Smart Meters - more wasteful spending on technology that won't work. I can do better.
 

I'll get my PARF contribution over with and move on to the technical discussion.

The current administration is extremely misguided on the whole power and alternative energy issue. We know that it will cost billions of dollars to build the infrastructure necessary to create a grid that can bring wind and solar generated power to the cities and towns that consume the most electrical energy. Solar farms and wind farms will contribute less than 5% of the total energy needs, and will require billions of dollars to install. They require lots of land and in the case of solar farms, they may add to climate change! The whole solar and wind farm and new grid to bring power to the masses is just a big "feel good" spend it while you can excercise.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of free energy, but the folks that want to do something about it on a large scale and grab federal grant money to do it are really just out to profit!

Which brings me to the latest news that the current administration is about to approve $3.4 billion for a smart electrical grid. The grant will "not be used to build new power lines, but improve the capabilities of the electrical system." The money will be used for 18 million smart meters that is suppose to help consumers manage their home energy use by making them aware (real-time viewing) of when the demand is lowest and they can run their appliances.

This is the biggest load of crap. (Constellation's Baltimore Gas and Electric getting $200 million, Sempra Energy will get $28.1 million...they must have good lobbiests) Consumers are not going to sit by their meters and wait for prices to hit bottom at 2 AM in the morning to run their washer and dryer. And they sure as hell won't be waiting until 2 AM before they turn the AC on. There will certainly be a small number of green team members that will do this, but the rest will never care. But let's say all 18 million smart meter users are green team members and will be smart meter ninjas and always wait for low demand to run their high load appliances. Imagine all those appliances coming on at 2 AM manually or automatically. Now the grid just heated up again, and it won't be long before prices start to rise for those "formerly" off peak hours.

The money will also fund "smart transformers" and new automated substations. The immediate question I have is will the power companies lower their rate after they spend the goverment dollars? Because in the expected free market, a power company might spend their own dollars to upgrade their system and then charge the consumer for it. Nothing wrong with that as the upgrades will improve reliability and the consumer should be expected to help pay for that or they risk an intermittent system and frequent brown- or blackouts. With a more reliable and automated system, the number of line workers and technicians can decrease and the number of callouts for repair will decrease, so in addition to getting government money, power companies will spend less money once the system is improved. So shouldn't we then expect to see lower rates?

I bet we won't see lower rates. Rather the companies will use the excuse that it cost them money to spend the money, and thus the consumer pays too. There is a better way to upgrade the system than this.

Now my solution that makes more sense and should make all the green team members feel good and the current administration feel great: (It won't make everyone feel good, especially the big companies that won't get a big grant)

Instead of building wind farms and solar farms and spending the billions of dollars to build out the grid or upgrade immediately, why not give that money to home owners? Yeah...the current adminstration likes to give money to the people, right? So give the money to the people directly, but require them to use it for roof mounted solar panels and wind turbines. There is a tax credit program already for solar panels, but let's go bigger....BIGGER! Make it even more enticing for homeowners to install roof top solar panels and wind turbines. Give some of that $3.4 Billion to the homeowners to make out of pocket cost almost zero...maintenance will cost the owners down the road, but they won't have to spend $30,000 to get a $10,000 tax credit.

I can't think of a more efficient way to reduce the power consumed off the grid than to augment the energy use with solar and wind energy that is generated right there at your home. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY by the end user! No expensive new transmission lines that see energy loss on the way to the cities and towns from wind and solar farms. No multi-billion dollar project to build wind and solar farms. No massive allocation of land for those farms. No unwanted towering turbines. If you put enough solar farms out there it will change the earth-sun energy transfer balance. That's a whole 'nother discussion.

We've already changed the earth-sun energy transfer balance with our roof tops and asaphalt-concrete cities, so putting solar panels on the roof tops won't change it that much more. It may even help.

With a reduced loading of the grid due to home energy generation, the grid upgrades won't be so critical and can happen (funded by the companies themselves) at a slower pace with small cost increases to the consumer over time.

There are plenty of other issues related to alternative energy and our future energy needs, and this post really is only addressing the latest news, smart meters and grid upgrade.

I know the power industy is waiting on those dollars to spend on new product R&D, new projects, etc to create new jobs ...but it won't be the most direct and efficient use of the money. Cut the waste along the way, and attack the problem! Smart meters? Not at my house.

I've been asking this for a long time.

"What is 'Smart Grid' Technology, and how will it help. Minute by minute meters have been around for a long time. Charge more during peak demand, less during off hours. If that is all we are going to get, this isn't "SMART". Most people don't use much electricity during the peak hours at home, since they are already at work, school, etc.

THe "smart" transformers. How will they "save" electricty?

Bunch of nice "feel good", BS.

This technology works pretty well in Europe and has for years.

Thank you Soukus for an enlightened and informative post.

My impression of "smart" meters was that they allow an outside entity to prevent the use of certain appliances at certain times.

We have that nonsense also in the Netherlands. To name but a few disadvantages:
- The meter itself uses energy to measure, store and send data on energy usage,
- The potential privacy impact
- Expected technical live shorther than an analog meter
- Potential for hacking/cracking
- Is not able to measure energy you produced yourself (solar panel on the roof) and gave back to the grid.

What additional worthwile information will such a meter provide me with? That I have a peak usage between 1800 and 2200? Guess what, thats when I get home, cook, watch tv and have the lights on. Do they expect me to shift those activities to 02:00?

50/50 from the Europeans so far and the arguement against a smart grid by Peter has weight.

In Illinois, I heard on the radio that ComEd is already offering the meter program to limit a home's use by tying the meter to the AC unit. I haven't researched this, but I suspect they have very few takers and the benefit is small (if any return/advantage at all) while those who have signed up will likely wished they never did when the mercury climbs above 90 degrees for the one or two weeks of the "Illinois summer." But ComEd will say it works because those green team homes will resist cooling their house until later in the day. I would bet that those green teamers will actually use more energy to cool their home than if they cycle their AC on and off to maintain a lower temperature throughout the day as opposed to trying to cool their home from 90 degrees to a comfortable level in the span of a few hours prior to going to bed. A 15 to 30 degree drop in a large home takes quite a bit of energy to cool due to the heat capacity of that home.

In my house, I have a programmable thermostat. For $100 one can have a more direct impact without all the wastefulness that our politicians can't seem to fit into their heads.

Where are the reasonable people when these decisions are being made? Why doesn't someone make a loud and technically sound challenge to these decisions?

Do we have a Technology Czar who is without a political or financial agenda?

My beloved Illinois...

ComEd Smart Meter Pilot Approved by Illinois Commerce Commission | Reuters




Where is the technical advantage? How often does a home owner call ComEd to discuss energy use such that an agent would need easy access to information from the meter? The only time I call ComEd is when they screw something up! Should I expect to call ComEd and tell them I have been good about my energy usage as verified by my meter data, so they should lower my rates?


Edit_ I see the advantage as ComEd will no longer need meter readers and billing data will be easily available for their accounting folks to bill us on a more timely manner, every month using actual data. So with the efficiency in data capture we should expect a lower rate, right? Reduced number of meter readers, reduced costs associated with the meter readers, so therefore reduced cost to the consumer.....I don't think so.

[QUOTE=Soukus;4976596]50/50 from the Europeans so far and the arguement against a smart grid by Peter has weight.
[QUOTE]

It does vary between countries in Europe, look a little deeper.

[QUOTE=RPKESQ;4976834][QUOTE=Soukus;4976596]50/50 from the Europeans so far and the arguement against a smart grid by Peter has weight.

So how does the French (I assume you have it) system work? As an end user you should be able to tell us exactly how it has impacted you and what the benefits are. Has it conserved energy and has it saved you money?

[QUOTE=Soukus;4976845][QUOTE=RPKESQ;4976834] I could tell you anything. You will believe what you find out. It is not hard.

Sorry, no offense intended, I try not to waste my time doing research for people (without being paid) for what they can do themselves but are not willing to do the work before making up their mind.

they have installed the smart meters here & people are getting PG&E bills for 3X what they were for this same time last year.
The meter makers are saying that the old analog meters were running slow & now they are getting billed for what they should have been all along.
Funny though is that the KwH are the same, so if the old meters were slow, wouldn't the KwH been low also?
Then they are saying that energy costs have gone up (by 25%), but that still doesn't explain the 3X increase in the bills.
It's all a way for the gov't to get control of how & when you use energy
And how about all of those meter readers that don't have a job now?

This is what I would want to know-

Everyone is charged a rate for their electricity usage by the kilowatt-hour. That rate is a flat rate no matter the time of the day. Yet technically the energy should be cheaper to you at 2AM than 2PM because of the decreased usage and load. Now I would be interested if, for example, these smart meters could pull down data from the energy company and log your usage not just by kilowatt-hour but also timestamp that usage. Then when it sends that data back to the power company, you bill reflects lower costs for usage during the midnight hours, thus enticing people to maybe put things like laundry on a timer.


Of course, it's all going to balance out in the end, and it's all still pointless.

I agree about more incentives for solar power and solar heat in the home. If you live in CA, NV, TX, AZ... the amount of energy hitting the roof of your house every hour of the day is enormous. No reason not to harness it.

Thats what we have here also. I found several stories of people who's energy bills were much higher after installing the smart meters. Some of this can be attributed to the energy companies that push them. The company in question is known for its lousy customer services and administrative mess. But there are also some cases where the meter itself went wrong.

We nearly ended up with legislation that made these things mandatory with very large fines for the people that refused them. Luckily this was dismissed and we now can choose otherwise.

If government and big companies try to force these on us without any tangible benefits for the end-customer you should start getting worried.

It sends out data each 15 minutes to the energy company. So in principle this could be done, but given the inability of these companies (at least in NL) to even produce a simple end of year statement with current meters, I have some doubts here.

I agree. In certain regions, it makes a lot of sense, and the fact that it is becoming electricty instead of going into my house as heat is also a plus. But it is still no where near enough energy for our needs. We need NUCLEAR POWER.

I will admit my job involves measurement. I work with meters (not electrical meters) and the data from the meters all the way to the handoff of the data to the billings group.

With the "smart meter," the data can be captured on an hourly (or more frequent, as Peter stated in NL) basis, so consumption could be billed on an hourly basis. You pay the hourly rate when you use it. So if you were to time your appliances for automatic operation, it should be possible to take advantage of off peak rates. But the billing is harder to do for some companies than you think. It's rediculous, but it happens. So I don't see taking advantage of this hourly rate happening anytime soon, and when it does happen the customer will be paying a higher rate for the cost of the new system the company had to purchase or develop. The return on these smart meters given the realistic behavior of the consumer is never going to be positive for the consumer. AND until the power company does implement an hourly billing cycle there really is no point to providing hourly data, but to point out to the user they should use more off peak hour electricity....which cost the company less money, but if they bill you at a flat rate...guess who's ahead?

There is profit driving these initiatives. The power companies are not going to go after a project like this if they think power consumption will go down due to a more conservative consumer group. That is no way to grow a company!

New meters may be more accurate and they will provide better and faster data to the power company, but there is no way the new meters will help the consumer use less energy. The only data that will be of any use to the consumer from these meters is to identify how much they use and when. This is not difficult to know now!

We know when we use the most energy in our homes, and we know when we use the least energy in our homes. We've learned to turn off lights in rooms that are not occupied and to turn off appliances that are not being used (e.g. TV's, computers. etc). Not all of us have automatic systems to turn appliances on and off, and a lot of us don't have the time to prep the washing machine or the dishwasher to turn on at 2AM. We cut back as much as we can, but when it affects our daily production (by that I mean cuts into our time for other things) we compromise...we don't wait until 2 AM to run the washer.

If we were to install systems to automate all our appliances for off peak operation, the systems would cost money to purchase and install...and maintain! Will the cost be recovered through energy conservation? How long before the break even point?

Wouldn't we be better off spending the money on home solar panels or wind turbines? Yes, but then the power company lose out. The consumer doesn't have an effective lobbying group to lobby against the power company lobbiest. If we did we wouldn't see this stuff.

I agree we need nuclear power. This made sense to me since the day I visited the steam plant at my university while I was a freshmen. The steam plant is how the majority of the campus buildings get heat in the winter. They burn coal (!) to boil water and pipe the steam throughout campus.

I recall the manager or one of the plant operators making the comment that it was a terrible way to make heat, burning coal, and that nuclear was the best alternative given a well designed plant and trained operators. Obviously he wasn't just talking about a nuke palnt for the university.

That was my first time at a coal burning plant, and it made an impact. I'd like to think I'm a little more knowledgeable than I was when I was a freshmen in college...and I still believe nuclear energy makes the most sense. With >50% of our electricity being generated by burning coal, when was the last time someone attacked coal burning electricity generation while attacking nuke plants? Clean burning coal is technically expensive...and we aren't there yet! It's easier for our politicians to attack nuclear energy and evil foreign energy...and not upset the coal industry in our backyard.

It would solve a lot of problems with demand if we just started putting up nuke plants, but that's not going to happen any time soon. Home solar panels and wind turbines have a better chance at acceptance. They won't provide enough to power a home without the grid, but they will do wonders to cut back on grid draw. Imagine if every home in every suburban development had solar panels on the roof and a wind turbine at the end of the roof ridge. Add a bank of batteries and blackouts and brownouts will no longer be a concern....elimination any urgent need to upgrade the grid.

[QUOTE=RPKESQ;4976862][QUOTE=Soukus;4976845] But I asked YOU what your first hand experience is.

What I will find on an internet research will be a mix of fluffy news articles and press releases that will not provide any technical detail nor cost/benefit breakdown.

What technical marvel has the French come up with that makes the French system work? And at what cost? This is a technical and human problem. Technical points have been posted. Human...our consumption behavior. Will the consumer change the way they use energy simply because the power companies now have a more effective means to measure and trend a home's energy usage?

OK, fair enough, my experience.

I reviewed the analysis the the power company (state owned) provided each year to plan how I would reduce my electrical consumption.

I instituted reasonable operational rules and guidelines for my household (what kind of heat to install, better insulation, shading, water heating options, types of air conditioning, types of washers and dryers, lease expensive use times vs need times, cost of upgrading or changing appliances, changing personal habits, etc).

From 2000 to 2004 I acheieved a 21% savings in my electrical bill and a 12 % increase in my natural gas bill. The cost is not the same for both, but it amounted to a net gain of 18% on my electrical.

In 2005 I installed triple pane windows and insulated my roof in most of my house. I also installed a heat pump and UV reflective materials on all window surfaces. I upgraded my clothes dryer and installed clotheslines in the attic with a solar powered ventilation fan. I also converted the pool into a natural pond so I use no heat for that (also no chemicals). Planted two Plane trees for additional shade on the South side of the house.

From 2005 till 2008 my savings have been 31% lower than my 2000 levels of consumption. This is a net gain (after taxes and upgrade expenses) of 620 Euros per year.

We do the laundry after 6 pm, we don't use a dishwasher, we shower when we want, we cook when we want (gas/electric) and we use CFC's in all lighting.

This works very well for us.

The French marvel? Education of the public, support for effiencency in products, a waste-not attitude ingrained into the population, easy to understand analysis from the power company (EDF), a rational nuclear program, long term planning, tax rebates for homeowner improvements.

The attraction of single dwelling solar panel heat/electrical production and wind turbine installation very quickly reduces when you calculate how little it can actually contribute...

Wind turbines within the boundary layer are practically useless at actually generating electricity when needed, so an energy store is required, typically an immersion heater for hot water in an insulated tank...

Solar panels can either provide low grade (low temp heat) for domestic heating/ hot water or electricity, but again they may need an energy store...say hot water or in the high solar regions coolth...so run the a/c or better a structure cooling system.

In order to deliver 'meaningful' reductions in grid based energy requirements the domestic infrastructure needs to be adapted to exploit the revised energy production methods...

But at times they look pretty damn good....

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1256684981.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1256684827.jpg

They'll be installing the three 9m diameter wind turbines at the top of one of my buildings next month.....

Excellent. Your personal effort is commendable. I mean that sincerely. But your efforts had little to do with smart meters. I say "little" because the smart meter was used to make you more aware. I say "more" aware because were likely already aware that you could improve their habits. But a very large population in American is not ready to do what you have done in your household.

Those who are likely to live an life with energy conservation as a primary directive, don't need smart meters (at the cost of billions of dollars) to tell them conservation is key.

And in your last paragraph, you credit the results to a lot of things that have a bigger factor (IMO) than the smart meter.

The point I made in my opening post is that smart meters will not provide the kind of results the government hopes it will. It will be a waste of money...money which I believe can be put to better use. It will do little for the consumer, but it will do wonders for the grant recipients.

Better use of the billions of dollars? Home solar and wind programs. Are there other opportunities that have immediate impact and return also? Absolutely. But this is not the focus of our goverment. I haven't seen a public service announcement on energy conservation in years! And if there is something on the "tele" that borders on a conservation message, it usually ends with some corporate advertisement.

My next door neighbor works as a project manager remodeling gas stations. he's been doing it for a long, long time. Changing then into convenience stores, car washes, etc.
he is busier than a one legged man in a butt kicking contert right now.
Why?
Because the federal government is paying the entire bill to convert all the interior lights to LED.
Wiring, fixtures, the whole nine yards. Many stations are using it as an excuse to re-wire the entire building, all on your dime.
The cost is upwards of $60k for some of the stations, the cost vs. energy saved will probably never be a break-even. It will never pay for itself.

YOUR STIMULUS DOLLARS AT WORK!

but it makes the enviro-tards "FEEL" good.

BTW, anyone who thinks if they spend many thousands of euros on triple pane windows, upgraded appliances, insulation etc in order to reduce their electric bill enough to save 52 euros a month it results in a net savings is out there. really, really out there.

Spending a whole bunch of money to save a little is not smart.

Depends on how long you plan on living in the home. Investment returns, man.

You are right, it is not smart. It's brillant!

A net saving (or return) month after month, year after year is what makes any investment worthwile. Good thing you are not a financial advisor.:eek:

Improve your reading comprehension. That was a savings after all upgrade costs were deducted or compensated by a tax rebate.:rolleyes:

Well, the education, incentives, rebates are all part of the smart meters. They were packaged together and promoted together. I can even change my parameters regarding usage timers over the phone. In short a rational plan and implementation with the right kind of government support can work wonders. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. My results are common for many in France.

Why is not a large portion of the American population not willing to reduce their energy expenses? Is it individual stupidity, general ignorance or the government's fault?

Just because in America you refused to accept that capatalism is not the best choice in all situations doesn't mean you too cannot benefit with some rational action. That was where you went wrong with nuclear power many years ago.

I believe improvement to the average house in insulation and reducing heat absorbtion as well as more efficient appliances will reduce the energy use far more than solar or wind power will.

BGE = Baltimore Gas & Elec.

I would argue that educating homeowners would have likely had the same impact, you simply would not have been able to quantify the improvements as clearly. To what degree does the French government subsidize energy improvements for a home? Many American homeowners don't have the thousands of dollars to replace windows, doors, re-insulate, etc. Still more likely don't realize how much money they could save. Reducing energy usage through improving home efficiency would certainly have been a better use for our stimulus dollars.

As a data point, my in-laws used to live in a home built in the 1970s. Insulation was good for the day, the windows were replaced with quality double paned units, appliances were quality but not high efficiency. Size was about 3000 sq ft total. They built a new house, almost 6000 sq ft of it. The home was made out of Ecoblock, styrofoam forms 12" thick that were filled with concrete. Argon filled Andersen windows, lots of attic insulation, high efficiency appliances. Their utility bills are less than with their old house, even with 2x the size. They're not green (far from it), just practical.

Is it that difficult for you to answer a simple question and actually contribute to a discussion?

None of the improvements to efficiency would require a smart meter, you are brillant, so that helps.

Our dollars would be better spent in the manner described by the OP, more immediate ROI.

That was one of the saddest revelations in my Solar Engineering course in college. My Prof was an extreme pro-solar guy, and he basically proved to us, at least by mid 1980's costs, that solar was not cost effective.

You could make it pay by designing in passive solar (window over hangs to allow sunlight in the winter, block it in the summer, etc), and super insulating. Except, that Super Insulating was much much more cost effective. Price up adding 12" of fiberglass insulation in your attic. It is worth it for almost everyone, anyplace.

Yep, this winter the house here in Houston will be getting:

Radiant Barrier
12-18 inches of extra insulation in the attic
Attic fan

Next few years, doors and windows will be changed, to much more efficient ones. Short term, change our wooden blinds to the "see through" Silhouette type. The windows with silhouettes have no dew on them in the morning. They definitely create an insullation effect.

[QUOTE=onewhippedpuppy;4977625]I would argue that educating homeowners would have likely had the same impact, you simply would not have been able to quantify the improvements as clearly. To what degree does the French government subsidize energy improvements for a home? Many American homeowners don't have the thousands of dollars to replace windows, doors, re-insulate, etc. Still more likely don't realize how much money they could save. Reducing energy usage through improving home efficiency would certainly have been a better use for our stimulus dollars.
[QUOTE]

I would argue that this kind of knowledge has been available in the States at least from 1973. How many Americans perminately changed their livestyle to be more energy efficient?

When you educate, provide metrics (smartmeters), provide assistance like tax rebates for home energy improvements, mandate insulation standards that are high and strict, builders held to those standards with tough laws and enforcement and add it the "stick" of higher costs if you do not change, then you will see improvement on a wide front. Social engineering goes on constantly in all societies. Some just do a better job at it then others.

Then you are as uninformed as he was and by all appearances will continue to be.
And if you are at this point in the thread and still think that smartmeters will not help as part of the solution and that windpower and solar for homes is the better major part of the solution, it proves my point about you.

many utilities now offer loans to weatherize your home - here it is 0% interest for E* windows

the information I posted shows that smart meters drastically reduced energy bills - see the BGE quote above

but if you have a religious aversion to energy conservation, you will continue to ignore actual data, preferring speculation

Sadly it simply does not work out that way....
Unless the entire home infrastructure is adapted (sometimes fundamentally) then the energy produced by both solar and wind power is wasted if is cannot be used immediately....

The ROI of simply installing a small wind turbine and 'plugging it into the home' is measured in decades, which whilst it 'may' be worthwhile for a percentage of long term residents it remains, at this moment an inefficient solution.

The biggest single step that can be done now.. as has been mentionned a few times already is to reduce energy 'wastage' that is endemic to the majority of domestic units. This would cut domestic energy bills with very little or no capital cost to the users...

The next step is to replace energy hungry appliances by more efficient ones (the disposal of the old items is a real issue however) which again 'could' yield savings on domestic bills.

Then the potential of solar and wind power can exploited more rationally...because 'right now' they do not make financial.. or ecological sense..

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1256721407.jpg


But can we still do this with a smart meter?

Guys, there is another side to the meter issue. Its a win win win for the power company. Three things in play here. Meter reads better so more money for company and you get a higher bill, company gets government money to install etc, and the main one is the company then gets exact information on how much energy is being used. They know exactly how much they are generating. The best way to run a power plant is wide open- 100%. If their users are only using 60% then they can sell off 40%. But they have to know how much power they need first. We built one of the first type of systems in the 1980's in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. It was a microwave system but told us how much power was being used by all of our sub-stations. It worked. We then sent the extra juice to places like Los Vegas for a profit. They tell us it about the green- it's about the green dollar. The rest is just hype.

Power Producers typically are not the power distrubutors these days. At least in the US.

Red Beard, In some states yes but most at least here in the south do generate and distribute. Or, they have all joined together and own the generation plant. Depends I think on the regulations of the state. Out west most of the power companies have spit into three different companies. Transmission, generation and distribution with maybe a fourth, nuclear. If they own a part of the plant, then they still profit from wheeling the power where ever they can.

I heard about the smart meters on NPR yesterday morning. I was still half asleep, but when they summarized the plan, my brain was thinking, "what the hell?"

We have high unemployment, structural defects in the financial industry, and record deficits, amongst a host of other problems, and "smart meters" gets crossed off the to-do list?

I like Souk's solar plan much better. In fact, when solar grid-tie pricing falls below $3/watt, I'm going to make the leap. Any extra return from the government would soften the blow of the capital costs. Then again, the best use of grant dollars would be solar water heating. It has the highest efficiency, with vacuum tube efficiency exceeding 80%. Homes with electric water heating would see dramatic cost savings and very quick payback times. The biggest obstacle is ignorant, passive consumers. They'd rather spend the bucks on unnecessary junk and trinkets.