Comment by femto | Hacker News Reader

Comment by femto | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

One interpretation of the "Internet of Energy" is that it is the use of data networks to improve the control of energy networks.

I think there is another level beyond this though. The revolution in data networks happened when they shifted from circuit-based (telephony) systems to packet based (IP) systems. There were significant benefits to be had in the switching of standardised packets with standardied equipment, allowing us to cheaply build and manage complex networks with a mix of underlying technologies.

I can see a revolution coming in the "packetisation" of energy, meaning that we will be able to switch units of energy with the same ease and versatility with which we switch data bits. Any load will be able to consume a standardised "packet" of energy from any source. Data and energy will be mingled, in that each energy packet will be accompanied by a data packet describing its properties. Complex networks will be able to be safely constructed and automatically managed by non-specialists, as the network will use the data portion of a "data/energy" packet to safely and efficiently manage the energy portion of the packet as it passes through the network.

I've been watching/waiting for something like this to come along. There was a startup years ago whose name I can't remember anymroe that tried doing it with a (relatively) high voltage DC system (I think 240), where the "packets" were very short (ms) bursts of energy, followed by short signaling bursts with very little amperage. Something about the protocol and design of it meant that even though high voltage DC systems like that are typically considered very dangerous, this one you could just grab a live wire, and it would just not send the next pulse because the signaling had been interrupted. The energy within a given pulse was under the safety threshold of things we tolerate now.

That and of course the reigning champion so far: USB PD. Wicked hot mess that it is, wouldn't be the first time the kludge wins.

Respectfully, as a power systems engineer, I'm unable to grasp how what you're describing is beneficial compared to current power networks or how it respects the underlying physics of electricity.

The design of power transmission and distribution networks is driven by several physical realities: high voltage is needed to transmit power over long distances with acceptable losses, it is easier and cheaper to transform voltage and switch ultra high power circuits in an AC network than a DC network, all power conversion is lossy, electricity is hazardous and therefore electrical circuits must be insulated and protected adequately to protect public safety.

I've heard this question of "why don't we have some kind of universal power outlet that any load regardless of voltage or current needs can connect to?" before. The answer is the same as in many other fields of engineering: it's not efficient to overbuild every node in an network to handle any possible load when electrical loads are usually well-defined and do not change rapidly. We don't have a universal train that runs in the metro, for freight and for high speed rail not because it's not possible but because that would not be efficient. The same applies here.

Thanks for the respect! I understand your points and I think you are correct in light of today's technology, but respectfully I think you're being a bit pessimistic about the future. (I'm an Electrical Engineer, qualified to work in power systems, but ended up working in data networks and RF.)

What I'm envisaging doesn't rule out voltage transformations. A "packet" could have its voltage or current transformed as required to suit the mode of transmission. Nothing to say it has to remain as DC either. The idea is that the energy (or some other property) would remain the same (apart from losses). The packets might also be conceptual in some transmission modes. For example, take a bunch of "packets" all with the same DC voltage, butt them up in time and you have a regular DC transmission line with a constant voltage and current, the main difference being that you now have an embedded/parallel data stream which logically delineates the packet boundaries. This data stream allows the receiving station to treat each packet differently if required.

The talk of non-specialists wiring systems doesn't mean your hairdresser will be running a 1MV transmission line across the suburb. Rather they could wire something like a house in a risk free manner with no need for a specialist electrician. The idea is that a source would be measuring what it is driving, so safety is inherent and serious power would only be delivered if the measurement says it is safe to do so.

Yes, this is pie-in-the-sky talk. It's not a design, but a collection of wild ideas which might turn out to be practical. It's the sort for thing one talks about with colleagues at the pub, but those colleagues do include academics with high level power engineering qualifications and in conversations they are also thinking along similar lines.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com