How would they tell? What's the difference between an 'always on' fridge and an 'alway on' lamp bulb? The information sent back by the Smart Meter isn't even real-time as in continuous I don't think so analysing load patterns isn't going to be seriously possible.
By the simple expedient of wandering around your house whilst turning appliances on and off while looking at the in house display. Not exactly high tech. It?s crude, but easier that having someone shouting out from you meter cupboard how fast your meter is spinning whist you?re doing this. ;-)
Tim
OK, I asked the question, It can send data back in various increments of ten minutes according to EDF. I said I don't really care when you do it, since as long as my bills are accurate fine by me. It cannot solely be for people with electric cars since they are happy to supply me with one next Monday morning, lets hope the accessible talking consumer display unit is sent here early enough for the person to explain how to use it. As I say, they seem to be pretty relaxed, she also told me that according to records very soon I'd need a meter change to either a reconditioned one or a smart one as they only last a certain time in spec anyway. Could all be fluff of course, no idea. She said as far as they know this meter is compatible with other suppliers but obviously nobody has a crystal ball.
My main worry is that when he gets here he will say my system is dangerous and push off again. I doubt that will be allowed to happen to a blind person living alone though. I assume they have to work on the live mains at some point so its not a job I'd envy!
I'll let you know assuming I'm not living in an unheated cave by Tuesday. Brian
Except of course, for most people who do not want to arrange their whole life around the electricity tariff times, it'll simply mean paying a lot more because they want to cook (as we move from gas, we'll only have electric cookers), heat their home (electric heat pumps), have a shower or a bath (no hot water storage, so electric instantaneous water heater) wash clothes (both washing machine and tumble dryer to have things ready for the next day, without staying up very late), etc. at a time that suits what it going on in their lives.
Those with fewer demands on their time may indeed shift activities, but those working full time, looking after children/older relatives, etc. simply don't have the opportunity to match the timing of their use to pricing.
It is all about demand management, by peak pricing, while simultaneously gouging those unable to make big changes.
But you can do all that with a simple, clip on, remote power meter - without energy companies knowing the peaks and troughs of every household's usage and constructing tariffs designed to force people to change usage patterns or be hit financially.
As well as that, if the display is somewhere central you tend to notice it change as things happen - eg hear the central heating fire up, that's 200W for the pump. Turn on the toaster, that's another 1kW, etc. You get to learn what appliances actually take.
Plus at night when everything is shut down it's a good indicator of your base load - all those gadgets running 24/7.
I agree this is not for everyone, but I hope it would have an audience amount the DIY crowd...
Theo
Which is where home storage starts to become economically viable. (batteries now approaching $100/kWh, and system costs will come down as demand rises)
If the generation side of things depends on the weather, how do you expect demand to match supply without some degree of time shifting? You can't shift the supply, so it needs the demand shifting (either in consumption or via storage).
Theo
We should have built more baseload power stations - particular nuclear.
That ship sailed 10+ years ago. For the one we are building, the wholesale price per unit is roughly double that of renewables ( in normal conditions) so it's going to need subsidy to sell its power. It's not cheap baseload it's expensive baseload.
Theo
+1 Preferably based on LFTR technology rather than cold war inspired designs (although LFTR had also had its origins based on a military need).
I doubt that your figures are true.
We need to factor in reliability of supply. It also does not address that the cost of renewables (we mean wind) will go up as the best sites are taken. Getting to 3 times current electricity generation, needed for heat and transport, will be hard with wind.
On the other hand we could do it with Nuclear and we would expect Nuclear costs to come down with economies of scale. The problem with Nuclear is that it is upfront cost and has to fight bullshit and "something will turn up" arguments. Something may turn up, but I think it is very rash to rely on it.
Oh I wish
the biggest thing for me if I were to not be allowed to have a gas boiler [1] would be the loss of instantaneous hot water
there's no property-wide electric equivalent ATM
tim
[1] my house is very well insulated and my heating bills tiny. If I were to change to all electric heating, my bill would go up by a few 100 pounds per year with no loss of utility, countered by saving on the gas standing charge and the annual boiler service.
'They' aren't going to be wandering around my house! Note that I was responding to "They can also tell you whether you have any particularly energy hungry appliances.", to me that implies that 'they' (the electricity supplier) can tell.
... and how would turning the inefficient fridge on and off tell me whether it was inefficient or not?
That's it. How are we supposed to justify a £10,000 heat pump cost for a maximum saving of a few 100 pounds per year.
Hinkley Point C has a guaranteed purchase price of its nuclear electricity of £92.50 per MWh (9.25p per kWh):
"The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy therefore agreed a deal to support construction of Hinkley Point C in September 2016. The deal is with NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited (NNBG), which is owned 66.5% by Electricite de France (EDF) and 33.5% by China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN). The deal guarantees that NNBG will receive £92.50 (2012 prices), linked to inflation, for each megawatt hour (MWh) of Hinkley Point C?s electricity for 35years, with electricity bill payers paying topups if the market price islower. ... The Department estimates that between £10 and £15 of the average annual household electricity bill (in 2012 prices) will go towards supporting Hinkley Point C up to 2030"
The day-ahead baseload contract for the grid has been between £40 and £60 per MWh for most of the last decade:
Considering that nuclear electricity is double the cost of renewables, somebody has to pay for that difference. While reliability of supply is necessary, it doesn't mean that people won't be exposed to those differential costs in pricing terms. The lights stay on, but you pay more for them in times of high demand. If you don't, somebody else does.
+1 One of the railway journalists calls this 'bionic duckweed', some seductive new technology that will save you from having to do boring work installing proven technology like electrifying railway lines. Unfortunately the new technology doesn't exist, but it distracts politicians from committing to doing the boring but necessary work.I think all the stuff about hydrogen and small modular reactors and whatnot have a basic question: can you bring it to market at scale in <5 years? If not, it's too late - we're going to have to do something else (and maybe they will be usable technologies when *that* comes up for replacement). I think for traditional nuclear it just takes too long to build them.
Theo
no, its two thirds the price of wind power and one third the price of solar power, and that's before you take into account the cost of backup power for renewables,
Indeed it is compared with gas, (but not with renewables).
Hence the drive by RR and others to get the SMRs off the ground at about one third that price.
Nuclear costs would also fall considerably if the government funded them as investment and paid it back from selling the electricity, then once paid back, either dropped the price for each plant in turn, used the excess it to drop the overall price of electricity or used it to lower taxes elsewhere.
Instead we rely upon companies borrowing money at much higher rates and having to agree much higher strike prices to pay the much more expensive loans back, while making profits.
But how much lower could it have been if the government funded the build, so there was no need for far more expensive commercial loans, while also making a profit on top?
Plus repeats of the same design will be a lot cheaper.
<Snip>
A lot cheaper than many of the green subsidies elsewhere, while providing a steady and continuous supply.
If you cherry pick 'cost' and ignore subsidy, they are probably true for something.
I refer you to your electricity bill and the baseline wholesale costs of existing nuclear hydro coal and gas (around 4p a unit) new nuclear (9.8p a unit)
In reality wind is 12p a unit plus about 3p for intermittent balancing, and solar is up in the 30-40p range.
That doesn?t factor in the grid upgrades needed to e.g. balance Scottish generation with English consumption...
The upfront costs of nuclear are two thirds in meeting *regulations* that often have no impact on safety whatsoever.
This is why there is a drive for SMRs - type approved, factory built, no complex onsite construction requiring massive inspection , form filling and box ticking regimes. And small enough to be passive cooled under SCRAM conditions - no meltdowns.
The technology is not as efficient as as big reactor, but the paperwork and safety systems are massively reduced.
>
A small price to have lights that come on when its dark, rather than when it's bright or windy ...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.