Stephen said
"All the gas firms are private owned now and the likelyhood of them sending a
gasman out to take your readings let alone needlessly swap out working
machinery is next to zero."
Yet again, Stephen is pontificating on a subject on which he has no knowledge
whatsoever.
Personally, I'd rather believe BBC Watchdog. They say 1 million meters are
replaced yearly. Every meter that is replaced is replaced with a new metric
meter (not a dual meter as Steve has tried to suggest)
There are many potential reasons for replacing working meters. The most common
is when a gas supplier insists on replacing a normal meter with a "pay as you
go" meter due to their clients previous poor payment history. In today's
financial climate, I can see this becoming even more common.
Anyone that then purchases a house with a "pay as you go" meter is likely to
have their supplier switch it back to a normal meter, as PAYG is the most
expensive way to purchase gas. As I have said, all replacement meters are
calibrated in metric.
Gas meters have an average life of approx 20 years, so there will be imperial
meters around for some time to come, but their share of the market is
decreasing yearly.
--- On Wed, 1/4/09, Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com>
Subject: [USMA:44273] Re: More gassy feet
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 1 April, 2009, 9:20 AM
#yiv991868968 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv991868968 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
In all honesty I really don't think there is a programme of replacing meters
to "make them all metric".
Everyone I know probably has a cu-ft meter - I say this because everyone I know
does not have a house that was built recently (recently built houses probably
do have metric ones, or even electronic switchable ones - I haven't seen one).
Ours is certainly a cu-ft one - works well enough. Our house was built in the
early 70's.
I have yet to hear of someone who has had a request for engineers to come in
and swap out a working gas meter to change units. Basically it ain't happening!
Meter readings are rarely even taken - usually estimates are calculated on past
usage.
You can phone in newer readings if you want to make the estimates more
accurate. Or you can send them in.
All the gas firms are private owned now and the likelyhood of them sending a
gasman out to take your readings let alone needlessly swap out working
machinery is next to zero.
However - if I do hear of someone who's been contacted by their gas company
because they want to replace a working gas meter with another working gas meter
then I shall be as honest as ever and post that information here. Since I don't
hold any strong opinion one way or another whether my gas meter is charged in
one unit or another I see no benefit in withholding such "behind the scenes"
information.
SteveH
(PS. After 10pm UK time expect a response about "half-truths" that add nothing
to the debate!)
> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:51:09 -0700
> From: xez...@yahoo.com
> Subject: [USMA:44271] Re: More gassy feet
> To: usma@colostate.edu
>
>
>
> That *is* weird. Why should they have to swap out all the meters just to
> change the units? For
> mechanical meters, you just change the labels behind the dials. For digital
> ones, you should only
> need to upgrade the firmware. Maybe the old meters are being taken back to a
> shop somewhere,
> converted like that, and then reinstalled at the next place? Or maybe they
> really are just
> wasting all that money.
>
> Changing your units really shouldn't need to be all that costly for these
> kinds of things. I mean
> come on, people, it's basically just relabeling.
>
> --- Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Please note that my example was to show how it started off and how it ended
> > (ie in kw/h, with
> > which I don't know the answer to your question). Lee ('Ken') had done his
> > usual mega-twisting
> > of what I had said just to ensure that his purpose here (attacking any
> > contribution by me) was
> > fulfilled and I just wanted you to realise this (is this the John S-MI from
> > the old boards?).
> > I'm sure most already do.
> > I wonder if anyone knows how many moving parts exist in a gas meter to
> > justify the idea that 1
> > million would need replacing each year?
> > Loads of things go wrong with central heating etc but I've never had a
> > meter (not metre!) go
> > wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:41:55 -0700
> > From: jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net
> > Subject: [USMA:44267] Re: More gassy feet
> > To: usma@colostate.edu
> >
> > This site shows the calculations in a little more detail
> > http://www.gas-guide.org.uk/meters.html
> >
> > It would appear from the example that the gas has a heat content of 39.25
> > MJ/m³ and that they
> > calculate the energy used first in megajoules, which many of us would argue
> > is more correct,
> > then convert it to kilowatt-hours.
> >
> > What is the rationale for billing in kilowatt-hours?
> >
> > --- On Tue, 3/31/09, Ken Cooper <k_cooper1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ken Cooper <k_cooper1...@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: [USMA:44265] Re: More gassy feet
> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
> > Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 7:05 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Why do you miss out all the calculations between "hcf" and "kWh" Stephen?
> >
> > Is that because the first calculation is to convert the "hcf" figure to
> > cubic metres.
> >
> > You are right about one thing, however. All gas suppliers take a figure
> > expressed in cubic
> > metres & use the same calculation to arrive at kWh
> >
> > If anyone is still in doubt as to how it's really done in the UK, heres a
> > link to BBC Watchdog's
> > site. Watchdog is the UK's most watched consumer TV programme
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/consumer_advice/latest_meters_pic..shtml
> >
> > Here's the main point of the article (my emphasis)
> >
> > On Watchdog 12 January 2008 we showed how a mix-up with two different types
> > of gas meter, has
> > led to customers being overcharged by thousands of pounds. The mix-up
> > typically occurs when
> > older imperial meters are changed to modern metric ones. For some reason,
> > in a number of cases,
> > the energy supplier has not recognised the meter changes when calculating
> > bills. Around 1
> > million imperial meters are replaced with metric ones every year.
> >
> > The article goes on to picture both types of meter & explain how to do the
> > various calculations
> > to convert to kWh
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 31/3/09, Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com>
> > Subject: [USMA:44264] Re: Wood energy units
> > Date: Tuesday, 31 March, 2009, 10:19 PM
> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" usma@colostate.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > As promised - I checked the bill - here is what is on the bill:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------
> > We measure the amount of gas you use in hcf.
> >
> > We use the following the following translation to translate to
> > kilowatt-hours (kWh):
> >
> > <list of calculations to get it to kWh>
> > ------------------------------
> > At the end it says:
> > ------------------------------
> > All gas suppliers use the same calculation.
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 04:38:18 -0700
> > From: jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net
> > Subject: [USMA:44251] Re: Wood energy units
> > To: usma@colostate.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, BTU are handy for "naming" models of air conditioners, sure to confuse
> > the customer.
> >
> > Are they legal for trade in selling natural gas, LPG, etc? It is my
> > understanding when these
> > commodities are metered, the volume is converted to heat content measured
> > in kilowatt-hours and
> > charged accordingly.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 3/31/09, Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com>
> > Subject: [USMA:44249] Re: Wood energy units
> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
> > Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 4:45 AM
> >
> >
> > John,
> > We haven't abandoned BTU's (/hr) - pop into any DIY store and you'll see
> > them mingling with the
> > aircons and central heating systems.
> >
> > In B&Q they show you how to calculate the number of BTU/h that you need etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:20:35 -0700
> > From: jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net
> > Subject: [USMA:44245] Re: Wood energy units
> > To: usma@colostate.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, the variability of the calorie is why it is deprecated (for 61 years);
> > well, also because
> > it is not coherent. The BTU obviously has exactly the same problems; if any
> > organization were
> > in charge of Customary/Imperial units, it would be deprecated too. EIA uses
> > the BTU-IT. (Since
> > the British have abandoned the BTU, perhaps it should be renamed the ATU)
> >
> > Using one unit for all thermal energy, even if it is the wrong unit, is far
> > superior to barrels
> > of oil, tons of coal, cubic feet of gas, etc. If the BTU were deprecated,
> > and they insisted on
> > remaining with Customary units, they'd have to use foot-pounds for thermal
> > energy. I don't even
> > want to bother. Let them keep BTU for the moment as dual, but teach them to
> > use the joule
> > properly. Then we can start the rant about the variability of the BTU.
> >
> > By the way, the differences in BTU values undoubtedly pale compared to the
> > uncertainties in the
> > energy estimates. Those are not collected with any great precision by EIA.
> > But the EIA figures
> > are the best available (for the US) and anybody talking about energy is
> > going to set the stage
> > with a comparison to EIA totals or sector totals. Since the EIA has told us
> > to pound sand on
> > joules, that means BTUs.
> >
> > --- On Mon, 3/30/09, Pat Naughtin <pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > From: Pat Naughtin <pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com>
> > Subject: [USMA:44243] Re: Wood energy units
> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
> > Date: Monday, March 30, 2009, 3:26 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear John,
> >
> >
> > The BTU and the calorie share a common problem in that they both vary with
> > temperature. A
> > calorie at 20 °C is not the same as a calorie at 37 °C. And the same is
> > true for any of the
> > BTUs. The differences are not great but when you multiply these small
> > differences to discuss
> > issues like the energy consumption of the whole of the USA these small
> > differences become
> > significant.
> >
> >
> > You might be interested in an article that I wrote on this issue during the
> > 2008 election
> > campaign in the USA. The article covers a number of science issues
> > including energy. Although it
> > was written with the USA firmly in mind, I also think that this also places
> > energy units in a
> > broader international context. You can find this at:
> > http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/AMetricationElephant..pdf
> >
> >
> > I also wrote to Professor Richter as follows:
> >
> >
> > Dear Professor Daniel D. Richter,
> >
> >
> > I understand from a friend in the USA that you are still using the units
> > quads and British
> > Thermal units in your article in 'Science' magazine (2009-03-09).
> >
> >
> > You might be interested in this short letter that I wrote to the Barack
> > Obama Energy and
> > Environment Policy Team. I think that this places energy units in an
> > international and
> > historical context. See:
> > http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/ObamaEnergyPower.pdf
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>
Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free. Try it Now!
