Month: March 2017

Not so smart: ‘Smart meter said I owed thousands’ 

Not so smart: ‘Smart meter said I owed thousands’ 

via Tallbloke’s Talkshophttps://tallbloke.wordpress.com

Electricity usage - one of these may cause a shock.

Electricity usage – one of these may cause a shock.

A woman has spoken of her surprise when her smart meter quoted thousands of pounds for a day’s usage of gas and electricity, due to a system error, reports BBC News.

Jane Allen was one of many confused customers who posted the strange readings from their SSE smart meters on social media. One customer’s display showed more than £30,000 for a single day.

SSE apologised and said no customers would be charged “the extra amounts resulting from errors”.

Smart meters send information on energy usage back to the supplier. They let the customer know how much electricity or gas they are consuming each day – and how much it’s costing them – in real time.

But for some customers, the readings have been somewhat higher than usual over the past week.

Jane Allen, from Portsmouth, has had her smart meter for around five months. But on Wednesday, she started to notice the strange activity.

“I was quite frightened to be honest – thinking it could be a gas leak,” she said. On Sunday her meter stated she was on £36,448.29 for the week – far beyond the daily £3.80 her family usually use.

“My worry is that they are going to try and get that sort of money out of my bank. Ms Allen called SSE who assured her “not to worry”.

Usman Hussain, whose meter suggested he had used £9,576.98 of energy on Friday, wrote on Twitter: “Think my SSE Smart Meter for energy and gas may be having slight problems! Either that [or] a neighbour has started nicking my leccy or gas.”

For the reading to be accurate, Mr Hussain would need a home bigger than Buckingham Palace – which, with 775 rooms, was billed £1m for a year.

The average annual bill for a large house in the UK is £1,486.

Full report: SSE glitch: ‘Smart meter said I owed thousands’ – BBC News

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop http://ift.tt/1WIzElD

March 5, 2017 at 05:54AM

The (actually not so) “excellent” fact check

The (actually not so) “excellent” fact check

via Trust, yet verifyhttps://trustyetverify.wordpress.com

There was some controversy on the third fact check of SER on energy. This fact check is titled “Nearby residents have mostly nuisance and little benefit from windmills(Dutch). Two action groups against wind mills read the fact check and were not amused. They claimed that the information of the fact check was not objective and incomplete.

Rightfully so. That fact check exaggerated the advantages of wind energy and minimized its disadvantages.

This is no big surprise. This kind of framing is not only done in this fact check, but also in the four other energy fact checks of SER. I would even say that this framing is endemic in alternative energy reporting. The advantages are being emphasized and the disadvantages minimized or even ignored. Being confronted with the nuisance of wind mills first hand, it was probably not that hard to notice for those two groups.

They prepared a list of 38 instances in the fact check that were incorrect or incomplete and first contacted the chairman of the Standing Committee and later the chairman of the SER with their remarks on this fact check. Their goal was to get a factual reaction to their objections.

When they didn’t get such a reaction, they filed a complaint with the National Ombudsman and initially he said the complaint was founded in his report of October 25, 2016 (Dutch). He concluded that the SER (which is the main advisory body to the Dutch government and the parliament on national and international social and economic policy) published a fact check that was not appropriate and in violation of correct supply of information and adviced the SER to change their fact check accordingly on basis of the complaint letter of the two groups. He also delved a bit deeper in two of the 38 points of the list.

So far, so good.

However, at the end of January 2017, the Volkskrant (a Dutch newspaper) wrote an article titled “Ombudsman: SER was honest about windmills after all” (Dutch). This is what they wrote about it (translated from Dutch, my emphasis):

The ombudsman initially agreed. He concluded in November that the SER provided incorrect, incomplete or outdated information about those windmills in a fact check on their website. But he had neglected to ask the SER for a response. Now that he received a reaction, he comes to the exact opposite conclusion: it is a excellent fact check, based on insights of external scientists who earn our confidence.

Interesting. This made me curious exactly what arguments or new information convinced the ombudsman to change his mind and come to the exact opposite conclusion a couple months after his initial report. Time to go the the website of the ombudsman and read the changed conclusion (Dutch) myself. This is the summary of the new conclusion (translated from Dutch):

The website http://ift.tt/13fEs1A informs the public about the Energy Agreement. Two action groups complain that the information about the advantages and disadvantages of wind turbines is not objective and is not complete. The National Ombudsman notes that a procedure has been agreed with an independent third party for the preparation of the texts on the website. Doing so, the SER (or the Standing Committee) took sufficient action in order to avoid any form of prejudice or (the appearance of) partiality.

Confirmed by the conclusion at the end of the report. That is something completely different from what the Volkskrant wrote. They wrote that it was now believed to be an excellent fact check, suggesting that it was changed on the merits of the arguments and that is how I understood it when I read their article. Yet the report now shows that the ombudsman said that the fact check was not written by the SER, but was outsourced to an external organization: Het Groene Brein (literary: The Green Brain). The information in the fact check was the responsibility of this external organization and SER could rely on the integrity of the scientists of this external organization. Therefor the ombudsman considered the SER unprejudiced in this case and the complaint unfounded.

This explained the disclaimer above the fact check website, linking to the procedure and mentioning that the fact check will not be updated. Which, at the time I first read the fact check, made no sense to me. Looking at the Wayback machine, this disclaimer wasn’t there initially and was added only after December 23, 2016. Probably as a result of the report of the ombudsman. It just clears them of any responsibility and allows them to avoid discussing the arguments.

Contrary to what the Volkskrant suggested, this rejection was not based on the arguments. It was an administrative rejection: the SER could not be hold responsible for incorrect or incomplete information because they didn’t write the fact check themselves. They outsourced it to an external organization that is supposed to have the necessary expertise.

There were no new arguments (except that the fact check was written by an external organization) and still none of the arguments provided by the two action groups were addressed. Apparently, the two groups will write back to the SER (Dutch), now asking to pass the list of 38 points to that external organization, so the writers of the fact check could respond to the actual arguments of the two groups.

I don’t hold my breath that they will get a satisfactory answer though.

via Trust, yet verify http://ift.tt/2kf6j5P

March 5, 2017 at 04:08AM

A primer on the hatred of climate skeptics – one woman saw the light and is no longer a leftist

A primer on the hatred of climate skeptics – one woman saw the light and is no longer a leftist

via Watts Up With That?http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

In case you missed it, our friends at americanthinker.com had a fantastic column (which won’t load now due to internal server error, but is cached by Google, so I repeat it here) by Dr. Danusha V. Goska in 2014. She was a life-long leftist and wrote that she has abandoned that philosophy. Here, she gives her […]

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

March 5, 2017 at 03:45AM

Leading Renewable Energy Expert Says Germany Sacrificing Nature For “Green” Energies

Leading Renewable Energy Expert Says Germany Sacrificing Nature For “Green” Energies

via NoTricksZonehttp://notrickszone.com

Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt was interviewed by Switzerland-based Basler Zeitung concerning Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ (transition to renewable energies), and energy issues in Switzerland, on February 18, 2017.

Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt. Image credit: GWPF

Vahrenholt was once the head of RWE’s renewable energy arm, Innogy, and responsible for the installation of offshore wind parks. However, after years of poor performance, discovering that the climate science was unclean, and learning of the harm wind parks pose to the environment, Vahrenholt has since been calling for a fundamental energy policy course correction in Germany.

Vahrenholt has called the German Energiewende “a disaster” so far, foremost because the supply of wind and sun is far too unstable and that everyone knows by now that it cannot work.

He also thinks Germany is making a huge mistake in the decision to phase out nuclear power, and calls Switzerland’s decision to keep nuclear power online “wise”.

The German professor also reminds that adding more capacity will not solve any of the supply problems: “No, even if we triple wind energy capacity, power generation will remain near zero when the wind stops blowing. The situation is similar for solar energy, especially at night. Solar energy only works full time 8% of the year.”

No viable storage technology

Tripling capacity would also result in chaos on windy and sunny days, Vahrenholt explains. On such days, with a tripled capacity, so much power would surge into the power grid that the surplus power would have to be given away, or “sold at negative prices”:

When too much power is fed in, grid operators order wind parks to shut down — yet they continue to be paid even when they do not produce. That is now costing one billion euros a year, and that is indeed absurd!”

Vahrenholt reiterates that sun and wind will not function until a solution is found for the storage problem. Currently no large-scale solution is anywhere near in sight. Dumping surplus power into the power grids of neighboring countries only wreaks havoc in those countries. Already countries are installing so-called phase shifters to keep surplus energy from the German grid from spilling uncontrollably into neighboring power networks, Vahrenholt explains.

Also a topic of the interview was the rising price of electricity for end consumers, which has seen German power become at near 30 euro-cents per kilowatt-hour among the world’s most expensive.

Vahrenholt says that policymakers made great errors in implementing wind and solar power, stating that storage technology should have been first developed. “We shouldn’t put the cart before the horse.”

For the time being, many energy-intensive industries in Germany have been exempted from having to pay the feed-in tariffs that are passed on to consumers. This leaves the regular private consumers to pick up the tab. But there is the risk that industry will soon be called on to pay their fair share. Vahrenholt adds:

One does not invest in a country when he/she is not sure how energy prices will develop. In addition to the price, supply stability also plays an important role. It decreases with every new wind turbine.”

“Enormous” impact on wildlife

Vahrenholt also points out the wind turbines are a real hazard to endangered wildlife: “The impacts on the biosphere of plants and animals are enormous.”

And why aren’t environmentalists and Green Party politicians being more vocal against wind turbines? Here Vahrenholt says that years ago they made the Energiewende the centerpiece of their platform. “In reality in Germany they were never an environmental party, but rather an anti-capitalist party that dedicated itself to protesting nuclear power and industry.”

Green energy for the urban elite

Yet, Vahrenholt sees “an enormous citizens’ protest potential” that reminds him of the anti-nuclear power industry from decades ago. He summarizes:

The dream of the urban elite of a supposedly clean energy supply is being realized on the backs of the rural population, who are losing their homeland.”

All in all Vahrenholt says green energies have been a real bonanza for rich property owners, and a real financial burden on the poor. He believes that the current development cannot be sustained and that it will need to be corrected: “At the latest when the first power grid failure occurs.” and that, “The longer it takes, the greater the difficulties will be.”

The full interview in German is at the Basler Zeitung.

 

via NoTricksZone http://notrickszone.com

March 5, 2017 at 02:36AM