
Air Conditioners Can Actually Support the Power Grid. Here's How
As summer arrives, people are turning on air conditioners in most of the U.S. But if you're like me, you always feel a little guilty about that. Past generations managed without air conditioning – do I really need it? And how bad is it to use all this electricity for cooling in a warming world?
If I leave my air conditioner off, I get too hot. But if everyone turns on their air conditioner at the same time, electricity demand spikes, which can force power grid operators to activate some of the most expensive, and dirtiest, power plants. Sometimes those spikes can ask too much of the grid and lead to brownouts or blackouts.
Research I recently published with a team of scholars makes me feel a little better, though. We have found that it is possible to coordinate the operation of large numbers of home air-conditioning units, balancing supply and demand on the power grid – and without making people endure high temperatures inside their homes.
Studies along these lines, using remote control of air conditioners to support the grid, have for many years explored theoretical possibilities like this. However, few approaches have been demonstrated in practice and never for such a high-value application and at this scale. The system we developed not only demonstrated the ability to balance the grid on timescales of seconds, but also proved it was possible to do so without affecting residents' comfort.
The benefits include increasing the reliability of the power grid, which makes it easier for the grid to accept more renewable energy. Our goal is to turn air conditioners from a challenge for the power grid into an asset, supporting a shift away from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy.
Adjustable equipment
My research focuses on batteries, solar panels and electric equipment – such as electric vehicles, water heaters, air conditioners and heat pumps – that can adjust itself to consume different amounts of energy at different times.
Originally, the U.S. electric grid was built to transport electricity from large power plants to customers' homes and businesses. And originally, power plants were large, centralized operations that burned coal or natural gas, or harvested energy from nuclear reactions. These plants were typically always available and could adjust how much power they generated in response to customer demand, so the grid would be balanced between power coming in from producers and being used by consumers.
But the grid has changed. There are more renewable energy sources, from which power isn't always available – like solar panels at night or wind turbines on calm days. And there are the devices and equipment I study. These newer options, called 'distributed energy resources,' generate or store energy near where consumers need it – or adjust how much energy they're using in real time.
One aspect of the grid hasn't changed, though: There's not much storage built into the system. So every time you turn on a light, for a moment there's not enough electricity to supply everything that wants it right then: The grid needs a power producer to generate a little more power. And when you turn off a light, there's a little too much: A power producer needs to ramp down.
The way power plants know what real-time power adjustments are needed is by closely monitoring the grid frequency. The goal is to provide electricity at a constant frequency – 60 hertz – at all times. If more power is needed than is being produced, the frequency drops and a power plant boosts output. If there's too much power being produced, the frequency rises and a power plant slows production a little. These actions, a process called 'frequency regulation,' happen in a matter of seconds to keep the grid balanced.
This output flexibility, primarily from power plants, is key to keeping the lights on for everyone.
Finding new options
I'm interested in how distributed energy resources can improve flexibility in the grid. They can release more energy, or consume less, to respond to the changing supply or demand, and help balance the grid, ensuring the frequency remains near 60 hertz.
Some people fear that doing so might be invasive, giving someone outside your home the ability to control your battery or air conditioner. Therefore, we wanted to see if we could help balance the grid with frequency regulation using home air-conditioning units rather than power plants – without affecting how residents use their appliances or how comfortable they are in their homes.
From 2019 to 2023, my group at the University of Michigan tried this approach, in collaboration with researchers at Pecan Street Inc., Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.
We recruited 100 homeowners in Austin, Texas, to do a real-world test of our system. All the homes had whole-house forced-air cooling systems, which we connected to custom control boards and sensors the owners allowed us to install in their homes. This equipment let us send instructions to the air-conditioning units based on the frequency of the grid.
Before I explain how the system worked, I first need to explain how thermostats work. When people set thermostats, they pick a temperature, and the thermostat switches the air-conditioning compressor on and off to maintain the air temperature within a small range around that set point. If the temperature is set at 68 degrees, the thermostat turns the AC on when the temperature is, say, 70, and turns it off when it's cooled down to, say, 66.
Every few seconds, our system slightly changed the timing of air-conditioning compressor switching for some of the 100 air conditioners, causing the units' aggregate power consumption to change. In this way, our small group of home air conditioners reacted to grid changes the way a power plant would – using more or less energy to balance the grid and keep the frequency near 60 hertz.
Moreover, our system was designed to keep home temperatures within the same small temperature range around the set point.
Testing the approach
We ran our system in four tests, each lasting one hour. We found two encouraging results.
First, the air conditioners were able to provide frequency regulation at least as accurately as a traditional power plant. Therefore, we showed that air conditioners could play a significant role in increasing grid flexibility. But perhaps more importantly – at least in terms of encouraging people to participate in these types of systems – we found that we were able to do so without affecting people's comfort in their homes.
We found that home temperatures did not deviate more than 1.6 Fahrenheit from their set point. Homeowners were allowed to override the controls if they got uncomfortable, but most didn't. For most tests, we received zero override requests. In the worst case, we received override requests from two of the 100 homes in our test.
In practice, this sort of technology could be added to commercially available internet-connected thermostats. In exchange for credits on their energy bills, users could choose to join a service run by the thermostat company, their utility provider or some other third party.
Then people could turn on the air conditioning in the summer heat without that pang of guilt, knowing they were helping to make the grid more reliable and more capable of accommodating renewable energy sources – without sacrificing their own comfort in the process.
Johanna Mathieu, Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, University of Michigan. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Netflix Should Replace Tesla in the "Magnificent Seven"
Tesla has been a huge winner for investors over the long haul, but the business is dealing with notable issues these days. Netflix continues to report double-digit percentage revenue growth and impressive profitability as it leads the streaming industry. The "Magnificent Seven" isn't an official index, but Netflix deserves to be included over the EV maker. 10 stocks we like better than Netflix › Looking back over the past decade and beyond, I don't think there are many folks out there who would deny just how impressive Tesla's success has been. This innovative business, led by polarizing CEO Elon Musk, disrupted the global auto industry with its electric vehicles (EVs). While the EV stock trades 32% below its peak (as of June 10), that's still a gain of 1,810% in the past 10 years. That long-term performance made it one of the world's largest tech companies, which is why Bank of America analyst Michael Hartnett gave it a spot in the "Magnificent Seven" when he introduced the idea of the group in 2023. However, I think it's time to swap the EV maker out of this unofficial grouping and replace it with the more-deserving Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX). Over the years, Tesla shareholders grew used to seeing the company register jaw-dropping sales growth. The picture isn't so rosy anymore, though. Its automotive revenue declined 20% year over year in Q1. In 2024, it reported its first-ever year-over-year drop in deliveries. And the company's profitability has continued to slide as higher interest rates and a more competitive environment have put downward pressure on demand for its vehicles. Musk's push in the political arena might at first have been viewed positively by some investors, as he was positioning himself to have more influence in Washington, D.C., which could have benefited Tesla from a regulatory perspective. But both his time in President Donald Trump's inner circle and his more recent exit from politics, as well as his highly public spat with Trump, have been huge distractions that have certainly damaged Tesla's brand instead. It's safe to say that a company that was once in the fast lane is now stuck in traffic. Tesla will have a lot of work to do in order to get back to its prior glory. While Tesla faces a battle to get itself back on track, Netflix continues to flourish. The streaming stock is up 1,200% in the last decade. The company added 41 million net new customers in 2024, bringing its total to nearly 302 million at year's end. While Netflix chose to stop publicly reporting the number of subscribers it has starting this year, it did increase revenue by 12.5% year over year in the first quarter. It might seem like this streaming platform has saturated its market. However, co-CEO Greg Peters believes there are still "hundreds of millions of folks to sign up." By continuing to focus on creating compelling content offerings all over the world, Netflix is in a position to keep its expansion going. Wall Street's consensus analyst estimates are for its revenue to rise at a compound annual rate of 12.3% between 2024 and 2027. The streaming industry, like the automotive market, is extremely competitive. Netflix co-founder and former CEO Reed Hastings previously said that he counts sleep among the company's key competitors. I don't believe this was a stretch. Netflix goes up against all the other activities consumers can do when it's time to wind down and relax. But to be more specific, people have an almost unlimited number of viewing options at their fingertips today. Netflix is in the lead, though. Data from Nielsen shows that Netflix commanded 7.5% of video viewing time in the U.S. in April, only behind YouTube, which isn't necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison due to the latter largely featuring user-generated content. With its massive subscriber base, and trailing 12-month revenue of $40 billion, Netflix has the financial strength to spend a lot on content and marketing. And it's still able to bring in billions in free cash flow each year. It's important to highlight that the "Magnificent Seven" is not an official index like the S&P 500 is. However, with each passing quarter, Netflix continues to make the case that it deserves to be mentioned with the tech giants in that group. Given the streaming pioneer's ongoing success, it belongs in that exclusive club instead of Tesla. Before you buy stock in Netflix, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Netflix wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $653,702!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $870,207!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 988% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Neil Patel has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Netflix and Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Netflix Should Replace Tesla in the "Magnificent Seven" was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Should You Buy Nvidia Before June 25? Here's What History Says (and It May Surprise You).
Artificial intelligence (AI) powerhouse Nvidia recently impressed investors with soaring revenue that beat analysts' estimates. The stock climbed in the weeks following the report. Investors are closely watching Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang's comments about future prospects for the company and the general AI market. 10 stocks we like better than Nvidia › Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) has been one of the stock market's biggest movers and shakers in recent times. This is because the company plays a key role in a technology that has garnered everyone's attention: artificial intelligence (AI). Nvidia's chips power the training of models that set AI into action, and AI could change the world in much the same way the internet did several years ago. That's why investors have piled into Nvidia stock and have closely tuned in to anything the company's chief executive officer Jensen Huang has said. These comments offer us some visibility on what's ahead for the company -- and even the entire industry. So, it's not surprising that, often, after an Nvidia event, the stock will react. As we look at the calendar, it tells us that one such event is right around the corner. On June 25, Nvidia holds its annual meeting of stockholders. Should you buy the stock before then? History has something to say -- and it may surprise you. Before we get started, let's talk about Nvidia's most recent big moment, and that was the company's first-quarter earnings report on May 28. Nvidia wowed investors once again, as revenue soared 69% to more than $44 billion, surpassing analysts' estimates -- and importantly, the company spoke of ongoing strong demand for its new Blackwell architecture. The platform was designed specifically with inferencing in mind, a smart move considering that is the area of focus for many AI customers. Inferencing is the "thinking" process that results in AI coming up with answers to complex questions, and this requires significant power. "We're off to the races," Huang said during the earnings call, signaling much more growth lies ahead. Nvidia stock climbed in the post-earnings trading session, and though it fluctuated on certain trading days, it delivered a gain of about 6% in the two weeks following the report. Now, let's consider the upcoming shareholders' meeting. The company recently released the agenda, which includes items of business such as the election of directors nominated by the board of directors, advisory approval of executive compensation, and several other matters. These don't stand out as elements that will push the stock higher or lower, though any comments from Huang about the company's prospects could act as a catalyst. What does history show us about Nvidia's stock performance after a shareholders' meeting? As the chart shows, the stock fell in the days following last year's meeting, then went on to rebound in the weeks to follow. Nvidia followed a similar pattern in 2023. And in 2022, the stock also fell following the meeting, but didn't go on to recover so quickly -- in fact, Nvidia delivered a double-digit loss from that point through the end of the year. So it might seem surprising that, in spite of Nvidia's earnings and general message being positive over the past few years, the stock actually fell after each shareholder meeting. It's important to keep in mind, though, that this likely isn't a result of anything said or decided at the annual event. At this point in Nvidia's growth story, investors react to new or extremely strong messages from Huang -- but they may not reward the stock with gains after a "routine" sort of event such as a shareholder meeting. Now let's get back to our question: Should you buy Nvidia before June 25? History tells us there's no need to rush into the stock on anticipation of phenomenal gains following the shareholder meeting. But this doesn't mean Nvidia isn't a buy. The company has built a market-leading position and should maintain this thanks to its commitment to innovation. That makes Nvidia stock a fantastic addition to any AI portfolio, but you don't have to rush into it -- whether you buy Nvidia now or after the meeting, you have a great chance of winning over the long haul. Before you buy stock in Nvidia, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Nvidia wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $653,702!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $870,207!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 988% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Adria Cimino has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Nvidia. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Should You Buy Nvidia Before June 25? Here's What History Says (and It May Surprise You). was originally published by The Motley Fool 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's X down for thousands of US users, Downdetector shows
(Reuters) -Elon Musk's X was down for thousands of users in the U.S. on Saturday, according to outage tracking website There were more than 6,700 incidents of people reporting issues with the social media platform as of 06:07 p.m. ET, Downdetector showed, which tracks outages by collating status reports from a number of sources. Downdetector's numbers are based on user-submitted reports. The actual number of affected users may vary. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten