Smart meters (again?)

[[XAP]Bob]

Fair points: lifetime footprints must be a nightmare to estimate well. (Note that the slide would have been prepared for a global market, so I suspect that 200g/kWh was a global estimate - not too many EV battery pack made in the UK - in fact not too much of anything, now I come to think of it )

An absolute nightmare - particularly when you consider that there might be more than one relevant cost.

[[XAP]Bob]

I reckon my "middle way" tariff is about fair. It's recently gone up to 18.272 p kw(h!) plus 5% VAT.

That's *way* above average: "the average cost of electricity per kWh is 14.37p"

And it does nothing to help smooth the load on the grid, which is what we really need - a constant energy demand is much cheaper and more efficient to supply than a bursty load.

By having an energy market that encourages off peak use you can smooth out demand, mains supply much easier - similarly public transport is often more expensive at peak times, this isn't just price gouging, it's to ensure that people who can delay their travel by an hour or two do so, and reduce the peak demand. Note the only mainstream form of transport which doesn't have time based pricing.... the car - and that may well change.

Historically we have had relatively little to do with that market in the domestic setting. Economy 7 and Economy 10 being two very crude, but effective, mechanisms by which power was charged based on time of use.

Large consumers have long been able to take advantage of the energy market, and by offering to be sacrificial loads (as hospitals have done) they get paid handsomely to be cut off from the grid when the grid needs that - similarly various industries have their energy intensive processes timed to coincide with times of low demand, to take advantage of the lower cost of power.

Domestic load is significant. The pickup (i.e the instant excess load) when England left the soccer World Cup in '90 was nearly 3GW as people across the country put on their kettles, opened their fridges and turned on the lights.

The fact that we can use the market to smooth that load is a good thing, we used to do it by E7 pricing, but the capability exists to shift load, by changing user behaviour, at a much finer level - and it works.

It's not about being fair, or unfair, it's about using the market to shape demand to make the grid a more stable system.

[PDQ Mobile]

I reckon my "middle way" tariff is about fair. It's recently gone up to 18.272 p kw(h!) plus 5% VAT.

That's *way* above average: "[url=https://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_energy/tariffs-per-unit-kwh]the average cost of electricity per kWh is 14.37p

Kwackers says my tariff is subsidised.
So which is it?

Out here in the western "sticks" I believe costs are usually higher.


Can't see why domestic surges in comsumption are relavant unless all those leccy EV batteries can start pumping it back the other way.
We are a very very long way from that being a reality.

I also don't see why we consumers should pay "handsomely" when a hospital chooses to use its generators. In that scenario surplus capacity in the grid itself would be preferable and cheaper IMV.

[PDQ Mobile]

I see that (gridwatch) at this moment, in spite of wind making 22% of the total, gas turbines are making 33% and "home grown" nuclear nearly17%.
Demand is only moderate.
Add in French (pretty fair proportion nuclear) and other imported sources and the sustainable clean EV fantasy looks just a little tarnished.
No reason some of those sources can't be reduced as demand falls.

I assume you're now just trolling.

Obviously it's "daytime", the point is to charge EV's at night when grid demand is low.
To encourage that tariffs are lower at night.

I've been over the numbers several times.
20 million EV's require 15Gw overnight, the amount that the grid typically dips by.
Loads of power, we just need to use it at the right time.

But you seem to think you're subsidising folk - how can you be subsiding me when I'm guaranteeing to pay more than the wholesale price?
It's an impossibility.

You on the other hand don't guarantee to pay more than the wholesale price, in fact only days ago the wholesale price exceeded your tariff - who was subsiding whom?

You know after all this that I am not trolling.
And you also know after 8 odd years on here that I am not a troll.
If you don't like genuine concerns put politely, respectfully I suggest, the problem is yours.

Our positions are simply two different perspectives.
One with a new EV and another with a perfectly decent old car that thinks he has been given a poor deal in spite of provably not such bad environmental credentials.

One perspective is also to try to save as much leccy as possible (partly a leftover from distaste for nuclear and coal tis true)!and the other is to use as much as humanly possible.

I gave genuine grid figures production and state that demand today is only moderate, yet a high proportion (50%) is non renewable.
I suggest because of that production could be throttled back (to save mostly gas) as is exactly what happens most nights.
If you wish to charge a whole nations vehicles then these production facilities will have to run full bore a great deal of the time. That is my impression of the busy UK.
I have also suggested that when anticyclonic conditions prevail there will not be enough power available at some time in your foreseen leccy future.

I understand you want to be a pioneer. Go for it and enjoy it.

An EV does not suit my lifestyle here in the Wild West. The range is far too small. The cost of the thing is too high. The work capability non existent. And I couldn't fix it, not the sophisticated electric stuff anyway.
I don't want distracting screens, sat nav, keyless locking, lane warning, self dipping lights, parking sensors and the rest.
I want simple, really simple.
An urban driver like yourself has different priorities perhaps.

Old and (not so) stinky was made in Luton (though the engine was probably Polish) and not China. So that is a small plus.
I prefer old and well maintained, it's just how I am.
I am sad to see so many perfectly good old vehicles now scrapped because of unfair taxation structures which favour at the same time vehicles (of dubious quality no doubt) imported from the other side of the globe.
It is not green it is a waste. IMV.

Lifespan of EVs remains uncertain but experience of high-tech electronic goods suggests shorter rather than longer.

If my old bus was a genuine horror and your new "wind buggy" was as clean as the driven snow then I could be more understanding.
But that, however you spin it, is simply not the case.

It is a compromise like much in human existence.
I compromise one way, you another.
Let us settle for compromise.

[[XAP]Bob]

Technically nuclear is non renewable, but technically solar and wind are as well, they’re both powered by a nuclear reactor.

The EV debate isn’t about using as much as possible, it’s about being energy efficient.
Uses far less energy to move an ev than a ice vehicle.

That we also allow grid balancing is a side benefit, I charge about weekly, so it’s easy to decide which day to charge on based on the price of energy, I am on an E7 tariff at the moment, but I could theoretically justify a powerwall2 and then an agile tariff would be brilliant - I’d only ever use energy when there was a surplus available - to the benefit of everyone on the grid (even you).

I could do more to minimise my energy usage - I am currently building a smart heating system, the version I tried last year didn’t really live up to expectations. Part of the issue for me is that I work from home, and have quite a bit of power hungry compute used for that, though I am down to one low power server and one very low power firewall now - but my base load is probably higher than most.

Trying to get a check meter at the moment, don’t trust the readings I’m getting from mine (11kW day rate at 3am, when it’s expect between 7 and 8 (car was charging) to be on the night rate...

[kwackers]

Our positions are simply two different perspectives.
One with a new EV and another with a perfectly decent old car that thinks he has been given a poor deal in spite of provably not such bad environmental credentials.

Forget the EV's they're just clouding what is a perfectly simple scenario - I could just as easily be using storage heaters, or in this case as I am - my wife's kiln.

You want a simple tariff where the possible savings that could be obtained on a night are used to subsidise the cost during the day.
That's what you asked for and that's what you've got.

Where you have a problem is that I can use electricity during the night when it's cheaper and I'm prepared to pay more during the day (the 'real' cost) in return for paying the 'real cost' during the night.
The only possible reason you can have for this is because it bothers because you think I'm getting something you're not.

When you consider I guarantee to pay more to my supplier than the power costs and thus there is absolutely no subsidy and you already have what you desire then the only possible reason can be because you're jealous - despite the fact nobody is stopping you having the same thing (or even having what you have now but cheaper!)

If it isn't that then the only other possible reason is because you're trolling.

Feel free to explain why neither of those reasons are true.

[PDQ Mobile]

^^
You are using all of those things. EV plus kiln plus household. So the EV is in the equation.
And that equation is energy usage.
It is a lot of energy and half of it still comes from sources like fossil or nuclear.

Many years ago I wanted to reduce my energy usage. I made choices to do that in regard of home heating and other domestic requirements. A low energy eco house if you like.
It worked and non renewable usage is very low.

I couldn't care much therefore about high leccy prices simply because I use so little.

Up-thread you said you were subsidizing me.
Bob says I am paying too much, well over cost.
Which is it?
For I am more than happy to pay what it costs?

But sure, I don't want to subsidize high users, especially for what could be considered unnecessary use.
I don't see how negative leccy tariffs don't do that.

I care about carbon usage and what I have said is that I consider that there is a slanting of subsidy towards high energy users like yourself.
(And a slanting of vehicle VED. I don't think some of that is fair.)


You say because the energy comes at night, and sometimes is a high component of wind, that that offsets the carbon cost of a new imported vehicle but I am not so sure.

So it is a different perspective.
You would say (have said) old vehicles stink. But all vehicles stink even leccy ones.
And electric kilns and storage heaters "stink" too.

The "stink" is just put elsewhere.
Now that may well be good in an vehicular urban setting.
But it's still a "stink". And that is what I have tried to say.


And I don't think my old fossil burner is as bad as it stands accused and taxed.
Partly because of it's long service but also because it is genuinely thrifty on fuel.

[kwackers]

^^
You are using all of those things. EV plus kiln plus household. So the EV is in the equation.

I took the EV out of the equation because you were mixing it in and using it as part of your arguments - it's not about energy use it's about what that energy costs and when it's prudent to use it.

Some of us need energy, nothing complicated about that.
You have a problem because I use electricity for locomotion but don't seem to have a problem using fuel for the same purpose apparently in fact driving long distances rather than use greener methods!
I find it bizarre that a person who happily claims that has an issue with someone who obviously drives significantly shorter distances using electricity to do the same.

So how can I subsidise you?
Easily.
I *always* pay the going rate (and some) for electricity.
You don't.
That's pretty much it.

In an evening the going rate is often more than you're paying - where is that money coming from?
Your tariff is a guess and it hopes that you'll pay enough during off peak times to cover peak times but it's not guaranteed - that's why some energy companies go out of business.
If your use is mainly peak times then overall you'll probably be paying less than the actual cost and therefore are subsidised by people who pay full price during off peak times.

So whilst Bob is correct that you're paying too much for your energy and could pay less that doesn't imply that your paying enough to cover its cost.


IMO the correct way to price energy is to simply charge everyone what it costs plus costs on top - i.e. "Agile".
That way everyone pays the true cost of their energy.


Incidentally have you ever considered what the conditions are for energy to be costed negatively?
There's a clue in the way Octopus sell their energy as "green" and the way I can predict cheap energy days in advance by looking at the weather.
Wind.
When it's windy the turbines run and that energy either needs using or storing, by pricing it accordingly the providers can encourage behaviour that makes it happen.


Grid balancing is a major issue energy generators have, when folk simply turn everything on in an evening they need huge capacity to cover that and that capacity still exists during the night.
Grid balancing is one of the greatest challenges facing them and yet you want to make it worse because you simply don't like the idea that folk get paid for using energy that has nowhere to go despite those same folk using less energy during the evening.

I help balance the grid, you might not like that idea because by the sounds of it you simply use power as and when you feel like and it obviously niggles you that I can get paid to use the electricity that you don't want.

In a few years we'll have a lot more wind turbines, times when energy is cheap isn't going to go away.
In the meantime for those of us who refuse to change our peak time ways there are nuclear and gas power stations being built with extortionate guaranteed tariffs which are going to lift the cost of peak time power considerably.

[[XAP]Bob]

I reckon my "middle way" tariff is about fair. It's recently gone up to 18.272 p kw(h!) plus 5% VAT.

That's *way* above average: "[url=https://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_energy/tariffs-per-unit-kwh]the average cost of electricity per kWh is 14.37p

Kwackers says my tariff is subsidised.
So which is it?

At various times of the day it is - whereas his is never subsidised (until the wholesale price goes over a 35p/kWh, which is very very rare)

I also don't see why we consumers should pay "handsomely" when a hospital chooses to use its generators. In that scenario surplus capacity in the grid itself would be preferable and cheaper IMV.

Erm - that's the whole point... the hospital uses the grid.
When the grid has too much demand then the hospital is disconnected, rebalancing the supply/demand on the grid. They are paid to have power cuts at the discretion of the national grid...
For a hospital it makes sense, since that payment more than covers the operating costs of their generators, and they have to have those generators anyway - and test them regularly...


You cannot have surplus supply in the grid. All the energy generated has to go somewhere.

That is why batteries, whether chemical or gravitational, are so useful: they provide a sink for that surplus energy which can then be returned to the grid at a later time when the demand outstrips supply.

Being able to shift load to ensure that the grid demand is as flat as possible is the whole point of the exercise.

[[XAP]Bob]

^^
You are using all of those things. EV plus kiln plus household. So the EV is in the equation.
And that equation is energy usage.
It is a lot of energy and half of it still comes from sources like fossil or nuclear.

STOP conflating coal and nuclear power.

Do you have gas heating? Cooking? You certainly get all your energy for driving from dino juice, and you use it far less efficiently than an EV driver does (i.e. you use more energy, not less).

Many years ago I wanted to reduce my energy usage. I made choices to do that in regard of home heating and other domestic requirements. A low energy eco house if you like.
It worked and non renewable usage is very low.

I couldn't care much therefore about high leccy prices simply because I use so little.

Great - so stop whinging about paying over the odds for electricity.

Up-thread you said you were subsidizing me.
Bob says I am paying too much, well over cost.
Which is it?
For I am more than happy to pay what it costs?

Those aren't mutually exclusive - if all your energy usage is in the middle of the day then you are paying below the wholesale rate, but you could probably still get a cheaper deal.
Agile tariff users basically never pay less than the wholesale rate, so they aren't subsidising anyone at any time.

But sure, I don't want to subsidize high users, especially for what could be considered unnecessary use.
I don't see how negative leccy tariffs don't do that.

It's not a negative tariff, it's a tracker which sometimes goes negative.

What do you consider to be unnecessary use?
Charging a car is inherently limited to the capacity of the vehicle, and that capacity is used when the vehicle is driven somewhere.
I think that refining petrol is an unnecessary use of electricity, so we should stop doing that... </s>

I care about carbon usage and what I have said is that I consider that there is a slanting of subsidy towards high energy users like yourself.
(And a slanting of vehicle VED. I don't think some of that is fair.)

Have you read the beer analogy I linked earlier? Subsidies always benefit the wealthiest more in absolute terms than they do the poorest. Because they are the ones spending the most to start with.
I don't get what isn't fair about VED based on emissions...
I could see your complaint that vintage vehicles were exempted VED on the basis that they had paid their due already, but that the date was fixed at 20 years before when that legislation was passed, rather than a rolling 25 years old....

You say because the energy comes at night, and sometimes is a high component of wind, that that offsets the carbon cost of a new imported vehicle but I am not so sure.

The carbon cost is easily offset in the lifetime of the vehicle - the vehicle it replaced on the road is not a working one, it is one that was beyond economical repair - one of the most polluting vehicles on the road in other words.

In theory all the energy I buy is renewable... in practise that just means that the 'typical' grid user ends up with less "renewable" in their mix. But it does encourage the growth of the renewable wholesale market, which is a good thing.

So it is a different perspective.
You would say (have said) old vehicles stink. But all vehicles stink even leccy ones.
And electric kilns and storage heaters "stink" too.

The "stink" is just put elsewhere.
Now that may well be good in an vehicular urban setting.
But it's still a "stink". And that is what I have tried to say.

So what *do* you use for heating?
There are various parts of the country that don't have gas available, and for most households a gshp just isn't possible.
All energy use stinks - unless of course you put some solar panels on the roof, and a windmill in the garden and live completely off grid (which some people do)

But at the same time *no* energy use stinks even more.

And I don't think my old fossil burner is as bad as it stands accused and taxed.
Partly because of it's long service but also because it is genuinely thrifty on fuel.

It's really not, it's just thrifty compared with less thrifty other vehicles.
In terms of energy used to move you from A-B it will be less efficient than any EV (maybe not a fully laden Tesla semi, but that's rather a different kettle of fish. Those expect to pay for themselves in fuel savings alone in two years).

[[XAP]Bob]

Back to the OP...

I just got phoned by me *previous* supplier...

[PDQ Mobile]

Back to the OP...

I just got phoned by me *previous* supplier...

Because your new subsidy is going to put them out of business?
Or?
We're all "ears".

[[XAP]Bob]

Back to the OP...

I just got phoned by me *previous* supplier...

Because your new subsidy is going to put them out of business?
Or?
We're all "ears".

To talk to me about changing my meter...

I did point out that the last time I asked them for a check meter they said they couldn’t because I wasn’t a customer (I still was, but was transferring at the time).

[PDQ Mobile]

Back to the OP...

I just got phoned by me *previous* supplier...

Because your new subsidy is going to put them out of business?
Or?
We're all "ears".

To talk to me about changing my meter...

I did point out that the last time I asked them for a check meter they said they couldn’t because I wasn’t a customer (I still was, but was transferring at the time).

And now you are not their customer they want you to have their meter. Don't make sense to me.
Anyway here's my response to your earlier posts:

It's just too long and time consuming to answer all those points from my lonely perspective.
However a misconception from Bob is that old (as in quite old) vehicles are VED rated on emissions.
They are not, they are rated on cc alone.
So even a old car with a brand new and clean engine will pay a hefty wack.
This high VED is a major reason why many old and still decent vehicles have disappeared from our roads.
((Really old vehicles (over 40 years) are now VED exempt but there are so few in daily use that I don't think it's a big deal. And I did not complain about it Bob, you are quite mistaken.
Perhaps I'll hang on to "old and stinky 'til then!! ))

I just don't accept that being paid to USE leccy is not subsidized by other users.
It surely reduces the profit on peak prices that you say is the real cost of peak production.
In terms of a business model it sounds exactly the sort of idea that will induce bankruptcy quicker. Rather than straight and simple pricings.

Why not just give it for free or for very little?
If "free" is the minimum tariff then you will still use it to charge your wheels and heat your other stuff and the company won't make so much of a loss?
Which Kwackers states happens a good deal and firms eventually (or often) go out out business.
You say my tariff is a only a balance and that is why you are subsidizing me.
I maintain I pay a fair rate for the little I use, but if those negative tariffs were abolished then I could pay less and my supply company still not go bust.
That is how I see it.
......
On another point.
Sure I could travel greener long distance- by rail. Or cheaper by air.
Both restrict carriage of goods though.
I could "very greenly" cycle too and I have done it, but I would eat more than the airfare (!) and could carry little.
A small economical estate car seems a neat (and comfortable) compromise. Once or twice a year for someone that does not regularly commute seems ok to me. Annual mileage is well below average.

I use wood for all heating, hot water and cooking, Bob.
It is not a solution for everyone I know, but it suits me as I have a plentiful supply.
And it is reckoned carbon neutral.
I am organized with it all and try to keep emissions down by using dry fuel. And I enjoy the process.
The ash is used as fertilizer. It is a nice round self sustaining system. It uses a little fossil energy (diesel perhaps 10 or 15 liters per annum, and some 2t petrol for the saw ) and electrical energy in the processing.
.........
I understand the point about leccy heating.
I sort of have reservations about using leccy for pure heat though- it is so much better at driving motors and cars! So while I think boiling the odd kettle or drying one's hair is ok, I think leccy storage heaters and the like would often be better and more efficient as gas or oil.
Heat pumps are ok.
Have reservations about air source, they seem expensive buy and to run, and are unreliable in my limited experience. But I guess a saving over straight conversion leccy to heat is better than nothing for those who have no ground source possibilities.
However there are a lot of poorer folk in the UK that are totally dependent on straight leccy for heating and cooking etc. It is often a big slice out of limited incomes and a reduction in kwh prices would help them.

So maybe you have a better picture of where I'm coming from.
It's all upthread anyway.

EVs are ok in their place. We are going to need them for sure.
They are not without issues though and they are not carbon neutral.
They are expensive compared to some other simpler solutions.
I feel us older vehicle users have been given a rough deal tax wise.

And although new EV users still have significant sustainability and environmental issues they are being promoted and subsidized more heavily than is warranted.

And I still don't think it's right.
That is my personal and perhaps idiosyncratic view.

[kwackers]

I just don't accept that being paid to USE leccy is not subsidized by other users.
It surely reduces the profit on peak prices that you say is the real cost of peak production.
In terms of a business model it sounds exactly the sort of idea that will induce bankruptcy quicker. Rather than straight and simple pricings.

Why not just give it for free or for very little?

Your idea that someone is subsidising a tracker tariff is based on the fact you assume the energy has value. It doesn't.
It has no home to go to and needs getting rid of and if that costs money then it costs money but it has to be done.

If they can't pay enough people to take it off their hands then suppliers have to shut down their generators and that costs even more - if it didn't the minimum price would be higher because it'd be cheaper to shut off generation and so they'd do that instead.

Long before tracker tariffs arrived suppliers were paying the costs of these shutdowns or simply paying fewer people more money to use the power.
Trackers merely make it possible for you and me to do the same.


So since you find the idea of "dumping" electricity so abhorrent then you should be made up with EV's.
The more EV's there are on the road the more capacity there is to soak up this unwanted power and the less deep and less frequent the price drops are.

So more EV's should make you happy because now there are customers for this unwanted power and they're prepared to pay for it.

Battery EV sales now represent over 6% of the new car market compared to less than 2% a year ago and it's accelerating.
So give it a couple more years and overnight demand will probably make very cheap electricity a thing of the past.
Plus it may well mean an end to shutting down generation, which improves the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the generator which means they make more money which means costs are less which means a possible drop in the price of energy for you.


However you want to play it, there is no subsidy being paid to people with trackers.
If we all had trackers then suppliers would never go under simply because they'd never make a loss.

The business model is that providers make most of their money by selling off peak power, during peak time the cost of power is so high they're likely to make a loss.
So if you use predominantly peak rate power you're probably costing your supplier money and therefore being subsidised by the customers that buy the off peak power.


And it's not only electricity that sometimes is over produced, at the start of the pandemic you could be paid to take a tanker full of crude oil - ships where full, storage was full and nobody was buying the stuff.