Part ownership of a Ripple Wind Turbine, fancy it?

[Tinbum]

Has Kirk Hill data been down for 2 days or is it just mine?

[Fintray]

Has Kirk Hill data been down for 2 days or is it just mine?

Yes it's down, see note on Ripple website.

[Moxi]

Data is down and if you’re with Eon then you won’t get paid till around September because they have issues

Eon = always fast to raise the bill always sooooooo slow to pay you any money they might owe you.

What a shower !

Moxi

[Joeboy]

Thought of you lads today. Aberdeen bay windfarm and ships on stand by. Stunning weather today up here in both solar & wind forms.

[Moxi]

Cracking view ! We have had wall to wall sunshine, house stack hovering around 90% car filled up to 82% on the granny charger and all house appliance batteries topped up. This is how summer should have been !

Haven’t even bothered getting all the panels out either today.

Moxi

[nowty]

August capacity factor graphs for both GF and KH.

Both performed well significantly above baseline with GF 19% above and KH 41% above.

[Adokforme]

Cheers @Nowty, that's good to learn.
Afraid I've a couple of questions arising if you wouldn't mind indulging me.
Is the Kirk Hill total still to have the final three missing day totals added?
And, is there a reason why one graph shows comparison to P75 while t'other is to P50?
Have to confess that when first coming across the P figures that I did find it confusing trying to understand why a P50 return was higher than a P75, but subsequently understand that it's purely a baseline figure likely to be met, at least either 50% or 75% of the time?
Happy to be advised otherwise if not the case.

[nowty]

Cheers @Nowty, that's good to learn.
Afraid I've a couple of questions arising if you wouldn't mind indulging me.
Is the Kirk Hill total still to have the final three missing day totals added?
And, is there a reason why one graph shows comparison to P75 while t'other is to P50?
Have to confess that when first coming across the P figures that I did find it confusing trying to understand why a P50 return was higher than a P75, but subsequently understand that it's purely a baseline figure likely to be met, at least either 50% or 75% of the time?
Happy to be advised otherwise if not the case.

Very possibly the KH figures will be revised upwards, I'll edit it if they are.

The baselines are based upon what was in the respective share offers, in fact I keep thinking about changing the wording to "share offer baseline". I thought someone would bring it up sooner or later but at least that means someone actually reads this stuff. Normally you would base it on the P50 as that is the most likely outcome over time. P50 means that there is a 50% probability of at least meeting that generation, its a bit like tossing a coin as you have equal chance of getting it right or wrong.

KH was based upon the P50 estimate because they had two years of real wind speed data from the site.

GF was based upon the P75 estimate, that means the generation yield estimate was lower than the P50, your correct in that its confusing, but there is a higher probability of generating at least a lower amount. The reason why they chose the P75 estimate for the GF share offer was that they did not have any real measured wind data, it was all modelled on theoretical Met office data. Therefore there was more uncertainty and going for a P50 estimate would have been a bit naughty. In fact the actual GF share offer baseline is actually even slightly lower than the P75 as they also took off about another 2% (cant quite remember the exact figure) because of the location of the turbine which is down wind of many more wind turbines from the predominant west which will lower the wind power slightly and add unwanted turbulence.

The WB project which they are still trying to flog , is a bit weird as the location of WB should give a higher capacity factor than KH but its lower than even GF. The share offer does specify the P50 estimate, but that P50 estimate includes significant reductions because of the max grid capacity (slightly lower than the sum of wind turbines) and the high likelihood of curtailment in strong winds as its only on the transmission network. And anyone noticed the operating cost in the share offer docs has gone from 2p / kWh for GF and KH, to 2.3p / kWh for DW, to 4.6p / kWh for WB.

GF is on the distribution network and normally does not have any curtailment, in addition it has embedded benefits (its near local use) and gets a lower transmission charge. If locational reform ever comes in (not likely now if gas prices remain low) it would also be in a better position compared to the Scottish wind farms.

KH is on both the distribution network and the transmission network. It has been made clear recently it will be curtailed at times (no compensation) and also will need to join the balancing mechanism in which it will be paid to switch off at times with compensation but the payments may be smaller than what it would have generated. Those payments would be paid to the Coop and go towards the operating costs but will not be paid as part of the Ripple rebates.

EDIT - KH is directly connected to the distribution network but there is a transmission transformer at Maypole which allows power to flow into the transmission network. I think because of this arrangement it pays a lower transmission charge than WB.

[kla456]

Is there an explanation given why operating costs are to be doubled for WB?
I suppose investors in the management company will need a return?

Does anyone have an opinion of benefit of shares in WB compared to more PV on the roof?
And of more PV+battery compared to Octopus Intelligent Go for EV charging?

Also any opinions whether Keith might offer new inducements to get the 2050 obligation back on track?

[Joeboy]

Is there an explanation given why operating costs are to be doubled for WB?
I suppose investors in the management company will need a return?

Does anyone have an opinion of benefit of shares in WB compared to more PV on the roof?
And of more PV+battery compared to Octopus Intelligent Go for EV charging?

Also any opinions whether Keith might offer new inducements to get the 2050 obligation back on track?

It appears to me that more PV and an export contract via mcs certification on at least part of the array removes most obstacles and stacks the account with cash for when there is no solar.

Although and to be transparent, I'm not as much of a fan of Ripple as i once was. Too many potential fault paths.