[meldrewreborn]

@Andy65

if the idea is to lessen the use of high cost gas generation at these peak times then that is a benefit to us all - in the next price cap period, because it will fractionally reduce unit prices.

but reducing consumption at those peak periods is inevitably going to focus on those using the most electrical power at that time, and that’s not everybody. These energy shift events do demonstrate that energy shifting is possible, and the carrot approach is great, because people volunteer to be involved. I would not be in favour of the stick approach (higher pricing at these peak times) because the less technical and savvy would suffer.

not that I would be bothered either way.

[JoeSoap]

Originally Posted by Andy65

...Those who will gain will be mainly people who essentially waste electricity, but that's their choice if they're paying for it. To financially incentivise people just for switching unnecessary stuff off seems bonkers to me...

I think this misses the point of the scheme as it's about shifting energy use to a different time rather than eliminating it... although I would admit to some small amount of elimination during the window to fully capitalise on the reward.

I think it's well known that in spite of my energy reduction quest a while back I'm still quite a high consumer. If I lived alone I would be a richer man... financially speaking of course 😀. I'm the main cook of the house and have to cater for various dietary needs at dinner time. When I get wind of an energy shift event I start thinking about how I can cook the required meals to have them served at the required time using the least amount of energy during the event window. I have gas hob, electric ovens, microwave and slow cooker at my disposal and have become quite creative.

I try to keep events a secret as long as possible so as not to naff the family off too much. Flo likes a cuppa around normal event times so she knows there's an event if she finds the subtle hint of a small saucepan of water sitting in front of the kettle. I often get rumbled when the fridge gets opened and the light doesn't come on. All refrigeration gets switched off. This isn't energy saving as they have to catch up when they're switched on again.

I switch off the computer for the duration. Yes, I could switch it on and off all through the day but sometimes comfort and convenience play a part. I once worked with a guy who was so mean his idea of a good weekend was spending zero. That's his choice but having worked for 50 years I like to reward myself with some comfort and convenience.

So, all I ask of the family, once I've been rumbled, is to not use any appliances that produce noticeable heat. The rest is down to me and I do admit to switching off a few LED lights that we normally leave on in the rooms with glass doors that lead to the entrance hall. So, for me I would guess at 90-95% shifting and the rest would be elimination at the expense of comfort and convenience.

It's become my little game and challenge. I can't say it's that financially rewarding but I'm approaching £20 for my efforts so far this season so not to be sniffed at.

Each to their own, I guess.

I should also add that I shift the scheduled hot water boost by an hour and jiffle the heating a bit so as to reduce the pump run time during the event. A small nuisance but it helps increase the reward a bit.

[WizzyWigg]

Originally Posted by JoeSoap

........I think this misses the point of the scheme as it's about shifting energy use to a different time rather than eliminating it...

Afternoon JoeSoap I had a feeling you would say that 😂. You are definitely correct but........😉

[JoeSoap]

Originally Posted by WizzyWigg

Afternoon JoeSoap I had a feeling you would say that 😂. You are definitely correct but........😉

But what?…

[WizzyWigg]

Originally Posted by JoeSoap

But what?…

But. I have to totally agree with @Andy65 on all the points made.

[JoeSoap]

Originally Posted by WizzyWigg

But. I have to totally agree with @Andy65 on all the points made.

Then that includes the bit that those who gain will be mainly those who waste electricity.

[WizzyWigg]

Originally Posted by JoeSoap

Then that includes the bit that those who gain will be mainly those who waste electricity.

Taken in context, yes.
"Those who will gain will be mainly people who essentially waste electricity, but that's their choice if they're paying for it. To financially incentivise people just for switching unnecessary stuff off seems bonkers to me."

[JoeSoap]

Originally Posted by WizzyWigg

Taken in context, yes.
"Those who will gain will be mainly people who essentially waste electricity, but that's their choice if they're paying for it. To financially incentivise people just for switching unnecessary stuff off seems bonkers to me."

Sorry, but the incentive is not just for switching unnecessary stuff off. That incentive is always there. The incentive is for shifting the usage to a different time. That’s not to say you can’t win-win by turning off some stuff that you normally choose to have on for comfort or convenience in that period in order to relieve the load on the grid and earn a few more pennies.

Switching the oven on when it’s empty or lighting upstairs when no-one is up there is unnecessary. Whoever does that is wasting money. Having some ambient lights on for pleasure is a different matter to me. Switching some off for an hour to reduce the demand on the grid and earn a few pennies is a bonus to the shifting.

[WizzyWigg]

As ever @JoeSoap you are correct 👍, but it does give that impression.
If only everyone thought the same way as yourself and the other learned members.
I know it comes down to the perfect world scenario again.

[JoeSoap]

Originally Posted by WizzyWigg

As ever @JoeSoap you are correct 👍, but it does give that impression.
If only everyone thought the same way as yourself and the other learned members.
I know it comes down to the perfect world scenario again.

I don't know if I'm correct or not but it's how I see it. I'm certainly not correct all the time or even most of the time 😂. The incentives offered are to bring about a reduction in electricity demand at peak times. That seems fair enough to me in the context of the trial that it is. Some choose to kill the power and light a candle for an hour... I think that's ridiculous but it's their choice.

The reality is though that folks are not switching off heavy consuming appliances that would be running unnecessarily but merely unnecessarily in that particular high demand period. We all cook, use the washing machine and perhaps tumble drier, heat water, have a cup of tea and many working folk will be doing all of those when they get home from work. The reward will come by doing those things outside of the event window. Living in the dark for an hour when you would normally choose not to is just tinkering around the edges and helping ensure you hit the target.

The financial reward is not from the reduction in your daily electric consumption, although maybe a little bit from reducing ambient lighting or something, but from the amount that is credited to your account for hitting the target.

I appreciate you know all this but it helps readers make decisions and form opinions by looking at things from all angles.