Ripple Energy wind farm?

jaybeetoo

I’ve only just come across Ripple and I don’t understand why anyone would put money into it.  Investing in a renewable energy infrastructure investment trust (IT) seems a much better and lower risk option for most people.

The IT spreads your risk across many renewable projects often in several countries.  If the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow on one site, it probably will on another.  If there are delays with construction or getting on the grid then the IT has other sites that are operating.  It has the possibility of capital growth.  They pay dividends.  You can sell your investment immediately at any time.  You can put it into an ISA or into a SIPP.  You don’t have to worry about maintenance or decommissioning of sites.  The IT is covered by the FSCS.  You are not tied to using specific energy providers (who knows what providers will be around over the next 25 years and whether they will be best value or still supporting Ripple).  If the government changes the law or tax rules regarding renewables, you’re not not locked into something for 25 years.  What happens if Ripple goes bust?

I just don’t get Ripple.  Too high risk and inflexible for me.

thevilla

Some of your points seem valid however the investment is in a co-op which owns the RE asset. Ripple only manage it.  If Ripple go bust 'someone' else can do it.  Also maintenance and decommissioning are built into the financial model over the life of the wind or solar farm.

Don't invest, that's fine but the more options the better.  I'd guess Ripple has raised money which would never have otherwise gone into RE.

Coastalwatch

Came across the site below on the Ripple community page and thought to share here. It covers the majority of UK wind farms with output and wind direction in real time. I found it compelling to view and while Graig Fatha and Kirk Hill are not as yet included it gives a great insight to generation output both inland and around the coast.

https://renewables-map.robinhawkes.com/#6.85/55.428/-3.769

jaybeetoo

thevilla said:

Some of your points seem valid however the investment is in a co-op which owns the RE asset. Ripple only manage it.  If Ripple go bust 'someone' else can do it.  Also maintenance and decommissioning are built into the financial model over the life of the wind or solar farm.

Don't invest, that's fine but the more options the better.  I'd guess Ripple has raised money which would never have otherwise gone into RE.

My main concern is people are getting into this without fully understanding the risks.  They are locking their money away for decades.  They are restricting their choice of energy supplier.  I can’t help feeling this could all end in tears.

Reed_Richards

The thing that puts me off Ripple is their desire to do everything unconventionally.  They could issue shares like a regular company and then you ought to be able to sell those shares if you wanted out.  They could issue dividends like a regular company and you could use those to help pay your electricity bill but you wouldn't be tied to one particular supplier.  I'm sure in both cases they have their reasons but I'm still put off.  

NedS

Reed_Richards said:

The thing that puts me off Ripple is their desire to do everything unconventionally.  They could issue shares like a regular company and then you ought to be able to sell those shares if you wanted out.  They could issue dividends like a regular company and you could use those to help pay your electricity bill but you wouldn't be tied to one particular supplier.  I'm sure in both cases they have their reasons but I'm still put off.  

But if they did that they could not possibly complete with the likes of Greencoat UK Wind fund which has £4.8 billion of assets under management. Economies of scale. I can see how Ripple might appeal to people who have no clue how to invest in shares on the stock market. They have their niche market.

Martyn1981

NedS said:

Reed_Richards said:

The thing that puts me off Ripple is their desire to do everything unconventionally.  They could issue shares like a regular company and then you ought to be able to sell those shares if you wanted out.  They could issue dividends like a regular company and you could use those to help pay your electricity bill but you wouldn't be tied to one particular supplier.  I'm sure in both cases they have their reasons but I'm still put off.  

But if they did that they could not possibly complete with the likes of Greencoat UK Wind fund which has £4.8 billion of assets under management. Economies of scale. I can see how Ripple might appeal to people who have no clue how to invest in shares on the stock market. They have their niche market.

Are you assuming there's only a binary choice?

I've invested in about 30 RE and energy efficiency schemes, but they are 'just' investments. With Ripple, the generation actually impacts your bill, so it's a bit like having your own wind turbine (or PV) displacing some import.

The scheme may not appeal to you, but may appeal to others. Seems fine to me.

NedS

Martyn1981 said:

NedS said:

Reed_Richards said:

The thing that puts me off Ripple is their desire to do everything unconventionally.  They could issue shares like a regular company and then you ought to be able to sell those shares if you wanted out.  They could issue dividends like a regular company and you could use those to help pay your electricity bill but you wouldn't be tied to one particular supplier.  I'm sure in both cases they have their reasons but I'm still put off.  

But if they did that they could not possibly complete with the likes of Greencoat UK Wind fund which has £4.8 billion of assets under management. Economies of scale. I can see how Ripple might appeal to people who have no clue how to invest in shares on the stock market. They have their niche market.

Are you assuming there's only a binary choice?

I've invested in about 30 RE and energy efficiency schemes, but they are 'just' investments. With Ripple, the generation actually impacts your bill, so it's a bit like having your own wind turbine (or PV) displacing some import.

The scheme may not appeal to you, but may appeal to others. Seems fine to me.

No, I was simply responding to the points made by @Reed_Richards. Clearly Ripple has a place otherwise their offerings would not be over-subscribed.

Exiled_Tyke

Reed_Richards said:

The thing that puts me off Ripple is their desire to do everything unconventionally.  They could issue shares like a regular company and then you ought to be able to sell those shares if you wanted out.  They could issue dividends like a regular company and you could use those to help pay your electricity bill but you wouldn't be tied to one particular supplier.  I'm sure in both cases they have their reasons but I'm still put off.  

The structuring of the investment is governed by the intention for this to be a community owned scheme and the government rules that need to be followed to allow this and minimise tax impact.  (Hence the unsual situation that returns are treated as savings income and not dividends and also the 120% of expected consumption)

Reed_Richards

NedS said:

Clearly Ripple has a place otherwise their offerings would not be over-subscribed.

I was reading today about an "industry" selling scam investments https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-65038949 .  I'm not for one minute suggesting Ripple is a scam but you could say these scammers "have a place" or they would go out of business.  I don't see that having a place represents much of a case in favour.

Exiled_Tyke said:... the government rules that need to be followed to allow this and minimise tax impact.  (Hence the unsual situation that returns are treated as savings income and not dividends ...

For most people, particularly at the present time of higher interest rates, you are more likely to exceed the tax-free limit on your savings income than on your dividend income.  I think that having dividends would minimise the tax impact.