetical house comes on for 10 minutes
> every thirty minutes to maintain the house for a given outside temperature.
>  If the outside temperature changes slower than than the inaccuracy of the
> thermostat, in thirty minutes, then the turn on time of the heater will be
> essentially random.  Thus causing no peak load when averaged with all the
> others on the grid.
>
>
>  Argument:
>> "Second, temperature changes happen at different times in different
>> areas."
>>
>> Response:
>> True, there's no question lots of weather phenomenon is localized, but
>> cold fronts usually affect broader geographic regions
>>
>
> My point isn't that weather doesn't affect larger regions, but rather that
> it doesn't do so all at once.  If a front takes longer than 30 minutes to
> pass through an entire grid region, then a front will have no peak effect
> on the grid.  Yes, the cold will increase the electrical usage of the grid
> but there will be no east-ender effect.  Imagine a front traveling such
> that it crosses the grid area in thirty minutes. Each 1/3 of the region
> turns it heat on when the front hits, for an extra 10 minutes boost.  The
> rolling across the area would mean that each 1/3 would turn on their heat
> just as the preceding section turned theirs off.  Perfectly flat demand
> curve.  Anything slower than that, is essentially random.  Only if fronts
> travel faster than the heat cycle time would there be a *possibility* of a
> peak event.
>
>
>  Argument:
>> "Third, different houses react differently to outside temperature
>> changes."
>>
>> Response:
>> All else being equal, is there a house that will require less energy for
>> heating when the temperature drops?
>>
>
> Depends on what you mean by 'all else being equal'.  Two identical houses,
> in identical locations, with identical occupants will require identical
> heating energy.  However, the Canadians did that experiment and discovered
> that occupants could vary energy requirements by 40% (IIRC).  So, no, all
> things are NEVER equal.  The difference in actual cases I have seen is over
> 700% for single family dwellings in my area.
>
>
>  Argument:
>> "All of those changes happen much slower than the cycle time for
>> baseboard heaters.  Changing that cycle time from a few minutes to a few
>> seconds is going to have a near zero affect on the peak load of
>> thousands of customers."
>>
>> Response:
>> The quicker the response and at lower wattage per heating element
>> guarantees less overlap of large demand not only within the house but
>> over many thousands of households.
>>
>
> If every house reacted instantly, the overlap would increase not decrease.
>  Randomness and averaging are our friends, uniformity is the enemy.  Of
> course, if you could instantaneously adjust to exactly the needed energy
> requirements of your heat loss, your house would have the lowest peaks, but
> on the level of an entire grid, no one would notice.
>
> If one really wanted to reduce the peaks in the grid, there is a much
> easier way.  Just adjust the cost of electricity to the instantaneous cost,
> and transmit that cost to all the smart meters in the grid.  The rest would
> take care of itself.
>
>
>
> Thank You Kindly,
>
> Corwyn
>
> --
> Topher Belknap
> Green Fret Consulting
> Kermit didn't know the half of it...
> http://www.greenfret.com/
> topher at greenfret.com
> (207) 882-7652
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Greenbuilding mailing list
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.**org <Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org>
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.**org/mailman/listinfo/**greenbuilding_lists.*
> *bioenergylists.org<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111224/75c391f5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SIP_PartTwoExcerpt.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 454991 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111224/75c391f5/attachment.pdf>