Part ownership of a Ripple Wind Turbine, fancy it?

[cojmh]

I have been having a look at the numbers and something I don't understand is the estimated generation based on the capacity that you purchase.

Looking at their example purchasing 914 Watts would generate 2,900 KWh so each watt would generate 3.17KWh per year

however just going off my own panels I don't ever break the 1KWh per watt. Best I have achieved is 0.89 KWh per Watt and that is from 8 years of past data

I understand that technology has moved on in the last 8 years and there will be other optimisations that will be done but I am just wondering if 3.17KWh per watt per year is realistic. Has anyone else ever achieved close to this?

Just a thought

[AE-NMidlands]

Had a quick look at Ripple community and it's beginning to explode with whiners wanting their £25 back. Well they were told it could read, would be a solar park.

I'll stay away from there I . Looking forward to further details and will likely top up to max on it.

My gut feeling was that this would happen, solar isn't sexy enough & winter output for "investors" compared to straight forward home ownership & accept the empirical realities of the seasons more, is a farcebook pile on!

Ripple were very upfront with informing folk that it could well be solar, stupid stupid £25 waving humans.

Me i'd like to see more WT so voted with feet, ..reservation holders chose to drop the mere £25 in full knowledge that it wasn't a certainty.

Just off to the bookies to whine that my £1 bet on a sleepy greyhound didn't win, & that... (it's a fiver in petrol & £1.80 in parking)

THIS>>>> The scale of our project allows thousands of your fellow Ripple members to join. This lowers the upfront costs for everyone. Right now, we predict co-owning this solar park will be 70% cheaper than installing solar panels on your own roof.

Around 70% cheaper.

but to use the electrons you have to pay grid charges and your supplier's prices etc. Really, it is an investment, and nothing like a solar roof connected to your consumer unit.

[Tinbum]

If you dont like it they say-

If you take a look at the share offer and decide it is not for you, there is nothing more you need to do. We'll automatically role your £25 reservation into the next project. Although worth saying it'll work really well alongside your solar panels too

[nowty]

I have been having a look at the numbers and something I don't understand is the estimated generation based on the capacity that you purchase.

Looking at their example purchasing 914 Watts would generate 2,900 KWh so each watt would generate 3.17KWh per year

however just going off my own panels I don't ever break the 1KWh per watt. Best I have achieved is 0.89 KWh per Watt and that is from 8 years of past data

I understand that technology has moved on in the last 8 years and there will be other optimisations that will be done but I am just wondering if 3.17KWh per watt per year is realistic. Has anyone else ever achieved close to this?

Just a thought

I'm afraid those numbers are based on WT2 (Kirk Hill) so will not translate to project 3.

For 1000W bought,
WT1 (Graig Fatha) was forecast to generate 2670 kWh
WT2 (Kirk Hill) was forecast to generate 3170 kWh
Project 3 (Solar park) is likely, forecast to generate approx 1100 kWh depending on location (my guess based on PVGIS if location is in the south).

[Mr Gus]

If you dont like it they say-

If you take a look at the share offer and decide it is not for you, there is nothing more you need to do. We'll automatically role your £25 reservation into the next project. Although worth saying it'll work really well alongside your solar panels too

Yeah, but the pack wants blood now! ...facebook pile on, people who pinned their energy cost angst to project 3, so they ignore that bit until the smoke clears.

[cojmh]

I have been having a look at the numbers and something I don't understand is the estimated generation based on the capacity that you purchase.

Looking at their example purchasing 914 Watts would generate 2,900 KWh so each watt would generate 3.17KWh per year

however just going off my own panels I don't ever break the 1KWh per watt. Best I have achieved is 0.89 KWh per Watt and that is from 8 years of past data

I understand that technology has moved on in the last 8 years and there will be other optimisations that will be done but I am just wondering if 3.17KWh per watt per year is realistic. Has anyone else ever achieved close to this?

Just a thought

I'm afraid those numbers are based on WT2 (Kirk Hill) so will not translate to project 3.

For 1000W bought,
WT1 (Graig Fatha) was forecast to generate 2670 kWh
WT2 (Kirk Hill) was forecast to generate 3170 kWh
Project 3 (Solar park) is likely, forecast to generate approx 1100 kWh depending on location (my guess based on PVGIS if location is in the south).

Thanks for the explanation.

I think it is perhaps going to cause a lot of confusion because when I read the returns, they were talking about a return over 40 years - I thought that the Wind farms were based on 20 to 25 years, so I made an assumption that this was going to be for the solar farm.

Oh well, I am at my limit anyway with Kirkhill (and did not pay £25 for this project) - but I was just surprised at the numbers when I saw them

[Countrypaul]

I have been having a look at the numbers and something I don't understand is the estimated generation based on the capacity that you purchase.

Looking at their example purchasing 914 Watts would generate 2,900 KWh so each watt would generate 3.17KWh per year

however just going off my own panels I don't ever break the 1KWh per watt. Best I have achieved is 0.89 KWh per Watt and that is from 8 years of past data

I understand that technology has moved on in the last 8 years and there will be other optimisations that will be done but I am just wondering if 3.17KWh per watt per year is realistic. Has anyone else ever achieved close to this?

Just a thought

Are you sure you're not just comparing apples with oranges? Solar panels only work during daytime, and most effectively when the sun shines brightly, wind turbines work 24hrs/day but admittedly only when the wind blows. The capacity factor for panels in the UK is therefore much lower than most wind turbines, CF for solar panels in the UK is around 10%.

[cojmh]

I have been having a look at the numbers and something I don't understand is the estimated generation based on the capacity that you purchase.

Looking at their example purchasing 914 Watts would generate 2,900 KWh so each watt would generate 3.17KWh per year

however just going off my own panels I don't ever break the 1KWh per watt. Best I have achieved is 0.89 KWh per Watt and that is from 8 years of past data

I understand that technology has moved on in the last 8 years and there will be other optimisations that will be done but I am just wondering if 3.17KWh per watt per year is realistic. Has anyone else ever achieved close to this?

Just a thought

Are you sure you're not just comparing apples with oranges? Solar panels only work during daytime, and most effectively when the sun shines brightly, wind turbines work 24hrs/day but admittedly only when the wind blows. The capacity factor for panels in the UK is therefore much lower than most wind turbines, CF for solar panels in the UK is around 10%.

Thanks for your thoughts,

I thought I was comparing solar panels with solar panels because their page is not clear and does not mention either solar park or wind turbines (and if I am making a mistake how many others are?)

Their website says "When the next project opens, this is what to expect…" and their returns are for 40 years - where as I am sure it was either 20 or 25 years for Kirk Hill. So I assumed their example was an example of their solar park and if that was the case they were achieving much power generation than I was.

Which made me wonder if I have a deficiency in my system (which is what I was leaning towards) or were their figures wrong for the UK or is their solar park going to be somewhere else (like Africa).

Anyway - my point is that it is not clear and I wonder what confusion that might be causing for other people.

If their figures are for the wind turbines (which it now appears they are) they should make this clearer

[Countrypaul]

Thanks for your thoughts,

I thought I was comparing solar panels with solar panels because their page is not clear and does not mention either solar park or wind turbines (and if I am making a mistake how many others are?)

Their website says "When the next project opens, this is what to expect…" and their returns are for 40 years - where as I am sure it was either 20 or 25 years for Kirk Hill. So I assumed their example was an example of their solar park and if that was the case they were achieving much power generation than I was.

Which made me wonder if I have a deficiency in my system (which is what I was leaning towards) or were their figures wrong for the UK or is their solar park going to be somewhere else (like Africa).

Anyway - my point is that it is not clear and I wonder what confusion that might be causing for other people.

If their figures are for the wind turbines (which it now appears they are) they should make this clearer

Having read the page again, I totally agree with you - very confusing. They make reference to solar but do not explain what the figures are based on, I believe they are WT2 but cannot be sure - though Nowty's post seems to agree.

[nowty]

@cojmh and @Countrypaul, I agree its going to confuse people and I hope they change it soon.

Its currently a dogs dinner, they have left pictures of wind turbines, the calculator has cost and benefits based on WT2 levels, but they have extended the savings up to the higher Solar park lifetime, thus over estimating returns.

Its currently very misleading to the point of being fraudulent. OK the offer is not yet open, but they are still accepting new folks £25 reservation fees.