General Discussion
@Steve Why would owners of detached houses and bungalows with large rooftops get a subsidy? That's not what I'm suggesting at all, in fact it'sd better if not approcahed from the perspective of individual private homeowners, but rather from a community perspective and their collective needs. And I agree with you about subsidies going to those who can afford it, landlords, etc, many of whom are ...
So those that own detached houses and bungalows with large rooftops would get the subsidy. If it means the poor having to pay for it, then I'm sure it's a sacrifice those wealthy homeowners are willing to make to save the planet. This is what has been happening for decades anyway. The wealthiest get the subsidies. Landlords get taxpayers money to insulate their rental properties and replace ...
@Steve I see what you mean on subsidizing. But ss everyone meant to have what? Solar panels? Not everyone has a suitable rooftop aspect, so looking at it from the individual homeowner perspective means roll-out would be limited, plus not everyone would be able to invest heavily up front even if the tech resulted in lowered bills in the long-term. Anyway I'm approaching this from a climate change ...
Who is doing the subsidising if everyone is meant to have it? You can't subsidise yourself. If the technology represented value for money then everyone would adopt it. It doesn't so they continue getting their energy cheaper from the energy companies. And millions of workers own those shares in their pension funds.
Solar PV isn't cheap, solar thermal should be installed first following engery efficiencies to the home iike drausght exclusion and insulation, more affordable steps to conserve energy usage. Heavily subsidized solar panels aren't going to happen in this country, there's too much money to be made by the big 6 who pull the strings of the government and likely have ministers as shareholders or ...
The big energy companies aren't stopping anyone from putting solar panels on rooftops or carparks as far as I am aware.
@Steve I agree, solar panels on all S facing rooftops whether residents homes or public buildings would be best from our point of view, but not best from the big 6 energy firms' shareholder's dividends perspective, which is why they don't care about using productive farmland or population density. The establishment wouldn't want ordinary people to generate their own energy, they need us to be ...
@burneside , the law of unintended consequences comes to mind. Ed Miliband may have good intentions, or he may just be following Al Gore’s playbook which made him a lot of money; either way it is a terrible idea. The best place to put solar panels is on rooftops and in car parks. Using farmland is ridiculous given the UK is not self-sufficient in food and how dense the population is.
@Teignpot So you are saying Leeds and London can burn because the government is incapable of doing two things at once.
Lottery won't be back up until Monday according to the shop assistant.