And the cost of the subsidy on the solar? In the US the buyer pays about $3,000 kw nominal, the other $3,000 is paid by the state.
That does not alter the cost, just who pays for it.
The figures I give, showing €2244/KW, and over 20 years a cost of 22c/KWhr, which is similar to the retail price of electricity, is without
the subsidy (excludes VAT, which is reclaimable on solar installations).
Accepting that, in Germany, it's the subsidy which makes it a no-brainer financial investment if you have the right roof in the right place. But then the whole point of the subsidy was a long term gamble to bring costs down. 18 months ago I was involved in an installation and the cost was GBP 3658/KW - about double the EUR 2,244 for my current quote - that's almost a halving of price in 18 months. OK - one's UK, one's Germany, but some variant of Moore's Law is at work.
As for the assertion which you make that solar is going to dramatically fall in price, that remains an assertion without backup, whereas I have listed strong reasons why the largest falls in price are over.
Yes - you said because most of the cost is in installation and the inverter. I gave you the real cost figure which shows that installation is a small part of the cost. The cost is still mostly in the cells and these are falling fast, and that's even before we talk about thin film cells (which will also reduce the cost of installation). The "Moore's law equivalent" in solar is still on going.
You also assume that wind power will decrease in price.
Since it is extremely materials intensive, including for things like rare earths and copper, and moreover especially in Europe the best sites are already taken so that less electricity is likely to be produced on average per MW nominal as penetration increases there are few reasons for assuming such a fall.
But currently the whole process for making wind turbines is based around a cottage industry mentality, and is only just getting round to the idea of production lines and economies of scale.
the use of 6kw average for a house in the UK is absurd, and anyone who is using anything like this is better off by far investing in decent insulation and so on, and certainly not messing around with wind.
Better ask a plumber, but for our C rated (well above UK average - double glazing, cavity insulation, loft insulation) home, they all recommended a 20-26KW boiler.
Granted you can do with less if you run it 24/7. Looking back at my records the most use was 218KWhrs per day, though that was before insulation. I think a more reliable figure is 182KWhrs/day in January 09, =7.6KW average. But gas boilers rarely run 24/7, so you need to double that.
You're spoilt in a flat
When I lived in a mansion block flat, the people above and below like it warm so I hardly ever needed heating.
And of course the calculation changes if you consider the ideal heat source for a house, which is (after a shielded chunk of spent nuclear fuel, but MI5 won't allow that) a 60% efficient fuel cell linked to a 400% efficient ground source heat pump, giving an all heat efficiency (gas to heat) of 280%.