Fuel Poverty

Joe it was that for an hour on the spot market, and refining costs are up because their are fewer refineries, most are independent now as the big boys got out due to lower profits.

Also as oil is bought in dollars the exchange rate is another factor.

And as you say taxes have added to the mix.
 
And among those different issues could be a health issue. Or having to spend more money in the long run on heating trying to dry out the consequences of the extra moisture you are generating. Which is different to times past e.g. if you were drying the clothes beside a coal fire that was burning all day / or on radiators heated by a soild fuel back boiler. Try that now and tell me how much it costs today versus back then.

A tumble dryer is not in the same league as the other things you have listed. Look up the regs for rental accomodation and you'll see a tumble dryer listed as a requirement where the property does not have access to a yard or garden for drying clothes.

People got by without washing machines for a long time too, so not sure why you picked out tumble dryers. Can't you get by without a washing machine too? Or heat in Ireland about 80% (insert more accurate percentage here) of the time it's put on it's not 'essential' (whatever essential means) more about being comfortable \ dry property versus staving off hypothermia.
 
Last edited:
T McGibney said:
If you're running a low income household, two of everything in a school uniform might be seen as quite a luxury, especially with children growing out of clothes all the time.
Click to expand...
Shirts/tops and trousers are cheap and can be bought in Dunnes or Penny's. The jumper is the only expensive bit. You just buy them a bit big at the start of the year. I've got three of them through school without a dryer. If it was a real emergency the radiator or one of those dryers at the petrol stations is always an option.
I never sent them to school in damp clothes.
 
joe sod said:
If anyone needs a break it's the people that drive to work every day and keep this country running
Click to expand...
The last thing we should do is subsidize driving. First stop driving where possible (work from home). Then promote alternatives (walking, cycling and public transport). Lastly, if there's no alternative, then target any supports at those who need it only.
 
I think you're really stretching things now. The regulations for rental accommodation are ridiculous. The house I rent certainly isn't up to the required standards and that doesn't bother me at all.

If the wall vents are not blocked and there's central heating (a necessity) there'll be no issue with dampness. A washing machine is a necessity. A Tumble Dryer is not.
Either way this isn't not the core issue around fuel poverty.
 
I agree. Particularly with the WFH option. But vested interests will shout loud on this issue and put pressure to get ppl back into city centres.
 

A very clear and easy example to illustrate the differences between income and wealth.

Using your above example our weekly disposable income per household member is around €65 (5 members). So as you said gives a clearer picture than gross income (which I used to illustrate my initial point).
 
Yes, but neither you nor I are heading a low income household. Doing so brings all sorts of pressures. For example a single parent may find it difficult to get to a petrol station at short notice if there's no-one else there to mind children. And radiators may well be insufficient for thorough drying of clothes.
 
It was part of your opening argument, that lower income households should have lower than average energy requirements.
Tumble dryers were cited but even without them, I really don't think you have remotely justified it.
Central heating is essential and washing machines are essential but tumble dryers are not. For no other reason than your definition of essential.
 
I head a single parent household.
 
Lower income households will have less stuff; fewer TV's, Gaming Consoles, etc and, of course, they will be more tuned in to saving money. That's why you don't see takeaway's a Bookmakers and Off-licences in poorer areas...

When my net monthly disposable income was under €700 I couldn't afford to turn on the heat for more than an hour a day, I never got takeaways, never bought alcohol and fed a family of 4 for €50 a week. If you have a low income you have to adjust your lifestyle accordingly. That or work longer hours or a second job or get a better job.
 
Last edited:
There's a limitless amount of whataboutery that you can throw at this but suggesting that a Tumble Dryer is an essential, or worse that the absence of one can be a health risk, is nonsense.

Edit: According to the CSO in 2016 64.8% of households has a Tumble Dryer. 94.9% had a Washing Machine.
Are 35.2% of households suffering deprivation?!
 
gianni said:
I agree. Particularly with the WFH option. But vested interests will shout loud on this issue and put pressure to get ppl back into city centres.
Click to expand...
Either we keep doing things as we have been doing them and just throw money at the problem. Or else we change our behaviour and work from home more (where possible). Less energy use. Less commuting. Better quality of life. Less housing pressure in the cities. We can't keep pandering to vested interests. Those in fuel poverty have an interest in the decision also.
 
A lower income household might have more members, kids and teenagers, which means more washing, more heating, more cooking etc.

Or it might be a retired couple, one of who is housebound, who feels the cold and has the heating on a lot.

Would we expect people on lower incomes to be living in properties with lower BER ratings?

Versus a high income couple with no kids who are out in an office all day working, eat out a lot etc.

Would we expect people on higher incomes to be living in properties with higher BER ratings?

Maybe, for all we know, those on higher incomes can afford more efficient heating systems, properties, appliances etc

This is what you wrote: "so it's reasonable to think that their bills will be lower than the average"

Has it been established? Not event remotely. And nope, your anecdotes don't even begin to form the basis for it.
 
Last edited:
Purple said:
There's a limitless amount of whataboutery that you can throw at this but suggesting that a Tumble Dryer is an essential, or worse that the absence of one can be a health risk, is nonsense.
Click to expand...
I don't think I suggested either of those things. I did query your claim that lower income households "aren't going to be using Tumble Dryers or other high energy devices", which is itself nonsense.
 
They could indeed, or the opposite could be true. Remember that if they've a plethora of kids then the social transfer they receive will move them out of the bottom third of households by income. Also remember that Pensioners are far less likely to live in poverty than children and, as a cohort, are the richest group in the country.
odyssey06 said:
This is what you wrote: "so it's reasonable to think that their bills will be lower than the average"

Has it been established? Not event remotely. And nope, your anecdotes don't even begin to form the basis for it.
Click to expand...
People on lower incomes have less money than people on higher incomes. In most cases they'll also probably have a lower disposable income. If you have less money you should be spending less on electricity and gas, as, well, you have less money.

Oh, hang on, do you think that heating (and drying clothes) is the only thing that consumed energy in a house?
 
Isn't working from home going to increase domestic energy use, and drive up bills?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register