 |
|
|
|||||
As summer arrives, people are turning on air conditioners in most of the U.S. But if youre like me, you always feel a little guilty about that. Past generations managed without air conditioningdo I really need it? And how bad is it to use all this electricity for cooling in a warming world? If I leave my air conditioner off, I get too hot. But if everyone turns on their air conditioner at the same time, electricity demand spikes, which can force power grid operators to activate some of the most expensive, and dirtiest, power plants. Sometimes those spikes can ask too much of the grid and lead to brownouts or blackouts. Research I recently published with a team of scholars makes me feel a little better, though. We have found that it is possible to coordinate the operation of large numbers of home air-conditioning units, balancing supply and demand on the power gridand without making people endure high temperatures inside their homes. Studies along these lines, using remote control of air conditioners to support the grid, have for many years explored theoretical possibilities like this. However, few approaches have been demonstrated in practice and never for such a high-value application and at this scale. The system we developed not only demonstrated the ability to balance the grid on timescales of seconds, but also proved it was possible to do so without affecting residents comfort. The benefits include increasing the reliability of the power grid, which makes it easier for the grid to accept more renewable energy. Our goal is to turn air conditioners from a challenge for the power grid into an asset, supporting a shift away from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy. Adjustable equipment My research focuses on batteries, solar panels, and electric equipmentsuch as electric vehicles, water heaters, air conditioners, and heat pumpsthat can adjust itself to consume different amounts of energy at different times. Originally, the U.S. electric grid was built to transport electricity from large power plants to customers homes and businesses. And originally, power plants were large, centralized operations that burned coal or natural gas, or harvested energy from nuclear reactions. These plants were typically always available and could adjust how much power they generated in response to customer demand, so the grid would be balanced between power coming in from producers and being used by consumers. But the grid has changed. There are more renewable energy sources from which power isnt always available, like solar panels at night or wind turbines on calm days. And there are the devices and equipment I study. These newer options, called distributed energy resources, generate or store energy near where consumers need itor adjust how much energy theyre using in real time. One aspect of the grid hasnt changed, though: Theres not much storage built into the system. So every time you turn on a light, for a moment theres not enough electricity to supply everything that wants it right then: The grid needs a power producer to generate a little more power. And when you turn off a light, theres a little too much: A power producer needs to ramp down. The way power plants know what real-time power adjustments are needed is by closely monitoring the grid frequency. The goal is to provide electricity at a constant frequency60 hertzat all times. If more power is needed than is being produced, the frequency drops and a power plant boosts output. If theres too much power being produced, the frequency rises and a power plant slows production a little. These actions, a process called frequency regulation, happen in a matter of seconds to keep the grid balanced. This output flexibility, primarily from power plants, is key to keeping the lights on for everyone. Finding new options Im interested in how distributed energy resources can improve flexibility in the grid. They can release more energy, or consume less, to respond to the changing supply or demand, and help balance the grid, ensuring the frequency remains near 60 hertz. Some people fear that doing so might be invasive, giving someone outside your home the ability to control your battery or air conditioner. Therefore, we wanted to see if we could help balance the grid with frequency regulation using home air-conditioning units rather than power plants, without affecting how residents use their appliances or how comfortable they are in their homes. From 2019 to 2023, my group at the University of Michigan tried this approach, in collaboration with researchers at Pecan Street Inc., Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the University of California, Berkeley, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy. We recruited 100 homeowners in Austin to do a real-world test of our system. All the homes had whole-house forced-air cooling systems, which we connected to custom control boards and sensors the owners allowed us to install in their homes. This equipment let us send instructions to the air-conditioning units based on the frequency of the grid. Before I explain how the system worked, I first need to explain how thermostats work. When people set thermostats, they pick a temperature, and the thermostat switches the air-conditioning compressor on and off to maintain the air temperature within a small range around that set point. If the temperature is set at 68 degrees, the thermostat turns the AC on when the temperature is, say, 70, and turns it off when its cooled down to, say, 66. Every few seconds, our system slightly changed the timing of air-conditioning compressor switching for some of the 100 air conditioners, causing the units aggregate power consumption to change. In this way, our small group of home air conditioners reacted to grid changes the way a power plant wouldusing more or less energy to balance the grid and keep the frequency near 60 hertz. Moreover, our system was designed to keep home temperatures within the same small temperature range around the set point. Testing the approach We ran our system in four tests, each lasting one hour. We found two encouraging results. First, the air conditioners were able to provide frequency regulation at least as accurately as a traditional power plant. Therefore, we showed that ar conditioners could play a significant role in increasing grid flexibility. But perhaps more importantlyat least in terms of encouraging people to participate in these types of systemswe found that we were able to do so without affecting peoples comfort in their homes. We found that home temperatures did not deviate more than 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit from their set point. Homeowners were allowed to override the controls if they got uncomfortable, but most didnt. For most tests, we received zero override requests. In the worst case, we received override requests from 2 of the 100 homes in our test. In practice, this sort of technology could be added to commercially available internet-connected thermostats. In exchange for credits on their energy bills, users could choose to join a service run by the thermostat company, their utility provider, or some other third party. Then people could turn on the air-conditioning in the summer heat without that pang of guilt, knowing they were helping to make the grid more reliable and more capable of accommodating renewable energy sourceswithout sacrificing their own comfort in the process. Johanna Mathieu is an associate professor of electrical engineering & computer science at the University of Michigan. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
President Trump won a temporary victory Thursday night when a federal appeals court blocked a lower court judges order to return control of Californias National Guard to the state. Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer previously ruled that Trumps activation of the National Guard, a state-based reserve military force, in Los Angeles was unlawful and illegitimate. California Governor Gavin Newsom and the states attorney general, Rob Bonta, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration this week after the president activated the troops in response to demonstrations against immigration raids. His actions were illegalboth exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Breyer wrote. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith. While Newsom notched an early win, a federal appeals court did not agree. Three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay on the lower courts ruling late Thursday, leaving control of the troops with Trumpat least until a June 17 hearing. Trump vs. Newsom The clash between federal and states rights has set up a fiery confrontation between Newsom, who likely holds his own presidential ambitions, and the White House. We didnt have a problem until Trump got involved, Newsom wrote on X this week. Rescind the order. Return control to California. The Trump administration denies critics claims that the National Guards deployment intentionally escalated tensions in the city. If I didnt SEND IN THE TROOPS to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great City would be burning to the ground right now, much like 25,000 houses burned to the ground, Trump wrote on Truth Social. Newsom isnt the only Democrat clashing with the Trump administration. On Thursday, California Senator Alex Padilla was tackled and handcuffed after trying to interrupt Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem with a question during a press conference. Breaking with history Trumps move to deploy thousands of California National Guard troops to bolster the governments increasingly aggressive immigration crackdown is unprecedented in at least a few ways. Historically, a governornot the presidenttaps the National Guard when traditional state resources are overwhelmed. Guard members can be called up to meet many kinds of needs a state might have, from administering vaccines to filling in as substitute teachers (both of which occurred during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic). Trumps activation of the Guard was the first time since 1965 that a president has deployed the troops within a state against a governors wishes. That year, Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights protesters over the wishes of Governor George Wallace, a segregationist. Johnsons actions bear little resemblance to the Trump administrations decision to send troops into Los Angeles to back immigration and law enforcement agents as they conduct raids in locations ranging from downtown garment district businesses to suburban Home Depot parking lots. In recent days, violent mobs have attacked ICE officers and Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations in Los Angeles, California, White House Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement announcing the National Guard deployment. Law enforcement has made around 400 arrests related to the protests since they began last week, including two men charged with possessing Molotov cocktails. The Justice Department is also pursuing assault charges against two California residents for throwing objects including water bottles and beer cans at federal officers. A number of Waymo self-driving cars have been set on fire since protests began, prompting the company to pull its vehicles from the area. The White Houses narrative paints a dark picture of widespread social unrest and violence in Los Angeles, an image that many Angelenos pushed back against on social media with posts showing upbeat gatherings and normal brunch dates. On TikTok and other social networks, L.A. residents have rejected national portrayals of a city under siege, calling attention to the relatively small area of the sprawling city affected by ongoing protests.
Category:
E-Commerce
Five years ago, I watched alongside millions of Americans as the news media looped a clip of George Floyds murder at the hands of a police officer in Minneapolis. In the days that followed, as a national movement came to life, dozens of CEOs and executives reached out to me for advice on how their companies should navigate this sudden “racial reckoning.” One time donations or DEI policies would no longer be enough. We needed a sustained response that would create generational wealth for Black families, and start to move the dial on closing the racial wealth gap. I told them, Black people are almost 15% of the U.S. population, major retailers should commit 15% of their shelf space to Black owned brands. If, in 2020, major retailers began making this commitment, venture capital would be forced to take notice, and might be ready to allocate more than their traditional 1% of capital to Black entrepreneurs, therefore driving capital into Black communities. Not enough customers But in those early days of my nonprofit, the Fifteen Percent Pledge, for every late night call I had with a CEO who had been moved to tears over their complicity in systemic racism, there was a call the next morning with an executive telling me “they didnt have enough Black customers to do this” or that “they just wanted to stock the best products.” To be clear, the Pledge has only ever asked retailers to stock the best productsand we want to expand customer bases, not narrow them. The business case for investing in people of color, which is too often boiled down to DEI, was as true then as it is now: when we invest in small businesses, everyone wins. Mounting pressure And yet, over the past few months, weve seen mounting political and cultural pressure aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. From conservative lawsuits to shareholder proposals trying to roll back corporate commitments, the backlash is unendingand some companies are caving. They are quietly scrubbing DEI language from their websites, dissolving departments, laying off experts, and shrinking procurement goals, all under the guise of following the lawto be clear, there is no American law that actually bans inclusive business practices. But even as many companies cower in fear at the prospect of a nasty tweet from a certain elected leader, the ones that have truly committed to diverse employees, vendors, and customers are not backing down. Smaller, stronger, more serious Yes, the performative DEI eramarked by splashy social media campaigns, vague equity initiatives, and one-off diversity trainingsis over. Whats emerging in its place is a smaller, stronger, more serious cohort of brands that are leaning into the hard work of equity. These are companies that understand this isnt about politicsits about people and profit. And right now, those two things are aligned more than ever, for better and for worse. Lets look at Target. In 2020, the companybased at the epicenter of the Black Lives Matter movementactively chose not to partner with the Fifteen Percent Pledge, and instead launched REACH, their Racial Equity Action and Change committee, along with a $10 million pledge and series of DEI goals for hiring, sourcing, training, and advocacy. In January of this year, Target disbanded the committee and all associated commitments, which promptly led to a series of customer boycotts. This month the company announced a 2.8% drop in quarterly sales and scaled down projections for the duration of the year. Increased profits On the other hand, companies like Sephora didnt stop at wordstheyve understood for years that consumers of color, and those rooting for them, are a massive market opportunity. Sephora has restructured their shelves to feature dozens of Black-owned brands, conducted in-store equity audits, and invested in vendor diversity throughout their supply chainand theyve seen significant results: stronger customer loyalty, greater brand trust, and an influence that reshaped their industry. Plus increased profits. Supporting diverse small businesses is not simply a moral argument, its a business case. Black-owned businesses contribute over $200 billion to the U.S. economy each year. If Black women-owned businesses achieved revenue parity with their white male counterparts, they would add $1.5 trillion in revenue. We know Gen Z and millennial consumers are shopping their values, and we know Black consumers collective buying power is expected to reach $1.7 trillion by 2030. The data is undeniable: equity sells. The market speaks And yet, were seeing major retailers suffer the consequences of abandoning the values they once claimed to uphold. Target is only one example of companies facing reduced foot traffic, declining Q1 earnings, and increasingly vocal backlash from the very consumers they rely on. The market is speaking. Are brands listening? The companies that will thrive in this next chapter wont be the ones retreating in this moment. Theyll be the ones redesigning their hiring and promotion pipelines, embedding supplier diversity into procurement, conductin holistic equity auditsnot just press-friendly initiatives. Theyll be the ones moving from symbolism to systems, from pledges to practice. DEI isnt dying. But performative DEI? Thats over. And were better for it.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||