Load shedding by Smart Meters

[pete50]

Good grief people surely you "intelligent" people have realised that smart meters are the biggest scam after equity release and catalytic converters (there are other money making scams). The ONLY reason utility companies are pushing smart meters and water meters is to scam more money from the consumer. I'm fairly sure that legislation will come out soon to make it law that every house is fitted with smart meters and water meters. Until that time they will put those things on my property over my dead body.

 

[ericmark]

I was told years ago we had duel supplies and lighting was separate to power, one paid more for power than lighting and people would plug in items like irons into the lights, which resulted in no earth, the duel tariff was abandoned, not before some were fined for using lighting outlets for power, but it was on a safety issue that we got one supply for both lights and power.

Clearly to split it requires new consumer units or double consumer units as used with off peak years ago, and all existing Smart meters would be redundant, plus of course most houses would need rewiring so fridge and freezer were separate to other power using items.

The Falklands Island Company villages had part time power, from 6 pm to 10 pm and from 9 am to 12 am to do cleaning this however resulted in only chest freezers, no upright freezers and clearly no auto de-frost, I found to my cost if you just happen to lose power just after defrost cycle after just 2 hours the top has started to defrost, if at any other time then 6 to 8 hours with upright, however in real terms maximum safe time to power off frost free freezer is one hour.

High power domestic today is.
1) Shower
2) Domestic hot water
3) Central heating/cooling
4) Cooking
5) Cloth and kitchen washing and drying.
The latter is a problem as there would be a waste of food if power lost half way, and not so keen being soaped up and having to wash off with cold, so in real terms only power that is either worth turning off and would not require warning first or warning before switching back on is what is already switched with economy 7 and the like, even the washing machine and dish washer has no memory as to where in cycle, so they would need redesigning first.

So a duel meter where the non essential supply is switched by supplier could work for heating and other items, but it seems the advantage of duel supplies is reducing no increasing so why would the general public want to buy new equipment able to use it, it would be simple enough to design a washer which would auto start when power switched on, so it would complete a cycle before being turned off, however this would likely change the working pattern of the house wife.

Years ago we had wash day, with the old twin tub with spinner and mangle the same water was used for all cloths, starting with whites and finish with overalls. The tub would be filled 4 or 5 times, amount of water used was likely much less, and could be filled with hot or cold and hot water heated by back boiler, today near impossible to find a washing machine that has ability to use domestic hot water. Yes both water and power used has reduced from the early automatic washer, however not so sure compared with old twin tub.

So to work it would likely require a change in life style, rewires, and loads of specially designed equipment, when the ELCB first came out they were separate units, you could not buy a metal split load with some slots for RCBO's consumer unit, they were simply not made, go to a Turkish hotel and from the desk they can activate or de-activate the aircon the hotel is designed that way, not so easy to do in this country where we often don't have back up generators to keep small premises running.

 

[JohnW2]

Good grief people surely you "intelligent" people have realised that smart meters are the biggest scam after equity release and catalytic converters (there are other money making scams). The ONLY reason utility companies are pushing smart meters and water meters is to scam more money from the consumer.

That's the fear that a group of people appear to have, but I think one has to question whether whether it is 'the others' or that group which is failing to apply "intelligence".

If by "to scam more money from the consumer", you think that smart meters will in some way facilitate suppliers getting 'more money than they need to' from consumers (i.e. make excessive profits), then regulation is not going to be allowed to happen, even with a privatised utility industry..

The main (probably essentially the only) reason why utility companies are pushing 'smart meters' is that they are being forced to try to meet government targets, and the reason government is pushing for those targets is that they believe (rightly or wrongly, probably the latter) that such meters will result in a reduction in energy usage by consumers - hence lower bills for consumers than if they did not have smart meters (introduction of smart meters will not change the underlying wholesale price of energy).

Smart meters, in their present and envisaged forms, cannot and will not, per se, result in money being 'scammed' from consumers. If the supply/demand situation changes such that it becomes necessary to charge different prices at different times of day (in an attempt to persuade people to change their usage patterns, and therefore help to avoid losing their supply completely at times), then that will probably have to be tried -0 but that's nothing directly to do with 'smart meters'. As I recently wrote, I have a non-smart meter which would allow electricity price to be priced differently for a dozen or so time periods within the day.

Most of the 'big brotherish' things that people seem to fear most cannot be achieved by 'smart' meters - they would require 'smart appliances' and/or some sort of 'smart CUs' - and they are not going to appear and be widely deployed for very many decades (if ever). Even if they ever do come, they will be attempts to preserve energy supplies, by reducing usage and therefore reducing bills - so it's far from clear in what sense that would qualify as a 'scam'

I'm fairly sure that legislation will come out soon to make it law that every house is fitted with smart meters and water meters.

That probably will happen but, as above, it's because the government believe (I strongly suspect wrongly) that smart meters will appreciably reduce energy usage (with the potential to reduce energy bills), not as a means of increasing the profits of energy suppliers (why on earth would government want to do that?).

I would say that the only major way in which consumers will suffer (financially) in the short/medium term is by (unavoidably) having to pay for the deployment of smart meters (and associated infrastructure) - which, as above, is happening because government believe (probably mistakenly) that it will markedly reduce energy consumption. Applying "intelligence" to the issue, I don't see any other way in which 'smart' meters will disadvantage consumers in the short-/medium term (if ever).

In passing, as for water meters being a 'scam', when I had mine installed, it resulted in dramatic reduction in my bills, which has persisted. It would presumably only result in appreciable increases in bills for those who use excessive amounts of water (which could be regarded as 'anti-social' and 'environmentally unfriendly')

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's the fear that a group of people appear to have, but I think one has to question whether whether it is 'the others' or that group which is failing to apply "intelligence".

Hmm...

smart meters are the biggest scam after ... catalytic converters

 

[foxhole]

Smart meters are to provide the sellers more info so they can manage load more easily and save money, there may be in future the ability to link users accounts directly to bank accounts so you literally pay as you use with no wait for the companies to get their money. Of course they will sell it as saving consumers money.

 

[JohnW2]

Smart meters are to provide the sellers more info so they can manage load more easily and save money, there may be in future the ability to link users accounts directly to bank accounts so you literally pay as you use with no wait for the companies to get their money. Of course they will sell it as saving consumers money.

Yes, that's quite possible (provided they can get their communications network to work!).

That might help a bit with their cashflow, although it might even be detrimental even to that, since it seems that many suppliers currently allow quite large credit balances to accumulate on accounts (which cashflow advantage they would lose with 'real-time' billing).

However, other than perhaps having a detrimental effect on customer's cashflow (although, again, possibly the reverse!), I can't see why any such change should cost the customers anything - depending on whether or not any of the (probable) administrative cost reductions were passed on to the customer, it ought to result in either 'no change' or a small reduction in bills, oughtn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

For the supplier to remotely and selectively turn off individual loads requires either that we have 'smart appliances' (none of which, to the best of my knowledge, yet even exist in the UK) and/or that all premises should acquire what would effectively be 'smart CUs', which would allow remote switching of individual circuits (with relays/contactors) - and which would have to be 'sealed' to prevent 'tampering'.

Why would they need to be sealed and tamper-proof?

It's a simple deal - "This is what electricity is going to cost at these times¹ - if you would like a way to reduce your consumption by having high-load appliances turned off during periods of high price we can help you with that. It's entirely up to you - you can carry on using energy the way you do now, and pay the cost of that, or you can take steps yourself to reduce your usage by better controlling what you turn on and when or you can use our EZShed² system to do it for you".

¹ Bear in mind that details of how much and when for demand-management pricing are likely to be published at fairly short notice.

² Trademark applied for.

Any tampering done would mean that the consumer would be circumventing a mechanism which will reduce his bills.

I could envisage a regime where entire tariffs (maybe the standing charge) depend on having load shedding to limit maximum consumption (as has been done in France for many years), but any tampering with that would be very easily detected by any metering system with enough granularity of time recording, and could be very easily "penalised" by retrospective imposition of a higher standing charge with no need for any legal processes. In fact it wouldn't even need to be regarded as "tampering" or "penalising" - time and energy consumption produce the kWh usage you are charged for, peak power consumption produces the standing charge, and everybody pays on the same basis. Just as now there are financial incentives for people to manage their kWh, and possibly to time shift them, there will be ones to manage their instantaneous kW usage and just as now it will be up to them how much they want to bother.


Ultimately the fact that we have an increasing gap between peak demand and peak capacity (a gap which will be increased by increased EV use) is not going to go away. Like all problems based on reality, it does not give a fig about ideology, and cannot be magicked away by it.

The most immediate "big-brotherish" feature of smart metering is the fine-grained control over blackouts - they can be shared and spread out, and vulnerable users who need electricity for life-saving medical devices, for example, can be protected.

Beyond that there comes enforced capping on a per-meter basis - use more than x kW and you get cut off.

If on top of that there comes to be a system whereby consumers can save money via a voluntary cap, then smart appliances will suddenly become much more popular. The fridge freezer and the washing machine and the dryer and the dishwasher all talk to each other and ensure that they do not draw power simultaneously. The technology for this already exists, but as you say there is not yet any demand. But I predict that there will be.

In fact, although "smart" would be a tad of an exaggeration, some appliances already have the ability to delay starting until the off-peak period, don't they.

 

[JohnW2]

Why would they need to be sealed and tamper-proof?

They wouldn't if, as you go on to hypothesise, the only purpose of remote control of loads was to 'help customers' by preventing those loads working at times when electricity was expensive. However, if the supply/demand situation were such that certain loads had to be (totally) 'prohibited' from working at certain times, then it would need to be 'sealed and tamper proof'.

Ultimately the fact that we have an increasing gap between peak demand and peak capacity (a gap which will be increased by increased EV use) is not going to go away. Like all problems based on reality, it does not give a fig about ideology, and cannot be magicked away by it.

Exactly - the problem is the supply/demand one, with or without smart meters. If selective (TOU) price manipulation is required in attempts to reduce demand to within supply capabilities then, so long as we had inadequate generation/distribution capacity to allow a 'free for all', achieving that price manipulation by the use of 'smart' meters would seem to be one of the few options, wouldn't it.

If 'free for all' demand exceeds supply, how can one address that without either using price in an attempt to reduce demand or else by giving Big Brother some control over the demand?

The most immediate "big-brotherish" feature of smart metering is the fine-grained control over blackouts - they can be shared and spread out, and vulnerable users who need electricity for life-saving medical devices, for example, can be protected.

That one is often cited, but I don't understand why it is cited as a 'negative' thing. If 'blackouts' become required (because demand exceeds supply), would it really be preferable to cut off the electricity supply to "vulnerable users who need electricity for life-saving medical devices", rather than to have smart meters?

 

[bernardgreen]

Is it possible to use the battery in an electric vehicle to supply power to a house when load shedding is happening ?

Maybe if THIS is to be believed.

Thought provoking if nothing else

 

[foxhole]

Yes, that's quite possible (provided they can get their communications network to work!).

That might help a bit with their cashflow, although it might even be detrimental even to that, since it seems that many suppliers currently allow quite large credit balances to accumulate on accounts (which cashflow advantage they would lose with 'real-time' billing).

However, other than perhaps having a detrimental effect on customer's cashflow (although, again, possibly the reverse!), I can't see why any such change should cost the customers anything - depending on whether or not any of the (probable) administrative cost reductions were passed on to the customer, it ought to result in either 'no change' or a small reduction in bills, oughtn't it?

Kind Regards, John

Yes it should , but so should a reduction of cost to suppliers is raw fuel prices, but does it?

 

[JohnW2]

Yes it should , but so should a reduction of cost to suppliers is raw fuel prices, but does it?

Not necessarily, no, but the regulator would presumably step in if none of a large reduction in wholesale energy prices was passed on to consumers (i.e. if the utility companies' profits became excessive).

In any event, my point was that whether a reduction in costs was the result of automated real-time billing, a reduction in wholesale fuel prices or anything else, even if none of that reduction were passed on to consumers, the one thing that certainly should not happen is that prices to consumers would rise as a result of those reductions. In other words, even if they did not become 'better off', no consumer should end up 'worse off' as a result of reductions in costs.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Is it possible to use the battery in an electric vehicle to supply power to a house when load shedding is happening ?

Obviously not technically impossible, but I'm not sure what it would achieve, since it would not alter the overall supply/demand situation.

In particular, the situation we appear to be contemplating is one in which large amounts of electricity was being used to charge EVs at particular times of day (probably night-time) - so the peak demand (hence potential need for 'load shedding') would occur at the very time when EVs were being charged (and because of that very reason), hence not in a position to 'power a house'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

Obviously not technically impossible, but I'm not sure what it would achieve, since it would not alter the overall supply/demand situation.

All explained HERE

 

[JohnW2]

All explained HERE

They still can't change the laws of physics - all they can do is store energy at times of low demand and release it at times of high demand (just like a 'storage heater'!).

As I see it, it could only offer a benefit if periods of high demand were due to something other than EV charging, in which case the EVs' batteries would simply be being used a a method of temporary storage of energy (storing during low demand periods and releasing during high demand ones) - i.e. just as if the batteries were installed in the home, rather than a vehicle.

However, as I said, the situation we are contemplating is one in which periods of very high demand may come to be caused by EV charging, in which case the whole idea would obviously fall flat on its face.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

there are periods of high demand, and there are periods of high supply, not necessarily at the same time. Managing load is easier and cheaper than managing supply, especially when you have remote reading and control of meters, and a contract that permits you to vary prices and availability. Interruptible supply tariffs in industry have been around for decades.

Solar, wind and tidal power have negligible incremental cost, when available, so will sell into any market. Nuclear is not cheap, but is produced whether you want it or not, so will sell into any market.

solar power can be forecast with good accuracy years in advance, because it varies with the seasons. Wind varies with weather as well, but can be forecast reasonably well for a week or two.