You should install smart meters even if they're dumb, says flack • The Register Forums

1. 1. 1. Friday 9th September 2016 17:01 GMT John Sager
      
      Engineers say no
      
      Reading the comments, which being from a sample of Reg readers, will be by and large of an engineering bent & discipline, they are almost universally negative. Being 'little people' govt won't listen to us unless we became a big, organised angry but articulate mob, which won't happen. So we rely on engineers who have a track record of being listened to by govt to articulate our negative views. What? You mean to say there aren't any? The only ones who get listened to have been captured by the system? Quelle surprise!
      
      I guess the classic example is David Nutt - tell us what we want to hear or you're toast. So unfortunately all the venting here & elsewhere will have precisely no effect. All we can do is to insulate ourselves personally from this madness & hope we can avoid the worst effects. I've had a diesel gen set for a *long* time. It was bought during an era of flaky countryside 11kV distribution but I've kept it for future flakiness further up the chain:(
      
      15 0 Reply
    2. Monday 12th September 2016 08:48 GMT nijam
      
      > We're on Economy 7 and do use the washing machine overnight so no savings there.
      
      It's worth remembering that a tumble drier will typically use 2 or 3 times the energy to dry the load as the washing machine did to wash it.
      
      0 0 Reply
  2. Friday 9th September 2016 18:32 GMT Phil O'Sophical
    
    it's the 3KW immersion heater, as the switch is in a cupboard. Kids turn it on for a bath, then forget.
    
    So fit a 30-minute push button timer. Cheaper than a smart meter and much more effective since it saves you the trouble of even having to look at it and react.
    
    25 0 Reply
  3. Friday 9th September 2016 23:03 GMT Alan Brown
    
    "I'm maybe saving a few quid a week doing that as normally it's the 3KW immersion heater, as the switch is in a cupboard. Kids turn it on for a bath, then forget."
    
    You'd save a shitload more by dumping it and installing an on-demand heater.
    
    5 0 Reply
    1. Sunday 11th September 2016 10:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Hmmmm, had a quote for £3k for a new combi boiler and associated work.
      
      Running costs for the old gravity fed heating system have been £120 on a new fan over the past five years. Immersion has cost nothing to maintain.
      
      Not going to go into the maths of it, but I'd be very surprised if I'd recoup that £3k in reduced energy costs in my lifespan, let alone the 5 years or so I expect to be in this house.
      
      2 0 Reply
      1. Sunday 11th September 2016 21:31 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        Combi boilers are the spawn of the devil
        
        You can still get the traditional kind of boiler which feeds radiators and a hot water cylinder. For some reason there seems to be a lot of emphasis on supplying you the more expensive product - the modern equivalent of a gas multipoint water heater, aka geyser.
        
        Does anywhere outside the UK also have this obsession with combi boilers?
        
        0 0 Reply
      2. Tuesday 13th September 2016 14:55 GMT SImon Hobson
        
        had a quote for £3k for a new combi boiler and associated work
        
        Well there's part of your problem - don't FFS get a combi, except for a few uses they are the spawn of the devil. But installers lurve them because they are easy to install, and builders/developers lurve them because it means they can shave about 1 square yard off the size of a house by doing away with the cylinder and cupboard. But for most users, they are "a poor choice" - especially for a family with a bath !
        
        Gas takes much longer, if I have it on for an hour then ...
        
        Right, so you are using it wrongly.
        
        I don't however know what the cost of the gas is vs the approx 24p of electric used in that half hour.
        
        Almost certainly less than the lecky - unless you are on LPG from a tank in the garden. Mains gas is typically around 1/4 the cost of mains lecky for a unit of heat. Even if your existing boiler is old and inefficient, I bet it's cheaper (by a good margin) to run than the immersion heater.
        
        Suggested steps to take :
        
        1) If there isn't one, get a cylinder stat fitted and wired into the heating system. This will be able to run the boiler when the cylinder needs heat, and turn the boiler off again afterwards (unless the heating is also demanding heat).
        
        2) Set the time controls to allow the boiler to heat the cylinder for a decent amount of time each day. In practical terms, there isn't really a reason not to allow the cylinder to be set for 24 hours - the boiler does not run on the timer, it runs on the cylinder stat and will not run if the cylinder is already hot.
        
        3) Make sure you have a good room stat for the heating and use it. Don't be like SWMBO who treats the room stat as a switch.
        
        4) The boiler controls need to be set such that the boiler does not shut down on it's own stat before the room and cylinder stats are satisfied. Boiler cycling is very common (usually because the clueless plumber set things up wrong) and is very expensive.
        
        5) At some point (consider it when either the existing cylinder and/or boiler are giving problems) consider upgrading to a modern fully pumped system with "fast recovery" high capacity coil and a condensing (but not combi) boiler. You'll get much better cylinder reheat times and it'll be more efficient - IF the system is setup right (most aren't as "plumbers" are often completely clueless).
        
        And for a few more bits. When (not if) people tell you that it's wasteful to store a tank full of hot water, and mutter about standing losses, ignore them as ignorant idiots ! Provided you've taken measures (like the above) to make the controls work for you AND you have it well lagged, then the losses are low. Plus, unless the airing cupboard is outside of the house, then the losses aren't wasted as they'll be contributing to heating the house. I actually did side-by-side comparisons of a thermal store I'd just installed in one property with the combi next door - the combi had higher losses with no demand than the store (about twice in fact). Combi boilers have significant standing losses because they fire up at intervals to keep the heat exchanger hot so as to avoid the "turn on hot tap, wait a minute or two while the boiler obliges with hot water" problem they are so famous for - and this repeated firing is very wasteful. That's one of the "dirty secrets" about combi boilers that their supporters will never mention.
        
        So TL;DR version.
        
        You are being wasteful, almost certainly not using your systems to best advantage, and having a smart meter won't help with that. You can get a much better saving by using what you have correctly, without the "remote turn off" facility and without handing over a lot of detailed information into a massive database where it's almost certainly going to leak.
        
        And the "spot when the lecky use is high because the immersion is on" bit doesn't even need a smart meter - a slip on energy monitor for a fraction of the price* will tell you that.
        
        * Don't believe the outright lies that these meter are "at no extra cost". You might not get a bill itemising it, but you, and I, and everyone else here paying lecky and gas bills, is paying for it - to the tune of (current estimates) 11 BILLION quid on our bills during the next few years. It works out at around £200/meter.
        
        1 0 Reply
      3. Tuesday 13th September 2016 22:03 GMT Roland6
        
        Hmmmm, had a quote for £3k for a new combi boiler and associated work.
        
        Running costs for the old gravity fed heating system have been £120 on a new fan over the past five years.
        
        Well that's effectively £3k for a complete replacement to your existing system! Unless you need the space being used by the existing boiler and immersion (hot water) tank and can live with running the hot tap for several minutes to get the boiler to run and so produce hot water, I wouldn't bother with a combi. Also for condensing boilers to actually achieve their claimed efficiencies they need to be used in the right way, namely allowed to run hot so that they spend most of their time in condensing mode, combi boilers seem a good idea but because of the way they heat water they actually spend most of their time getting hot!; in this mode are broadly as efficient as a 2000~2005 non-condensing boiler...
        
        Not sure about a gravity fed heating system, but back in the 70's and early 80's many systems had gravity fed hot water systems, using the pump only for the central heating. If your's is one of these then your bills will be significantly higher than necessary.
        
        I would get a local professional in, rather than someone from a major, and get them to fit a regular boiler (direct replacement for your existing boiler) and put both hot water tank and central heating on to a pumped circuit. A pro installer will also install the important but necessary extra's like: hot water tank with 2-inches or more of foam insulation, sludge filters, thermostatic radiator valves, lag the internal hot pipes (heat goes where you want it quicker and doesn't leak out making bedrooms more comfortable in summer) and route the condensation drain pipe so that it doesn't freeze in winter... Additionally, by using a local pro, the quote should still be less than the one you already possess...
        
        1 0 Reply
        
        Wednesday 14th September 2016 12:37 GMT SImon Hobson
        
        Also for condensing boilers to actually achieve their claimed efficiencies they need to be used in the right way, namely allowed to run hot so that they spend most of their time in condensing mode ...
        
        A correction on that.
        
        Non-condensing boiler have to run hot (return above about 55˚C*) as condensation will kill them quickly.
        
        A condensing boiler works best when the return temperature is below about 55˚C* and they can recover the extra energy from condensing much of the water vapour in the exhaust.
        
        As you say, many condensing boilers are installed and gain nothing over the old reliable one they replaced - simply because the system isn't set up properly to allow them to work. Combi's make this worse due to the need to grossly oversize the boiler (to give something approximating to an adequate hot water supply) relative to the size needed for efficient space heating.
        
        * 55˚C (or thereabouts) is down to the chemistry of the gas burning.
        
        1 0 Reply
  4. Friday 9th September 2016 23:22 GMT Martin an gof
    I have a look what's been left on and turn it off. I'm maybe saving a few quid a week doing that as normally it's the 3KW immersion heater, as the switch is in a cupboard
    
    You have gas heating. Use it, it's cheaper, and probably quicker at heating the water too
    Immersions have thermostats. Make sure yours is set correctly and when the cylinder is up to temperature it will turn itself off, just coming on now and then to make up for losses. If your immersion doesn't have its own 'stat, one can probably be added, or a new immersion with a thermostat is hardly expensive
    Make sure the cylinder is lagged properly to reduce the standing losses
    Fit a boost switch instead of a simple switch. If you need to use the immersion, this will turn it off automatically after a set time
    
    I'd pretty much guarantee that the above will save more money more easily than the offchance that you spot the thing is on when it shouldn't be from a little display on the mantlepiece
    
    M.
    
    15 0 Reply
    1. Sunday 11th September 2016 10:37 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Strangely, all the info I've had is that the immersion is cheaper - if it's used to heat the water to the same temperature.
      
      Gas takes much longer, if I have it on for an hour then I can run it directly into the bath and just use that. I can have the immersion on for half that time, and have to add a load of cold to it to bring it down to temperature - hence there's water left for washing up etc.
      
      I don't however know what the cost of the gas is vs the approx 24p of electric used in that half hour.
      
      0 0 Reply
      1. Sunday 11th September 2016 22:31 GMT Martin an gof
        
        Strangely, all the info I've had is that the immersion is cheaper...
        
        Check your bills. Last time I looked (UK), electricity was somewhere between three and four times the price of gas per kWh.
        
        Your boiler can put more energy into the water in the cylinder more quickly than an immersion heater; the latter is usually 3kW while even an old back boiler could potentially output 12 or 15kW. A modern boiler can usually supply more than that, with a typical "system" boiler capable of 25 or 30kW.
        
        Several factors in play here:
        
        the boiler coil may not be able to handle all the heat the boiler can supply, though even a standard coil should manage more than 3kW - the normally-quoted "recovery time" (time to re-heat the cylinder from cold) is around 30 mintues. A "fast recovery" coil will handle more, and heat quicker.
        An immersion heater (as usually installed in an otherwise gas-heated system) heats only the top 1/3rd or so of the cylinder (maybe a half), and the water underneath will remain cold, while the boiler coil is right at the bottom and heats the whole lot. Not sure if this link will work, but here's a picture.
        Your coil may be furred-up if you have hard water, or haven't maintained proper levels of inhibitor in the boiler water - how well do your radiators work?
        This is the big one: they are controlled by separate thermostats. The immersion heater has a built-in thermostat that is usually factory-set to 60C, with a safety cutout thermostat set to 80C (I think). If the water heated by the immersion is scaldingly hot it may be that the main thermostat has failed, and you are heating water to 80C on the safety 'stat.
        The boiler will be controlled (usually) by two thermostats. The first sets the temperature of the water leaving the boiler, and is usually set to around 80C, which is the temperature at which the recovery time (and a radiator's output) is calculated. There is also a thermostat strapped on to the outside of the tank (more modern tanks have these inserted into the tank). This should be set to 60C because that is considered a "safe" temperature to avoid bacterial growth and not too dangerous if you happen to hold your hands under the tap. However, strap-on thermostats are exposed and vulnerable and (depending on design) can be knocked off-temperature quite easily.
        
        So it's possible that the cylinder thermostat controlling the boiler could be set to (say) 50C, against the 60C of the immersion. It's also possible that the flow temperature from the boiler is set low for some reason - this is unlikely, but possible. Obviously, if the boiler is set to (say) 50C, it won't be able to heat the cylinder beyond that, however high the cylinder 'stat is set, and as the cylinder approaches 50C the rate of heat transfer will slow down.
        
        Does this help?
        
        Point 1 - gas is about a quarter the price of electricity per kWh
        
        Point 2 - the boiler is heating the whole cylinder, while the immersion is only heating a third or so
        
        Point 3 - there are at least two separate controlling thermostats, and they may not be set the same
        
        M.
        
        3 0 Reply
      2. Monday 12th September 2016 09:04 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        > I don't however know what the cost of the gas is vs the approx 24p of electric used in that half hour.
        
        Check on your gas and electricity bills: gas bills should now give the price per kWh so it's directly comparable. You will find that the price of gas per kWh is about 1/4 or 1/5 of the price of electricity. Even if your boiler is only 80% efficient, heating that cylinder by gas will be a fraction of the cost of heating it by electricity.
        
        However you're right that the gas system will have maintenance costs, particularly the annual boiler service, which needs to be taken into account. However, having a purely electric system is unlikely to be cheaper overall if you have a family (i.e. lots of baths and showers).
        
        It may be workable if you use Economy 7 and can survive on one hot tank of water per day, or perhaps in combination with solar water heating (not solar PV panels!)
        
        0 0 Reply
  5. Saturday 10th September 2016 07:28 GMT Blatant Coward
    
    @chris 125
    
    We have gas for heating because it's vastly cheaper than using electric.
    
    If your kids are turning on the immersion then just use your boiler programmer to ensure the tank is hot before they need it and take the fuse out of the immersion heater so it can't be used. Maybe just have your HW on constant throughout the day? The boiler will heat the tank faster than the immersion and be vastly cheaper.
    
    It looks like your failing to utilise the correct water heating technology to minimise your bills, smart meter or not. If you believe your boiler uses more fuel to heat your water than your immersion then there is something seriously wrong with your setup that you need to get checked out.
    
    4 0 Reply
  6. Saturday 10th September 2016 23:55 GMT TeeCee
    
    ... as normally it's the 3KW immersion heater...
    
    WTF? You claim to actually give a rat's arse about your consumption, yet you actually use an immersion heater??
    
    <Head explodes>
    
    3 0 Reply
2. Friday 9th September 2016 14:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  I wanted a smart meter, so I could track my energy usage by time and shift things into the cheaper rates,They couldn't get a mobile signal so I was out of luck! I will be on a dumb meter until they fix mobile coverage!
  
  2 0 Reply
  1. Friday 9th September 2016 22:56 GMT timnich
    
    If the meters were really smart, they would provide all the real time info without requiring the backhaul connection.
    
    I therefore conclude that the meters are simply dumb units capable of remote interrogation (backhaul connection permitting), with all the smartness residing in a data centre somewhere.
    
    2 0 Reply
  2. Sunday 11th September 2016 12:10 GMT PNGuinn
    
    Mobile signal?
    
    Would they EVER be able to get a mobile signal through my nice faraday screened meter cupboard?
    
    Ok, it's not screened at the moment, but that's on the list of must do projects if there's any chance of this daft idea coming anywhere near me!
    
    You can't be too careful.
    
    Can you get a meter sized tinfoil hat on fleabay?
    
    On a more serious note, have the numpties with this bright idea considered the possibilities of selective time based screening / signal blocking to turn variable tariff pricing to crimminal advantage?
    
    ... No, m'lud - not guilty. My smart fridge and smart toaster have conspired to 'ack into it via a vunmerebility in me smart tv. Honest gov. ...
    
    Thanks - it's the one the the 5l tin of electro conductive paint in the pocketses.
    
    0 0 Reply
    1. Sunday 11th September 2016 21:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Re: Mobile signal?
      
      "Would they EVER be able to get a mobile signal through my nice faraday screened meter cupboard?"
      
      If I was designing this system (be grateful I'm not), continued supply of electricity would be dependent on some kind of keepalive signal from HQ to meter. It doesn't have to be obvious/explicit, just something detectable by the remote cutoff gadget, and if not detected, off goes the power.
      
      Now what're you going to do with your Faraday cage :)
      
      0 0 Reply
3. Friday 9th September 2016 14:16 GMT Voland's right hand
  
  Remote meter reading is about the only thing that could credibly be touted as a benefit
  
  The actual benefit and use case in the original white paper very carefully edited by all the usual energy suspects is turning off grannies' supply and freezing them without having a human involved. See, machine did it, we are had no clue it will do it.
  
  There is _NO_ other benefit. If the benefit is "remote metering", then can we have a regulatory mandate the smart meters not to include a power cut-off function of any type (local or remote). Can we? Asking once... twice.. thrice... Nope, do not think so, suddenly there is a silence from the industry.
  
  58 1 Reply
  1. Saturday 10th September 2016 22:58 GMT Martin-73
    
    Remote power cut off would be regarded by myself as a fault, and I'd simply bypass the meter till they came to fix it :)
    
    0 0 Reply
4. Friday 9th September 2016 14:30 GMT CrazyOldCatMan
  
  > They've been bleating about this for ages
  
  I had a call from Siemens (on behalf of my energy company) about this.. I vented slightly to the poor bloke at the other end of the phone (poor security, no benefit to me etc etc).
  
  At the end of my rantette he said words to the effect of "so, when do you want it installed then?"
  
  My reply was fairly short and to the point ("Never") which, I think, miffed him slightly. I wonder if he was on commission..
  
  31 0 Reply
  1. Friday 9th September 2016 15:09 GMT Sir Runcible Spoon
    
    I got a letter *telling* me there were coming to fit a smart meter!
    
    I phoned them up, said I didn't want one - they asked why, I said that they weren't secure. He made a note and that was that.
    
    However, if I hadn't already known they weren't compulsory there was nothing in the letter to indicate this - quite the opposite in fact - very shady.
    
    29 0 Reply
    1. Monday 12th September 2016 12:14 GMT PatientOne
      
      I got a letter saying I needed to arrange for the meter to be fitted as they were required to install them.
      
      I didn't bother responding.
      
      A friend, however, did, and took a day out to await for the meter to be fitted. They never turned up.
      
      So one more reason to refuse: Even if you do want the meter, you may wind up wasting your time waiting for them to turn up.
      
      Strangely, I was asked, not too long ago, if I'd consider swapping to a rival supplier, who informed me they *don't* do smart meters. Which is good to know if my current supplier pushes for me to have one.
      
      0 0 Reply
5. Friday 9th September 2016 15:07 GMT nematoad
  
  It is to laugh.
  
  "...my supplier will let me upload a photo of the meter as a reading..."
  
  Hmm, I'd love to see my supplier do that. The piddling little box that they fitted when they found out that there was no possibility of fitting a smart meter (piss poor mobile coverage) means that you practically have to use a magnifying glass to see what the damned thing is reading.
  
  I don't miss the "magic box" as I agree that I can see no benefit to me of the thing, just reduced costs for the supplier.
  
  4 0 Reply
  1. Friday 9th September 2016 15:18 GMT JetSetJim
    
    Re: It is to laugh.
    
    >Hmm, I'd love to see my supplier do that.
    
    Mine is EDF
    
    0 0 Reply
6. Friday 9th September 2016 15:42 GMT VinceH
  
  "Remote meter reading is about the only thing that could credibly be touted as a benefit - but even that is a bit marginal seeing as my supplier will let me upload a photo of the meter as a reading - all through their "app" (all very trendy)."
  
  Mine doesn't do that - and if that's an app that runs on a phone, I'd probably be unwilling to install it anyway. However, I can upload meter readings through their website, and they usually send an email asking for one when the bill is about to be prepared.
  
  I've just had a bill, and did indeed get that email as usual - but I decided not to upload readings because the meter was actually read by an actual real meter reading person about two weeks previously - so I figured an estimate for those final couple of weeks wouldn't be too far out.
  
  And the electricity one wasn't. It shows the actual reading from the last bill, the actual reading by the actual real meter reading person, then a final estimated amount that was close to what my meter said when I checked it after receiving the bill.
  
  The gas one, though, estimates that between the meter actually being read by the actual real meter reading person and the bill being prepared, I somehow pumped 2000 cubic feet back into the system.
  
  WTF?
  
  Needless to say, checking the actual reading suggests that, in fact, I used some more gas since the meter was read.
  
  As it happens I'm a small amount in credit, and a back of envelope calculation suggests the amount roughly tallies with the actual gas used, so I've left it at that.
  
  2 0 Reply
7. Friday 9th September 2016 15:46 GMT Roland6
  
  Re: Benefits
  
  You would have thought, with 3.5m of the things installed there would be plenty of hard evidence of the real savings being made. The fact that Rob Smith doesn't mention any is sufficient evidence to conclude there aren't savings to be had by consumers.
  
  I seem to remember reading somewhere (El Reg?) that the energy consumption savings achieved todate through the smart meter rollout amount to 2%.
  
  14 0 Reply
  1. Monday 12th September 2016 08:46 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: Benefits
    
    > energy consumption savings achieved todate through the smart meter rollout amount to 2%
    
    2% of what though? 2% of household electricity and gas consumption? Across all households, or just for those 3.5m people who had the meters installed?
    
    It annoys me intensely when politicians say (for example) "we are generating 5% of our energy via renewables" when actually they means that we are generating 5% of our *electricity* from renewables. Since electricity only accounts for about 1/6th of the country's total energy usage, the correct figure would be more like 1%.
    
    A 2% usage reduction in total household gas and electricity use, when only 10% of households so far have smart meters, would be quite staggering, and I don't believe it.
    
    A 2% usage reduction in gas and electricity use across only those who have the smart meters would still be moderately significant - although household gas and electricity use is still only a small fraction of total energy use, excluding industry, transport etc. Whether it justifies £17bn is another matter.
    
    Being a cynic, I would expect the gas and electricity companies will just increase their prices for smart meter users by 2% to compensate for any reduced usage. They will achieve this by following the model of mobile phone operators, with massively complex price schemes where you will be encouraged to buy a "bundle" of more than you need, because the out-of-bundle usage will be horrendously expensive.
    
    0 0 Reply
8. Friday 9th September 2016 16:30 GMT Mage
  
  Benefits?
  
  Mainly to the suppliers, to be able to load shed more precisely.
  
  7 0 Reply
9. Friday 9th September 2016 22:11 GMT cyberdemon
  
  The benefit:
  
  Is to be able to be remotely switched off. When the electricity company feels like it. Ostensibly so that they can make their renewable plans work without needing to buy any expensive (and inefficient) energy storage devices like Electric Mountain, or (heaven forbid) actual baseload generation capacity (ie their job). Also it comes in very handy when you haven't paid your bill on time.
  
  When the majority of people have "smart" meters then they can implement this plan, and give cheaper tariffs (read: a massive price hike for nearly everybody) to people who don't mind being switched off every now and then (i.e. in the middle of EastEnders, or when the sun goes behind a cloud). If you moan about being switched off then well you should have paid extra, and you shouldn't be watching that drivel anyway, or you should be streaming it on your ipad on 3G.
  
  So in summary, WHAT exactly are YOU doing that needs such a reliable and therefore WASTEFUL energy supply? Washing your clothes you say? Only rich people wash their clothes - you can afford to pay the premium. Perhaps you'd like to buy an energy efficient kettle?
  
  It really is a sorry state of affairs, privatised electricity generation in the UK. We should've stuck with the Ministry of Power, and invested in research into newer, cleaner, cheaper nuclear power, rather than cancelling all the programmes and building privately run coal and gas plants.
  
  Meanwhile we have regulated the pants off of nuclear, making it ridiculously expensive and making everyone scared of it (meanwhile more radioactivity is pumped out by coal plants than nuclear, never mind all the rest of the shite that fossil fuels dump into the air, and vastly more people are killed by wind farms, despite the tiny fraction of energy generation that they currently provide!)
  
  The only people who benefit (aside from the energy companies as above) are the likes of Siemens who make the infernal things, and charge a fortune and make a fortune, knowing that they are subsidised by both the bill-payer and the tax-payer, i.e. you and me and me and you!
  
  9 2 Reply
  1. Saturday 10th September 2016 04:54 GMT Pompous Git
    
    Re: The benefit:
    
    Is to be able to be remotely switched off.
    
    "Switched off" being a euphemism for executed I presume. The Git recalls The Big Freeze of 1962-3 and pensioners and the poor dying from the cold because they couldn't afford fuel to stay warm.
    
    Fuel poverty campaigners reckon the number of excess winter deaths surged last winter to 49,260, of which around 14,780 were due to people living in cold homes.
    
    Story Here
    
    5 0 Reply
  2. Saturday 10th September 2016 13:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: The benefit:
    
    I'm with you apart from wind farms killing a lot of people (relatively to fossil fuels?). What have I missed?
    
    Thanks in advance.
    
    0 0 Reply
  3. Saturday 10th September 2016 13:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: The benefit:
    
    I'm with you apart from wind farms killing a lot of people (relative to fossil fuels?). What have I missed?
    
    Thanks in advance.
    
    0 0 Reply
    1. Saturday 10th September 2016 15:04 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Re: The benefit:
      
      I'm with you apart from wind farms killing a lot of people (relative to fossil fuels?). What have I missed?
      
      Let me explain what you've missed: The costs of our "save the planet" energy policies have thus far added something of the order of £150bn to consumer energy bills, (with at least another £50bn in the pipeline, even before policy costs rise further to achieve the 5th Carbon Budget recently rubber stamped by this government).
      
      We then see the same politicians who approved these policies wringing their hands about high energy costs, fuel poverty, and excess winter deaths and then blaming the suppliers for this. These suppliers are required by the terms of their licences and by the market structures invented by government and regulator to recover all the policy costs. And we expect to see retail energy costs to continue to rise over the next few years (and possibly through until the mid 2030s), reflecting nothing more than the policy costs imposed by government.
      
      Unless you dispute the official line on climate change, fuel poverty and excess winter deaths, then it is a simple matter of fact that all the eco-bling of wind turbines and PV saves polar bears, but kills pensioners.
      
      3 0 Reply
      1. Sunday 11th September 2016 16:21 GMT handle
        
        Dying pensioners
        
        @ledswinger: "Unless you dispute the official line on climate change, fuel poverty and excess winter deaths, then it is a simple matter of fact that all the eco-bling of wind turbines and PV saves polar bears, but kills pensioners."
        
        Very smug little argument, but ignores the fact that the brokenness of the energy market means vastly inflated prices unless you religiously change supplier every year, which is just the sort of thing that the poor pensioners you are using as your emotional pawns are not going to do (just as they are not likely to take up green incentives such as insulation grants). Direct your ire at the big six rather than microgeneration, which they hate as it undermines their monopoly.
        
        Still, I'm glad that you think it saves polar bears.
        
        2 0 Reply
  4. Sunday 11th September 2016 12:31 GMT PNGuinn
    
    Re: The benefit:
    
    "When the majority of people have "smart" meters then they can implement this plan"
    
    Yup, that's the REAL reason.
    
    What what nobody "up there" has yet cottoned on to is that if the network can do it anyone can. Especially with the apparent no security as a design IOT mentality that appears to accompany the whole idea.
    
    ... So, Eric, this is what I want you to do. At 0800 hours next friday, switch off two thirds of London.
    
    Give it five minutes or so and then switch 'en all back on again. Then do Birmingham. Make it 2 mins this time. ...
    
    Or something. Wickeder minds than mine can refine the idea.
    
    2 0 Reply
  5. Sunday 11th September 2016 12:37 GMT PNGuinn
    
    Re: The benefit: @ cyberd
    
    Q lots and lots of nice smelly, smokey, noisy. gennys in back gardens and on flat balconies.
    
    Sounds so green and safe to me .... Think I'll store my petrol under the stairs ....
    
    Just remember - lots of CO in the bedroom helps you sleep soundly.
    
    0 0 Reply
10. Saturday 10th September 2016 08:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Interestingly, for telling how much energy it takes to cook an egg or whatever, I gained a lot of experience in that skill at university simply using a prepayment meter. It was 3p for an egg btw. Low energy lightbulbs were my best investment ever.
  
  2 0 Reply
  1. Saturday 10th September 2016 09:10 GMT Pompous Git
    
    Low energy lightbulbs were my best investment ever.
    
    They have been my worst. CFLs have cost me an order of magnitude more. Haven't had one last longer than about 9 months. LED replacements for my QH downlights over my kitchen workbench were nowhere near bright enough and one of them died after less than a month. My last ordinary incandescent is now at least 13 years old. It lights up the entry to the house automatically when SWMBO arrives home from work in the winter months.
    
    4 1 Reply
    1. Saturday 10th September 2016 09:44 GMT Martin an gof
      
      Low energy lightbulbs were my best investment ever.
      
      They have been my worst. CFLs have cost me an order of magnitude more. Haven't had one last longer than about 9 months
      
      I have had a few fail early, but the majority of CFLs I've had have lasted at least as long as the incandescents they replaced. I know this because I write on the lamp the date of installation. One lamp used in the hall (so was on quite a lot) survived three house moves and about 15 years of use, if I remember correctly.
      
      Let's not get into the argument about illunimation "quality" or speed of startup.
      
      CFLs are quite cheap now, even the "good" brands. Don't buy Asda or B&Q own-brand (B&Q don't sell anything except own-brand these days) - pop over to TLC or even Screwfix and buy a Sylvania or Philips or Osram.
      
      LEDs I'm a bit more ambivalent about. They are maturing at an incredible pace, but they still have a little way to go. For example, I recently needed to replace an R63 lamp (reflector) at my mum's - the original was 60W and there's a 45W Halogen available that is acceptable (it's a similar brightness and colour) but has a lifespan of under 2,000 hours (by experience). The LED equivalents I found were all about 5W and noticeably dimmer than the lamp to be replaced. Experience at work is also that they don't last as long as it says on the packet, but mainly due to their power supplies failing rather than the LEDs themselves burning out. Oh, and LEDs also reduce in brightness over their lifespan.
      
      To get the most out of low-energy lighting, you really need to start from scratch and design the lighting installation with the foibles of the new technologies in mind. Unfortunately this isn't always practical, as in the case of mum's R63.
      
      That said, I have an old DIY book from the 1920s (IIRC) and in the part where it is discussing the installation of electric lighting it states that a 25W standard or table lamp would be perfectly adequate as a reading lamp. By modern standards, and considering that incandescents were even less efficient back then than they are now, that's a pretty dim reading lamp!
      
      M.
      
      3 1 Reply
      1. Saturday 10th September 2016 12:02 GMT Nick Ryan
        
        Always buy quality LEDs, not the junk you get from supermarkets or DIY stores (including the pretty 'orrible Phillips devices). Buying the junk and getting a bad experience is what puts most people off LEDs as they believe that they are (relatively) expensive but very dim whereas the reality of decent LEDs is that they are still relatively expensive, but can be far brighter than the "equivalent" incandescent (mainly halogen these days) or CFL units. The halogens tend to blow within a short period of time and the CFLs cannot be dimmed (good LEDs can, but need good dimmers and careful planning) and the CFLs tend to be slow to start and pretty random colours.
        
        1 0 Reply
        
        Sunday 11th September 2016 03:18 GMT Pompous Git
        
        the reality of decent LEDs is that they are still relatively expensive, but can be far brighter than the "equivalent" incandescent (mainly halogen these days) or CFL units. The halogens tend to blow within a short period of time
        
        Not according to my supplier, a specialist supplier of (quality) light fittings and globes. The LEDs I purchased from him were the largest and brightest drop-in replacements for my 35W 630 lumens halogen downlights. The 6 W LEDs are rated for 370 lumens, but I believe that falls to 260 lumens over time. Not really enough light when it's illuminating a workspace where very sharp knives are used.
        
        I agree that halogens have a lamentably short life (~1,000 hrs), but then when I purchased the lighting system for the home I completed 13 years ago, incandescents were on the hit list by the government. I priced the cost of LEDs, but $AU60,000 seemed a little bit OTT.
        
        Both sealed halogens and LEDs rely on 12 volt transformers. I have recently replaced most of them for the third time at a cost so far of more than $AU300. Mind you, the last lot cost very little since I purchased cheap as chips trannies from China just to see how they compared to the ones that were costing me $AU15 each.
        
        I identified the main problem here several years ago when I borrowed an APC UPS that allowed me to monitor the electricity supply. While the nominal voltage is 240, it spikes at 260 V and there are many long periods of over and undervoltage. The supplier only guarantees an average of 240 V over a 24 hour period.
        
        0 0 Reply
        
        Sunday 11th September 2016 10:15 GMT Graham Dawson
        
        @Nick Ryan
        
        I have found that the best source of LED lighting is aliexpress. I've got my whole house lit with a bunch of next-gen LED bulbs from there. They're a fraction of the cost of buying the poorly made, overly expensive and annoyingly dim crap available here, and they don't appear to suffer much in the way of heating issues.
        
        One downside though: they're universally Edison screw, so you will have to stock up on suitable fixtures or get adapters.
        
        These videos by Big Clive convinced me to go for it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfJKq-igxJI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nme8T2yLhL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gcYAFPxeug
        
        0 0 Reply
        
        Monday 12th September 2016 18:43 GMT John Brown (no body)
        
        Re: @Nick Ryan
        
        "One downside though: they're universally Edison screw, so you will have to stock up on suitable fixtures or get adapters."
        
        I went with LEDHut. At the time they were about the only UK supplier with a decent range of UK standard fittings types and included dimmable LED bulbs (so long as you use the correct type of dimmer switch). The only downside is the range of the dimmer is a lot less than I'd like, ie you can only dim down to about half brightness.
        
        0 0 Reply
    2. Saturday 10th September 2016 23:23 GMT Martin-73
      
      Re: early death of LED/CFLs
      
      The lifespan of these devices DOES seem to vary randomly. I have a couple of 3w LED GU10 lamps from poundland (I bought them because for that price, why not) that have been running about a year, with no issues. But I have seen expensive name brand ones drop dead after a few months... The quality DOES seem to be improving. If you're ever doing a new set of lights, I'd recommend daxlite... as they have a 5 yr warranty :)
      
      0 0 Reply
    3. Monday 12th September 2016 07:17 GMT Carrot007
      
      > nowhere near bright enough
      
      Sucks to be you buying underpowered bulbs.
      
      Moved house last year so all bulbs here are now LED (excepting 1 CFL I had left that I used for one of the lights i put in the loft).
      
      A 6 or 7.5 watt led is much brighter that old bulbs were. And a 4 watt GU10 seems a much better repalcement for all the 50 watt halogen gu10's that came with the multi light fitting i put up and all the halogen gu10's dies within 6 months as usual. The leds are still running and have had no problems.
      
      And FWIW all my LED's are ASDA branded.However I do look to see who made them and only grab if it's a good one/ Maybe some of the cheap ones are not. I guess some people cannot cope with the fact that a led bulb cost more that old bulbs used to and buys low watt or crap.
      
      Not to mention leds come in any colour range you want.
      
      1 1 Reply
    4. Monday 12th September 2016 18:28 GMT John Brown (no body)
      
      "My last ordinary incandescent is now at least 13 years old. It lights up the entry to the house automatically when SWMBO arrives home from work in the winter months."
      
      That's not really surprising for a lightbulb that gets used for maybe 10-15 minutes per day :-)
      
      You're spot on with the CFLs though. Worst idea ever. The early ones took ages to "warm up" to full brightness and even the newer ones seem to have significantly shorter actual lifetimes than predicted. We changed everything to CFL and the running cost might well be cheaper in term of electricity used by the consumer, but the extra production costs and the short lifespans of many of them probably far outweighs the usage savings both for the world as a whole and the end user consumer who has to pay 10 times the cost fopr something that at best last twice as long as incandescent.
      
      We've since gone all LED a few years ago, none have failed so far and have already paid for themselves in terms of both incandescent and CFL
      
      0 0 Reply
      1. Tuesday 13th September 2016 00:41 GMT Pompous Git
        
        That's not really surprising for a lightbulb that gets used for maybe 10-15 minutes per day :-)
        
        Probably more than that; it's on a motion detector. It's intially on for 15 minutes before turning itself off. Then triggered by wildlife or SWMBO's arrival and if she doesn't turn it off, it keeps being randomly triggered until the following day. This is precisely the condition that kills CFLs.
        
        While you can leave your CFL on constantly to achieve the rated lifespan, the fire service recommend turning them off when leaving a room as they occasionally catch fire.
        
        Yes, I would have gone LED as I said in an earlier post, but $AU60,000 seemed a bit OTT. The double glazed windows only cost $AU30,000!
        
        0 0 Reply
11. Saturday 10th September 2016 15:06 GMT Allan 1
  
  The ONLY people who will benefit from these meters in the long run, are the power companies. Time based pricing organized to cost the most when you use the most, no need for meter readers, etc.
  
  0 0 Reply