Smart Meters - Ask me anything!

D_M_E

“
I can see a further complication here - you have introduced a requirement for any new supplier to issue security certification for any device which they add to their systems, i.e. any smart meter when the end user switches supplier(s).
Originally posted by D_M_E
”
Thats right. The new supplier must regenerate the security certificates in order to communicate further. This is to stop just anyone trying to communicate with the meter. The UK metering system is very security centric. Although it sounds complicated, these processes should be automated to some extent.
reply by beeringo

Your answer implies a beaurocratic nightmare - how long would it take the new supplier to issue such certification?

How long would a switch take to complete as a result?

Would new certification be required for every switch?

Rubidium

beeringo wrote: »

With smart meters able to send alerts for various tampers it will make life very difficult - i can't think of a way you could steal a large amount of electricity without the meter in some way knowing.

A smart meter will never prevent determined cannabis farmers from defrauding the supplier because it is very easy to ensure that a typically normal usage is registered by the meter and so avoid any suspicion, while the cannabis farm is supplied from a totally unmetered supply from before the meter.

The idea that smart meters are being introduced to prevent this type of fraud is quite frankly ridiculous!

[Deleted User]

beeringo wrote: »

That is really interesting, may i ask where you got this information? What's even more interesting is that the SMETS2 meters being rolled out next year to 2020 will provide a platform where progressive (and regressive for that matter) is possible.
It's functionality called Block Tariff pricing and even though it gives me a headache trying to fully understand it - it is a possibility for the future.
Basically you could have a structure where the first 100kWh (or whatever value - a block) in a billing period (a month) is charged at a low rate and anything used above that inside that month (another block) is charged at a higher (or lower) rate. There can even be a seperate block structure for different days of the week, say weekends would have just one block at a cheap rate.
Its hard to articulate well on a forum post, but all of the details of the meter's specification is freely available on the web, either search SMETS2 or GBCS. I warn you though it's not light reading :rotfl:

HOWEVER... put yourself in an energy suppliers shoes. How would you sell this complex tariff system and expect people to buy into it? Just food for thought. I don't think suppliers are keen in my honest opinion.

Hope this helped!

I'm not sure what you mean by "where did you get this information", I didn't get any information from anywhere, it's an argument. My argument.

My whole point is that you don't need smart meters in order to introduce compulsory progressive tariffs, you can do it for the cost of a bit of ink from the minister's pen, and save the billions that are being spent on meters.

A progressive tariff is no more complex than a regressive tariff with a standing charge. In the plot above one tariff is £69 pa plus 11.22p/unit, and the other is 3p/unit for the first 800 units then 16.83p thereafter. If you want it even simpler, the tariff is effectively the same if you give the first 658 units for free and then 16.83p/unit thereafter. The red line is my own existing tariff, but the others are just examples, there are plenty of other options. I chose the examples so that the whole change would be approximately revenue-neutral, with an average user paying the same either way.

The reason that suppliers won't like it is that it rewards the people who use less rather that those who use more. Suppliers also like regressive tariffs because they reflect the fixed and variable costs of running the business, but what's the priority here - tariffs that reflect the economies of scale, or reducing climate change?

There is also another reason why we have regressive tariffs: the government is effectively making progressive tariffs illegal. The legislation says that suppliers are not allowed to use tariffs that cross-subsidise from one class of customer to another without a majority of customers voting for it. But progressive tariffs that don't reflect the economies of scale are in effect cross-subsidising from the profligate to the frugal.

[Deleted User]

Jacklx wrote: »

I can't help but wonder if the meter which actually determines the consumption for billing purposes prefers to use 18 Watts rather than 11?

No, you are charged for the real power not the apparent power.

[Deleted User]

Jacklx wrote: »

if I am correct in assuming the supplier has to produce 18 Watts.

You aren't, the power supplied is 11W. The remaining 7W is supplied to the load on one half-cycle, then returned to the supply on the other. The net power transferred over a whole cycle is zero, which is why the sum of the real power and the reactive 'power' is called the apparent power. The reason that suppliers insist on power factor correction is that highly reactive loads draw more current for any given power and hence increase he losses in the transmission lines, and increase voltage drop.

Rectifier inputs aren't particularly reactive, but they are highly non-linear, so you need an instrument that can accommodate a sufficiently high crest factor in order to obtain an accurate measurement.

GingerBob_3

jack_pott wrote: »

You aren't, the power supplied is 11W. The remaining 7W is supplied to the load on one half-cycle, then returned to the supply on the other. The net power transferred over a whole cycle is zero, which is why the sum of the real power and the reactive 'power' is called the apparent power. The reason that suppliers insist on power factor correction is that highly reactive loads draw more current for any given power and hence increase he losses in the transmission lines, and increase voltage drop.

Rectifier inputs aren't particularly reactive, but they are highly non-linear, so you need an instrument that can accommodate a sufficiently high crest factor in order to obtain an accurate measurement.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Jacklx

I'm glad to discover what it's all about. Thank you all for your reassuring replies. I was not aware that the reason for PF correction is in order to ameliorate transmission line losses. I've been recording each month for many years my gas and electricity readings. It will be interesting to see how they turn out when I have to have a 'smart' meter. In the meantime I'll forget all about Power Factor and consider the topic closed.

[Deleted User]

Jacklx wrote: »

The power factor for this low energy bulb shows up as 0.6

Just to expand a bit further, the reason that LED lamps use capacitive ballast (or inductive in the case of fluorescent tubes) is precisely so that you don't pay for unnecessary energy use. Resistive ballast would work fine, but it would be horrendously inefficient because of the cost of the energy wasted in the resistor.

[Deleted User]

Rubidium wrote: »

A smart meter will never prevent determined cannabis farmers from defrauding the supplier because it is very easy to ensure that a typically normal usage is registered by the meter and so avoid any suspicion, while the cannabis farm is supplied from a totally unmetered supply from before the meter.

The idea that smart meters are being introduced to prevent this type of fraud is quite frankly ridiculous!

Most fiddlers are not growing cannabis.Most fiddlers are hard- ups on prepayment meters. I would hazard a guess that 90 % of all electricity bypassing is done on the ridiculously easy to defeat electric prepayment meter. It even has spare screw holes in which to insert the link. Take that meter out of service and replace by a modern smart meter with its inbuilt sensors and that will cut all theft right back. Its very difficult to defeat a Landys Gyr 470E
The prepayment gas meter is also easy to defeat in 5 minutes using basic tools but it involves wrecking the meter in the quest for free gas, so criminal damage is involved as well as theft of gas.
Smart meters are not being introduced to defeat meter bypassing but its a very useful side effect of these meters to have. British Gas have been using smart electric meters for over 8 years and so far I hav`nt found any fiddled. They have only just started using them in prepay mode and I fully expect to start finding them to be wrecked in an attempt to defeat them.
Whatever the damage and theft that the suppliers incur its overwhelmingly likely that when detected absolutely nothing is done other than a rebilling exercise and a charge for the damaged meter is levied. Unbelievable really that some chav can nick 2 ks worth of energy, wreck the meters and not even face a word of rebuke ! nothing other than extra debt added to another prepayment meter to be repaid weekly.. The new meter with its extra weekly debt added is then just fiddled again and the fiddler will just take more care not to admit anyone near the meter again.

CashStrapped

Question....

I assumed that (with these being smart meters), via a portal, (other then your utility supplier website) or connecting directly to the smart meter, one could have a live update on current usage monitoring via a PC.

My neighbour recently got a smart meter but only has a standalone energy monitor, which does little more than the one I have which connects to the incoming mains cable.

Can you log on or connect to the smart meter via wireless to upload the data to your pc?

If the standalone energy monitor can receive the data and display it, it must be sending out this data. Why can I not receive/monitor it on my own device (assuming software is available to interpret the data).