SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Solar panels are to be installed in 800,000 low-income homes across England and Wales over the next five years, as part of a new government scheme.
The Dutch firm, Maas Capital, is investing £160m in the project.
The panels, which will be free to tenants, are expected to cut hundreds of pounds from energy bills, according to the UK firm Solarplicity.
The first people to benefit from the scheme include residents of a sheltered retirement home in Ealing, west London.
Speaking at the site, International Trade minister Greg Hands said: "This initial £160m capital expenditure programme will deliver massive benefits to some of the UK's poorest households.
"As well as creating 1,000 jobs and delivering cheaper energy bills for up to 800,000 homes, it shows yet another vote of confidence in the UK as a place to invest and do business."
The firm providing the panels, Solarplicity, will work with more than 40 social landlords, including local authorities across England and Wales.
It will profit from the payments received under the feed-in tariff scheme and payments for energy from social housing customers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 07 2017, @01:47AM (3 children)
So in addition to the costs mentioned, the parties responsible will be siphoning via various publicly funded subsidies. That's quite an oversight for the BBC to neglect.
What is the mechanism by which a £200 per household investment can install a relevant amount of solar power? They are speaking of an "initial investment", which might mean that future infusions of capital will be required to achieve the number of households affected.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Whoever on Thursday September 07 2017, @02:41AM (1 child)
So, if I understand you, selling electricity to the privatized utility company constitutes a public subsidy?
Did you even look at the feed-in tariffs in the UK? Hint: they are a lot less than retail electricity rates.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 07 2017, @02:19PM
Fine, it's not a public subsidy, because all the other customers are the real funding source for the subsidy. But it is mandated by the UK government and a large group is paying to subsidize renewable energy installations in the scheme.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 07 2017, @03:01AM
The problem with these type of subsidies is that people need quite a bit of investment themselves to be able to apply for the subsidy. This causes an increase in wealth gap between the poor (they can't spend 7000 EUR on solar panels to get the subsidy) and the rich (who would be able to just pay all the costs involved, but the subsidy just adds to their profit). In essence it's a small scale version of the mechanisms behind the banking crisis in Europe, where public money is used to siphon money from the poor to the rich.
Subsidies themselves are not bad, but the way they are implemented makes them good or bad. This plan might be one of the lesser bad ones, as it opens options for people who else might just not be in the financial position to get solar panels.
The mechanism is actually already explained by your quote above, the feed-in and payment tariff, which will cover the costs as electricity is produced and used.
Regarding the "initial investment", government marketing speak at work here. It just means that if the initial programme is successful, it can be repeated. It's just a way of saying to keep options open.