Energy saving obstructed?

maxmycardagain

wild666 said:

Back in the early 80's when I got my first home the electric and gas bills were just a set of numbers I didn't understand but by the late 80's I was taking readings and doing calculations on my energy bills.
The wife was a if I want it on I will have it on type of person and the thermostat was set at 27 degrees and she had the heating on in summer even if it was in the mid 20's outside and the heating was on 24/7. When she realised that I had being reducing the thermostat by one degrees per fortnight she went ballistic but she didn't realise until it had being at 19 degrees for a few months no " I'm cold turn the heating on or check the heating?" It was open the patio door time! Then 30 minutes later I'm cold shut the patio doors. 

What did the divorce cost you? 

maxmycardagain

We are both on blood thinners, 21 degrees is about right for us

wild666

Ectophile said:

More likely, because she's been telling everyone that there's no shortage of energy and there's nothing to worry about.

So a campaign telling everyone how to cut their energy usage risks making the public think she's lying.

A politician telling the truth that'll be a first!

wild666

Ultrasonic said:

I've not tried to look into the details of what was blocked but I've been saying for a while now that more of a lead from the government to encourage more people to use less energy would be welcome, and in particular it would be desperately dumb if we end up having any sort of organised power cuts without this having happened.

Do the politicians want us to use less so they have more for their heated swimming pools?

Ultrasonic

matelodave said:

TBH the way to get people to use less is to make it more expensive rather than giving out heaps of money and limiting the price of energy just encourages people to not bother.

Telling people to turn stuff off and close doors won't do it.

For me the action of people during the worst periods of the covid pandemic show what can be achieved if the public feel invested in what is going on. I don't accept that if a clear enough case were made for a need to reduce energy usage that a least a huge proportion of people wouldn't take action to do so.

At the basic level, were clear messaging put out about reducing energy usage at particular times then I probably do so without a financial incentive.

Sea_Shell

Ultrasonic said:

matelodave said:

TBH the way to get people to use less is to make it more expensive rather than giving out heaps of money and limiting the price of energy just encourages people to not bother.

Telling people to turn stuff off and close doors won't do it.

For me the action of people during the worst periods of the covid pandemic show what can be achieved if the public feel invested in what is going on. I don't accept that if a clear enough case were made for a need to reduce energy usage that a least a huge proportion of people wouldn't take action to do so.

At the basic level, were clear messaging put out about reducing energy usage at particular times then I probably do so without a financial incentive.

The problem they then face is "scaring" the elderly or vulnerable so much, that they don't heat their house sufficiently, even if then can afford it.

They could take "doing their bit" too far, to the detriment of their health.

I seem to recall the government being surprised by how well the majority behaved during lockdowns.

Older generations are probably more likely to do as they're "advised" by TPTB.

Ultrasonic

Sea_Shell said:

Ultrasonic said:

matelodave said:

TBH the way to get people to use less is to make it more expensive rather than giving out heaps of money and limiting the price of energy just encourages people to not bother.

Telling people to turn stuff off and close doors won't do it.

For me the action of people during the worst periods of the covid pandemic show what can be achieved if the public feel invested in what is going on. I don't accept that if a clear enough case were made for a need to reduce energy usage that a least a huge proportion of people wouldn't take action to do so.

At the basic level, were clear messaging put out about reducing energy usage at particular times then I probably do so without a financial incentive.

The problem they then face is "scaring" the elderly or vulnerable so much, that they don't heat their house sufficiently, even if then can afford it.

They could take "doing their bit" too far, to the detriment of their health.

I seem to recall the government being surprised by how well the majority behaved during lockdowns.

Older generations are probably more likely to do as they're "advised" by TPTB.

That's a fair point but this should be possible to largely minimise with good communication from the government. Which is not to say I have as much faith in this being achieved as I should.

basketcase

RobM99 said:

Some people still think the £2,500 really is a 'price cap'. 

Including one Ms Elizabeth Truss, IIRC...

TheGardener

Advertising works - repeat adverts on primetime TV and across all social media. If it didn't, the multi-billion pound advertising industry wouldn't exist. We are all told ad nauseam what to buy, how to look, what to eat, where to go on holiday...why should being informed about our energy use cause such upset?

More information is needed. Even just this morning, an article on the BBC website about insulation carried the line ..." domestic bills will be capped at £2,500..' It has since been edited to include the word 'average' and a link to further explain how the cap actually works. 

An interesting moral debate occurred in an ethics podcast I subscribe to: the debate was centered around the fact that if the gov is using public funds to cap the energy costs - and if that intervention is not going to become 'baked into' the annual gov spending (and our tax bills) - is there an obligation on us all to use less? There were some interesting comments and analogies about whether a 'fair share' policy should be considered for example, should you be able to heat your swimming pool or floodlight your mansion at a capped rate? In the same way you can't get cosmetic dentistry/surgery on the NHS or a Maserati on a mobility car contract. 

It wasn't so long ago that drinking and driving home was 'normal' Public information campaigns were a large part of what changed that culture. 

No real conclusion or consensus was reached among the panel - but it was good to hear a conversation happening. 

FreeBear

wild666 said: The wife was a if I want it on I will have it on type of person and the thermostat was set at 27 degrees and she had the heating on in summer even if it was in the mid 20's outside and the heating was on 24/7. When she realised that I had being reducing the thermostat by one degrees per fortnight she went ballistic but she didn't realise until it had being at 19 degrees for a few months no " I'm cold turn the heating on or check the heating?" It was open the patio door time! Then 30 minutes later I'm cold shut the patio doors. 

One advantage of modern technology - If you have "smart" heating, set a password for the app that only you know. Then only you can adjust the timings & temperature.

When I fitted my control system, I left the old thermostat in place. Lodgers & visitors are free to fiddle with it as much as they like, but only I can set the temperature and turn the heating on. So far, no arguments about being cold If anything, the complaint one of being too hot when I have the fire lit in the lounge.