Back

@ChrisMayLA6 the problem is the poorest families tend to rent and the landlords wouldn't see any benefit from this

@ChrisMayLA6 @afewbugs Really there should be a property tax on energy inefficiency. But that won’t have much effect while it’s the tenants who need to pay directly rather than landlords (who would increase rent to cover it but inefficient homes would be more expensive).

If only we could split council tax into a local income tax and land tax, but it benefits landlords and the rich too much.

@ChrisMayLA6 @afewbugs My proposal from a month or so ago was that landlords would get an interest-free loan from the government for 100% of the installation cost that became due when they sold the property and the government would then get a cut of the sale price proportional to how much the solar panels increased the sale price or the loan amount, whichever is greater. No up-front cost to landlords, no risk to them, immediate benefits to tenants. And because, unlike insulation, solar panels are instantly visible to prospective tenants, not taking advantage of the scheme will make it harder to rent the property in the future.

Ideally, do the same with heat pumps. Pass the cost savings on the poorest people first. A big chunk of the money flows straight back into tax revenue instantly (payroll / income taxes on the installers: most of the cost of solar panels is installation not the panels themselves) and the rest comes back when the property is sold.

Someone in the comments pointed out that a similar scheme had been successfully deployed elsewhere, but I don’t remember where.

@david_chisnall @ChrisMayLA6 @afewbugs There was a similar Green Deal Scheme (2012-15) promoted by DECC for homeowners under the Coalition Government.

It was a failure. The failure was predicable. I told them that it would fail at the time (back then I worked in DECC, though not directly on the Scheme).
Part of that was down to them wanting to charge interest (6% pa, as I recall) on the loan, which, at the time, was expensive compared to putting it on the morgage.
Estimates of savings were not all that accurate.
It also put an additional charge on the property, so any future buyers had to assess whether the savings justified the cost.

It is hard to get these schemes right.

https://www.completelymoved.co.uk/general-property/advice/selling-a-green-deal-property-what-you-need-to-know

@david_chisnall @ChrisMayLA6 @afewbugs panels are like EVs. You have to have a minimum income to be able to afford then when the greatest need is below that minimum

@afewbugs @ChrisMayLA6 yeah, my cheapskate of a landlord was using the most energy inefficient water boiler (though they probably spent more repairing it during my tenancy than a new one would have cost). Landlords definitely don't care about their tenants' electric bills.

@ChrisMayLA6

Details

- the roof would need to be in good order as a poor roof will be damaged during the installation process
- the roof would have to point in the right direction to achieve the suggested savings
- the occupants would need to be taught how to make the best of solar, e.g. running energy hungry devices at midday

@ChrisMayLA6

I've emailed these issues to the Resolution Foundation. I had roofing issues when installing my panels.

@cmsdengl @ChrisMayLA6 Direction doesn't matter any more unless it's entirely north facing (which is bizarre). Shade matters.

Panels are so cheap that east/west is pretty much as good as south and people now routinely throw extra panels on the north face whilst all the scaffolding is up as the cost difference is small.

@ChrisMayLA6 Germany has a solution for rented flats: plug-in-yourself solar "balkonkraftwerk". Maximum 600W, very popular! Unfortunately not legal in UK due to our wiring regs. https://energybases.com/blog/germany-balcony-solar-power-revolution/

@clanger9 @ChrisMayLA6 as I understand them they send power through an inverter with a cutoff so power is not sent unless the system has been plugged into the mains. But a simple socket system could be devised for UK I would have thought.

@clanger9 @ChrisMayLA6 Not legal but mostly treated the way the UK treats keep off the grass signs. Ironically it's legal instead to plug solar and grid into an inverter box and then trail leads round the house to power stuff, which is actually far more dangerous.

@clanger9 @ChrisMayLA6
Paging @bloor !
Presumably an installation pattern no longer relevant to you but looks familiar.

@clanger9 @ChrisMayLA6

@ChrisMayLA6 Have a like for green Keynsianism. :)

@ChrisMayLA6 My experience of solar is the best thing that can be done is to have solar-powered lighting. That's a cheaper, easier solution to most problems. Full solar is very costly. A couple of hundred watt panels will provide ample to charge small batteries for lighting. At the end of the day, lighting is the most important thing in most homes.

@ChrisMayLA6 That's roughly what NEST tries to do in Wales, and to some extent what bits of ECO4 were about.

@ChrisMayLA6 good idea, but let’s go further and add in house batteries, air sourced heat pumps, underfloor heating and insulation, for free. Lift people out of poverty, save the NHS a fortune, reduce pollution and create a decentralised green energy grid. Do this for every house in the country and pay for it through taxation. The long term financial benefits would outweigh the admittedly enormous upfront costs.

@ChrisMayLA6 I think that when the moment arrives that electrical energy can be stored economically (battery or e-fuel) the roof space on every house will become valuable real estate to those that have capital to purchase solar panels.

At that point putting panels on the roof should bring in a permanent leas income to the roof owner.

The poor are not as likely to benefit however because they often rent.