Solar Panels On Council Houses

[El Cid 220]

23 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

Better homes is a joint programme and does lots of things other than supply solar panels though. As this was about solar panels and as far as I can tell they are only free in some areas of Leeds and Wakefield only and are not generally available in the wider Leeds City Region.

Sheffield council did supply solar panels, but due to cuts they were scrapped in 2016.

Shefield Mayors policy is "The Strategy is based on collaboration between academia, businesses and South Yorkshire communities, and includes plans to ensure no new homes use fossil fuels by 2025."

So I assume new homes are having solar panels, but other homes will have to wait for funding from Mayor Dan Jarvis.

23 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

 

 

Edited January 19, 2022 by El Cid

[Dromedary 166]

2 hours ago, El Cid said:

Sheffield council did supply solar panels, but due to cuts they were scrapped in 2016.

Yep it was scrapped due to the solar subsidies given by the government being cut and also because the FIT rates were also being cut for new installations. SCC had projected that they would gain around £30 million in revenue from the FIT scheme so it was more about revenue generation than householder saving.

 

From the SCC Housing revenue account of 2015.

 

"2.6 The installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels on the roofs of 6,000 council dwellings would reduce household bills for those homes by an average of around £200 per year and bring into the City over £30m of energy company subsidies."

 

Those subsidies relied on an extra subsidy levied on the electric unit cost that all householder's had to pay on their electric bill. Similar to the smart meter rollout we have now.

 

IIRC I believe they did install some on their own buildings but not on any tenants property.

 

[spilldig 188]

18 hours ago, cuttsie said:

Sheffield council  owns the social housing . that is what the post is about .

So private homes don't matter then?

[Kidorry 189]

10 minutes ago, spilldig said:

So private homes don't matter then?

No. You buy, so you should improve them.

[cuttsie 1,090]

8 minutes ago, spilldig said:

So private homes don't matter then?

Of course they do and people that own them improve them if they so desire then when time comes to sell they reap the benifits of those improvements inc solar panels .

Council tenants just pass the property on to the next person who pays the rent no profits involved . that is where the term social housing come from .got it !!!!!!!

[spilldig 188]

23 minutes ago, cuttsie said:

Of course they do and people that own them improve them if they so desire then when time comes to sell they reap the benifits of those improvements inc solar panels .

Council tenants just pass the property on to the next person who pays the rent no profits involved . that is where the term social housing come from .got it !!!!!!!

No because help should be there for anyone who needs it.

[cuttsie 1,090]

9 minutes ago, spilldig said:

No because help should be there for anyone who needs it.

Agreed ,then pay back when property is sold at a profit . The same as people should do when selling ex council houses 

[Dromedary 166]

When the household solar panel initiative first started several years ago companies suddenly sprung up that allowed them to install solar panels for free on any house that was suitable. People signed a contract that allowed these companies to take the revenue from the excess generated and sold back to the grid as the FIT payback was high and profitable. IIRC there was a thread on SF about them. The FIT rates in 2012 for a household could be at the higher rate of 21p per KWh when the actual cost to the average consumer was around 10p.  Because of that it was open to abuse and a way of getting round the rules regarding solar farms and the lower rate that they got paid. 

 

Since then the FIT tariff has been substantially reduced to take the burden off the consumer and is now mainly done by grants which have to be paid back.

 

https://www.gov.uk/green-deal-energy-saving-measures

[El Cid 220]

4 hours ago, Dromedary said:

The FIT rates in 2012 for a household could be at the higher rate of 21p per KWh when the actual cost to the average consumer was around 10p.  Because of that it was open to abuse and a way of getting round the rules regarding solar farms and the lower rate that they got paid. 

Since then the FIT tariff has been substantially reduced to take the burden off the consumer and is now mainly done by grants which have to be paid back.

Mine were installed in 2015 and the tarrif is around 5p

[Dromedary 166]

2 hours ago, El Cid said:

Mine were installed in 2015 and the tarrif is around 5p

Is that now or when it was first installed? Did you pay for them or was it part of a scheme?

 

According to the blurb if your building did not meet the energy efficient requirement you would get the lower rate which as you have said was around 5-6p and I think fixed for 20 years. I think that is also around what new installation will now get.

 

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Dromedary

[El Cid 220]

4 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

Is that now or when it was first installed? Did you pay for them or was it part of a scheme?

 

According to the blurb if your building did not meet the energy efficient requirement you would get the lower rate which as you have said was around 5-6p and I think fixed for 20 years. I think that is also around what new installation will now get.

I believe that 5p is for 25 years. I volunteered my roof and got the panels on a free scheme. When energy was cheaper, not as many people wanted panels on their roof.

I believe the difference is, that I get a guaranteed 50% of what the panels generate, where as new instalations get what is exported.

If someone is at home during the day, its likely that all the generated electrcity will be used, but I still get paid for 50% of it.

It only amounts to around £200/300 per year.

[catmiss 12]

To get back on topic. I worked in social housing maintenance for several years and the repairs/upgrade budget was eroded by the condition properties were left in when tenants left and or damage caused during tenancies which had to be repaired for H & S reasons. Although financial charges were applied to tenants the prospect of recovery was minimal which impacted on the budget for improvements outside legislative upgrades