Smart meters

[Seeker]

My energy supplier was keen for me to have a smart meter because it would allow me to accurately gauge my energy usage. I resisted for a year because I'm quite aware of how I'm using my energy (I had an extra remote electricity meter anyway) but eventually succumbed.

Now, it seems, they may have another purpose and may (will) be used to charge you more for your energy at peak periods.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...ty-prices.html

[DJ123]

This was always the underlying reason for it. Not for your benefit, but theirs to introduce more tariffs - the same as they do with big Industrial customers, charging higher amounts during particular hours of the day.

Wait until you want to charge your EV too, or until they discharge it to support the grid . . . .

[redtrummy]

I believe, being a cynic, that there is always an ulterior motive and eventually it will be used to control our lives even more.
On a similar topic a friend visited the other day, and in talking said his water bill works out at £22 a month (I suspect he does not pay for rainwater disposal in that), he is on a meter. Ours is over a thousand a year. I have used a water calculator site and the prospective charge is about £380 a year. I have applied for a meter! I know in the future I will be vulnerable to price hikes but in the short term it will offset the higher energy bills. You pays your money and takes your choice

[Bibio]

i seen this coming when they were rolling them out.

HOW is it costing more to produce electricity than it was 4 years ago???????? simple answer is the Gov clawing money in any way they can and at the rate of 5% thats a lot of money.

everyone was supported through covid and its now time to pay.

glad i dont have a smart meter.

[Sir Trev]

The deliberately misleading ads about "saving" money by having a smart leccy meter have always annoyed me so we don't have one as a consequence. As I wash my own cars (and bike every now and then), and keep the vegetable garden going with the hosepipe once my four water butt's are empty, I don't have a water meter either.

No doubt I'll have no choice at some point.

[Biker Biggles]

I recently had a water meter put in-----No choice they just did it after informing me that this area is designated as a problem for water supply so we had to have meters. I expect smart leccy meters will become compulsory too at some stage, along with road pricing and extra charges for bin collections and everything else

[embee]

I certainly saved a lot by getting a water meter some years ago, it depends on your usage relative to the old "rateable value" of the property. Every household will be different, but some attention to unnecessary water usage is a good idea anyway.
My gas/elec supplier used to send a request for meter readings but that seems to have stopped, I believe they are just waiting for me to miss a reading date and then they'll come back with wanting to put smart meters in so I don't need to give readings. I religiously send meter readings every month, I'll only have smart meters when absolutely forced to.

[Ruffy]

It's not always as sinister as it's made out to be, though.

Whilst I agree that the marketing messaging for smart meters has been dumb and downwright wrong at times, the capture and improvement of data to allow better engineering has some merit.

For example, for electricity, since there's typically no large scale storage available, running the network is fundamentally a problem of dynamically balancing generation with demand whilst the overall level of use changes. Usually, balancing has been done on the generation side (leading to extra industry payments for generators to force them either to or not to run when actual demand is different to what was estimated ahead of time etc.) In the quest for efficiency, demand-side balancing opportunities are being explored too. Is that so wrong? Why build more power stations and control turning them on and off when we can better control what is used from the existing ones instead, to try to level out the pattern (peaks and troughs) of use? It could be cheaper overall to do it that way. (Cheaper in comparison to viable future alternatves, not cheaper in comparison to years ago.)

Overcoming the consumer expected convenience of 'I want therefore I have' applies just as much to utility supply as anything else.

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by Bibio

...
HOW is it costing more to produce electricity than it was 4 years ago????????
...

On the assumption you're asking because you don't understand, factors to consider include:

• Fuel cost (Seen the price of gas and coal recently?)
• Demand increase
• Maintenance (keeping existing power stations and networks running is becoming more challenging as they age)
• Investment financing (raising the money for new power stations and new networks being built doesn't come for free)
• Asset replacement cost (old power stations are worn out and need replacing, old overhead lines and substation equipment needs replacing eventually)
• Green development incentives (increasing introduction of wind/solar instead of conventional fossil fuel)
• Staffing costs (workers expect/demand pay rises)
• Inflation

Now whether the rise in prices should be smaller is a different (and still legitimate) question but it's not simply a case of the government or private business owners profiteering.

Arguably there's nothing to stop anyone going off-grid if they want. Except they tend to complain it's too expensive! So, in the face of that irony, is on-grid such a bad deal in fact? Perhaps the affordability problem is rooted elsewhere?

[redtrummy]

I read the other day that a trial is about to commence where those EV owners that have signed up, have agreed to allow the lecy company to parasitically use the cars battery as a back up during high demand