SMETS2 vs SMETS1 meter

The_Big_Bamboo

Hengus wrote: »

My guess is that technology; communications, and security, in particular, move on. Smart metering has little to do with accurate billing or switching suppliers: this is the message being peddled in attempt to get consumer buy in. Smart metering is all about the development of a smart electricity grid which monitors energy usage/demand in 30 minute bites, and the matching of supply with demand which negates the need for standby power and reports faults before they lead to failures etc.

https://www.smartgrid.gov/the_smart_grid/smart_grid.html

Sadly, whilst the concept of a smart grid is long overdue, the protracted and increasingly expensive rollout of the UK’s smart meter programme could have been better managed by [STRIKE]a classroom of 13 year olds[/STRIKE] the PG Tips Chimps..

....a massive disservice to 13 year olds’ everywhere I reckon, Hengus. Hope you don’t mind my correction.

PixelPound

Many industries work to a "Just In Time" principle, so its no surprise they want to do it with the energy industry. Having large standby power is expensive, but necessary as to not get brownouts. The problem with the existing roll-out, is it will have been tendered on the perfect scenario, like many are, and now reality is taking longer the costs just keep rising.

System

The_Big_Bamboo wrote: »

....a massive disservice to 13 year olds’ everywhere I reckon, Hengus. Hope you don’t mind my correction.

I think that I wrote 'could have been BETTER managed by a classroom of 13 year olds'.

The_Big_Bamboo

Hengus wrote: »

I think that I wrote 'could have been BETTER managed by a classroom of 13 year olds'.

Fair comment,;)...perhaps I did a massive disservice to the PG Tips Chimps;...didn’t someone once say that given enough time a roomful of chimps with typewriters will eventually produce the entire works of Willy Waggledagger?

System

The_Big_Bamboo wrote: »

Fair comment,;)...perhaps I did a massive disservice to the PG Tips Chimps;...didn’t someone once say that given enough time a roomful of chimps with typewriters will eventually produce the entire works of Willy Waggledagger?

No big deal. We all scan read, and I am sure that the Chimps would have been better at ‘selling’ smart meters to the masses than Gaz or Leccy.

zeupater

nic_c wrote: »

Many industries work to a "Just In Time" principle, so its no surprise they want to do it with the energy industry. Having large standby power is expensive, but necessary as to not get brownouts. The problem with the existing roll-out, is it will have been tendered on the perfect scenario, like many are, and now reality is taking longer the costs just keep rising.

Hi

The issue is that the capabilities of smart-meters have absolutely no correlation with JiT at all ... without vast consumer expenditure on energy management systems & IoT enabled devices & appliances there's very little infrastructure advantage from having smart-meters apart from providing the industry with the appropriate tariff related (tiny)carrots & (huge)sticks to encourage consumers to shift demand patterns ....

The grid will still need to be managed and that management will still be frequency related generation balancing ... the idea that information provided by every installed smart-meter will be collated & processed on a real-time basis to help grid management is akin to belief in fairies, yet it's still used to justify the project ...

The very concept of smart-metering has been overtaken by events & technologies ... greater savings on peak evening demand than envisaged in the project justification have already been delivered by LED technology in lightbulbs & TVs, smart home technologies are available which are more capable at delivering demand shifting, microgeneration has negated much of what smart-meters were supposed to deliver, and the massive impact of home batteries & EVs are well outside both the scope & capabilities of the metering project .... yet we're still committed to line the pockets of energy-sector shareholders with £tens-of-billions of what, in efficiency & delivery terms, is effectively an outdated and totally ineffective solution ...

The only thing that is related to JiT supply is the reality that when it's not managed correctly it results in a TFL (where F is a profanity!) mess ... the issue with smart-meters is that the project has taken so long that it's already missed the bus - it's a behind schedule, TFL project & those in control need to accept the 'egg on their faces' and pull the plug whilst there's still a prospect to stop wasting our money! :mad: (;):D)

HTH
Z

silverwhistle

zeupater wrote: »

The very concept of smart-metering has been overtaken by events & technologies .../SNIP/
HTH
Z

I don't think it has entirely, and that's speaking as someone who has solar panels, LED lights, a fuel bill of less than £250 p.a. (I'd love to save "around £340 a year on our tariff"..), so I understand the changes taking place.

We've always had demand management for larger users, and even interruptible supplies. With the advent of renewable energy and the need to not "spill" and actually use surpluses, and deal with peaks of demand in the most efficient way there has to be some mechanism to do so. You talk of EVs but they can only be part of the solution if there is a mechanism for them to be so.

The arguments about carrots and sticks are ones that need to be made, and the universal suspicion surrounding technology is justified if it only works to the benefit of one direction. But when the alternative is expensive peak lopping plant or even more expensive nuclear we need to be clear how we are achieving security, since there is no argument that we'll all pay for them too.

Perhaps the scheme should have been rolled out for larger users first, as there may be greater benefit there? I've turned down the offer of a SMETS1 meter, as I can't see how it will help me reduce my annual usage of less than 1100 units..


edit: just to say that my SSE shares aren't doing so well!

zeupater

silverwhistle wrote: »

I don't think it has entirely, and that's speaking as someone who has solar panels, LED lights, a fuel bill of less than £250 p.a. (I'd love to save "around £340 a year on our tariff"..), so I understand the changes taking place.

We've always had demand management for larger users, and even interruptible supplies. With the advent of renewable energy and the need to not "spill" and actually use surpluses, and deal with peaks of demand in the most efficient way there has to be some mechanism to do so. You talk of EVs but they can only be part of the solution if there is a mechanism for them to be so.

The arguments about carrots and sticks are ones that need to be made, and the universal suspicion surrounding technology is justified if it only works to the benefit of one direction. But when the alternative is expensive peak lopping plant or even more expensive nuclear we need to be clear how we are achieving security, since there is no argument that we'll all pay for them too.

Perhaps the scheme should have been rolled out for larger users first, as there may be greater benefit there? I've turned down the offer of a SMETS1 meter, as I can't see how it will help me reduce my annual usage of less than 1100 units..


edit: just to say that my SSE shares aren't doing so well!

Hi

I agree that the smart-metering project should have been targetted at high users ... the initial EU concept required that governments first assess where the benefit of the scheme lay and to develop a roll-out plan to a preset deadline involving only the consumer groups which had been assessed to be both beneficial & justifiable ... the UK simply chose to gold-plate the requirements and roll out to everyone within the same timescales .. then failed to effectively manage what is in all respects a relatively simple project.

The basis that the project "has been overtaken by events & technologies" is really one of justification. The whole project is designed achieve a reduction in total energy usage to reduce climatic impact (mainly consumer education) & to reduce power generation requirements at peak times through encouraging demand shifting (carrot & stick), for which a set of cost justifications were produced .... in the interim period, the introduction & take-up of the aforementioned technologies (LED, microgen, renewable etc) have reduced the total energy demand as well as the peak-time power demand ...

For example, if the costed assumption was to use consumer 'education' to convince around 30million households to reduce energy consumption through switching off 300W TVs for 1hour/day when not being watched, the assumed saving would be 9GWh/day, if ~10%-15% of this saving coincided with peak hours then that's getting close to the output of a nuclear reactor, so a good plan to which a cost justification can be applied .... now the bad (/good!) news - 30million LED TVs at 50W being used for 1hour less only saves 1.5GWh/day with total LED TV peak demand now being similar to the originally anticipated saving ... effectively the original cost justification based saving 1 reactor build related to 'education' on using TVs has already been saved, all that's left is around 17% (50/300) of both the original energy requirement, associated peak demand component and potential saving ... the only way to keep this element of the cost justification in balance would be for a considerable part of the project to be delivered at 17% of the original cost! ... <looking up just in-case a winged pig flutters past!>

If the original case for the cost-justification of smart-meters was marginal (which it was), and the project cost estimates have spiralled (which they have), and the available savings have evaporated (as per LED TV example) ... then what's left apart from a project which can no longer deliver savings in line with it's justification and should therefore be suspended and then cancelled?

... and that's just the TVs ... :D

HTH
Z

badmemory

I guess we are still in couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery land then! What a shock!

The_Big_Bamboo

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I agree that the smart-metering project should have been targetted at high users ... the initial EU concept required that governments first assess where the benefit of the scheme lay and to develop a roll-out plan to a preset deadline involving only the consumer groups which had been assessed to be both beneficial & justifiable ... the UK simply chose to gold-plate the requirements and roll out to everyone within the same timescales .. then failed to effectively manage what is in all respects a relatively simple project.

The basis that the project "has been overtaken by events & technologies" is really one of justification. The whole project is designed achieve a reduction in total energy usage to reduce climatic impact (mainly consumer education) & to reduce power generation requirements at peak times through encouraging demand shifting (carrot & stick), for which a set of cost justifications were produced .... in the interim period, the introduction & take-up of the aforementioned technologies (LED, microgen, renewable etc) have reduced the total energy demand as well as the peak-time power demand ...

For example, if the costed assumption was to use consumer 'education' to convince around 30million households to reduce energy consumption through switching off 300W TVs for 1hour/day when not being watched, the assumed saving would be 9GWh/day, if ~10%-15% of this saving coincided with peak hours then that's getting close to the output of a nuclear reactor, so a good plan to which a cost justification can be applied .... now the bad (/good!) news - 30million LED TVs at 50W being used for 1hour less only saves 1.5GWh/day with total LED TV peak demand now being similar to the originally anticipated saving ... effectively the original cost justification based saving 1 reactor build related to 'education' on using TVs has already been saved, all that's left is around 17% (50/300) of both the original energy requirement, associated peak demand component and potential saving ... the only way to keep this element of the cost justification in balance would be for a considerable part of the project to be delivered at 17% of the original cost! ... <looking up just in-case a winged pig flutters past!>

If the original case for the cost-justification of smart-meters was marginal (which it was), and the project cost estimates have spiralled (which they have), and the available savings have evaporated (as per LED TV example) ... then what's left apart from a project which can no longer deliver savings in line with it's justification and should therefore be suspended and then cancelled?

... and that's just the TVs ... :D

HTH
Z

Brilliant!,....I enjoyed your post so much is there any chance you could do another one and factor 'domestic lighting' into your calculations as well? :j:D