Governments 'Green New Deal' will result in far fewer homes being insulated

mbuckhurst

cepheus wrote: »

I think you have summed it up there, this is not Socialism whether the party in power is called Labour or Conservative, it is about individualism, votes and corporate lobbying by the PV sector! I'm not convinced that PV saves more carbon than insulation though even for individuals.

When our house had cavity wall insulation added, this reduced the gas bill by around 5-10%, which should roughly be the same as the loft, installing a solar thermal array and changing the boiler and layout of our heating system reduced the gas bill by around 80%. For 8 months of the year we burn single units of gas a month. The cost difference between cavity and thermal panels was around 20x.

Our PV panels have been in place for around 1 month at the time of year when they are expected to generate around 2.4% of total annual output, already, we are running at between 5 and 140% of power consumption per day, the average for the month was 25%.

Both solar systems should last long enough to be inherited by my children, and they should inherit a zero cost house, which was my aim - no mortgage, big garden and low energy or even negative energy becomes a house where you don't need to worry about redundancy.

mike

Martyn1981

Mike, I love the long term, big picture thinking. Also remember that in 40 years time, your PV system will 'only' be about 80% efficient!

I hope I'm still 80% efficient in 40 years time. However I suspect I may be nearer to zero. Oh well, you've got to smile!

Mart.

zeupater

cepheus wrote: »

This is appalling, we first waste taxpayers money on subsidising photovoltaics for the middle classes in a cloudy country, then discourage something which is so economical it will pay for itself. What the hell are they thinking of? ...

Hi

I really love the irony in this viewpoint ..... a position which seems to be anti-subsidy and pro-subsidy in the same breath ...

Let's look at this objectively .... The government is required, by treaty and by widespread public opinion, to encourage energy saving and renewables, so comes up with a policies which include subsidies, they do this by appointing the energy companies as their agents to keep the administration costs down and allow the energy companies to recoup their costs through increased energy bills .... so what happens ? .... people complain - they complain about 'unfair' subsidies increasing their bills to pay for the benefit of 'others' and call for a 'fairer' system by which customers pay for their own installations over time, which results in a review of policy to appease these groups. The government(s) consults the groups & proposes a system which suits the positions posed, again mitigating administration costs, and the same groups of people complain, this time it's too 'complicated' and not 'free to all', even if it's exactly what they wanted ! .... it just shows that PP does really PPPP ...

HTH
Z

The_Green_Hornet

I'm afraid we live in a "me me me" society where people are only pro-subsidy if the money ends up in their own pockets or the pockets of the "class of people" they claim to represent.

It is a shame really.

rogerblack

mbuckhurst wrote: »

Our PV panels have been in place for around 1 month at the time of year when they are expected to generate around 2.4% of total annual output, already, we are running at between 5 and 140% of power consumption per day, the average for the month was 25%.

Both solar systems should last long enough to be inherited by my children, and they should inherit a zero cost house, which was my aim - no mortgage, big garden and low energy or even negative energy becomes a house where you don't need to worry about redundancy.

mike

It's unclear in the extreme what the price of the exported electricity will be in 25 years.
Currently, PV without FITs would be paid at around 3p/kWh, meaning that most of the savings are the direct in-home savings of electricity.