Some critique (which I would be very interested in responses to):
- the analogy with the internet only goes so far in that locally, the internet is largely wireless, whereas electricity distribution is not feasibly wireless. So having a few different wireless communications networks in an area (often sitting on the same physical towers) is different to having multiple sets of electricity wires in public areas (like along roads or under roads). Another difference is safety - high voltage electricity wires are much more dangerous than communications wires, and even more so for high voltage DC, and maintenance is an issue of safety as well as reliability.
- I am not fully understanding the possibilities for using existing wires for energy net. Leasing is discussed. But presumably the same wire can only be leased to one distribution operator at a time ? So unless you have multiple wires along the same road, at any one time, there is still a monopoly on energy distribution at a certain level, e.g. in a village or housing estate. So the whole village has to make a collective decision about which energy distribution operator to go for. This is a governance issue, and also a power (political power) issue. Monopolies are bad for quality of service and prices, and to make them less bad, they should remain governed publicly or by non-profit community locally-accountable governance structures, not private, for-profit monopolies. I would be very wary of privatising electricity grids which are natural monopolies. That has been a disaster in other natural monopolies, look at the British rail system. Or are you suggesting going the other way, allowing multiple sets of wires along the same road? But what does that mean for maintenance and safety ?
On the first point. Some internet distribution is wireless, other is not. The analogy is regarding fiber optic cables as a means of internet distribution, not wireless communications. A DC microgrid utilizing energy routers in buildings means that a building is not only connected to the traditional AC grid, but also to two other buildings via DC and is then able to both produce, send, and route energy as a node - rather than just being an end consumer. This means we can build meshed distribution networks in the local grid in contrast with how its built today as a single-way production -> distribution -> consumption.
Regarding maintenance of cables, if they are placed underground there is very, very little need for maintenance. Above-ground maintenance for electrical systems is already being done on a routine basis for properties so it wouldn't be anything different or challenging than compared to how it is today.
In California, and perhaps other US jurisdictions, there is an exception to the rule against non-utilities sharing power across property boundaries. California permits”over-the-wall” delivery of power by a non-utility generator to adjacent properties so long as there isn’t a crossing of a public street. That’s not a lot, but it is something.
I really like this vision. This would be instead of a VPP, correct? I think it would appeal to Americans in that it offers less centralized control than a VPP, if I'm understanding correctly. People don't like change and may be wary of VPPs.
I do think a lot of people would want a hands-free option where they're not having to manage anything unless they want to.
Also in the MAHA moment, there's going to be concern over cancer and wireless radiation so you'd have to get out ahead of that.
I think some of the power in this is that, while it is radically transformative, it could be made to feel mainstream.
Comparing distributed energy to the internet example makes sense. Fascinating to learn how this concept would apply to neighborhoods & hyper localized energy sources.
This is an interesting idea, and might have a lot of potential. I do have a few concerns, as follows:
1. If most electricity is being produced and used by microgrids, but we need need to draw on power from utilities at times, how do we pay for the upkeep of the transmission, that would now only be used for a small fraction of the power? The fixed costs might go down a bit because of lower volume needing smaller/fewer lines, etc, but they still have to maintain lines all the way from everyone’s house to a generation plant somewhere. Would the cost of electricity from the utility go way up to make up for the lower volume?
2. If people in a neighborhood are swapping power around between themselves, how are costs shared? If I have a 20kw system, and my neighbor has a 5kw system, do I charge him for electricity of mine he uses? Does he help buy my 20kw system? What about the other neighbor who doesn’t have any solar? Does he get to participate? The same principal applies to micrograms sharing power. What if my street has 1MW of power, and the next block over has half that? How do we share costs? How would the payments be administered-somebody would have to set up and maintain some sort of internet system with payments, I suppose.
3. It's not clear to me that there would be a whole lot of sharing of power in these microgrids. If all the homes in the grid are supplying solar power, and they obviously are all located near each other, then the panels should all be producing at about the same times. Consumption might vary somewhat from house to house, but there are usually broad general trends there-most people are going to have their A/C on at the same time, cook dinner at around the same times, etc. So when exactly is house A going to have a lot of extra power that house B doesn't have and needs? Adding batteries makes the whole microgrid less dependent on the utility, but doesn't change the fundamental fact that production and consumption will tend to be similar throughout the microgrid.
4. I also worry about making the whole business of getting power more complex, and requiring more time & energy from the users. I think most people don't want to spend time deciding whether to share power with different neighbors, setting the prices, worrying about how much it's going to cost to turn on the kettle, etc-I personally would prefer a fixed monthly bill that I could budget for, and not spend a lot of time deciding when was the cheapest time to do the laundry or charge my car. So, your idea of doing just that-having electricity billed at a fixed rate--might appeal to a lot of people. It's not clear to me that it would necessarily be cheaper-we would all have to install solar panels, and rooftop solar is generally more expensive per watt than commercial scale solar. Ditto for batteries. We'd still have to pay to maintain the central transmission grid, without getting as much use out of it.
Then MCI introduced ‘friends and family’ - call your friends for free if they’re on MCI long distance - not sure it’s a direct analogy, but what if you could share power for free with your “friends and family” in this model? Certainly if they live next door...
Great conversation - thank you! The idea of packetized energy traceability and distribution is the founding idea (and name:-) behind Packet Power (www.packetpower.com), which I founded in 2008. We have been patiently waiting for the suitable distribution technology to catch up, preaching and manufacturing equipment for packet-like energy traceability in the meantime. Would love to connect and compare notes.
For years I’ve been frustrated with all the Nuke and gas plant talk when it only makes sense to have an electric system which is similar to our data systems. The frustration only grows as panel prices drop and battery tech gets better and cheaper. Along comes “Broadband Jesus” with a way to make an electric system which literally looks like our data systems. Hurray “Electricity Jesus”!
I could see one of the great opportunities that was alluded to - can you imagine this being done at Joint Base Lewis-McChord military base in Washington?
I believe David often referenced an EnergyNet "paper". I don't see a link nor have I found a paper or presentation by Jonas Biggersson on this (could be user error - me). Does anyone have a link?
One big question not addressed in the podcast is that of network security. If this takes off enough to be important, it will quickly attract hackers looking for ways to cripple it. They'll probably find some.
Might it be possible to learn from our experience with other networks and try to design in some really advanced security measures from the start, rather than apply Band-Aids to each newly-discovered hole?
Given that this comes from a company that already operate fiber optic networks they are already experienced in dealing with cyber security. This is in their DNA so to say.
It is an important topic, but you could just as well argue that we are more vulnerable with the current model with few centralized natural monopolies. It is one thing if one building gets hacked, it's another if a DSO with 1m customers get hacked.
True enough! While I share the enthusiasm for this new model, I can’t escape the feeling that there is a good bit of hand-waving in the presentation. It will be interesting to see how it develops in actual practice.
Currently there is one pilot that showcases that the hardware and software works. During this year a commercial pilot is going to be built with 10 buildings. There are also preparatory work for upcoming (yet to be disclosed) commercial sites in near time. So within 1 - 3 years there will be a number of up and running EnergyNets.
The closest competitor FerroAmp, who utilizes a different proprietary approach and don't use energy routers, but still build behind-the-meter DC grids I think has some 120+ up and running.
Combined with EMS / BMS systems being more or less 'standard' for controlling HVAC, doors, etc with commercial software - this area is not something new, it's just not something we think that much about. :) In terms of cyber security routing energy is not fundamentally different and more difficult than say, running a server farm.
But being skeptical is good, keeps one sane and grounded!
Something I'm a bit hazy on is how the circuitry works here. Is the idea that every residence has at minimum a battery and inverter, and a smart panel of some kind? Are the houses still trading at standard residential AC Voltage?
Also, how does power get allocated from one place to another on the microgrid? Like, how does that work when everyone is sharing the same power connection. I'm imaging a situation where house A needs power, and house B, C, D, and E can't help, but house F down the street can supply it. Does house F dump the power onto the powerline, which all the other houses in between are using? How does that "power packet" get handed over?
In your example, I will assume that each building has an energy router. Each building will route energy from F to A, and the EnergyNet operator keeps track of which buildings (nodes) have routed energy from F to A. The routers track incoming and distributed packets (energy) between themselves, just like how it works with the internet.
If you are talking about the loads on the cables - since each cable connected to a router is monitored and controlled in real time, the EnergyNet operator will automatically check availability per cable and route energy depending on availability. E.g. 50% through cable A and 50% through cable B.
This in comparison with the current system where cable loads are more a qualified guesswork rather than real time observation and control.
To what extent has this smart microgrid architecture been anticipated by France & South Korea in their recently adopted policies mandating solar canopy microgrids at ALL large (>80 spaces) parking lots, nationwide, within 5 years? Do their utility engineers know something US engineers are unaware of, or is our problem monopoly protection?
How is this architecture similar to or different from the Piclo transparent marketplace for trading surplus energy on utility distribution grids?
When & where will existing transmission grids, as we know them, become irrelevant to demand trading between most residential & small business rate payers?
Asking Gemini some questions about grid reliability, I discovered that grids located in populous areas of China are much more reliable than similar areas in the US. Their grid infrastructure is generally newer & better, but it's also better maintained. Europe has higher electric utility rates and old infrastructure, but they're investing much more in modernization than the US. Every three years we fall another decade behind.
A) I don't think they are aware, it is probably more a situation of a happy coincidence of state-of-the-art technology being able to solve policy ambitions.
B) As I understand Piclo offers a marketplace for selling & buying flex to/for DSO's. The EnergyNet can be more thought of as an edge upgrade of the energy system in buildings and properties. The hardware and software enables third parties to interact with the building and "skip" the interoperability issue with the connected energy assets (PV, BESS, EVs, HVAC, etc). Tehcnically, Piclo could offer its service on EnergyNet and building owners can offer their assets to Piclo.
But more importantly, building owners could compare Piclo with other flexibility markets (e.g. EON's switch platform) that are available in their area. The EnergyNet is more the phone+appstore than an individual app on the app store.
C) Probably never, but the role of the local grid will most likely change in as to how local communities interact with the old grid. It will more likely be a combination of being connected to an energynet and the old grid, where they serve different purposes depending on the need for the moment. It's a synergy, not a destruction.
D) I can't comment on the last point as I know very little about Chinese grid-infrastructure. But it is a correct observation that the old grid will need massive investments if we are to continue to pursue local energy production, storage, new consumption patterns (e.g. EV charging) and digitalisation. As such, the question isn't about if we are going to have to pay a substantial amount of money to modernize the distribution grid - the question is: What kind of system do get for our money?
Some critique (which I would be very interested in responses to):
- the analogy with the internet only goes so far in that locally, the internet is largely wireless, whereas electricity distribution is not feasibly wireless. So having a few different wireless communications networks in an area (often sitting on the same physical towers) is different to having multiple sets of electricity wires in public areas (like along roads or under roads). Another difference is safety - high voltage electricity wires are much more dangerous than communications wires, and even more so for high voltage DC, and maintenance is an issue of safety as well as reliability.
- I am not fully understanding the possibilities for using existing wires for energy net. Leasing is discussed. But presumably the same wire can only be leased to one distribution operator at a time ? So unless you have multiple wires along the same road, at any one time, there is still a monopoly on energy distribution at a certain level, e.g. in a village or housing estate. So the whole village has to make a collective decision about which energy distribution operator to go for. This is a governance issue, and also a power (political power) issue. Monopolies are bad for quality of service and prices, and to make them less bad, they should remain governed publicly or by non-profit community locally-accountable governance structures, not private, for-profit monopolies. I would be very wary of privatising electricity grids which are natural monopolies. That has been a disaster in other natural monopolies, look at the British rail system. Or are you suggesting going the other way, allowing multiple sets of wires along the same road? But what does that mean for maintenance and safety ?
On the first point. Some internet distribution is wireless, other is not. The analogy is regarding fiber optic cables as a means of internet distribution, not wireless communications. A DC microgrid utilizing energy routers in buildings means that a building is not only connected to the traditional AC grid, but also to two other buildings via DC and is then able to both produce, send, and route energy as a node - rather than just being an end consumer. This means we can build meshed distribution networks in the local grid in contrast with how its built today as a single-way production -> distribution -> consumption.
Regarding maintenance of cables, if they are placed underground there is very, very little need for maintenance. Above-ground maintenance for electrical systems is already being done on a routine basis for properties so it wouldn't be anything different or challenging than compared to how it is today.
In California, and perhaps other US jurisdictions, there is an exception to the rule against non-utilities sharing power across property boundaries. California permits”over-the-wall” delivery of power by a non-utility generator to adjacent properties so long as there isn’t a crossing of a public street. That’s not a lot, but it is something.
I really like this vision. This would be instead of a VPP, correct? I think it would appeal to Americans in that it offers less centralized control than a VPP, if I'm understanding correctly. People don't like change and may be wary of VPPs.
I do think a lot of people would want a hands-free option where they're not having to manage anything unless they want to.
Also in the MAHA moment, there's going to be concern over cancer and wireless radiation so you'd have to get out ahead of that.
I think some of the power in this is that, while it is radically transformative, it could be made to feel mainstream.
Comparing distributed energy to the internet example makes sense. Fascinating to learn how this concept would apply to neighborhoods & hyper localized energy sources.
This is an interesting idea, and might have a lot of potential. I do have a few concerns, as follows:
1. If most electricity is being produced and used by microgrids, but we need need to draw on power from utilities at times, how do we pay for the upkeep of the transmission, that would now only be used for a small fraction of the power? The fixed costs might go down a bit because of lower volume needing smaller/fewer lines, etc, but they still have to maintain lines all the way from everyone’s house to a generation plant somewhere. Would the cost of electricity from the utility go way up to make up for the lower volume?
2. If people in a neighborhood are swapping power around between themselves, how are costs shared? If I have a 20kw system, and my neighbor has a 5kw system, do I charge him for electricity of mine he uses? Does he help buy my 20kw system? What about the other neighbor who doesn’t have any solar? Does he get to participate? The same principal applies to micrograms sharing power. What if my street has 1MW of power, and the next block over has half that? How do we share costs? How would the payments be administered-somebody would have to set up and maintain some sort of internet system with payments, I suppose.
3. It's not clear to me that there would be a whole lot of sharing of power in these microgrids. If all the homes in the grid are supplying solar power, and they obviously are all located near each other, then the panels should all be producing at about the same times. Consumption might vary somewhat from house to house, but there are usually broad general trends there-most people are going to have their A/C on at the same time, cook dinner at around the same times, etc. So when exactly is house A going to have a lot of extra power that house B doesn't have and needs? Adding batteries makes the whole microgrid less dependent on the utility, but doesn't change the fundamental fact that production and consumption will tend to be similar throughout the microgrid.
4. I also worry about making the whole business of getting power more complex, and requiring more time & energy from the users. I think most people don't want to spend time deciding whether to share power with different neighbors, setting the prices, worrying about how much it's going to cost to turn on the kettle, etc-I personally would prefer a fixed monthly bill that I could budget for, and not spend a lot of time deciding when was the cheapest time to do the laundry or charge my car. So, your idea of doing just that-having electricity billed at a fixed rate--might appeal to a lot of people. It's not clear to me that it would necessarily be cheaper-we would all have to install solar panels, and rooftop solar is generally more expensive per watt than commercial scale solar. Ditto for batteries. We'd still have to pay to maintain the central transmission grid, without getting as much use out of it.
The analogy with the phone/telecom world is interesting. On point #4, it’s useful to look at the ‘long distance wars’ as an analogy with respect to complexity - people would do all sorts of things to save money on phone calls - lower rates at night, complex dialing schemes, switching carriers, etc - ie: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenerationJones/comments/1l33x21/does_anyone_remember_the_long_distance_telephone/
Then MCI introduced ‘friends and family’ - call your friends for free if they’re on MCI long distance - not sure it’s a direct analogy, but what if you could share power for free with your “friends and family” in this model? Certainly if they live next door...
Jonas & David,
Great conversation - thank you! The idea of packetized energy traceability and distribution is the founding idea (and name:-) behind Packet Power (www.packetpower.com), which I founded in 2008. We have been patiently waiting for the suitable distribution technology to catch up, preaching and manufacturing equipment for packet-like energy traceability in the meantime. Would love to connect and compare notes.
Paul
YES. THIS.
For years I’ve been frustrated with all the Nuke and gas plant talk when it only makes sense to have an electric system which is similar to our data systems. The frustration only grows as panel prices drop and battery tech gets better and cheaper. Along comes “Broadband Jesus” with a way to make an electric system which literally looks like our data systems. Hurray “Electricity Jesus”!
I could see one of the great opportunities that was alluded to - can you imagine this being done at Joint Base Lewis-McChord military base in Washington?
I believe David often referenced an EnergyNet "paper". I don't see a link nor have I found a paper or presentation by Jonas Biggersson on this (could be user error - me). Does anyone have a link?
Also, the protocol is defined here: https://github.com/energyetf/energynet
Anybody interested in building a prototype system?
Immediately after posting the note above (and perhaps because I posted it) my next search found info. Shrug...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.08152
Very interesting if not quite fully formed idea.
One big question not addressed in the podcast is that of network security. If this takes off enough to be important, it will quickly attract hackers looking for ways to cripple it. They'll probably find some.
Might it be possible to learn from our experience with other networks and try to design in some really advanced security measures from the start, rather than apply Band-Aids to each newly-discovered hole?
Given that this comes from a company that already operate fiber optic networks they are already experienced in dealing with cyber security. This is in their DNA so to say.
It is an important topic, but you could just as well argue that we are more vulnerable with the current model with few centralized natural monopolies. It is one thing if one building gets hacked, it's another if a DSO with 1m customers get hacked.
True enough! While I share the enthusiasm for this new model, I can’t escape the feeling that there is a good bit of hand-waving in the presentation. It will be interesting to see how it develops in actual practice.
Currently there is one pilot that showcases that the hardware and software works. During this year a commercial pilot is going to be built with 10 buildings. There are also preparatory work for upcoming (yet to be disclosed) commercial sites in near time. So within 1 - 3 years there will be a number of up and running EnergyNets.
The closest competitor FerroAmp, who utilizes a different proprietary approach and don't use energy routers, but still build behind-the-meter DC grids I think has some 120+ up and running.
Combined with EMS / BMS systems being more or less 'standard' for controlling HVAC, doors, etc with commercial software - this area is not something new, it's just not something we think that much about. :) In terms of cyber security routing energy is not fundamentally different and more difficult than say, running a server farm.
But being skeptical is good, keeps one sane and grounded!
Very interesting ideas being discussed here!
Something I'm a bit hazy on is how the circuitry works here. Is the idea that every residence has at minimum a battery and inverter, and a smart panel of some kind? Are the houses still trading at standard residential AC Voltage?
Also, how does power get allocated from one place to another on the microgrid? Like, how does that work when everyone is sharing the same power connection. I'm imaging a situation where house A needs power, and house B, C, D, and E can't help, but house F down the street can supply it. Does house F dump the power onto the powerline, which all the other houses in between are using? How does that "power packet" get handed over?
In your example, I will assume that each building has an energy router. Each building will route energy from F to A, and the EnergyNet operator keeps track of which buildings (nodes) have routed energy from F to A. The routers track incoming and distributed packets (energy) between themselves, just like how it works with the internet.
If you are talking about the loads on the cables - since each cable connected to a router is monitored and controlled in real time, the EnergyNet operator will automatically check availability per cable and route energy depending on availability. E.g. 50% through cable A and 50% through cable B.
This in comparison with the current system where cable loads are more a qualified guesswork rather than real time observation and control.
Mind. Blown. This discussion gives me some hope for the future of electrification.
Excellent conversation. Sadly, the current administration will work hard to avoid such a rational approach.
To what extent has this smart microgrid architecture been anticipated by France & South Korea in their recently adopted policies mandating solar canopy microgrids at ALL large (>80 spaces) parking lots, nationwide, within 5 years? Do their utility engineers know something US engineers are unaware of, or is our problem monopoly protection?
How is this architecture similar to or different from the Piclo transparent marketplace for trading surplus energy on utility distribution grids?
When & where will existing transmission grids, as we know them, become irrelevant to demand trading between most residential & small business rate payers?
Asking Gemini some questions about grid reliability, I discovered that grids located in populous areas of China are much more reliable than similar areas in the US. Their grid infrastructure is generally newer & better, but it's also better maintained. Europe has higher electric utility rates and old infrastructure, but they're investing much more in modernization than the US. Every three years we fall another decade behind.
A) I don't think they are aware, it is probably more a situation of a happy coincidence of state-of-the-art technology being able to solve policy ambitions.
B) As I understand Piclo offers a marketplace for selling & buying flex to/for DSO's. The EnergyNet can be more thought of as an edge upgrade of the energy system in buildings and properties. The hardware and software enables third parties to interact with the building and "skip" the interoperability issue with the connected energy assets (PV, BESS, EVs, HVAC, etc). Tehcnically, Piclo could offer its service on EnergyNet and building owners can offer their assets to Piclo.
But more importantly, building owners could compare Piclo with other flexibility markets (e.g. EON's switch platform) that are available in their area. The EnergyNet is more the phone+appstore than an individual app on the app store.
C) Probably never, but the role of the local grid will most likely change in as to how local communities interact with the old grid. It will more likely be a combination of being connected to an energynet and the old grid, where they serve different purposes depending on the need for the moment. It's a synergy, not a destruction.
D) I can't comment on the last point as I know very little about Chinese grid-infrastructure. But it is a correct observation that the old grid will need massive investments if we are to continue to pursue local energy production, storage, new consumption patterns (e.g. EV charging) and digitalisation. As such, the question isn't about if we are going to have to pay a substantial amount of money to modernize the distribution grid - the question is: What kind of system do get for our money?
Daniel, Viaeuropa