I recall ages ago reading a report/analysis that worked out how much upgrade we needed based on working exactly as gas. So huge morning and evening peaks adding house heating to 60C with low COP to normal cooking use in the evening/ midday. At the time I didn’t question it, other than reflecting it was not very efficient use of resources of all kinds. (This was before I knew that ashps need long and low).

I haven’t read a recent analysis and it all, obviously, depends on what the authors assume about scope for peak shifting/smoothing by any method.

A recent gov consultation was on remote control of high loads such as heat pumps so that they can be restrained from use during peak demand. The question arises of who does the controlling?

Personally I prefer to do the control myself motivated by time of use (TOU) prices, but that is probably not a mass-market option. The providers of TOU tariffs such as octopus know a lot more than anyone else on this. What percentage of the population change their use profile etc.

Posted by: @judith

↑

Personally I prefer to do the control myself 

I agree.

I believe the take up of ToU is quite low, so there will probably have to be both stick and carrot. To date thought processes seem to have been focussed on decentralised carrot (ToU pricing) and centralised stick (forced shut down).

I guess the way the thought process I set out above was going is that there are options to apply stick without centralised control (other than over the breaker capacity).  These feel much more acceptable to me than either centralised control or paying for unnecessary upgrades.  Combined with some carrot I would have thought it might be possible to make a material difference.  Easily linked to the installation of heat pump or BEV chargers too, so not particularly difficult to administer (although necessary to avoid this becoming a blocker to adoption).

Another topic on which @transparent will be well able to wax lyrical is that of the local situation.

I seem to remember reading a while ago that the national infrastructure was sized to take into account many huge commercial consumers that no longer exist, meaning a theoretical greater ability to deal with peak loads than might first be thought. Since reading that, it has become obvious those big hitters of old have simply been replaced by different modern ones - data centres, for instance - so I'd guess all bets are off once again with regard to consumption peaks and troughs. Either way, the consumers that completely overshadow even the hungriest of domestic needs are not uniformly placed around the country any more than the power generation facilities. As a result, and I'm sure @transparent has mentioned this more than once before, some parts of the infrastructure are under much greater strain than others, whether because of overly high demands, particularly high or seasonal generation or imbalances of one sort or another.

If there is to be some application of carrot and stick - and I certainly believe there should be - I think it is hugely important to identify which types of strain are prevalent in any given area and therefore what remedy is best to apply. I know this is encroaching on the area of localised pricing (which I know is controversial and on which I haven't formed an opinion either way yet), but it'd seem to me wasteful of resources to, for example, incentivise someone to use less power during peak times if the local problem is excessive generation. I wonder, therefore, how easy it might be to provide a simplified local message for people to say in effect "the overriding issue in your local area is X and the best way for you to help is Y." Carrots and sticks could then be juggled by area more effectively, one would hope.

To quote @jamespa, "am I smoking the wrong dope?"

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

I wonder, therefore, how easy it might be to provide a simplified local message for people to say in effect "the overriding issue in your local area is X and the best way for you to help is Y." Carrots and sticks could then be juggled by area more effectively, one would hope.

My personal assumption, which I consider to be 'safe' is that everyone acts either purely selfishly or not at all, with the latter forming the majority.  Perhaps this is unduly pessimistic but I can't see a system based on people voluntarily doing something altruistic working!

You’re not smoking the wrong dope... in fact, you’re puffing on the stuff more people probably should be inhaling when it comes to realistic grid planning.

I think you’ve hit on something really important: a lot of our assumed need for huge infrastructure upgrades is based on unmanaged electrification (everyone charging their EV, blasting the induction hob and firing up the heat pump at exactly the same time). But as you rightly point out, many of these loads are time-flexible, and with even basic demand-side management, the picture changes drastically.

EV charging in particular is low-hanging fruit. Most drivers only need to top up a few kWh per night... that’s a short charge session, easily delayed or scheduled. And heat pumps, when paired with well-insulated homes and thermal mass, don’t need to run full title minute-by-minute. They can pre-heat or coast through short demand peaks.

We already have the tools: EV chargers with built-in load balancing (Zappi etc.), heat pumps with SG-ready inputs or APIs for external control and smart meters with half-hourly data logging. All that’s missing is a joined-up strategy to use them smartly before we dig up roads.

So no, you’re not mad. The real madness is that we’re still acting like the only path forward is gold-plating every cable, instead of investing a fraction of that cost in clever, consumer-friendly demand response.

The big question: will government and DNOs push this kind of solution or keep kicking the infrastructure can down the road?

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

I wonder, therefore, how easy it might be to provide a simplified local message for people to say in effect "the overriding issue in your local area is X and the best way for you to help is Y." Carrots and sticks could then be juggled by area more effectively, one would hope.

My personal assumption, which I consider to be 'safe' is that everyone acts either purely selfishly or not at all, with the latter forming the majority.  Perhaps this is unduly pessimistic but I can't see a system based on people voluntarily doing something altruistic working!

That wasn't quite what I was trying to suggest.

My point is that I have no idea whether my local area is being put under greater strain by me either importing loads or exporting loads. At any given time, am I exacerbating a problem or smoothing it out? If I follow your "safe" assumption and act selfishly, it'd be good for me to know what people in my area are being incentivised to do and what actions might carry penalties. Clearly, it seems to me, with parts of the country that are power generating deserts and others that are conspicuous consumers the carrots and sticks could do well to be customised to fit local needs; one size doesn't fit all. 

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

Clearly, it seems to me, with parts of the country that are power generating deserts and others that are conspicuous consumers the carrots and sticks could do well to be customised to fit local needs; one size doesn't fit all. 

I agee with that.

I suspect however that the structure of the electricity industry and the political nightmare a postcode lottery electricity supply would represent means that, while doubtless technically sensible, it's not going to fly.  Hence the suggestion that every house simply limits its own peak, being either incentivised to do so through carrots, or compelled through sticks.  

You may well be right, @jamespa.