Smart meters..................here it comes

[kzb]

46 minutes ago, Chunketh said:

I don't see where that is being proposed

Have you actually looked at the Telegraph article at the start of this thread ?  That is the topic we are supposed to be discussing.  In that article it says:

The proposals under consultation by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) would require a string of devices to be “smart” by default, allowing them to take advantage of so-called time of use tariffs.

So that is what we are talking about.

 

49 minutes ago, Chunketh said:

or when everyone will be forced onto a tariff specifically designed for those with storage.

I suppose it doesn't say we'll be forced onto such tariffs, granted.  But it will happen by stealth.  They need the majority to be on dynamic pricing or the system can't work.

52 minutes ago, Chunketh said:

The alternative is that we have excess capacity available at all times. Who is going to pay for that? 

We've had that up to now so why can't we continue?  We are all used to thinking life will get better and more convenient as technology advances.  This would seem to be a backwards step.

It hasn't been such an issue up until now.  But to guarantee the supply of demand at any time is practically impossible if your supply is wind and solar.  The installed "capacity" must be several times average demand and there must be enormous electricity storage capacity.  That storage is what is lacking because it is astronomically expensive; I think that realisation is creeping home and therefore we have dynamic pricing and load shedding coming to the fore of their plans for us.

[fellow]

1 hour ago, Chunketh said:

The alternative is that we have excess capacity available at all times. Who is going to pay for that? 

We already pay for that through the capacity market. Gas power stations are paid to be on standby and come online when needed. I would much rather continue paying for that than being ruled by a smart meter.

[Chunketh]

6 hours ago, Stewy said:

Having spare capacity is always a good idea for a National Grid... ✓

yeah.....how much though?

We are living like kings after all

[Chunketh]

5 hours ago, fellow said:

We already pay for that through the capacity market. Gas power stations are paid to be on standby and come online when needed. I would much rather continue paying for that than being ruled by a smart meter.

you missed the boat to complain about cheaper offpeak by about 46 years. You seem to be letting the torygraph stoke your inner fear of change.

[Chunketh]

5 hours ago, kzb said:

Have you actually looked at the Telegraph article at the start of this thread ?  That is the topic we are supposed to be discussing.  In that article it says:

The proposals under consultation by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) would require a string of devices to be “smart” by default, allowing them to take advantage of so-called time of use tariffs.

So that is what we are talking about.

So high capacity devices, already covered under existing measures....got it

 

5 hours ago, kzb said:

I suppose it doesn't say we'll be forced onto such tariffs, granted.  But it will happen by stealth.  They need the majority to be on dynamic pricing or the system can't work.

I call ******** here. It doesnt take a majority of consumers to be involved for it to be effective.

 

6 hours ago, kzb said:

We've had that up to now so why can't we continue?  We are all used to thinking life will get better and more convenient as technology advances.  This would seem to be a backwards step.

It hasn't been such an issue up until now.  But to guarantee the supply of demand at any time is practically impossible if your supply is wind and solar.  The installed "capacity" must be several times average demand and there must be enormous electricity storage capacity.  That storage is what is lacking because it is astronomically expensive; I think that realisation is creeping home and therefore we have dynamic pricing and load shedding coming to the fore of their plans for us.

Oh noes...CHANGE!!! aghhhh

this is simply an evolution of E7, that's all. You didn't whine about that did you? Its the exact same thing.

I suggest you sell those oil/gas shares you are clearly so wedded to and quit being a luddite. The worlds gonna move on.

Folk enlightened enough and weathly enough will pay for some storage and benefit from cheaper prices. If you dont want to or dont have the means to take part, thats fine. We have it covered.

[kzb]

22 minutes ago, Chunketh said:

I call ******** here. It doesnt take a majority of consumers to be involved for it to be effective.

Well I think it does.   We're not talking about piddling about with a few per cent here.  On a winter evening with no wind there will not be the amount of power that people want.  Demand will have to be managed somehow.  This isn't controversial, they have already passed the legislation allowing them to turn off car chargers for example.

27 minutes ago, Chunketh said:

I suggest you sell those oil/gas shares you are clearly so wedded to and quit being a luddite. The worlds gonna move on.

As I've said, if I could wave a wand and make it all happen I would do so.  This is nothing to do with what you or I might want, it is about what is actually feasible.   I don't own any shares.

29 minutes ago, Chunketh said:

Folk enlightened enough and weathly enough will pay for some storage and benefit from cheaper prices. If you dont want to or dont have the means to take part, thats fine. We have it covered.

Let's put it in the manifesto, we will pass a law saying every home owner has to pay at least £5,000 on a domestic battery installation.   That party would win by a landslide I'm sure.

[Confusion of VIs]

On 18/04/2024 at 01:20, kzb said:

So you are saying they are available for about $600 now ?  i.e. £482 ?  Have you a link to a UK retailer which shows this?

You seem to be intent on proving that you are completely devoid of anything even remotely resembling vision. 

The components to make far cheaper home batteries are entering mass production by the worlds two largest battery companies later this year.

To you this is irrelevent to the future cost of home batteries because Dixons don't stock them today 🤦‍♂️ 

On 18/04/2024 at 01:20, kzb said:

Because it is what we are actually paying, as opposed to some fantasy future price.

It is what we are paying for the early prototypes, the cost of developing a new industry. Another 🤦‍♂️

The large scale build out isnow happening check back in 2030 when we have +50GW of offshore wind. 

On 18/04/2024 at 06:45, TenYearToGetMyMoneyBack said:

Predictions like that, and the plummeting value of EVs, actually put people like myself off buying something today. 

That a sensible reason for delaying purchase. 

On 18/04/2024 at 07:34, Stewy said:

Also, once everyone has batteries, and the power price has flatlined all day every day, you'll find they are economically useless.

It won't flatline because there will always need to be an incentive to use excess (i.e. free) renewable energy when it is available. 

[Confusion of VIs]

On 18/04/2024 at 07:46, Chunketh said:

It’s not a good idea. If the lifespan of the cell exceeds 15-20 years (which it should), it will need to be removed from the comms hub when it comes time to replace it. Also, EM shielding.

better to roll them out independently. 

don’t get me wrong, we should be supporting greater battery roll out, just not hardware coupled with smart meters.

Coupled could just be a seperate box that plugs into your meter. The important part is the software that enables the battery to support efficient grid operation. That's also the reason why the power companies should pay for, or at least subsidise, them.

[Confusion of VIs]

On 18/04/2024 at 08:03, fellow said:

No it won't, unless you make it really expensive.

It will because in addition to those who will avoid using high power appliances at peak times, millions of people will have home batteries that will automatically avoid using the grid at peak times. 

 

On 18/04/2024 at 10:45, kzb said:

I'm still waiting to be shown a retailer who will fit me a domestic battery for £482, which is the current price according to his article.

We were talking about a sensible way forward but yet again (we have been round this loop before) its beyond you. 

On 18/04/2024 at 10:45, kzb said:

Also, 5kWh isn't much.  It would flatten the curve on a day-long timescale, but it isn't enough to get us through the winter Dunkelflaute.

It's more than enough to completely flatten the daily peak. 

You are obsessed with Dunkelflaute but happily offshore wind is at its best during winter and if that not enough we can just burn some gas as its net zero not zero we are aiming for (and in 2050 not  tomorrow).  

On 18/04/2024 at 10:57, kzb said:

For generations we've been used to be able to switch something on at the time which is most convenient to us.

But in this new "improved" world, when we get home from work in the late afternoon/early evening, with kids to cook for and all the rest, we have to nervously monitor the electric price every 30 minutes.  Sorry kids no tea yet because the electric price is still too expensive.

Yet people on here seem to think this dystopian vision is actually something to look forward to.

Amusingly, the "boomers", who will be in retirement by the time this comes around, will be able to do stuff around midday when it is cheap.  So these enthusiasts can watch the boomers laughing at them struggling, I'm sure they'll love that.

Just another of your fever dreams. 

 

On 18/04/2024 at 13:17, fellow said:

It's a good point about smart devices. I reckon one day the National Grid will be given access to certain high usage web connected devices such as kettles, washing machines etc and be able to block usage at emergency peak times so eventually we may not even get a choice.

That sounds like an improvement over today,  where the only option for dealing with a power shortage is to cut power to whole areas

. 

[Confusion of VIs]

On 18/04/2024 at 15:52, kzb said:

I think you are missing the point.  In the future we won't choose to have a dynamic tariff, it will be effectively compulsory.   That is what this thread is about.

Just like today there will still be fixed tariffs for those happy to pay a higher average price for their electricity. 

On 18/04/2024 at 15:52, kzb said:

So basically, we can look forward to power being outrageously expensive when we need it, and perhaps cheap when we don't.  This isn't the cornucopia of excess power, almost too cheap to meter, that we were promised.  They are going backwards on their promises very early in the game.

No one promised you power to cheap to meter. That was Nuclear in the 1960s.

You will be happy on your expensive fixed tariff and I will be happy to take advantage of much cheaper power offered on the variable tariffs.      

[Confusion of VIs]

On 18/04/2024 at 17:51, kzb said:

Have you actually looked at the Telegraph article at the start of this thread ?  That is the topic we are supposed to be discussing.  In that article it says:

The proposals under consultation by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) would require a string of devices to be “smart” by default, allowing them to take advantage of so-called time of use tariffs.

Take advantage of i.e. soak up cheap power and avoid peak prices. 

This is mainly about EV charging and getting millions of connected cars to act as a huge energy store available to soak up excess renewable power.    

On 18/04/2024 at 17:51, kzb said:

I suppose it doesn't say we'll be forced onto such tariffs, granted.  But it will happen by stealth.  They need the majority to be on dynamic pricing or the system can't work.

The majority will want to take advantage of cheaper bills.

But fine if you and others don't want to, as that means cheaper power for the rest of us. 

On 18/04/2024 at 17:51, kzb said:

We've had that up to now so why can't we continue?  We are all used to thinking life will get better and more convenient as technology advances.  This would seem to be a backwards step.

It hasn't been such an issue up until now.  But to guarantee the supply of demand at any time is practically impossible if your supply is wind and solar.  The installed "capacity" must be several times average demand and there must be enormous electricity storage capacity.  That storage is what is lacking because it is astronomically expensive; I think that realisation is creeping home and therefore we have dynamic pricing and load shedding coming to the fore of their plans for us.

Dynamic pricing was always the plan. It makes the whole system far more efficient and therefore cheaper.

 

[kzb]

47 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Dynamic pricing was always the plan. It makes the whole system far more efficient and therefore cheaper.

@Chunketh, there we are, have you got that ?

[Chunketh]

On 20/04/2024 at 00:29, Confusion of VIs said:

Coupled could just be a seperate box that plugs into your meter. The important part is the software that enables the battery to support efficient grid operation. That's also the reason why the power companies should pay for, or at least subsidise, them.

Could plug it in anywhere though really and add it to the HAN over Zigbee.

[Chunketh]

On 20/04/2024 at 02:00, kzb said:

@Chunketh, there we are, have you got that ?

Yeah. A smart grid able to react to the ebbs and flows of renewables better.

I don’t see what’s not to like. For those that don’t/can’t invest in storage it will look a lot like E7. For those that can, it will be cheaper.

overall everyone benefits. You don’t have to buy the additional kit, yet still make gains from those that do. Those that do make better savings than you. Seems fair to me.

[Will!]

The Register: Some smart meters won't be smart at all once 2/3G networks mothballed

[Timm]

39 minutes ago, Chunketh said:

Yeah. A smart grid able to react to the ebbs and flows of renewables better.

I don’t see what’s not to like. For those that don’t/can’t invest in storage it will look a lot like E7. For those that can, it will be cheaper.

overall everyone benefits. You don’t have to buy the additional kit, yet still make gains from those that do. Those that do make better savings than you. Seems fair to me.

+1 in theory.

In practice, the benefits will probably flow to the shareholders / senior execs.

[Chunketh]

2 hours ago, Timm said:

+1 in theory.

In practice, the benefits will probably flow to the shareholders / senior execs.

That's not really a smart metering problem though is it!

[Chunketh]

2 hours ago, Will! said:

The Register: Some smart meters won't be smart at all once 2/3G networks mothballed

Yep. 4/5g in the pipeline.

[kzb]

3 hours ago, Chunketh said:

Yeah. A smart grid able to react to the ebbs and flows of renewables better.

I don’t see what’s not to like. For those that don’t/can’t invest in storage it will look a lot like E7. For those that can, it will be cheaper.

overall everyone benefits. You don’t have to buy the additional kit, yet still make gains from those that do. Those that do make better savings than you. Seems fair to me.

The well off will be subsidised by the poor.  That is what is going on now with EVs and domestic solar power, so it is just an extension of that.

Also, the system will need a high percentage take up of dynamic pricing.  It will need a majority to be on dynamic pricing tariffs, not a few per cent.  That being the case, there will be punishment for those that resist.

Working families will be stressed out watching the current electricity price.  You won't be able to do things at the time you want to do them.  You can only do them at times where it is convenient for the supplier.

Landlords will have to spend thousands per home installing batteries.  They will reclaim this investment with higher rents.

People such as myself are expected to spend thousands out of our precious pension pots on these schemes.  Don't get me wrong, given loads of money I would quite like a back-up battery system.  But it's not something that I thought I would have to buy.  I also am not sure where I would put it because the place is full up already.

[kzb]

On 20/04/2024 at 00:23, Confusion of VIs said:

You seem to be intent on proving that you are completely devoid of anything even remotely resembling vision. 

My vision is all too good I'm afraid.  I can see through things.

On 20/04/2024 at 00:23, Confusion of VIs said:

The components to make far cheaper home batteries are entering mass production by the worlds two largest battery companies later this year.

To you this is irrelevent to the future cost of home batteries because Dixons don't stock them today

But you keep posting these completely wrong prices.  The price that we are interested in is the retail price of batteries fitted in the home.  The price is ten times the price you posted as far as I can see.  I asked people to post cheaper prices but no-one has responded.

Perhaps that means the price of batteries is only a small proportion of the total cost ?  In which case the lower price of batteries won't have much effect on the total price.

On 20/04/2024 at 00:23, Confusion of VIs said:

It is what we are paying for the early prototypes, the cost of developing a new industry. Another 🤦‍♂️

Well maybe, but why do people keep saying it is cheap when it isn't ?  Politicians seem to have got this idea that wind power is currently cheap, when we are paying an average of £174 /MWh.  Our representatives have been seriously misled.  If you are saying it is expensive but worth it, just say that, instead of trying to mislead, that is all I am saying.

On 20/04/2024 at 00:23, Confusion of VIs said:

The large scale build out isnow happening check back in 2030 when we have +50GW of offshore wind. 

Is it though ?  It looked to have stalled, because the wind companies refused to build at the prices they had previously quoted.  Have they extracted enough extra money now ?

50GW is misleading, because it will never actually deliver that amount.  It will deliver only at the times the wind is blowing in the correct velocity range, and these times do not necessarily coincide with times that people want it.

Which brings me to my oft-repeated point, they should have to quote for delivering power 24/365, not just at times that are convenient for them.  Otherwise it is a very misleading price.

On 20/04/2024 at 00:49, Confusion of VIs said:

It's more than enough to completely flatten the daily peak. 

I didn't say it wasn't.  My point was about longer periods.

On 20/04/2024 at 00:49, Confusion of VIs said:

We were talking about a sensible way forward but yet again (we have been round this loop before) its beyond you

We keep going round this loop because you refuse to address the actual prices paid by domestic customers.  Instead of posting that marketing material, show us how prices paid by customers have decreased recently.  There is a serious mismatch (an order of magnitude) between your prices and the prices I see from online suppliers.  You need to explain this.

[Chunketh]

23 hours ago, kzb said:

The well off will be subsidised by the poor.  That is what is going on now with EVs and domestic solar power, so it is just an extension of that.

 

How'd you work that out? The poor will be subsidised by those that invest in storage technology as the resultant grid becomes cheaper to operate and requires less peak capacity. Thats literally the point of it.

 

23 hours ago, kzb said:

Also, the system will need a high percentage take up of dynamic pricing.  It will need a majority to be on dynamic pricing tariffs, not a few per cent.  That being the case, there will be punishment for those that resist.

peak generation will be reduced as a function of take up. If 10% of homes can avoid using peak electricity then peak can be reduced by 10%, this comes at no cost to those that cant afford it. Where do you get the idea that its of no benefit to start small?

 

23 hours ago, kzb said:

Working families will be stressed out watching the current electricity price.  You won't be able to do things at the time you want to do them.  You can only do them at times where it is convenient for the supplier.

If they want to enjoy benefits designed for those spending £1000s then yeah, they will have to adapt. If they want to operate as they do today then they will pay a similar price to what they do today. Arguably less, as peak generation will cost less to achieve.....all thanks to the investment that those with the means to pay have made.

 

23 hours ago, kzb said:

Landlords will have to spend thousands per home installing batteries.  They will reclaim this investment with higher rents.

 

Why? Did landlords rush out to install economy 7 heaters? I'm sure some did but most didnt.

23 hours ago, kzb said:

People such as myself are expected to spend thousands out of our precious pension pots on these schemes.  Don't get me wrong, given loads of money I would quite like a back-up battery system.  But it's not something that I thought I would have to buy.  I also am not sure where I would put it because the place is full up already.

No one is "expecting" you to do anything. If you have the means and can invest on a long enough horizon you can make some savings. Otherwise its going to be pretty much BAU.

You seem to be coming at this with a lens of it being a massive conspiracy, rather than a modern twist on a strategy born in the late 70s.

Ofgem will set an "average utilisation unit cost" cap, much like they do today. Those with storage will save considerable amounts on that figure, by investing considerable sums in their own infrastructure. Its a win win for all.

[kzb]

4 hours ago, Chunketh said:

How'd you work that out? The poor will be subsidised by those that invest in storage technology as the resultant grid becomes cheaper to operate and requires less peak capacity.

The rich invest in storage precisely to get cheaper electric than the poor.  That is why they are doing it, to pay less for electric.  If it didn't pay, they wouldn't do it.  The system therefore gets more out of the poor for electricity than it gets from the rich.  That's how I work it out.

4 hours ago, Chunketh said:

peak generation will be reduced as a function of take up. If 10% of homes can avoid using peak electricity then peak can be reduced by 10%, this comes at no cost to those that cant afford it. Where do you get the idea that its of no benefit to start small?

You are correct within this statement, but 10% is not enough to flatten demand sufficiently.   Earlier today our UK 25GW (?) of wind capacity was delivering 2.5GW (c. 10% rated capacity) and the German wind system was providing 8% of its rated capacity.  So I am guessing import options were expensive also.

UK demand was about 37GW and gas generation was supplying 16GW (c. 43%).  Your batteries would need to supply that 16GW (which they can't at 10% of households) in the absence of the gas turbines unless they could severely cut demand.  So how would they cut demand to that extent?  Extremely high prices is my guess because they know some people will have to pay it.

4 hours ago, Chunketh said:

If they want to enjoy benefits designed for those spending £1000s then yeah, they will have to adapt. If they want to operate as they do today then they will pay a similar price to what they do today. Arguably less, as peak generation will cost less to achieve.....all thanks to the investment that those with the means to pay have made.

We'll see about that.  You are very trusting.  What will actually happen is the non-dynamic tariffs will be expensive, because they don't want people to be on them.  They need a high proportion to be on dynamic tariffs or it just won't work.  So the non-dynamic prices will be punitive.

 

[Chunketh]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

The rich invest in storage precisely to get cheaper electric than the poor.  That is why they are doing it, to pay less for electric.  If it didn't pay, they wouldn't do it.  The system therefore gets more out of the poor for electricity than it gets from the rich.  That's how I work it out.

So economy 7 should never have existed, as the poor couldn't afford to buy the heaters. Maybe we should raise the prices for everyone to pay for wholesale battery rollout instead? Naturally you would complain about that as well. 

The richer members of society get to invest in the great businesses of the world and make money from their money. Maybe we should forget all about that too, as its unfair on the poor.

All sounds a bit communist if you ask me. We live in a capitalist society, get used to it.

 

1 hour ago, kzb said:

You are correct within this statement, but 10% is not enough to flatten demand sufficiently.   Earlier today our UK 25GW (?) of wind capacity was delivering 2.5GW (c. 10% rated capacity) and the German wind system was providing 8% of its rated capacity.  So I am guessing import options were expensive also.

UK demand was about 37GW and gas generation was supplying 16GW (c. 43%).  Your batteries would need to supply that 16GW (which they can't at 10% of households) in the absence of the gas turbines unless they could severely cut demand.  So how would they cut demand to that extent?  Extremely high prices is my guess because they know some people will have to pay it.

So im correct but im wrong and they wont do anything.

Dynamic pricing is also good for the low generation scenarios. Those pesky rich folk wont get a cheap rate then and will have to pony up the market unit price, or just use the power they have stored up.

When the winds a blowing they can fill their boots though and even sell it back to the grid. 10% of homes with an 8Kwh battery install gives you 22.4 GWh of on demand storage. That's the equivalent of the largest European gas power station (Pembroke) running flat out for 10 hours. Lets half the cost of building and running Pembroke (£500m capex, £3.5m per day in gas) - 10% of homes with a modest battery saves the country £1.2 billion a year, or £40 quid off every household bill, without the taxpayer having to spend a penny.

Flatten the curve is the way forward.

2 hours ago, kzb said:

We'll see about that.  You are very trusting.  What will actually happen is the non-dynamic tariffs will be expensive, because they don't want people to be on them.  They need a high proportion to be on dynamic tariffs or it just won't work.  So the non-dynamic prices will be punitive.

 

As I just showed, you dont need a high percentage to be on dynamic tariffs to see a benefit. Yeah, the benefits are greater but meaningful savings can be made even with limited take up.

Its illogical to assume that the current state of affairs will become more expensive for the average consumer when some consumers are providing the grid with some of its balancing infrastructure at their own cost.

You seem to have an issue with how capitalism works, over how Smart meters do.

[kzb]

1 hour ago, Chunketh said:

10% of homes with an 8Kwh battery install gives you 22.4 GWh of on demand storage. That's the equivalent of the largest European gas power station (Pembroke) running flat out for 10 hours.

2.24GW is only 6% of current demand.  You could maintain this for 10 hours as you say (or 12% for 5 hours...etc).  It's not really the equivalent of Pembroke, because Pembroke doesn't then need to recharge itself.  The round trip efficiency is around 80%, so it would take 10 hours of 2.24/0.8 = 2.8GW of (surplus) electric to recharge, adding to demand and therefore prices the next day.  Assuming the wind is blowing the next day of course....

1 hour ago, Chunketh said:

Lets half the cost of building and running Pembroke (£500m capex, £3.5m per day in gas) - 10% of homes with a modest battery saves the country £1.2 billion a year, or £40 quid off every household bill, without the taxpayer having to spend a penny.

I think you can see from above that we'd still need Pembroke in this scenario.  Also don't forget that 2.8 million people have spent what, say £6,000 each on a battery system, which comes to £17 billion.  

 

 

 

[Chunketh]

44 minutes ago, kzb said:

2.24GW is only 6% of current demand.  You could maintain this for 10 hours as you say (or 12% for 5 hours...etc).  It's not really the equivalent of Pembroke, because Pembroke doesn't then need to recharge itself.  The round trip efficiency is around 80%, so it would take 10 hours of 2.24/0.8 = 2.8GW of (surplus) electric to recharge, adding to demand and therefore prices the next day.  Assuming the wind is blowing the next day of course....

2 hours ago, Chunketh said:

Missing the point, thats 2.24Gw of the peak demand removed, flattening the curve.

 

44 minutes ago, kzb said:

I think you can see from above that we'd still need Pembroke in this scenario.  Also don't forget that 2.8 million people have spent what, say £6,000 each on a battery system, which comes to £17 billion.  

 

Oh noes, you have to pay money to save money. Who'd have thought it.

My point was that this costs non-storage customers NOTHING. Isnt that what you want? Something for nothing?