Free insulation + £100-200 cash back

jamesingram

Seems giving it away free isn't enough. Now people who qualify get £100-£200 as well..

https://www.edfenergy.com/products-services/for-your-home/winter-saving/winter-form.shtml

WestonDave

That's barking! I can see why its happening - all the easy pickings for the energy companies in terms of getting people to sign up have gone, yet they still have their obligations to fulfill. However this is just taking money out of consumers bills and giving it away - if its not an abuse of the scheme it ought to be!

ColinFishwick

Its us the consumer that is paying for this too when many of us struggle to pay our bills they then offer a financial reward

EricMears

ColinFishwick wrote: »

Its us the consumer that is paying for this too when many of us struggle to pay our bills they then offer a financial reward

I can't really see how that's so different to consumers paying a 'green levy' so that I can claim my FIT payments.

But - and again this is a 'parallel' - if they fail to get enough people signing up to insulation schemes they'll attract fines which of course consumers will have to pick up one way or another.

jamesingram

EricMears wrote: »

if they fail to get enough people signing up to insulation schemes they'll attract fines which of course consumers will have to pick up one way or another.

Yep so , the knee jerk "i'm paying for the lay abouts " falls flat on it's face again.
Giving money away will save money

Not to mention it may reduce the rate at which we use finite resources a little and all the benefit that may come with that.

An energy efficient housing stock will help towards building an efficient, competitive country ??

EricMears

jamesingram wrote: »

Giving money away will save money

I still prefer it when I'm the object of somebody's largesse
:beer: :beer::beer:

ColinFishwick

We shouldn't be paying people to insulate there homes, fair enough offer it subsidised or possible free but not offer an inducement

As for FIT so that many people who are affluent or own solar companies can then cream off profits from many of us consumers. I see plenty wrong when I get my energy bill knowing some of if is then going to greedy companies or those who have plenty of spare cash in any case. Many of us are struggling to pay bills as it is. Its Blair and his cronies who caused these eco targets that we now have to meet, he doesn't have to worry about paying his bills.

EricMears wrote: »

I can't really see how that's so different to consumers paying a 'green levy' so that I can claim my FIT payments.

But - and again this is a 'parallel' - if they fail to get enough people signing up to insulation schemes they'll attract fines which of course consumers will have to pick up one way or another.

EricMears

ColinFishwick wrote: »

We shouldn't be paying people to insulate there homes, fair enough offer it subsidised or possible free but not offer an inducement

As for FIT so that many people who are affluent or own solar companies can then cream off profits from many of us consumers. I see plenty wrong when I get my energy bill knowing some of if is then going to greedy companies or those who have plenty of spare cash in any case. Many of us are struggling to pay bills as it is. Its Blair and his cronies who caused these eco targets that we now have to meet, he doesn't have to worry about paying his bills.

I'm certainly not a Blair fan but it's really not fair to blame him for accepting the Euro 'eco targets'.

Whoever was PM at the time would have been outvoted by the rest of the Eurogang if they'd tried to resist them.

If you must blame somebody, blame whever enrolled us into the common market, the electors who didn't use the referendum to get out again or every PM since Supermac who didn't make a good enough argument against them.


If paying people to insulate their homes leaves the 'general pool' better off by avoiding penalties, then I'd far rather we paid the 'deserving poor' than contribute even more towards euro-fines.

ColinFishwick

No it was Blair I saw it on a program many months ago the guy who was doing the deals with eco emissions Blair wanted to increase our targets, the negotiator at the time was very surprised he went a lot further, so thanks Blair

grahamc2003

ColinFishwick wrote: »

No it was Blair I saw it on a program many months ago the guy who was doing the deals with eco emissions Blair wanted to increase our targets, the negotiator at the time was very surprised he went a lot further, so thanks Blair

Yes, it was Blair and Blair alone, acting against the advice of his advisers and, like a double glazing salesman, keeping the meeting going till the early hours until the worn out eu delegates just gave up. Blair insisted on 20% of our energy from 'renewable' sources as a binding target, instead of 20% of our electricity as everyone else understood the initial proposal. When the meeting was over, his advisors were taken aback that he'd forced through something insane.

It's a totally ridiculous argument to say if we don't cut co2 enough, we'll have to pay eu fines, when the fines are based on completely arbitrary criteria and were basically a great big mistake by a megalomaniac trying to make his name go down in history as some sort of saviour of our planet.

Over on the 'British gas warns of more price rises' thread, people seem a little perplexed by more price rises in the pipeline. Well - thats' where all the money has to come from for all these many and varied subsidies, and even cash payments to take a subsidy, come from, so it's no surprise there's no end in sight for home energy price rises whatever happens to world energy prices.

WestonDave

You have to wonder why the saving in energy costs means people won't take up free insulation and it requires payment to them to do so. Might that be because, certainly in the loft insulation field, what you get is a cheap rushed service which has considerable downsides. If there is this spare money in the budget, it might prove to be more effective to use the £100 per household that is available to substitute some of the "roll" insulation for solid panels so that the loft space can still be used for storage. I suspect its this issue which acts as a bigger deterrent than the lack of a £100 cash reward.

In cash terms the result is the same, but if people take the insulation, spend the £100 and then scuff the insulation out of the way to store junk in their loft, its not helping acheive the green objectives. If however you use the same cash to give people loft spaces which are both practical and energy efficient, then its worth using the money!