Smart meter confusion

[JohnW2]

What I have, sort of suits my needs, between the indoor display and the spreadsheet I have maintained for the past three years. I weekly log E + G + W consumption, just to keep an eye on what difference my improvement measures over those years have made. The difference in comfort and consumption are quite noticeable. I just wish I had maintained the records for longer.

Fair enough. The data available to me (without a smart meter) is certainly 'overkill' in many senses. My software collapses it into per minute, per hour and per day figures, and those are what I look at most.

My only real point was that, without a smart meter, I am already getting far more data than a smart meter will ever provide - certainly in terms of the current smart meters/systems, they could not give me anything like as frequent figures, and nor would it be able to give me seoparate figures for each of my phases. So, smart meters are not necessary in order to have useful (or 'more than needed') amounts of data.
[/quote]I think what they are trying to say, is that it is possible to cut down energy bills if you have the knowledge to make use of the data it makes easily available to you. I am much more aware than I used to be.[/QUOTE]Yes, that's their argument. However, even the government only claim that the ~£11 billion 'investment' would only save £23 per year (in electricity bills) across about 36 million households - that's about £828 million per year, so over 13 years before consumers will even get back their £11 billion (which everyone will have paid for).

Looked at in terms of other figures we're being presented with, it is estimated (per EFLI's link) that each household will end up paying about £420 for deployment of smart meters - so, if the result is their saving £23 per year, it will take 18 years for them to even 'break even'.

So, depending upon what figures one uses, something between 13 and 18 years for consumers to even #break even'.

Consumers probably would have got almost as much information by their all being supplied with cheap clip-on 'energy monitors' (which a number of suppliers were doing, anyway), at a cost dramatically less than that of smart meters.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's not being done for the consumers' benefit.

 

[JohnW2]

In my region 15p kWh is now considered a good deal. £75 year Sc.

When I started my current 1-year deal, the best available non-E7 tariff I was being offered was 14.396p (including VAT) per kWh. It will obviously be higher now

Is it still worth having E7 John?

Yes, but the benefit is rapidly diminishing. As I wrote ...

I'm currently saving £150-£200 per year by having E7, in comparison with the best available single-rate tariff offered on E.ON's website. However, even that situation is deteriorating - for several years prior to last April, I has been saving £300+ per year by having E7.

.... and ...

Comparing with what I'm currently paying with what I'm now being offered, that's an increase of about 24% for day units and a horrendous 40% for night units (I've commented before that the night rate is gradually getting closer to day rate) - which seems a bit ridiculous.

At this rate, it probably won't be long before the benefit of E7 disappears - the following compares my E7 with the best non-E7 tariff I was being offered at the time by my supplier. You can see what happened when I started a new tariff deal last April, and worse is probably going to happen this April ..

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It's not being done for the consumers' benefit.

Exactly - but I think you'd probably struggle to find any 'public' mention of any 'benefit' to anyone other than consumers.

The whole thing seems to be a farce.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Robin0577]

Ok. how do you know whats inside.

By watching Big Clive take one apart

 

[AndyPRK]

It’s not one of big Clive’s better videos as he is not aware of the background

 

[SimonH2]

Looked at in terms of other figures we're being presented with, it is estimated (per EFLI's link) that each household will end up paying about £420 for deployment of smart meters - so, if the result is their saving £23 per year, it will take 18 years for them to even 'break even'.

And for something with a useful life of only 10 years - so they will never pay for themselves on those figures. AIUI we were "sold" them on the basis of figures that have since been shown to be "optimistic" to say the least. As BAS is happy to point out, it takes no fancy gadget to work out that if you switch something on for less time then it will use less energy The idea that there would be "massive" energy savings from fitting these was always political wishful thinking - even the TV/Radio adverts admit that the only savings are from user changing their usage.

The data collected is far in excess of what is needed - we've had multi-rate metering for decades with nothing but 2 or 3 registers and monthly/quarterly readings, there's zero need for half-hourly readings so why spend a fortune on the infrastructure to handle that ?
And as many have pointed out, there are far cheaper ways to provide information to users.

As to the remote disconnection facility, that is specified in the SMETS spec - so every meter being installed these days will have it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's gratifying that there is so much trust in the Government, however:

The idea that there would be "massive" energy savings from fitting these was always political wishful thinking

Or perhaps it's not wishful thinking but just a sop.

there's zero need for half-hourly readings so why spend a fortune on the infrastructure to handle that ?

They are not spending anything - you are paying.

And as many have pointed out, there are far cheaper ways to provide information to users.

It's nothing to do with information - unless you mean showing you that you are paying a higher rate if you want to cook your dinner at dinner time.

How long do you think people will be allowed to charge their Tesla at today's normal rate for electricity?

A way of collecting the equivalent of today's fuel duty - plus VAT on that duty - will have to be found.

A bit like the congestion charge and ULEZ; on the face of it, discouragement of driving in those areas for pollution reduction but really hoping you do not change your habits but merely pay hugely more for doing the same.

 

[JohnW2]

And for something with a useful life of only 10 years - so they will never pay for themselves on those figures.

Quite so.

However, I don't fully understand 'those figures' - in particular the "£11 billion" one. If my experience is anything to go by, in contrast with the past (when meters were left in service for many decades) it seems that the policy/practice of suppliers in moire recent times to undertake 'routine meter changes' a fair bit more frequently than every 10 years.

If that's the case, and given how long the 'roll out' has taken, they will probably have installed the smart meters at roughly the same time when they were going to change the meter anyway - so the only cost (of installation of the smart meters) should be the price difference between a smart and non-smart meter. If one divides the much-quoted £11billion by the alleged 36 million target households and one gets about £305 - and I certainly cannot believe that the price different (of smart vs non-smart meters) is going to be even remotely like that, particularly when one is buying tens of millions of them. I therefore wonder how much of the £11 million relates to the infrastructure, rather than the installation of smart meters, per se.

we were "sold" them on the basis of figures that have since been shown to be "optimistic" to say the least. As BAS is happy to point out, it takes no fancy gadget to work out that if you switch something on for less time then it will use less energy The idea that there would be "massive" energy savings from fitting these was always political wishful thinking - even the TV/Radio adverts admit that the only savings are from user changing their usage.

I'm not even sure that the politicians ever did even wishfully think about "massive" energy savings. In 2012, before the roll-out really got going (I think that was early 2014), the government wrote (in the document I recently linked to)...

Taking into account the quantifiable costs and benefits to Great Britain from the roll-out of smart metering, a dual fuel household could on average see bill savings of £25 per annum by 2020, rising to £40 by 2030.

And as many have pointed out, there are far cheaper ways to provide information to users.

Quite so, and a good few suppliers had already started providing them.

As to the remote disconnection facility, that is specified in the SMETS spec - so every meter being installed these days will have it.

That's what I thought/suspected. Thanks for confirming. However, we still do have this statement 'out there' that all suppliers have agreed not to use that facility - however much notice you want to pay to it!

Kind Regards, John

 

[cwhaley]

I won't have one until I'm threatened with prison or a fine for not converting. I'm not an anarchist or paranoid I just don't see the point when my current set up (reading the meter and paying the bill) works perfectly fine. They do help older members of the family who can no longer get to the cupboard.

I've recently switched suppliers and their reasons for wanting me to have one include:

"old-style meters force customers into sending readings so they don't rely on estimated readings"
"they bring supply networks into the digital age"
"old meters are decades old"
"they help lower energy usage"

I found the arguments quite amusing, far-fetched and strange to be honest!

 

[Diver Fred]

I don't have 'Smart' meters. 3out of 4 neighbours who have them have to send in meter readings just like they did previously. The other(s) still have estimated bills more often than not.
The last fitted who came round to install one did a check on the mobile phone network
I signal level and reported that fitting the meter was a waste of time 'cause the signal was not good enough!

live in an '80's estate in a village, mast is 3 miles in one direction and 3.5 in other.

 

[AndyPRK]

I'm not a fan of SM but these are true

they don't rely on estimated readings"
"they bring supply networks into the digital age"

If your supply goes down, this is automatically reported back and they can quickly work out what fuse or substation has gone, before you have the time to think, is it 105 I call? and this will mean the power returns much quicker

 

[bernardgreen]

If your supply goes down, this is automatically reported back

that assumes the Smart Meter has a back up battery to provide the power necessary for the call to report loss of power.

Except for pole mounted fuses almost all fuse / breaker states are reported via telemetry to the DNO control room

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

that assumes the Smart Meter has a back up battery to provide the power necessary for the call to report loss of power.

Except for pole mounted fuses almost all fuse / breaker states are reported via telemetry to the DNO control room

The gas meter relies entirely on battery and I understand it sends it's reports to the electric meter and the its the electric meter which does all of the reporting back to the DNO for both. Because the gas meter relies entirely on its battery, unlike the electric meter which has constant mains power, it only provides readings to the indoor display every few minutes, rather than the much more regular electric readings.

 

[bernardgreen]

The gas meter relies entirely on battery

Some years ago there was work done to produce a small generator powered by gas flowing along a pipe. If it ever worked then Smart gas Meters could trickle charge their batteries.