Ripple Energy wind farm?

70sbudgie

I wonder if the inheritance side of things will be different with the PV relative to the wind. I think one of the reasons my Dad didn't invest in Kirk Hill is because he can't imagine being the bill payer in 20 years time.

But with 40 year solar farm, even I'm wondering if I might need to consider how I'd pass my share to my children. Iirc, it wasn't an option for Kirk Hill.

mgfvvc

70sbudgie said:
But with 40 year solar farm, even I'm wondering if I might need to consider how I'd pass my share to my children. Iirc, it wasn't an option for Kirk Hill.

The documentation for Kirk Hill is phrased in such a way that I can't say with certainty what it means, but I think shares can be inherited. This discussion suggests that would be the case for the solar farm

thevilla

mgfvvc said:

70sbudgie said:
But with 40 year solar farm, even I'm wondering if I might need to consider how I'd pass my share to my children. Iirc, it wasn't an option for Kirk Hill.

The documentation for Kirk Hill is phrased in such a way that I can't say with certainty what it means, but I think shares can be inherited. This discussion suggests that would be the case for the solar farm

There is a beneficiary section in the Ripple account page which allows a beneficiary to be nominated on death. It certainly would be advantageous if that were expanded to cover moving into care.  I'm 61 and doubt I'll be paying a leccy bill at 101+ 😄

mamoulian666

Exiled_Tyke said:

I think the argument here would be that as electricity prices will broadly (and more likely in the long term) move in line with general inflation then no inflation adjustment is needed in calculating how much spending power the returns will have in the future.  They should in theory be about the same as today.

All calculations are driven by the government-sponsored analysis they link to, which projects prices to 2040. Do you think that includes or ignores inflation?

Exiled_Tyke said:

1. As we all know after many years of stability in electricity prices they have suddenly become very volatile. And so we are back to the hedging argument. This investment is protection against such volatility and this is probably more important than absolute returns. 

...

Personally I'm not overly concerned about the negotiated rates Ripple can achieve.  I would expect there to be a fairly efficient market in forward contracts for electricity and Ripple will be achieving these alongside other generators. So prices should be fair.  I'm guessing this is the way much of the market works to aid stability to the consumer.  Ripple seems to have performed well at looking after customers so far (ok in a very short timescale) in a volatile market.   There obviously is some exposure to energy companies increasing their rates but less so than without the investment at all. 

For hedging, Ripple's negotiated rates and savings are of paramount importance. Suppliers are in business to make a profit and set their tariffs far above the contracts they achieve. We have a limited pool of suppliers as they need to be willing and able to handle the savings functionality. Perhaps Ripple needs the suppliers more than they need Ripple. We will never know because the negotiations are a closed process.

To keep to their marketing word Ripple needs to aim for the savings they've suggested, not keep our bills stable (the hedge).

Also negotiations are yearly, if the wholesale market or government cap changes push tariffs up mid-year then our tariffs go up but savings do not, so our hedge fails.


Why don't the suppliers offer fixed tariffs on the same timeframes as their Ripple negotiations? As they have an agreed fixed wholesale energy purchase price they could compete on fixed costs+margin, wholesale energy market price fluctuations are irrelevant.


There are many comments on how the savings have gone up, and that's great, but it's irrelevant unless they have gone up by the same amount as the tariffs. And at the same time.

Exiled_Tyke said:

There obviously is some exposure to energy companies increasing their rates but less so than without the investment at all. 

That's the disappointing bit. Makes it a risk I am having to weigh up. With a slightly modified model that exposure could be removed and joining would be a no-brainer.

chqshaitan

This is all true, but fortunately most of the companies which have signed up with ripple, offer decent tariffs. Octopus innovative tariffs are great.

Check this one out for example : https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/beat-the-energy-price-cap-with-a-tracker-tariff-at-octopus-energy-4078767?page=35#comments

Reed_Richards

chqshaitan said:

... fortunately most of the companies which have signed up with ripple, offer decent tariffs. Octopus innovative tariffs are great.

I wasn't aware that any companies have signed-up with Ripple apart from Octopus and companies that use a different brand name but subcontract to Octopus.

70sbudgie

mamoulian666 said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

I think the argument here would be that as electricity prices will broadly (and more likely in the long term) move in line with general inflation then no inflation adjustment is needed in calculating how much spending power the returns will have in the future.  They should in theory be about the same as today.

All calculations are driven by the government-sponsored analysis they link to, which projects prices to 2040. Do you think that includes or ignores inflation?

Exiled_Tyke said:

1. As we all know after many years of stability in electricity prices they have suddenly become very volatile. And so we are back to the hedging argument. This investment is protection against such volatility and this is probably more important than absolute returns. 

...

Personally I'm not overly concerned about the negotiated rates Ripple can achieve.  I would expect there to be a fairly efficient market in forward contracts for electricity and Ripple will be achieving these alongside other generators. So prices should be fair.  I'm guessing this is the way much of the market works to aid stability to the consumer.  Ripple seems to have performed well at looking after customers so far (ok in a very short timescale) in a volatile market.   There obviously is some exposure to energy companies increasing their rates but less so than without the investment at all. 

For hedging, Ripple's negotiated rates and savings are of paramount importance. Suppliers are in business to make a profit and set their tariffs far above the contracts they achieve. We have a limited pool of suppliers as they need to be willing and able to handle the savings functionality. Perhaps Ripple needs the suppliers more than they need Ripple. We will never know because the negotiations are a closed process.

To keep to their marketing word Ripple needs to aim for the savings they've suggested, not keep our bills stable (the hedge).

Also negotiations are yearly, if the wholesale market or government cap changes push tariffs up mid-year then our tariffs go 


Why don't the suppliers offer fixed tariffs on the same timeframes as their Ripple negotiations? As they have an agreed fixed wholesale energy purchase price they could compete on fixed costs+margin, wholesale energy market price fluctuations are irrelevant.


There are many comments on how the savings have gone up, and that's great, but it's irrelevant unless they have gone up by the same amount as the tariffs. And at the same time.

Exiled_Tyke said:

There obviously is some exposure to energy companies increasing their rates but less so than without the investment at all. 

That's the disappointing bit. Makes it a risk I am having to weigh up. With a slightly modified model that exposure could be removed and joining would be a no-brainer.

This is the PPA (power purchase agreement) model. It is becoming an increasingly popular way of buying / selling renewably generated electricity and the more widespread it is, the more it will help to stabilise electricity prices. However, to work completely, there needs to be a way to cover the disparities between demand and intermittently generated electricity. So we're back at the market (the current model). There are so many alternatives to this which are currently being explored - demand side management, time of use tariffs, time of use capacities (other countries charge for / limit the max instantaneous import, instead of just charging for the energy), voltage regulation.

Until the current crisis Ecotricity seemed to operate solely on PPAs, so their website has some interesting information.

mamoulian666

chqshaitan said:

This is all true, but fortunately most of the companies which have signed up with ripple, offer decent tariffs. Octopus innovative tariffs are great.

Check this one out for example : https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/beat-the-energy-price-cap-with-a-tracker-tariff-at-octopus-energy-4078767?page=35#comments

That may be a good tariff for the market - as long as you're ready to switch out if it gets near the cap - but its market tracking is directly opposite to where Ripple members should be. Our generation is sold to Octopus at a fixed rate for a year so market pricing is irrelevant.

Why have Octopus restricted signups to that to 50 a day?


Octopus are clever enough to apply their usual tariff rate for usage over the Ripple generation/allocation, and for usage within their Ripple allocation give members either a fixed rate or a variable 'saving' rate that tracks the current tariff price.

imeldamarcos

Quite a bit of discussion here has been about the amount of savings which members may receive from Ripple Energy's green energy developments and this is great but I'm not convinced that the execution risk associated with these projects is fully recognised. Members of the Ripple Energy Owners Group on Facebook have just been alerted to an article on the Solar Power Portal at:

https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/connection_dates_branded_unacceptable_as_octopus_offered_2036_date_for_sola

This article discusses multi-year delays in connecting solar farms. Such delays could have a significant impact on the financial viability of Ripple Energy's planned solar farm.

This type of delay has already increased the execution risk of Ripple's Kirk Hill Wind Farm project which is already in development.  Kirk Hill is an area of Scotland where there is already insufficient capacity to transmit wind farm electricity to the grid. There is effectively a waiting list for connections, so perhaps it is unsurprising that Ripple has announced a delay in the schedule for grid connection for Kirk Hill. This is what happens when there is a lack of proper strategic infrastructure planning by the government. Ripple states that the delay is beyond their control so I believe that SP Energy Networks (the company improving grid infrastructure) could impose additional delays if it is in their commercial interest to do so. This is why Ripple has explained to Kirk Hill members that it does not now know when the turbines will be energised which suggests to me that further delays may be in the pipeline. It will be a shame if slipping timelines on the Kirk Hill project discourage people from investing in the solar farm project (if it takes place). Potential new investors may wish to monitor problems with the Kirk Hill Project and see how effectively Ripple is able to sort them out. It should also be remembered that Ripple Energy is a tiny unquoted company with a limited track record and that delays in project timelines could have a significant impact on cashflow so there is also be an element of corporate risk in these projects. Despite this, I continue to support Ripple Energy's plans (I am an investor) but I hope that those who are not experienced investors realise that there is substantial execution risk associated with these projects.

70sbudgie

I think you will find that it is not an issue specific to Ripple - every single generation application in the UK will have similar wait times - regardless of whether the generating technology is renewable or fossil fuels.

And the issue is not SP Networks - the DNO. The issue is the transmission operator - National Grid.

Have a look at these videos for some more information on connecting to the transmission network:
https://www.nationalgrid.com/electricity-transmission/connections/regional-customer-connections-update

And have a look at this page for what NG are doing about it:
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/industry-information/connections/two-step-offer-process

The only issue I have with Ripple is that the Kirk Hill offer specified that the grid connection had already been secured (this is something that I particularly looked for). That appears to not be the case.