How To Solve Fuel Poverty : Give £1000 To Every Homebuyer

[Sledgehead]

It should be a loan. They seem happy to solve every other problem with debt, except in this case it actually makes sense.

I think they call that the "Green Deal". The dept responsible projected 10,000 adopters. At last count it stood at 219. The loan interest rate was 8%. The insulation purportedly saved £135 a year on heating. The loan costs wiped out the gains.

... that's the exact problem finance is designed to solve.

But not at 8%, clearly.

Insulation is profitable in the long-run, but expensive in the short-term, ...

But in the long term Insulation and especially retrofit insulation causes interstitial damp and associated structural problems, necessitating use of de-humidifiers (or expensive repairs in the long term). On the American (one of the few places with long term use of de-humidifiers) eastern seaboard, running costs amount to some 10% of electricity bills with an equivalent UK bill of about £120. Note how close that figure is to the savings from insulating (£135).

People think insulation is a cut and dried, uncontroversial issue. In reality it has the same complexities and unknowns as something as controversial as climate change. And I suspect government know this. However, it is politically convenient to blame expensive heating bills on poor insulation rather than the weakness of the pound.

This line of reasoning has led to the draughty, poorly insulated, country houses of their chums becoming less desirable. They had to do something to shore up that vote. And here it is.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Sledgehead

[Sledgehead]

Personally I think it's a sensible measure. If the government is going to provide a subsidy to improve the energy efficiency of the country's housing stock then it should be offered when people are most likely to take it up. The same subsidy should be offered to landlords so that their tenants can benefit from lower energy bills too. I'd be in favour of a certain degree of compulsion. I have no objection to a house rising in value because it is materially improved in some way.

I really don't understand why you need to incentivise behaviour when the market will do it for you. People with property can remortgage and in actuality they do just that, IF they feel they will benefit. If the government wants to insulate council housing then they can make a case for that, but meddling in the private affairs of individuals is NOT what I expect from a supposedly pro-free market, small government, party.

[yokel]

They could remove or reduce VAT on insulation, condensing boilers etc if they really wanted to improve energy efficiency.

Then they could insist that any energy supplier books all its uk income in the uk and tax profits properly to help fund it.

Y

[Ash4781]

Where did the amount of £1,000 for the grant get plucked from? As others have said this isn't relevant to new builds. Double glazing, retro solid wall insularion doesn't payback on reasonable time frame on financials. I guess they will have to list eligible items/ projects.

It could be useful retrofitting insulation into flat roofs. Complicated and risks if done badly with ventilation problems with damp eventual roof collapse?

[@contradevian]

Wonder if I can get a grant to install a heat pump to extract all my neighbours heat.

[yokel]

Could you spend it on jumpers or thermals? They should count as insulation - and probably the most efficient method too.

[wonderpup]

So we can't afford to subsidize spare bedrooms in social housing but we can afford to give a grand to every homebuyer?

This austerity regime seems oddly slanted in favor of those who are better off.

[(Blizzard)]

I think they call that the "Green Deal". The dept responsible projected 10,000 adopters. At last count it stood at 219. The loan interest rate was 8%. The insulation purportedly saved £135 a year on heating. The loan costs wiped out the gains.

But not at 8%, clearly.

But in the long term Insulation and especially retrofit insulation causes interstitial damp and associated structural problems, necessitating use of de-humidifiers (or expensive repairs in the long term). On the American (one of the few places with long term use of de-humidifiers) eastern seaboard, running costs amount to some 10% of electricity bills with an equivalent UK bill of about £120. Note how close that figure is to the savings from insulating (£135).

People think insulation is a cut and dried, uncontroversial issue. In reality it has the same complexities and unknowns as something as controversial as climate change. And I suspect government know this. However, it is politically convenient to blame expensive heating bills on poor insulation rather than the weakness of the pound.

This line of reasoning has led to the draughty, poorly insulated, country houses of their chums becoming less desirable. They had to do something to shore up that vote. And here it is.

8%!?

Genius.

[Orsino]

I really don't understand why you need to incentivise behaviour when the market will do it for you. People with property can remortgage and in actuality they do just that, IF they feel they will benefit. If the government wants to insulate council housing then they can make a case for that, but meddling in the private affairs of individuals is NOT what I expect from a supposedly pro-free market, small government, party.

The government is under an obligation to reduce our consumption of fossil fuel. By far the easiest and cheapest way to do this is to reduce energy waste and inefficiency. People are far more likely to take action if they own the property, they've just moved house and they think they're getting free money.

[Sledgehead]

The government is under an obligation ....

Only if you believe we have no sovereignty worthy of the title. Amazing how we all just submit to these notions ....