Thanks again @Nowty, appreciate all that you've elaborated upon.
I hadn't drilled down that far into the details, or more likely, read it and promptly forgot it.
Just looking at their fees then I can only imagine at start up with just a team of three they may have scraped by on a marginal return, it took two years before GF was up and generating so reckon their viablility may have been touch and go at times.
As @kia456 suggests maybe they need to show a return to investors in the coming year or two. Have to put my hand up here as we thought it a very worthwhile cause at the time and still do, accepting that as with a good proportion of start ups a return may not actually materialise.
In the five or so years since creation inflation has likely impacted overheads so perhaps not surprising a greater fee appeared. No matter, either way we've taken a share in WB to grow our winter generation figures hoping to reduce the shortfall between consumption and generation during that period. Our household PV mostly covers March to October and while this was installed prior to Ripple emerging I would still make it the priority.
As for more PV then we filled our SSE facing roof so in our case less to be gained by adding anything further to the NNW side.
With higher winter generation figures Ripples Wind turbines compliment our PV so helping toward our net zero goal. But for those living in dwellings with no roof space, or in the throws of moving, Ripple offers an option previously not available.
I'm hoping the new administration in Whitehall views Community Energy favourably by removing some of the restrictions imposed upon it and encouraging take up nationally be it with Ripple or elsewhere. The more we generate and consume locally then the less transmission losses occour, whether by importing or exporting over greater distances.
