With domestic energy bills rising, it is tempting to think that investing in renewable energy gadgets could be a money-saving wheeze. But the more you look at it, the less it makes sense.
The announcement that British Gas will cut some of its gas tariffs was a rare piece of good news on the household bills front. But the reality is that it will only benefit a small section of the population and, for the time being at least, we will all continue to pay more, a lot more, than we did a couple of years ago.
We can all hope, and expect, that other energy suppliers will follow suit and a price war will ensue, but in reality it is impossible to avoid the idea that the days of cheap energy are now behind us.
So when it comes to reducing our household fuel bills, it might pay to start looking at how we can help ourselves, rather than waiting, more in hope than expectation, for falling prices. For instance, surely the price of fuel now makes home generation (the talk of the town two years ago) something worth looking at?
Well, yes and no. Of course on the face of it, generating your own power looks like a good idea – if you can generate enough you can say good bye to fuel bills altogether. Sadly, like many an apparently simple solution, it is all rather complicated in reality:
First you have to work out which generating technology is best for you and, aside from the well known choices like solar panels and wind turbines, there are a myriad of options.
Technologies range from ground heat pumps to biomass converters and depending on where you live all or any of them might work for you. However, the sticking point is price.
Viewed in isolation, £13,000 for a wind turbine that would not, on its own, make you self sufficient is a lot of money. When you consider that it might save you just £40 a year, it looks astronomical – on that basis, it would take 325 years for the thing to pay for itself. And that’s if you have enough wind to make it 'worthwhile'.
As it happens, wind turbines are particularly problematic. Most of those on the market have not been properly assessed to make sure they do what the manufacturers claim – some estimates suggest that they typically deliver just 10 to 25% of the energy they promise.
It seems to me that solar is probably the better option for most people. A water heating solar device can cost as little as £2500, so the payback period would be ‘only’ 62 years. What’s more, as long as you have enough south facing roof space, and there is no shade, they don’t need direct sunshine, just sunlight, to work. You’d need a lot of them to be self sufficient though.
Finally, there are grants available – up to £2,500 per household – so that does make the initial outlay less painful, depending on your choice of technology.
But that is not the end of the story. Then you have to deal with the thorny issue of planning permission. Most renewable energy technologies require planning permission before they can be installed – as David Cameron found out to his cost.
A couple of years ago the government announced plans to designate renewable energy sources like turbines and solar panels as ‘permitted development’, which meant they would neatly dodge the need for planning (with some restrictions). I may have missed the fanfare, but I don’t recall any of those bold ideas ever coming to fruition, so planning remains a problem –and a potentially costly one.
Given these problems, it seems to me that the idea of energy self sufficiently still does not make financial sense – until that situation is put right it will remain the stuff or fantasy, or the moneyed eco-warrior – take your pick.
It’s a shame though. The idea is sensible and logical, especially when you consider that two thirds of energy generated centrally is lost ether during cooling or distribution. Until the government pulls its finger out and makes the whole ideas affordable – perhaps rather than investing in nuclear – then it will remain a pipedream.
