Heat in the home

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.

My central heating is set for what range?

I don't have central heating
8
13%
below 18
22
35%
18-20
24
39%
21-22
3
5%
23-25
2
3%
25-plus
3
5%
 
Total votes: 62

axel_knutt
Posts: 3126
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:20pm

Re: Heat in the home

Post by axel_knutt »

PDQ Mobile wrote: 3 Jun 2024, 12:42pm ^^.
Absolutely spot on.
My standing charge was more than my electric onsumed for some months last year!
Which doubles the KWH cost to an eye watering 60 pence (approx) a unit.

I do feel I am subsidising the profligate and those with over generous feed in tariffs.

A green dream of using less severely dented.
Mike Sales wrote: 3 Jun 2024, 12:53pm In a sane world your green line tariff would be the norm.
I've been advocating this for nearly a decade, and this is the first time I've seen anyone recognise the merit of it. It's just barking mad to reward the profligate at the expense of the frugal if you want to cut emissions and still have the poor able to afford to heat their homes.
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
simonineaston
Posts: 8325
Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
Location: ...at a cricket ground

Re: Heat in the home

Post by simonineaston »

Further to Jonathan's recent helpful link, there's a para in the letter the energy minister sent him (ML, not Jon...) which is exactly the sort of mealy-mouthed and duplicitous flimflam I've come to expect from this gov.
screenshot of minister's reply
screenshot of minister's reply
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
axel_knutt
Posts: 3126
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:20pm

Re: Heat in the home

Post by axel_knutt »

The problem with consumer choice is that the frugal will choose flat rate tariffs and the profligate will choose a standing charges, so you're back to a regressive system overall.

We need a progressive system for all, otherwise you're forever caught in a bind where measures to tackle fuel poverty exacerbate climate change, and measures to tackle climate change cause more fuel poverty.
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 5843
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Heat in the home

Post by Cugel »

axel_knutt wrote: 5 Jun 2024, 1:47pm The problem with consumer choice is that the frugal will choose flat rate tariffs and the profligate will choose a standing charges, so you're back to a regressive system overall.

We need a progressive system for all, otherwise you're forever caught in a bind where measures to tackle fuel poverty exacerbate climate change, and measures to tackle climate change cause more fuel poverty.
Quite so. So what's one obvious contribution to a solution? Stop infrastructure services with damaging side effects from being profit-making businesses, making them instead organisations striving to make the service efficient, affordable and cleaner. If electricity production and distribution is meant to be a service why allow it to be suborned by another highly damaging service (money-making) available only to a tiny few known as shareholders?

Isn't this the crux of the privatisation con trick? Organisations that used to focus on making useful things now focus only on making money.
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
axel_knutt
Posts: 3126
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:20pm

Re: Heat in the home

Post by axel_knutt »

Cugel wrote: 5 Jun 2024, 5:40pm
axel_knutt wrote: 5 Jun 2024, 1:47pm The problem with consumer choice is that the frugal will choose flat rate tariffs and the profligate will choose a standing charges, so you're back to a regressive system overall.

We need a progressive system for all, otherwise you're forever caught in a bind where measures to tackle fuel poverty exacerbate climate change, and measures to tackle climate change cause more fuel poverty.
Quite so. So what's one obvious contribution to a solution? Stop infrastructure services with damaging side effects from being profit-making businesses, making them instead organisations striving to make the service efficient, affordable and cleaner. If electricity production and distribution is meant to be a service why allow it to be suborned by another highly damaging service (money-making) available only to a tiny few known as shareholders?

Isn't this the crux of the privatisation con trick? Organisations that used to focus on making useful things now focus only on making money.
It ought to be possible to get private companies to be effective with adequately defined objectives, and proper regulation. It seems that half the time regulators either aren't doing their job, or are hamstrung by obtuse legislation. Prof Mildred Warner at Cornell did some interesting research, and found that from comparing ~30,000 companies worldwide that there was no systematic difference in efficiency between public and private.
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 5843
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Heat in the home

Post by Cugel »

axel_knutt wrote: 5 Jun 2024, 6:02pm
It ought to be possible to get private companies to be effective with adequately defined objectives, and proper regulation. It seems that half the time regulators either aren't doing their job, or are hamstrung by obtuse legislation. Prof Mildred Warner at Cornell did some interesting research, and found that from comparing ~30,000 companies worldwide that there was no systematic difference in efficiency between public and private.
How was "efficiency" defined in that study? More often than not the efficiency in such studies refers to the monetary cost/benefit dimension of the business or public service whilst ignoring the many other and much more important kinds of efficiency, such as quality of service, degree of peripheral damages and other aspects and effects of any such enterprise.

Your post was highlighting the fact that private electricity selling, like any commercial business selling stuff, seeks to sell as much as it can for the highest price it can get, whilst laying off costs it can avoid on to other domains, such as taxpayers or the environment. This encourages profligate use and increases the peripheral damages, often at a cost to those who can least afford electricity and live in circumstances blighted by the more damaging aspects of the business.

And, as we know, much of the profits made go to external agents rather than into reinvestment for service improvements. Those profits also go to a tiny number of people rather than benefiting everyone within the serviced population.

Of late, we've also learned that many large businesses with effective monopolies and government contracts that can't allow them to fail - because they're public infrastructure services - are using their excessive opportunities to borrow and speculate in finance capitalism's various usuries, with the infrastructure service and their contract as some sport of collateral. When the business goes Ts-up, the taxpayer can also be left with the financial losses and owings.

************
Once upon a time, many businesses operated with in a matrix of constraints and considerations other than making money at any price. They were, in some degree or another, ethical. Those times are long over, especially with businesses owned by large international business organisations, financial speculators and the corrupt cabals of Toryspiv donors, old boys and others of The New Model Aristocracy.

Nationalise them. No compensation.
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
Biospace
Posts: 2348
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Heat in the home

Post by Biospace »

Cugel wrote: 5 Jun 2024, 6:57pm ...
Once upon a time, many businesses operated with in a matrix of constraints and considerations other than making money at any price. They were, in some degree or another, ethical. Those times are long over, especially with businesses owned by large international business organisations, financial speculators and the corrupt cabals of Toryspiv donors, old boys and others of The New Model Aristocracy.

Nationalise them. No compensation.
I agree. But will the new Labour lot be too considering of its big business friends, The City and its wealthy voters?

https://www.survation.com/new-poll-publ ... utilities/
axel_knutt
Posts: 3126
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:20pm

Re: Heat in the home

Post by axel_knutt »

Cugel wrote: 5 Jun 2024, 6:57pm And, as we know, much of the profits made go to external agents rather than into reinvestment for service improvements. Those profits also go to a tiny number of people rather than benefiting everyone within the serviced population.

Of late, we've also learned that many large businesses with effective monopolies and government contracts that can't allow them to fail - because they're public infrastructure services - are using their excessive opportunities to borrow and speculate in finance capitalism's various usuries, with the infrastructure service and their contract as some sport of collateral. When the business goes Ts-up, the taxpayer can also be left with the financial losses and owings.
But set against that, the government can use profits to fund tax cuts instead of investment too, water was privatised so that the public could blame the companies for lack of investment instead of the government. Public or private, the problem could be fixed with adequate regulation, but it doesn't happen because people vote for consumer goodies before public services. I think it's easier for the government to regulate if they can distance themselves from a company who can be seen to be to blame though.

It's swings & roundabouts, with pros & cons either way, I think that's what Warner was getting at.
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 5843
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Heat in the home

Post by Cugel »

axel_knutt wrote: 6 Jun 2024, 12:49pm
Cugel wrote: 5 Jun 2024, 6:57pm And, as we know, much of the profits made go to external agents rather than into reinvestment for service improvements. Those profits also go to a tiny number of people rather than benefiting everyone within the serviced population.

Of late, we've also learned that many large businesses with effective monopolies and government contracts that can't allow them to fail - because they're public infrastructure services - are using their excessive opportunities to borrow and speculate in finance capitalism's various usuries, with the infrastructure service and their contract as some sport of collateral. When the business goes Ts-up, the taxpayer can also be left with the financial losses and owings.
But set against that, the government can use profits to fund tax cuts instead of investment too, water was privatised so that the public could blame the companies for lack of investment instead of the government. Public or private, the problem could be fixed with adequate regulation, but it doesn't happen because people vote for consumer goodies before public services. I think it's easier for the government to regulate if they can distance themselves from a company who can be seen to be to blame though.

It's swings & roundabouts, with pros & cons either way, I think that's what Warner was getting at.
It's certainly possible for a government-owned organisation to become careless, poorly-run or even corrupt. More-so if its a government-run organisation, since many politicians who are put in charge have no experience or idea of the necessary understanding and skills at all. Many civil service departments were badly degraded by the Thatcher government's insistence on a much greater hands-on by various ideologically-barmy ministers, for example.

But government-owned organisations don't have to be useless at what they do, even if they have a monopoly. I've worked in government departments of various sorts that had long traditions of evolving methods, which often had brought about a very well-run service. Those with an independent management (and, if possible, budget) tended to be the best. Pride in a good public service was definitely a thing for many.

Contrast that with any profit-making organisation. The objectives of the goods production or service-giving are always trumped by the desire and need for more profits. There used to be (and still are one or three) private profit-making organisations that had pride-of-work elements as well as the profit motive. But that need to service a bottom line is always ready to corrupt other motives.

The better-behaving profit-making private businesses tend to be those with not only a long tradition, inclusive of many different links to their surrounding society, but those that are involved in matters where the profit-making is easy or even guaranteed. But even these can be corrupted by the wrong sort of modern CEO, accountant or the greedy shareholders. Once the corruption of more profit-at-any-cost has infected sich organisations, they never seem to return to better ways of behaviour. Often, they become vast parasites (see banking and insurance-providers for details) or just fail, sometimes with spectacular damage ensuing .... paid for by guess-who.
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
Jdsk
Posts: 26400
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Heat in the home

Post by Jdsk »

It ought to be possible to get private companies to be effective with adequately defined objectives, and proper regulation. It seems that half the time regulators either aren't doing their job, or are hamstrung by obtuse legislation. Prof Mildred Warner at Cornell did some interesting research, and found that from comparing ~30,000 companies worldwide that there was no systematic difference in efficiency between public and private.
How was "efficiency" defined in that study? More often than not the efficiency in such studies refers to the monetary cost/benefit dimension of the business or public service whilst ignoring the many other and much more important kinds of efficiency, such as quality of service, degree of peripheral damages and other aspects and effects of any such enterprise.
...
In case anyone is interested in Warner's research:
https://cals.cornell.edu/mildred-e-warner#about

and her editorial in the 2018 special issue: "Key issues in water privatization and remunicipalization":
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 872100134X

She's well worth reading on public needs beyond financial returns and on alternative models of provision.

Jonathan
User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 11854
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Think Cheddar and Cider
Contact:

Re: Heat in the home

Post by al_yrpal »

Now its getting warmer we switched our a/c on....
IMG_20240620_171722638_HDR.jpg
Its been reported that some folk in heavily insulated homes have to switch on electric air conditioners to keep cool :lol:

Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
Biospace
Posts: 2348
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Heat in the home

Post by Biospace »

Yes, higher ceilings and sash windows are delightful in warmer weather.

I really struggle with the idea of air conditioning becoming normalised in countries with climates such as Britain and Ireland, but of course it feeds the great consumer gods and further removes people from the natural world around us.
User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 11854
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Think Cheddar and Cider
Contact:

Re: Heat in the home

Post by al_yrpal »

Yes, its absolutely delightful. I guess the modern trend of having patio doors could be good. Cracking open the upper sash at night enables warm air to escape and helps cool bedrooms to comfortable temperatures too.
I hear that Angela Rayner is keen to change new housing from tiny little monotonous insulated boxes to something a bit more traditional and pleasing....

Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
Nearholmer
Posts: 4575
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: Heat in the home

Post by Nearholmer »

Very good insulation, relatively small windows, exterior sun-shades, ideally with movable flaps, and highly controllable natural ventilation are plenty good enough for our climate ….. in fact they work in much more extreme climates too. Genuinely vernacular buildings, as opposed to Victorian industrial era buildings, which often have poor insulation and too big windows, get it right.

Air con is generally a big mistake, although it may arrive in the form of reversible air-source heat pump systems.
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 5843
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Heat in the home

Post by Cugel »

Ha ha - you sash window lads! Lookit all that pollen, flies and pollutant wafting in! You'll probably need to double your inhaler order. :-)

Here in the modern house, always at exactly the required temperature, humidity and air flow for each individual room, there's no sneezin' or batting the flies off the jam tarts since the aircon filters keep the rascals out. The solar panels churn out oodles of lecky to run them, although it mostly goes to the grid for nowt at this time of year since the mini-split air conditioners use so little, as they quietly improve the air.

Still, I understand the appeal of old traditions, no matter how uncomfortable. Why have a heat pump when you can have a nice old-fashioned smokey-dirty wood stove? And how are the straw mattresses when it gets a bit warm at night? I imagine it can be a bit tedious keeping the bedbugs down to manageable levels.

*************
I notice we've had no heat wave yet but such things are much more likely than they used to be. When its 30 degrees or more outside will you still have them windows wide open or will it then be close 'em and draw the curtains agin' the dang sunshine, as one sits in the dim, on an old Georgian chair with scuttle legs clutching a ball with claws, the sweat oozing all sticky and clammy?
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
Post Reply