Load shedding by Smart Meters

[JohnW2]

But then the simpler the thing the easier it would be to add "smart" functionality to it, and hence to the installed base, by creating "smart" FCUs or external switches.

Who would deny me access to the cable between the external 'smart' FCU/switch, and how?

 

[AndyPRK]

If it didn't cause you a problem, why would you want to tamper with it?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I said, that sort of 'broadcast information' (conceptually the same as 'teleswitches') is child's play. However, as I said, I have a think that SMETS requires security handshakes (in both directions) with each individual meter - which, if the case, would change a totally trivial exercise into a very major one.

Any remote load shedding or disconnections would of course need to be as secure as reasonably possible. But apart from malicious "pranking" I can't immediately think of a reason for security like that for the pushing of price data.

EV charging is a whole different issue, since a way is going to have to be found to specifically apply the equivalent of petrol/diesel excise duty to charges for it.

Road use. You can't hike the price of all electricity to an "EV tariff", any "smart" technology to detect EV charging would be subject to circumvention hacks and would seriously complicate topping up your car with a 13A lead whilst visiting Aunty Flo. Extra layers of complexity would be needed if EV batteries were to be used as storage for non-EV-use energy. Road use charging need not necessarily be "big-brother intrusive" - if no add-on stuff like traffic management was done then a simple in-arrears levy, based entirely on charge used, with no time and place recording, would probably do. If required then time and place anonymised rate of use data could well allow some sort of "congestion charge" to be implemented.

But as I've said before, I think that the wholesale adoption of EVs will go hand-in-hand with new models of vehichle ownership and use.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Who would deny me access to the cable between the external 'smart' FCU/switch, and how?

Nobody. Why would they? This is about addressing the need to add some kind of "smart" control to low-cost dumb devices. The biggest problem I've thought of so far is that the "obvious" way to communicate with the accessory would be PLT.

The supply cable is just a normal one in your installation.

If on the load side you want an aquarium as well as an immersion heater then who loses out, apart from possibly the fish?

 

[JohnW2]

If it didn't cause you a problem, why would you want to tamper with it?

W're not talking about me but, rather, about the concept.

If the worst fears of some people ever come to pass, and we find ourselves with a system that is able to deny a customer use of certain load(s) at times when they might want to use them, such a system would presumably need to try to be 'tamper-proof', wouldn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Nobody. Why would they? This is about addressing the need to add some kind of "smart" control to low-cost dumb devices. ... The supply cable is just a normal one in your installation. .... If on the load side you want an aquarium as well as an immersion heater then who loses out, apart from possibly the fish?

That's not the issue. If this much-feared Big Brother decided that it was going to deny electricity to my immersion at a time when I wanted it to be powered, there would have to be a way of preventing my bypassing whatever 'remotely-operated switch' was doing the denying, wouldn't there?

 

[JohnW2]

Any remote load shedding or disconnections would of course need to be as secure as reasonably possible. But apart from malicious "pranking" I can't immediately think of a reason for security like that for the pushing of price data.

Nor can I - but, as I've said (and maybe I'm wrong), I seem to recall that SMETS has blanket requirements in relation to communication security, without 'exceptions' for certain types of data.
In any event, I would suggest that "apart from malicious pranking" is a pretty big "apart from". If some prangster started transmitting incorrect 'price data' to millions of meters, there would be complete chaos (even if no-one actually 'lost out' as a result).

 

[winston1]

I think the list is important. As when you start to think about it, the list of things you can turn off for a short while without the customer being bothered isn't very long. And probably only applies to non gas homes.

I thought the BBC transmitter valves were on their last legs, so we really need to move away from that solution and get more modern

They are NOT BBC transmitter valves. As I have already said the BBC don't own any transmitters. That being the case it is up to the present owners (can't remember who they are now) to keep the transmitter running even if it means getting replacements made.

 

[bernardgreen]

A glass valve used in the long wave transmitters can be seen HERE

High power glass valves can be replaced by ceramic equivalents which are much easier to manufacture and use.

and for some reading https://www.bbceng.info/Operations/transmitter_ops/Reminiscences/Daventry/bowman1.htm

 

[JohnD]

Who would deny me access to the cable between the external 'smart' FCU/switch, and how?

they wouldn't need to. If your tariff was going to charge you £1 per kWh between 6pm and 10pm, you would be at liberty to leave your immersion running, and pay through the snout, if you chose to override the load-shedder.

meanwhile my LED lightbulbs would cost me next to nothing for that period.

 

[JohnD]

it is up to the present owners

...if they had signed a contract with that obligation in it, and if the users of the service had agreed to pay for it.

Which, given that the government hopes to make us all go onto DAB and scrap our old radios, and given that the BBC had already warned users that LW was obsolescent, may not be the case.

 

[JohnW2]

they wouldn't need to. If your tariff was going to charge you £1 per kWh between 6pm and 10pm, you would be at liberty to leave your immersion running, and pay through the snout, if you chose to override the load-shedder.

We appear to be talking about different things ...

... I am talking about the situation (which some people seem to be contemplating and fearing) in which, in the name of reducing demand, one would be 'prohibited' from using a particular load (immersion, tumble dryer or whatever) at a particular time of day, regardless of what the cost of electricity was at that time.

... but, as I keep saying, I really very much doubt that will happen (if ever) during the lifetimes of (m)any of those reading this, so it's certainly not something that I would personally lose any sleep over!

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

.. I am talking about the situation (which some people seem to be contemplating and fearing) in which, in the name of reducing demand, one would be 'prohibited' from using a particular load (immersion, tumble dryer or whatever) at a particular time of day, regardless of what the cost of electricity was at that time.

That is what seems to be in the pipeline.

 

[JohnD]

by raising the price during the "prohibited" periods, your tariff includes, effectively, the "fine" to punish offenders.

Did you know that rich people are allowed to park on double yellow lines and drive in bus lanes?

All they have to do is pay the fines for traffic violation.

If you're rich enough, what do you care?

 

[AndyPRK]

I would hope supplies would be denided for only 30 mins at a time.


Aren’t we lucky in this county to have 60A+ supplies.

How do Europe Cope!