Political Penguin

I have a sneaky liking for the Times newspaper. Not exactly sure why and it’s something that has grown on me over the past few years. It’s got pedigree and amongst the gradually lowering standards of British journalism I’d always thought it seemed to hold itself up. That was until today.

I just happened to be in New Cross hospital in Wolverhampton this morning and while waiting around caught the front pages. I had a little look to see if it was in their online edition but couldn’t find it but the article was fairly simple. A cross comparison between David Cameron’s wind turbine and Gordon Brown’s solar panels on their respective home residencies.

Upshot was a cost comparison of payback time between the two systems and hey ho Davy boys windmill turned out to be better paying back in 60 years compared to 100 years for Brown’s solar panels.

This got me thinking because about 6 months ago I did all the sums to try and weigh up what would I do should I ever be in the lucky position of having enough spare cash lying around to consider domestic generation.

From memory the Times article (and please correct me if I’m wrong) said Davy Boy’s windmill cost him £3,000 and Gordon’s solar panels cost £15,000. Now I didn’t see any cross comparisons for the actual output of the systems and if they were buried in the article then they would be interesting but I was rather distracted at the time.

So Gordon’s panels come in at 5 times the price of Davy Boy’s windmill. I assume they’ve done a few simple sums regarding the price of leckie and the relative outputs of the systems and come up with a nice little headline but it is just a little bit more complicated than that because using these calculations they’ve only considered a one-off installation cost and given the timespans involved, that is misrepresenting the facts.

We’re going to have to make a few assumptions here but as far as domestic wind turbines are concerned you’re not likely to get more than a 1kWh system and 0.7kWh is far more reasonably and that’s running at optimum strength. Solar panels are dependent on on surface area and the quality of the silicon but when I did my investigations 6 months ago £15,000 would buy you the equivalent of a 4kWh system, again running at optimum output.

Let’s be kind and say Davy Boy’s got a 1kWh system and it always runs at maximum output. Let’s also assume that Gordon’s got a 4kWh system and also runs at optimum. So installation cost wise we’re talking about £3,000 a kWh for Dave’s turbine and £3,750 a kWh so yes, on that basis Gordon has picked the pricier option.

However, and it’s a big however. What’s the life-cycle of the relative systems. Well you would be very hard pressed to buy any solar panels that don’t come with at least a 20 year guarantee. There is a simple reason for this. Solar power is the only source of electricity generation that requires no moving parts. No moving parts equals no wear and tear on the system meaning that some of the first solar panels produced are still going strong after 30 years with no maintenance.

Now try getting a 20 year guarantee on a domestic wind turbine. 10 years yes, 20 years, forget it. At best a domestic wind turbine might last 25 years before needing replacing with a new unit. On top of that add in maintenance costs and replacement parts (primarily the bearings as they wear out) and the Times article starts to look a bit shoddy.

Whereas Gordon’s solar panels could last in theory easily over a hundred years, Davy boy will have gone through at least 4 turbines in that time and assuming relative prices that’s £12,000 to produce a quarter of the electricity of Gordon’s £15,000 solar panels.

Plain simple long term economics. Solar works out better in the long-run compared to wind turbines.

Now there’s an important factor to consider. I had a little look around and Gordon apparently installed his panels in 2005. I’m not sure what the market price then was but whereas the relative cost/efficiency of wind turbines has not improved dramatically, solar panels have in recent years so bear that in mind.

Final point. I did all the sums 6 months ago and the answer was simple. Given the choice and available funds, I wouldn’t touch a wind turbine with a barge pole. Solar is simply a far better option and as the market develops and costs are driven down further, solar is a far better bet for domestic electricity generation than a turbine. Doesn’t make any noise either to miff the neighbours off, which is nice.