Intention to install household solar in the U.K. has not often translated to actual adoption, new research suggests.
The research paper “Do intentions matter in household solar panel adoption? New evidence,” available in the journal Energy Economics, analyzes the link between stated intentions and actual adoption of UK household solar installations by using data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study. The survey is considered one of the world’s largest panel surveys, with a sample size of 40,000 households and approximately 100,000 individuals.
The research team, from Sydney’s Macquarie University, Charles Darwin University, and Queen Mary University of London, used survey data from 2012-13, 2018-2019 and 2021-22, analyzing data on intention to install household solar and actual solar adoption against factors including age, income, material wealth, whether someone rents their property and environmental perceptions.
Rohan Best, from Macquarie University and corresponding author of the report, told pv magazine that a key finding of the research was that while intentions do matter for household solar adoption, the link between intentions and actual adoption remains nuanced.
Figures available in the paper state that nearly 90% of households who had said they were seriously considering adopting solar panels in the 2012-13 survey had not yet installed solar by the 2021-22 survey. Despite this finding, the paper says that solar intentions, proxied by serious consideration, still exerts a robust positive effect on actual adoption, increasing the likelihood by three to seven percentage points. For comparison, variables such as income contributed zero to two percentage points on the likelihood of adoption.
Additional analysis found households that had rejected the idea of installing solar panels after consideration in 2012-13 were more likely to have adopted solar by 2021-22 compared to those who stated they had not thought about adopting solar. “Having considered but rejected solar panels appears to make subsequent adoption more likely compared to those who had not given consideration to solar panels earlier,” Best said.
The researchers also found the link to environmental perceptions is stronger towards solar intentions than solar adoption. Elsewhere, income was found to have a minor influence on solar adaption, with income’s influence mostly explained by related factors such as wealth and renting. Best told pv magazine this finding points towards the need to broaden policy considerations around solar adoption beyond income, before suggesting that a separate solar adoption scheme could be implemented for renters. “Renters make up a substantial fraction of households in every country, so policies specifically targeting renters could have potential everywhere,” he added.
Best also said the research findings highlight that there would be value in governments eliciting information on household willingness and ability to pay for solar panels, through mechanisms such as an equitable reverse auctions trial.
“Reverse auctions have been used in other related contexts like utility-scale energy to pursue cost-effectiveness such that the lowest cost bid is successful,” Best explained. “In a household context, fairness can be pursued with sub-auctions for sub-groups of households based on economic characteristics of a household like their wealth or income to ensure that households could compete with others in a similar economic position.”
Best also told pv magazine he believes the research findings can be applied to influence policy design in national markets other than the UK, as a lack of information on household willingness or ability to pay for solar is ubiquitous across national governments.
“If one government can take novel actions to make improvements for some of these challenges, then other governments can benefit by following successful trials,” he continued. “If governments lack information at the household level, then subsidy schemes would naturally continue to be provide more than is necessary for some households but less than required for others. Instead, better targeting of subsidies can help more people for a given cost to the government.”
Best added that the results are also relevant to markets linked to solar adoption, such as the uptake of home battery systems. “This is because of the widespread issues for any technology investment including upfront cost constraints, split incentives for renters/landlords, and information shortfalls for governments considering subsidy schemes,” he said.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.
UK solar installations are way cheaper than in America, that is a good thing, and the systems that are being installed in UK are mostly gridtied only systems because it is way cheaper minus the battery. That was actually intentional at the beginning of the first systems installed to help bring down the cost of the solar panels itself, and that is exactly what happened. I don’t think you want the price of the solar panels to drop any further… We don’t want the panel makers to go out of business… So all these people that want solar but don’t have it should now go for it… Even if it is not a large system…. Balcony solar anyone???
Intentions mean nothing when installers mark materials up 100-150% so that repayment term stays just under 20 years. When it should be 6-10 years. MCS scheme that was supposed to protect consumers is actually hurting them. Actually requirement for MCA certified installation in order to get export tariff is. Without MCS certified money grabbing installers i coud DIY install the same hardware at 30-40% of the cost, get it electrically connected and tested by sparky and be done with it. Huge part of MCS is ensuring solar is not missile to people who won’t benefit from it and making sure there is insurance for 25 years of repayment term. Electrical safety is 25% if not less of MCS related costs, so why should DIY installations be penalised for not lining pockets MSC certified installers? Every NicEic qualified electrician can connect rooftop solar PV, if homeowners did their research on suitability and affordability, understands warranty periods and is working with qualified electrician then let them install the freaking solar PV and pay them for the damn electricity they export. Where is the harm in that! Ah wait, the 80% of MCS installers will have to sell their Porsches…
Im Australian. I had never seen any economic value to solar plus battery. Until the govt funded 40% of the battery and its installation cost.
For $12000 aussie dollars we had 30 panels and a 15kw inverter and 42kwh battery installed. Our annual.powrr bill was $6000. Now $0 perhaps a credit
Another 500,000 homes did the same thing
Taxpayer funded with no means testing
(Florida) I’ve bought all the parts for a 7kw grid-tied roof-mounted system for about $5,000 – 12 560w panels, four inverters, racking, etc. I’m looking for installers. Most solar companies won’t do anything but complete systems, one offered 50 cents a watt ($3,500) and when I told them the original permit was for 5kw (those panels weren’t available any more), they dropped the price to $2,500 because I reminded them it was exactly the same amount of work. Another company quoted me $11,000 for the same job. There’s no rhyme or reason to pricing, it is the Wild West, whatever the traffic will bear. This job is two workers, one day, which means at $30/hr per worker, it might take 20 man/hours which comes to $600. I’d pay $1,000, but anything else is a rip-off. This is NOT the way to establish a stable, mature market and rooftop solar is not going to “grow up” until there is actual competition instead of pricing being done by guessing and depending on the customer’s lack of knowledge.