Electric meter - end of life

[Andy™]

No, you are saving MONEY by shifting your usage, not saving ENERGY.

and arguably using more in the process due to losses

 

[johnb2713]

No they are NOT. They have no advantage for the user, only the supplier as I previously explained.

Oh yes they are as previously explained also.

YAY Forum Pantomime started

 

[johnb2713]

Sshhhh, you weren’t supposed to reply!!!

Begging your pardon m'lud.

 

[johnb2713]

No, you are saving MONEY by shifting your usage, not saving ENERGY.

No, I am saving energy, I'm mid install of another heatpump which leads to energy saving.

 

[johnb2713]

and arguably using more in the process due to losses

Nope, wrong assumption!

 

[Andy™]

Nope, wrong assumption!

so you have a system that runs at 100% efficiency? not likely. there will be losses

 

[johnb2713]

so you have a system that runs at 100% efficiency? not likely. there will be losses

Absolutely, of course there are losses in charging batteries etc but that not what I was busy doing to save energy, I was installing an air to air heatpump in another room hence I was busy saving energy.

 

[binky]

We don't need to wait and see it is happening right now the climate change lobby being the big one at the moment where a minority are driving it forward and controlling how the rest of the population allowed to travel, have a look at the Oxford 15 minute city proposals and tell me that isn't control of the masses
We managed to escape the EU where the EU commission rule while Guy Verhofstadt peddles his New World Order agenda
And the we have Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum with a similar agenda
And some might say the pandemic was a rehearsal for control of the masses

Wake up have a strong coffee and look around and there are many more creeping control examples

Climate change activists are trying to save civilization as we know it. If you want to sniff a real conspiracy theory go watch Big oil v the world, and just look at the money and power of large corporations whose sole aim is profits. They couldn't give a shit about you and me except to extract money from us.

Incidentally, you still haven't presented any evidence that current climate change is natural, but then I suspect you can't, or are scared of losing the argument

 

[Sharpend]

I think you’ll find that there IS a natural Earth climate cycle, the human race though through its complete ignorance only ups the frequency of it.

Mind you atheists will blame GOD as he told us to go forth and multiply?

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

No they are NOT. They have no advantage for the user, only the supplier as I previously explained.

As per so many of you other posts this one is "Factually Incorrect"..

Lets just re-evaluate some facts....

(1) I am a user. (Both Gas & Electricity).
(2) We have had smart meters since 2008.. [ 14+ years]
(3) I am reasonably well educated, self employed for over 23years, Qualified and competent with regard to the current wiring reg's. So I would not consider myself as a complete no-brain, idiot, who cannot evaluate typical advantages -vs- disadvantages of any product or service I choose to use...
(4) I personally consider the advantages of our smart meters, (Gas & Electric), beat any traditionally "dumb-meters" for our personal household usage.
(5) So your assumption they offer "No advantage for the user"... is incorrect!!

You may not like them... And some 'other' users may consider the benefits limited...

BUT.. They DO hold some advantages to users... "FACT!!"
{based on 14+ years real-world evaluation}

The bottom line as I see it is...

Smart meters are a "Marmite" (Love it -or- Hate it),
or "Pepsi-vs-Cola" sort of thing.. (Love one, but hate the other)..

But to say they offer No Advantages is complete Tosh!!!!

 

[UNG]

Climate change activists are trying to save civilization as we know it.

That would depend on how you and they define "civilisation as we know it". There are many things that could be done to reduce carbon emissions but unfortunately they would not be popular even with the climate activists and their social media and we certainly wouldn't be discussing it on here and add to that all the potential job losses
Climate change is a legal form of radicalisation IMO and probably in the opinion of many others and you only have to look at one swedish teenager who promotes it while using dubiously green travel arrangements to travel around the world funded by..........someone who wants to hide behind her and not stick their head over the parapit while they look to control the masses

If you want to sniff a real conspiracy theory go watch Big oil v the world, and just look at the money and power of large corporations whose sole aim is profits. They couldn't give a shit about you and me except to extract money from us.

Big oil v's the world is old news and the BBC is involved further reducing it's credibility, one of the turning points with that was back in 1995/6 when electric vehicles had probably one of their first setbacks when the sodium / sulphur battery was shelved and a research and manufacturing facility in Runcorn was closed because the US congress back peddled on legislation under pressure from a few of the big oil companies

Incidentally, you still haven't presented any evidence that current climate change is natural, but then I suspect you can't, or are scared of losing the argument

Historically there is plenty of evidence of natural climate change but climate activists tend to rely on the last couple of centuries to support their crusade while totally ignoring everything else
Carbon is likely to be only one small part of the complex jigsaw that is climate change, too much of the science concentrates on isolated parts without looking at any of the other external influences that may affect their particular research and that may affect the overall outcomes, and as with all research and experiments the outcome can be skewed by the initial brief which is set by those paying for it
A few years ago the EU were looking into ethylene emissions and background levels of ethylene in the atmosphere with a view to introducing taxation on emissions the problem is the natural occurance of ethylene in the atmosphere is very variable so how do you set a baseline
There is no argument that climate change is happening and has been happening for many hundreds of thousands of years and a small portion of it may be attributable to those living on the planet, but again any major reduction of carbon dioxide emissions may actually reduce our ability to grow any food we need so are we heading to a natural global reset sometime in the next century and planet earths cycle can begin all over again

 

[binky]

That would depend on how you and they define "civilisation as we know it". There are many things that could be done to reduce carbon emissions but unfortunately they would not be popular even with the climate activists and their social media and we certainly wouldn't be discussing it on here and add to that all the potential job losses

Hurray, a response . Apologies for being a bit rude previously but I don't like people telling me I'm wrong and not presenting a counter argument.

Civilisation as it currently stands is a bit of a mess, but that's life! One of the big issues for me here is sea levels rising, with so many major cities located not much above sea levels, the cost or relocating those, and their populations is absolutley enormous. I would rather spend far less money on eliminating carbon emmisssions than deal with the mass upheaval of not doing so. But I'm also thinking about incidents like the recent flooding of Pakistan, 30% of the country flooded, and their main food prodcuing area. Then there's the fires and droughts in Europe and elsewhere. Things we expect as normal, like food supplies, will be badly affected, and that is already starting.

As for job losses, industries and times change, could you imagine making a living from computer programming when you were young? Probably not, but for a job lost in one industry, jobs can be created in new industries, or is there something else you are thinking of job wise?

There's an awful lot of work going on that will reduce carbon, or more importantly sequester it. These ideas don't tend to make it to mainstream press but are well under way. 2 examples are rewetting upland peat, something they have been doing a lot of in my neck of the woods, Dartmoor with good results, the other being regenerative farming practices such as not ploughing land. Ploughing releaes carbon that would otherwise be trapped in the soil, is bad for the insect, invertbrate and all the other micro life that lives in soil, and hence is bad for nature. Farming has a lot to contribute, they reckon that regenerative farming could absorb the bulk of UKs carbon emmissions. Reducing livestock - not eliminating it also has a role to play.

Climate change is a legal form of radicalisation IMO and probably in the opinion of many others and you only have to look at one swedish teenager who promotes it while using dubiously green travel arrangements to travel around the world funded by..........someone who wants to hide behind her and not stick their head over the parapit while they look to control the masses

evangelical behaviour seems to be the new religion, still, at least we won't have to suffer the Spanish Inquisition, just death by Tofu burgers .
Trouble is, people don't seem to understand exactly how pressing the consequences of climate change are, so frustration leads to exteme behaviour. Think about the silly sods glueing themsleves to roads around London. I'm not convinced they did their cause that much good, but look how the issues were discussed incessantly in the press. No one had heard a squeak about insulation before that or discussed the costs, job opportunities, the state of UK housing etc etc. So I would say it worked, even if I don't agree with the method. Also worth noting, these people would not be making any money from insulating houses, so what is their motivation other than genuine beliefs?

Greta - poster girl but not actually important. Your arguments here are, I would say, typical gaslighting - shooting the messenger rather than discussing the issues. Simple fact is it is basically impossible to travel in a totally green way, but she does make the effort to achieve that as far as possible. As for hiding behind her, at every press conference were the real scientists and experts. Did you not notice how she pushed questions off to them because she isn't the one with the answers, just the poster girl. Funny how social media can create 'stars' overnight. Again though, has her activity raised the debate that we would not have had without her campaigning.

Big oil v's the world is old news and the BBC is involved further reducing it's credibility, one of the turning points with that was back in 1995/6 when electric vehicles had probably one of their first setbacks when the sodium / sulphur battery was shelved and a research and manufacturing facility in Runcorn was closed because the US congress back peddled on legislation under pressure from a few of the big oil companies

You mentioned conspiracies previoulsy - who benefits from the destruction of the BBC and makes money from selling advertising in their press and TV stations? I would agree the BBC is not as good as it was, but, it's the only news source that has a programe dedictaed to criticism of it's activities. You don;t get that at Sky or the Daily Mail or Netflix, or anywhere else that I know of. The BIg Oil programme was a remake of a documentary I found on Sky sometime ago, but can't find a link to that I can post on here. I reckon the original was harder hitting, but as an example of real conspiracies, I think it's pretty good. Can't say I'm familiar with the sodium battery, but if that was a world beating product taken down by the oil industry, then that confirms my point about real conspiracy being large coporations and their greed V the greater good / climate science.

Historically there is plenty of evidence of natural climate change but climate activists tend to rely on the last couple of centuries to support their crusade while totally ignoring everything else
Carbon is likely to be only one small part of the complex jigsaw that is climate change, too much of the science concentrates on isolated parts without looking at any of the other external influences that may affect their particular research and that may affect the overall outcomes, and as with all research and experiments the outcome can be skewed by the initial brief which is set by those paying for it
A few years ago the EU were looking into ethylene emissions and background levels of ethylene in the atmosphere with a view to introducing taxation on emissions the problem is the natural occurance of ethylene in the atmosphere is very variable so how do you set a baseline
There is no argument that climate change is happening and has been happening for many hundreds of thousands of years and a small portion of it may be attributable to those living on the planet, but again any major reduction of carbon dioxide emissions may actually reduce our ability to grow any food we need so are we heading to a natural global reset sometime in the next century and planet earths cycle can begin all over again

Carbon is just the most obvious signs of mankinds activities. I've posted the chart below many times, it covers several ice ages and natural climate cycles, and then we hit the industrial revolution and mass burning of fossil fuels. To me this can't be more obvious that the current climate change is not natural, or at least not in the last 800,000 years, and we are far from a small portion of the problem. Not that burning things is all the problem, hacking down forests , posioning the soil with pesticides and other farming practices, draining swampy ground, burning peat, straightening rivers, pouring pollution into the seas, poulation growth, wars, etc etc, have all added to the problem. Climate scientists do not ignore the the complex nature of other gases in the atmosphere, far from it. Who do you think discovered the ozone layer and it's causes, why do they also talk a lot about methane from farming, melting perma frost and leaks from the gas industry etc etc?

 

[Murdoch]

View attachment 14609

Now overlay the world population against this information .................

 

[binky]

Now overlay the world population against this information .................

Not looked at that, but it makes total sense that the 2 are linked, population growth being very much linked to industrial revolution and everything else since then.

 

[Murdoch]

Not looked at that, but it makes total sense that the 2 are linked, population growth being very much linked to industrial revolution and everything else since then.

world population approx 2 billion in 1920
world population approx 8 billion in 2020

so a 4 fold increase in 100 years

 

[binky]

world population approx 2 billion in 1920
world population approx 8 billion in 2020

so a 4 fold increase in 100 years

Medical science has a lot to answer for

 

[Murdoch]

Medical science has a lot to answer for

lack of worldwide contraception would be a good place to start but…..

 

[binky]

lack of worldwide contraception would be a good place to start but…..

Pakistan tried that and failed, they found the emancipation of women works better.

 

[UNG]

Can't say I'm familiar with the sodium battery, but if that was a world beating product taken down by the oil industry, then that confirms my point about real conspiracy being large coporations and their greed V the greater good / climate science.

This was a news story fron the New Scientist back in 1996 when Silent Power was being closed
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15020320-700-germans-pull-plug-on-britains-batteries/The batteries were shipped to Germany to sit on a shelf along with some of the more commercially sensitive items
I knew a few of the guy's that worked at Silent Power for good many years and they were quite upset that many years of R&D that was about to become a commercial product was destined to sit on a shelf unused

I actually went to the auction and still have some of the tools and test equipment I bought at the time

 

[binky]

This was a news story fron the New Scientist back in 1996 when Silent Power was being closed
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15020320-700-germans-pull-plug-on-britains-batteries/The batteries were shipped to Germany to sit on a shelf along with some of the more commercially sensitive items
I knew a few of the guy's that worked at Silent Power for good many years and they were quite upset that many years of R&D that was about to become a commercial product was destined to sit on a shelf unused

I actually went to the auction and still have some of the tools and test equipment I bought at the time

There's so much in that article, government backed funding, privatisation, selling off to foreign companies and it's eventual demise. How different the world could have been....