Smart meters have never connected

[Harry Bloomfield]

Ps I’m not changing my habits

Then you will eventually pay for your habit. Octopus would have charged 150% of the fixed cost per Kwh between 17:30 ND 18:00 today, but only 75% an hour later.

 

[JohnW2]

I have just been forced to get a smart meter fitted, told the law changed 6 weeks ago and now I can't get a feed in tariff without one. ...

What 'law' would that be? Kind Regards, John

He just told me law had changed, ...

I thik you're probably too quick/prepared to believe everything you are 'told'. To the best of my knowledge, there certainly isn't any law that requires one to have a #smart' meter under any circumstances.

I have since looked on the web and some companies do not say they need a smart meter, but they offer half the rate to those who do require a smart meter. Scottish Power it seems require "You must have a Smart or AMR meter that can obtain half hourly readings and consent to Scottish Power taking them."

As I've often said to the anti-'smart' meter people, although there is seemingly at present no compulsion for a consumer to have a 'smart' meter, I do not doubt that it will be increasingly the case that suppliers only offer attractive tariffs to those who do have such meters - and that is a commercial decision for them to make.

Although you refer to "a feed in tariff", I presume that you're actually just talking about payments for export, since the ('ridiculously generous') "Feed In Tariff Scheme" closed to new applicants some time ago. I'm also a little surprised that you are contemplating a significant amount of export. I thought your set-up had appreciable battery storage, in which case you would only export if your total daily generation exceeded your total daily demand, which I would not really have expected?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

They can, never will never reduce usage - what they can help with is in reducing the peak loads.

I don't believe that is 'their' thinking.

I believe the expectation is that whose who were previously ignorant about the amount of energy used by particular loads will come to understand this a bit better if they have a 'smart' meter (with an in-house real-time display, and therefore actually modify their usage of energy (electricity and gas) so as to actually reduce their total consumption. I certainly know of some people who have appreciably reduced their usage of such things as tumble driers and fan heaters since a 'smart' meter has brought home to them the impact this was happening on their bills, nd others who have turned their thermostats down a degree or three when they discovered how much impact that could have on their energy usage.

However, I am less certain as to how likely it is that such will happen, in general, to an appreciable extent, particularly beyond the initial period of 'novelty' when a 'smart' meter is installed.

In any event, as I have often said, I would have thoiught that that could have been achieved much more simpoly, quicker and cheaply (and maybe more effectively) by a campaign of education about the energy usage of various loads than by the incredibly expensive and protracted deployment of 'smart meters'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Why aren’t those in power , pardon the pun, just come clean about what they are trying to achieve ?

What do you think they are actually trying to achieve?

I think they have probably been seriously misguided, but I suspect that they sincerely believe that these meters will have a beneficial effect on energy demand.

 

[JohnW2]

..... In reply, I have said that I would 'mind' doing as they ask, I pointed out that the primary reason i agreed to their fitting a 'smart' meter was their assurance that it would remove the need for me to provide them with readings (obviously difficult for me, since I am rarely there) - so that if they want readings, they will simply have to send a meter reader to get them - and adding that, since there is only occasionally someone there to provide access, the meter reader will have to make an appointment to visit at a date/time which is convenient for me! ... I await their response to my reply

'Sadly', in some senses (I was rather looking forward to some 'interesting exchanges' with them ), I see that the meter has, as of yesterday, started sending them meter readings again

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

What do you think they are actually trying to achieve?

To enable the energy companies to charge more at peak times in the hope that people delay using power at "peak" times

But thats my educated guess because all the nonsense about the benefits of SM's seem a little far fetched.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I don't believe that is 'their' thinking.

In any event, as I have often said, I would have thoiught that that could have been achieved much more simpoly, quicker and cheaply (and maybe more effectively) by a campaign of education about the energy usage of various loads than by the incredibly expensive and protracted deployment of 'smart meters'.

Generating plant has to be there, and be available to match the maximum load, at other times it is just expensive wasted capacity. The only way to persuade people to avoid the peaks for their own consumption, is by monitoring and charging more for peak usage. The only way to do that is via SM's, reporting consumption every 30 minutes, charging more during peaks, less during none-peak times.

I do agree their is confusion amongst the general public, about what most of their own energy. Energy, is now one of the bigger monthly bills I pay, but I at least have done all I can reasonably do, to minimise my own bills.

 

[JohnW2]

To enable the energy companies to charge more at peak times in the hope that people delay using power at "peak" times

One can try to achieve that my the use of 'carrots' or 'sticks'. You are suggesting the latter but, traditionally, dual-rate (and more complex) tariffs have basically used 'carrots' - with the 'peak time' cost being only slightly more than with a single-rate tariff, but the cost at 'off-peak' times being a lot less than with a single-rate tariff.

In terms of that aim, all that matters is that peak-time usage is more expensive than 'off-peak' usage (i.e. 'off-peak' usage is cheaper), without a need for the cost of peak-time usage to be particularly high. I doubt that regulators would tolerate a situation in which the cost of peak time usage was increased to an 'unnecessary' extent.

Since, traditionally, the circadian pattern of consumption has been essentially constant and predictable for a very long time, that can be (and has been) achieved without fancy meters, by having fixed switch-over times. The advantage of 'smart' meters is that the timings can be dynamic, and thus can change if/when the patterns of usage change. Having said that, one of the most predictable changes in those patterns will presumably be the consequence of progressively increasing amounts of nocturnal EV charging - which will tend to change the usage patterns in the manner we would like.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I have to keep reminding you that smart meters are installed by order of the government; not the energy companies.

When in recent history has the government used carrots?

 

[JohnW2]

Generating plant has to be there, and be available to match the maximum load, at other times it is just expensive wasted capacity.

Sure, it is obviously desirable that demand be as constant (throughout the 24 hours) as possible. However if, in the manner I described, people are persuaded to reduce their total energy consumption, that would mean that the maximum load the network had to service would be lower.

The only way to persuade people to avoid the peaks for their own consumption, is by monitoring and charging more for peak usage.

OR, as I've just written, to charge less for usage at off-peak times. As I wrote, what matters is that energy is cheaper at off-peak times, and one does not necessarily have to increase the price at peak times - at least, not a lot. As I said, one can use 'carrots' rather than 'sticks' (and that is advantageous psychologically, hence in terms of 'PR').

The only way to do that is via SM's, reporting consumption every 30 minutes, charging more during peaks, less during none-peak times.

Indeed - but, as above, the cost 'during peaks' does not necessarily have to be particulaely high, provided that the off-peak cost is lower. As I also just wrote, 'smart' meters offer the advantage of being able to do this dynamically but crude time-based switching, on the basis of (approximately) known current patters of usage can go a long way to achieving what is wanted.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

I have to keep reminding you that smart meters are installed by order of the government; not the energy companies.

When in recent history has the government used carrots?

It’s my understanding that the government pay for each SM installed

 

[JohnW2]

I have to keep reminding you that smart meters are installed by order of the government; not the energy companies.

Whilst that's literally true, I strongly suspect that it would have happened before long even in the absence of government edict. Generators/suppliers have an interest in 'evening out demand' and, long before anyone had heard of 'smart' meters were offering financial incentives for using off-peak electricity. Technology which enables dynamic changing of TOU tariffs allows them to refine that process.

One needs to remember that the government gain nothing (financially etc.) from all this - their edict presumably results from a sincere belief (which I think is probably mistaken) that it will result in a reduction in energy demand, thereby perhaps helping them in attempts to achieve (seemingly very unwise) 'targets' to which they have committed the country!

When in recent history has the government used carrots?

Whenever there is an upcoming election

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

It seems the smart meter reports every half hour, where the existing system may have a few minutes delay due to server being in China, it is far more rapid to the smart meter so seems a little pointless.

As said it is the goverment who wants them, and one has to wonder why. Looking back in history we had the winter of discontent where electric was turned off in blocks, clearly there are problems with that, turning off power to people being cared for at home would be a problem, which would require them to be rehoused before that block is turned off.

However with smart meters they can select who is turned off. So the venerable can be left unaffected by cuts. I can see no other reason why the goverment want smart meters.

I can see why suppliers want them, I would not want to take readings from a meter not sealed or installed by themselves. So I can see why suppliers want a reasonably tamper proof meter.

So I accept that they want there own meters to record feed in energy and I have not really been forced to have a smart meter, I can opt to not be paid for feed in energy. However that who be cutting of nose to spite my face.

However if I loose grid connection for what ever reason it would be annoying but with battery back up not dangerous to my health.

As to selecting when to use electric, yes I do try to use it when the sun is shining. But if offered cheap rate at fixed times yes could set battery to charge at those times.

But energy saving means a tumble dryer takes a lot longer, so setting run times to use solar power is not that easy. So can't see smart meters changing our use much, and sunny days are now cheaper to the dead of night for anyone with solar.

 

[JohnW2]

It seems the smart meter reports every half hour, where the existing system may have a few minutes delay due to server being in China, it is far more rapid to the smart meter so seems a little pointless.

As said it is the goverment who wants them, and one has to wonder why.

As I wrote, I think they genuinely believe (quite probably mistakenly) that they will result in a significant reduction of total energy demand, hence a bit of a help towards there (probably unachieveable) 'comittment' to a 'net ero' target date.

However with smart meters they can select who is turned off. So the venerable can be left unaffected by cuts. I can see no other reason why the goverment want smart meters.

I thing the 'other reason' (in the eyes of government) is what I have mentioned above and I rather doubt that it is anyuthing to do with wht you suggest.

But energy saving means a tumble dryer takes a lot longer, so setting run times to use solar power is not that easy. So can't see smart meters changing our use much ...

Maybe not your usage. One of my neighbours used to use their tumble drier extensively, throughout the year, essentially just out of hsbit. Wheen they got a 'smart' meter and discovered how much it was costing theem, they re-discovered clothes lines and clothes horses

As I keep saying, for many people the potential benefit (and energy/cost saving) of having a 'smart' meter derives from the education it provides as regards what their various loads are using/costing - but, as I've also said, I think there would have been far simpler, quicker, cheaper, and maybe also more effective, ways of achieving that education other than by deployment of these meters!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It’s my understanding that the government pay for each SM installed

Definitely not.

There has been a surcharge on the bills to raise the originally eleven billion pounds (£400 per household). It is, of course, costing more than first thought now.