Solar panels are to be installed in 800,000 low-income homes
 

The UK government have announced that they are to fund the installation of 800,000 solar panels to social funded homes across England and Wales, over the next 5 years. These will be installed at no cost to the tenants.
The firm providing the panels, Solarplicity, will target military veterans when it recruits staff to install the panels.

Solar power deal will lower social tenants' energy bills - BBC News

I'm just glad they aren't doing it here.

Hmm...any drawbacks? cost, for example?

Why? Are you against solar energy or just the fact of the installation work?
Council houses here are continually having building work done. It causes very little disruption to anyone other than the tenants. These are typical of council housing hereabouts.

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/...7_b447c7ca.jpg

The government reckons it will cost £160M, so say £240M by the time it is done! Provides work, cheap energy, a boost to the economy. Better than spending it on Trident or foreign aid to some tinpot African dictator.

I'm not against solar power at all.
I have an associate degree in applied science on wind and solar power generation. I'm going to install at least 5kw of grid tied solar at my next house. I like solar power.
What I don't like is the endless tax payer handouts.
If you want solar panels, buy them your self.
If they want it that bad why not have the government pay for say half or 2/3. Make people work for it a little.

With 800,000 solar panels what's the deal, does everyone get 2 or 3 solar panels?
What about scotland and Ireland? Does the sun never shine there?

Sounds like a rotten deal to me.

Scotland has its own government responsible for energy, as does Northern Ireland. If they want the same they will have to fund it themselves.
It is 800,000 homes that will get the panels. Homes owned by the government or local councils (funded by government). The houses they are talking about starting with are sheltered housing for the old and infirm. People who have no income and couldn't pay for solar if they wanted to.
The decommissioning of Sellafield Nuclear site is currently £90bn and rising. That cost could supply the entire energy needs for the UK (many times over) if it was invested in solar.
I'd rather the government gave money to help the poor of the UK than all the other things they waste it on. The project will provide jobs (which brings in income tax), boost the UK economy, reduce other social costs and cut our energy requirements from Russian gas and Arab oil. Forgive me if I come across as racist but in some respects I am!

I completely understand keeping the money at home.
Every euro spent can generate up to 20 euro of economic activity, as long as everything is produced in your home country.

But if the panels are made in germany or the US, the inverter is made by ABB in Netherlands and the racks made some where else every euro spent turns into maybe 2 to 5 euro of economic activity at home.
It may turn out to be more of an economic boost for these other countries.
But at least it's not going to buy suicide bomber oil and take over the world brand natural gas.

:confused:

Is this the case or not? Do the two sentences not contradict each other?

At least they're hiring veterans.

Yes, buying foreign does benefit the countries that manufacture the parts but they buy our services and such. It is a decision that the UK made sometime in the past. To be an importer not a manufacturer.

Assuming that electric bills for the low-income tenants are already subsidized, it does make sense to take this approach that seems way more financially sustainable in the long run.

My last Sergeant installs solar panels. I always appreciate people helping Veterans, just as long as everybody who needs help receives it.

I always liked how Habitat for Humanity involved the recipients.

So, the government is using the real estate to generate revenue?

What is the ROI again?

I did some work like this as a volunteer in Los Angeles a couple summers. It was for a nonprofit called grid alternatives. We put solar panels on low income families' homes free of charge. The panels were subsidized by the state of California if I recall correctly. The policy goal is not just to help low income families but to create a distributed solar array across California. Partly as a result of such policies, California has one of the highest renewable energy proportions in its energy combination in the USA.

Instead in of wasting money on social engineering maybe they could work on improving air quality.
Out of the top 20 moat air polluted cities in the US California wins the top 5 or 6 spots.

So glad I don't live there.

Habitat for Humanity (the ones I've talked to) have a stick up their butt about high-performance housing.The location at White City, OR was a little more receptive because they are faced with some heavy weather on the Oregon Coast.

And my reading of this situation is that the government that provides the housing, and therefore the heat, is proactively seeking lowest operating costs.

And putting veterans to work.

But it does seem to lead to improvements in air quality, since would decrease the usage of fossil fuels for power generation and heating.

California imports a lot of it's electrical power from out of state. They won't build a new power plant in that state.
Motor vehicles seem to be the main culprit.

That might have been true when you heard it, but it's not true anymore. About 91,000 Gwh come from out of state and 198,000 Gwh from in-state generation. Leading the way in the growth of in-state generation is Natural Gas and Renewables. We are building power generation. I was physically on the roofs in Compton assisting in installing part of a statewide program of distributed solar power generation. But that is just one small program. Since 2002, the pace of solar and other renewable generation development in California has grown by leaps. Solar has been one of the biggest growth areas and is now the largest in-state renewable source. Here is a link to show you the mix: Total System Electric Generation

And here is a link of current generation plant projects: California Solar Energy Statistics & Data

Drive a plug-in out here and it is many times cleaner than in Kentucky because we are not burning much coal to generate power.

Well I hope it works because I was in L.A. in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2009 and it was a smog hole.

Me too, since I live here. Hahaha! Anyway, here is promising data. I am sure the reasons are as much or more due to the hated smog inspections and removal of old vehicles from the road as it is due to changes in the energy generation mix:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1504449988

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1504450019

And two articles of interest:
https://news.usc.edu/97920/southern-...ratory-health/
and
https://blog.mysidewalk.com/combatin...y-f6f55cf8d711

I remember the worst offenders were city busses and trash trucks for particulate matter.

City driving.

How much better are the semis transporting solar panels?

Normal big rigs aren't usually too bad about PM since the owner operators and trucking companies actually have to pay for their fuel they don't want excess fuel going out the stacks all the time.

PM doesn't seem to be much of a problem now, but the noise early in the morning and late at night is still somewhat bothersome.