In article , Home Guy wrote:


Those people should be making the case against smart meters based on the
stupidity of spending hundreds per house (and millions on communications
and new billing software) to *more precisely allocate* a few dozen kwh
worth of electricity use per home per month.

The truth is that - individual residental homes - don't comsume enough
electricity to warrant the cost for ultra-precise time-of-use metering
and billing.

Another truth is that smart meters is really all about eliminating
meter-reading. The time-of-use aspect is what is put forward
publically, and as I stated above even that argument doesn't hold water.

Strange, but California has more people than any other state, but the lowest
energy consumption. That isn't/wasn't due to smart readers, but for those
unenlightened states (texas comes to mind...almost twice the per capita energy
use) the actual ability to tap into the potential uses of the smart meters might
lower energy use for these poor souls.

I'd also imagine that over some period of time, 5 or 10 years, not having to
have the overhead of meter readers will more than pay for the smart meters, thus
helping to stabilize costs to the consumers




That is the best ammunition to use against the smart meter.

If you really are concerned about excessive RF/EMI/microwave exposure,
then put a metal enclosure around the smart meter (and connect the
enclosure to ground). And turn off your wifi broad-band router while
you're at it. And cancel your cell phone service and go back to
touch-tone land-line.