Batteries and saving sessions

1961Nick

94JDH said:

1961Nick said:

94JDH said:

1961Nick said:

Petriix said:

mickyduck55 said:

I saved 100%.. in the last session... total over 5 sessions £1.05p

In reality I saved about 800Wh in the session. It's only the in day adjustment that bumped it up to nearly 20kWh.

The in day adjustment is poorly conceived & seems to carry a 100% weighting.

A heavy weighting not 100% more like two thirds.

Did you achieve that by consuming 39kWh in the 3 hours ending 1 hour before the savings session?

Yes, around that figure - I don't use anything between 5-7pm because of the batteries. When you work back the value in kW it's around 25kW so it's not taking 100% of your use on that 3 hour period or I'd be around £80.

That's 109 amps for 3 hours! Careful you don't melt your main 100a(?) fuse.

Petriix

94JDH said:

1961Nick said:

Petriix said:

mickyduck55 said:

I saved 100%.. in the last session... total over 5 sessions £1.05p

In reality I saved about 800Wh in the session. It's only the in day adjustment that bumped it up to nearly 20kWh.

The in day adjustment is poorly conceived & seems to carry a 100% weighting.

A heavy weighting not 100% more like two thirds.

Well the IDA is added 100% to the baseline average. It's just that the 3 hour (6 x 30 minutes) average for the IDA is applied to whatever length the saving session is. In the case of the 12 December session that was 2 hours (4 x 30 minutes) so the total usage in the IDA reference window was counted at 2/3 in this particular session whereas it was only 1/3 for each of the previous 1 hour saving sessions.

Should there ever be a longer session then the effect would be amplified further. A 4 hour session would count 4/3 of the IDA usage. 

JKenH

It’s good to know I’m not the only one targeting my usage to those hours. We used around 50 kWh (including topping up the hot water tanks) over the 3 hours.That might sound a lot but we have an above average size house.  Unfortunately, our central heating is oil fired so I have no way of calculating just how much oil I saved or whether overall I used more or less energy during the day than I did today, for instance. I suppose I can plead in my defence that using electricity for those 3 hours was better than burning oil. I did my bit though in achieving a 100% reduction in my energy usage between 5pm and 7pm

What I was really asking when I started this thread was to what extent the “savings” opportunities outweighed the normal obsession that most of us have of keeping our usage low, as, for example, is illustrated by the “How low can you go thread”. (I often explain to my wife that criticism of her electricity usage is not about the cost - it’s about the data.)

I personally was conflicted by the thought that taking the Octopus shilling would mess up years of comparative data but in the end the lure of money just proved too much. Surprisingly, the same thread on the Energy board elicited more comment about (non) ethical behaviour than on this board so I will refrain from posting these comments on there.

Petriix

Yes, I was definitely conflicted. It will ruin my headline consumption figures because I haven't found a good way of factoring in the savings when displaying the data. Maybe I could update the unit costs in my database to show negative numbers in those IDA slots so that it looks better, but it's not particularly important in the scheme of things.

94JDH

1961Nick said:

94JDH said:

1961Nick said:

94JDH said:

1961Nick said:

Petriix said:

mickyduck55 said:

I saved 100%.. in the last session... total over 5 sessions £1.05p

In reality I saved about 800Wh in the session. It's only the in day adjustment that bumped it up to nearly 20kWh.

The in day adjustment is poorly conceived & seems to carry a 100% weighting.

A heavy weighting not 100% more like two thirds.

Did you achieve that by consuming 39kWh in the 3 hours ending 1 hour before the savings session?

Yes, around that figure - I don't use anything between 5-7pm because of the batteries. When you work back the value in kW it's around 25kW so it's not taking 100% of your use on that 3 hour period or I'd be around £80.

That's 109 amps for 3 hours! Careful you don't melt your main 100a(?) fuse.

Isn't it 13,000 Watts (per hour) divided by 230 volts = around just under 60 Amps?

EricMears

For the first four sessions,  I simply switched off almost everything I could so was using 80W  during the period rather than the 400 or so watts normally used at that time.  Result: I 'earnt' approx £1 per day.

This week,  I cooked a late lunch and ran the immersion heater during the  adjustment period so 'wasting' approx £5.  In the target period I was awarded 9942 Octopoints allegedly worth £12.49

Not really 'unethical' (since I was scrupulously following the rules) but I'm certainly not proud of doing it as I consider it against the spirit of the exercise.  If they don't change the rules before the next run,  I'll probably charge the car as well   

1961Nick

Petriix said:

Yes, I was definitely conflicted. It will ruin my headline consumption figures because I haven't found a good way of factoring in the savings when displaying the data. Maybe I could update the unit costs in my database to show negative numbers in those IDA slots so that it looks better, but it's not particularly important in the scheme of things.

The government's £67/month was already spoiling the comparative cost data & savings sessions have compounded the problem.

As regards consumption, the overall comparison is still relevant because none of the energy is wasted & the only things that the savings sessions have changed are the TOU & the fuel. Regardless of the savings sessions, I'm constantly making a decision about which fuel I use for heating taking account of battery SOC, solar output & TOU in relation to off-peak.

michaels

I am not on Octopus and EDF seem pretty slow of the mark but I could use the Hugo or Loop app based schemes.  Anyone any idea if they calculate savings and pay out on the same basis?

Magnitio

JKenH said:

It’s good to know I’m not the only one targeting my usage to those hours. We used around 50 kWh (including topping up the hot water tanks) over the 3 hours.That might sound a lot but we have an above average size house.  Unfortunately, our central heating is oil fired so I have no way of calculating just how much oil I saved or whether overall I used more or less energy during the day than I did today, for instance. I suppose I can plead in my defence that using electricity for those 3 hours was better than burning oil. I did my bit though in achieving a 100% reduction in my energy usage between 5pm and 7pm

What I was really asking when I started this thread was to what extent the “savings” opportunities outweighed the normal obsession that most of us have of keeping our usage low, as, for example, is illustrated by the “How low can you go thread”. (I often explain to my wife that criticism of her electricity usage is not about the cost - it’s about the data.)

I personally was conflicted by the thought that taking the Octopus shilling would mess up years of comparative data but in the end the lure of money just proved too much. Surprisingly, the same thread on the Energy board elicited more comment about (non) ethical behaviour than on this board so I will refrain from posting these comments on there.

I had commented on the Energy thread about the unethical behaviour of one individual who advocated turning everything on for the three hours to maximise their income. This is not load shifting, it's wasteful, selfish and unethical behaviour. Charging batteries, using immersion heaters and charging your car all seem reasonable, though it does result in a higher load on the grid during those 3 hours and is not ideal. 

EricMears

Magnitio said:

This is not load shifting, it's wasteful, selfish and unethical behaviour. Charging batteries, using immersion heaters and charging your car all seem reasonable, though it does result in a higher load on the grid during those 3 hours and is not ideal. 

If complying strictly with the rules of a scheme - however ill-conceived those rules appear - you can't really describe the behaviour as unethical.