LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksCookie, the comment you've used was made by Richard Toll, not the SEI.
Cookie, the comment you've used was made by Richard Toll, not the SEI.
A demagogue is someone who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.
You have something to dispute them with?Originally Posted by goosebump
A poster of some consequence...
Yes. The mathematical certainty that if you properly insulate a poorly insulated house in becomes more comfortable when it is cold outside.
A demagogue is someone who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.
It seems absurd that houses that were built as recently as 2006 could possibly qualify for this support.
What a country!
A Munster twilight far from the venal roar...
I am not supporting the GP by saying this, but...i applied to have home insulation improved last year, wall + attic; total cost 1900 euro less my grant from SEI of 650 euro, cost to me 1250.
By this time next year i will have saved the money spent.
Don't keep knocking just for the sake of it!! this insulation project is worth every cent.
I got my house done last November as did most of my neighbours. The street was built c.1950. It certainly made a big difference comfort wise. I would say last winter everybody's heating costs were above normal compared to previous years.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That's because decent energy standards for new buildings weren't introduced until 2007.
Worth breaking my "no sig" rule for:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
From the report:
Sounds like a total wash-out all right.The research has found that the Warmer Homes Scheme has had a significant impact on reducing fuel poverty. This is evidenced by a significant decline in the number of intervention households reporting difficulty in being able to afford to heat their home in winter to
a temperature that is comfortable, a significant decline in the proportion of intervention households not using rooms in their home because they are not heated or too cold, and a significant decline in
the number of intervention households finding it difficult to pay their utility bills on time. Taken collectively, shifts in these indicators point to the Warmer Homes Scheme having made a positive contribution to reducing the level of fuel poverty among intervention households.
Worth breaking my "no sig" rule for:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Now all we have to do is work out how the energy poor can afford the necessary improvements.
Regards, Pat Gill
The problem with the initiative is that it fails to account for the fact that home ownership is low amongst people living in fuel poverty or in cold homes. There is a strong correlation between low incomes, living in rented accomodation and unacceptably cold housing/or very high heating bills. Likewise use of dirty fuels such as coal are huge amongst this group.
The big difficulty also is that "cold" housing is rather difficult to measure. I understand that acceptable levels of heating should be 17c or more. However this might not be attainable if the heating method is unsuitable or there is insufficient or non-existent insulation. But the only way to measure this would be to turn on or start up heating, turn it up to full power and set a thermometer to measure over an entire season.
I live in a rented flat and even by setting the storage heating to full power I still find that about 50% of the flat couldn't get above 10-12c this winter, due to absence of proper insulation. Now obviously a grant to insulate would be unsuitable since it would require my landlord to carry out the work. But also, since I am an above-average earner, it would be considered unacceptable. However most of the people living in the same house are probably on low incomes or welfare, so forcing the landlord to insulate and replace heating on the entire house might be more effective, though difficult.
This was a badly planned initiative from the start. There should have been better studies not only into who and where the cold housing was, but as to how legally landlords of substandard levels of accomodation could be forced into compliance.
Personally this could have been achieved via introducing a licensing system for landlords (like the taxi industry) - to remove landlords with a criminal past, vested interests and only grant it if minimum standards are met.
Then fine them on a daily basis. If they can establish daily fines for non complaince in law for the PRTB then why is it ok to rent out slum accomodation?
Reply With Quote