Connect with us

Published

on

Microgrids are all the rage, and they have been for a few years. Who doesn’t like the idea of a little self-sustainable, independent grid that ropes in solar power, wind power, battery energy storage, EV charging stations and perhaps a tad of some other less common electricity solutions? It sounds simple: tie them all together and make sure they’re working intelligently to constantly supply energy to the people and businesses who need it.

Of course, when it comes to turning an idea into action, things can get a lot more complicated than they look on the surface. Microgrids are often more complicated and challenging to implement than they look on paper. Also, if someone builds such a system, it is evident they’d like to get their money back on it and then make a profit. Trying to forecast whether that will happen and how to make it happen is even more complicated.

Michael Stadler and Adib Naslé published an article in the academic journal The Electricity Journal a couple of years ago, “Planning and Implementation of Bankable Microgrids,” laying out the “multiple, complex steps and software tools” that were available for implementing and evaluating microgrid projects at the time. A key conclusion: “Existing techniques treat every Microgrid project as a unique system, resulting in expensive, non-standardized approaches and implementations which cannot be reliably compared. That is, it is not possible to correlate the results from different planning methods performed by different project developers and/or engineering companies.” The industry has been lacking uniform approaches and evaluation systems to plan and optimize microgrid systems efficiently and at scale.

Furthermore, the planning and evaluation systems in place were not set up to be easily understandable and usable by different key players in developing, investing in, financing, or approving microgrids. The authors write, “For this sophisticated engineering task, tools and models are needed that can include GridLAB-D (GridLab-D, 2017) […] or OpenDSS, designed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1997–2018). Some of these analyses introduce considerable complexities and need an engineering background, limiting the usability for certain stakeholders such as bankers, investors, or real estate companies. Furthermore, most of the time, the technical design process (cable and transformer sizing) is completely decoupled from the conceptual design (selecting and placing technologies), and no integration exists, obstructing any data flow. This is especially problematic when the technical design reveals issues with the underlying conceptual design, leading to unplanned engineering time and costs.”

What is their solution? A unified software system with integrated design stages and a user-friendly experience that allows anyone from bankers to engineers to plan, visualize, and optimize a project. And that’s what these guys are now offering through XENDEE — “one single platform, allowing multiple views, complexity levels, and details depending on the user class, i.e., engineer versus financier versus construction consultants.” In fact, XENDEE’s software platform recently won the prestigious 2021 Edison Gold Award in Human Critical Infrastructure. Here’s a video overview, but I’ll cover some of the core company highlights below if you’re not keen on watching the full rundown:

XENDEE describes their platform as a “streamlined interface” that “removes traditional technical barriers and enables new users from business, sales, financial and engineering backgrounds to accurately screen Microgrid investment opportunities in minutes.” This speed and efficiency in validating projects can also be a big deal for companies and government organizations looking to scale microgrid projects faster and further.

Image credit: Xendee

An important element — perhaps the key element — here is that funding institutions and engineers/developers can use the XENDEE platform together to optimize both technical and financial goals. “Additionally, our physically-based economic decision support system couples financial optimization with detailed electrical power system analysis to verify resilience and financial viability before the first cable is laid.”

Image credit: Xendee

You don’t have the technicians looking at one thing, the finance people looking at something else, and a person or team in the middle trying to understand both and translate as needed. Using an old cliche, you don’t end up trying to stuff a square block into a circular hole — and ending up with hair on the floor from frustration and failure.

“XENDEE’s immersive user experience and generative design optimization technology considers millions of possibilities and autonomously creates the optimal Microgrid system, investment thesis, and control strategy that best meets your customer’s envisioned benefits and goals in minutes.”

Naturally, this is marketing talk and pretty pictures of an attractive software platform. The proof is in the pudding. Does this work as eloquently explained? Well, you can’t confirm that without trying it out, and we’d recommend scheduling a product demonstration with a member of the XENDEE team using this link. If your mouth is starting to water and you’re in this industry, note that XENDEE highlights and summarizes four key stages where its software can be used to optimize time efficiency and cost efficiency: 1) Client Feasibility Study, 2) Custom Tailored Bankability Study, 3) Balance of System Engineering Analysis, 4) Implementation Management.

1. Client Feasibility Study

XENDEE’s immersive user experience and generative design optimization technology considers millions of possibilities. It autonomously creates the optimal Microgrid system, investment thesis, and control strategy that best meets your customer’s envisioned benefits and goals — in minutes.

Image credit: Xendee

2. Custom Tailored Bankability Study

Enrich feasibility studies with highly detailed modeling features that capture almost any imaginable scenario. Then let XENDEE’s unique bankability analysis capabilities generate custom-built solutions optimized to your customer’s exact objectives and needs with unmatched accuracy and speed.

Image credit: Xendee

3. Balance of System Engineering Analysis

Accurately determine Balance of System (BOS) costs with XENDEE’s integrated power system one-line diagram, time-series power flow, and transient stability analyses. Easily optimize the size of cables, transformers and other components required to ensure safe and reliable operation.

Image credit: Xendee

Finally, XENDEE’s custom-tailored project management information system delivers a centralized and straightforward cloud-based solution to instantly identify problems and determine project status. Deviations from the plan are highlighted and indicate effects on the overall project delivery timeline.

Image credit: Xendee

One of the greatest things we can do worldwide to facilitate the use of clean energy and reduce carbon emissions is to more quickly and efficiently roll out distributed energy microgrid solutions. I hope to see XENDEE’s platform get into the hands of many more developers, engineers, government officials, and financiers in order to help achieve that. I have not seen a comparably compelling platform in my years of covering this sector — with the caveat being that I also haven’t personally developed or financed a microgrid project, so can only provide this top-level view of this solution and the microgrid world as a whole.

***

This article was supported by Xendee.

 

Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.

 

 


Advertisement



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

Hyundai recalls more than 145,000 EVs

Published

on

By

Hyundai recalls more than 145,000 EVs

Hyundai Motors is recalling 145,235 EVs and other “electrified” vehicles in the US, citing concerns about a loss of driving power, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said on Friday.

The NHTSA announced this morning that the recall affects selected IONIQ 5 and IONIQ 6 EVs, as well as certain luxury Genesis models, including the GV60, GV70, and G80 electrified variants, from the 2022-2025 model years, Reuters reported.

2025-Hyundai-IONIQ-5-prices
2025 Hyundai IONIQ 5 (Source: Hyundai)

It looks like the issue stems from “the integrated charging control units in these vehicles, which may become damaged and fail to charge the 12-volt battery. This malfunction could lead to a complete loss of drive power, posing safety risks for drivers,” the NHTSA stated.

If you’re an owner of one of these Hyundai models dating 2022-2025, stay tuned. Hyundai has not yet provided a timeline as to when affected vehicles will be repaired.

To make that happen, the company’s dealers will inspect and replace the charging unit and its fuse if necessary, NHTSA said. Free of charge, of course.

Importantly, no crashes, injuries, fatalities, or fires due to this issue have been reported in the US, Hyundai reported.


If you’re an electric vehicle owner, charge up your car at home with rooftop solar panels. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing on solar, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla brings ‘Actually Smart Summon’ to Europe and Middle East where FSD is limited

Published

on

By

Tesla brings 'Actually Smart Summon' to Europe and Middle East where FSD is limited

Tesla announced that ‘Actually Smart Summon,’ its autonomous driving feature that enables moving its vehicles without anyone inside over short distances, is now being launched in Europe and the Middle East.

The automaker’s Full Self-Driving suite of features has been limited in those markets due to regulations and Tesla’s focus on making them work in North America first.

Actually Smart Summon is the vision-only version of Tesla’s “smart summon” feature, which was released years ago on Tesla vehicles with ultrasonic sensors.

When Tesla transitioned away from ultrasonic sensors, Smart Summon was one of the missing features that Tesla had yet to adapt to the vision-only (cameras and neural nets) system.

CEO Elon Musk said that it would be coming in 2022, but it finally came only a few months ago, in 2024.

However, that’s only in North America where Tesla focuses its Full Self-Driving (FSD) development, the feature package that includes Actually Smart Summon, also referred to as ‘ASS’.

Most of Tesla’s other markets, including Europe, don’t have the same capabilities under the Full Self-Driving package. That’s partly due to regulations, but Tesla also focuses on making the features work on North American roads first.

Now, Tesla has announced that its Actually Smart Summon feature is launching in Europe and the Middle East:

The feature can only be used on private roads, like parking lots and driveways. Most people have used it to bring their vehicles parked in a large parking lot to them as they exit a store or restaurant. However, the vehicle moves quite slowly under the feature and the owner needs to keep an eye on it at all time and be ready to cancel the summon as Tesla doesn’t take any responsibility for accidents caused by using Actually Smart Summon., like all other FSD features.

Therefore, most people I know who have the feature, myself included, tried once or try to see or impress some friends who have never seen a car move without anyone inside and then stopped using it.

The feature’s main useful use-case is for people with extremely tight parking spots. It enables them to exit the vehicle before it is in its final parking spot and then move the car in and out remotely.

However, that has been the case for years with the regular Smart Summon, as you generally don’t need the vehicle to handle complex parking lots. You mostly need it to move a few feet forward or backward.

But a recent update has broken this feature for some people. We recently reported on a very unfortunate situation that resulted in a Tesla owner having to get out of his car through his trunk.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Big auto learned its lesson? It’s begging Trump not to blow up emissions rules

Published

on

By

Big auto learned its lesson? It's begging Trump not to blow up emissions rules

US Automakers are planning to ask Mr. Trump to retain President Biden’s EPA exhaust rules, in the face of signs that Mr. Trump might try to reverse them. If the rules are reversed, it would cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of deaths per year.

Interestingly, this is the opposite of what big auto did the last time a reality TV show came to the White House – signaling that they have perhaps learned their lesson this time ’round.

First, some history.

In the middle of the 20th century, the effects of human activity on the atmosphere became readily apparent. Certain cities – with Los Angeles among the forefront – were choked by smog, and it was soon found out that vehicle pollution was the primary reason for this smog.

Since Los Angeles was one of the most smog-choked cities, California led the way on clean air regulation, creating the California Air Resources Board in 1967 (under then-Governor Ronald Reagan).

The federal government gave California special dispensation to set stricter regulations than the rest of the country, in recognition that it had a unique smog problem in its primary metropolis. California has retained this dispensation, in the form of a “waiver,” since then. And other states can follow California’s rules, but only if they copy all of the rules exactly.

Thus, there have been two separate sets of clean air regulation in this country since then – the federal rules, and then the “CARB states” which follow California’s rules.

In 2012 that finally changed, when President Obama’s EPA negotiated with California to finally harmonize these standards and also implement higher fuel efficiency nationwide. This would have been a huge boon for both industry and consumers, saving money and giving regulatory certainty to the auto industry.

But then, in 2016, the candidate who got the 2nd most votes in the presidential election was headed for the White House. And automakers responded by immediately lobbying to torpedo these standards, even before inauguration.

Now, you might think that asking a profoundly ignorant individual, who ended up staffing the EPA with bought-and-sold science deniers (huh, that would never happen again would it?), to change rules which had already been set through years of negotiation and lobbying was not a great idea. And you’d be right.

Not long after automakers had the dumb idea to ask an idiot to fix something that wasn’t broken, that idiot went and broke things further, fracturing the agreement between California and the federal government and ensuring less regulatory certainty for automakers.

After realizing their blunder (which they could have avoided by, y’know, thinking at all about it beforehand), big auto relented and asked the government to please not implement the rollbacks automakers had asked for. Some companies even forged their own agreement with California.

But it was too late, and we are now back in the era of disparate regulatory regimes – something which John Bozzella, head of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (formerly called Global Automakers), keeps complaining about these days, despite having lobbied for exactly this in the first place.

The US EPA and California are still not fully harmonized, but both released recent new standards which do have somewhat similar targets. If a manufacturer builds towards one set of rules, they’ll probably not be too far off from meeting the other.

So in the end, we did get better emissions regulations and California has continued to push forward with clean air regulations, thus signaling a failure on the part of Mr. Trump to cause the long term harm to Americans that he and his oil industry solicitors so desperately seem to desire.

The most recent EPA standards, finalized in March (after being softened at the auto industry’s request), do not mandate any particular powertrain, but rather require steep emissions cuts – and EVs are the easiest way to achieve lower emissions.

Notably, Tesla lobbied in favor of making this last set of standards stronger, and they also lobbied against ruining the Obama/CA standards in 2016 – being one of very few automakers who were on the correct side of that discussion.

Despite that the President Biden EPA’s rules do not mandate any particular powertrain, Mr. Trump, in his usual ignorance, has said that he will end the nonexistent EV mandate. And now that he has received more votes than his opponent for the first time (after three tries, and despite committing treason in 2021 for which there is a clear legal remedy), it looks like the upcoming EPA might be directed to end these emissions cuts and fuel/health cost savings for Americans.

But in this instance, it sounds like the automakers might actually do the right thing for once, and ask the government not to do any rollbacks, and instead let them continue on with the plans without disruption from a convicted felon who seems determined to cede a US EV manufacturing boom back to China.

Detroit’s Big Three automakers – GM, Ford and Stellantis – are all reportedly trying to figure out how to ensure that these rules stay in place. The mentality is that constantly changing regulations are not beneficial for companies – particularly in the auto realm, where models take on the order of 7 years to plan and execute. Long-term planning is important for the hundreds of billions in manufacturing investment that EVs have attracted in the US during Biden’s EV push.

These attitudes are notable, given that this is not what automakers did in 2016/2017. That time, they compulsively pushed for fewer regulations, and now they are asking for regulations to remain in place.

It’s further notable that Tesla CEO Elon Musk, whose company lobbied strongly in favor of emissions cuts and makes more use of the federal EV tax credit than any other company, is now allied with the very entity that’s looking to harm EVs. It seems that we have entered opposite world.

So it remains to be seen where we will go from here – on the one hand, doctorsnursesscientists, environmental groupsmany businessespeople who recognize that they have lungs which they would like to continue using, and so on, generally support the strongest regulation possible. Now, automakers have been added to the pile asking for strong regulations.

On the other hand, a former reality TV host – tagged along with by the CEO of the company that has sold more electric cars than any other – seem determined to kill electric cars, despite the harm that would cause to Americans’ pocketbooks and health insurance premiums. And that famously vindictive character may be even more spurred towards this harmful course of action after failing in his efforts the first time.

Who ya got?


Charge your electric vehicle at home using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending