navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: BBC article on electricity "shake up"  (Read 1315 times)
skyewright
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1726


« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2017, 03:00:38 PM »

skyewright - exactly.... interesting language choice.
??
My point was that it seemed to be a clear error.
Logged

Regards
David
3.91kWp PV  (17 x Moser Baer 230 and Aurora PVI-3.6-OUTD-S-UK), slope 40, WSW, Lat 57 9' (Isle of Skye)
skyewright
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1726


« Reply #16 on: July 24, 2017, 03:01:06 PM »

The poorly written line "are charged tariffs when they import electricity into their home or export it back to the grid" could indicate a move back to net metering for those who want it.
N.B. That, indeed, poorly written line isn't talking about a proposed future, it's talking about the present. It is to be hoped that the rest of the article is better informed...

Edit: Correct typo.
Logged

Regards
David
3.91kWp PV  (17 x Moser Baer 230 and Aurora PVI-3.6-OUTD-S-UK), slope 40, WSW, Lat 57 9' (Isle of Skye)
djh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2100


« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2017, 03:15:49 PM »

I'm a bit worried by the suggestion that half-hour metering be made mandatory for consumers. e.g. action 2.4

"Issue: Existing price signals through the electricity settlement arrangements do not encourage
suppliers to offer smart tariffs.

"Action: Ofgem will decide on the case for mandatory half-hourly settlement (HHS) for all consumers
in line with its revised plan, to be outlined shortly alongside the launch of a Significant Code Review.
This builds on the introduction of elective HHS for domestic and smaller non-domestic consumers
earlier this year."

That sounds like an invitation to suppliers to make tariffs more complex (and thereby profitable) and effectively force people to accept smart meters.
Logged

Cheers, Dave
RIT
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1327


« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2017, 04:36:55 PM »

I'm a bit worried by the suggestion that half-hour metering be made mandatory for consumers. e.g. action 2.4

That sounds like an invitation to suppliers to make tariffs more complex (and thereby profitable) and effectively force people to accept smart meters.

All depends on how you look at it - such plans will also make tariffs more realistic as the result should better match the cost of production, at some point someone will have to pay for the additional capacity required to meet peak demand and if 1/2 the customer base moves to half-hour metering and batteries or equipment that turns itself off to avoid the peak the other half will have to be charged for the privilege of not making such investments. If someone does not move to a smart meter it could over time result in them being charged a tariff based on the peak rate being charged 24x7.

Logged

Why bother? - well, there is no planet B
PeterC
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49



« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2017, 05:18:58 PM »

Well ive read it (the ofgem PDF) now and my thoughts are much as already mentioned by others. Its all about smart meters and their increased uptake to control the tarifs/times of use etc. I personally think switching washing machines on/off is irrelevant, switching hundreds/thousands of electric car chargers on/off, and other such battery storage uses, (yes home ones too) is what its really about. (big load balancing)

TOU time of use policies will be complex, deliberately so.

As for "Storage licenses" - thats one to watch!
"Later this year Ofgem will publish further guidance on both the FIT and RO schemes for participants that wish to co-locate storage systems at their generating stations" I think this bit will be interesting!!!

"In developing future policy on small-scale low-carbon generation, the Government will look to ensure the system and consumer benefits of storing electricity for self-consumption and export to the grid at peak time are realised. This could potentially include the ability for existing generators to take advantage of time-of-export tariffs."

So you have to get a storage license, which will likely be issued against specific storage equipment from approved suppliers (energy companies?) and specific configurations, so you can then store and export at more profitable time-of-export tarifs.

Hmmm maybe im just getting old and jaded, but this really has a whiff about it. Ive been slowly re-wiring and re-working my house as ive been renovating so that I could have 2 circuits in the house, one grid tie and and one off grid. The existing PV would be on the grid tie side along with basically my kitchen and a spur to the laundry area, and a second garden mount PV system would feed the off grid household circuit which is ring main and lights and central heating pumps.

Im wondering where I might fall in this new "rules system", technically smart meter can still switch off a few white goods and cooker. but thats it. Interesting times, but I think I'll get my work finished earlier than expected just in case theres some significant "planning changes" especially with regards storage licenses.




Logged

Solar PV: 3.42 kWp System - 18 x SHARP 190w panels in 1 string, SMA 3000HF PV Inverter, Orientation Due South, 30 deg roof angle/elevation, Location Staffordshire Moorlands

Solar Thermal: 30 x 58mm Navitron ET, 290 Litre Newark Thermal Store
azps
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2017, 05:40:41 PM »

Over six million smart meters have been installed in the UK now, so the programme is going pretty well, given the scale of things. I'm not saying it's free of problems, but given what's been done, it's pretty decent progress. Sadly, Ecotricity aren't yet rolling out SMETS 2 meters, so I've got to wait a bit longer for mine. I'm waiting for SMETS 2, because I have an idea that it will get integrated into the home network with a smart consumer access device and online thingumajigs and cloud-based whatchamacallits. Realistically, I may never actually get round to finding the time to do all that, but, well, you know, I like the idea of it.

On the Ofgem report, the actions start on page 21. I agree with RIT's diagnosis - there's not a great deal in the action plan, but it's all broadly positive stuff, going in the right direction: make a more flexible market for flexibility. Trialling. Enabling trading between consumers. Stopping DNOs from owning storage.

In the associated work programme, they are setting up a behavioural insights ("nudge") team, to look at what can be learnt from behavioural economics experiments in the sector - I'm looking forward to seeing what comes out of that.

As for the prospect of mandatory half-hourly pricing being a way to make smart meters compulsory, I think that's over-estimating what suppliers will want to do or be able to do. They may just apply a punitive tariff to people who have refused smart meters, so those people will be paying a chunk of money to get a meter-reader out who has to come out just for them, and a big chunk to the retailer who will have to hedge their time-of-use.
Logged

djh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2100


« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2017, 09:36:10 PM »

I'm sorry but I read stories about many consumers who haven't/don't switch suppliers and then I remember that half the population has an IQ under 100 and then I wonder who's going to benefit from 'smart' tariffs?

The last thing I want on the other hand, is an electricity supply or any other basic necessity that is open to hacking. I'm all for keeping basic things simple.
Logged

Cheers, Dave
azps
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2017, 08:40:37 AM »

I'm sorry but I read stories about many consumers who haven't/don't switch suppliers and then I remember that half the population has an IQ under 100 and then I wonder who's going to benefit from 'smart' tariffs?

The last thing I want on the other hand, is an electricity supply or any other basic necessity that is open to hacking. I'm all for keeping basic things simple.

I share both of those concerns: that those who could benefit most from smart tariffs, will be least well equipped to assess them; and that the more we introduce connected technology, the greater the risk of hacking.

smart tariffs and the vulnerable

Some of my colleagues are working on looking at smart tariffs in deprived communities, to see what works, and what doesn't - and Ofgem's new behavioural insights team will be looking at this too, I expect. With due thought, planning, and good intentions, the benefits can be distributed fairly, ensuring that the most vulnerable can beneft: indeed, it is they who potentially stand to benefit the most (in relative terms), and the sooner we can get those folk onto SMETS 2 meters and a fair prepay tariff to replace their current extortionate ones, the better for them.

hacking the smart grid

I don't really know much about IT security: but I do know that huge parts of modern life are dependent on connected networks, including the basic necessities: the electricity supply system and the food supply system to pick two conspicuous examples. So I'm glad to see that GCHQ are looking at the attack surface of the future grid, and what can be done to secure it.

We could carry on investing in higher and higher security indefinitely - we could make the smart grid as secure as the security services' own networks, but the costs would be disproportionately huge. So, the budget holders are going to have to make a call (informed, one hopes, by the experts in the field), about how much security is worth it.

good news everyone

So, something is being done on both of the concerns we share: and both will need quite a lot of work to be done in the future. And as ever, we're talking about trade-offs and distribution of benefits.  The potential benefits of the smart grid are huge: indeed, it's very hard to see how most countries will decarbonise their electricity supply without one.

and finally, Esther

Systemic risks are nothing new - they're as old as the grid itself. I knew one old grid guy who reckoned he could have caused wide-area blackouts with humble everyday equipment, and with the same access as any member of the public (for obvious reasons, I won't describe the method in a public forum, just as he never did). So although the smart grid provides a new attack surface, the systemic risk itself is not new at all - we've lived with it all our lives to date.
Logged

noah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2017, 02:07:39 PM »

`and then I remember that half the population has an IQ under 100`
except in Lake Woebegon where all children are above average?
Logged
skyewright
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1726


« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2017, 02:29:44 PM »

`and then I remember that half the population has an IQ under 100`
except in Lake Woebegon where all children are above average?
I seem to recall that while Michael Gove was Education Secretary he (or was it OFSTED?) felt that all schools under his/their control ought to be above average, & didn't seem to understand why this might be a hard target to achieve...  facepalm

Edit: A quick search found this (see Q98 to Q100):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmeduc/uc1786-i/uc178601.htm
« Last Edit: July 25, 2017, 02:34:07 PM by skyewright » Logged

Regards
David
3.91kWp PV  (17 x Moser Baer 230 and Aurora PVI-3.6-OUTD-S-UK), slope 40, WSW, Lat 57 9' (Isle of Skye)
dimengineer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2027


« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2017, 02:38:40 PM »

On the same sort of thing:

If you think the average man in the street is a bit dim, don't forget that half the population are even dimmer!
Logged

21 tube Kloben Panel/250L Megaflow, 1.68kWp Solar PV - 7 x 240W Sanyo Panels. Morso Squirrel WBS
RIT
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1327


« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2017, 04:18:03 PM »

I'm sorry but I read stories about many consumers who haven't/don't switch suppliers and then I remember that half the population has an IQ under 100 and then I wonder who's going to benefit from 'smart' tariffs?

I have to say that that's a very odd thing to say as a score of 100 means that the person taking the test is

Quote
    at the median level of performance in the sample of test-takers of about the same age used to norm the test

Or to put it another way, a score of 100 is awarded to those people who sit at the mid point of the distribution chart/graph/curve (pick one Smiley - so yes a score of 100 or below means that someone is in the 1% to 50% range. The IQ score is a great way to place people into a nice range of boxes but in its self it's not a good indication of common sense or the ability to deal with day to day things.

A better way to look at the score is that (depending on the classification used) 50% of the population will score between 91-110, and 82.2% of the population will score between 80-119.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2017, 08:55:25 PM by RIT » Logged

Why bother? - well, there is no planet B
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!