[badtension]

I feel like this is one of the biggest missed opportunities. Why do we insist on our energy system to be infinitely flexible and full power available 24/7? Is a habit of doing the laundry at night worth more than additional millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere?

I understand convenience, laziness and inertia (resisting change) but I also think changing the times when we click "power on" is a simpler solution than mining millions of tons of more lithium, no?

[pjc50]

Like computing, having high uptime has a value all its own compared to an unreliable system. Countries which do have regular brownouts you find people buying their own (inefficient, polluting) generators to get round it.

Smart demand-response may yet become a thing, but it's not yet a commodity product. You need a system to send out "turn off" notifications, and a system for measuring that in realtime, and a system for paying people. Some grids _do_ have this, but only for very large consumers.

[bluGill]

Many grids do have this for normal residences, but it only covers your air conditioner not everything (and maybe water heater). By running your AC on half duty cycle all day your house still stays cool enough and they are able to reduce substantial peak demand. For most people HVAC and water heating are the two biggest demands, and also ones where simple management can result in a substantial changes in demand without affecting your comfort.

[zdragnar]

You would have to retrofit every residence to handle daily brownouts (circuits for lights, furnaces and medical equipment stay on, everything else off).

You would have to completely rebuild most of the manufacturing industry, as many plants have startup times measured in hours or days.

It'd be cheaper to just build nuclear.

[awestroke]

Industry uses most of the energy. The industry is already moving towards their own price optimizing energy usage and/or storage.

[digging]

It's often >90 degrees Fahrenheit at night in for months on end where I live, and houses are built cheaply and in a style completely unfitting a hot climate (that is, thin walls, dark roofs, fully aboveground, thoughtless window placement, etc. Standard American Dumbass style). It's unhealthy to sleep in these conditions without AC, even fatal for some.

So yes, we could survive without power at night. We just have to rebuild every building.

As a long-term ideal I don't disagree with you. We should be building for resilience. But that's not a solution to climate change.

[adwn]

> Why do we insist on our energy system to be infinitely flexible and full power available 24/7?

I like to heat my home during winter. We have a (modern, highly efficient) heat pump, so we need most electricity during January, just when the least amount of solar insolation is available [1] and when it sometimes stays cloudy and below 0°C continuously for days. But I guess we'll just have to be more flexible and turn off heating, light, and electricity in general for a week, no big deal.

[1] I wonder if there's a causal relation between cold weather and low solar insolation?

[bluGill]

You don't actually need your heat pump 24x7 even on those cold days, if you can run for 15 minutes one, 15 off that would make a big difference to the grid (your neighbor running the same schedule but opposite times) without making your house too cold. Managing the above is tricky though.

[lazide]

Regarding [1] - are you being sarcastic?

[adrianN]

Demand shaping is part of the plan, but opportunities are currently limited. For most applications demand can only be shifted by a short time.

[badtension]

Water heating, AC, fridges and freezers, maybe even EV charging (in some cases) could be done at any time during the 24 hour period, if setup with proper hysteresis.