C
Captain Nemesis
If I have my meter moved am I likely to be forced to have a smart one? I know that right now I can refuse if they "offer" me one but if Im requesting a move would they have me over a barrel?
Sponsored Links
Are you moving just the meter, or the incoming mains power feed as well?
C
Captain Nemesis
I know I can do all that if they come to me and "offer" me a smart meter. I just wondered if they could take the view "if you want it moved you have to have a smart one. No, smart meters are not compulsory but neither is moving it. Your choice"
Sponsored Links
C
Captain Nemesis
It would be just the meter to the other side of the wall to tidy up the space under the stairs. TBH its not that big a deal.
Great big lump of a gas meter and moving the incoming point and removing 3-4m of internal pipe is another story,
People keeping saying that, but I wonder where it comes from, since most/all electricity supply contracts I've seen (and, of course, most consumers never actually 'see' theirs!) include an agreement (on the part of the consumer) that the supplier can install any sort of metering equipment (or other equipment required as part of the supply) "that they see fit".
I do wonder concerning "Smart Meters", their "benefits" and "detraction" often posed on sites such as these.
The Australian State (Victoria) which first in the world "imposed" on all vehicles that they MUST be equipped with "Seat Belts" (and that they must be used) has also "required" that all premises be equipped with "Smart Meters" for their electricity supply - paid for by the Electricity Suppliers but (no doubt), eventually paid for by their customers!
While I have not availed myself of any of the the benefits of this, my Son has done so.
By switching to a time/usage related tariff - monitored by his "Smart Meter" - and using devices such as dishwashers late at night or in the early hours of the morning - he has informed me that he is saving about 25% of his electricity bills.
The Australian State (Victoria) which first in the world "imposed" on all vehicles that they MUST be equipped with "Seat Belts" (and that they must be used) has also "required" that all premises be equipped with "Smart Meters" for their electricity supply - paid for by the Electricity Suppliers but (no doubt), eventually paid for by their customers!
While I have not availed myself of any of the the benefits of this, my Son has done so.
By switching to a time/usage related tariff - monitored by his "Smart Meter" - and using devices such as dishwashers late at night or in the early hours of the morning - he has informed me that he is saving about 25% of his electricity bills.
Much of that can be achieved with a traditional (in UK) simple dual-rate (day/night, peak-rate/cheap-rate) tariff with fixed timings of the peak/cheap rate periods, without needing a 'smart' meter.
That's exactly what I do, and by careful timing of when I usually use the most energy-hungry appliances, I generally achieve 45%-50% of my total consumption at 'cheap rate', with a substantial cost saving similar to what your son has experienced.
A system significantly 'smarter' than that really has to wait until 'smart appliances/loads', which 'smart' meters can talk to and control but, since few, if any, such appliances even exist at the moment, I'm pretty sure it will be way beyond my lifetime (and quite probably beyond the lifetimes of most people reasing this) before they are widely deployed (if ever).
Kind Regards, John
The arguments are generally not against the concept or even the meters themselves, it's about the ludicrous way they've been implemented in this country.
We've had multi (well, dual) register meters in this country for decades which proves that you don't need to record and save for posterity half-hourly consumption figures (48 readings per day, for every day). It should be sufficient to record usage/rate aggregated over a metering period (e.g. month) because all that is required is to know how much you've used at what price. But instead we've gone down the road of recording stuff "because we can" and some of us consider that incompatible with basic privacy.
And I'll leave aside the cost, and the lies, and the benefits that actually didn't (and won't) happen because TPTB f'ed up the design criteria.
We've had multi (well, dual) register meters in this country for decades which proves that you don't need to record and save for posterity half-hourly consumption figures (48 readings per day, for every day). It should be sufficient to record usage/rate aggregated over a metering period (e.g. month) because all that is required is to know how much you've used at what price. But instead we've gone down the road of recording stuff "because we can" and some of us consider that incompatible with basic privacy.
And I'll leave aside the cost, and the lies, and the benefits that actually didn't (and won't) happen because TPTB f'ed up the design criteria.
That's all true, for a given tariff (with no more than two, fixed time, charge rates) - and if it's a dual-register meter, one is then restricted to aggregated usage (over a month/ quarter/ whatever) for just two 'charge bands'.
In 'their' eyes, it's surely not just "because we can"? Is not the whole 'idea' that it facilitates tariffs (possibly dynamically changing, and possibly dependent on real-time usage) based on multiple TOU registers and (as I said) ultimately the control of usage/demand achieved by communication between the meter and 'smart appliances'?
I would think that anyone who uses, say, the Internet for any purpose, or who uses any sort of telephone, has a lot more to worry about in relation to "basic privacy" than issues related to 'smart' energy meters, haven't they?
Kind Regards, John
I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not suggesting that a two register meter would do the job, only that you only need as many registers as you use charge rates during a metering period. That could, potentially, be a lot - but realistically we are not likely to ever see 48 different rates during one day, and not a single one of those ever repeated during a month. I think we are likely to see tariffs with maybe a handful of rates, plus a small number of exception rates.
OK, so potentially we could see truly dynamic rates - but given that the regulator specifically slapped the providers across the knuckles and made them simplify their tariffs, it's going to need a change of mindset and I think it's likely to be rare. How many people are likely to accept a tariff that's "you won't know in advance (or more than a few hours ahead) how much you are going to pay".
I'm talking of the difference between (say) perhaps 10 to 20 register readings across a month (with no time/day information except where a rate was only used for one period) vs 1440 readings (for a 30 day month) detailing not only how much you used but when you used it. Yes I agree it's perhaps getting a bit paranoid to worry about it, but the golden rule with information security is that if you don't collect and store some information then it's a darn sight harder to lose control of it. So I'd argue that collecting over 1400 data points/month that have zero use for billing, and storing the whole lot in a database that's ripe for someone to eventually compromise is asking for trouble that's completely avoidable.
I think all of us here would consider any claim that the database will be "100% secure" to be nothing more than a lie because there is no such beast. It's a massive thing, over 17500 readings per meter per year, all stored in a massive database with lots of companies all having some sort of access to it - every meter operator will have write access to some of it, and every energy supplier will have read access to some of it, and we can assume that some official bodies will have privileged access. Of course, that will all be managed 100% correctly, there will never be any mistakes made
That's the "other people|things do bad stuff, so let's not consider this bad stuff" argument. It's not valid in most cases, and this isn't one of the cases where it's valid.
Oh yes, and I forgot the other common criticism - the remote off switch. Again, we are assured that the safeguards are all in place, no-one will be "accidentally" turned off. But given the history of energy companies occasionally turning out bills that are plainly "in error", and the stories some customers have of the problems getting anything corrected, I would not accept any claim that mistakes won't happen - they are bound to, and I expect it will involve a lot of hassle for the unfortunate victims trying to prove "the system" wrong.
Well, that's this thread well and truly hi-jacked
Yes but, as I implied, since (current) 'smart' meters have 'TOU', rather than 'cost', registers, that only works with a non-dynamic tariff - i.e. if the cost of electricity during a particular hour (or 30-min period) of a day is the same for every day. If that's not the case (i.e. if the tariff is 'dynamic'), then, unless there is a re-thinking the whole concept of 'smart' meters (and replacing TOU registers with something else), the time/day information is needed.
My understanding is that some people are already 'accepting' such a tariff - with information on the times/costs for a particular day available the previous day
I'm glad you agree
Obviously true, but if one agrees that it's "a bit paranoid" to worry about the possibility of control over the data being lost, then it's all a bit moot.
I presume that they will keep all of the detailed data for a while, in case there are any queries, complaints or disputes, but I would agree with you that, even with dynamic tariffs, there's probably no need to retain it (and no justification for retaining it) long-term, since one the day/time/usage data has been turned into 'usage per each cost band'(over a whole billing period), that's really all they need to keep. Since we're talking about a potentially astronomical amount of (detailed) data, and since data storage costs money, they may therefore 'collapse' the data after a while.
It's not a question of "not considering it". My point was that 'bad stuff' comes in a spectrum of badness, and most people have far 'worse stuff' to worry about than data relating to their energy consumption.
My understanding is that suppliers have agreed not to use that facility - probably not for any particularly public-spirited reasons but, rather, because of the issue of potential liability if "bad things happen" as a result of their remotely de-energising (or re-energising) someone'd electricity supply.
In any event, it doesn't seem to be a particularly valid concern to me. With an increasing proportion of cutouts located in 'outside cabinets', it's easy enough for them to 'disconnect' someone in the conventional way if they wish to, with minimal hassle (e.g. without needing legal processes to gain access) - and, since, as you say, these companies are known to sometimes make mistakes, they're probably just as likely to go out and pull the wrong customer's cutout fuse as to 'press the wrong button' and remotely disconnect the wrong consumer's supply.
Kind Regards, John
C
Captain Nemesis
Dont want to get into smartmeter arguments - I just wondered if anyone knew if asking for a move would get me a take-it-or-leave-it imposition of one.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
