Smart meters - what is the catch?

System

Hengus wrote: »

I am tempted to say 'do your own research' as it is there for all to see on the DECC website:

Quote after taking account of the costs, smart meters will have a positive net impact
on consumers’ bills. Looking at the combination of all costs and savings from
smart metering, energy bills will be reduced by an estimated £26 per year by
2020, with the reduction rising to £43 per year by 2030 for the average dual
fuel domestic consumer, in comparison to a situation without smart meters.

1.11.This national infrastructure programme is expected to deliver £17.1 billion of
benefits at a cost of £10.9 billion1

. That’s over £6 billion of net benefits: a very positive business case for Great Britain.

The above was as of December 2014; sadly, most informed estimates now put the installation costs at £12.2Bn.

The savings come from 'forcing' customers to reduce both their overall energy usage and peak generation demands through time of use tariffs and/or peak demand tariffs.* If you reduce the latter, then it reduces the need for peak generating capacity. Spending £12.2Bn on renewables might sound like a grand idea; however, it would just add costs to people's energy bills.

Out-of-interest, in California, Electric Vehicle owners are now being PAID not to charge their vehicles during times of peak electricity demand.

Thanks for that.

There's still the issue of consumption though, unless people are going to suddenly stop fu<king, the demand for energy is going to rise and rise year on year as the population grows.

This peak generating capacity is only going to become more and more common place based on certain demand. The only way peak capacity is no longer a concern is if CAPACITY itself is increased, by building more power stations. It just seems to be.. I don't know.. short sighted ?

Furthermore if spending 12bn (say) on renewables results in increased bills what harm is there really? The public are already shafted anyway, it's not as though they get value for money as it is. At least the money would be spent on creating a much needed surplus.

[Deleted User]

Just a few thoughts:

• It’s lifestyle change that saves fuel, not smart meters.
• Energy saving is largely a matter of common sense, no gadgets required.
• Smart meters are highly misleading for anyone who doesn’t understand the difference between power and energy.
• The DECC are forecasting an energy saving of 2.8%, but Dutch researchers found that the actual savings were about a quarter of that.
• Nobody has done any research into the savings over the long term once the novelty of playing with the new toy has worn off.
• If you can’t retain your meter when you change suppliers it will never remain installed long enough to pay for itself.

System

jack_pott wrote: »

Just a few thoughts:

• It’s lifestyle change that saves fuel, not smart meters.
• Energy saving is largely a matter of common sense, no gadgets required.
• Smart meters are highly misleading for anyone who doesn’t understand the difference between power and energy.
• The DECC are forecasting an energy saving of 2.8%, but Dutch researchers found that the actual savings were about a quarter of that.
• Nobody has done any research into the savings over the long term once the novelty of playing with the new toy has worn off.
• If you can’t retain your meter when you change suppliers it will never remain installed long enough to pay for itself.

I agree with the thrust of your comments; however, DECC would argue that there has been a lot of research into household energy use which demonstrates that there are significant savings to be made. Unfortunately, roll out costs (and problems) continue to rise. The latest report to Parliament stated:

The Energy Demand Research Project (EDRP), which was managed by Ofgem on behalf of DECC, was a major project in Great Britain to test consumers’ responses to different forms of information about their energy use. Four energy suppliers each conducted trials of the impacts of various interventions (individually or in combination) between 2007 and 2010. A final analysis in June 2011 said that of 60,000 households in the trial, 18,000 had smart meters. Smart meters with a real-time display resulted in persistent savings of around 3%.

6 This is broadly consistent with international evidence.

7 The GB roll-out includes the offer of an IHD to all domestic consumers, to allow them access to near real-time feedback on their energy use and which is expected to contribute substantially to the delivery of the Government’s business case.

Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee concluded that average savings would be closer to 2%.

FWiW, that will save me about £7.20 a year on my electricity bill.

GingerBob_3

Hengus wrote: »

I agree with the thrust of your comments; however, DECC would argue that there has been a lot of research into household energy use which demonstrates that there are significant savings to be made. Unfortunately, roll out costs (and problems) continue to rise. The latest report to Parliament stated:

The Energy Demand Research Project (EDRP), which was managed by Ofgem on behalf of DECC, was a major project in Great Britain to test consumers’ responses to different forms of information about their energy use. Four energy suppliers each conducted trials of the impacts of various interventions (individually or in combination) between 2007 and 2010. A final analysis in June 2011 said that of 60,000 households in the trial, 18,000 had smart meters. Smart meters with a real-time display resulted in persistent savings of around 3%.

6 This is broadly consistent with international evidence.

7 The GB roll-out includes the offer of an IHD to all domestic consumers, to allow them access to near real-time feedback on their energy use and which is expected to contribute substantially to the delivery of the Government’s business case.

Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee concluded that average savings would be closer to 2%.

FWiW, that will save me about £7.20 a year on my electricity bill.

B****r all then. Smart meters are a waste of space! There are much better ways for the nation to conserve energy.

[Deleted User]

GingerBob wrote: »

B****r all then. Smart meters are a waste of space!

They cost £200, and save about £15 a year. Who's going to stay with the same supplier for 13 years whilst the meter pays for itself?

GingerBob wrote: »

There are much better ways for the nation to conserve energy.

Like changing the tariffs.

It's barking mad that we have standing charges, because they're regressive: they cost proportionally less the more you use so that the frugal are paying a subsidy to the profligate. For a start, we need to ban regressive tariffs and introduce compulsory progressive ones that get more expensive the more you use, that way you reward those who economise at the expense of those who don't. What's even better is that you can have it tomorrow, for no more than the cost of the ink from the Ministers pen.

victor2

jack_pott wrote: »

It's barking mad that we have standing charges, because they're regressive: they cost proportionally less the more you use so that the frugal are paying a subsidy to the profligate. For a start, we need to ban regressive tariffs and introduce compulsory progressive ones that get more expensive the more you use, that way you reward those who economise at the expense of those who don't. What's even better is that you can have it tomorrow, for no more than the cost of the ink from the Ministers pen.

You mean like they used to be before OFGEM stepped in and made the suppliers "simplify" tariffs?

baldelectrician

jack_pott wrote: »

It's barking mad that we have standing charges

i would disagree- as an electrician I call the network supplier out about twice a month ( I do a lot of electrical inspection and testing and call out Scottish Power about supply problems)

These call outs are paid for by the standing charge and no matter how much power a home uses they usually have only one meter and supply cable, therefore one standing charge.

I have had Scottish Power come in, assess problem, closed off a Main Street with no notice, install temporary traffic lights, dig up the road and renew a sub mains supply to a building. This cost the customer nothing as they pay a standing charge.

The standing charge is for the network, people don't realise it is quite good value- where else would you have several thousand £ of work for £0.28 per day?

[Deleted User]

victor2 wrote: »

You mean like they used to be before OFGEM stepped in and made the suppliers "simplify" tariffs?

No, I don't. We've never had progressive tariffs of the kind I'm arguing for.

baldelectrician wrote: »

i would disagree- as an electrician I call the network supplier out about twice a month ( I do a lot of electrical inspection and testing and call out Scottish Power about supply problems)

These call outs are paid for by the standing charge and no matter how much power a home uses they usually have only one meter and supply cable, therefore one standing charge.

I have had Scottish Power come in, assess problem, closed off a Main Street with no notice, install temporary traffic lights, dig up the road and renew a sub mains supply to a building. This cost the customer nothing as they pay a standing charge.

The standing charge is for the network, people don't realise it is quite good value- where else would you have several thousand £ of work for £0.28 per day?

I quite understand that any company wants a pricing structure that reflects the fixed and variable costs of running the business, but that passes on economies of scale to the customers. The problem is that encourages more consumption, and in the case of fuel that's completely at odds with the environmental objective of trying to induce people to use less.

I'm not saying that maintenance of the infrastructure doesn't cost money, that's not the point. As long as the new system is made revenue neutral there will be the same amount of money as before available to pay for the work.

It's the balance of revenue raised from frugal and profligate users I'm seeking to change, not the total income.

fluffymuffy

walkon wrote: »

I can't believe that some members on here are pushing these bad and dangerous to health, smart meters.

You must see this site and read what smart meters can do to your health.

http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/
http://stopsmartmeters.org/

I can't believe you're pointing people to nutty rant sites when there are much more believable sources.

How about the World Health Organisation? http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/
(see if you can spot that bit where they tell us that the emf from electric razors is safe at a distance of 30cm)

Or the group that the WHO gets their reference values from? http://www.icnirp.org/

Or the Health and Safety Executive? (who are trying to implement an EU Directive on EMF by July 1st 2016) http://www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/nonionising/directive.htm

Incidentally, the UK government have decided to implement the 1998 values in their legislation rather than the much more stringent 2010 ones published by the ICNIRP.

Of course no one wants to hear this.

eli_jean

Hi all,

I have one question. Who else apart from the basic providers (BG, Eon, EDF, Ovo) can provide a certain property with a smart meter?
For ex. a small real estate agency has 50 properties and they need to install 50 gas and elec. smart meters, can they get the deal from a private company?

Are there private companies that can get you to buy the meters for a cheaper price?