Energy smart meters are a threat to privacy, says watchdog

[adam2]

Whilst there is something to be said for charging a lower rate for the first say 200KWH, and a higher price for the rest, there are a number of pitfalls in so doing.

Firstly the left will demand that the first 200KWH be made cheaper still, and/or that the lower price be extended to say the first 400KWH.

Meanwhile the right will demand the opposite.

The policy will be deemed unfair to those who lack mains electricity but instead have to pay the market price for alternatives.

There is a definite upper limit as to how much the rich will pay, before generating their own power becomes cheaper.
Those who live in shared houses or rented rooms will be unduly penalised as the cheap first 200KWH will in effect be shared with many others.

Rural electricity supply is already a charity, or at best a social service, and would be rendered even less economic if consumption fell. Losses in rural distribution would increase substantially in percentage terms since the fixed iron losses would predominate.

[Little John]

Whilst there is something to be said for charging a lower rate for the first say 200KWH, and a higher price for the rest, there are a number of pitfalls in so doing.

Firstly the left will demand that the first 200KWH be made cheaper still, and/or that the lower price be extended to say the first 400KWH.

Only if 400kwh can be reasonably shown to be the minimum base energy required to function effectively. If 200 is enough then there would be no requirement. Especially so if, instead of a single charge differential at 200kwh, there were several.

Meanwhile the right will demand the opposite.

F--k the right.

The policy will be deemed unfair to those who lack mains electricity but instead have to pay the market price for alternatives.

If someone lacks mains electricity, they are presumably doing so either by choice, in which case what difference should it make to them what happens to the mains price. Or, they are doing it by circumstance. In which case, again, it doesn't matter what happens to the mains price since they cannot access it anyway. The job of the authorities should be to merely make the mains available, where possible, to everyone who wants it and to make it as progressive, in terms of price, as they can. That is all.

There is a definite upper limit as to how much the rich will pay, before generating their own power becomes cheaper.

This is just a variation of "don't tax the rich or they will leave" argument. And it's just as morally bankrupt. In any event, we don't get to find out what that upper limit is until we start applying such price differentials do we? Or, are you suggesting that we are currently anywhere near that ceiling? It should not be hard to work it out by comparing self generating prices per unit of energy and simply ensuring that the top rates of mains prices are always set just below that price.

Those who live in shared houses or rented rooms will be unduly penalised as the cheap first 200KWH will in effect be shared with many others.

It is not beyond the whit of people to work out a formula that takes into account the number of people in a building of shared utilities and then apportions an energy ration accordingly. All that is required is the will.

To the extent that disputes may arise between individuals in such households regarding who consumed what energy and where, this is essentially no different to the possibility of disputes arising between such people as thing already stand.

Rural electricity supply is already a charity, or at best a social service, and would be rendered even less economic if consumption fell. Losses in rural distribution would increase substantially in percentage terms since the fixed iron losses would predominate.

So, are you suggesting we should maintain UK consumption at current levels in order to subsidies rural consumption? I thought the whole point about smart meters is to lower consumption. If it's not, then what are they for?

[Mr. Fox]

If it's not, then what are they for?

Remote disconnection and load limiting (which, admittedly, lowers consumption). Read the spec.

[RenewableCandy]

And detecting people who are growig weed and the like.

[vtsnowedin]

Whilst there is something to be said for charging a lower rate for the first say 200KWH, and a higher price for the rest, there are a number of pitfalls in so doing.

Firstly the left will demand that the first 200KWH be made cheaper still, and/or that the lower price be extended to say the first 400KWH.

Meanwhile the right will demand the opposite.

The policy will be deemed unfair to those who lack mains electricity but instead have to pay the market price for alternatives.

There is a definite upper limit as to how much the rich will pay, before generating their own power becomes cheaper.
Those who live in shared houses or rented rooms will be unduly penalised as the cheap first 200KWH will in effect be shared with many others.

Rural electricity supply is already a charity, or at best a social service, and would be rendered even less economic if consumption fell. Losses in rural distribution would increase substantially in percentage terms since the fixed iron losses would predominate.

Rates have to be set by adults responsible enough to pay the costs and keep the utility a going concern. Not the wishful thinking of "give me" slackers.
Is not all of the UK electrified? Who lacks mains access and how would changing the mains rates effect them.
The cost of installing a diesel or natural gas fed stand alone generator are well known. You can't charge the rich more then that power would cost them so there is your upper limit.
Here in the US each apartment usually has it's own meter and it's own bill each getting the first 200 at the low lifeline rate. As for shared housing it doesn't take anymore watts to light a room with four people in it then it does a room with just one occupant. For hot water use etc. they will just have to work it out between those sharing. While extending the lines to rural areas required low interest government loans it has never been a charity here. Why are you subsidizing yours?

[RenewableCandy]

Same reason we have the NHS, Legal Aid, water quality regs, stop signs and speed limits. It's a civilisational thing.

Of course, if it does turn out to be less problematic to equip an isolated farm with, say, a pv/genny/battery set-up than a mains connection (after storm damage for example), that might be the future way forward. But they should still have electricity at a reasonable rate, for now at least.

[adam2]

Rural electrification was subsidised initially by the government as either a job creation scheme, or because it was considered a good thing to do for social reasons.
The on-going running costs are absorbed by the electricity supply industry, and therefore in effect paid for by urban consumers.

In many cases, several miles of overhead line and one or more transformers are provided to supply only a handful of customers. Infrastructure costing £10,000 to serve just 2 or 3 customers is very common. If those customers spend in total £1,000 a year on electricity, that might yield a profit to the network operator of £250 a year, which will NEVER EVER repay the capital cost, before the equipment requires replacement after say 25 years.
Add the costs of maintenance, even a brief visual inspection once a year can cost £100, and the iron losses in the transformers have to be paid for forever, and it is clear that rural electricity is hopelessly un-economic.

[emordnilap]

it is clear that rural electricity is hopelessly un-economic.

Which proves how silly things can get when using economics as a yardstick.

[Little John]

If it's not, then what are they for?

Remote disconnection and load limiting (which, admittedly, lowers consumption). Read the spec.

Load limiting and selective disconnection is about managing peaks and toughs. The reason that such peaks and troughs need managing is because there is not enough slack in supply to meet fluctuations in demand. Given that the energy is going to continue to diminish in supply, such management is inevitably about reducing demand. So, smart meters, whatever their immediate, proximal function, their underlying, fundamental function is absolutely about managing a reduction in demand in order to match it to a reduction in supply.

[Little John]

it is clear that rural electricity is hopelessly un-economic.

Which proves how silly things can get when using economics as a yardstick.

Exactly.

[Mr. Fox]

Load limiting and selective disconnection is about managing peaks and toughs.

If we look at places where smart meters have been installed for a while (I'm thinking New York?) we can see that the main advantage (from a suppliers POV) is the ability to disconnect a non-paying customer without having to send an engineer to gain access to the property and perform the physical disconnection. Click of a mouse.

IIRC, where there are non-paying customers who cannot legally be disconnected (elderly, disabled etc), their supply can be limited, therefore they have not technically been disconnected.

But yes, also they can automatically dis/reconnect supply should grid go out of limits (voltage/freq) and perform reconnects with a random time offset (which prevents demand surge). This saves the DNO from having to make (as much) provision for transient fluctuations in generation/load, e.g. with HV capacitor banks, etc. which are expensive and entail their own quiescent load. In this regard, smart meters are cost-effective.

They can also provide real-time cost/consumption data (like an energy monitor).

They can handle tariff switching (like the old economy7) and turn on/off relays (again with time offset).

They can handle 'pre-payment' arrangements, etc.

AFAIAA, the data logging aspect is only done at 30 min intervals - which is still enough to raise concerns over privacy.

I log my own power consumption on 3 separate circuits at 4 second intervals, using a 'currentcost' meter. It squirts out XML every 4 seconds into an SQL database (via a python script) running on an old netbook, then uses flot/php to generate funky graphs that can be viewed via any browser (on the network):



The amount of intimate detail regarding my activities that this reveals is actually quite disturbing. (which is why you're only seeing half a graph! )

[vtsnowedin]

Rural electrification was subsidised initially by the government as either a job creation scheme, or because it was considered a good thing to do for social reasons.
The on-going running costs are absorbed by the electricity supply industry, and therefore in effect paid for by urban consumers.

In many cases, several miles of overhead line and one or more transformers are provided to supply only a handful of customers. Infrastructure costing £10,000 to serve just 2 or 3 customers is very common. If those customers spend in total £1,000 a year on electricity, that might yield a profit to the network operator of £250 a year, which will NEVER EVER repay the capital cost, before the equipment requires replacement after say 25 years.
Add the costs of maintenance, even a brief visual inspection once a year can cost £100, and the iron losses in the transformers have to be paid for forever, and it is clear that rural electricity is hopelessly un-economic.

It comes down to customers per mile of line energized and while it maybe uneconomic in say Montana My coop (The first in the US) pays it's bills handily. When power first came in back in the 1920s and 30s the power companies quickly hooked up all the villages and towns with trunk lines connecting them along the major roads. Farms more then a half mile away from these profitable lines were bypassed. With some lobbying by the Governor of Vermont the first coop was formed and a(2%) low interest loan secured from the Federal government which led to the formation of the Rural electrification Administration (REA.). They got to my place in 1945 and to the ends of Montana by 1975. For farmers it meant electric lights in the barn instead of oil lamps, a milking machine and cold storage tank to cool the milk prior to shipment and the most wondrous think of all a electric motor driven gutter cleaner that moved the hundred bushel of manure a day the cows produced out to a spreader or stock pile at the flick of a switch. Work that used to be done with a shovel and a wheel barrow. Was it worth the cost? Absolutely and I say that as someone who has been on the working end of one of those shovels. Those 1945 poles are still in use in places but they are systematically replacing them and upgrading the system in a prudent and cost effective way.
If they had not extended the lines out many of those remote farms would have been abandoned. Some were ,even then, due to poor roads and worn out soil etc. We still have two power companies in town. The big utility in the village and along the state highway and the WEC co op for all the rest. As a long time member/co owner they from time to time distribute credits to me that I can apply to my bill. So the books balance and the town customers are not subsidizing my rates.

[PS_RalphW]

The amount of intimate detail regarding my activities that this reveals is actually quite disturbing. (which is why you're only seeing half a graph! )

The saw tooth is probably the fridge or freezer cycling on or off. Thw 2KWh spike for a few seconds - maybe reheating a cold cup of tea in the microwave?

The background consumption of 250W seems a bit high for a powerswitcher, that would be enough for 12 bright CFL lamps or 50 LEDs, or 4 modern TVs of reasonable size.

[Mr. Fox]

Close enough!

Anyone seen this film, btw?

Take Back Your Power

http://www.takebackyourpower.net/

Via: http://stopsmartmeters.org/ <-- Run by a Brit, I believe.

[biffvernon]

18 months on... Anyone got anything sensible on the danger of smart metres? In what way is all this fruitloopery? http://stopsmartmeters.org/the-science/