Very pushy replacement energy meter calls

BarelySentientAI

prowla said:

So, you are saying that my energy supplier(s) have been lying to me and I am not on a green tariff?

That's interesting.

They're (probably) right about this one - almost all 'green' tariffs are 'greenwashed' tariffs.  Two factors at play:

1.  The electricity that comes through your supply is exactly the same mixture from the grid as everyone else, there is no special wires for green electricity.

2.  Green generation gets given certificates to say it was green.  These certificates can be bought separately from the actual energy.  Green tariffs often say "we buy enough certificates to cover all the power we supply to you", but don't say "we buy enough green energy to cover all the power we supply to you".

There were some suppliers that actually did buy only green energy and have truly green tariffs, and for that they were allowed to be above the price cap.  Of course the bit they bought from the system operator to cover under-guessed demand was still not necessarily green, but everyone ignored that.

prowla said:

The assertion was also made that the smart meters were required to make the demand more predictable, but I said the system has plenty of storage to cover those discrepancies, ie. 100MWh for 8 hours (which can be topped up at non-peak prices.

The system would, if that's what the storage was actually used for, have enough storage for the overall load discrepancy quite a lot of the time.  Not always, but generally.  You're right on that part. Although, through most of yesterday afternoon, the discrepancy was an over-prediction, so a full battery could do nothing about it.  That's when we get into the situation of wind farms being paid to turn off.

A little confusing talking about topping up at off-peak, because what happens if the discrepancy is at off-peak?  What happens if the storage is full and the discrepancy is 'not enough demand' so you want to push more into the storage (like yesterday) or vice-versa?  It's questions like that which mean the system doesn't use the batteries as a 'surplus energy storage' or even for (in a financial sense) arbitrage.

Storage is also used to deal with speed of change.  A good example is the 'Eastenders cup of tea'.  The system operator knows that at the end of a popular programme, a noticeable portion of the population will turn on their kettles, so has it's fastest reacting assets ready to turn up.  Those are often storage units, and so the system operator reserves them for this purpose and doesn't allow them to be used for managing other discrepancies.  After all, you can only use the energy once before topping it up.

Better predictability does help overall, but via thinking about the suppliers and not the general system.  Better involved customers is a good thing for them.  More energy storage would also be a good thing, no doubt about that.

EssexHebridean

While I suspect almost nothing of the really interesting information being posted by those who understand fully what they are talking about in this subject will make any difference to the rhetoric of the smart meter denial gang, I for one am grateful to those like @BarelySentientAI for increasing my knowledge on this stuff. 

As for green energy - yes, and it still amazes me that people who seem to think (or at least, want to publicly give the impression) that “greenness” is something they care about don’t do enough reading on the facts around it to understand why it is for the most part just greenwashing! 😂

prowla

BarelySentientAI said:

prowla said:

So, you are saying that my energy supplier(s) have been lying to me and I am not on a green tariff?

That's interesting.

They're (probably) right about this one - almost all 'green' tariffs are 'greenwashed' tariffs.  Two factors at play:

1.  The electricity that comes through your supply is exactly the same mixture from the grid as everyone else, there is no special wires for green electricity.

2.  Green generation gets given certificates to say it was green.  These certificates can be bought separately from the actual energy.  Green tariffs often say "we buy enough certificates to cover all the power we supply to you", but don't say "we buy enough green energy to cover all the power we supply to you".

There were some suppliers that actually did buy only green energy and have truly green tariffs, and for that they were allowed to be above the price cap.  Of course the bit they bought from the system operator to cover under-guessed demand was still not necessarily green, but everyone ignored that.

prowla said:

The assertion was also made that the smart meters were required to make the demand more predictable, but I said the system has plenty of storage to cover those discrepancies, ie. 100MWh for 8 hours (which can be topped up at non-peak prices.

The system would, if that's what the storage was actually used for, have enough storage for the overall load discrepancy quite a lot of the time.  Not always, but generally.  You're right on that part. Although, through most of yesterday afternoon, the discrepancy was an over-prediction, so a full battery could do nothing about it.  That's when we get into the situation of wind farms being paid to turn off.

A little confusing talking about topping up at off-peak, because what happens if the discrepancy is at off-peak?  What happens if the storage is full and the discrepancy is 'not enough demand' so you want to push more into the storage (like yesterday) or vice-versa?  It's questions like that which mean the system doesn't use the batteries as a 'surplus energy storage' or even for (in a financial sense) arbitrage.

Storage is also used to deal with speed of change.  A good example is the 'Eastenders cup of tea'.  The system operator knows that at the end of a popular programme, a noticeable portion of the population will turn on their kettles, so has it's fastest reacting assets ready to turn up.  Those are often storage units, and so the system operator reserves them for this purpose and doesn't allow them to be used for managing other discrepancies.  After all, you can only use the energy once before topping it up.

Better predictability does help overall, but via thinking about the suppliers and not the general system.  Better involved customers is a good thing for them.  More energy storage would also be a good thing, no doubt about that.

Understood - since it all comes down the same pipe there is no way that i or anybody could say that the energy delivered to their house down the shared pipes/wires is actually green.

However, it is taken in good faith that the supplier's bonafides are such that the corresponding percentage of the total energy is indeed green and the more people who take that option the more the overall energy pool's sourcing will be shifted accordingly.

prowla

Netexporter said:

However, the context would also entail costly changes to the house and thus wipe out any money savings per-se.

Try getting a quote for a heat pump from Octopus. Many people are paying less than the cost of replacing a boiler, once the £7500 government grant has been applied.

I'm getting a heat pump and solar panels free on the ECO4 scheme.

I've had a brief look; however, I'm not on benefits/low income, so I wouldn't get a grant and therefore it wouldn't be money-saving.

prowla

booneruk said:

prowla said:

However, the context would also entail costly changes to the house and thus wipe out any money savings per-se.

Very much like investments - you invest for rewards realised in the future.

If I embarked on any sizeable renovations to my property, I'd definitely be looking to fit it with solar panels etc and be ready for (hopefully!) half a century of savings.

Sure - I'm at the point in my life where it's questionable whether I would see any return on such an investment.

BarelySentientAI

prowla said:

BarelySentientAI said:

prowla said:

So, you are saying that my energy supplier(s) have been lying to me and I am not on a green tariff?

That's interesting.

They're (probably) right about this one - almost all 'green' tariffs are 'greenwashed' tariffs.  Two factors at play:

1.  The electricity that comes through your supply is exactly the same mixture from the grid as everyone else, there is no special wires for green electricity.

2.  Green generation gets given certificates to say it was green.  These certificates can be bought separately from the actual energy.  Green tariffs often say "we buy enough certificates to cover all the power we supply to you", but don't say "we buy enough green energy to cover all the power we supply to you".

There were some suppliers that actually did buy only green energy and have truly green tariffs, and for that they were allowed to be above the price cap.  Of course the bit they bought from the system operator to cover under-guessed demand was still not necessarily green, but everyone ignored that.

prowla said:

The assertion was also made that the smart meters were required to make the demand more predictable, but I said the system has plenty of storage to cover those discrepancies, ie. 100MWh for 8 hours (which can be topped up at non-peak prices.

The system would, if that's what the storage was actually used for, have enough storage for the overall load discrepancy quite a lot of the time.  Not always, but generally.  You're right on that part. Although, through most of yesterday afternoon, the discrepancy was an over-prediction, so a full battery could do nothing about it.  That's when we get into the situation of wind farms being paid to turn off.

A little confusing talking about topping up at off-peak, because what happens if the discrepancy is at off-peak?  What happens if the storage is full and the discrepancy is 'not enough demand' so you want to push more into the storage (like yesterday) or vice-versa?  It's questions like that which mean the system doesn't use the batteries as a 'surplus energy storage' or even for (in a financial sense) arbitrage.

Storage is also used to deal with speed of change.  A good example is the 'Eastenders cup of tea'.  The system operator knows that at the end of a popular programme, a noticeable portion of the population will turn on their kettles, so has it's fastest reacting assets ready to turn up.  Those are often storage units, and so the system operator reserves them for this purpose and doesn't allow them to be used for managing other discrepancies.  After all, you can only use the energy once before topping it up.

Better predictability does help overall, but via thinking about the suppliers and not the general system.  Better involved customers is a good thing for them.  More energy storage would also be a good thing, no doubt about that.

Understood - since it all comes down the same pipe there is no way that i or anybody could say that the energy delivered to their house down the shared pipes/wires is actually green.

However, it is taken in good faith that the supplier's bonafides are such that the corresponding percentage of the total energy is indeed green and the more people who take that option the more the overall energy pool's sourcing will be shifted accordingly.

Pretty much the idea, after all if every supplier needed to buy certificates for everyone's energy then there wouldn't be enough unless all generation was green.  (Although there was a 2-for-1 deal on certificates at some point)

Netexporter

prowla said:

Netexporter said:

However, the context would also entail costly changes to the house and thus wipe out any money savings per-se.

Try getting a quote for a heat pump from Octopus. Many people are paying less than the cost of replacing a boiler, once the £7500 government grant has been applied.

I'm getting a heat pump and solar panels free on the ECO4 scheme.

I've had a brief look; however, I'm not on benefits/low income, so I wouldn't get a grant and therefore it wouldn't be money-saving.

Anybody can get the £7500 Boiler Upgrade Grant, which would apply to, say, an Octopus installation.

I just mentioned ECO4 in case you might be eligible for further help. You don't even have to be in receipt of benefits, to get ECO4, depending on the policy of your Local Authority who do the financial vetting, although you always have to meet the income criterion.

doodling

Hi,

prowla said:

BarelySentientAI said:

prowla said:

So, you are saying that my energy supplier(s) have been lying to me and I am not on a green tariff?

That's interesting.

They're (probably) right about this one - almost all 'green' tariffs are 'greenwashed' tariffs.  Two factors at play:

1.  The electricity that comes through your supply is exactly the same mixture from the grid as everyone else, there is no special wires for green electricity.

2.  Green generation gets given certificates to say it was green.  These certificates can be bought separately from the actual energy.  Green tariffs often say "we buy enough certificates to cover all the power we supply to you", but don't say "we buy enough green energy to cover all the power we supply to you".

There were some suppliers that actually did buy only green energy and have truly green tariffs, and for that they were allowed to be above the price cap.  Of course the bit they bought from the system operator to cover under-guessed demand was still not necessarily green, but everyone ignored that.

prowla said:

The assertion was also made that the smart meters were required to make the demand more predictable, but I said the system has plenty of storage to cover those discrepancies, ie. 100MWh for 8 hours (which can be topped up at non-peak prices.

The system would, if that's what the storage was actually used for, have enough storage for the overall load discrepancy quite a lot of the time.  Not always, but generally.  You're right on that part. Although, through most of yesterday afternoon, the discrepancy was an over-prediction, so a full battery could do nothing about it.  That's when we get into the situation of wind farms being paid to turn off.

A little confusing talking about topping up at off-peak, because what happens if the discrepancy is at off-peak?  What happens if the storage is full and the discrepancy is 'not enough demand' so you want to push more into the storage (like yesterday) or vice-versa?  It's questions like that which mean the system doesn't use the batteries as a 'surplus energy storage' or even for (in a financial sense) arbitrage.

Storage is also used to deal with speed of change.  A good example is the 'Eastenders cup of tea'.  The system operator knows that at the end of a popular programme, a noticeable portion of the population will turn on their kettles, so has it's fastest reacting assets ready to turn up.  Those are often storage units, and so the system operator reserves them for this purpose and doesn't allow them to be used for managing other discrepancies.  After all, you can only use the energy once before topping it up.

Better predictability does help overall, but via thinking about the suppliers and not the general system.  Better involved customers is a good thing for them.  More energy storage would also be a good thing, no doubt about that.

Understood - since it all comes down the same pipe there is no way that i or anybody could say that the energy delivered to their house down the shared pipes/wires is actually green.

However, it is taken in good faith that the supplier's bonafides are such that the corresponding percentage of the total energy is indeed green and the more people who take that option the more the overall energy pool's sourcing will be shifted accordingly.

That doesn't really follow.

The country's generation mix is largely driven by commercial and political concerns. The purchasing power of domestic customers has virtually no influence on what generation is built and run.

For example, whilst there are lots of wind projects ongoing, the government is also vigorously encouraging the construction of gas power stations at the moment because lots of coal and nuclear stations have closed in the last few years and they want to make sure the lights stay on when it isn't windy on a winter's night.

Similarly, on that still winter's night no more than about 20% of our electricity will be green (basically our remaining nuclear plus the nuclear we import from France) - if more than 20% of consumption is on green tariffs then someone is lying.

The greeness of your electricity supply depends on the weather and (to a lesser extent) what time you use the energy, not the tariff you are on.

Smart meter data would allow suppliers to give each customer a pretty accurate individual estimate of the greenness of their particular consumption pattern - I'm surprised that a supplier hasn't come up with that gimmick yet.

Netexporter

The greeness of your electricity supply depends on the weather and (to a lesser extent) what time you use the energy, not the tariff you are on.

The nice thing about the Agile tariff is the correlation between price and greenness. When half-hourly prices are lowest the proportion of renewable energy is highest. The very peak of greenness is when you are actually being paid to consume electricity, something the smart meter refuseniks will never experience.

MP1995

We have become a greener user of electricity since changing to Agile.

This benefits the world and also in turn benefits us with really cheap electricity like 10-12p kwh......pre price hike(s) prices.

I do find these anti smart meter posts funny but am happy for those that don't want one to carry on.

However......... do this somewhere else.........this is a money saving site and surely the money saving option is to get a smart meter?