Ovo Smart Meter (Smart Gateway)

jimjames

bsod wrote: »

you shouldn't have long to wait then, contact your supplier

I have absolutely no intention of chasing a meter replacement. I want my existing meter to remain as long as it possibly can.

bsod

11 billion divided by 27 million is nearer 400, it all depends which estimate you base the figure on

jimjames wrote: »

I have absolutely no intention of chasing a meter replacement. I want my existing meter to remain as long as it possibly can.

had a feeling that might be the case

zeupater

bsod wrote: »

11 billion divided by 27 million is nearer 400, it all depends which estimate you base the figure on ..

Hi

I think you're missing the point ... whether the cost is £400 or £500 isn't the issue .... the industry is simply being allowed to charge us for something we have been paying for within our bills for ages, that being infrastructure renewal and maintenance.

The only additional cost for the smart-meter project is the marginal cost difference for the meters themselves, providing the centralised communication infrastructure and the in-house remote monitor, which you have already confirmed to cost very little. Against this the industry should set their own administrational and resource savings ... for starters there'll be no need for reminders for meter reading, a reduction in call-centre provision for telephone submissions, a reduction in support for existing on-line submission/management services and a huge reduction in the number of meter-reader visits (from between 1 & 4 times per year to a safety inspection once every two years) ....

Effectively, I don't care whether the figure is £400/household or £500 as anything over £zero is pretty hard to justify ... having said that, when taking the chaotic nature of the project roll-out to date into consideration it's likely that the project is already well over budget for the market penetration achieved, so whether the budget was originally set at £11billion or £12billion is of no consequence - the government and the numpty civil servants will almost certainly be convinced by the industry costings with over-expenditure being added to our bills ....

I see this as the last-stand 'hurrah' of the intermediary energy suppliers and they are simply grasping to make hay before distributed generation and storage technologies destroy their current business models .... good luck boys, competition is finally on it's way ...

Last point ... of course, a 'leave' vote in the upcoming referendum could easily lead to abandonment of applying the EU directive on adopting Smart-metering technologies and we could use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account ..... :D

HTH
Z

zeupater

Sterlingtimes wrote: »

.... Indeed, many consumers do not want this, but the obsessive measurers do! ...

Hi Sterling

I agree and, as you know, I'd certainly be classified as an 'obsessive measurer' .... :cool:

My main issue with the smart-meter project is the way it's allowed to be financed ... we're effectively paying twice for the same thing, firstly through a proportion of our bills having been levied for years to maintain and improve the infrastructure (including meters), then when infrastructure needs to be upgraded it hits the bills as an additional cost!. A secondary concern is related to how the introduction of HHM (Half-Hourly-Metering) will eventually be used to convince the billpayers to modify their usage patterns ... reduction in overnight tariff, or punitive daytime tariff periods ? ... we've heard very little (actually absolutly nothing at all) from the industry on how they will be matching customer tariffs to the functionality of these (slightly less dumb) meters, which to an independently minded person should ring the early-warning alarm bells ....

HTH
Z

jrfarrim

I think the biggest joke with these smart meters is the fact one supplier will Install a meter which then is not compatible with another supplier. In today's age where households are changing supplier annually this is a ridiculous situation.

Sterlingtimes

zeupater wrote: »

Hi Sterling

I agree and, as you know, I'd certainly be classified as an 'obsessive measurer' .... :cool:

My main issue with the smart-meter project is the way it's allowed to be financed ... we're effectively paying twice for the same thing, firstly throug
Z

A lot of hidden money has also been spent by DNOs on Smart City software development. The meters are probably more costly owing to the need to install at customer premises. The real savings come from better managed energy generation and distributions rather than giving the end-user statistics. Early stage roll outs of new technology often involves a start/stop approach so paying twice for some may be inevitable. The oddity in the UK is that this has been passed to the "suppliers" of gas and electricity (who do not supply) rather than the DNO who do supply.

zeupater

Sterlingtimes wrote: »

A lot of hidden money has also been spent by DNOs on Smart City software development. The meters are probably more costly owing to the need to install at customer premises. The real savings come from better managed energy generation and distributions rather than giving the end-user statistics. Early stage roll outs of new technology often involves a start/stop approach so paying twice for some may be inevitable. The oddity in the UK is that this has been passed to the "suppliers" of gas and electricity (who do not supply) rather than the DNO who do supply.

Hi

In the private sector, spending a couple of dozen £million buys a shed-load of software development, probably far more than would ever be spent by DNOs on this project - the main 'Smart' costs will be bourne by appliance manufactures, much of which has already been done ... you can already source modules for heatpumps which allow the grid to limit power draw or even switch off when necessary, which is where the majority of the rest of the world see the vast proportion of smart-related benefits being realised (ie electricity based heating/cooling sources) - however, the UK mainly heats through gas fired boilers, so what's left with consumes enough power to make a difference apart from white goods? ..

Regarding the 'meters are probably more costly owing to the need to install at customer premises' - isn't it simply the case that all meters need to be installed at the customer premises ?, so if the smart-meters were installed as part of the existing replacement cycle there's be absolutely no difference ....

Considering the 'real savings come from better managed energy generation and distributions rather than giving the end-user statistics', this makes little sense. The project is being 'sold' to the consumer on the premise that the statistics provided will help the customer to reduce their own usage through identifing waste and changing consumption patterns. Unless there's a change in consumer energy usage patterns, the rational behing the whole smartmeter project collapses because there'll be no change apart from the ability to read meters remotely. Effectively there are only three significant tools which could be applied to benefit generation and distribution .. the carrot tariff, the stick tariff and smart-appliance control ... everything else could readily be achieved with a simple low cost monitor. Of course, the carrot lowers industry margins, the stick increases margins and the consumer will need to pay the capital cost of smart-appliances so there shouldn't be much doubt on which two of the three will be leveraged ...

Regarding .. 'Early stage roll outs of new technology often involves a start/stop approach so paying twice for some may be inevitable' ... I think that there's a misunderstanding of 'paying twice'. Yes, if a project is mismanaged at an early stage there may be dead-ends, failed approaches and duplication, but this should be fully ironed-out before committing to full-scale trials, let alone/roll-out - so there's really no excuse for incompatible technology beyond incompetence. The term 'paying twice' is more related to our current bills and tariffs already containing the cost of infrastructure maintenance and improvement, which includes the periodic replacement of meters ... so we already pay for the meters which the government have allowed the industry to charge us for again within the scope of this 'one off' project. However, due to the specific roll-out plan to install smart-meters within a confined timescale which is outside the normal replacement cycle, there will logically be a repeating pattern of peak replacement demand, which will almost certainly result in excessive cost through heavy reliance on sub-contracting ... all of which will be added to our bills - of course, this level of perceived incompetence could also be considered as being a deliberate and well considered ploy to justify higher prices beyond the timescale scope of the project ...

As mentioned previously, microgeneration and storage technologies have effectively addressed the same issues as this long-awaited project was supposed to 'fix' ... as such the project is now being driven by a government 'need' to follow EU directives and by an industry 'intent' to bolster their margins ...

HTH
Z

Ben84

Our new smart meter has had quite a big influence in encouraging us to use less electricity. I'm not sure how common this effect is, but if it is fairly common then they could be considered beneficial to the environment and energy security.

I'm not too focused on the targets it sets. Out electricity consumption varies widely across the week. However, I have halved the base load and been making more effort to save in other ways. I realised our lighting was using lots of electricity. Well, I already knew that, but it made me notice it, and I installed some LED bulbs after that.