Interesting article, updated this month. Lengthy, but well worth a read
for anyone interested.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...brary/country-
profiles/countries-t-z/united-kingdom.aspx

Despite the title, has a summary of power generation/availability in the
UK, not just nuclear.

Goes on to discuss ageing nukes, lifetime extensions, plans for new
nukes, decommissioning, energy policy, the market, contracts for
difference, capacity margin, small (modular) reactors, waste disposal,
public opinion, research.

Choice quote:

"UK energy policy since the 2008 Energy Act through to July 2015 has
been built around reducing CO2 emissions rather than security of supply
or cost. In 2010-11 the price of renewable energy certificates doubled
the price or electricity from those sources - an increasing proportion,
including imports - more than one-quarter. Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some 31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

So you see, harry, your tree-hugging loony "enviro" policies are
directly responsible for the rise in prices and the deaths of people due
to energy poverty.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

Excellent link. Confirms the truth ie that green energy is a great way of transferring money from the poor to the rich aswell as putting supply at risk.

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some 31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?

--
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 12/20/2016 4:20 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Interesting article, updated this month. Lengthy, but well worth a read
for anyone interested.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...brary/country-
profiles/countries-t-z/united-kingdom.aspx


Fantastic link, thanks for posting. I'd love to know who wrote it.

En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some 31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how

Why are you asking me? Take it up with the author of the article, or
the ONS, whose data he is citing.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the
winter of 2012-13 some 31,000 excess deaths - mostly people over 75 -
were reported by the Office of National Statistics, the highest
figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how

Why are you asking me? Take it up with the author of the article, or
the ONS, whose data he is citing.

Why did you post it here? To be accepted without comment? If so, please
post your propaganda to a more suitable group.

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 20/12/2016 13:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some 31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?


I've never been that happy with the way they calculate it:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...014to2015final

But there it is.


--
Cheers, Rob

"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 20/12/2016 13:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some 31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?


I've never been that happy with the way they calculate it:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...014to2015final

There isnt a shred of evidence that the winter excess is due to ENERGY
POVERTY.

But there it is.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some 31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?

Office of national Statistics. Published annually. Well known and oft
debated situation sometimes referred to as "heat or eat".
--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some 31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?

Office of national Statistics. Published annually.

But that doesn't show how many died early due to energy poverty.

Well known and oft debated situation sometimes referred to as "heat or
eat".

It is never heat or eat because you can always use
an electric blanket and heat and eat at the same time.

On 20/12/2016 22:13, grjw wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some
31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?

Office of national Statistics. Published annually.

But that doesn't show how many died early due to energy poverty.

Well known and oft debated situation sometimes referred to as "heat or
eat".

It is never heat or eat because you can always use
an electric blanket and heat and eat at the same time.

I have known old people that sit cold in one room with a one bar fire
that they won't turn on because they can't afford to run it 24hrs a day
in winter.

Sometimes you can get social services to help, sometimes you can't.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 20/12/2016 22:13, grjw wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some
31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?

Office of national Statistics. Published annually.

But that doesn't show how many died early due to energy poverty.

Well known and oft debated situation sometimes referred to as "heat or
eat".

It is never heat or eat because you can always use
an electric blanket and heat and eat at the same time.

I have known old people that sit cold in one room with a one bar fire that
they won't turn on because they can't afford to run it 24hrs a day in
winter.

What they should be doing it using what is usually called a heated throw
which is basically an electric blanket that you use on an armchair or sofa.

Sometimes you can get social services to help, sometimes you can't.

On 21/12/16 00:13, grjw wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some
31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?

Office of national Statistics. Published annually.

But that doesn't show how many died early due to energy poverty.

Well known and oft debated situation sometimes referred to as "heat or
eat".

It is never heat or eat because you can always use
an electric blanket and heat and eat at the same time.

Oh ! The 'let them eat cake' of it!

Hint: electricity and food both cost money....

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 21/12/16 00:13, grjw wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some
31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?

Office of national Statistics. Published annually.

But that doesn't show how many died early due to energy poverty.

Well known and oft debated situation sometimes referred to as "heat or
eat".

It is never heat or eat because you can always use
an electric blanket and heat and eat at the same time.

Oh ! The 'let them eat cake' of it!

Hint: electricity and food both cost money....

Hint: an electric throw adds almost nothing to the
cost of the food and so there is no OR involved.

On 21/12/16 07:11, grjw wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 21/12/16 00:13, grjw wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some
31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the
Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?

Office of national Statistics. Published annually.

But that doesn't show how many died early due to energy poverty.

Well known and oft debated situation sometimes referred to as "heat or
eat".

It is never heat or eat because you can always use
an electric blanket and heat and eat at the same time.

Oh ! The 'let them eat cake' of it!

Hint: electricity and food both cost money....

Hint: an electric throw adds almost nothing to the
cost of the food and so there is no OR involved.

I am simply flabbergasted at the total ignorance you display.


The cost of social housing adds nothing to the cost of the NHS, so there
is no OR about it?

Magic money tree thinking I see..

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 21/12/16 07:11, grjw wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 21/12/16 00:13, grjw wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some
31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the
Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?

Office of national Statistics. Published annually.

But that doesn't show how many died early due to energy poverty.

Well known and oft debated situation sometimes referred to as "heat or
eat".

It is never heat or eat because you can always use
an electric blanket and heat and eat at the same time.

Oh ! The 'let them eat cake' of it!

Hint: electricity and food both cost money....

Hint: an electric throw adds almost nothing to the
cost of the food and so there is no OR involved.

I am simply flabbergasted at the total ignorance you display.

We'll see...

The cost of social housing adds nothing to the cost of the NHS, so there
is no OR about it?

The cost of running A HEATED THROW IS A TINY PART OF THE COST
OF THE FOOD, so there is no OR about it, perfectly possible to do both.

Magic money tree thinking I see..

Even sillier than you usually manage.

On Tuesday, 20 December 2016 13:39:40 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 12/20/2016 4:20 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Interesting article, updated this month. Lengthy, but well worth a read
for anyone interested.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...brary/country-
profiles/countries-t-z/united-kingdom.aspx


Fantastic link, thanks for posting. I'd love to know who wrote it.

People who have a financial interest in nuclear power.

On 21/12/16 10:58, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 December 2016 13:39:40 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 12/20/2016 4:20 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Interesting article, updated this month. Lengthy, but well worth a read
for anyone interested.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...brary/country-
profiles/countries-t-z/united-kingdom.aspx


Fantastic link, thanks for posting. I'd love to know who wrote it.

People who have a financial interest in nuclear power.

As opposed to you, who have a financial interest in solar panels?

It's called 'projection' harry. Judging others by your own standards.

On 21/12/2016 08:19, grjw wrote:

snip

The cost of running A HEATED THROW IS A TINY PART OF THE COST
OF THE FOOD, so there is no OR about it, perfectly possible to do both.


I'd never heard of them - and if I had, would have thought they cost a
fair bit to run. I can think of 2 people I know who live in unheated,
uninsulated houses who would definitely benefit.

On the loose assumption that they do provide a meaningful amount of
heat, marvellous idea:

http://www.lakeland.co.uk/24507/Sofa...n---70-x-150cm

I've a passing interest in this as I carried out some research on the
relationship between housing, poverty, age and health - 30 years back.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 20/12/2016 20:34, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 20/12/2016 13:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some
31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?


I've never been that happy with the way they calculate it:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...014to2015final


There isnt a shred of evidence that the winter excess is due to ENERGY
POVERTY.


Common sense would suggest that mortality rates increase because of
'wealth' poverty, which in turn affects the ability to heat homes.

Quite how that's calculated is not easy IMO. But it's there.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 09:28:27 UTC, RJH wrote:
On 21/12/2016 08:19, grjw wrote:

The cost of running A HEATED THROW IS A TINY PART OF THE COST
OF THE FOOD, so there is no OR about it, perfectly possible to do both.


I'd never heard of them - and if I had, would have thought they cost a
fair bit to run. I can think of 2 people I know who live in unheated,
uninsulated houses who would definitely benefit.

On the loose assumption that they do provide a meaningful amount of
heat, marvellous idea:

http://www.lakeland.co.uk/24507/Sofa...n---70-x-150cm

I've a passing interest in this as I carried out some research on the
relationship between housing, poverty, age and health - 30 years back.

150w is certainly significant, but unfortunately they're mains voltage. About tuppence an hour at full whack, 32p a day £2.24 a week.


NT

"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 21/12/2016 08:19, grjw wrote:

snip

The cost of running A HEATED THROW IS A TINY PART OF THE COST
OF THE FOOD, so there is no OR about it, perfectly possible to do both.


I'd never heard of them - and if I had, would have thought they cost a
fair bit to run. I can think of 2 people I know who live in unheated,
uninsulated houses who would definitely benefit.

On the loose assumption that they do provide a meaningful amount of heat,
marvellous idea:

No assumption, I've been using one for years now, no other heat.

http://www.lakeland.co.uk/24507/Sofa...n---70-x-150cm

I've a passing interest in this as I carried out some research on the
relationship between housing, poverty, age and health - 30 years back.


--
Cheers, Rob

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 06:27:10 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/16 07:11, grjw wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 21/12/16 00:13, grjw wrote:
"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some
31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the
Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?

Office of national Statistics. Published annually.

But that doesn't show how many died early due to energy poverty.

Well known and oft debated situation sometimes referred to as "heat or
eat".

It is never heat or eat because you can always use
an electric blanket and heat and eat at the same time.

Oh ! The 'let them eat cake' of it!

Hint: electricity and food both cost money....

Hint: an electric throw adds almost nothing to the
cost of the food and so there is no OR involved.

I am simply flabbergasted at the total ignorance you display.

I'm not. It's Rodney.


NT

"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 20/12/2016 20:34, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 20/12/2016 13:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some
31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?


I've never been that happy with the way they calculate it:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...014to2015final


There isnt a shred of evidence that the winter excess is due to ENERGY
POVERTY.


Common sense would suggest that mortality rates increase because of
'wealth' poverty, which in turn affects the ability to heat homes.

That assumes that it is lower heating levels that produces the
excess of deaths during the winter compared with the non winter.

I've not seen any rigorous scientific evidence that that is the case.

Quite how that's calculated is not easy IMO. But it's there.

All that is there is a higher mortality rate in winter.

What is the reason for that is a quite separate issue.

On 21/12/16 12:50, wrote:


150w is certainly significant, but unfortunately they're mains
voltage. About tuppence an hour at full whack, 32p a day £2.24 a
week.


NT

Some people eat for about that.

In article , grjw
writes


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 21/12/16 07:11, grjw wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 21/12/16 00:13, grjw wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some
31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the
Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?

Office of national Statistics. Published annually.

But that doesn't show how many died early due to energy poverty.

Well known and oft debated situation sometimes referred to as "heat or
eat".

It is never heat or eat because you can always use
an electric blanket and heat and eat at the same time.

Oh ! The 'let them eat cake' of it!

Hint: electricity and food both cost money....

Hint: an electric throw adds almost nothing to the
cost of the food and so there is no OR involved.

I am simply flabbergasted at the total ignorance you display.

We'll see...

The cost of social housing adds nothing to the cost of the NHS, so
there is no OR about it?

The cost of running A HEATED THROW IS A TINY PART OF THE COST
OF THE FOOD, so there is no OR about it, perfectly possible to do both.

If the amount of money is fixed then every penny spent on one means a
penny less to spend on the other. Is that too complex a concept for you?
Magic money tree thinking I see..

Even sillier than you usually manage.

--
bert

In article , RJH writes
On 21/12/2016 08:19, grjw wrote:

snip

The cost of running A HEATED THROW IS A TINY PART OF THE COST
OF THE FOOD, so there is no OR about it, perfectly possible to do both.


I'd never heard of them - and if I had, would have thought they cost a
fair bit to run. I can think of 2 people I know who live in unheated,
uninsulated houses who would definitely benefit.

On the loose assumption that they do provide a meaningful amount of
heat, marvellous idea:

http://www.lakeland.co.uk/24507/Sofa...ted-Throw-Brow
n---70-x-150cm

I've a passing interest in this as I carried out some research on the
relationship between housing, poverty, age and health - 30 years back.


Research is still carried out by people like AGE UK. If people like
Plow**** were to read a little more widely they may be better informed
and not appear to be so thick.

The same figures and the same analysis reaching the same conclusions
will be out again in the spring. They will make the headlines again for
a few days and then quietly disappear for another year and a combination
of cold and malnutrition will continue to kill off elderly people.
I wonder how many people realise that life expectancy actually went down
last year.
--
bert

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 21/12/16 12:50, wrote:


150w is certainly significant, but unfortunately they're mains
voltage. About tuppence an hour at full whack, 32p a day £2.24 a
week.


NT

Some people eat for about that.
I would imagine it's quite difficult to live ones life permanently
wrapped in an electric blanket.
--
bert

On 21/12/16 13:33, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 21/12/16 12:50, wrote:


150w is certainly significant, but unfortunately they're mains
voltage. About tuppence an hour at full whack, 32p a day £2.24 a
week.


NT

Some people eat for about that.
I would imagine it's quite difficult to live ones life permanently
wrapped in an electric blanket.

I wouldn't.

On 21/12/2016 10:50, wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 09:28:27 UTC, RJH wrote:
On 21/12/2016 08:19, grjw wrote:

The cost of running A HEATED THROW IS A TINY PART OF THE COST
OF THE FOOD, so there is no OR about it, perfectly possible to do both.


I'd never heard of them - and if I had, would have thought they cost a
fair bit to run. I can think of 2 people I know who live in unheated,
uninsulated houses who would definitely benefit.

On the loose assumption that they do provide a meaningful amount of
heat, marvellous idea:

http://www.lakeland.co.uk/24507/Sofa...n---70-x-150cm

I've a passing interest in this as I carried out some research on the
relationship between housing, poverty, age and health - 30 years back.

150w is certainly significant, but unfortunately they're mains voltage. About tuppence an hour at full whack, 32p a day £2.24 a week.


Yes, agreed, if they had it switched on full, 24/7. I shouldn't imagine
many people do that - do they? Most people would be out or up at some
point, and they must sleep. Or do you know somebody who uses them 24/7 -
perhaps yourself? As I said, this is the first I'd heard of them.

I was thinking more in terms of maybe 2/3 power, 12 hours a day, less
than a pound a week. If somebody can't afford that, trying to keep warm
is the least of their worries . . .

It's far from ideal on a number of levels thinking that way as a
solution to fuel poverty, but at least it's there.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 21/12/2016 10:55, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 20/12/2016 20:34, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
news On 20/12/2016 13:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some
31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the
Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?


I've never been that happy with the way they calculate it:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...014to2015final



There isnt a shred of evidence that the winter excess is due to ENERGY
POVERTY.


Common sense would suggest that mortality rates increase because of
'wealth' poverty, which in turn affects the ability to heat homes.

That assumes that it is lower heating levels that produces the
excess of deaths during the winter compared with the non winter.

I've not seen any rigorous scientific evidence that that is the case.


It's never going to be a binary. Apparently (working from memory, but I
do remember it as a fact) there's a greater physiological need for
warmth as we get older, but we're less able to 'feel' cold. Thence, cold
related deaths.

Quite how that's calculated is not easy IMO. But it's there.

All that is there is a higher mortality rate in winter.

What is the reason for that is a quite separate issue.


Quite why people get into that situation is difficult to know. Likely a
number of reasons - but I'd be pretty certain poverty is one.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:04:22 +0000, RJH wrote:



It's never going to be a binary. Apparently (working from memory, but I
do remember it as a fact) there's a greater physiological need for
warmth as we get older, but we're less able to 'feel' cold. Thence, cold
related deaths.

Quite how that's calculated is not easy IMO. But it's there.

All that is there is a higher mortality rate in winter.

What is the reason for that is a quite separate issue.


Quite why people get into that situation is difficult to know. Likely a
number of reasons - but I'd be pretty certain poverty is one.

Declining strength and mobility can be another.
An elderly person usually a woman may have lived comfortably in a
property for years whose main heating might have been inexpensive wood
source locally or even free from their own land or in a declining
number of properties coal or related products with Hubby gathering and
chopping wood over the years. He then dies or his hips go.
They may still be able to afford wood or solid fuel but find that
they no longer have the stamina to cut wood ,bring in coal, clean out
the ash etc.
So out come electric heaters ,portable oil filled radiaters fan
heaters, immersion heater now being used instead of the Rayburn
heating the hot water and now cooking by electric all powered by
electricity being paid for at the full rate because the property has
never needed to have the option of using an off peak cheaper rate
which takes them from being comfortable to too expensive.

G.Harman

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
I have known old people that sit cold in one room with a one bar fire
that they won't turn on because they can't afford to run it 24hrs a day
in winter.

Do many have heating on 24/7? That would certainly waste money when in bed.

But let's look at some figures.

Electricity is about 12p a unit.

The winter heating allowance is 200 quid. That will run a 1 bar fire for
120 days (4 months) at 14 hours a day.

Sometimes you can get social services to help, sometimes you can't.

What is likely to have a far greater effect on some OAPs is the withdrawal
of meals on wheels - and other services. All in the quest to reduce taxes
for the very rich.

--
*(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2016 13:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the
winter of 2012-13 some 31,000 excess deaths - mostly people over 75 -
were reported by the Office of National Statistics, the highest
figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?


I've never been that happy with the way they calculate it:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...014to2015final

But there it is.

Unless I'm missing something, that doesn't conclude the peak in 2013-14
was down to 'energy poverty'.

--
*Middle age is when work is a lot less fun - and fun a lot more work.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 21/12/2016 14:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
I have known old people that sit cold in one room with a one bar fire
that they won't turn on because they can't afford to run it 24hrs a day
in winter.

Do many have heating on 24/7? That would certainly waste money when in bed.

But let's look at some figures.

Electricity is about 12p a unit.

The winter heating allowance is 200 quid. That will run a 1 bar fire for
120 days (4 months) at 14 hours a day.

Sometimes you can get social services to help, sometimes you can't.

What is likely to have a far greater effect on some OAPs is the withdrawal
of meals on wheels - and other services. All in the quest to reduce taxes
for the very rich.


Assuming they have a care package then they get a carer coming in to
cook food for them instead of meals on wheels.
Or that's what happens around here.

They also have much better quality microwave meals delivered than meals
on wheels provided.

Of course there are elderly that refuse to have a care package or that
don't qualify because they have more than £22k in savings.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
What is likely to have a far greater effect on some OAPs is the withdrawal
of meals on wheels - and other services. All in the quest to reduce taxes
for the very rich.


Assuming they have a care package then they get a carer coming in to
cook food for them instead of meals on wheels.

Not sure that's the best use of a carer, given their usually very limited
hours.

Or that's what happens around here.

They also have much better quality microwave meals delivered than meals
on wheels provided.

Depends on the area. Some hot meals on wheels were pretty good. Often
provided by school etc kitchens. If a microwave meal will do you can buy
them from a supermarket.

Of course there are elderly that refuse to have a care package or that
don't qualify because they have more than £22k in savings.

Not all elderly need a 'care' package. Snag is it's those who do who have
suffered from the cuts in funding for such things.

--
*Why do the two "sanction"s (noun and verb) mean opposites?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 09:28:27 UTC, RJH wrote:
On 21/12/2016 08:19, grjw wrote:

The cost of running A HEATED THROW IS A TINY PART OF THE COST
OF THE FOOD, so there is no OR about it, perfectly possible to do both.


I'd never heard of them - and if I had, would have thought they cost a
fair bit to run. I can think of 2 people I know who live in unheated,
uninsulated houses who would definitely benefit.

On the loose assumption that they do provide a meaningful amount of
heat, marvellous idea:

http://www.lakeland.co.uk/24507/Sofa...n---70-x-150cm

I've a passing interest in this as I carried out some research on the
relationship between housing, poverty, age and health - 30 years back.

150w is certainly significant, but unfortunately they're mains voltage.
About tuppence an hour at full whack, 32p a day £2.24 a week.

Like I said, a very small part of what the food would cost so perfectly
possible to do both.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 21/12/16 12:50, wrote:


150w is certainly significant, but unfortunately they're mains
voltage. About tuppence an hour at full whack, 32p a day £2.24 a
week.


NT

Some people eat for about that.

Sure, most obviously with those who grow their own food,
but there wouldnt be many who couldnt afford to do both
and most would be spending a lot more than that on the
food, so it would be perfectly possible for them to have
both heat and food.

On 21/12/16 20:20, grjw wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 21/12/16 12:50, wrote:


150w is certainly significant, but unfortunately they're mains
voltage. About tuppence an hour at full whack, 32p a day £2.24 a
week.


NT

Some people eat for about that.

Sure, most obviously with those who grow their own food,
but there wouldnt be many who couldnt afford to do both
and most would be spending a lot more than that on the
food, so it would be perfectly possible for them to have
both heat and food.

assuming they could afford to buy the blanket

"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 21/12/2016 10:55, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 20/12/2016 20:34, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
news On 20/12/2016 13:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Hence energy poverty is an
issue in the UK (as elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some
31,000
excess deaths - mostly people over 75 - were reported by the
Office of
National Statistics, the highest figure since 2008"

And that figure is proved to be down to 'energy poverty' just how?


I've never been that happy with the way they calculate it:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...014to2015final



There isnt a shred of evidence that the winter excess is due to ENERGY
POVERTY.


Common sense would suggest that mortality rates increase because of
'wealth' poverty, which in turn affects the ability to heat homes.

That assumes that it is lower heating levels that produces the
excess of deaths during the winter compared with the non winter.

I've not seen any rigorous scientific evidence that that is the case.


It's never going to be a binary. Apparently (working from memory, but I do
remember it as a fact) there's a greater physiological need for warmth as
we get older,

Its certainly true that nursing homes etc do tend to be run
rather warmer than usual because the residents prefer that.

But that may just be because they are rather less mobile than
most. Its well know that those who don’t move around much
need more external warmth than those who are more active.

but we're less able to 'feel' cold.

No evidence of that.

Thence, cold related deaths.

Or that either with those who arent sleeping rough.

And even if there is evidence of that, all that proves
is that those didn’t have enough of a clue to use
a heated throw or go to bed in particularly cold
weather when they couldn’t afford to heat the place.

Quite how that's calculated is not easy IMO. But it's there.

All that is there is a higher mortality rate in winter.

What is the reason for that is a quite separate issue.

Quite why people get into that situation is difficult to know. Likely a
number of reasons - but I'd be pretty certain poverty is one.

But it may be unrelated to why they die earlier. In other words it
would be interesting to see some rigorous stats on the death rates
between summer and winter with both those in the bottom say 2%
of poverty and the top 2% of wealthy. I bet there is the same quite
noticeable seasonal difference with both groups. So its hard to claim
that poverty is the cause.