| ▲ | mrob a day ago |
| >This sharp resistance to minor personal inconvenience is bananas to me. I assume you're in good health, not poor, in a stable living arrangement, etc. The burden of "minor personal inconveniences" depends greatly on how many inconveniences you already suffer. Somebody working two jobs doesn't have much spare energy for optimizing utility use. |
|
| ▲ | tenacious_tuna a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| > The burden of "minor personal inconveniences" depends greatly on how many inconveniences you already suffer. Excellent point, and I agree, though the vast, vast majority of the pushback I feel I get when advocating for these kinds of shifts are from wealthy/healthy individuals. It's a classic tragedy of the commons scenario: existing resources should be able to support our current level of creature comforts with minor conservation, even if a segment of the population is less able to support the conservation efforts, but the extremes people demand in turn place extreme load on our infrastructure. |
| |
| ▲ | barrkel a day ago | parent [-] | | What is the point in being wealthy if it is not to avoid tedious inconveniences? | | |
| ▲ | williamdclt 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Bit of a logical fallacy. Not avoiding ALL tedious inconveniences doesn't mean that being wealthy can't avoid MOST tedious inconveniences. You can have a weekly cleaner and a holiday house in the south of france and dry your clothes at night. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | maccard a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Somebody working two jobs doesn't have much spare energy for optimizing utility use. Most of us don't. But smart meters are free in the UK, and if there was a way for my washing machine to have a 3h window overnight to run in to be done for 7:30 I'd do it in a heartbeat. Same for my dishwasher. Heating is a bigger issue. |
| |
| ▲ | leni536 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > and if there was a way for my washing machine to have a 3h window overnight to run in to be done for 7:30 I'd do it in a heartbeat. I think most of these appliances sold today have at least some sort of "delay start" function. We use that to do exactly what you describe. Not even for nght tariff, it's just convenient to time it like that. | | |
| ▲ | Jtsummers a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Every washer, even basic ones, I've owned that were made post-2000 had a delay start function. Even my most basic one that just had dials to select options, it had a 2/4/6/8-hour delay dial. I figured it was a common feature by now. | | |
| ▲ | leni536 a day ago | parent [-] | | A 2-hour granularity delay start would drive me insane. Better than nothing though. And maybe the dial one works with a timer on the outlet too, as the program is mechanically selected. |
| |
| ▲ | maccard 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yep and I do it. But the point is that if everyone sets it to be done at 8am, you move the demand window to 6-8am. All o care about is that I can put it away when I wake up so if my energy company said “your electricity is cheap between4 and 6, go for it” my dishwasher, washing machine, hot water tank could all go at that time |
| |
| ▲ | dmurray a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You probably want your washing machine to finish when you'll be ready to take the clothes out, rather than leave them sitting damp in the machine. There should be plenty of opportunity to load shift with other things though, a dishwasher as you mentioned, or a fridge or a storage heater or a charger for your electric car. All can be done with minimal inconvenience to the user. | | |
| ▲ | walthamstow a day ago | parent [-] | | > leave them sitting damp in the machine. Rinse hold solves this. Even the cheapest machines have it. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Frieren a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Somebody working two jobs doesn't have much spare energy for optimizing utility use. That is exactly the people reducing expenses even when they know that will be extremely painful. That is why the poor are poor, because they cannot afford that kind basic expense. They need to choose between heating and food. "Let's consume more" for the poor. It is a grotesque argument. |
| |
| ▲ | tenacious_tuna a day ago | parent [-] | | > "Let's consume more" for the poor. It is a grotesque argument. OP was making a fair point that not everybody has the same amount of time and energy (or money) to tolerate shifts in their routine, which in the context of a "personal vs collective responsibility" style argument is entirely reasonable. By the same token, if only the _rich_ have the freedom to make such behavior changes for the sake of conservation it will only ever have a token impact, and in many cases the "correct" level to make an efficiency pitch at is the community: a decent light rail system will always outperform everyone driving their own vehicle to work/the store/downtown in terms of space and energy efficiency. ...but, to get people to buy into such "collectivist" systems, you often have to get them to contend with some perceived reduction in personal convenience: yes, a train doesn't need a parking lot and uses less gas per passenger-mile, but then you're beholden to the train schedule. It's exactly _that_ sentiment that I find frustrating in advocating for sustainable civic design. To OP's point: whatever that "collectivist" option is necessarily has to contend that standards of accessibility and convenience are not constant across the population. That doesn't inherently mean "the poor should consume more," but that "hang dry your laundry" isn't an option for everyone in the current dominant socioeconomic structure. |
|
