QOTW: Do you have a smart energy meter?

[Saracen]

there's over 65 million people in the uk and over 7.4 billion on the planet. over time things are replaced and upgraded, and that will happen dependent on demand from the majority

currently there are many things we have that some people don't like, yet still use, so not liking how something works doesn't stop people using it

instead of "using" an app to set settings, more automation, computer learning, and voice commands, and perhaps other things will replace the current "automated" way of using an app on a phone/tablet. so i can set the heating to what i want, ie. on at a reasonable temperature when i'm in the room, and lower when i'm not, and the system will know if i'm in the room or not and adjust automatically, so it can use less energy heating a room that's not in use, or even turn off or put things into standby if not in use. we already have automated lighting systems in some places. one day we may effectively have a fridge type lighting system where the lights are on when you are in the room and off when you aren't. but like a fridge you don't see the lights being off as sensors will take care off it, if you set it that way

some things are going to be the future whether people like them or not

The future you foresee may well happen, but nothing in what you've said there says to me "buy into this".

As for "automated" lighting, no. Just no. I'll turn lights on, and adjust level, if I want them. I'm certainly nit interested in some automated system doing it for me. Similarly, room heating. If it's a room I use regularly, I want the heat set at a reasonable level before I go in, not to sit and shiver until the heating warns it up. I'm quite capable of deciding that for myself, and existing TRVs do it fine.

Thank you for the UK Population 101, but I was already aware. Technology no doubt will advance, but that doesn't mean that everything technically possible will survive. After all, it's not that long ago that some people were raving aboyt 3D TV. Oops.

Or, even if a technology does survive, not everyone has to adopt it. So for much of what you say home automation offers, I simply say "Thanks, but no thanks". Ut isn't worth the not insiderable cost ....to me.

[Unique]

The future you foresee may well happen, but nothing in what you've said there says to me "buy into this".

As for "automated" lighting, no. Just no. I'll turn lights on, and adjust level, if I want them. I'm certainly nit interested in some automated system doing it for me. Similarly, room heating. If it's a room I use regularly, I want the heat set at a reasonable level before I go in, not to sit and shiver until the heating warns it up. I'm quite capable of deciding that for myself, and existing TRVs do it fine.

Thank you for the UK Population 101, but I was already aware. Technology no doubt will advance, but that doesn't mean that everything technically possible will survive. After all, it's not that long ago that some people were raving aboyt 3D TV. Oops.

Or, even if a technology does survive, not everyone has to adopt it. So for much of what you say home automation offers, I simply say "Thanks, but no thanks". Ut isn't worth the not insiderable cost ....to me.

my point is that regardless of what you think and want, technology will change. you don't need to buy into it

as for your heating comment, with advances in technology we may have heating that can heat the room up instantly or near instantly so you don't need to waste time and/or energy waiting on a room to heat up before you go in it, or sensors can detect you about to enter a room or open a door and the temperature is how you want it by the time you've walked in, or hovered in on a floating chair. or instead of heating rooms we may have things that attach to ourselves or our clothes that give individuals the temperature feel they want, regardless of where they are, and how hot or cold it is. 50 years ago few people would have imagined the things we have had the last few years that many take for granted, such as smart phone computers that fit in your hand and let you access data from the other side of the planet and watch movies or listen to almost any music you want instantly. regarding cost, sometimes cost of new things or new ways to do things can come down to cheaper than the old ways due to technological advancements, so new automated methods may end up far cheaper than doing things the old way, due to increases in efficiency. why warm a whole house or a whole room when you can warm an individual. why heat water to run through pipes to radiate heat if a cheaper more efficient method can be used

[Unique]

Yes, remotely operated TRVs would be ideal for you - some are replacement tops for the Drayton TRV series, others are replacement assemblies including the valve so there is a bit of plumbing involved.

Zoning with Nest would be less granular, you might have an upstairs zone and a downstairs zone each one having a motorised valve in the complete circuit, each one operated by a nest thermostat either of which would fire the boiler when there was a demand for heat. TRVs don’t act (on their own) on the boiler, but would with an integrated system (radiator calls for heat and signals back to a controller that fires the boiler)

It might be possible to integrate some TRVs with Nest (in the same way Alexa can control Nest) but it’s not something I have looked into.

Edit: Just had a look these https://workswith.nest.com/uk/compan...enie/energenie appear to work with Nest (or stand alone).

i hadn't seen those before but saw similar ones. those are £120 on amazon for a pack of 3. if i had all the rest of the bits i would buy that now - in fact it may not need nest and just work with alexa which i have on a few things. living room, bedroom and bathroom and job done. screw off old ones and screw on new ones. saves having to remember to dial down the TRV when i leave a room and turn up the other when i go in the other room, burning up energy each time i forget. and £40 each at the moment effectively, but give a relatively short period and i'm sure these will be far less, likewise nest and similar things, which will end up coming as default with boilers

[Saracen]

my point is that regardless of what you think and want, technology will change. you don't need to buy into it

as for your heating comment, with advances in technology we may have heating that can heat the room up instantly or near instantly so you don't need to waste time and/or energy waiting on a room to heat up before you go in it, or sensors can detect you about to enter a room or open a door and the temperature is how you want it by the time you've walked in, or hovered in on a floating chair. or instead of heating rooms we may have things that attach to ourselves or our clothes that give individuals the temperature feel they want, regardless of where they are, and how hot or cold it is. 50 years ago few people would have imagined the things we have had the last few years that many take for granted, such as smart phone computers that fit in your hand and let you access data from the other side of the planet and watch movies or listen to almost any music you want instantly. regarding cost, sometimes cost of new things or new ways to do things can come down to cheaper than the old ways due to technological advancements, so new automated methods may end up far cheaper than doing things the old way, due to increases in efficiency. why warm a whole house or a whole room when you can warm an individual. why heat water to run through pipes to radiate heat if a cheaper more efficient method can be used

Of course I don't need to buy into it. Where have I suggested I thought it was compulsory? Nor have I suggsdted it won't happen, beyond pointing out that just because a technology exists doesn't mean we, the masses, either will or even should adopt it. There se3ms to be sn assumption that it WILL happen, en-masse. Maybe. Probably even. But it certainly isn't a given.

As for heating systems that will warm a room instantly, or near-instantly, you say we "may" have them. When? What will they cost? What about retro-fitting old homes.

Yes, we "may". And it "may" change the calculations I mentioned. But ascribing theoretical, uncosted benefits with no timeline to them doesn't change the fact that that'scnotcwhat you get now from motorised valves, and an automated home App.

After all, we "may" find a planetary extinction level event headed our way and we all end up fried by the sun exploding or on migration starships heading out into deep space in sesrch of a home. I'm not factoring that in either.

What it comes down to, for me, is this. Money is a limited resource, and each unit of it I have only spends once. Hence, the opportunity cost of spending money on HA motorised TRVs, etc, is that I csn't spend it on something else, be it a holiday, premium ice-cream or a labour-saving kitchen gadget.

So, if you, and 99% of the population want to control room temperature from your phone, rather than investing 10 seconds of minimal effort walking over to a standard TRV and adjusting it yourself, and that justifies the hundreds of pounds it's going to cost, well, it's your hard-earned. Go for it.

But my hard-earned will either stay in my bank (or investments) or be spent on things where my evaluation of the benefits is higher.

That's where you seem to be going wrong. I'm not suggesting you, or anyone else, shouldn't automate if you want to. That's your call. I'm telling you why, given current benefits, I regard it as merely another tech-toy to play with, something for manufacturers to convince us we "need". I don't.

Oh, and smartphones? A lot depends on your lifestyle. And age. You serm to regard smartphones as "necessary". I don't. I've done my couple of decades of jetting around the world, and managed it pretty well without smartphones. In the latter half, I had a cellphone, and while occassionally useful, nor was that necessary. And on occassion, being contactable at all times was a right flaming nuisance.

Now, my lifestyle is more sedentary. I haven't been abroad for years, and see no need to. As the saying goes, been there, done that. Now, it'll take an extremely comoelling rsason to get me in an airport.

So smarthones. Listen to music? I have my collection in a venerable old portable player (60GB, I think) and it still works fine. It also doesn't try to track everything I do and report in to Big Bruv Zuck.

Video? Films? No chance. No way in hell am I watching anything worth watching on a poncy little phone screen. If I'm going to invest my time in watching a film Tv series, etc, I want maximum enjoyment, and that comes from a comfy chair, a decent hone screen and a theatre surround system. I could wstch films, etc, on my music player, but never have, never will.

If I want "data" from, well, wherever, I can get it from a home PC or a tablet that connects via a link that can't be trsced to me, and a VPN.

Whersas, with a phone, we're starting to see thecresl price. Your data, and your privacy. This is a song I've been singing for years, about data mining, warehousing, and analytics, yet only now are the wider public starting to wake up. And very possibly, too late.

So again, if the benefits of your smartphone outweigh the costs, of buying, monthly contract and most especially loss of privacy, well, that's your call. But until (and I'm not holding my breath) a phone comes out where benefitsto me outweigh costs, and my personal control over privacy is utterly guaranteed, then it's another technology zi neither need nor much want.

Frankly, smartphones pretty much tether their victi ... sorry, user, to be at the beck and call of anybody with their number. I have no need, or desire, to be that contactable. If you do, great. I'm sure you love your phone. Personally, I don't want the latest greatest whatever-phone-tops-current-fashion if it was given to me for free.

[Unique]

Of course I don't need to buy into it. Where have I suggested I thought it was compulsory? Nor have I suggsdted it won't happen, beyond pointing out that just because a technology exists doesn't mean we, the masses, either will or even should adopt it. There se3ms to be sn assumption that it WILL happen, en-masse. Maybe. Probably even. But it certainly isn't a given.

As for heating systems that will warm a room instantly, or near-instantly, you say we "may" have them. When? What will they cost? What about retro-fitting old homes.

Yes, we "may". And it "may" change the calculations I mentioned. But ascribing theoretical, uncosted benefits with no timeline to them doesn't change the fact that that'scnotcwhat you get now from motorised valves, and an automated home App.

After all, we "may" find a planetary extinction level event headed our way and we all end up fried by the sun exploding or on migration starships heading out into deep space in sesrch of a home. I'm not factoring that in either.

What it comes down to, for me, is this. Money is a limited resource, and each unit of it I have only spends once. Hence, the opportunity cost of spending money on HA motorised TRVs, etc, is that I csn't spend it on something else, be it a holiday, premium ice-cream or a labour-saving kitchen gadget.

So, if you, and 99% of the population want to control room temperature from your phone, rather than investing 10 seconds of minimal effort walking over to a standard TRV and adjusting it yourself, and that justifies the hundreds of pounds it's going to cost, well, it's your hard-earned. Go for it.

But my hard-earned will either stay in my bank (or investments) or be spent on things where my evaluation of the benefits is higher.

That's where you seem to be going wrong. I'm not suggesting you, or anyone else, shouldn't automate if you want to. That's your call. I'm telling you why, given current benefits, I regard it as merely another tech-toy to play with, something for manufacturers to convince us we "need". I don't.

Oh, and smartphones? A lot depends on your lifestyle. And age. You serm to regard smartphones as "necessary". I don't. I've done my couple of decades of jetting around the world, and managed it pretty well without smartphones. In the latter half, I had a cellphone, and while occassionally useful, nor was that necessary. And on occassion, being contactable at all times was a right flaming nuisance.

Now, my lifestyle is more sedentary. I haven't been abroad for years, and see no need to. As the saying goes, been there, done that. Now, it'll take an extremely comoelling rsason to get me in an airport.

So smarthones. Listen to music? I have my collection in a venerable old portable player (60GB, I think) and it still works fine. It also doesn't try to track everything I do and report in to Big Bruv Zuck.

Video? Films? No chance. No way in hell am I watching anything worth watching on a poncy little phone screen. If I'm going to invest my time in watching a film Tv series, etc, I want maximum enjoyment, and that comes from a comfy chair, a decent hone screen and a theatre surround system. I could wstch films, etc, on my music player, but never have, never will.

If I want "data" from, well, wherever, I can get it from a home PC or a tablet that connects via a link that can't be trsced to me, and a VPN.

Whersas, with a phone, we're starting to see thecresl price. Your data, and your privacy. This is a song I've been singing for years, about data mining, warehousing, and analytics, yet only now are the wider public starting to wake up. And very possibly, too late.

So again, if the benefits of your smartphone outweigh the costs, of buying, monthly contract and most especially loss of privacy, well, that's your call. But until (and I'm not holding my breath) a phone comes out where benefitsto me outweigh costs, and my personal control over privacy is utterly guaranteed, then it's another technology zi neither need nor much want.

Frankly, smartphones pretty much tether their victi ... sorry, user, to be at the beck and call of anybody with their number. I have no need, or desire, to be that contactable. If you do, great. I'm sure you love your phone. Personally, I don't want the latest greatest whatever-phone-tops-current-fashion if it was given to me for free.

you seem to be making a lot of assumptions, most if not all are incorrect. i'm not sure where "Where have I suggested I thought it was compulsory?" comes from as it's not something i through you said, nevermind me referring to it. not have i said or suggested smartphones as necessary. i have also travelled afar without a smart phone or even laptop and i'm still living. i've also travelled afar with both, plus tablets, and found the experience of travelling less boring and stressful. i find being stuck in airports a soul sucking experience, so having gadgets to distract me helps a lot, likewise being stuck on a plane like cattle. i prefer to take the train and sit with my laptop and phone and surf the web etc. having had large screen TV's for so long, i couldn't get used to watching a movie on a laptop, nevermind a phone. i find paying less than £10 a month to be a bargain for the freedom and benefits i can get from my smartphone

as for automating heating, as i mentioned before, i'm referring to a system that is actually automated and learns and does things for itself, not using a phone. or having the ability to just speak and the temperature raises or cools, just as i do with my lights. i just speak and the lights can go on or off or change colour or dim or brighten, without moving from bed or the sofa or having to grab a phone or remote. for people with mobility issues or extreme laziness, that can be a real benefit

[YNGJAY]

I know this is great, but I don't have it.

[Saracen999]

you seem to be making a lot of assumptions, most if not all are incorrect. i'm not sure where "Where have I suggested I thought it was compulsory?" comes from as it's not something i through you said, nevermind me referring to it. not have i said or suggested smartphones as necessary. i have also travelled afar without a smart phone or even laptop and i'm still living. i've also travelled afar with both, plus tablets, and found the experience of travelling less boring and stressful. i find being stuck in airports a soul sucking experience, so having gadgets to distract me helps a lot, likewise being stuck on a plane like cattle. i prefer to take the train and sit with my laptop and phone and surf the web etc. having had large screen TV's for so long, i couldn't get used to watching a movie on a laptop, nevermind a phone. i find paying less than £10 a month to be a bargain for the freedom and benefits i can get from my smartphone

as for automating heating, as i mentioned before, i'm referring to a system that is actually automated and learns and does things for itself, not using a phone. or having the ability to just speak and the temperature raises or cools, just as i do with my lights. i just speak and the lights can go on or off or change colour or dim or brighten, without moving from bed or the sofa or having to grab a phone or remote. for people with mobility issues or extreme laziness, that can be a real benefit

Thanks to a thread revival, I'll answer what I missed earlier.

The difference in kost of this between you and me is what we want. If you want room-heating AI conttolling your heating, then when it becomes available, install it. But I don't want it. Ditto lights. I don't want lights coming on when I walk into a room. I want them coming on when I turn them on. So, in both cases, for me, AI is a retrograde step.

Similarly, if ypu want a phone or laptop to distract ftom the biringness of long flights, or tedium in airport lounges, then great. Go for it. But I don't. My distraction would be a book or magazine, and in these days, probably on a Kindle. Which I would carry on a journey.But phone? Nope. Laptop? Maybe, but not one that needs an internet connection. And under no circumstances am I interested on watching films, etc, on even a laptop, let alone anything smaller.

But if that's what works for you, then it does. It just doesn't for me.

Which brings me bavk to smart meters. Don't want one, for my needs don't see the point, as they will tell me nothing of value I don't already know and for as long as I have a choice, neither gas not electricity companies are installing one in my property.

If any future heating technology offers the theoretical benefits you mention, I'll evaluate it then. Retrofitting my current home to remove 'water in pipes' is not economically viable, but if it becomes so, or if I have a house built, I'd give it a hard and fair but sceptical chance. But "smart" controls over it? Doubtful. And smart meters? Not if I have a choice.

Automated lighting? Hell, no. One reason is that I often go into a room in near darkness, and don't bother with lights at all. And if I do, I'll turn then on, and at a brightness level that suits my need, and even my whim right at that moment, and I don't want them coming on because compyrer says so.

Would I use an Alexa-type voice command? Yes, provided it was not a system with any sort of internet link, and provided cost was minimal. Meantime, a switch, be it on the wall or a little remote control, works fine for me and costs peanuts.

[raygdunn]

Yep I missed this thread too.

I estimated it would cost me ~£25 a year in feed-in payments, as they would no longer pay 100% of generated. But assumed that it was inevitable and applied for one anyway ....and the installing engineer nearly made it to the door. He gave up and later phoned instead, as there is not usually enough 3G phone signal for even a text message, so the meter wouldn't work!?!

I suspect they will be charging for having to take a manual reading before too long.

[Saracen999]

It may become inevitable eventually. That wouldn't surprise me. But at the moment, the mandate from the government is that energy companies have to offer them, but consumers can refuse. That's one of the things that put my nose out of joint - the persistent letters from my electricity company were very deceitfully worded. They told me my meter was "too old" and that it "needs to be changed". It very strongly implied it was, first, mandatory, and second, for safety reasons.

Neither was the case.

Also, my meter that was "too old" had been installed for less than a year. Lying <bleeps>.

[DanceswithUnix]

I suspect they will be charging for having to take a manual reading before too long.

AIUI the energy companies are required by law to perform a basic safety inspection of the meter regularly (yearly?) during which they might as well do a meter reading. Hard for them to charge for something that they are required to do.

[peterb]

Yep I missed this thread too.

I estimated it would cost me ~£25 a year in feed-in payments, as they would no longer pay 100% of generated. But assumed that it was inevitable and applied for one anyway ....and the installing engineer nearly made it to the door. He gave up and later phoned instead, as there is not usually enough 3G phone signal for even a text message, so the meter wouldn't work!?!

I suspect they will be charging for having to take a manual reading before too long.

If you are referring to solar feed in, the assumption is that 50% of what you generate is fed back to the grid, so (if your installation qualifies) you get paid an amount for every KWh your generate (measured by your generation meter) and a feed in payment on half that amount so you probably would lose that amount - in summer you might gain.

However it is academic as smart meters are not used to measure exported energy.

[blueball]

https://paullewismoney.blogspot.com/...were-dumb.html

Who benefits? The energy companies, pure and simple!