Planned throttling of wallboxes and heat pumps

Most heat pumps are already equipped with ripple control receivers today and can be switched off when the grids are overloaded. Usually, consumers then receive cheaper tariffs for this. Little will change in the future; consumers who have a ripple control receiver or similar will receive a smart meter, and new customers or new photovoltaic systems will be required to have one.

The reasons for this are quite clear: the large power plants could be ramped up and down in a planned manner to absorb consumption peaks. Unfortunately, renewable energy does not cooperate as we would like, so consumers must be trained with time-dependent tariffs and power throttling. Additionally, there are partially dilapidated grids, whether high-, medium-, or low-voltage networks, transformers, or substations. There are simply weak points that are not designed for the requirements...

To precisely "catch" those who do not have a heat pump tariff and therefore cannot yet be throttled, the "smart meters" have now been decided upon to address this as well. This "peak smoothing" is all well and good, but the argument that certain tariffs can be used through smart meters to draw electricity more often when it is cheap on the market will also smooth these "valleys." Supply and demand – the market adapts very quickly to these consumption times. What remains is an on-average usual (high) electricity price. In my opinion, only the state ultimately benefits from this. It can once again shift its "failures" onto the citizens. And I’m not even speaking just of the current government, this has been neglected for decades, and the current one is practically just pulling the emergency brake.

We have not claimed any subsidies for anything; the heat pump will run on household electricity, as will the wallbox, logically. However, I firmly assume that we will be caught by the smart meters when the meter installation is due and can be remotely controlled again because of that. Probably the only thing that helps against this is the property by the stream, with a small hydropower plant, the photovoltaic system on the roof, and the 15m wind turbine, irony off :-D

In the end, only the state benefits from it in my opinion.

The state is us, after all, and the benefit is precisely lower costs for network expansion and maintaining excess capacity. Overall, it obviously makes electricity cheaper if demand is managed cleverly.

The state is us, and the benefit is simply lower costs for grid expansion and maintaining surplus capacity. Overall, it obviously makes electricity cheaper if the demand is cleverly distributed.

The state apparatus and the people have rarely been so far apart as they are today. But that is not the topic. How are lower costs supposed to come about? Electricity is needed when it is needed. That has been the case and will remain so in the medium to long term. Electricity consumption will soon increase sharply — that is, as soon as the relevant laws come into effect. Grid expansion therefore remains absolutely necessary, and maintaining surplus capacity must even grow as we move closer to 100% renewables, because nothing is as unpredictable as the wind and the sun. Only hydropower in flowing waters is base-load capable, and with this we do not even cover 10% of today's base load. In my personal opinion, the issue will become quite controversial because almost all individual goals are pulling in opposite directions.

The state (apparatus) and the people have rarely been so far apart as they are today. But that is not the topic.

Seems to be somehow your topic after all. And many others are now worried because they do not understand the connections and get the feeling that something is being taken away from them. I once tried to find statistics on satisfaction with government work. Not so easy, but most show a positive trend. How do you come to the assumption that we are currently at a low point?

How are lower costs supposed to come about?

I had exactly explained that before. The grids and power plants do not have to be designed for the peaks if we manage to reduce the peaks. By the way, this was already the case "before the energy transition." That is why there have been night tariffs and so on. On Energy-Charts you can see how consumption fluctuates strongly due to working hours, cooking, etc. It moves between 40 and 80 MW throughout the day. So if you simply reduce car charging and heating a bit during cooking, or in the future also when a cloud is in front of the photovoltaic system, that saves a lot of grid and generator peak power.

Grid expansion therefore remains absolutely necessary and the maintenance of overcapacity must even increase as we approach 100% renewable energy.

That is of course fundamentally true, but the arguments above remain fully valid. The better and smarter the regulation, the less the expansion costs all of us.

The issue will become quite explosive in my personal opinion because pretty much all individual goals are running in opposite directions.

If one has understood how important it is to emit no more CO2, it should be clear that it is the least of problems if the heat pump does not run for two hours and the room temperature perhaps fluctuates by 0.1 degrees.

moves between 40 and 80MW during the day.

Are you talking here about the city of Erlangen or Buxtehude – certainly not about the FRG…:rolleyes: