To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Heat maps are a waste of our money
Share this:
From Ian Moignard.
I WISH to congratulate the snake-oil salesman who conned our gullible politicians into handing over yet more of our taxes to pay for the so-called heat loss map.
Nine months have elapsed since the images were taken, yet the Environment department acknowledges that more work is required to ‘address some surprising anomalies on the map.’ The map is worthless and is riddled with these so-called anomalies. Its information is utterly unreliable.
According to the JEP sub-heading: ‘The map shows which properties are missing out on heat retention through poor insulation.’ That is nonsense.
The thermal image can only illustrate the amount of heat being radiated by objects. It cannot differentiate between a warm, but well-insulated house and an unheated house, with or without insulation.
Islanders can certainly not reliably ‘check online to see how green their homes are’. No wonder the energy efficiency programme manager stated: ‘We are seeing it more as a talking point rather than as a precise scientific tool.’
What a convenient excuse, which sounds very like an admission that it is a con. It is a very expensive talking point.
Your reporter noted a Longueville estate of identical new homes showing different rates of heat loss. La Providence in St Peter’s Valley is the same.
This is not the indication of poor insulation that we are supposed to believe. It merely means that some people are heating their homes more than others, thus more heat is escaping from the warmer homes through their identical insulation.
Laughably, on a farm I know, a cold, unheated lean-to shed with one side completely open to the weather is designated as having ‘substantial heat loss’.
How much has this cost us so far? I urge the minister to cut our losses and scrap the map, and not to waste yet more money on ‘more work to address some surprising anomalies.’
Related