Jump to content

Smart Meters...


Recommended Posts

What's the current low-down on Smart Meters? I've always avoided, but are they still flawed?

 

I'm looking to sort out energy supply prices. I've been with Scottish Power for a while and kinda like them because I know their system, but the Super Saver tariff appears to obligate me to a Smart Meter. I want to stay with one of the bigger companies and aren't bothered about splitting hairs over a few pounds/year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any of the smart meter installers are working at the moment. We've been waiting for a new smart meter to be installed on our temp supply since lock down (it was due to be fitted a couple of days after lockdown started). I did get a call the other day to tell me they have made a list of people they would visit first when they start up again but had no idea when that would be. I guess we'd need some change in guidance from the government before that happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, christianbeccy said:

What's the current low-down on Smart Meters? I've always avoided, but are they still flawed?

 

I'm looking to sort out energy supply prices. I've been with Scottish Power for a while and kinda like them because I know their system, but the Super Saver tariff appears to obligate me to a Smart Meter. I want to stay with one of the bigger companies and aren't bothered about splitting hairs over a few pounds/year

Avoid.

 

I intentionally use suppliers who do not require a smart meter.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, christianbeccy said:

Why?

Some of us believe the real reason for smart meters is their ability for half hourly metering, i.e. to charge a different tariff for each half hour of the day.  That is optional at the moment and some suppliers do offer that sort of tariff now.  We fear once we all have smart meters we will be forced onto that sort of tariff which usually comes with a VERY high rate for the late afternoon / early evening period, just when you want to cook your dinner.

 

That sort of tariff also makes it much harder to compare suppliers and switch to a better tariff.

 

We are being "sold" smart meters on the idea they will save you money,  It is NOT the smart meter that might save you money but the in room energy monitor that might save you money if you watch it like a hawk and find you have left something on that you don't need.  but it is very unlikely to save you much, and you can have that sort of device with a normal meter.

 

One has to ask if there is no real benefit for the consumer to have a smartmeter then just WHO is benefiting from them and pushing us to have them?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had smart meters installed several years ago at the request of our supplier at that time. And even then they sent a meter reader around to double check the readings. None of our subsequent suppliers have been able to collect readings remotely, but I think the newer meters will allow this. In my opinion smart meters won't help you to reduce your bills unless you really want to reduce them, and then you could probably get most of the savings by using a plug-in power monitor (costs about a tenner) and a modicum of common sense.

 

The in-home display did allow me to double-check the consumption of some ceiling lights, the oven and the security alarm, though. Might have saved a few quid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there also still some questions over smart meters and Solar PV if you have it? I know at one bit you couldn't have a smart meter if you had PV, as it charged you for your solar generation as well as what you imported, that was many years ago though, maybe they've fixed that now.

 

The only story I have about smart meters is from a friend who's elderly mother got one installed, he always did monthly meter readings before it, then he noticed the amount she used went up dramatically after install, he rung and asked her if she was doing anything different, to which she said no, he rung supplier and they remoted into it and applied some kind of patch!! Following this it went back to what he expected, but if he hadn't said anything she would have been charged more presumably forever! For that reason alone I won't have one, give me analogue any day!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The energy companies have the ability to remotely disconnect consumers. This would normally be for non payment, but could be done in error.

Also allows for easy data sharing, something that the government now allows for. 

 

The big saving is not relying on physical meter reading, in itself a benefit to all.

My provider asks for a reading anyway. I never do it until the bill turns up, then i adjust it.

Edited by SteamyTea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Some of us believe the real reason for smart meters is their ability for half hourly metering, i.e. to charge a different tariff for each half hour of the day.  That is optional at the moment and some suppliers do offer that sort of tariff now.  We fear once we all have smart meters we will be forced onto that sort of tariff which usually comes with a VERY high rate for the late afternoon / early evening period, just when you want to cook your dinner.

 

That sort of tariff also makes it much harder to compare suppliers and switch to a better tariff.

 

We are being "sold" smart meters on the idea they will save you money,  It is NOT the smart meter that might save you money but the in room energy monitor that might save you money if you watch it like a hawk and find you have left something on that you don't need.  but it is very unlikely to save you much, and you can have that sort of device with a normal meter.

 

One has to ask if there is no real benefit for the consumer to have a smartmeter then just WHO is benefiting from them and pushing us to have them?

Just to expand,

the energy suppliers trade/pay per half hour so if we the end user dont do likewise then the potential exists for the energy companies could lose out.

Remote switch offs and data collection have been mentioned.

You do not legally have to have a smart meter but the providers make it compulsory for some tariffs as they had targets to meet with numbers of smart meters fitted.

Its marketing rubbish about saving you money; they should have been honest about the real reasons behind smart meters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Total waste of time in my experience. We had one installed when we completed the build in 2018. I wanted to avoid having to submit readings (the gas meter wasn't smart, so we still had to send those through) and get a better handle on use. It was a SMETS 1 type that was tied to a particular supply (in our case Green Energy). The more advanced SMETS2 ones were in short supply at the time.

 

It had 3 charging periods. The 4-8pm tariff was exorbitant - over 30p/KwH, but the midnight-7am a reasonable 7p/hr. The normal daytime rate was about 16p and Standing Charge around 20p/day.

 

The meter linked to the Home Display unit for a couple of days, then lost connection. I tried to get it to work for 2 months of endless calls to Green energy, including a new one being sent out. I gave up and it went in the bin.

 

The readings never seemed to get through to Energy Assets, the Data Communications Company. Our supplier couldn't understand what the issue was despite the 3G signal being fine.

 

Then we switched supplier and it became a dumb meter. So now we have to send 3 readings every 3 months.

 

Strikes me the industry isn't geared up for this yet, so you do wonder who's pushing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The push seems to have been a result of lobbying that started way back before the big boom in renewable generation, and before the marked decrease in electricity consumption that has happened over the past few years.  Pretty sure it was a few of the big suppliers who lobbied hard initially, and then managed to convince government to set a target.  The volatility, particularly upwards in peak times, of the 24 hour buy-ahead 30 minute period wholesale market was creating significant problems in terms of setting tariffs, and the big suppliers were also being squeezed by OFGEN with caps on the maximum they could charge.  The situation seems to have changed a fair bit, with  peak generation capacity having grown to the point where negative pricing events are now becoming more frequent.

 

We've had an in-house energy monitor for many years now, initially one that was given away free by one of the energy suppliers ten or twelve years ago, and since this house went live we've been using my home made energy monitor display.  Having a smart meter would make zero difference to our energy use, as we've already tuned our demand as best we can.  The things also won't work here (no signal) and when I was chatting to the meter reader a year or so ago he told me that he had to do exactly the same meter readings on houses with smart meters as those without, apparently there's a legal requirement that they do this.

 

I suspect that other technologies may well prove to be more effective at ironing out the peaks and troughs of demand vs generation, distributed storage already seems to be making some contribution, with the payback time for relatively small commercial energy storage installations, particular those associated with renewable generation projects, looking to be fairly short.  Controlling generation capacity in this way seems both simpler and potentially more profitable for generators, as they then have some control over when they supply energy, and can choose to reduce output (and store it) during low wholesale price periods, then supply from storage during higher wholesale price periods.  Smart meters in homes can't really do anything similar, and it seems unlikely that they will make a noticeable difference to demand patterns.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

British Gas started installing smart meters well before the government got interested. I think this was partly to influence the standard and partly because they thought it would make switching harder or at least discourage switching.

 

The government set up a company that is meant to make all meters portable between suppliers. That will happen first for SMEETS 2 standard meters. After that they are meant to go back and make all SMEETS 1 meters portable. Problem is the government keeps extending the deadlines allowing companies to continue to install SMEETS 1 meters.

 

I would love a smart meter but on principal I'm refusing until they can guarantee to give me a SMEETS 2 meter and force smaller suppliers to support it. Currently I think only the larger companies are even obliged to support smart meters (or am I out of date?)

 

PS I'm a retired electronics engineer/project manager. Companies have been claiming a shortage of SMEETS 2 meters for at least a year. That might be true but the government doesn't seem to be asking why. Apple have no problems making many more phones and changing models every few months. I smell a rat.

 

Edited by Temp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s also health concerns. Although much of these are OTT there are genuine concerns that haven’t been addressed

 

I say this from my background as a functional medicine coach. 
 

There’s very little data about how often they transmit (often many times more than they upload data to supplier), the power of transmission etc. I would not want my child sleeping in the room above one unless I had complete information about this. 
 

Latest research has shown RF, especially low dose, high regularity,  increases calcium uptake in cells by many orders of magnitude. When most of the population have too much calcium in their cells anyway due to magnesium deficiency, this can exaggerate the issue.

 

I’m not talking brain tumours as the media will report. I’m talking low grade chronic inflammation over years. Eg worsening of blood glucose levels, blood pressure, aches and pains. All very specific to individuals. 

 

As the posts above have said, even if you’re a sceptic, are the benefits worth the risk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RF transmitted from a smart meter is exactly the same frequency and ERP as that from a 'phone, as they use the same network, so have to meet the same client side specification.  The actual ERP will depend on the distance from the nearest cell tower, as the spec requires devices to step their ERP up and down such that the power is set to the lowest level needed in order to maintain a reliable connection.  The rationale for this is primarily driven by the requirements for mobile devices, to improve battery life, but it holds true for all client side equipment, as there is a need to try to restrict interference, and having all devices use the lowest power needed for a reliable connection helps to maintain network capacity.

 

An establishment I managed a bit over 20 years ago did a lot of research into the biological effects of RF, driven by health concerns that arose from an enquiry into why the safe exposure limit set by Russia (more accurately the former Soviet Union) was about an order of magnitude lower than the limits used widely across the Western world.  This was around 1998, when people first raised concerns about mobile 'phone safety.  The safe limit we use in the UK and most of Europe was based on the measured heating effect in biological organisms, whereas the limit used in Russia was based on some very small observed cellular effects on single celled organisms.  The Russian researchers hadn't found any evidence to support the view that these small effects were adverse, but they nevertheless chose to adopt the precautionary principle and set a lower safe limit at the point where there were no observed cellular effects.

 

Because of the inverse cube law relationship that governs the power per unit area relative to distance from a source, the one case we found where a mobile 'phone could just exceed the conservative field strength limit set by Russia was when it was held close to the ear.  There was a region of around 30mm around that part of the skull close to the ear where the field strength could be sufficient, when a 'phone was transmitting on maximum power (very roughly equivalent to a weak received signal of about 1 bar on many displays) to exceed the Russian safe limit.  Moving the 'phone just a 100mm or so away from the ear reduced the field strength to below that limit.  At no time was the UK/European safe limit exceeded.

 

If someone is worried about the RF from their 'phone, then just using it in speaker phone mode, or via earphones, completely removes the risk, as with the phone held maybe 200 to 300mm away from any sensitive area, even when in a very weak signal area, the field strength will be well below the most conservative limit.  Most 'phones have their antenna near the top of the case, so holding the 'phone low down reduces the field strength at the hand by a great deal.

 

A smart meter will usually be a very long way away (in field strength terms) from people, anything over a metre away reduces the field strength to a very low level, well below any threshold for any observed cellular changes.  The maximum transmit power of a smart meter, 'phone, or other connected device is restricted to 2 W, and that maximum will rarely be reached if the device is in an urban area.  Our work estimated that full power might be used about 3% of the time in urban areas, whilst in rural areas the chance of the device using full power is greater, we estimated that in sparsely populated areas of the UK a device might use full power about 50% of the time.

 

Smart meters only connect to the network periodically, for a few seconds every 15 to 30 minutes, usually.  A mobile 'phone behaves similarly when on standby, as it keeps the cell connection alive.  If there is a risk from 2G/3G/4G/5G RF systems, then it will be massively greater from mobile 'phones than from smart meters, just because of that inverse cube law relationship and distance; a mobile 'phone is pretty much always going to be a great deal closer to a person than a smart meter ever will be.

 

The field strength from other wireless devices in the house, like wifi (operates at 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, so very similar to mobile 'phones etc) and perhaps wireless data links used to switch lights, thermostats etc (usually either 433 MHz or 868 MHz, the latter being close to the 900 MHz mobile 'phone band) probably also needs to be considered if anyone is concerned about this stuff.  I'm personally not particularly bothered, although I do pretty much always use a mobile 'phone hands free, having seen just how close to the safe limit a 'phone held right against the ear can be.  Having said that, we've had mobile 'phones around for 30 years now, and there has been no reported increase in the incidence of disease around people's ears, so if there was a health risk I'm pretty sure it would have shown up by now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That all reminds me of a TV program I saw years ago about the "dangers" of living close to overhead power lines.  They had picked a bungalow that was built right under a high voltage overhead power line.  They were going around the house with an EM field meter that was generally showing a very low reading.  Then they found a spot with a much higher reading, and shock, horror, it was by the headboard of a bed where you spend a lot of time.  Then they went around the other side of the wall and found that headboard backed onto the consumer unit.

 

What they had done was completely blown their case for the power lines being an issue, because they are so high up. and showed that you get a much larger effect from the normal house witing, that every house has even if not under a power line, simply by being close to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Benjseb said:

...

Latest research has shown RF, especially low dose, high regularity,  increases calcium uptake in cells by many orders of magnitude

...

 

A reference to an article about low-dose RF  in a refereed journal would help us decide for ourselves; please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with your points Jeremy. I think the difference between a phone and a smart meter is you can decide when and where to use a phone. For example I put mine in airplane mode overnight as there’s zero need for me to use it so why risk sleeping very close to it while in a house that has very poor signal. So it would be a full power all night 

 

With a phone I decide my exposure. With a smart meter you have no control and while it may only be a few seconds every minute currently if that was changed you’d have no notice. There have been studies which show although the data is transmitted say half hourly the actual network transmissions are much more frequent especially if they operate in mesh mode with your neighbours. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Benjseb said:

Agree with your points Jeremy. I think the difference between a phone and a smart meter is you can decide when and where to use a phone. For example I put mine in airplane mode overnight as there’s zero need for me to use it so why risk sleeping very close to it while in a house that has very poor signal. So it would be a full power all night 

 

With a phone I decide my exposure. With a smart meter you have no control and while it may only be a few seconds every minute currently if that was changed you’d have no notice. There have been studies which show although the data is transmitted say half hourly the actual network transmissions are much more frequent especially if they operate in mesh mode with your neighbours. 
 

 

 

 

You need to consider that all important inverse square law effect with distance, though.  If you're a metre or so away from the smart meter then the field strength is going to be very low indeed.  For some people in flats or semi-detached houses the risk from their neighbours 'phone may well be far greater (could be just the other side of their headboard).  Factor in that a smart meter only transmits for a few seconds at a time, unlike a 'phone, that may be transmitting for tens of minutes during a call, or when accessing data, and the risk exposure from the smart meter is extremely small indeed.

 

There are some good reasons for not wanting a smart meter, but the RF risk just isn't one of them.  The RF emitted from many other things in the environment, like wifi, remote controls, power line signalling, RF emissions from a multitude of electronic gadgets, LED light drivers, switched mode power supplies, inverter drives in washing machines etc is likely to be comparable in terms of overall exposure.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2p.....

 

I held off for a SMETS2. Very happy I dont do meter readings anymore...no idea of the tariff but uswitch said it was great. 

 

Dont be too paranoid about things we don't know about. 

 

I've never read anything negative about smart meters really (apart from SMETS1 not being able to change suppliers) until I read this thread. As far as I was aware...it in a bid for is to reduce energy usage and stop paying estimated Bill's.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...