On Monday, engineering consultant Mervyn Davies posted this article on WattClarity outlining the pitfalls of several different potential demand management schemes. In his article he contrasts and compares Time of Use Demand Tarriffs, Time of Use Energy Tariffs and Controlled Load Tariffs. Mervyn highlighted “Only switching actions, which genuinely shift customer load entirely away from periods of likely network maximum demand, contribute positively to network economics. Switching actions which merely smooth the customer’s load do not.”
Related Articles
Dan Lee
Thursday, October 29 2015
What role might Demand Response play in a (possible) future grid featuring high levels of intermittency?
Earlier this week Paul McArdle posted an article to WattClarity after speaking at All-Energy in early October. His presentation (with narration included) from the conference is available here:
Dan Lee
Wednesday, June 29 2016
Manufacturers in Tasmania paid to reduce production
The state-owned Hydro Tasmania have agreed to give industrial energy users compensation for reducing production during Tasmania’s ongoing energy crisis. The Australian newspaper has published some updated numbers on the the deals estimating that the energy users are being paid…
Dan Lee
Wednesday, October 8 2014
When the Levee Breaks
On Wednesday the founder and CEO of Altus Energy Strategies, Michael Williams published an article on WattClarity which outlined what topics need to be considered when businesses develop an energy strategy. Amongst the options discussed are methods of demand response…
Dan Lee
Thursday, September 24 2015
The role of Demand Response in a Future Grid dominated by intermittent Wind and Solar
Last week, Paul McArdle from Global-Roam posted this article to WattClarity. Paul is booked in to speak at the 2015 All Energy conference about what role Demand Response might play in a future environment where intermittent generation sources supply a significantly higher…