Smart energy meters, should I/shouldn't I?

[KnackeredBike]

This smart meter refusal reminds me of the road pricing one a while back.

At the moment we all pay for enough capacity to meet the maximum possible demand.

Now of course almost all the time we don't need all that capacity. It's exactly like a road, those who make an effort to travel off peak are still paying for it to be wide enough at 8am on Monday morning.

I used to be on Economy 7 and put everything I could to run at night. Now I'm on a normal tariff and of course I run anything whenever I want, although this isn't an efficient use of grid capacity.

Smart meters mean that eventually those who are demanding peak capacity pay for it and those who don't, don't. Economy 7 shows that outside of peak times it is possible to generate electricity for relatively little cost. If people overall spread demand then the cost of electricity should get cheaper for the average consumer, because you don't have to pay for so many power stations to stand idle. Plus older, more polluting sources of power can be taken offline.

Perhaps even more critically as electric car use rises it simply won't work to have everyone getting home at 6pm and plugging in their car. Fill up when you want only works for petrol and diesel. It will be crucial that as much as possible they are charged overnight. A "smart" grid means that the meter can tell your car when to start charging for the cheapest electric.

Of course people worry about "sneaky" price rises but there is zero chance of price cuts unless we can get a smarter grid. I think some of the promotions that have come out like "free" electricity from British Gas shows that companies are happy to do a good deal on electricity which is costing them next to nothing.

 

[Tim Hall]

Do they use cheaper coal at night then?

<me missing the point>
Snapshot of the grid just now shows that 1.57% of uk electricity comes from coal.

 

[Drago]

Do they use cheaper gas at night? Or cheaper uranium?

Solar doesn't work at night. Wind may or may not work at night, so they're still relying on either something that burns or which glows in the dark to generate off peak power, and doing that at midnight costs as much as at mid day.

The difference is demand. Ordinarily, demand dictates price as more purchasers make it easier for the sellers to profit from the commodity. However, in this case its the other way around - they're attempting to use the price to drive the demand. That has nothing to do with hugging bunnies.

Until mass energy storage is in place then then problem remains.

 

[Threevok]

A meter to tell you how much you are using - is the same as having a meter telling you your oxygen intake

When it comes to consumer savings - I'm not holding my breath

 

[classic33]

Fine, you guys know best. I had if from somebody high up in the industry.

There's a piece from OFGEM posted, that says you have the right to refuse.

 

[KnackeredBike]

Do they use cheaper gas at night? Or cheaper uranium?

Part of the cost is the fuel but there is also a large cost in having loads of fully kitted out and staffed power stations that are largely unused just to meet peak demand.

If you work fewer assets harder you save money, as in almost any business.

 

[Drago]

Part of the cost is the fuel but there is also a large cost in having loads of fully kitted out and staffed power stations that are largely unused just to meet peak demand.

Like they have to at night when the solar goes to bed?

 

[MacB]

Like they have to at night when the solar goes to bed?

Pretty certain the Sun doesn't go to bed or turn off

 

[KnackeredBike]

Like they have to at night when the solar goes to bed?

Yes but you have to plan for the 96.3% of generation that isn't solar as well.

 

[Wobblers]

Translation: the longer some of you hold out, the longer it is before as a society as a whole we start facing up to the environmental costs of our lifestyle choices and start adjusting our behaviour accordingly.

Electricity generated at peak hours does not cost the same as electricity generated off-peak: why should we expect to pay the same?

That's a little unfair. For starters, this enables the full market variability to be passed on to the consumer. Inevitably, you'll end up paying more when it's cold, and especially so when it's cold and still. At a stroke, all market transparency is lost. How could a market possibly be regarded as fair when you have no way of knowing what price you'll be charged in advance?

The other issue is that much domestic demand is inflexible. People aren't going to sit in the dark in winter just because it's more expensive to generate electricity. The evening peak is fixed by working hours - and few people have the option to change that. Charging more - which will inevitably clobber the poorest the most, especially since they have the least flexible work (for them, naturally, zero hours contracts are flexible to the employers, not the employees) - is deeply inequitous. Changing normal working practice to encourage more flexibility for the employee would be highly beneficial to society, not least by reducing the peak demands on both energy supply and transport. But this is something that has to come from the top, with government leading, and supported by appropriate legislation. Using sledgehammer tactics such as peak pricing is not the way to do it, not least as it affects those who are unable to change!

 

[Dan B]

I had a smart meter recently (until I switched supplier). It offered me absolutely no way to get cheaper electricity off-peak nor did it tell me when peak times are.

Whatever the amazing advances are that smart metering could provide in principle, in practice I found it no more useful than a dumb one. It didn't even tell me which appliance was eating all the juice

 

[classic33]

That's a little unfair. For starters, this enables the full market variability to be passed on to the consumer. Inevitably, you'll end up paying more when it's cold, and especially so when it's cold and still. At a stroke, all market transparency is lost. How could a market possibly be regarded as fair when you have no way of knowing what price you'll be charged in advance?

The other issue is that much domestic demand is inflexible. People aren't going to sit in the dark in winter just because it's more expensive to generate electricity. The evening peak is fixed by working hours - and few people have the option to change that. Charging more - which will inevitably clobber the poorest the most, especially since they have the least flexible work (for them, naturally, zero hours contracts are flexible to the employers, not the employees) - is deeply inequitous. Changing normal working practice to encourage more flexibility for the employee would be highly beneficial to society, not least by reducing the peak demands on both energy supply and transport. But this is something that has to come from the top, with government leading, and supported by appropriate legislation. Using sledgehammer tactics such as peak pricing is not the way to do it, not least as it affects those who are unable to change!

There's the known rush now to get the kettles on, now Coronation Street has ended. Similar with any program that is watched on a regular basis.

 

[swansonj]

I had a smart meter recently (until I switched supplier). It offered me absolutely no way to get cheaper electricity off-peak nor did it tell me when peak times are.

Whatever the amazing advances are that smart metering could provide in principle, in practice I found it no more useful than a dumb one. It didn't even tell me which appliance was eating all the juice

That would be because the UK, in thrall to the dogma of competition but with decisions made by politicians who don't actually understand what it takes to make competition work, has made a complete horlicks of smart meters and is currently realising about 5% of the potential benefits. Those of us who sing their praises have a vision of what could happen with at least some of the remaining 95%.

 

[Dan B]

That would be because the UK, in thrall to the dogma of competition but with decisions made by politicians who don't actually understand what it takes to make competition work, has made a complete horlicks of smart meters and is currently realising about 5% of the potential benefits. Those of us who sing their praises have a vision of what could happen with at least some of the remaining 95%.

Well, quite. But (if I've understood the situation) nobody with a SMETS1 meters is going to get any of that 95% anyway, so why not carry on telling the suppliers to stuff their smart meters until SMETS2 is actually available. Or implemented. Or agreed on.

 

[swansonj]

Well, quite. But (if I've understood the situation) nobody with a SMETS1 meters is going to get any of that 95% anyway, so why not carry on telling the suppliers to stuff their smart meters until SMETS2 is actually available. Or implemented. Or agreed on.

There are some benefits from a current smart meter (no meter reading; access to the supplier's analysis of your energy use; remote checking of energy use). But I agree that they are minor. My beef is not with people who have not yet opted for a smart meter, but with people who seem opposed to the whole principle and determined to oppose till the bitter end.