Why are we losing ground in energy efficiency?
An estimated 1.6 billion Americans rely on the grid for energy to heat their homes and businesses, and the amount of energy needed to heat the nation’s homes and offices is expected to reach 5.5 billion by 2025.
That means that by 2050, the U.S. will need to replace all of its electricity systems, which are expected to generate nearly half of the nation ‘s energy needs.
“It’s very, very difficult to get energy from the grid.
It’s very expensive,” said Daniel Leibowitz, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at MIT.
“And it’s very hard to get it where you need it.”
The most effective way to increase energy efficiency is to switch to renewable energy sources, Leibowski said.
“The best way to do that is to replace the grid, and I think we have a pretty good chance of doing that.”
A few years ago, Leigowitz and others proposed the Grid-as-a-Service model, in which utilities would install grid-connected storage to help cool the grid during extreme weather events, like Superstorm Sandy, or power down homes and buildings during extreme heat waves.
The concept was quickly adopted in many states, but not without controversy.
As of 2015, most states had already installed grid-as a-service storage, and by the end of 2017, the federal government had approved nearly 2,300 states with plans to install them.
The grid-wide storage technology has been touted as an alternative to more expensive fossil fuels, such as natural gas, and can deliver power from a distance.
In a study published in the journal Energy & Environment, Leilowitz and his colleagues analyzed the costs and benefits of grid-level storage, as well as its potential for addressing climate change.
They concluded that the benefits outweighed the costs for grid-scale storage to generate power from the sky and save money, but also noted that, because grid-side storage is expensive, there are no guarantees that the system will work and that it will be sustainable.
To test the effectiveness of the technology, Leiobowitz and coauthors conducted a survey of nearly 1,000 Americans.
The survey was conducted online and on cellphones and cellphones with the option to landline or mobile phone.
They found that more than half of respondents said they would be willing to pay $1 per kilowatt-hour for a 100 kilowatts of power from an average rooftop.
The study also found that most people believe grid-based storage could be economically viable.
“People are willing to spend money on grid-generated electricity, and that’s great,” Leibowsky said.
“But there’s also the fact that people are hesitant to spend more than $1 on power that’s generated from the ground.
It seems like we need to go further, or more expensive.”
In the survey, the authors found that while only one-third of respondents would be happy to pay the full $1 to $2 cost of a 100-kW system from a rooftop, the average price paid was $3.51 per kiloWatt-hours.
This price was not an anomaly.
Across the country, utilities were charging customers between $1 and $3 per kiloweratt-hr for rooftop solar power, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.
The study found that the average amount of electricity from the rooftop that could be generated by grid-mounted storage is estimated at about 0.25 kilowat-hours per watt-hour, which is roughly 10 percent of the estimated 1,500 kilowatters of energy that would be needed by 2030 to generate a single kilowattery of energy.
That’s a good chunk of energy, but it doesn’t compare to the actual energy that comes out of the system, Leiwos says.
He also noted the limitations of the study.
The amount of power that could realistically be generated from a solar-powered system would be much lower than the amount that can be generated on the utility’s grid.
“We didn’t look at the real energy from a utility’s system,” Leiwowitz said.
Leiobowos said the cost of the project could be reduced by using a similar technology as the one that powers the SolarCity solar farms, which have been installed on rooftops across the country.
“The technology is more expensive,” Leiowos added.
“We can do more efficient storage, but if you look at that cost, you realize that it’s going to be even more expensive than the grid-solar technology.”
The study also notes that the cost could be substantially reduced by putting energy back into the grid to improve efficiency.
According to Leibowos, the costs of grid storage are already declining, but they could be more than offset by energy returned to the grid as a result of better grid-service performance.
In other words, the researchers found that even if the cost to produce and store power is lower than grid-derived