What is a "suitable meter"?

[JohnW2]

No, I am talking of the huge price rises in the U.K. in recent years.

If that's the case, why did you talk about a 'rip-off' which was "for some of the time" ?

Whatever, if that's what you were talking ablout, I would say that you are again confusing things by bringing history into gthe equation. It goes without saying that nothing ('smart' meters or otherwise) could result in bills falling (a "saving") to less than they were 10 years ago!

What we (at least I) were discussing is whether having a 'smart' meter installed now can result in a "saving" - i.e. a reduction in bills compared with the situation before one had the SM installed - and, as I've said, the answer to that is, yes, that in certain circumstances (appropriate 'usage patterns') there can be a 'saving', if the SM gives one access to TOU tariffs that would not be available (would be 'impossible') without the SM

 

[JohnW2]

Quite:

Thanks. That certainly illustrates my point that cheap electricity is by no means only available 'in the middle of the night' - but what you have shown surprises even me, and seems pretty strange (difficult to understand).

Your graph shows that the cheapest electricity was available essentially 'throughout the daytime' (09:00 - 16:00) and that the price throughout the night (00:00 - 09:00) was at the highest it ever was, other than for the 'early evening peak'.

Does that make any sense and, if so, what is the explanation?

 

[EFLImpudence]

If that's the case, why did you talk about a 'rip-off' which was "for some of the time" ?

Because the so-called cheaper rate now is comparable to the rate before the rip-off began.

Do you deny the U.K. population is being ripped-off as far as the energy prices are concerned?

Whatever, if that's what you were talking ablout, I would say that you are again confusing things by bringing history into gthe equation. It goes without saying that nothing ('smart' meters or otherwise) could result in bills falling (a "saving") to less than they were 10 years ago!

Ok. Have it your way then.

 

[JohnW2]

Do you deny the U.K. population is being ripped-off as far as the energy prices are concerned?

Although I don't really understand why (so don't really know whether it is any sort of 'rip-off'), it certainly seems to be the case that energy prices in UK are amongst the highest in the world.

In some countries, energy prices seem to be low because they are 'subsidised' by government. However, that's a bit misleading, since they are being subsidised by 'taxpayer's money', so most people (taxpayers) are paying a lot more for energy than they think. I suppose the one advantage of that situation is that the 'subsidy' element of the true total cost is to some extent on the basis of 'ability to pay', since some taxes are, by their nature, income- and/or wealth-related.

How do prices in Portugal compare with those in UK?

Ok. Have it your way then.

It's nothing to do with 'my way', since there's nothing that anyone can do to turn the clock back.

What people are interested in knowing is whether or not, if they have a SM installed today, their bills 'tomorrow' will be less than they were 'yesterday'- and, as I keep saying, the answer is 'potentially yes'.

 

[Why Not Indeed]

what is the explanation?

Solar generation peaks then and it's a weekend so demand is lower.

 

[Why Not Indeed]

what you have shown surprises even me

To be clear, the pattern is representative of the past few weeks even if the magnitude is not. I.e., it's not free in the middle of the day every day.

 

[EFLImpudence]

How do prices in Portugal compare with those in UK?

That's why I mentioned ten years.

The kWh flat rate which is all I have is about the same as it was when I moved here (nearly ten years ago) - around 16 cents.
It did rise to about 20 cents for a while but went down again.
The daily standing charge has increased from 15 cents to 29 cents so the bill has only increased by that €4.20 per month.

There was a firm called at the door once promising cheaper variable rates similar to the things mentioned above which persuaded me to change but it actually worked out dearer so I went back to the national supplier EDP.

 

[JohnW2]

That's why I mentioned ten years. The kWh flat rate which is all I have is about the same as it was when I moved here (nearly ten years ago) - around 16 cents. It did rise to about 20 cents for a while but went down again.

Interesting. What are the primary means of generation there, I wonder?

As you know, most of the large increases here have been in recent years, due to the considerable global increases in oil and gas wholesale prices (which, in turn, have been largely the consequence of 'global events') - something that was not the fault of the UK, and was totally beyond the control of the UK.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

What we (at least I) were discussing is whether having a 'smart' meter installed now can result in a "saving" - i.e. a reduction in bills compared with the situation before one had the SM installed - and, as I've said, the answer to that is, yes, that in certain circumstances (appropriate 'usage patterns') there can be a 'saving', if the SM gives one access to TOU tariffs that would not be available (would be 'impossible') without the SM

I am not aware of any tariff, which is more expensive with a SM installed, versus a dumb meter. Always either the very same tariff is available, or in most cases there are cheaper ones, based on timed uses.

 

[JohnW2]

I am not aware of any tariff, which is more expensive with a SM installed, versus a dumb meter. Always either the very same tariff is available, or in most cases there are cheaper ones, based on timed uses.

Indeed - but I don't think anyone has suggested anything to the contrary. The are countless (mostly 'inevitable') examples of tariffs that are only available to people with an SM, but I've never seen any suggestion that the price of any tariff that is available without an SM is different depending upon whether or not one has an SM.

The important point is obviously that none but the simplest of TOU tariffs (e.g. dual-rate ones like E7) can possibly be offered to people without an SM.

 

[EFLImpudence]

As you know, most of the large increases here have been in recent years, due to the considerable global increases in oil and gas wholesale prices (which, in turn, have been largely the consequence of 'global events') - something that was not the fault of the UK, and was totally beyond the control of the UK.

Is it not the case that you are charged global rates even for home generated power - not to mention the enormous profits for the suppliers cause solely by government action whether by intention or ineptitude?

 

[JohnW2]

Solar generation peaks then and it's a weekend so demand is lower.

OK - I hadn't realised that it was an up-to-date graph, such that "tomorrow" was going to not only be a weekend but also probably a pretty sunny day!

However, even for a sunny weekend day, I'm sure that a lot of people (like EFLI) will have been very surprised to see that the cheapest electricity was that used between 09:00and 16:00 .

This, of course, illustrates another way in which SM-based tariffs can be far superior (aka 'cheaper than') anything possible with a dumb meter. As I said, a dual-rate tariff is the best one can have without an SM - since such tariffs are dumb/fixed, knowing know nothing about how sunny it is or what day of the week it is on any particular day.

 

[JohnW2]

Is it not the case that you are charged global rates even for home generated power ....

It is, but that's why I asked you about the type of generation in Portugal. Charging 'global rates' for 'home-generated power' is only arguably unreasonable if it is home-generated from home-sourced (or 'renewable') fuels. If it is generated from imported oil or gas, then the cost will reflect the global prices of those fuels.

- not to mention the enormous profits for the suppliers cause solely by government action whether by intention or ineptitude?

I'm not sure what you mean by "caused solely by government action".

I think you will find that the 'percentage profits' of energy suppliers haveincreased significantly in the oast 10 years (in fact, they may well have fallen a bit). However, what I do find unreasonable/wrong (and have often said so, here and elsewhere) is that the suppliers were 'allowed' to expect the same 'percentage profit' when the price of the fuels rose dramatically. As a result, absolute levels of profits have gone up appreciably, particularly in the last 2-4 years, simply because they have been trying to achieve the same 'percentage profit' when the cost of fuels rose considerably.

AsI often say, I personally think that the government should have found a way of 'disallowing' this. It costs suppliers no more to process and distribute electricity generated from expensive fuel than when it is generated from cheaper fuel, so I don't really see why they should be allowed to make a lot more profit just because the fuels had become more expensive.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It is, but that's why I asked you about the type of generation in Portugal. Charging 'global rates' for 'home-generated power' is only arguably unreasonable if it is home-generated from home-sourced (or 'renewable') fuels. If it is generated from imported oil or gas, then the cost will reflect the global prices of those fuels.

...and what if it were generated from home produced oil and gas?

I'm not sure what you mean by "caused solely by government action".

Well, one thing is the so-called cap which instantly became the price to charge.

I think you will find that the 'percentage profits' of energy suppliers haveincreased significantly in the oast 10 years (in fact, they may well have fallen a bit). However, what I do find unreasonable/wrong (and have often said so, here and elsewhere) is that the suppliers were 'allowed' to expect the same 'percentage profit' when the price of the fuels rose dramatically. As a result, absolute levels of profits have gone up appreciably, particularly in the last 2-4 years, simply because they have been trying to achieve the same 'percentage profit' when the cost of fuels rose considerably.

AsI often say, I personally think that the government should have found a way of 'disallowing' this. It costs suppliers no more to process and distribute electricity generated from expensive fuel than when it is generated from cheaper fuel, so I don't really see why they should be allowed to make a lot more profit just because the fuels had become more expensive.

Do you not think those things are precisely what I meant and was complaining about?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

AsI often say, I personally think that the government should have found a way of 'disallowing' this. It costs suppliers no more to process and distribute electricity generated from expensive fuel than when it is generated from cheaper fuel, so I don't really see why they should be allowed to make a lot more profit just because the fuels had become more expensive.

You need to keep in mind, that suppliers have to buy there allocation of energy, on the spot market, ahead of time, taking the gamble on recovering their investment, and that many of the tariffs are based on customers paying a fixed price for it, or a variable price, which can be fixed for months ahead. They basically invest in the energy, in the hope of getting it back, plus a margin. The percentage of risk remains the same, and so the percentage of profit needs to be commensurate. The day by day, and especially the hour by hour variable tariffs, relieve the energy companies of the risk, thus those tariffs can be often be offered much cheaper.