Zero chance that solar panels are paying off the initial investment in 3-4 years... if they were everyone would have them.
This is also super basic supply and demand stuff. If you forcibly raise the price of a good, demand for it goes down. This is fine if the primary goal is to cut some emissions, but is mutually exclusive with making home ownership more accessible.
ben_w•9mo ago
A few things:
1. UK houses are not usually custom builds with specs determined by first owner, they're usually "firm builds a street or ten, sells to whoever they can"; the builders have little incentive to care about what's cost-effective.
IIRC, custom-builds are only about 10% of UK market.
2. Houses don't behave quite the same way as other assets.
People have a certain approximately fixed amount of money available to spend on a house, and basically all of that money will be taken by the sale.
When the physical cost of building the house is forces to go up, the value of the land is forced to go down.
3. PV itself is now absurdly cheap, the primary cost is getting it installed. If this is done at construction time, this is cheaper than if it is done later.
floundy•9mo ago
>sells to whoever they can"; the builders have little incentive to care about what's cost-effective
and
>People have a certain approximately fixed amount of money available to spend on a house, and basically all of that money will be taken by the sale.
Cannot both be true at the same time, it is a contradiction of basic economic theory.
ben_w•9mo ago
Hence:
"When the physical cost of building the house is forces to go up, the value of the land is forced to go down."
Land in the UK, for housing, is expensive. But it's only worth what the house price can get away with. Everyone gets richer => land is more expensive. Interest rates go down => land is more expensive.
This is also why UK houses are so small compared to much of EU, US. Materials are cheap, land is where the money goes.
floundy•9mo ago
This is also super basic supply and demand stuff. If you forcibly raise the price of a good, demand for it goes down. This is fine if the primary goal is to cut some emissions, but is mutually exclusive with making home ownership more accessible.
ben_w•9mo ago
1. UK houses are not usually custom builds with specs determined by first owner, they're usually "firm builds a street or ten, sells to whoever they can"; the builders have little incentive to care about what's cost-effective.
IIRC, custom-builds are only about 10% of UK market.
2. Houses don't behave quite the same way as other assets.
People have a certain approximately fixed amount of money available to spend on a house, and basically all of that money will be taken by the sale.
When the physical cost of building the house is forces to go up, the value of the land is forced to go down.
3. PV itself is now absurdly cheap, the primary cost is getting it installed. If this is done at construction time, this is cheaper than if it is done later.
floundy•9mo ago
and
>People have a certain approximately fixed amount of money available to spend on a house, and basically all of that money will be taken by the sale.
Cannot both be true at the same time, it is a contradiction of basic economic theory.
ben_w•9mo ago
"When the physical cost of building the house is forces to go up, the value of the land is forced to go down."
Land in the UK, for housing, is expensive. But it's only worth what the house price can get away with. Everyone gets richer => land is more expensive. Interest rates go down => land is more expensive.
This is also why UK houses are so small compared to much of EU, US. Materials are cheap, land is where the money goes.