As we enter a cold snap, and energy prices have risen again, we are more worried about how to manage our home heating. The easiest way to reduce bills is to turn down the thermostat. Do we really need 20°C or higher at home? Perhaps this is merely a social convention. David MacKay published ‘Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air’ in 2009, in which he proposed turning down the thermostat at home to 16°C to reduce carbon emissions. At his publicity talks he explained how his household (with wife and two children) had successfully adapted to these conditions. He also incorporated the 16°C target in the 2050 calculator for scenario planning for net zero. This was the extreme level for one of the home energy 'levers'.
I find this idea scary; thick jumpers do not seem to keep my hands warm – even at 19°C I find my fingers stiffen so that I struggle to type unless I wear half-fingered gloves. I know many people are forced to endure such conditions through fuel poverty but I cannot imagine doing it from choice. Is this reasonable?
So I was intrigued to read about a group of 23 people in Belgium who decided to experiment with heating at home – can they turn down the setpoint on the thermostat and heat the body instead, generating less carbon emissions while still enjoying their living conditions and avoiding any ill effects? [1].
By the third season some were comfortable with the mean living room temperature as low as 14°C.