I recently saw a news item about Ripple Energy, which offers buy-in (“investment opportunity”) to shared solar electricity generation. I’ve been trying to think it through and would be grateful for ideas/thoughts.
The main benefit would seem to be reduced electricity costs.
There are also claims about using “green” energy. I’m more doubtful about that angle. I’m currently on Octopus, already 100% “green”, and in any event the whole sector is moving towards renewables.
So, on reduced costs. I can see the basis for this: in the electricity sector more broadly, prices are set by an opaque formula rooted in bizarre rules that protect the revenues coming from generation via gas. If we paid prices more tightly tied to the cost of solar/wind generation, we’d be paying a lot less. So, if Ripple helps (somehow) bypass those regulations and offers a genuine wind/solar-based price, then great.
The problem, I figure, is that expectations about savings depend really heavily on predictions about where the broader market will go. Ripple’s website says that if I invest £4514 (via 9 monthly instalments), I will save £10,106 over the course of 40 years (and enjoy a 17-year payback period). That prediction relies on a BEIS document, “Updated energy and emissions projections 2021 to 2040”. So, there’s some basis for it. But I struggle with the idea of relying on a government projection 40 years into the future.
A “pessimistic” scenario (i.e., pessimistic with regard to whether Ripple is a good investment) contemplates the possibility that the “market” cost of electricity is likely to decline, especially now that there is more public knowledge about the way it’s currently a completely bizarre non-market mechanism that determines prices.
Still, the idea of shared solar makes a lot of sense to me: it seems much more efficient, you can “take it with you” when you move (something I’m likely to do in the next ~10 years), and it reduces individual risk associated with individual ownership.
Anyway, I’m curious to hear others’ views.
The main benefit would seem to be reduced electricity costs.
There are also claims about using “green” energy. I’m more doubtful about that angle. I’m currently on Octopus, already 100% “green”, and in any event the whole sector is moving towards renewables.
So, on reduced costs. I can see the basis for this: in the electricity sector more broadly, prices are set by an opaque formula rooted in bizarre rules that protect the revenues coming from generation via gas. If we paid prices more tightly tied to the cost of solar/wind generation, we’d be paying a lot less. So, if Ripple helps (somehow) bypass those regulations and offers a genuine wind/solar-based price, then great.
The problem, I figure, is that expectations about savings depend really heavily on predictions about where the broader market will go. Ripple’s website says that if I invest £4514 (via 9 monthly instalments), I will save £10,106 over the course of 40 years (and enjoy a 17-year payback period). That prediction relies on a BEIS document, “Updated energy and emissions projections 2021 to 2040”. So, there’s some basis for it. But I struggle with the idea of relying on a government projection 40 years into the future.
A “pessimistic” scenario (i.e., pessimistic with regard to whether Ripple is a good investment) contemplates the possibility that the “market” cost of electricity is likely to decline, especially now that there is more public knowledge about the way it’s currently a completely bizarre non-market mechanism that determines prices.
Still, the idea of shared solar makes a lot of sense to me: it seems much more efficient, you can “take it with you” when you move (something I’m likely to do in the next ~10 years), and it reduces individual risk associated with individual ownership.
Anyway, I’m curious to hear others’ views.
. Although maybe my RHD Model S is now going to start appreciating…
