The UK’s very ambitious £11bn Smart Metering Implementation Programme
(SMIP), aimed to install smart meters in all the UKs 26 million homes by
2020. Smart meters send energy suppliers data on consumer energy usage automatically and
wirelessly each month, so consumers get accurate bills instead of estimated
ones. That also allows consumers to monitor their energy use in real time. Some
versions provide a separate Smart
Energy Display (SED). The expectation
was that this would make consumers aware of their energy use, so that they
might then reduce it- and their energy bills. Suppliers would benefit by not having
to employ meter readers and by having full data on their customers’ energy use,
which could aid system planning and cut costs.
However, all has not gone well with the smart
meter roll out. As with any advanced IT system, initial bugs and delays were to
be expected, but the smart meter programme seems to have attracted more than its
fair share and this has led to much adverse media coverage. Some reported
specific problems: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-3084432/ERROR-Smart-energy-meters-leave-hundreds-thousands-households-billing-limbo.html
and
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bills-and-utilities/renewable-energy/smart-meter-charging-energy-generated-solar-panels/
Also: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681954/Unveiled-New-200-smart-meters-household-pay-not-work.html
and www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/06/smart-energy-meters-giving-readings-seven-times-high-study-finds/
Others focused on the cost, which is was
claimed would eventually be passed through to bills: http://www.itv.com/news/2017-02-02/smart-meters-what-you-need-to-know/ and
The response from energy professionals was sometimes also very critical: https://theconversation.com/when-amateurs-do-the-job-of-a-professional-the-result-is-smart-grids-secured-by-dumb-crypto-41769? and http://euanmearns.com/uk-smart-meters-a-ghastly-mess- Also, more colourfully: https://claverton-energy.com/smart-metering-is-fcuked-a-disaster.html
And the Consumers Association’s Which
was very pessimistic about likely roll out rates: http://www.cleanenergynews.co.uk/news/efficiency/energy-suppliers-not-up-to-impossible-task-of-smart-meter-roll-out-says-whi
Nevertheless,
the government stoutly defended the programme, despite its problems:
http://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/lord-bournes-speech-on-the-governments-vision-for-smart-metering
and http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/846/846.pdf
Moreover,
survey work has found that, once installed,
the meters were welcomed by users: www.renewableenergymagazine.com/energy_saving/uk-smart-energy-rollout-enjoys-81-percent-20170201
However, the most recent study of smart grid
programme, by researchers at Sussex University, points to lack of consumer
engagement, insufficient information, and inadequate attention to vulnerability
which it says are key reasons for the slow roll out, this despite the £100m marketing
campaign. It notes that there has been consumer apathy and confusion,
especially in the case of vulnerable people, with uncertainties about the
benefits remaining. It notes that, at one time, it was said that the programme might
cut energy use by 5-15%. But now 1-3% is seen as more realistic, with, it
seems, mandatory adoption and some targets abandoned: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517304688
It should be noted that three academics at UCL didn’t
agree with the Sussex study: see this exchange of views:
The way ahead
There certainly have been problems with the
first generation SMETS1 meters. By December
2016 some 330,000 smart meters were
operating in ‘dumb’ mode - not operating as smart meters - and by March 2017,
that figure had risen to 460,000, involving a cost of between £30 million and
£50 million. A major issue was, it seems, that the meters would not work if
consumers switched suppliers. Writing in the Times (25/2/18), Oxford Prof. Dietr
Helm said that showed the fatal flaw in the way the roll out was set up- responsibility
for it should have been given to the National
Grid, not to the individual energy supply companies, who, naturally enough, each promoted their own systems. So changing
suppliers was hard. That is evidently
being at least partly remedied with an update, the SMETS2, which is more
flexible. Though none of
the meters as yet will switch to the cheapest tariff automatically! Much less oversee peer to peer power trading.
Though later maybe: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/12/04/energy-networks-unveil-plan-17bn-smart-grid-boom/ And
beyond that- what about tying in EV Vehicle- to-Grid charging? http://www.edie.net/news/8/UK-Power-Networks-launches-autonomous-project-to-facilitate-electric-vehicle-demand/
Smart meters are being
looked at elsewhere in the EU, although France has cut its goal of providing smart
meters to 95% of power customers by 2020 to 90% and Germany has been having
second thoughts about its proposed programme, with there being concerns about
privacy and the high cost. GTM says the EU as whole may miss its 2020 target
of 80% rollout by 38 million
installations: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/europe-will-reach-60-ami-penetration-by-2020-falling-short-of-the-80-mandat
- gs.V9KM87Q
But it also says there
will be 1 billion installed globally by 2021, led by Asia. Well maybe. Within
the EU, it has been argued that, rather than just install relatively simple
‘readout’ systems, as in the UK, it would be better to wait for a more
sophisticated smart grid system, with, for example, meters that could respond
interactively to pricing signals- and
rival offers! http://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/smart-meters-not-needed-after-all-for-european-power-grid/
With
the whole energy system undergoing major changes, it does seem odd just to
install very simple readout-only meters. In theory they can perhaps be upgraded
to add some extra functionality, but it seems that they will have to be
replaced when and if we move to a full smart grid system. The advent of
peer-to-pear trading of power from domestic and independent PV solar systems,
and electronic payment systems like Solar Coin, also indicate the need for more
flexible and smarter systems. Although electronic credit exchange systems do
open up new issues, as indicated by the recent Bitcoin saga.
Bitcoin limits
The Bitcoin e-banking
ledger system use ‘block chain’ electronic exchanges to transfer credits, and it
has been booming as people seek an alternative to conventional banking and
speculate on its growth. The same idea has been used for solar energy trading: https://www.politico.eu/article/solarcoin-hopes-to-ride-the-bitcoin-buzz/ and for other
green power management systems: http://www.cleanenergynews.co.uk/blogs/storage/blockchain-in-action-stabilising-the-grid-in-germany-and-the-netherlands and
www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2018/02/blockchain-could-change-everything-for-energy.html There does seem to be some enthusiasm: http://blog.aurorasolar.com/5-reasons-blockchain-is-game-changing-for-solar-energy
However, it has issues- its very high energy use. That seems to
be inherent in the concept. For security, every transaction is relayed to every
user and has to be dis-encrypted by each, so that, as the numbers involved grow,
so do the transactions and dis-encryption activities, with increasing amounts
of energy being use to power the ever more complex and interactive encryption
process. There have been fears that it could soon get out of control: http://grist.org/article/bitcoin-could-cost-us-our-clean-energy-future/ and www.newsweek.com/bitcoin-mining-track-consume-worlds-energy-2020-744036 Also
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-15/turning-coal-into-bitcoin-dirty-secret-of-2017-s-hottest-market
It already seems likely to absorb all of Iceland’s green power,
if unchecked! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43030677 It
certainly is very energy intensive, though putting numbers to it is evidently
hard: http://www.pri.org/stories/2017-12-20/bitcoins-sky-rocketing-energy-use-viral-story-we-checked-math And what may matter more is its utility or
otherwise: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-bitcoin-energy-controlbut.html
However, although e-money transfer has its
attractions, and might help with local energy project peer to peer payments, it
would surely be crazy to use renewable energy for a wasteful system like this-
that would soak up any energy gains and more. See this analysis: http://euanmearns.com/virtual-energy/
And
this assessment: https://powercompare.co.uk/bitcoin/
There
may be some better ideas: http://www.lowimpact.org/how-much-electricity-does-bitcoin-consume-and-what-are-the-alternatives/ But is this really sensible approach? http://www.theverge.com/2017/12/21/16806772/bitcoin-cryptocurrency-energy-consumption-renewables-climate-change
Some say the whole idea is basically silly: https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-a-use-case-for-blockchain-ee98c180100
Put simply, as a blog from the Berekely
Energy Institute put it, a banknote uses about 0.8 watt-hours per
transaction. A credit card transaction uses about 7 watt hours per transaction.
So, about eight times more energy than the cash transaction. A Bitcoin transaction
uses 100,000 watt-hours per transaction. That is 100kWh, so about the
equivalent of 115,000 cash transaction. https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2018/01/08/bitcoins-should-be-called-btucoins-and-thats-a-problem/
So maybe, as energy bills
mount, it will just fade out. Or be replaced by
something better e.g. https://fair-coin.org See this exposition-
as with all money and bartering, it’s all about trust: https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/fintech-2-0/2016/10/06
However,
there are also other incentives: illegal money laundering and avoidance of
international trade embargoes for example. Quite a minefield, with big money
involved and lots of uncertainly, even leaving aside the technological
complexity of Bit Coin mining! Maybe
best left alone. Though this isn’t a field we have any expertise in, so we’d
welcome alternative views! Here’s one: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/no-bitcoin-is-likely-not-going-to-consume-all-the-worlds-energy-in-2020.html
And from a very different
perspective, some claim that some types of RF intense wi-fi/ radio links, which
you may use for cyber-money exchanges, and are also used for smart meters and
much else, may be dangerous for some people: https://www.emfacts.com/2014/04/a-personal-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-ehs-case-study/
But
that’s another story! See Renew On Line 130 and for a EM/RF overview: http://www.saferemr.com/2016/03/welcome-to-emr-safety.html
No comments:
Post a Comment