Jump to content


ebuild is sad to announce its closure - it has become too time and resource intensive to develop, manage and maintain.

However, ebuild will remain on-line in archive mode (ie no posting facilties) for several weeks so that users can use it as an information resource.

Much More Sensible Than The Green Deal...


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 28 December 2012 - 05:12 PM

http://wales.gov.uk/.../arbed/?lang=en

#2 oz07

oz07

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 886 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 12:47 AM

How do you leverage an extra 30 million from a scheme? Is it the further 20 the social landlords have put in + the 10 million from energy companies?

Edited by joiner, 29 December 2012 - 07:19 AM.
Typo


#3 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:40 AM

"Of this, at least £20m was invested by social housing providers and local authorities who took advantage of cost savings and economies of scale offered by arbed schemes to realign or bring forward their budgets for maintenance, housing renewal, neighbourhood support." etc.

In Scotland, social housing providers are doing much the same, as the CICStart webinars and conference agendas attest. ( http://www.cicstart.org/ )

Some of us agree with the AECB's argument that the money paid to onshore wind farm developers would see a better cost-benefit all round, at less cost to the consumer...

http://aecb.net/news...alue-for-money/

As against...

http://www.decc.gov....reen-deal-a.pdf

And take your pick of this lot...

http://www.decc.gov....green_deal.aspx

:wacko:

I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, express any kind of support for the Green Deal. When it was first mooted it was laughed off the pitch as fundamentally flawed, not even its good intentions getting it any credit.

Subsidies paid to onshore wind - money which is driving schemes into ever more marginal locations, especially since the NPPF specifically precludes a scheme's poor generating potential as reason for objection - is money diverted from where it could better be spent.

Edited by joiner, 29 December 2012 - 08:42 AM.
To clarify a point.


#4 temp

temp

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,200 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 12:36 PM

The big selling point of the Green Deal is that it's not meant to cost you anything but it's not clear that will be the case. The advisor will provide two assessments:

* An EPC which is a basic assessment of your property. It makes assumptions about how many people live there and how they use the heating. It does not take account of your actual usage or bills.

* The Occupancy Assessment which is personalised to you and does assess your own energy use.

The loan and repayment calculation is based on the EPC not the Occupancy Assessment. So what happens when you have a little old lady living in one room of a four bed house? I can see some less than honest double glazing salesmen telling her that she's going to get free double glazing and save money based on the EPC whereas her actual bills (including the Green Deal interest) may actually go up. The Green Deal is secured against her house so in theory if she can't pay she looses her home - although I can't see the government allowing this situation to actually arise.

I can also see some dubious practices occuring... For example what's to stop a salesman/advisor inflating the cost of the work until the Green Deal repayment matches the predicted savings? It's already common for salesmen to focus on the monthly repayment cost rather than the overall cost.

#5 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 29 December 2012 - 01:01 PM

"The central run presumes that the Green Deal repayment is allowed to rise 2% per year throughout the repayment period."

And it is just too damn complicated. This is from that 'impact assessment' paper...

"The choice of repayment period is important because it affects the annual Green Deal charge and hence the net bill savings consumers receive. For example, a £1000 measure would require an annual Green Deal charge of £146 if paid back in flat instalments over ten years, assuming a 7.5% interest rate. But if paid back over twenty years, the charge would be just £98 pounds. So if the measure is expected to save £150 annually, the customer could expect bill savings of £4 a year if paying back over ten years and £52 if paying back over twenty. This trade-off between higher bill saving (good) and longer repayment period (bad) is reflected in the consumer preference section of the model where uptake is affected positively by the first component and negatively by the second.
As such, we have selected standard repayment periods for each measure to best reflect their cost and performance, so as to achieve a certain level of net bill savings while keeping repayment periods to a reasonable length. Hence all solid wall insulation packages are repaid over twenty years and all cavity wall insulation packages are paid back over ten years. In reality, customers will be free to choose their own preferred repayment period, within Golden Rule constraints, so in this respect the modelling is conservative."

Presumably, each Green Deal assessor carries a crystal ball with them to allow the customer to look into their future to understand which of the options to choose.

We've discussed elsewhere the inherent problem with modelling - the presumed accuracy of the underlying assumptions. It isn't helpful if the assumptions are biased towards the outcome the modeller wants. ;)

#6 temp

temp

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,200 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 10:34 AM

Grrr. The Green Investment Bank (set up to finance new renewable energy projects) starts by lending money (aka subsidising) to wind companies that have already built their wind farm.

http://www.cnplus.co...8640507.article

Quote


As CN reported earlier this month, the initial transactions in the offshore wind sector are focused on existing assets, to familiarise the markets with the sector.
It is hoped that this could move to construction and development phases at a later date, but no timeframe has been outlined.

I'm not familiar with subsidies either, can I get a cheap loan too?

Edited by temp, 30 December 2012 - 10:36 AM.


#7 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 07 January 2013 - 02:19 PM

More woe for the misbegotten Jolly Green Deal...

http://www.guardian....-fees-upgrading

#8 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:31 PM

http://www.businessg...-interest-rate#

#9 jsharris

jsharris

    Please ignore all posts by me, some are erroneous

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,461 posts
  • LocationWiltshire/Dorset border

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:48 PM

Barking mad.............

Anyone who has spare available equity in their house would be far better off trying to extend their mortgage, I'd have thought. Just how interest rates this high are going to encourage people to adopt energy saving measures is beyond me. It looks more like a way to encourage a bit of money making by the financiers behind the Green Deal than a real attempt to improve energy efficiency.

I predict this will be a big damp squib, with few taking up the offer. I also predict that we'll see a raft of companies behaving like the worst kind of double glazing sales people selling home improvements on the back of this to people who could get a better deal if they shopped around.

#10 DamonHD

DamonHD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:59 PM

I don't think that the most important target for the GD is people with "spare equity in their homes", but in particular tenants where otherwise there is the nasty spilt of interests between CAPEX and OPEX...

Rgds

Damon

#11 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 27 January 2013 - 06:09 PM

The article makes that point, Damon. Sort of.

#12 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 09 February 2013 - 09:49 AM

For anyone still wondering what it's all about...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-21227567

And a bit more on how it's supposed to work out...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-21233608

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b01q95y8 (Check out the 'chapters'.)

#13 DamonHD

DamonHD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

Posted 09 February 2013 - 01:54 PM

Heard Ed Davey in person last night making a defence of the GD amongst other things at a local event. He explicitly said that it isn't intended to be used by everyone, eg those that can cheaply extend their mortgage. He did specifically say that it should make possible improvements by those who otherwise could not get credit at all, and by tenants.

Rgds

Damon

Edited by DamonHD, 09 February 2013 - 01:54 PM.


#14 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 09 February 2013 - 02:03 PM

Yeah, heard him on You & Yours saying pretty much the same thing earlier this week, but can't find the episode, which is why it isn't amongst those I gave above.

I vaguely remember (I was driving through fairly heavy traffic at the time) Winifred Robinson asking him how he squared that statement with the fact that such people could only just manage their current fuel bills, so how were they expected to pay the extra the GD would pile on top?

(Anyone else fancy trying to fing that episode. Really annoyed that I can't. :angry: )

Edited by joiner, 09 February 2013 - 02:03 PM.


#15 DamonHD

DamonHD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

Posted 09 February 2013 - 02:22 PM

One of the panellist's objections was very much that: if now someone in (fuel) poverty heated as much as they could afford, but that was very underheated, then the GD might mean that the house could be reasonably heated almost all the time still just within the occupant's means, ie no actual money saved since money was the limiting factor before.

I don't know if that is in effect a straw man because a good assessment should then select (slightly reduced) works which split the available cash between repayment and getting the house somewhat warmer, eg dangerously cold any of the time. Good solutions are not binary, but somewhere on a continuum.

I haven't been able to get all of my IWI done in one go: does that mean I'm hard done by? I think not.

So we'll need to see how well/badly GD+ECO actually functions in practice I think, especially in those marginal-to-extreme hardship cases.

Rgds

Damon

#16 caliwag

caliwag

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,834 posts
  • LocationYork

Posted 09 February 2013 - 05:14 PM

Dave...It might've been on Money box last Wednesday. They had an energy bill theme. Otherwise no joy my friend!

#17 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 09 February 2013 - 10:02 PM

I don't think it was what I heard, Jim, but it's of great interest anyway. Many thanks for that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b01qdzbw

(Sure it was Winifred Robinson! :wacko: )