Some of you were also upset with Which? – you wanted us to do more to challenge the government on its roll-out plans. Well we have.
We’re urging the government to rethink its smart meter roll-out until it has conducted an urgent review.
There were over 500 comments on last year’s smart meter Convos. Some of you stood up for the new technology and its roll-out into all our homes by 2019. But some vented your fury over the UK’s smart plan, with a key concern being the cost – projected to be at least £11 billion.
What a ‘smart’ community
As your comments poured in we decided to commission a thorough review. And while this research (carried out by the Centre for Sustainable Energy) was being put together we also made sure that other important bodies knew about your comments.
In one Conversation, someone said they didn’t think I existed! Well, I can assure you I do. Over the past few months I have attended meetings and industry events where I have stood up – not always to welcome attention – to say how many of you have told us on Which? Conversation that you’re concerned.
We also sent some of your comments to the Public Accounts Committee – probably Parliament’s most powerful committee of MPs – which has been investigating the roll-out. Industry and government reps have previously told me that it’s too early to discuss smart meters with the public, but I said that our Which? Conversation ‘smart’ community was well and truly up and running.
Energy suppliers read your concerns
One of the best moments for me was when I sat next to one of the top directors of a big energy supplier and saw him studying Which? Conversation on his laptop, rather than listening to the conference speaker.
He scrolled through cat avatars and the string of comments you had made. He would have read about your concerns that energy suppliers would benefit from the roll-out, but would consumers? He probably saw that some of you wanted more reassurance about health concerns and data privacy. And I really hope he read Chris’ comment:
‘I see no real harm in the concept of a smart meter, it’s this use for that £11 billion I’m not keen on, especially as times are currently tough. It would buy an awful lot of insulation.’
It’s time to press pause on the roll-out
Now Which? has said to the government that we think it’s time to stop the roll-out. The government’s current strategy is flawed and it must review its approach. We want the government to convince us that it will have full control over the roll-out’s costs, as we all have to pay for it.
And, as it stands, the roll-out is far too industry led, with the government seemingly crossing its fingers in hope that suppliers will install 50 million smart meters into all of our homes in the most cost-effective and responsible way. The energy companies need to be reigned in.
So, what’s the smart way forward? Stop the smart meter roll-out, government, rethink and demonstrate that you are leading this, not big businesses. As always, let us know what you think. We are listening.
Loading ...
167 Comments
Add your commentIt’s quite pathetic how the government still ignores the public’s pleas to have these meters removed. There are so many facts that show the flaws of them and yet the government seems to ignore it…why do we have a government that doesn’t listen to the people?
The government seems mostly to listen to big business first – after all, they meet lobbyists more regularly than ‘ordinary people’, and with their wealth, their peer group at work and where they live consists of ‘wealthy businessmen’. Big business also pays towards their political party.
Report this comment
Wood
Most of what is happening with the electricity markets in the UK is at the dictate of Europe.The UK, primarily National Grid, are in full collaboration with European partners and are forging ahead with up to eight interconnectors to Europe and with the full agreement ofh Ofgem and DECC to create competition. What chance have we minoes got?
Report this comment
oconnor
Bill Esterson MP has tabled an oral question following DECC questions for Thursday week.
Question to: Energy and Climate Change for answer on 26 Jan 2012 12:00 AM
What assessment he has made of the potential health risks of smart meters and what account has he taken of any risk assessment in the roll out of smart meters?
Kind Regards,
Eileen O’Connor
Director
Radiation Research Trust
Report this comment
Poole
I have never understood why there is not a regular check on the current meters. How do we know they are accurate? Petrol pumps have regular checks for their accuracy. Will we know if these new meters will be any more reliable or accurate over a period of 40 years, which is the age of ours. They should not get rid of meter readers, they would be better retrained to carry out accuracy tests on new and existing units. That way we may find our bills would be reduced by not having to cover costs for worn out in-accurate meters. There is no such thing as 100% reliability or accuracy, so why the hurry to change, prove the cuurent ones first. Why would we be charged for the new meters, when apparently there is a saving of £300 million per year, by the loss of meter readers, how is that justified. Where do we find people with so many qualifications, yet so little COMMON SENSE!!!
Report this comment
Sutton
Has anyone actually questioned why smart meters when the others work well? I read a report on First Utilities website on the negative aspects of smart meters and it makes a very negative read with the emissions emanating from them and the effects on people. Read it, surprised Which didn’t already know and post this on their report also.
My parents have smart meters in South Africa (and have had them a few years), and the health effects of so many meters transmitting all at the same time are horrendous. Itchy red eyes, nausea, lack of appetite, lethargy to name a few, are common. All these symptoms dissapeared twhen the devices are switched off.
There was no proper testing over a large area (e.g. suburb or town) as the emmissions multiply when there are more meters near each other.
The energy companies deny it as it would cost them too much to take them out and revert to the old meters.
I am horried we are to get them!
Added to this is the cost – we must pay £11 billion to get ill each time they transmit? No thanks.
Report this comment
If Smart meters will save the energy people £300 million per year, then let them pay for them. The actions of the energy business in the past are, I’m sure, pointers to the future – re: Energy prices go up to them and immediately we are charged – However, when the price of energy goes down there is not only a long time lag before we benefit, but I have seen drops of 30% in energy costs to the energy providers, that have not been reflected in our bills.
Business is in business to make profits and they have no compuction about ensuring that we pay through the nose.
Report this comment
Wood
Chris Huhne states that smart meters will save £18-billion when the insatllations will cost us £11.1-billion. This is all propaganda waffle, pie in the sky. Whatever it will cost the suppliers, they will pass the costs on to us. These are commercial companies, they are only in the Supply business to make money.
Report this comment
Harwood
It’s all about listening and the perception of listening. The role of Government is to give the perception that they are listening, when really their view is always that they know better than the population in the UK. And – when the senior politicians have given the perception of listening, they then talk down to us as though we really had no idea what the arguments were in the first. Sounds tortuous ? Yes well thats the UK political game most of the time.
£11 billion is an outrageous sum that each and every one of us while have to contribute towards. We all know that like all other estimates that are given for big projects like this in the UK, it will be at least 3 times this. Smart meters – they don’t sound smart to me!
Confidence in the ability of politicians, and trust in the leaders of the energy companies – no way Jose.
Report this comment
Wood
Chris Huhne and DECC have got the whole Electricity package wrong. We dont need smart meters, we dont need smart grids and if we should not build anymore wind-turbines, which are not saving any CO2, we would not need to reinforce the transmission and diistribution systems, we would not need more interconnections with Europe, Scotland and Ireland and would probably save at least £100 billion, yes at least £3000 per household. Now thats worth saving and whats more our electricity prices would not go -up and that would be saving hundreds per year.
Report this comment
Dawson
This cannot be justified financially. No business in its right mind would lay out £11,000,000,000 to get a return of only £300,000,000 per year in cost savings. Add to that the fact that the cost savings of £300 million will be at least in large part achieved by laying off meter readers which in turn will cost redundancy payments and job seekers benefits to the taxpayer/consumer, and the whole thing simply does not stack up. The return is less than 3% per annum even before taking into account costs of laying people off. And of course the cost of implementing and rolling out will inevitably go well over budget, as it invariably does on mammoth projects, so that the return on money invested will be even less. And to cap it all, the consumer will not get reduced bills!! This is actually complete madness. Let’s stop it now, it is so obviously wrong that we shouldn’t even spend time debating it.
Report this comment
Wood
Phil
Absolutely agree!!!
Report this comment
The figures do add up as the meters aren’t being financed out of the savings, they’re being financed by the consumer – i.e. you have to pay to have the meter installed.
Report this comment
Considering that we currently waste enormous amounts of energy overnight every night as every generator connected to the national grid has to work at 50hz regardless of if it’s under load or not, that’s thousands of tons of metal spinning when nobody needs the power. It makes sense to have smart meters that allow/encourage people to use energy when the grid is lightly loaded and discourage energy use when demand is high.
Some of the comments on here are scary, some talking about ‘emissions’ concerns from smart meters, millions of people have mobile phones, wi-fi routers etc that work all the time and broadcast with much more power, perhaps unsurprisingly nobody becomes unwell from them…
I think the biggest problem both the goverment and utility companies have is educating the public, most people probably don’t know what I mean by Hz.
Report this comment
Shopper
@Chris Read: your very rude and offensive remarks may have some grain of truth underlying them, but quite apart from the fact that most of the public probably do know exactly what Hz is your assertions about the “safety” of wireless devices such as routers and mobile ‘phones are not shared by many very powerful and eminent authorities worldwide.
However, more significantly, your rather bigoted attitude and remarks do nothing to address the economic non-viability of the SmartMeter programme nor the issues of educating the public to understand how much power is wasted on items such as mobile ‘phone chargers left plugged in when not in use, routers, switches, set-top-boxes, games consoles, and other such devices left on by lazy users and that wasted by appliances with mis-labelled on/off switches which actually leave them in standby mode.
Perhaps you could offer some equally quick, apparently reliable and condescending advice on how SmartMeters will address these issues, especially the standby switch one?
Report this comment
Wood
Chris, The majority of energy in the UK is purchased by Suppliers well ahead of the daily market. Only marginal amounts are traded spot and surely you dont think that a supplier is going to trade energy in kW per house. Would you stay up all night to ensure that you purchased your minnow kW at the cheapest price. Now, come on, pull the other one. We are talking about an expenditure nationally of a quoted £11.1 billion for this smart meter roll-out, which is probably conservative, as an earlier programme was estimated at double this. Any direct connections that you require in your house would be down to you in connection cost terms. I evaluated this roll-out costing for smart meters in 1996 for National Grid, it was a non-starter then and it should realistically be a non-starter now.
And while we are considering running generation partly loaded at night, what effect do you think results from having ‘must-run’ wind turbines, yes it makes the spinning reserves much higher, and because of these effects the generation becomes much less efficient with higher carbon emissions which should all be factored against the wind-turbines. Many distinguished scientists are now refuting global warming, yes another ‘head-in-the-sand’ attitude from Chris Huhne and his DECC cohorts, so we dont need expensive wind-turbines as well.
Report this comment
Ramsay
@Chris Read – Running systems overnight could be resolved and provide higher output on demand during the day if we flooded Wales and overnight pumped water into vast reservoirs and during the day then used the same water to provide hydro electric power for England.
Now why not do that? or do you think it as offensive to assume people do not understand Hertz or Cycles per Second which was far more explanatory than the renaming to that of Heinrich Hertz?
Report this comment
@ Longley Shopper
Exactly the sort of reply I expected from someone that doesn’t work in the power industry and has no idea that our national grid is only about 70% efficient at best.
I couldn’t care less about lazy people that leave there phone chargers plugged in and devices on standby, they pay for their laziness in high bills. What irritates me is that despite having extremely low energy usage (less than 5kW a day) I still have to pay for the 30% of wasted energy because we are unable to devise a system that encourages people to intelligently reduce demand during peak loads and increase demand during low loads. If we could eliminate just 5% of the grid inneficiency by intelligently using power then that would dwarf the consumption of items left on standby and everyones bills would go down.
Perhaps you could give me a list of the powerful and eminent authorities worldwide that consider mobile phones and routers unsafe as I’m not aware of a single country daft enough to ban them and go back to the dark ages.
Report this comment
Ramsay
Perhaps you might like to read this from Eileen O Connor posted on first page of comments may give you some further information which you may like to consider;
The UK Radiation Research Trust calls for the UK Government to shelve the £12bn roll out of smart meters. Problems with “wireless” Smart Meters are reported worldwide with allegations of health-related discrimination to legal, security and infrastructure difficulties. US lawsuits are calling for more than $2 million in sanctions while other European countries such as Italy and France are opting for best practice for smarter meters to communicate to the central grid via the electric “wired” network.
(RRT) Director Eileen O’Connor said “I fail to understand why the UK Government plan to introduce another layer of wireless radiation when the WHO recently classified RF/microwave radiation as a Class 2B carcinogen. The health of the British public should be the number one priority.”
MPs Bill Esterson and RRT Patron Joe Benton MP joined RRT trustees at 10 Downing Street on 13th December to deliver copies of a new report ‘Smart Meters- Smarter Practices’ to David Cameron. The report was commissioned by the RRT and authored by Dr. Isaac Jamieson (DIC RIBA DipAAS BSc(Hons) MInstP). MP Bill Esterson commented: “As a parent with two young children I am acutely aware of any threats to the health. I would therefore support any moves to establish once and for all the evidence either for or against the safety.” Bill Esterson is due to call an adjournment debate and raise questions on mobile phones and wireless technology at the House of Commons.
RRT Chairman Brian Stein commented; “Smart Metering is now being rapidly rolled out across the UK, we have the biggest smart-meter roll-out without any consideration of the impact on people’s health. There is a need to properly assess the potential impact of these new technologies on health. The UK Government has the chance to help develop bio-friendly technologies that do not carry health risks.”
The reports author Dr Jamieson joined Eileen O’Connor and Salzburg public health advisor Dr Gerd Oberfeld at the European Parliament in Brussels in order to present copies of the report to MEPs. RRT Patron and Member of European Parliament Jill Evans said; “I fully support and endorse the Smart Meters-Smarter Practices document published by the Radiation Research Trust. It clearly shows that smart meters could result in serious issues in the future, not least health problems. I hosted a recent meeting in the European Parliament where this report was presented, and colleagues expressed similar serious concerns. I am proud to be a Patron of the Radiation Research trust and believe this document is yet another example of the high quality of their work.”
There are simple and safe alternatives to wireless smart meters, says the RRT, such as, fibre optic cable. It is imperative that health, human rights and public safety are taken into account when considering these types of systems. If smart meter is going to be installed in every home without consultation or consideration of the health impact on individuals, then a safer system such as fibre-optic cables needs to be urgently considered. Otherwise the companies installing them need to prepare themselves for potentially widespread health insurance claims.
Download the full report at http://www.radiationresearch.org
Report this comment
Shopper
I hope your local bakers makes a good humble pie Chris, because although I hate to disappoint you, I have worked in the power industry, at a major power station in the Doncaster area, all my life (and now approach retirement).
I don’t know what your credentials are and it may be that you are a fellow power worker, but I hope you will learn from this that you should not make assumptions about other people until you are sure of your ground.
Have a nice day
Report this comment
@Chris.
With my CITP hat on (that’s Chartered IT Professional for anyone who hasn’t seen me on here before) can I just point out that there are several countries which have banned Wireless network devices and mobile ‘phone transmitters within and immediately surrounding schools due to the belief that the radiation is harmful to young people.
I know that isn’t quite the question you posed in your post and I don’t have an immediate answer to that question, but I’d like to suggest that you perhaps moderate your arrogant tone at least until you have done a little research yourself.
You and other readers may also be interested to know that a recent Penetration Testing project carried out as research by a major UK University has identified the security of the majority of wireless networks in the UK, in all types of installation, as being the weakest in Europe. Personally that doesn’t leave me very confident about the proposed way that SmartMeter data will be transmitted. Again I appreciate that this does not directly answer your questions.
I’m disappointed, Chris, that you have such an ego-centric attitude to the matter: maybe you will care more about those who waste energy when your power starts to go off on a regular basis because there is a deficiency in supply compared to demand?
Sorry all; I am straying from the topic, and let’s all remember that no matter what Chris says about the supposed advantages of SmartMeters, and regardless of my views and the scientific evidence about radiation risks or network security, the central theme of this board is, I believe, about the fact that the SmartMetering programme does not represent good value for money and is widely expected to cost a great deal more than presently estimated. That will be added to everyone’s bills, including Chris’.
Report this comment
Wood
Simple Calculations to Show Smart Meter Costs in with the Rest.
Wind Turbine Additional Costs per Household to Consumers by 2020 Simple Arithmetic
Peak UK electrical demand 300TWh per annum
Assumption electrical demand = 30% of total energy demand
Therefore UK total energy demand = 1000TWh
Renewable energy target by 2020 = 20% = 200TWh
Assumption 50% renewable by off-shore WT by 2020 at 12p/kWh higher than marg. generation
Assumption 25% renewable by on-shore WT by 2020 at 6p/kWh higher than marg. gen.
Assumption 5% renewable solar panels by 2020 at av. 20p/kWh higher than marg. gen.
Assumptuion 10% renewable bio-mass etc. by 2020 at av. 20p/kWh higher than marg. gen.
Assumption 10% renewable hydro by 2020 at 2p/kWh marg. gen. price
Therefore additional renewable energy costs / annum;
£ (200,000,000,000 x ((0.5×0.12) + (0.25×0.06) + (0.05×0.20) + (0.10×0.20) + (0.10×0.02)) ).
= £(200, 000,000,000 x 0.107) = £21.4-billion/annum
Additional cost per household = £21,400,000,000/ 30,000,000 = £713 per household per annum
Additionally there will be further costs charge by National Grid for new transmission plus interconnectors to Europe plus the roll-out of smart meters and smart grids (which are expensive compensation devices required to stabilize the Grid because of intermittency and diversity caused by wind-turbines:
National Grid new transmission £17-billion (all-ready budgeted)
Distributors new connections £10-billion (estimate)
New Interconnectors to Europe £10-billion (estimate)
Smart meters £11-biilion (DECC estimate)
Smart Grids £10-billion (estimate)
Sum of additional costs above energy charges £58-billion which on a 10% amortised charge per year would approx = £8-billion per annum
Balancing Services increased costs £0.5-billion per annum (estimate)
Additional Transmission and other costs per household per annum = £283
Therefore summed Additional costs per household from 2020 = £713 + £213
= £926 per household per annum from 2020
50% of all energy as renewables by 2050 = An impossible astronomical cost dream!!!
Report this comment
Ramsay
@George Wood – clarification please, you said 300TWh peak demand per annum, you then go on to say assumption 30% of demand. You then indicate 1000TWh/5.
Do you mean 3000TWh peak demand or is the 1000TWh actually 100TWh?
Sorry but need this clarification otherwise some may complain at your excellent breakdown.
Report this comment
so what do you propose mr power industry expert?- how do we get rid of that surge in energy consumption when the adverts come on during the x-factor on a saturday and everyone boils their kettle to make a cup of tea – shall we boil the kettle at 4am the night before and have the cup of tea then, or we can all put our washing machines on in the middle of the night so the noise keeps us awake?
Report this comment
Ramsay
@phil – Perhaps the commercial breaks should be staggered dependent on where you are in the country or even programs transmitted with differing timings for each area.
As for the washing machine perhaps you could get a quieter one or get earplugs!
Report this comment
@ George Wood
Surely the whole point of smart meters is:
1. No need to pay someone to read them (lower bills)
2. Charge by the minute (as is accepted practice with phones, broadband etc.) so you can choose to use less power during the peak times of day (lower bills)
I accept that the price tag is huge but we can’t just carry on and it is up to the goverment to force the change. In twenty years time when everyone has smart meters we will all wonder why we put up with such a crazy system before. BTW the government is very disjointed as at the moment it encourages me to use energy during the day (solar panels) and not use any during the night which is the complete opposite of what it should be doing…
On wind turbines, the ‘must-run’ legislation is there to get them established, without it they wouldn’t have been built, I know it distorts the market and causes inefficiency but when the legislative advantage is reduced we will have significant amounts of energy from wind power. BTW 5.8% of the UKs power came from wind in the last 24 hours (I can’t quote my source as it isn’t accessible to the public) whilst only 1.4% came from hydro, not too long ago it was the other way around. 5.8% is a significant amount of power and is millions of tons of carbon. Once again the government had to force the change, I’m sure it could have done it better but at least it’s done it.
Report this comment
Do you really believe you will get a reduce bill?
Report this comment
Wood
Chris, Please look at the facts, wind-turbines require the UK power system Generators to hold the entire capacity of wind-turbines as reserves, this is the cause of ultra expensive balancing costs. In 2010 at winter peak, the output from wind-turbines was just 0.2%. Yes, I agree marginal generating capacity is expensive but because Generating Companies want a slice of this action at winter peak they contract ahead with suppliers and National Grid. Many Generating Companies also want a slice of the action providing spinning or standby reserves. The costs of provision for energy and reserves are spread out across their entire portfolios so they factor these provisions into their business case and obviously aim for a reasonable profit throughout the year.
Report this comment
Wood
Chris,
I advise you to watch this 1-hour long u-tube before spouting that we need to save carbon.
Long http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk
After that you may change your tune and there are many emminent professors that state we could be heading for a global cooling cycle, not a global warming cycle. If you want I can also post that u-tube film.
You may then consider that we are aiming for unachievable carbon targets unnecessarily.
By the way if you read the C le Pair, Schipol report you would be enlightened that wind turbines do not save any carbon when all factors are considered. The whole wind-turbine fiasco is a hugely expensive, money wasting farce.
Report this comment
Wood
Chris,
As you have not replied to my last reply, I ask you courteously to watch this u-tube film about the facts of global warming and the inaccuracies pointed out about IPCC publications.
Maybe, then you will consider that the UK would be better served by building ultra efficient CCGT power stations in the short-term using our abundant shale gas reserves at one-third of the price of wind-turbines and investing longer-term in new nuclear. All these power stations should be sited on existing power station locations to avoid building new power transmission and distribution systems and connections. Also there would be no need for new interconnectors to Europe. This would save us of the order of 100-billion pounds, yes £3000 per household.
Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpfMM3bVbhQ&feature=share
Report this comment
Wood
Chris,
Correction, the report I advised on CO2 emissions was not precisely defined:
Should have been:
Electricity in The Netherlandsa.
Wind turbines increase fossil fuel consumption & CO2 emission.
Electricity in The Netherlandsa.
Wind turbines increase fossil fuel consumption & CO2 emission.
http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html
This is a good sound read.
Report this comment
Fields
I was approached by my energy suppliers about smart meters but declined, as I do not like wireless devices in my home, because they are a proven health hazard. I also see no particular advantage in them. My water supplier has installed a meter, in my house, with a wired reading point fixed to the side of the house, and the meter reader takes readings without ever having to either find me in, or disturb me. A similar meter for gas and electricity would be good.
I do not understand the arguments here about smart meters and the use of cheaper electricity at night, as I already have an “economy 7″ meter, which charges a lower rate for the seven hours between 01:00 and 08:00. I have timing devices for the washing machine and dish washer so that they only operate during that period, and I prepare breakfast, and also boil a whole kettle of water before 8:00, every morning, and store the contents in a flask for use during the day. I also never leave anything on “standby”. I do not need a smart meter to encourage me to do what I do already.
Report this comment
Ramsay
There is another Conversation about tariffs being simplified so that people can understand and compare each companies supply costs. What Smart Meters are going to do is introduce very complex tariffs that no one will be able to understand.
Two things;
1. Would it not be simpler just to nationalise the damned lot and have one set of tariffs?
2. I suspect the ‘need’ to install these meters (which is in reality an EU requirement) is not to do with having accurate readings (the EU stated requirement) but in actual fact to allow supplies from europe going through the 8 (I think) new connections to the continent so that we can be charged from anywhere for the supply of our energy!
… then with the ability to remotely disconnect what is the chance of someone in Albania deciding that you shouldn’t have any electricity whilst everyone else has power in the street. (Sorry Albanians, not picking on you).
Report this comment
Wood
I think you have understood the probability of horrendous complications in demand management terms. Its all a total waste of money for what the end customer will get. Supplier flexibility at more than twice the price.
Report this comment
Evans
Albania is not in the EU.
Report this comment
Ramsay
@Simon – I didn’t say Albania was in the EU I said it was in europe! I only said the requirements were from the EU!
Report this comment
Driscoll
Simpler tariffs is another area which we are working on. Why are they all so needlessly complicated! At the moment we think the Government should step up and take action so that tariffs can be compared with each other. At the moment, Ofgem is considering this via its Retail Market Review. However, we think that Chris Huhne may need to make sure that Ofgem takes the broad action needed so that all tariffs are made simple.
Report this comment
Ramsay
@Jenny Driscoll – so how are smart meters going to simplify tariffs and allow the consumer to make informed decisions?
If you have simpler tariffs you will not need smart meters because the only ‘real’ benefits will be for the utility companies. Lets face it simpler tariffs mean easier selection of supplier, I don’t think that most people will reduce consumption that much just because they can see the cost as they switch the kettle on.
If you want to sell smart meters to the consumer then a couple of things;
1. Allow the user to select and view all the tariffs using the HID
2. Allow the user to switch suppliers using the same HID, even better let the smart meter always select and switch to the lowest cost supplier minute by minute!
Report this comment
f industry initiates a proposal then you can bet it’s to their benefit.
I’ll go with David, but the energy companies will run a mile from anything that gives the consumer the whip hand. You can very seldom see the sub text of indutries offers – beware Greeks bearing gifts.
No offence Greece.
Report this comment
mchugh
Have I missed something? Is the UK now solvent again? Are the government going to give all the public sector jobs back? First of all extra billions on the opening ceremony for the Olympics, then a new yacht for the Queen, talk of a new LONDON Airport and now over £11 billion on smart meters. Is this what they call austerity? My pension, meagre as it is, is not going to stretch much further. Rather than having Smart METERS I think we should campaign for a Smart PRIME MINISTER and SMART MP’S. In short I can do without a smart meter but can’t do without food and heat.
Report this comment
Hill
I’m with you Gewn
Report this comment
I’m not very good at making up jokes but Gwen’s comment does make me think of one (which is probably not funny at all):
Q: What are the similarity between Smart Meters and MP’s?
A: They are both over-prioced, both paid for by the poorest in society, both impossible to get rid of and neither of them do anything for the money that they cost.
Said it wasn’t very funny – sorry.
Report this comment
I have a ‘smart meter, it talks to my gas meter as well and between them can send an accurate reading to a local O2 transmitter (approximately 1 mile away as the crow could travel).
It reduces the carbon footprint of the meter man (sorry person) who would drive at least 24 miles to read my and a few other meters. Second advantage is my back gate stays locked closed when we are not at home. Since my ecoMeter has been re programmed remotely it calculates the exact cost of the power being used. My only problem is that if you are already being eco minded i.e No standby, no lights in unused rooms. and full insulation how can I save any more? I have reached my limit for eco bulbs as my sight will fail if they don’t manufacture some that let you see what your reading!
Report this comment
Evans
How do you feel about presenting your fuel supplier with the ability to turn off your power when they want to?
Report this comment
Moorfield
I suffer headache due to the wifi emmitted from smart meters and i feel this kis a big health issue as well as a cost for the consumer and therefore feel this should be stopped
Report this comment
Does that mean we should get rid of mobile phones and the mobile phone network, wi-fi connected computers, microwave ovens and everything else that bathes us in electromagnetic radiation? If you can prove that your headaches are caused by a smart meter it could be the basis of a major enquiry. One day we will know whether these devices are harmful but those who have tried to find evidence have not been very successful.
Report this comment
from Fear
I am not happy with any form of compulsory smart metering for the following reasons:-
I do not wish my privacy to be invaded. Someone at the utility company or its data centre, will know when I am at home and even possibly my whereabouts in the house and what I am doing and with who.
Smart meters will not save me money. My wallet already knows the cost of utilities and already takes cost saving measures.
I do not want any more radio, satellite, mobile phone or other signals pulsing through my home and body.
Report this comment
There are countless peer reviewed papers correlating this wireless technology will negative impact on health, especially children & pregnant Mother’s. All other arguments should be put aside & investigate the health implications first & foremost.
(search PubMed for peer reviewed papers: ‘Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure & public exposure standards’) See ALL similar results there.
Report this comment
My partner and i currently live in an ecological housing scheme where we currently pay £50 per month for our heating whether we require it or not. Recently though we have been told that we can either go across to a gas smart meter system or we will have to pay £88 per month for our gas heating instead. Does anyone know how we can challenge this as it sounds to me like we are being forced into this as the majority of people don’t spend this amount on gas every month of the year!
Report this comment
Evans
Now that it has been announced that smart meters will, after all, be optional let us hope that Which? will push the DECC to enforce proper publicity for the smart meter campaign. In particular utilities must now tell their customers that they plan to install remotely controlled switches so that they can disconnect power completely, or reduce consumption to a level they set, regardless of the customer’s requirements. ‘Smart metering’ is only part of their plans. They should also be forced to tell the public why they plan to develop a separate, hugely expensive, wireless network that will operate independently of the internet, when the latter could do the job for next to nothing.
If utilities want to get serious about reducing electricity consumption then they can do it through tariffs. In California my PG&E tariffs (for both gas and electricity) work on a graduated scale, the more I use the more I pay for the extra units or therms. The scale depends on the area in which I live and also on the actual recorded temperature. The very existence of such a charging system makes one aware of unnecessary consumption, and think about economy. Thus we changed to energy saving light bulbs years ago, and always look at energy efficiency when buying new appliances (by law plastered all over the appliance in large letters!). Such a move in the UK would pay immediate dividends to consumers and would cost millions to set up, rather than the many billions for smart meters.
The DECC also needs to be brought to heel for spouting the fiction that £11bn spent on smart meters will bring in £18bn of savings. It won’t, and they know it.
Report this comment
Driscoll
Hi Simon
Just wanted to say that we are pushing DECC on their ‘consumer engagement plan’. If smart meters are to deliver benefits then government has to clarify how they can help BUT they are not going to automatically save people money. We are constantly stating that the installation of a smart meter does not automatically deliver billions of pounds worth of savings.
Anyone reading this. If you have a smart meter? Please get in touch.
Thanks
Jenny
Report this comment
Hill
‘ the more I use the more I pay for the extra units or therms.’ The Uts will love that Simon – Open Sesame for bonanza profits. I wouldn’t trust them at any time under any scheme they came up with – If they can screw you they will.
They lie through their teeth about cost saving tarifs – and fortunately for them we. the consumer, cannot make head nor tale of them and neither can the mathematically gifted
The low energy light bulbs are OK for the fully sighted but I’ve had to invest in new reading stands for both my wife and I. I have also installed further general lights all round the living room so that we do not appear to be living in a cave. Dream on Simon that’s your perogative – Have a nice day
Report this comment
Evans
Oh dear. The question of utility profits is a complex one. I would be the first to agree that the UK regulators are not nearly active enough on the customer’s behalf. I think you are assuming that a graduated tariff starts at the levels charged now, and goes up from there. That does not have to be so: utilities could e forced to provide the first step in the tariff at a rate that is close to the cost of supply – which is the case in California. It is not hard to understand my tariff – I pay at one clearly shown rate for the first units (in fact most of my consumption) and at a rate about 30% higher for the other units I use. If, as happens occasionally in the summer, I run the air conditioning a lot then I might get into the third tier which is about 50% higher. This is not hard to follow. The majority of the 36 million or so Californians are on this type of tariff. (My, community owned, water company also charges extra if I am too generous with the sprinklers.)
Using low energy bulbs requires a little thought, but we have found it possible to provide perfectly adequate lighting throughout our house. With advancing age one needs more and stronger lights, but this is true regardless of type of light source.
I live in the real world. It is the UK and many of its inhabitants who dream, and are deluded by constant moans about profits and fairness.
Report this comment
Simon Evans
To complete your tale of California, please tell us the price per kWh and kWh band limits for each of he three tiers of charges to which you refer so that we can compare your charges with ours.
Report this comment
Evans
It was time I checked the rates as i had forgotten exactly how it worked. There are two variables, the first is rate applied to units used, and the second is the actual baseline used.
Here is the general domestic rate for PG&E. There are others, but this is the tariff most domestic users are on:
TOTAL RATES
Total Energy Rates ($ per kWh)
Baseline Usage $0.12845 (I)
101% – 130% of Baseline $0.14602
131% – 200% of Baseline $0.29518
201% – 300% of Baseline $0.33518
Over 300% of Baseline $0.33518
Total Minimum Charge Rate ($ per meter per day) $0.14784
The next question is: what is the baseline? In my area it is about 9KwH day in winter and 7.5 in summer. But baselines vary depending on where you live. The (California) Public Utilities has a formula that all utilities must use. PG&E says:
The Public Utilities (PU) Code establishes baseline quantities for average residential gas and electricity use within each baseline territory. The PU code specifically requires that baseline quanties fall between 50 and 60 percent of average use for basic-electric customers in both the summer and winter and for all-electric and gas customer in the summer. The PU code also requires that baseline quantities fall between 60 to 70 percent of average use for all-electric and gas customers in the winter. PG&E’s baseline summer season is April 1 – October 31 for gas and May 1 – October 31 for electric. PG&E’s winter baseline season is November 1 – March 31 for gas and November 1 – April 30 for electric. To give customers the highest baseline quantities possible, PG&E sets baseline quantities at the highest end of the ranges specified by the PU Code. Daily baseline quantities are recalculated and submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for approval approximately every three years, and may be phased-in on an annual basis if necessary to mitigate bill impacts.
Though baseline quantities vary by territory, season and customers’ heating sources, baseline rates are the same for all residential customers on the same rate schedule – regardless of the size of individual homes and number of occupants. Some customers may be eligible for additional medical baseline quantity allowances if established criteria are met.”
I hope this is clear. I may say that I doubt if 1% of Californians bother with any of this, they just know it pays to be economical with fuel!
If you work through this you can see that it is reasonable, given that Californiaa lot of variability in its climate.
Report this comment
Ramsay
Perhaps this may be of interest with regard to the health issues;
http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/aaem-calls-for-immediate-moratorium-on-smart-meters-on-health-concerns/
Report this comment
This will this cost us more than more than once because when installed an army of meter readers and people processing this information will be out of work and onto benefits. Costing the tax payer yet again- so its good for bumping up energy company profits but not people who are working and a mass of people wanting to work to get by in life. Unfortunately profit orientated companies will ultimately choose tech to remove people because its cheaper. So if you have a job its only because it hasn’t been automated yet. YET!!!
Report this comment
Evans
This argument is doomed to failure. The first time a horse was harnessed to a plough men were put out of work. The invention of the railway put thousands of carters, coaches. horse breeders, blacksmiths and all their associated businesses out of work. Piping water from a remote lake to an African village puts the women who carry water out of work. The assumption that there is a fixed number of jobs and automating some of them puts people out of work is invalid. New types of job are constantly arising. Most of the jobs people do today did not exist a hundred years ago.
There are far better arguments against smart meters than this one.
Report this comment
Kirkwood
Mr Evans. Unemployment is at record levels- I have 2 agree with “Rich” This trend will continue. Advancements in technology only exist 2 relieve us of work. Another system other than our profit orientated failed system needs 2 be given a go. What do you suggest – Stop advancing us in every possible aspect of labour saving tools? Stop trying 2 create anything that will wipe out us having 2 do anything taxing and time wasting 2 prevent everyone 2 actually chase what they want to commit 100% of their passion 2. you must be insane
Report this comment
Evans
Mr.Kirkwood. This thread is about smart meters, I don’t think comments on my sanity are relevant, but for the record I am not insane.
Now to your arguments, such as they are. Advances in technology do not “only exist to relieve us of work.” They come about for many reasons. Many advances – most developments in medical technology, for example – create work (for doctors, nurses, technologists, manufacturers etc.) and relieve the patient. Nothing to do with relieving anyone of work.
Capitalism is a bit like the jury system in courts. Everyone can see what is wrong with it, but no one has yet come up with a viable alternative. There are different types, the state capitalism practiced in China or (in a different form) in Vietnam is very different from the managed capitalism of Europe. Convincing alternatives to capitalism have yet to appear (and I’d rather live in the West than in, say, Iraq, North Korea, China or Syria).
I am afraid the remainder of your comment defeated me. I do not know what point you were making. I was writing as an observer, and saying that smart meters, like many other new technologies, take one set of jobs away, but that others always emerge. That is the nature of human endeavour.
Report this comment
Kirkwood
Mr Evans. Yes we seem 2 be talking on other subjects on a thread about smart meters. Forgive me for not being up 2 date on- the best part of the “Wests” “evil of axis” list. Lets get back 2 the point. What is so amazing about smart meters.? Presuming other than you will be filling your pockets with notes from this mass installation.
Report this comment
I had a so called ELECTRICAL SMART METER fitted at my works unit in July 2010 – by a British Gas sub-contractor. I started receiving bills them in 2011 for over £2000 for one quarter (usual bills £300 per quarter) – I argued and argued with British Gas and the Ombudsman saying something was wrong somewhere – both organisations have lied continuously to me for the past 18 months and told me everything was fine and they had never had any problems with the 150,000 meters they had futted – and only last month after receiving another bill for over £1200 and a disconnection notice of British Gas and asking them to send an engineer to check the meter which they declined but said I could get my own independent engineer which I did we discovered the meter had been wired incorrectly we have this in writing from both the independent electrician and the British Gas contractor who eventually came and corrected the wiring. But my point is I have had to fight with them for over 18 months knowing there was an error and it was down to me to do all the investigating to resolved the problem – I’ve had no help of the Ombudsman, British Gas, Watchdog, Citizens Advice, Consumer Direct or Trading Standards and it could of cost me my business.
Report this comment
Hill
Sue them for the agravation and trauma. They deserve to be fined and taken to the cleaners.
Report this comment
Hill
PS Not only should BG be taken to court but all the employees who were involved in this shambles. If that happened I could see a vast differences in how employees of a company behaved toward customers. resposibility should be shared right down the line – then we would get CUSTOMER SERVICE – and how.
Report this comment
I have obviously been following and posting to the other smart meter conversation. Here is what I recently posted but I see that Convo has the same sort of misunderstandings!:
I last commented on this subject in October. Since then the same fears and dislikes are appearing in this ‘conversation’. I have Smart Meters on both my gas and electricity systems. I believe that they are working to my advantage at the moment. I have been downloading my consumption figures that become available to me about two days in arrears. The electricity usage details are available as half-hourly kWhr meter readings whereas the gas consumption is recorded each day in cubic meters. My monthly bills give me the details such as the calorific value of the fuel and conversion factors to enable me to calculate the energy content of the gas I use – again in kWhrs. I am discovering just how leaky my house is and I will be doing something about it. I think I should point out that any electromagnetic radiation contamination of the environment associated with this practice is minimal. The data is transmitted from my meters after midnight each day as an accumulated burst that, with broadband rates getting higher on a daily basis, must last for only a tiny fraction of a second! This must be negligible when compared with SatNav, mobile phone and computer hot-spot usage.
However, I think we should be aware of the future developments that are planned for our national system for the distribution of energy round the country. Smart Meters are only the tip of the technology that is being actively investigated. Our Government’s continuing devotion to a Green future is committing us to fund an additional National Grid, probably a DC Smart Grid that would be more efficient at transmitting electricity from off-shore at one end of the country to the other. Electricity will eventually be used for space-heating (to replace gas) and for transport. The advent of electrical power sources for vehicles will require energy distribution systems that are powerful enough to deliver at least as much energy as our current petrol station and gas networks. Naturally, the consumer will have to pay for this infrastructure.
The emergence of electrical vehicles will eventually provide the ultimate prize for the generating industry – energy storage. All those cars sitting in their garages with their cells charged whenever the wind is blowing and ready for the next generation of smart meters to switch you to a Feed-In Tariff. It will all need a versatile Smart Grid. At the moment the tax-payer is funding a significant fraction of the R&D budget for these projects.
It is possible that when all the R&D is done and the infrastructure built, we will have achieved national security of our energy supply. There will then be only two areas of threat remaining. Cyber attack on the grid control system and coronal mass ejection from the Sun causing a strong geomagnetic storm to blow all our fuses – but I’m sure we can rely on technology to come up with answers. I’ll give you some clues if you ask!
Report this comment
Parsons
The debate misses the point, because there’s a false premise at the heart of the present policy.
Back in the 1990s, the Internet was important, but it wasn’t central. Online banking, for instance, was targeted at the sophisticated few. The way forward for communications networks wasn’t fully clear – there were lots of good ideas about how machines could talk to machines, but only relatively few, highly specialised actual examples – things like vehicle tracking, which were hardly in the public eye. And computers by and large were.. large. One that was only as big as a cereal packet was pretty darn sleek, and very expensive.
So the vision of Smartgrid 1.0 had to solve three problems: improving the way electricity usage was measured, establishing a communications path between your meter and your supplier that didn’t depend on shoe leather, and putting an expensive brain in place to do all the clever stuff which we couldn’t quite describe. All this was wrapped up into (drumroll) Smart Meters! Fanfares, please!
Only…
Things have moved on in the outside world.
Core communications technologies have progressed steadily, but adoption of those technologies has bounded ahead. Not every home has wired broadband, but all but a very few adults own a fast, clever phone. In 2012 manufacturing volumes of smartphones are reported to exceed ‘featurephones’ for the first time – which means that by 2015 almost all of us will be carrying a phone that puts us in touch and in control. It also means that the cost of making any electrical appliance smart – smart enough to be consumer-monitored and controlled over any Internet connection – is certainly going to fall below £1, and could reach 15p.
In this world, the smart meters we’re committing to roll out at public expense solve a problem nobody has any more, so from a consumer point of view they provide a very modest benefit. For the energy company, they’re still exciting – but as they have two innate sources of cost benefit, while the regulator does need to agree how best to enable the capital expense, there should be no net effect on the public purse in the medium term. Indeed, with very modest assurances from the government on the structure of electricity regulation over the next decade, it’s entirely viable for electricity companies to avoid even short-term bill hikes.
The lobbyists’ favourite example of why we MUST go with Smart Grid 1.0 is the electric car. We need (they say) to let the electricity company decide when to charge your car, so demand can be evened out, limiting the growth in generation capacity required and aligning. This sounds sensible, but it’s neither useful nor necessary.
It’s not useful because if I really need my car to be charging now and fast, and I’m willing to pay, I’ll have to be able to over-ride the system. And it’s not necessary because if I’m connected (I have a smartphone), and my car is connected (it does too, only it probably doesn’t bother with a touchscreen!), and so is the electricity company (head office has an Internet connection), the whole effect we want (allowing me to choose that I want my car charged up as cheaply as possible) is possible without a single smart meter being involved. There are a whole bunch of ways this can be achieved technologically: bear in mind the only problem we actually need to solve is to make sure that my car battery charger is drawing current from a particular home!
Even more importantly for the consumer, the energy company doesn’t have to be a prime party. If I’m at the centre of this particular arrangement, arguably it’s the car manufacturer I want to involve first and foremost. We have a shared interest in the life of the car and especially of its most expensive component, the battery. How I drive, and how I charge (and discharge) the battery is central to its expected life. So I would be happy to share data with the car company and even perhaps pay for the electricity through them – they will get a better deal than I can, because they’re managing charging cycles of 100,000 cars across the country and can build sophisticated systems to interact with the power people.
And as for a car, so too for my washing machine (that unexpectedly large contributor to domestic fires – I’d like to be able to let the manufacturer keep an eye on mine), my sound system, my electric toothbrush, my lighting, my kettle. I’m at the centre: I want to see the information, I want to be able to choose who I share it with, and I want each little bit managed by an expert app or with an expert supplier.
Smart metering needs to happen, and three cheers for Which? preventing the energy companies turning a ‘poor us’ regulatory intervention into a doorstep sales feeding frenzy.
But smart grid needs to be rescued from the present mess, and put into the hands of the consumer where it belongs. We have to take up this challenge before the roll-out begins.
Report this comment
Evans
Splendid comment. It should be require reading for all those interested or involved in smart metering.
Report this comment
Another factor in the role out is the resources to install the meters. The energy companies operate a closed shop when it comes to meter installations. In a time of high unemployment the smart meter role out could offer opporttunities for people to be trained and employed in smart meter installation. Pressure should be brought to bare to encourage the energy companies to open this to private companies to be able to install smart meters, as long as they have the relevant training and expertise of course.
Report this comment
I’m sorry but I would not like my gas or electric meters installed by someone with only a few days training . Cope for lose of life…
Report this comment
I see no problem with some one becoming competent to undertake a single specific task after a few days training.
Happens all the time in many industries or services.
Report this comment
Tell that to the family who lose someone because of badly install meter!
Report this comment
I have no trust in either the government ( of any colour) or the energy suppliers. No consultation , no research into safety, no research into security ( I.d. theft ). What happens if these ‘smart meters’ are faulty – we all know of smart electronics that are faulty and have had to deal with the effects. The energy firms make it difficult enough to sort out over charges with the old meters , they will be even more difficult if not impossible with smart meters. It doesn’t matter how smart a meter is if people want to use/waste fuel they will,, wasting 11 billion pounds will never change that! Seems to me the government should be concentrating on solving the recession instead of wasting time and money on a fad.
Report this comment
Liz, I’m afraid this is no Government ‘fad’. The politicians have to do it because they have made many, many wrong or delayed decisions over the last 20 years. We are going to run out of electricity or have sugnificant power-cut within the next five years. They have wasted billions of pounds and many years on ridiculous wind turbines and PV panels and won’t have enough grid capability to transfer all that ‘green’ energy to where it will be needed. A new and versatile Smart Grid will have to be built at our expense. Smart Meters are just a tiny appendix to that Smart Grid.
Mind you, most of it will blow-up if they don’t find all those ‘pulse bombs’ that are designed to induce massive currents into all major electricity large-area loops. If they doesn’t get us then a severe solar eruption will do the job.
I just hope that a really Smart Grid will be capable of cutting itself into small loops linking small power generators to local users. This is where small nuclear energy units (100MW to 300MW) would be the answer when spread around the power stations of the country as local sources. Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) could do the job while consuming existing nuclear waste safely in tsunami-proof silos well away from our shores. BTW, they are not pressurised, don’t need massive supplies of cooling water and can’t suffer nuclear melt-down after water-pump failure and there is enough thorium in the world to last many millennia. Enough time for us to solve the fusion problems.
Of course, all this needs to be researched and developed but India will start building these reactors in 2016 – and they have huge reserves of thorium! Meanwhile our professional politicians who only listen to partisan advisers have squandered all our money on trying to keep the votes of the ‘green’ herds.
No Liz, we are not fighting ‘fads’ only crass ignorance. Luckily there is now an All Party Parliamentary Committee looking at LFTRs so there might be some hope. BTW, you can’t make bombs from LTFRs which is why we have uranium reactors and not thorium ones!
Report this comment
Back to top