Smart energy meters, should I/shouldn't I?

[swansonj]

That's a little unfair. For starters, this enables the full market variability to be passed on to the consumer. Inevitably, you'll end up paying more when it's cold, and especially so when it's cold and still. At a stroke, all market transparency is lost. How could a market possibly be regarded as fair when you have no way of knowing what price you'll be charged in advance?

The other issue is that much domestic demand is inflexible. People aren't going to sit in the dark in winter just because it's more expensive to generate electricity. The evening peak is fixed by working hours - and few people have the option to change that. Charging more - which will inevitably clobber the poorest the most, especially since they have the least flexible work (for them, naturally, zero hours contracts are flexible to the employers, not the employees) - is deeply inequitous. Changing normal working practice to encourage more flexibility for the employee would be highly beneficial to society, not least by reducing the peak demands on both energy supply and transport. But this is something that has to come from the top, with government leading, and supported by appropriate legislation. Using sledgehammer tactics such as peak pricing is not the way to do it, not least as it affects those who are unable to change!

There are two (at least) issues in play.

One is that adding choice (and therefore complexity and the ability to game) to a system usually advantages people who are already advantaged by financial and emotional capital, time, and education, and risks further disadvantaging the already disadvantaged. That, you and I can agree, is a Bad Thing.

But the other is that when it comes to reducing environmental harm, part of what we need to make progress is transparency as to what the harm is. It is relatively common currency here that motor vehicles do enormous harm and have an enormous cost, but that cost is largely hidden from the people who make the choice to use motor vehicles, because it is aggregated and distributed through the NHS, the emergency services, the sacrifice of public space, the cost of roads,etc. Same applies to energy. Our use of energy is killing us all and our planet. A minimum step we surely need to make progress in reducing that harm is some basic transparency as to what the cost (with financial cost as a very crude marker for other costs) of our choices is.

The paradigm that, for reasonably affluent people, we can turn on the switch on the wall whenever we like and use as much electricity as we want at a whim is deeply embedded in western culture after a century's unconscious acceptance but it desperately needs to change.

 

[swansonj]

Do they use cheaper gas at night? Or cheaper uranium?

Solar doesn't work at night. Wind may or may not work at night, so they're still relying on either something that burns or which glows in the dark to generate off peak power, and doing that at midnight costs as much as at mid day.

The difference is demand. Ordinarily, demand dictates price as more purchasers make it easier for the sellers to profit from the commodity. However, in this case its the other way around - they're attempting to use the price to drive the demand. That has nothing to do with hugging bunnies.

Until mass energy storage is in place then then problem remains.

We are quite used to the principle that when a resource is finite, increased demand increases cost. That's what happens in transport (peak fares on railways have been around for yonks and all airlines now do the same), it happens with collectible art works, and isn't that partly why you can't get a discount on a Brompton?

 

[User6179]

We are quite used to the principle that when a resource is finite, increased demand increases cost. That's what happens in transport (peak fares on railways have been around for yonks and all airlines now do the same), it happens with collectible art works, and isn't that partly why you can't get a discount on a Brompton?

Surely in transport it is cheaper when demand is higher, how can a full train or bus cost the company more than a half empty one ?

 

[Wobblers]

There are two (at least) issues in play.

One is that adding choice (and therefore complexity and the ability to game) to a system usually advantages people who are already advantaged by financial and emotional capital, time, and education, and risks further disadvantaging the already disadvantaged. That, you and I can agree, is a Bad Thing.

But the other is that when it comes to reducing environmental harm, part of what we need to make progress is transparency as to what the harm is. It is relatively common currency here that motor vehicles do enormous harm and have an enormous cost, but that cost is largely hidden from the people who make the choice to use motor vehicles, because it is aggregated and distributed through the NHS, the emergency services, the sacrifice of public space, the cost of roads,etc. Same applies to energy. Our use of energy is killing us all and our planet. A minimum step we surely need to make progress in reducing that harm is some basic transparency as to what the cost (with financial cost as a very crude marker for other costs) of our choices is.

The paradigm that, for reasonably affluent people, we can turn on the switch on the wall whenever we like and use as much electricity as we want at a whim is deeply embedded in western culture after a century's unconscious acceptance but it desperately needs to change.

This is the first time that it has been implied that smart meters will reduce environmental harm. Where's the evidence for this? There's already been at least one person on this thread who's said that they looked at the usage at first then forgot about it. Wasn't there some research done which indicated that usage slightly after a smart meter was installed, but rose to its former value after a few months - or have I selectively mis-remembered? If it's not changing peoples' behaviour, it's not having the desired effect. I see nothing to support the idea that smart meters will reduce the, as you rightly say, deeply embedded idea that we can use as much energy (not just electricity!) whenerver we please on a whim.

It is troubling that you haven't been able to suggest any reasons as to how smart meters will be beneficial to the disadvantaged. Nor have you addressed the privacy issues. Or the security issues.

When it comes to reducing environmental harm, 11 billion could make a substantial difference. More trains, for example. Or more buses. Upgrade our current CCGT power stations to the most modeern and efficient plant. It would cost a fraction of that to replace every CFL light with a state of the art LED lamp which has twice the efficacy. We could insulate every home in the country to modern standards. These last two would help most those who are on the lowest incomes - as opposed to the current solution which is to penalise those people whose circumstances dictate that they are unable to change. But smart meters, as well as being socially inequitous, have not been shown to be effective in reduing environmental harm.

 

[Drago]

I'm getting the claymores ready for when they come to try and replace mine.

 

[swansonj]

This is the first time that it has been implied that smart meters will reduce environmental harm. Where's the evidence for this? There's already been at least one person on this thread who's said that they looked at the usage at first then forgot about it. Wasn't there some research done which indicated that usage slightly after a smart meter was installed, but rose to its former value after a few months - or have I selectively mis-remembered? If it's not changing peoples' behaviour, it's not having the desired effect. I see nothing to support the idea that smart meters will reduce the, as you rightly say, deeply embedded idea that we can use as much energy (not just electricity!) whenerver we please on a whim.

Reducing people's consumption by letting them see what they using is part of the pathetic 5% of the potential benefits of smart meters that the UK is currently faffing around with. If that was the total benefit, they would indeed not be worth it. I'm sorry; I did not realise that those were the sole potential benefits you were assessing.

The real benefits of smart meters are that they facilitate smart grids. Consider, just for starters:
- real time demand-side management of electricity through automatic switching of appliances, so that we no longer need reserve on the grid system, and could move to lower security-of-supply standards, which in turn allow new renewables to be connected without time-consuming and problematic grid reinforcement
- distributed storage (through fixed batteries in houses and batteries in cars) that can be used to smooth out peaks and troughs in generation, greatly improving the usability of renewables
- likewise, by smoothing out otherwise random peaks in demand, enabling the big increase in electricity use we must have if we are to decarbonise transport (electric vehicles) and space heating (heat pumps) without having to massively expand the capacity of distribution networks
- and again, by reducing peak demand, reducing the need for the (usually) incredibly inefficient peak generating plants.

It is troubling that you haven't been able to suggest any reasons as to how smart meters will be beneficial to the disadvantaged. Nor have you addressed the privacy issues. Or the security issues.

I do not have answers to the security or privacy issues, which are real and made worse by some of the choices the UK has made. But considering how many of the technology-enabled advances our society has already embraced come with those same risks, I don't see those, troubling though they are, as sufficient reasons to reject further progress.

When it comes to reducing environmental harm, 11 billion could make a substantial difference. More trains, for example. Or more buses. Upgrade our current CCGT power stations to the most modeern and efficient plant. It would cost a fraction of that to replace every CFL light with a state of the art LED lamp which has twice the efficacy. We could insulate every home in the country to modern standards. These last two would help most those who are on the lowest incomes - as opposed to the current solution which is to penalise those people whose circumstances dictate that they are unable to change. But smart meters, as well as being socially inequitous, have not been shown to be effective in reduing environmental harm.

I don't see it as either/or. The way I see it, the challenge of global warming requires pretty well every contribution to a solution we can throw at it.

I have already agreed with you that, in practice, smart meters may well worsen social and economic discrepancies. Show me a realistic way to solve climate change without (among many other things) smart grids and I'd embrace it.

 

[Drago]

Easy. Use less power.

 

[classic33]

Reducing people's consumption by letting them see what they using is part of the pathetic 5% of the potential benefits of smart meters that the UK is currently faffing around with. If that was the total benefit, they would indeed not be worth it. I'm sorry; I did not realise that those were the sole potential benefits you were assessing.

The real benefits of smart meters are that they facilitate smart grids. Consider, just for starters:
- real time demand-side management of electricity through automatic switching of appliances, so that we no longer need reserve on the grid system, and could move to lower security-of-supply standards, which in turn allow new renewables to be connected without time-consuming and problematic grid reinforcement
- distributed storage (through fixed batteries in houses and batteries in cars) that can be used to smooth out peaks and troughs in generation, greatly improving the usability of renewables
- likewise, by smoothing out otherwise random peaks in demand, enabling the big increase in electricity use we must have if we are to decarbonise transport (electric vehicles) and space heating (heat pumps) without having to massively expand the capacity of distribution networks
- and again, by reducing peak demand, reducing the need for the (usually) incredibly inefficient peak generating plants.



I do not have answers to the security or privacy issues, which are real and made worse by some of the choices the UK has made. But considering how many of the technology-enabled advances our society has already embraced come with those same risks, I don't see those, troubling though they are, as sufficient reasons to reject further progress.

I don't see it as either/or. The way I see it, the challenge of global warming requires pretty well every contribution to a solution we can throw at it.

I have already agreed with you that, in practice, smart meters may well worsen social and economic discrepancies. Show me a realistic way to solve climate change without (among many other things) smart grids and I'd embrace it.

Is gas on a grid?

Not everyone using it does so from a mains supply. The same can be said for heating oil. Often used together.

 

[Wobblers]

Reducing people's consumption by letting them see what they using is part of the pathetic 5% of the potential benefits of smart meters that the UK is currently faffing around with. If that was the total benefit, they would indeed not be worth it. I'm sorry; I did not realise that those were the sole potential benefits you were assessing.

This petulance is uncalled for.

The real benefits of smart meters are that they facilitate smart grids. Consider, just for starters:
- real time demand-side management of electricity through automatic switching of appliances, so that we no longer need reserve on the grid system, and could move to lower security-of-supply standards, which in turn allow new renewables to be connected without time-consuming and problematic grid reinforcement

Peak demand management, in other words. But the appliances need sufficient smart electronics to communicate with the smart meter. This is something that the current (and next) generation can't do. There isn't even a standard for it! Having "smart" appliances is an idea that has been around for a long time. Smart meters are not needed to implement them. The simplest idea is that appliances will be able to detect the grid frequency, and shut down when it drops too low. Communications through the power line could easily be implemented - as the data required is of very low bit rate, this is quite feasible. The necessary equipment would go in the local substation - which already has communication equipment for remote monitoring and control (eg. SCADA systems). It would dispense with the expensive data connection smart meters currently require over the 2G cellular network.

- distributed storage (through fixed batteries in houses and batteries in cars) that can be used to smooth out peaks and troughs in generation, greatly improving the usability of renewables

Peak demand management. Again. And again, smart meters aren't required: there are tens of thousands of solar installations in the country without them (ask @Drago, for example). Similar control protocols as with smart appliances could easily and more cheaply used rather than the expensive smart meters being rolled out currently. Which do not support such an application anyway!

As for batteries, to store just one day's UK electricity demand using nickel-hydrogen batteries (the chemistry with the longest life span) would require the world's entire production of nickel for 2 years. Even the more modest goal of just levelling out peaks would absorb the world's entire production of nickel based batteries for some years. Except it's worse - the common battery chemistries have life expectancies that are an order of magnitude shorter than nickel-hydrogen. Using them as load levelling will dramatically shorten their lives. Never mind the (considerable, and justified) resistance from comsumers that the most expensive component of their vehicles is being exhausted in this manner, there is a very significant environmental cost. Nor have I gone into the energy losses - which at 10-20% will be substantial, and likely to be similar to that saved by not using peaking plant.

- likewise, by smoothing out otherwise random peaks in demand, enabling the big increase in electricity use we must have if we are to decarbonise transport (electric vehicles) and space heating (heat pumps) without having to massively expand the capacity of distribution networks
- and again, by reducing peak demand, reducing the need for the (usually) incredibly inefficient peak generating plants.

Peak demand management. Yet again. You've failed to show why smart meters would be of use - far less that 11 billion would do more to reduce energy demand than by getting every home in the country up to a decent standard of insulation. Especially when it is remembered that the technology to do all of this already exists, without necessitating them. And that really tells me everything I need to know, doesn't it?

... sufficient reasons to reject further progress.

Equating smart meters with progress has no place in a debate over their merits. This statement merely serves to call into question your objectivity.

 

[Dan B]

[QUOTE 4901050, member: 9609"]you have to go round with a multi meter to do that, some things still use power even when you think they are fully off (Ie no red light on) My desk top PC still uses power even with the switch at the back of the PSU turned off.[/QUOTE]
Sure. But even then a one-off immediate reading is not a lot of use: take a fridge, for example - suppose I take a reading and it says 100W, what does that really tell me? Nothing whatsoever unless I know (a) whether the compressor was running or not; (b) how many hours of the day the compressor actually runs. Ditto for the heated towel rails, ditto for the desktop PC (I don't care if it's using 5W when it's turned off at the PSU, I do care if it's using 200W for eight hours a day that I thought it was using 5W), ditto for any other appliance whose consumption varies over the day.

"Get gas and leccy under control" is the biggest load of bullshit on our TVs right now that's not a car advert or a Government announcement

 

[classic33]

[QUOTE 4901044, member: 9609"]Bear in mind I have still not seen a smart meter - Are they wired into the consumer unit so as they could potentially switch off freezers etc ? surely to do this houses would need rewired, at best you could just switch off circuits and in most or even all homes circuits will have appliances that would cause nuisance if switched off[/QUOTE]
They replace your existing meter.

 

[classic33]

[QUOTE 4901066, member: 9609"]so how can they control anything ? or how do they measure anything other than overall consumption ? seems a bit pointless to me.[/QUOTE]
They don't let you control anything. What you get to see is your usage, supposedly in real time. The pad they give you to view this on is nowt but a gimmick. It just makes watching your meter easier.

The downside for the consumer is that the supply can be cut from outside the property, should the companies feel like doing so.

 

[swansonj]

This petulance is uncalled for.

Peak demand management, in other words. But the appliances need sufficient smart electronics to communicate with the smart meter. This is something that the current (and next) generation can't do. There isn't even a standard for it! Having "smart" appliances is an idea that has been around for a long time. Smart meters are not needed to implement them. The simplest idea is that appliances will be able to detect the grid frequency, and shut down when it drops too low. Communications through the power line could easily be implemented - as the data required is of very low bit rate, this is quite feasible. The necessary equipment would go in the local substation - which already has communication equipment for remote monitoring and control (eg. SCADA systems). It would dispense with the expensive data connection smart meters currently require over the 2G cellular network.

Peak demand management. Again. And again, smart meters aren't required: there are tens of thousands of solar installations in the country without them (ask @Drago, for example). Similar control protocols as with smart appliances could easily and more cheaply used rather than the expensive smart meters being rolled out currently. Which do not support such an application anyway!

As for batteries, to store just one day's UK electricity demand using nickel-hydrogen batteries (the chemistry with the longest life span) would require the world's entire production of nickel for 2 years. Even the more modest goal of just levelling out peaks would absorb the world's entire production of nickel based batteries for some years. Except it's worse - the common battery chemistries have life expectancies that are an order of magnitude shorter than nickel-hydrogen. Using them as load levelling will dramatically shorten their lives. Never mind the (considerable, and justified) resistance from comsumers that the most expensive component of their vehicles is being exhausted in this manner, there is a very significant environmental cost. Nor have I gone into the energy losses - which at 10-20% will be substantial, and likely to be similar to that saved by not using peaking plant.

Peak demand management. Yet again. You've failed to show why smart meters would be of use - far less that 11 billion would do more to reduce energy demand than by getting every home in the country up to a decent standard of insulation. Especially when it is remembered that the technology to do all of this already exists, without necessitating them. And that really tells me everything I need to know, doesn't it?

Equating smart meters with progress has no place in a debate over their merits. This statement merely serves to call into question your objectivity.

My apology was genuine. You and I usually broadly agree on scientific/technical matters. I'd wasted a lot of energy not understanding why we were disagreeing on this before I twigged that the difference was between the current extremely limited functionality of smart meters and the potential future much greater functionality. So I apologised for not having realised that sooner. Now my apology seems to have caused offence, so I'm now wondering whether apologising for having apologised would make things better or worse...

To repeat what I have said several times: the extremely limited functionality of the smart meters being rolled out in the current UK programme are barely worth having. You and I are in (almost) complete agreement there: we're getting the downsides (cost, obviously, but also the security and privacy concerns you articulate) for insufficient benefit. I have no problem with people rejecting a current smart meter. My problem is with people who seem set on refusing ever to have a smart meter. But the essay required to explain why will have to wait till after today's Brompton-facilitated walk.

 

[Drago]

I'm refusing to have a smart meter, because I have eyes and a brain. I can see when the sun is out, and can tell when my panels are churning the electrons due to the comprehensive smart control panel, and that's when the energy hungry appliances go on. A smart meter can't do that for me - ergo, for someone in my situation they're a waste of resources and money

 

[Wobblers]

My apology was genuine. You and I usually broadly agree on scientific/technical matters. I'd wasted a lot of energy not understanding why we were disagreeing on this before I twigged that the difference was between the current extremely limited functionality of smart meters and the potential future much greater functionality. So I apologised for not having realised that sooner. Now my apology seems to have caused offence, so I'm now wondering whether apologising for having apologised would make things better or worse...

To repeat what I have said several times: the extremely limited functionality of the smart meters being rolled out in the current UK programme are barely worth having. You and I are in (almost) complete agreement there: we're getting the downsides (cost, obviously, but also the security and privacy concerns you articulate) for insufficient benefit. I have no problem with people rejecting a current smart meter. My problem is with people who seem set on refusing ever to have a smart meter. But the essay required to explain why will have to wait till after today's Brompton-facilitated walk.

Oh, gosh, I completely misinterpreted that. Sorry swansonj over missing your apology! There's defniitely no need for you to apologise once more for my own ineptitude - that's my fault, I should have read your post more carefully and wound my neck in.

And, yes, I do agree with you that smart grids are essential. We need to get on with defining the standards that'll be needed so that the grid and appliances can talk to each other - I doubt you'll disagree with me when I say that this is far more important than the current smart meter program! Currently [1], I'm of the belief that smart meters aren't required for a proper smart grid, but am willing to change my mind on the evidence. I do, however, see no need for the invasion of privacy - or the remote kill switch - the benefits of a smart grid require neither.

[1] That wasn't even planned as a pun....