Can a smart meter be forced?

wild666

The charge will be €8.30 every two months. This equals €49.80 per year. Up to 3.8 million people could be affected.’

Some will see the 8.30 Euros, £7.24, every two months as a small price to pay for not having a smart meter. 

EssexHebridean

wild666 said:

A friend has an email stating his meters are certified until either 2027 or 2037 I cannot remember which so he is resisting changing to that date by which time his meters will be at least 45 years old if not 55 years old. Until he got the email, earlier this year, he was getting at least 2 email or texts per week with requests or demands his meter was to be changed. As he has an email from the company stating a certification date he is hold out as long as possible before they can be changed. 

IMO I think they will go after those who have meters reading in ft.3 first as they are the oldest type of meters still in use and if as stated the period is 10 to 15 years that they are certified for then the companies will want to replace them first.

You've mentioned this friend repeatedly - oddly if I recall correctly you've also said they have had no real change to their electricity consumption in all that time in spite of almost all appliances now being far more energy efficient than anything was 40 years ago? That strikes me as a good example of there being a strong possibility that the electricity meter might indeed not be metering correctly and therefore being an excellent example of requiring replacement! 

MattMattMattUK

Gerry1 said:

Ah, time-of-use tariffs.  AKA surge pricing...

Energy costs different amounts at different times, I do not see why those who choose to use it at the most costly time should not have to pay for that privilege. 

The_Green_Hornet

MattMattMattUK said:

Gerry1 said:

Ah, time-of-use tariffs.  AKA surge pricing...

Energy costs different amounts at different times, I do not see why those who choose to use it at the most costly time should not have to pay for that privilege. 

The Uber model of energy pricing. How nice.

MattMattMattUK

The_Green_Hornet said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Gerry1 said:

Ah, time-of-use tariffs.  AKA surge pricing...

Energy costs different amounts at different times, I do not see why those who choose to use it at the most costly time should not have to pay for that privilege. 

The Uber model of energy pricing. How nice.

The sensible model of pricing, those who wish to use something at peak times pay peak prices which reflect the additional cost, those who are willing to move their usage to periods when the cost of supply is lower gain from decreased cost. I really cannot see why people have a problem with this, unless they are the kind of entitled people who think that everyone else should subsidise them.

t0rt0ise

MattMattMattUK said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Gerry1 said:

Ah, time-of-use tariffs.  AKA surge pricing...

Energy costs different amounts at different times, I do not see why those who choose to use it at the most costly time should not have to pay for that privilege. 

The Uber model of energy pricing. How nice.

The sensible model of pricing, those who wish to use something at peak times pay peak prices which reflect the additional cost, those who are willing to move their usage to periods when the cost of supply is lower gain from decreased cost. I really cannot see why people have a problem with this, unless they are the kind of entitled people who think that everyone else should subsidise them.

Or else they prefer a socialist style of society. You are entitled to your view but concluding that everyone who doesn't agree with you must be "entitled people..." is not logical and rather unpleasant.

EssexHebridean

Not everyone has the ability to load shift to that extent, either. I'm fortunate in that we get no upwards noise transmission from our washing machine and dishwasher, but as we are in a flat, if we did, I'd not be able to use those overnight for a start. Again, due to being in a flat, we can't benefit from solar or a battery either - no roof for the first, and nowhere to put the second. It's easy to suggest that those who don't load shift must be choosing not to "because they think everyone else should subsidise them" from the perspective of being someone in the position who IS able to make those changes! 

MattMattMattUK

t0rt0ise said:

MattMattMattUK said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Gerry1 said:

Ah, time-of-use tariffs.  AKA surge pricing...

Energy costs different amounts at different times, I do not see why those who choose to use it at the most costly time should not have to pay for that privilege. 

The Uber model of energy pricing. How nice.

The sensible model of pricing, those who wish to use something at peak times pay peak prices which reflect the additional cost, those who are willing to move their usage to periods when the cost of supply is lower gain from decreased cost. I really cannot see why people have a problem with this, unless they are the kind of entitled people who think that everyone else should subsidise them.

Or else they prefer a socialist style of society.

I would prefer a somewhat more socialist style of society, largely in line with the Scandinavian model, that would involve me paying more tax, but it would make for a better society. What I am not in favour of is paying for other people to deliberately consume at the most expensive time when perfectly viable alternatives are available. 

t0rt0ise said:
You are entitled to your view but concluding that everyone who doesn't agree with you must be "entitled people..." is not logical and rather unpleasant.

Is expecting/demanding to be subsidised by others being entitled? Most would agree, yes. Why you feel that is unpleasant is down to you.

wild666

EssexHebridean said:

wild666 said:

A friend has an email stating his meters are certified until either 2027 or 2037 I cannot remember which so he is resisting changing to that date by which time his meters will be at least 45 years old if not 55 years old. Until he got the email, earlier this year, he was getting at least 2 email or texts per week with requests or demands his meter was to be changed. As he has an email from the company stating a certification date he is hold out as long as possible before they can be changed. 

IMO I think they will go after those who have meters reading in ft.3 first as they are the oldest type of meters still in use and if as stated the period is 10 to 15 years that they are certified for then the companies will want to replace them first.

You've mentioned this friend repeatedly - oddly if I recall correctly you've also said they have had no real change to their electricity consumption in all that time in spite of almost all appliances now being far more energy efficient than anything was 40 years ago? That strikes me as a good example of there being a strong possibility that the electricity meter might indeed not be metering correctly and therefore being an excellent example of requiring replacement! 

A lot of the appliances he has are the one's he's had for the last 40 years that's why, I think, his electric usage has staid roughly the same. I'm surprised myself that his usage hasn't decreased but he keeps getting replacement parts for his appliances, not genuine parts but parts that will work with the appliance. 
He told me how old some of the appliances are and I believe him, they are in no way modern even by 1980's standards, they are older than him, most are early 60's and the newest are late 70's, his cooker and fridge were nearly 20 years old when he got them in 1982 inherited from his grandparents. I think the newest item in his home is a DAB radio he bought in 2009. 
He doesn't drink, drive or smoke rarely goes out and has savings that would make some people cry, his mother and both sets of grandparents died within 12 months of each other and he inherited 5 homes plus the one they lived in from his mother plus 7 homes including the one his grand parents lived in plus one that his other grandparents lived in and he rents them all out giving him a tidy income.

Scot_39

The_Green_Hornet said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Gerry1 said:

Ah, time-of-use tariffs.  AKA surge pricing...

Energy costs different amounts at different times, I do not see why those who choose to use it at the most costly time should not have to pay for that privilege. 

The Uber model of energy pricing. How nice.

The reality paid by suppliers on the wholesale markets for immediate delivery (rather than advanced hedged pricing).

Which swings massively during shortages, e.g. recent highs of nearly over 2500 per MWh recently, and in July, a reported £9700 at one point - both related to UKs over reliance on unreliable wind without storage

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/11/uk-power-prices-hit-record-high-amid-cold-snap-and-lack-of-wind-power

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-07-25/london-s-record-9-724-54-per-megawatt-hour-to-avoid-a-blackout

Compare those to summer ave of c£50 / MWh.




Time of use - and the current pay back for shifting use - however is more about limiting peak demand right now. 

Especially on still days when wind can underdeliver by nearly 8GW cf average  (recent range over last few months c3GW to 19GW - 10-11GW typical - from c25.5 GW installed capacity by max rating iirc).

Edit - In simple terms with the loss of GW of nuclear and coal in recent years, and the growing percentage of renewables vs core generation, the variability in wind is far more significant - and leaving uk dangerously short of power when it dips.

And this year in particular, especially so as we cannot rely on topping it up from Europe at reasonable prices. Uk has gas pipelines and over 7GW ele trical interconnects.  We used to rely heavily on these e.g. on French nuclear daily over winter - but they too were c15-20GW down on winter capacity in autumn and buying from UK.