Ripple Energy wind farm?

Exiled_Tyke

imeldamarcos said:

The update email mentioning the surge in new member interest gave no indication of the level of this interest, but appears to imply that bank funding will be used, so I guess the uptake of shares is still disappointing. Depending on the amound of bank debt taken on, I think existing subscribers should be give an option to get their money back if this debt changes the financial projections significantly. I hope that interest on any loan is not linked to any inflation indices as these are moving quite quickly. With inflation rising rapidly and big increases in wind farm building in the UK and Europe, I also hope that the price of building our wind farm has been agreed, otherwise it may well rise. On the plus side, forward price estimates for electricity for the period 2024-26 are currently in the region of 9-10p/KWh which suggests that there may be chance to benefit from the abnormally high electricity prices once Kirk Hall is open, before the huge expansion in electricity production from renewables hits the market. Of course, predicting anything this far out is very difficult and the accelerating move to electric vehicles will of course increase demand for electricity over this period which may help cancel out the increased production.

With energy prices rocketing up I wouldn't be surprised if there has been a surge strong enough to get close to a sell out of shares.   But given this statement in the offer document 

"If the co-op directors are of the view that taking on this debt would materially change the proposition for co-op members, then members will be notified and given the opportunity to withdraw their shares and receive their share capital and arrangement fee back."

Then there shouldn't be a problem.  As investors haven't been notified it looks like the debt element won't be too significant.  

One thing I noticed in the email is that the need to keep the investment window open for longer doesn't appear to have impacted on the overall timeline. Which is good news. 

This is Ripple's biggest project to date and they have clearly overestimated the interest in such schemes. May be they are just ahead of their time or may be it's a model that few will go for. But it looks like this one is still on track.

Petriix

Exiled_Tyke said:

imeldamarcos said:

The update email mentioning the surge in new member interest gave no indication of the level of this interest, but appears to imply that bank funding will be used, so I guess the uptake of shares is still disappointing. Depending on the amound of bank debt taken on, I think existing subscribers should be give an option to get their money back if this debt changes the financial projections significantly. I hope that interest on any loan is not linked to any inflation indices as these are moving quite quickly. With inflation rising rapidly and big increases in wind farm building in the UK and Europe, I also hope that the price of building our wind farm has been agreed, otherwise it may well rise. On the plus side, forward price estimates for electricity for the period 2024-26 are currently in the region of 9-10p/KWh which suggests that there may be chance to benefit from the abnormally high electricity prices once Kirk Hall is open, before the huge expansion in electricity production from renewables hits the market. Of course, predicting anything this far out is very difficult and the accelerating move to electric vehicles will of course increase demand for electricity over this period which may help cancel out the increased production.

With energy prices rocketing up I wouldn't be surprised if there has been a surge strong enough to get close to a sell out of shares.   But given this statement in the offer document 

"If the co-op directors are of the view that taking on this debt would materially change the proposition for co-op members, then members will be notified and given the opportunity to withdraw their shares and receive their share capital and arrangement fee back."

Then there shouldn't be a problem.  As investors haven't been notified it looks like the debt element won't be too significant.  

One thing I noticed in the email is that the need to keep the investment window open for longer doesn't appear to have impacted on the overall timeline. Which is good news. 

This is Ripple's biggest project to date and they have clearly overestimated the interest in such schemes. May be they are just ahead of their time or may be it's a model that few will go for. But it looks like this one is still on track.

There's no reason why the debt facility should impact the profits of members. I strongly suspect that any finance could easily be covered by its own share of the generation profits. 

QrizB

If Ripple (or the Co-Op) are taking a loan to cover a portion of the construction costs, who will own the %age of the wind farm? The Co-Op? If so, they may be able to continue to sell those shares to future co-op members, and pay down the loan principal as sales happen?

70sbudgie

I understand that the first, single turbine project completed its funding because the local council bought a large portion of shares. They appear to be using the income from that investment to fund those in energy poverty in their area. 

It is quite possible that a commercial investor has bought a large number of shares for the returns. In which case, it would have no effect on the other (co-op) shareholders.

I expect that the current high costs of electricity has increased interest in investment in renewable generation across the whole industry. 

70sbudgie

Also, it was a big step up from a single turbine with 900 co op investors, to 8 turbines with 14,400 investors and a target investment of £24M. Ripple seem fairly pragmatic, so I am not surprised that they would have a backup in the case of not being able to attract enough co-op investors.

dharm999

Finally decided to invest, after a lot of to and fro.  I think that electricity prices will eventually fall back, so the upside from the investment will reduce, but then my energy costs will fall.  Overall, i think it will act as a good hedge.  Famous last words, and all that! 

Exiled_Tyke

This is from the Ripple website. Have I got this wrong or is it misleading? My theory because Ripple only saves money at the wholesale price of electricity whereas solar saves at the retail price.

1. Ripple is up to 65% cheaper than installing rooftop solar

   Based on costs set out in the Energy Savings Trust's Rooftop Solar Calculator. The cost of installing a 3.5kWp solar PV system on the roof of a south west facing house in London is £4,788. This would generate 3,069kWh per year. The cost of purchasing 957 watts of a wind farm with Ripple, which would generate 3,069kWh per year is £1,689. This is 65% cheaper than the solar installation costs.

   
   

   
   

QrizB

Exiled_Tyke said:

This is from the Ripple website. Have I got this wrong or is it misleading?

It's comparing apples with oranges, unless you're only interested in your household carbon footprint.

Financially, you'll save (very roughly, at current prices) twice as much with the solar PV option as with Ripple, although it'll cost you almost three times as much to do so.

Coastalwatch

QrizB said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

This is from the Ripple website. Have I got this wrong or is it misleading?

It's comparing apples with oranges, unless you're only interested in your household carbon footprint.

Financially, you'll save (very roughly, at current prices) twice as much with the solar PV option as with Ripple, although it'll cost you almost three times as much to do so.

I sat thinking about this topic and soon realised it is not a simple question to answer. On the face of it a simple statement and true. However, thinking a little deeper as QB rightly says it's like comparing apples with oranges and difficult to make a direct comparison.

Currently the saving on each kWh of wind energy is 9.5p, while on the PV front it is greater but varies depending upon supplier, I've seen figures between 29 and 40p/kWh stated. So a greater saving for sure.

However going a little deeper, then with PV not every kWh generated is utilised, thus only the SMEG figure offered by the utility is relevant, perhaps 4.5p tops, on those exported.

Looking at a recent PV quotation it suggests 30% utilisation, whereas with a battery this can rise to 72%, but at increased cost.

I'm afraid it's beyond my limited powers of extrapolation to even attempt to come up with a sensible outcome so I should certainly welcome one if others more capable are able to do so.

My take on it is they are both clean sources of renewable energy which I am more than happy to take advantage of while understanding that neither, in isolation or combination will totally supply our energy needs.

PV is great in the summer months and when combined with a battery sees us draw circa <0.5kWh's/day. While the stronger winds over the winter period will help offset the heavier bills then.

To assist further with mitigation, being signed up to the Octopus Go Faster tariff allows us to charge our newly acquired batteries on the cheaper overnight tariff, which for the most part will see us through the remainder of winter days. On that front we received our first months payment from Ripples first wind farm yesterday and very welcome it was too.

I'll let you know how/if it all works out as the months go by.

Unfortunately we don't have a stream or river flowing through our plot, although we are but 500metres from the sea, so it's rather frustrating with such a huge source of energy so close there isn't yet an opportunity to hook up to but a small share of it.

Patience. I hear you say!

Reed_Richards

Coastalwatch said:

Unfortunately we don't have a stream or river flowing through our plot, although we are but 500metres from the sea, so it's rather frustrating with such a huge source of energy so close there isn't yet an opportunity to hook up to but a small share of it.

I do have a stream on the edge of my garden but I don't believe the flow rate would be anywhere near enough to generate a significant amount of power.