Heating the past few decades (or even century) was simply too cheap. Cheaper than insulating on the short term.
In cold countries, they didn't have this option. they had to insulate.
Proper insulation is best done when building a house. Afterwards, it's a little bit more complex.
This is the answer. We're addicted to cheap short term pretty things. Why insulate your home when you can spend the money on a week in the Costa Del Shag and then flip your house for a nice profit without doing anything to improve it?
As an outsider, I offer the following theory: it's cultural.
Brits are conditioned by the media and each other to suffer and wear that suffering like a badge of honour. This is the country that pioneered the battle tactic of having soldiers just line up in an orderly fashion to get shot and have their countrymen just step over them to take their place afterall.
I'm still in awe of a conversation I found on Reddit when I first came here. A Polish guy was asking why the homes were so poorly insulated: "I'm Polish", he said, "I'm familiar with cold weather. This is deliberate suffering". He was berated at length for being "weak", that he should "just put on a jumper and shut up". In the same thread, someone actually referred to carpeting as insulation.
Worse still, you seem to have no idea who to properly blame for that suffering. You keep electing kleptocrats and aspiring fascists and turn your nose up at anyone who points out that your suffering is the direct result of said kleptocrats. You passed on one guy 'cause you fell for lies about him being "extreme", "a communist", and "antisemitic", and you passed on the one before that because he ate a sandwich funny.
What you do excel at is scapegoating. It's the immigrants. It's the poor. It's anyone but ourselves and the kleptocrats we elected.
This is why you can't have nice things. Recognise that you're part of the problem, demand better leaders, and stop being so fucking stupid at the polling booth, and maybe then you'll get better results.
Nah think I’ll brexit mate.
Yeah having lived throughout the US (including about as far north as you can get in the 48) I was shocked to move to Scotland and be freezing cold all the time. I've never had to wear so many layers in my own home. Plus utilities are literally an order of magnitude more expensive. As soon as the heat turns off the room immediately cools down. Its insane
Spent a winter in a semi in Manchester. Coldest winter of my life due to no insulation and the constant draft.
Sorry, not in the UK, post popped up on "All".
You guys don't have insulation requirements?
You landlord when you talk about what they need to do in regards to mould or insulation in your house.
My last place wouldn't let me go into the attic to see what insulation was up there and on the energy certificate the guy wrote "assumed" for the attic. Now sure there is a really low minimum level as a landlord and sure there is a free money given to you from the government if you install good insulation in the attic. But what's the point? It's just so much effort to make a couple of phone calls. It's far easier to just add to the contract that the tenant needs to heat their house sufficiently to prevent mould, no excuses. Then it's not your problem!
I would support additional taxes on Landlords inversely proportional to the energy rating of the house. Currently there is no incentive for landlords to improve the energy efficiency of their properties. At least when you "own" a house the action to improve it is on you.
I'd support some benefit for improving houses that are owned, too.
It's a bit frustrating if you decide to improve the insulation, but it doesn't move the needle on property value, because a large enough chunk of the market does not care.
There are various insulation schemes you can apply for but they are usually limited in who can apply. You probably don't want to pay for Lord Farqwa upgrading his 16 bed converted wheel house pad.
Indeed, currently I think it's band D or below for insulation quality, and household income of £30k.
the tenant needs to heat their house sufficiently to prevent mould,
And make sure to open windows regularly to stop condensation, coincidentally letting out all the bastard heat.
Lol no amount of heating or ventilating with negate the fact that when it rains hard outside it also rains inside my house. My landlord doesn't give a fuck but I still let him know every single time it is raining indoors so when he inevitably tries to shaft me out of my deposit I have records of telling him it needs fixing every fucking time -_-
Who needs extractor fans with gas heating?
The draft will sort it anyway.
I suspect it’s more that the requirements are lower and the buildings are on average older than in Yakutsk, which contribute to less effective insulation.
I think some motivation is that half-assing your shelter in Yakutsk is dangerous, not merely uncomfortable.
The soviets are known for strict building code and untouchable policing
We absolutely do, on new properties, and on change-of-use.
And we have requirements that rented properties have to at least hit a certain level.
As wanderer says below, because of the state of the rental market, there are a lot of shitty landlords just ignoring what they can.
Another person who found you from all, so probably not welcome to comment, but on the chance I am...
I always wondered about this! It does work both ways. Every time there's a heat wave that kills some of your elderly, I'm constantly shocked because where I live (US Deep South) we hit crazy high temps for extended periods of time and lose fewer people. With our population being insanely high compared to y'all I just... can't with that.
Makes me want to come over there, develop a way to retrofit your homes, and get to work. Climate change means you'll have more unbearable heat and more unbearable cold moving forward, not less!
In Texas we had a big freeze a few years ago and much of the state lost power. My house only got down to the 60s when it was well below freezing outside with no power inside.
I thought the material used in the US wood, gypsum, etc made insulation more essential compared to stone/brick construction often found in Europe.
Can’t recall where I heard that thing so take with a huge grain of salt
Depends a lot on the construction and age, but there's really no type of construction that doesn't need insulation.
There's a specific UK issue though. For some reason they're falling behind and have been for some time. F.i. The rest of northern Europe are using triple or quadruple pane windows, while many houses in UK still have single pane windows.
The windows alone being 2-3 generations behind code is only part of it. Loft insulation is also far behind:
Also older housing stock. My house is over 120 years old so that does limit done of what you can do to improve things. That said with decent windows and loft insulation there is something to be said for the thermal properties of a bunch of stone.
120 years ago is about the time they started doing double brick walls. Leaving air between the inner and outer brick walls was basically the first kind of insulation.
In the 1970s they figured out to put polystyrene beads in the space between the walls. This idea has recently been improved by better materials, so it's still possible to update the insulation on these old houses. Whether it's financially feasible is a different question.
Another method is to put more insulation on the inside, but this takes up space and early attempts in the 1950-1980s proved to do very little except creating a fire hazard. If a house has those old panels on the walls, it's probably better to remove them.
A neighbour of mine recently put very thick insulation on the outside of the house. Must have cost a fortune and it looks weird, but I guess it works really well. It also requires that all windows are moved, so it's probably easier to just build a new house.
So there a few options, but money is likely better spend on changing the roof, windows or the heat source.
Most houses in the UK have double glazing. Not all (somehow - if there isn't a grant for that there should be!) but by now most have upgraded.
Triple glazing appears to be getting started, I got a free upgrade to triple when I upgraded!
People build housing to the specs their environment requires. The UK has extremely stable moderate temperatures so doesn't put the extra cost into insulation or central cooling.
Not really true. UK definitely has a history of under-insulation compared to other European countries with similar climates (like Denmark for example).
Last time I was there visiting a relative I was shocked to find that the "mailbox" was just a hole cut on the door. Like, it was raining outside and they just had a big hole on the front door, which itself was just a wooden plank. May as well have blasted the heating straight out the window.
There’s sort of an urban legend in Sweden that ”The silly Brittons who don’t understand insulation feel sorry for Swedes that can’t afford to heat their houses so the snow melts of the rooves”. Are you saying that’s true?
It's more that construction has been incredibly short-termist for too long.
A huge amount of housing was built post the second world war. Very quick and not of high quality. We needed a lot of it and we needed it cheap because we were pretty close to broke.
High rise social housing came along and was again, prefabricated concrete with a short design life. Expected to be used for at most 50 years then replaced. After all, the 60s expected tomorrows home to be better, why build to last 100 years when it will be advantageous to build again.
Public sector building existed up until the 70s but it was about volume and designed to get us to the next point where we upgraded that stock.
Then the 80s happened and we never upgraded the stock. It was instead sold off to the private sector and when they rebuilt it, they were also deregulated.
Any house today has a design life of 25 years, the length of the average first mortgage.
We're even echos with austerity starting in 2010. Schools built as a quick fix in the 60s, with a 30 year design life, slated late for replacement in 2010, then the funding removed due to cuts by our current government.
Turns out they've got RAAC roofs which cave in without warning when they're more than twice their design life.
Grenfell is a disaster caused by taking a building built to the lowest bidder as a quick way to provide housing. Then tacking on insulation to the outside. Our construction sector is so deregulated this insulation was highly flammable and hundreds died as a result.
The result is we choose older buildings because survivorship bias means the crap built in the 1930s and before has already gone. If we buy old enough we get well built homes designed to be heated by fires and stoves.
Fires generally kick out more heat than is needed to heat a room, so insulation to keep that in just made the house too hot to have a lit fire in the UK. Originally they were insulated enough to leak the correct amount of heat.
Retrofitting these old houses with more controllable heating and insulation is difficult.
But buy a newer house designed with a newer heating system in mind and you'll find it's trash quality. Possibly even dangerous and completely worthless when a revelation about building materials comes out.
TLDR: British people aren't stupid. Houses from the 1700s, 1800s and up to the 1930s were built to last as long as possible. Newer property wasn't.
Left wing governments built cheap and got voted out before renewing stock. That's all end of design life now built 1945-1979
Right wing governments from 1980 deregulated construction so very little built since then is of good quality. Some of it simply dangerous and now worthless.
STLDR: We understand insulation. Our governments don't.
To bear in mind, in all the cold parts of Russia, apartment blocks are communally heated; one big boiler heats the whole block and never turns off. It's to stop any chance of someone forgetting to put the heat on and flooding the place with burst pipes
Plus their energy is stupidly cheap
Plus their energy is stupidly cheap
Iceland has no boilers and it's still communal heat.
(text post is fine :) )
I would say that we haven't. However, we have a lot of old housing that needs improving.
As someone who's been spending too much time on building work at the moment, the current regulations and requirements for insulation are not that light. (Approved Document L, if you're interested)
The specifications are written in W/(M2-K), or watts of heat lost per meter squared, per degree delta from one side to the other.
New dwellings have to hit:
Or to put this in perspective: A 30 M2 roof on a new house, on a 0 degree day, with an internal temperature of 20 degrees should only be losing 66W of heat per hour.
An older building retrofitted with 100mm of insulation (effective wmk of 0.4) would lose 240W
An uninsulated roof (2.5wmk) would lose 1500W.
The ECO plans are trying to fix this in older properties, and they're honestly pretty well thought out (they target the lowest hanging fruit, to get the best effect for the money spent). But things take time, and ensuring the work is done to a good standard costs a lot of money.
@GreatAlbatross @Wanderer Mr.Do you want to win an iphone prize? If you want to get it,enter the link given below and win this attractive iphone 14
https://sites.google.com/view/kazi--/home
er
That's probably not because of good insulation, but just because of central heating system in most of the apartment buildings
Interesting video, thanks
We really need to start demanding better things in this country don't we?
I am pretty confident that if someone in the UK wants to build a house with Yakutsk-level amounts of insulation, that's an option. But the UK doesn't get Yakutsk-level temperature extremes -- what it makes sense to do differs.
Out here in California, I am sure that the earthquake resistance of our houses is probably way higher than that of most houses in the UK. But...we also get large earthquakes on a not-wildly-infrequent basis, so it kind of has a need to be that way. You could go build a British house that could stand up to that, but what's the point? The UK doesn't get huge earthquakes, and it costs more to do that.
Same thing for wildfires. We have a bunch of restrictions on things like growing foliage near buildings. The UK doesn't really have a serious problem with fires, so the need to mitigate fire risk is much-less-serious.
On the other side of things, I'd bet that a lot of places in the UK are far more-capable at dealing with snow than where I am. Lot of flat roofs that would deal poorly with snow buildup here.
People in the uk don't build houses unless they are loaded.
They either more likely rent a house that has the worst insulation imaginable or they buy a house that's 100+ years old, or they buy a new house which is built be a developer and has a reputation for being worse quality than a 100 year old house. Plenty of people in this country live by the phrase "I'd never buy a new house" new heard anyone say they wouldn't buy an old house.
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.