Bath team claims smart meters are fundamentally flawed

Legacy_user

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/bath-smart-metres-fundamentally-flawed/

and so the debate continues.

EachPenny

Interesting comment after the article from DaveP.... will consumers end up paying more if they have a poor power factor? Difficult to do this with domestic customers under the old system, but who knows what could be done in future with digital smart meters.

I'm not sure iBert is that exciting. The only way consumers can reduce their costs is by changing their habits. And if you need technology to tell you to switch things off to save money then you are unlikely to listen to the technology's nagging.

Raxiel

EachPenny wrote: »

Interesting comment after the article from DaveP.... will consumers end up paying more if they have a poor power factor? Difficult to do this with domestic customers under the old system, but who knows what could be done in future with digital smart meters.

I'm not sure they could get away with it under the current regulations, as I understand it they'd have to charge by kVA rather than kWh. If they did you'd no doubt start seeing people selling devices that offer whole house power correction (and about 95% of them would be snake oil).

It's an interesting point though, things like LED lightbulbs (the non-flickery type) usually have the absolute worst PF, but use significantly less power than the incandescents they replaced even taking that into account.

House_Martin

Hengus wrote: »

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/bath-smart-metres-fundamentally-flawed/

and so the debate continues.

There is no debate as far as i can see. I have always maintained that smart meters only benefit the suppliers.The feeble freebie gizmo In House Display is fit for the bin after a few weeks playing with it.Then unplug the unnecessary device and free up a socket.
They IHD is only issued to "talk " people into accepting smart meters.. not how to save energy..It does nt save a penny in the long run.
There was never a need to "talk " anyone into a smart meter. Just fit them ..no excuses, no permissions needed..if someone does nt want one then they can go off grid.
This is how the rest of Europe, apart from two countries acting like we did giving them the appalling choice in the matter.
Now we have the roll out "massively behind " ( as reported in the press this week ), due to inept stupid politicians sticking their oar in where it is not needed arranging the methods of the roll out to a bunch of suppliers who did not want the job in the first place..No wonder they have failed dismally..Now they have changed the words "fit a smart meter " to "offer " one by 2020..That will be easy.just a mass postal bombardment will do that.
2030 is nearer the time when we get a smart grid in operation
And why not benefit the suppliers in a smart meter system with huge savings in costs once it is in place (like Italy and Ireland ) ?.They have to do that to keep prices down after they are forced to use very expensive energy production schemes such as awful wind turbines, solar panels, biomass , nuclear , all costing three or four times the cost of coal and gas production of electricity..
Today I listened to a boss of Eon on the radio resorting to bribing their customers to to accept a smart meter..here we go with the first of the bribes from the suppliers. Thanks politicians, another job messed up.
.Its not bribes which are needed, it is a high charge to the refusers. about £100 a year should do it, to force these people into signing and accepting one

EachPenny

House_Martin wrote: »

Its not bribes which are needed, it is a high charge to the refusers. about £100 a year should do it, to force these people into signing and accepting one

The thing is HM, does it really cost £100 per year to read the meters of 'refusers' - maybe once or perhaps twice per year?

If the private companies employing readers are really charging £50 to £100 per 30 second visit then it seems to be a case of flagrant profiteering.

Bear in mind the need for meters to also have a regular 'safety' check, and you and your colleagues interest (ahem) in customers TV viewing habits.

By the time you have factored in the additional leasing costs, maintenance costs, data communication costs, data centre/processing costs, energy consumption costs (those smart meters use more energy) then I think overall you might find it is smart meter 'acceptors' who should be sent an annual bill, not the 'refusers'.

I would accept though that people who consistently refuse to provide reasonable access to their meter for an annual reading/check should potentially face a bill for additional costs involved. However, 'reasonable access' doesn't mean making themselves available at any time Monday to Friday, but should be their choice of appointment in say a two-hour timeslot on a day of their choice.

House_Martin

EachPenny wrote: »

The thing is HM, does it really cost £100 per year to read the meters of 'refusers' - maybe once or perhaps twice per year?

If the private companies employing readers are really charging £50 to £100 per 30 second visit then it seems to be a case of flagrant profiteering.

Bear in mind the need for meters to also have a regular 'safety' check, and you and your colleagues interest (ahem) in customers TV viewing habits.

By the time you have factored in the additional leasing costs, maintenance costs, data communication costs, data centre/processing costs, energy consumption costs (those smart meters use more energy) then I think overall you might find it is smart meter 'acceptors' who should be sent an annual bill, not the 'refusers'.

I would accept though that people who consistently refuse to provide reasonable access to their meter for an annual reading/check should potentially face a bill for additional costs involved. However, 'reasonable access' doesn't mean making themselves available at any time Monday to Friday, but should be their choice of appointment in say a two-hour timeslot on a day of their choice.

Approx £100 a year is what Florida and California have been charging refuseniks..A one-off $100 dollars then $60 a year metering costs is those two large US states charges. I might be exaggerating a little at £100 ( for comic effect of course ) what the UK would charge.I was told that £60 a year metering costs is fair.
Eon have started the bribery method now to get them to sign up now I notice
. It it the cost of maintaining a much larger meter reading force than is needed with all that entails, cars,wages, management costs..it all adds up, just to keep visiting dumb meters endlessly.Some people insist on manual reads every quarter even now, mostly infirm OAPs..
Ideally they would like to employ a dozen or so in each area just to cover occasional "must inspects " which will drop to 5 year visits ( like BG were doing ) when we get to say a 95% coverage of smarts like Italy have done.
Must Inspect customers have always had the choice of a slot for a visit..not two hours tho, thats far to little. Am/pm is the norm now.
I might add that the suppliers will charge very high fines for meter reading contractors failing to make the slot time..EDF, believe it or not, its 100% true, fine us £300 for failing to hit the timeslot..G4S Utilities agreed to that to get the EDF contract.. This is the murky world of contract grabbing that G4S Utilities agreed to , to hoover up all the contracts they could ., it failed..they went bust.

EachPenny

House_Martin wrote: »

It it the cost of maintaining a much larger meter reading force than is needed with all that entails, cars,wages, management costs..it all adds up, just to keep visiting dumb meters endlessly.

Of course there are costs involved. I had a package delivered today by one of the national couriers. I had an option of specifying a two-hour timeslot and the courier arrived (in a van) well inside the two-hour slot and within minutes of the time predicted in a text first thing this morning. He was stoped outside my home long enough to have read my meters. Are you suggesting that the cost of delivering this package should be around £50? You'd be out of business very quickly if that were the case.

With modern route planning software and monitoring, the ability to time a day's meter reading to be able to give consumers a 2-hour timeslot should not be difficult. That is unless the meter reader gets diverted from his or her proper duties into peering through people's windows and listening at their letterboxes.

House_Martin wrote: »

Some people insist on manual reads every quarter even now, mostly infirm OAPs..

And I think that is an excellent idea. With the amount of money skimmed off our bills to pay for environmental and social 'costs' the energy companies should see it as part of their social role to regularly visit the elderly and vulnerable to make sure everything is ok with their energy supply, that they aren't sitting in the cold in winter because they are terrified over the cost of energy, or sitting in the dark because a trip has blown and they cannot find a reliable electrician to help them.

House_Martin wrote: »

I might add that the suppliers will charge very high fines for meter reading contractors failing to make the slot time..EDF, believe it or not, its 100% true, fine us £300 for failing to hit the timeslot..

Funny that. The consumer gets £30 for being messed around, the company gets £300. It confirms what many believe... the hopelessly wrong priorities of the energy industry.