1) Provide evidence of the intent you claim.

You clearly haven’t read very much (if at all) on this. Fridges are almost the go-to example, as Smart fridges would be able to flatten out the largest spikes in demand. See e.g. D. Mackay, Sustainability without the Hot Air. It’s available online for free, so you have no excuse.

Why would they? It’s irrelevant, they already do. But in any case – maybe because they’re contractually obliged not to just cut people off?

You seem to be confusing two completely different things. Smart meters clearly have advantages for energy companies – in that they no longer need to send people out to take meter readings. Presumably, they’ll also be able to cut off supply in case of non-payment. But that is a world away from cutting off supply to help balance the Grid, and would be subject to all the usual legal safeguards. To conflate the two, as you are doing, is entirely dishonest.

2) Did you even look at the Wikipedia page? It rather helpfully sets out in tables the findings of various Government studies. As they show, the levellised cost of many renewables (particularly onshore wind) is broadly comparable to nuclear.

I have then been very clear – if you want to start factoring in wider grid costs, then you have to do so with both renewables and nuclear. I’ve been clear that I don’t know the figures for this, but it’s equally clear that you don’t either, because otherwise you’d post them. As I have said many times, you are ignoring costs associated with a nuclear-heavy system – i.e. the need for large-scale backup power (National Grid have been clear that this is required), and the costs of a technology to cope with peaks and troughs in demand (nuclear doesn’t ramp up/down quickly enough). If you have such a systemic comparison, post it. If you don’t, stop making claims you can’t support.

3) You clearly haven’t followed here, and are just asserting your own nonsense. Yes, I think that moving to a low-carbon energy system saves money. Yes, that is entirely compatible with the price per unit of energy going up. What do you not understand here? If fewer people are being made sick by air pollution, we can spend less money treating them. It’s hardly rocket science.

Nope, I’m not using your policy.

1). It’s their USE. And you’re saying it – disconnect the poor when usage rises above the supply, i.e. when the sun isn’t shining

“Smart devices” are completely unrelated as concepts, and fridges and freezers are where it WON’T be applied, as keeping a level temperature is important for food. More washing machines which turn themselves on if the price drops during the day (or just in time for you to get home, anyway).

Why would business be paid to reduce usage (i.e. close), if they can just cut the poor off? This is not “imaginary”, again it’s the INTENT of smart meters, to remotely cut people off.

2) You are trying to link wikipedia, rather than looking at studies. Moreover, you are ignoring the costs of gas backup, grid connections, etc. – you are looking at ONLY the total costs on one side. Again.

You also don’t have numbers because you are not working in a numbers-based system, but an ideological one. Your demand for massively higher bills, hence disconnecting many of the poor in the first place…

We do, in fact, know what it means to move even marginally in your direction from soaring power prices in i.e. Germany.

3) So you claiming costs are “savings”. That you think there is an overall saving to denying poor power and heating, which means you are against social duties to assist the poor and the NHS, because those would eat up your “savings”.

I am not following your blind policy, as you lie viciously, and deny your anti-poor policy of denying people power and light.

I’m sure you will try and intimidate me by speaking for yourself and lying, as you scream hate at the poor and in fact are directly chucking over the idea of the cold sitting in the dark and cold.

Because that’s completely different to a 20-30% rise needed for new nuclear on sensible contracts.

Again, you just keep making assertions with nothing to back them up.

1) Please provide any evidence whatsoever that Smart meters will be used to cut off power to poor people, as a means to manage demand. All of the environmental groups (including Friends of the Earth, who you’re criticising here), talk about Smart meters as a way to deal with spikes in demand. Just because the ‘smart fridge’ (for example) technology isn’t widespread yet, it doesn’t mean this isn’t a viable future scenario.

At the moment there are systems in place for National Grid to pay businesses to reduce power. And yet you’ve just conjured up an imaginary scenario where the poor are cut off without prior agreement or compensation. This obviously sounds more like shilling than a genuine, evidence-based concern.

2) Not clear what you’re suggesting I’m making up, but never mind. If we have a look at a number of government sources, you’ll see that the cost of onshore wind and new nuclear are considered broadly similar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

This would seem to give the lie to your claims – especially given that costs for wind are coming down, whereas nuclear is going up.

However, as I’ve said, if you want to move away from this measure of costs, you would have to consider *all* the costs of integrating a particular technology into the grid, not just select ones that happen to favour a technology you prefer. So for wind that might include backup power of whichever variety (gas/batteries/pumped storage/interconnectors/Smart appliances). For nuclear it would involve large backup costs, and the costs of whatever other technology is going to be ramped up and down to meet spikes in demand (again, a variety are available).

I don’t have any numerical estimate for the latter type of system (and neither do you, because many of the costs are speculative). Still, feel free to mock one up and share.

3) Nope, definitely talking about savings. But in case you haven’t followed my point – that’s an *overall* saving. That includes the health/economic costs of air pollution, the costs of coping with climate change etc. Some of those savings will be in the health budget – hence my point about distribution. The price per unit of energy will probably have to go up (as it will in a nuke-heavy scenario). [What that means per person is less clear, as it depends on the success of energy-saving measures].

Still, feel free to respond by just blindly asserting how great nuclear is for the poor, and how the cost increases it requires (as opposed to those of renewables) won’t price anyone out of heat and light. I’m sure I speak for everyone who reads your posts when I say that we find it thoroughly persuasive.

There is no way for smart meters to control devices. They can be used to remotely shut off households, period. The “case” for that is that it will allow disconnection without the need for a home visit, but the capacity is right there and it’s absolutely critical to “managing” demand when there’s insufficient supply in the no-baseline model.

You are being deliberately dishonest as to your policy here, as you make up nonsense about the price of nuclear power. You are lying through your teeth, ignoring basic issues like Wind’s dis-economies of scale (the best sites get taken first), and the massive costs of gas backing.

You are talking about distributing COSTS, not savings, and you’re looking for socialists in British politics today, which really says a lot. You are indeed selectively adding costs – ignoring the low capacity factor and requirement for gas backup for renewables (none of which you factor into their costs), rather than the very high capacity factor of nuclear power, and maintenance can be scheduled. Moreover, you are not talking about the massive costs of grid balancing for micro-generation in your schemes, and the massive costs of connecting projects which is being added to bills for all, pushing them up still further.

I am not following your policies.
I refuse to take your policy, too, of pricing the poor ever-more out of heat and light.

No it’s not – it’s to allow certain devices to be turned off/down to manage peaks in demand. The normal example is a fridge – something not exactly limited to poor people. There is no suggestion that all electricity to a household will be cut. You’re just making stuff up.

As for nuclear – you must be aware that it is many times more expensive than current electricity prices – which therefore requires a permanent rise in costs. So I really don’t see why you keep trying to apply that argument selectively to renewables. Happily, however, the overall social cost of energy will probably come down, as we avoid the health/infrastructure costs of pollution and climate change. The challenge for a genuine socialist is to ensure that these savings are fairly distributed, rather than try to prevent them in the first place.

As for gas backup – my point is that you can’t selectively try to add grid costs for one technology only. You either compare the cost of electricity delivered to the grid, or you undertake a systemic analysis. You’re trying to make nuclear seem cheaper by ignoring the costs of accommodating it into the system.

I’m sure you can’t, thanks for talking about yourself as usual, Dave/LB.

That’s the entire point of smart meters – to allow selective cuts in power to people.

And you accuse me of shilling of not wanting major, permanent bill rises on the poor, as you ignore 85% capacity factors for modern nuclear power plants.

Where is your evidence that Smart meters will cut power to the poor? It would presumably take a temporary increase in bills to finance the necessary infrastructure; which is, after all, the way the rest of the grid is financed.

As for your nuclear shilling – if your going to include the capacity factors in prices, then you also ought to include at least the cost of large-scale back-up for nuclear plants, for when they trip off unexpectedly, or come offline for maintenance.

Lying twat can’t help himself..

You’ve managed to inflate nuclear costs, while the reality is that you’re using 1.0 for capacity factor and ignoring the need for base-load power. I hear of those plans to import nuclear energy from France to keep the lights on, btw, hope you’re happy with that!

We know exactly what things will look like in your future – “smart” meters to cut the poor’s power off, as the grid costs get pushed onto the poor rather than paid by people connecting up generators. Your argument for only powering certain areas, for just having power for schools, hospitals and high-end business…