Choice of intelligent switches ?

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

I was making the point that someone who uses little energy( which is good - conservation and all that!) pays more per kWh than someone who has high consumption(which is bad!). As stated the more you use, the cost per kWh is cheaper.

In the example I used above(for electricity), the cheapest tariff for the low user means that taking into account the DSC they would be paying 15.1p/kWh; the cheapest tariff for the high user would be 12.1p/kWh. So the low user pays approx 25% more for each kWh.

Much as we(correctly) accuse the USA of using too much energy, at least where my place is the tariff discourages high consumption. The standing charges are low and, in an all-electric property, if you use more than 1,000kWh a month, each kWh over that threshold costs about 20% more.

This is all very true. Buy more, pay less, an economic model that works well (and fairly) for most products, but in the case of energy, with dwindling resources, harmful emissions and wasteful overconsumption can backfire.

One solution to this problem is to ensure that the products pricing reflects all costs, so emissions and future investment are represented in the unit cost. And that consumption and efficiency gains are better managed by ensuring that funding is no longer hidden in general taxation - though support 'after' consumption could (and should) be considered where appropriate eg winter fuel subsidies for low income / elderly.

Mart.

PS Just your £347 standing charges, would have paid for all my heating, hot water and oven (not hob) last year - gas bill July 11 to June 12 £336 (inc. VAT and SC but before discounts (dual fuel and DD)). Unfortunately, not this year as gas consumption has rocketed and by end of June, could well exceed £420! M.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

This is all very true. Buy more, pay less, an economic model that works well (and fairly) for most products, but in the case of energy, with dwindling resources, harmful emissions and wasteful overconsumption can backfire.

One solution to this problem is to ensure that the products pricing reflects all costs, so emissions and future investment are represented in the unit cost. And that consumption and efficiency gains are better managed by ensuring that funding is no longer hidden in general taxation - though support 'after' consumption could (and should) be considered where appropriate eg winter fuel subsidies for low income / elderly.

Mart.

PS Just your £347 standing charges, would have paid for all my heating, hot water and oven (not hob) last year - gas bill July 11 to June 12 £336 (inc. VAT and SC but before discounts (dual fuel and DD)). Unfortunately, not this year as gas consumption has rocketed and by end of June, could well exceed £420! M.

As stated earlier, I am not on the tariff with £347 annual standing charges as I am on a fixed tariff until Nov next year; the £347 DSC would be for the cheapest tariff for my consumption if I were to switch now.

Your 'solution' and that of John_Pierpoint might have merit. However the whole point of forcing the companies to move to a DSC was to overcome the perceived complexities of the Tier system tariffs.

I would argue that with a huge difference in the level of DSC charged by different companies and the widely varying discount structures, it is already more complex than the tier system. Especially as you cannot begin to work out the best tariff without knowing your annual consumption in kWh - information which apparently the majority of customers do not know.

Your proposals will further complicate matters.

John_Pierpoint

I have always thought that the biggest "problem", for us who do believe in climate- change/population-change threatening future generations, is the perception in the brains of the citizens of wealthy western economies.
Bigger = Better.
[The brains in the developing countries might well be worse but at the moment they don't have the where-with-all to satisfy their desires].
Perhaps psychologists are more important than engineers, though I do think economics has something to offer.

Education must be some sort of starting point.

[Deleted User]

A downside to the solar immersion is that if you suffer from the odd power cut/over voltage/under voltage being at the end of the line it adds further complexity to the house start up sequence. Not that it happens very often as most glitches do not cause issues but a proper outage means...

Ensure PV is turned off at both isolators
Start up ASHP
Start up solar immersion and calibrate
Start up PV

Fingers crossed...

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

As stated earlier, I am not on the tariff with £347 annual standing charges as I am on a fixed tariff until Nov next year; the £347 DSC would be for the cheapest tariff for my consumption if I were to switch now.

Your 'solution' and that of John_Pierpoint might have merit. However the whole point of forcing the companies to move to a DSC was to overcome the perceived complexities of the Tier system tariffs.

I would argue that with a huge difference in the level of DSC charged by different companies and the widely varying discount structures, it is already more complex than the tier system. Especially as you cannot begin to work out the best tariff without knowing your annual consumption in kWh - information which apparently the majority of customers do not know.

But ..... you did say that:

Cardew wrote: »

I am also on a fixed tariff until Nov 2014. However if I needed a tariff now, as a high user, by far the cheapest tariff for me would be with NPower who have very high Daily Standing Charge of 50.61p gas and 44.42p electricity(£347 a year) but unit prices for gas/electricity are low at 3.53p/kWh and 10.301p/kWh respectively. In addition they have 3 discounts I need to take into account.

So, looking today, the best deal for you would be one with 'fake' gas and electricity prices, since some of the real cost is hidden in an overly large SC. In effect via the SC you have pre-paid to get a discount on the unit price. This gives you a false illusion over the cost of additional units, and discourages energy savings and efficiency.

The same trick is deployed on all consumers regardless of their consumption levels, via varying SC's or tiered charges. We can probably all find a rate that best suits our consumption levels, but they always seem to 'better' suit the leccy companies, by forcing us to pay up front, so we might as well carry on using more since the later units are 'cheap'!

Is this wrong - well normally we reward high users of a product with lower prices, but this practice may not be appropriate in this circumstance any more, given the 'harmful' nature of over consumption of energy.

Cardew wrote: »

Your proposals will further complicate matters.

Not sure how my suggestion/proposal complicates things - no standing charge, just pay one set rate per unit. Seems pretty simple to me. Plus it maximises the benefits of energy efficiency, energy savings, and energy generation. Nice. :cool:

Mart.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Hi,

The calculation is not flawed in that £637 x 4 does indeed equal £2548.;)

I was making the point that someone who uses little energy( which is good - conservation and all that!) pays more per kWh than someone who has high consumption(which is bad!). As stated the more you use, the cost per kWh is cheaper.

In the example I used above(for electricity), the cheapest tariff for the low user means that taking into account the DSC they would be paying 15.1p/kWh; the cheapest tariff for the high user would be 12.1p/kWh. So the low user pays approx 25% more for each kWh.

Much as we(correctly) accuse the USA of using too much energy, at least where my place is the tariff discourages high consumption. The standing charges are low and, in an all-electric property, if you use more than 1,000kWh a month, each kWh over that threshold costs about 20% more.

Hi

I really do understand what was originally written and agree with the sentiment of the point. However, although the maths is correct 637x4=2548, the calculation employed is definitely flawed in that it should have been ((637-154)x4)+154=2086, the same as your "... Instead the cheapest tariff is £2,087" (allowing for rounding of course), as you are undoubtedly aware ....

HTH
Z

danesol

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Would there be sufficient power generated from PV in winter (at the height of gas useage) to lower gas consumption? Especially given that the immersun type devices direct excess energy to the HW tank that's not being used elsewhere by fridges, freezers and the like?

Only when generation far exceeds consumption, which depends naturally on your useage and ofcourse your location.

Martyn1981

danesol wrote: »

No need as the export fee isnt worth a sausage anyway in real terms against purchase from the grid and besides that you dont have to accept a meter change anyway.

But the comparison is not against the grid (unless you use leccy to heat the water already). So ignoring oil, lpg etc, if you use export leccy instead of gas, then you'd have to consider the export loss as and when it is metered.

Pv'ers get 3.3p or 4.64p for export, so the 'loss' of that export income per unit has to be considered. Or rather, will need to be considered, when smart meters with export are rolled out.

Whether or not the export income is trivial or important will depend on the individuals alternative fuel and costs.

Mart.

silverwhistle

danesol wrote: »

If you wanted to be smart you could request a meter change now before the real clever units roll out in a few years time which will start to be used by Utility companies to charge variable rates depending on the time of day

Funnily enough I read my meter not an hour ago after picking up my bill, and here in Italy the meters already cope with three different rates, with the most expensive being from 08.00 to 19.00.

My usage since the last bill has been 4.68kwh per day it would appear, and that's with water heating. Hmmm, food for thought.

danesol

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But the comparison is not against the grid (unless you use leccy to heat the water already). So ignoring oil, lpg etc, if you use export leccy instead of gas, then you'd have to consider the export loss as and when it is metered.

Pv'ers get 3.3p or 4.64p for export, so the 'loss' of that export income per unit has to be considered. Or rather, will need to be considered, when smart meters with export are rolled out.

Whether or not the export income is trivial or important will depend on the individuals alternative fuel and costs.

Mart.

Yes you are right BUT its so minor though in comparison to the FIT tariff you achieve ( im on the original 43p tariff ) and the cost of your gas or electric to heat the water, especially if you use a lot !

For example:- even though I earned in excess on £ 1,000 last year my earnings for EXPORT were approx - a mere £ 36.23

So no reason at all NOT to purchase and fit a proportional immersion device such as the "Solar Immersion" ASAP, IMO